NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript and are
unavailable from the author or university. The manuscript
was scanned as received.

239

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI

STRATEGY INSTRUCTION AND EXPOSITORY WRITING
IN AN INCLUSIVE GRADE SIX/SEVEN CLASSROOM:
A TEACHER'S PERSPECTIVE
by
Karin A. Paterson
B. Ed., University o f British Columbia, 1985

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
August, 2004

© Karin A. Paterson, 2004

1

^

1

Library and
Archives Canada

Bibliothèque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de l'édition

395 W ellington Street
Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4
Canada

395, rue W ellington
Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4
Canada
Your file Votre référence
ISBN: 0-494-04691-0
Our file Notre référence
ISBN: 0-494-04691-0

NOTICE:
The author has granted a non­
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non­
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

AVIS:
L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive
permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter,
distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans
le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, électronique
et/ou autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.

Conformément à la loi canadienne
sur la protection de la vie privée,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont été enlevés de cette thèse.

While these forms may be included
in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires
aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

Canada

ABSTRACT
This study, conducted by the classroom teacher, examined the eSkctivoiess of a
strategy instruction approach Bar a note-taking/report-writing unit in an inclusive grade 6/7
class (n=25). Because o f the range of abilities, students moved individually through the
instructional unit. First, all students were explicitly taught a note-taking strategy requiring
them to use their own words to restate the main ideas and supporting details of expository
paragraphs. As students reached mastery in note-taking, a second strategy was introduced
requiring students to choose independently a topic, take notes, and reorganise their notes to
write a report. Although this study was primarily qualitative, t-tests were done to compare
preassessment note-taking results to postassessment note-taking results. Students made
significant gains fi'om preassessment to postassessment. In addition, when the postassessment
results of students with LD were compared to the rest of the class, no significant differences
were found. This suggests that a strategy instruction approach allowed students with LD to
keep pace with their regular peers. As students' report writing experiences varied, a qualitative
approach was used to explore: students' performance based on end-product and evidence of
self-regulation and metacognition; effective instructional strategies (such as discourse
development, modelling, scaffolding, and providing feedback); and the role of the classroom
teacher in research.

TABLE OF COTSTTENTS
Abstract

i

Table o f Contents

ü

List of Tables

v

List o f Figures

vi

Dedication

vii

Acknowledgements

viii

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Introduction: Inclusive Classrooms, Learning Disabilities,
and Strategy Instruction
Purpose of the Study
My Perspective
Literature Review
Rationale
Theoretical Framework
Learning Disabilities
Strategy Instruction
A Working Model for Strategy Instruction
Learning Disabilities, Strategy Instruction,
and Writing Instruction
Strategy Instruction Approach
Strategies Intervention Model (SIM)
Graham, Harris, and Self-Regulated
Strategy Development
Englert, Raphael, and Cognitive Strategy
Instruction in Writing (CSIW)
Wong and Expository Writing
Mothus, L^adat, and the
RAP/PAR Strategies
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions
Method
Introduction
Site
Participants

1
4
5
7
7
10
13
16
22
28
34
34
38
44
47
49
52
53
53
53
53

Ill

Ethical Considerations
Instructional Procedures
Duration
Anticipatory Period
Timetable
Instructional Phases
Phase one: Introduction to Report Writing
Phase Two: The RAP Strategy
Phase Three: Report Writing
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Poststudy Scoring, Data Compilation, and Analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis
Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Results and Discussion of Student Progress
Introduction
Overall Student Progress Through
the Report Writing Unit
Instructional Rationale
Ranges of Student Performance
Keyword Activity
Student Progress Using the RAP Strategy
The PAR Strategy and Report Writing
Quality of the Students Reports
Evidence of Students' Metacognitive Functioning

59
60
60
61
63
63
64
67
70
74
78
81
88
90
90
90
92
98
100
103
115
121
143

Results and Discussion
154
Introduction
154
Reductionism V ersus Constructivism
155
The Individuals Within the School System
157
Strategy Instruction
161
Direct Instruction
165
Modelling and Thinking Aloud
167
Writing Process
168
Discourse Development
170
ScaSblding
180
Feedback
183
The RAP Strategy As a Note-taking Strategy
187
The RAP Strategy As a Finding Main Idea Strategy 188
Was PAR an Ff&ctive Strategy?
195
The Link Between Strategies, Strategy Instruction, and
Metacognition
197
The Role o f Teachers in Research
207
Conclusion
213

IV

Chapter Six

Conclusion
Strategy Instruction
Contributions
Limitations
Future Research
Conclusion

214
215
215
217
218
220

Re&rence List

222

Appendices

233

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3 :

Table 4;

Table 5 :

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Raw Scores of the
RAP Section of the Preassessment and Postassessment

114

The Distribution of Ratings in Percent of Regular Students,
Students with LD, and the Total Class on the Overall Quality
o f the Preassessment and the Postassessment Reports

123

The Distribution o f Ratings in Percent of Regular Students,
Students with LD, and the Total Class on the Process Subsection
of the Preassessment and the Postassessment

125

The Distribution o f Ratings in Percent of Regular Students,
Students with LD, and the Total Class on the Meaning Subsection
of the Preassessment and the Postassessment

133

The Distribution o f Ratings in Percent of Regular Students,
Students with LD, and the Total Class on the Meaning Subsection
of the Preassessment and the Postassessment

135

The Distribution of Ratings in Percent of Regular Students,
Students with LD, and the Total Class on the Form Subsection
of the Preassessment and the Postassessment

138

Number of Supporting Details, Main Idea Type, and Correct Student
Responses to Main Idea of the Paragraphs From the Preassessment
Source Articles

193

Number o f Supporting Details, Main Idea Type, and Correct Student
Responses to Main Idea o f the Paragraphs From the Postassessment
Source Articles

194

VI

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3 ;

Mean Percentage Comparison in RAP From Preassessment
to Postassessment in Stating Main Ideas and Supporting Details
in Source Article Paragraphs

116

Mean Percent Gains In Report Writing Elements From Preassessment
to Postassessment

140

Mean Percents Comparing Students With Learning Disabilities
to Regular Students in Report Writing Elements From
Preassessment to Postassessment

142

YU

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my &mily. You were always near and dear to my heart no matter how
absent I was in body and mind.

To my parents, Morfydd and Volker Kroecher, both retired teachers:
Thank you, Mom, for modeling to me a love of reading and literature.
Thank you, Dad, for modeling to me logical reasoning and passionate debate.
This thesis is for all the encouragement and support you have given me over the years.

To my four daughters, Ashleen, Rhiannon, Emma, and Hannah:
You are unique and amazing and help me
see the world in wonderful new ways every day.
This thesis is for your patience when letting me work and for your demands, kisses, and
cuddles that reminded me it was time for a "mommy day."

And to my husband, David Paterson:
You have empowered me to be a better person and have encouraged me to take
on challenges - all the while living your own goals. Here's to our continued shared dreams!

VIU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my mentors, Judith Lapadat and Trudy Mothus:
You are not only strong women but exceptional teachers. You made me think harder than I
ever had to think in my life!

To my defense committe members, Dr. Deborah Butler and Dr. Dee Home:
Who contributed to my further learning even at the end when I thought I was done!

To the British Columbia Ministry ofEducation:
Who funded, in part, this research through a grant awarded to
Judith Lapadat and Trudy Mothus.

To my friend, colleague, and fellow Master student, Rumiana Cormack:
Together, you and I, wrote a thousand theses on love, learning, and life.
Your timing for "righteous indignation" or "devil's advocate" was always impeccable.
Who could have known that carpooling could be so . . . educational!

To my research speciaUst and new friend, Nancy Black:
Who not only entrusted me with a most precious treasure, but who helped me scale my
Everest —even when it was questionable how much oxygen was getting to my brain.

To Division 17, my class o f2001-2002:
You trusted me, befriended me, and forgave me my filings as a teacher.

To my fellow colleagues at Blackburn Elementary:
Who, over the years, were subjected to and tolerated many extra minutes of staff meetings
as I voiced my emerging beliefs as a teacher.

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

jMcZzwfve C&waroomy, Zeommg

Afzea:, aW^(roregy7Wn/cfzoM

Across the nation, anxiety about education runs deep, none more powerful than the issue
of literacy. Schools are the institution set up to teach reading and writing and the subjects
rooted in these activities, including science, social studies, literature, and mathematics.
Despite intense effort, schools are seen as failing to meet those obligations. (Blank, 2002,
1)151)
Many difficulties in public education arise because of the demands of the general education,
or inclusive, classroom in which a wide range of students is taught by a single teacher. The
philosophy of inclusion is not an issue in this paper. Rather, my question is: How can a single
classroom teacher effectively meet the needs every day of a large body of students? Fuchs and
Fuchs (1998), from their observations of inclusive classrooms that included students with learning
disabilities (LD), found that most adaptations for students with LD were not based on alternative
instructional methods. Instead, the adaptations consisted of reduced expectations. They concluded
that a "conventional" inclusive classroom may not be the best setting to meet the needs of students
with learning difficulties (p.31). I suggest that a conventional inclusive classroom, at the same
time, may not be challenging enough for students who do not have learning difficulties.
A model of instruction called firoiggy //lyimcizo» has emerged, primarily within the learning
disability literature, as a potential model for the inclusive classroom and its multilevel learners.
Most simply, strategy instruction is instruction that focuses primarily on the teaching o f learning
strategies —processes o f learning or task completion —rather than content. The central theoretical

principle on which strategy instruction is based is that students who develop awareness and
control o f the cognitive processes required in school will learn more eSectively. A second critical
idea is that students with LD, by dehnition, have greater difhculty developing and employing
particular cognitive processes for specihc domains of school learning. Thus, strategy instruction
shows particular promise for facilitating the learning of students with LD.
Many of the studies on strategy instruction have been conducted in small, special education
settings isolated from the inclusive classroom; however, a developing body of research, to which I
hope to contribute, examines effective methods within a strategy instruction model that can be
implemented by the classroom teacher within an inclusive classroom. Strategy instruction
interventions have focused mostly on reading, writing, mathematics, and organisation in general.
My focus in this study is writing.
Writers With Learning Disabilities
Writers with LD tend to have more simplified, less articulate views of what writing involves
(Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993). Writers withLD are less knowledgeable about
strategies for developing and organising ideas, have less abiUty to control the writing process, and
have difficulty monitoring the quality of their compositions (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson,
1988). Their approach to revising consists o f haphazardly correcting mechanical errors,
substituting one word for another, and concentrating on neatness. In fact, difficulties with the
mechanics of writing are believed to interfere with the higher-order cognitive demands of writing
(MacArthur, Graham, & Schwartz, 1991).
Research on writing in the 1970s lead to a compilation o f the common mechanical problems
found in the writing o f students with LD Research on writing in the 80s and 90s was influenced

by cognitive psychology resulting in an interest in writing intervention research (Wong, Butler,
Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996) that oAen focussed on the writing process and distinctions between
genres. This interest in the writing process has lead to an emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive
(thinking about thinking) processes required in writing and a de-emphasis on lower-order
mechanical difficulties (Wong, 2000). Metacognition is required to produce good writing because
writing is an intentional, complex, problem-solving process that requires students to self-regulate
by independently planning, drafting, monitoring, and revising their writing (Graham, Harris, &
Troia, 2000; MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz & Schafer, 1995). Instructional methods must be
available to all students to develop both the necessary cognitive and metacognitive components of
the writing process that create strategic writers (Sturm & Koppenhaver, 2000). Strategy
instruction is one cognitive-based instructional approach designed to enhance student learning —
particularly the learning of students with LD —across the academic curriculum including writing.
As writing pervades all content areas and most academic tasks, improving students' writing,
regardless of each student's ability, can lead to overall academic improvement (Mothus, 1997).
Mothus's (1997, 2001) research on reading comprehension has yielded a strategy for
expository writing. She obtained impressive reading comprehension gains in junior high school
students with reading disabilities (Mothus, 1997) using the Paraphrasing Strategy intervention
developed by Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler (1984). The Paraphrasing Strategy introduces the
acronym BAP (j(go^ AyA, Aft) to prompt students to reoff a paragraph, ayt themselves what the
main idea and supporting details are, and then

the main and supporting details in their own

words. This strategy not only allowed students to process information they read in a meaningful
way (Ellis & Graves, 1989) but became a note-taking strategy deterring plagiarism. Mothus then

developed a variation o f the RAP Strategy to provide a three step process to writing essays
without plagiarising. The name o f this strategy is a reversal o f the RAP acronym. The PAR (Pwr,
Strategy requires students to /w f details into categories,

what the main ideas are,

and record the main idea and supporting details in paragraphs using their own words. In a later
post hoc study (Mothus, 2001), Mothus found that in using the PAR Strategy, grade eight
students with learning disabilities learned to write essays using the customary five paragraph essay
construction.
To continue this line of research, Mothus along with her colleague, Lapadat, received a
British Columbia Ministry ofEducation grant to investigate the classroom structures and teacher
support required to enhance student self-regulation during writing strategy instruction. The
ultimate purpose of this research is to refine and share the instruction for broader implementation
(Mothus, Lapadat, Struthers, Fisher, & Paterson, 2002). My study falls within this larger program
of research and was a trial implementation of the RAP and PAR Strategies within an inclusive
middle years classroom setting.
Purpose o f the Study
My purpose in conducting this study is to contribute to the strategy instruction literature by
teaching, evaluating, and refiecting upon a note-taking/report-writing unit that integrates the
principles of strategy instruction and the principles o f writing as a process. My first goal was to
monitor, analyze, and reflect upon my Grade 6/7 students' progress during note-taking activities,
class discussions, and report-writing activities. My second goal was to document my experiences
as an inclusive classroom teacher and to align my own experiences against the existing
body of strategy instruction literature.

Core to my note-taking/report-writing unit is the Paraphrasing Strategy developed by
Schumaker et al. (1984) and modihed by Mothus (1997, 2001; Mothus et al., 2002) to become the
RAP and PAR Strategies mentioned earlier. Using the RAP Strategy my students translated
expository text using their own words to create a set of nonplagiarised notes. Secondly, the PAR
Strategy prompted students to reorganise their notes to write an original report. By developing the
idea that writing is a process, opportunity was given to students to apply their knowledge of the
RAP and PAR Strategies independently as report-writers.
Once strategy instruction is taken from an experimental setting into the classroom, the
regular classroom teacher is viewed as the critical element in the successful implementation of a
strategy instruction model. Kline, Deshler, and Schumaker (1992) are interested in the factors that
differentiate teachers on a continuum of either successfully enacting a strategy instruction model
or completely rejecting strategy instruction. These researchers recognize that teachers and
researchers together should be highly involved in research and view this partnership as core to the
refinement and, perhaps, future widespread adoption of strategy instruction. Thus, an important
context of this study is that it is action research —as I was both teacher and researcher within the
naturalistic setting of my classroom —supported by the guidance and scrutiny of two external
researchers (Lapadat, 2000).
ferjp ectf ve

The process o f conducting this study, researching the literature, and writing this thesis was a
dynamic exercise. It was my largest professional and academic challenge to date, required my
most intense thinking, and has transformed me into the teacher I am today. The qualitative nature
of my study allowed me to adapt, invent, and redeEne myself as a teacher many times over. My

eSbrts and learning were what Borkowski (1992) views as an essential component to elective
strategy instruction —a teacher's active construction o f her working model through experience. In
coping with the literature, enacting various teaching strategies, and trying to capture and present a
meaningful narrative of my experiences, my epistemological awakening occurred. To be true to
my learning, it is imperative that I speak of paradigms —belief systems or world views. I believe
teachers operate under an eclectic mix of theories and practices, experiences and intuitions that
frame their personal paradigms. Secondly, I believe a better understanding of two powerful
paradigms, reductionism and constructivism, driving educational praxis today helped me better
understand my decision making —including decisions I later came to regret.
The broad themes of explicit instruction, teaching paradigms, classroom discourse,
metacognition, and effective teaching practices ground the results and the discussion in this paper.
However, it is important to remember while reading my work, that my perspective is personal and
comes from my love of teaching, my ideals, my experiences, my concerns with the current
education system, and my ultimate belief that reform in education is a grassroots movement
requiring the cohesion of research and practice.

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review

J&zfzowzZg
Sparked, in part, by globalisation, an accountability movement in education has spurred
on the need for a well educated population. When children are viewed as "raw material for
international competition" (Sleeter, 1986, p. 52), academic performance is criticised as being
too low, and standards are raised. Some children cannot keep up. Historically, rather than
blaming the education system or the raised standards themselves, deficits are found within the
teachers and the students (Sleeter, 1986). Researchers such as Gersten, Gamine, and
Woodward (1987) view teachers as uncompromising, lacking an understanding of current
research, and relying upon "folk wisdom" (p. 52). Students are labelled as culturally deprived,
emotionally disturbed, slow, or learning disabled.
The current trend in British Columbia is to place a variety of learners, including those
labelled as having special needs, in inclusive classrooms. Although the rhetoric of inclusion
states that each student is unique, accommodating differences does not appear inherent in
school organization, materials acquisition, assessments, or budgets. The irony is, regardless of
diSerent cultural backgrounds, dif&rent experiences, diSerent knowledge, diSerent cognitive
functioning, diSerent past academic history, and dif&rent needs, all students are expected to
learn similarly (Palmer & Goetz, 1988). In addition, I suggest, that teachers are driven to
teach similarly because o f prescribed learning outcomes, large class sizes, and the push for
improved standards.
For many students, an emphasis on improved standards creates what Deshler and

Schumaker (1993) describe as functional exclusion. When this occurs, the public school
system disables rather than enables many students (Englert, Berry, & Dunsmore, 2001). Some
students may beneSt little in the inclusive classroom because o f the mismatch between how
and what a student leams and the expectations o f the mainstream setting (Deshler &
Schumaker, 1993). Many students exhibiting diSculties may be working hard, but their eSbrts
and learning are not reflected in their overall academic performance (Meltzer, Katzir-Cohen,
Miller & Roditi, 2001). Functional exclusion specifically may impact a student's ability to
participate in a core of all academics: writing.
Writing
Each student has the right to effective writing instruction (Palincsar, David, Winn, &
Stevens, 1991). Yet, Anderson, Raphael, Englert, and Stevens (1992) argue that too little
time is given to meaningful, purposeful writing in the middle school grades, and too much
attention is spent on the mechanics of writing such as spelling and punctuation. A second
concern is that there may be an overemphasis on content instruction (delivery of facts) and an
underemphasis on developing text structure awareness and effective writing strategies.
Content instruction compounds the problem for students who may not write at grade level
(Deshler & Schumaker, 1993). SpecihcaUy, Deshler and Schumaker (1988) believe that when
delivering content, too little time is given to developing cognitive and metacognitive
processes. CogMzüoM refers to the human system o f mental processes entailed in thought.
AfgAzcogMftzoM refers to awareness of and control over cognition, including processes of
monitoring, reflecting on, and regulating cognition. Both cognitive and metacognitive
processes are employed by eSective writers (Singer, 1995; Sturm & Koppenhaver, 2000).

Thus, students with writing disabilities are doubly disadvantaged: they are not given writing
instruction that meets their needs for learning writing processes or strategies, and they are
required to use a means o f expression for content knowledge that does not enable them to
ef&ctively display what they know.

Strategy instruction - teaching students to enact necessary cognitive operations beyond
mere processes to solve problems or to complete tasks (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992;
Kline et al., 1992) —has emerged as a potential model to improve students' learning (De La
Paz, 1999a, 1999b; Ellis, 1986; Levy, 1996). On one level, strategy instruction can be viewed
as teaching students how to adapt to the rigours of the current public school system, but on
the most ideal level can be viewed as empowering students to perform effectively anywhere,
anytime. Empirical evidence from three decades of research supports that strategies can be
taught to students to improve learning (De La Paz, 1997a, 1997b; Englert, Raphael,
Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1992; Graham et al., 2000; Kline et al., 1992; Mothus &
Lapadat, 2003; Wong, 2000). Recently, strategy instruction research has been applied to the
inclusive classroom (Deschler & Schumaker, 1993); however, much of the strategy instruction
research has been conducted in either controlled laboratories with low student to teacher
ratios such as special education settings or within the classroom with the additional support of
a special education teacher (Mothus & Lapadat, 2003). Thus, Kline et al. (1992) describe
research in strategy instruction as a relatively young held in which further research is required
to analyze what variables improve or act as barriers to eGective strategy instruction.

10

ÆhgpoMfyo»
Although much o f the research o f writing instruction focuses on narrative genres, there
is a body o f research that examines the teaching o f expository writing in inclusive classrooms
at the Grade 6/7 level that combines strategy instruction and a writing process approach. A
combination of explicit, direct instruction and a process approach can direct students'
attention to the qualities of effective writing (McCormick, Busching, & Potter, 1992). This is
particularly important in the middle school years when writing successfully may become more
difficult for students. By Grade 6, students are expected to read and produce more expository
genres as the emphasis shifts away from narrative even though they likely have had less
experience with exposition and its text structures (Englert, Stewart, & Hiebert, 1988;
Blachowicz, 1994).
Theoretical Framework
Reductionism is a theoretical approach which, when applied to teaching and learning,
breaks skills, processes, concepts, and ideas into parts or, reduces them, so as to better
understand the whole. The reductionist paradigm remains the dominant force within education
(Poplin, 1988a, 1988b), and theorists who hold this perspective maintain the traditional view
that there is a specihc, predetermined body o f knowledge that must be learned. It is the
teacher who controls the learning and has the expertise and, therefore, the authority to pass
that knowledge on to the students. Learners are viewed as having a hxed intelligence (Mayer,
1988) that can be measured by the accuracy o f an end product. Thus, forms of teaching and
learning can be viewed as being right or wrong. One negative implication is that a pervasive
distrust has developed in certain circles that elective teaching and learning strategies will not

11

develop naturally unless rigid standards are developed and tightly monitored (Poplin, 1988a).
In contrast, constructivism is a process o f learning whereby new meanings are created
(constructed) by the learners within the context of their current knowledge. Therefore,
learning can be viewed as personally and culturally relevant (Poplin, 1988b). Within this
paradigm, teachers take into account the needs, interests and questions of the students by
recognizing that students can take an active part in their learning. This puts the teacher and
the student in a special relationship in which the student is seen as "influencing the teacher
while being influenced by the teacher" (Erickson, 1996, pp. 29-30).
Poplin (1988b) coined the term holistic constructivism for the existing paradigm that
also includes the feelings and intuition of the learner. She believes that learners' characteristics
such as expectations, interest, self-concept, and trust produce a tremendous force within a
classroom that is not always accounted for in learning theories. In a succinct manner, Poplin
summarizes twelve principles of learning based on structuraUst, constructivist, and holistic
thought which she believes characterise the holistic constructivist paradigm: (a) the whole
learning is greater than the parts of the learning, (b) learning adds new knowledge and
changes old knowledge, (c) learning is selected and determined by the learner, (d) the learner
is an active meaning-maker, (e) what one leams is determined by what one knows,
(f) accurate form is developed in a learner after that form is meaninghd, (g) learning can be
seen as understanding the whole, gaining precision by studying the parts, and then recreating
the whole, (h) errors promote learning, (i) passion and interest are a part of learning,
(i) learners learn 6om trusted others, (k) meaningful experiences promote learning, and
(1) learning is a lifelong and inherent human activity.

12

What is unstated in Poplin's paradigm (1988b) is the view that learners learn within a
social context. A social interactionist, such as Vygotsky (1986), described language use as the
key to learning. At hrst, language is a communication tool for a child's social interaction.
Gradually, through these social interactions, the child appropriates and internalises the
"discourses o f her social world" (Hicks, 1996b, p. 107) to become a thinking,
meaning-making, reflecting, valuing, acting member of society. As the child is able to
verbalize intentions, the language begins to structure the child's thoughts and activities at a
cognitive level (Vygotsky, 1986). This process can be seen as cognitively constructivist in
nature because the child actively interacts with the environment and generates hypotheses to
make sense of the world. In addition, the child's social interactions with more expert others
may cause a "cognitive conflict" requiring a realignment of that child's thinking which extends
the child's knowledge beyond what may have been discovered alone (Pappas, Kiefer, &
Levstik, 1999; Vygotsky, 1986). This learning theory has been labelled sociocognitive learning
theory. Because sociocognitive learning theory focuses on social interactions and the use of
language that stimulates cognitive development, this view profoundly aflects how classroom
environments, relationships between teachers and students, and relationships between students
and students can be perceived and studied (Hicks, 1996a). Although, it is beyond the scope of
this study to expand flilly upon sociocognitive learning theory, it is important to note that
classrooms may be viewed as unique social communities that recognize and use speciflc
discourse genres that are not mimicked in the real world (Hicks, 1996b). Teachers have the
responsibility to structure activities that provide all children, coming 6om a multitude of
backgrounds, with access to the language of education that will help to establish such

13

intellectual practices as hypothesising, researching, forming opinions, and problem solving
(Hogelucht, 1994; O'Connor & Michaels, 1996). Teachers recognize that students must
engage in purposeful, social activities that allow them to position their own thinking alongside
the opinions, interpretations, and solutions o f others (O'Connor & Michaels, 1996).
If learning is an inherent activity o f the individual and is enhanced by social interactions
such as can be assumed occurs in every classroom, why is it that some students have difficulty
with the school culture and its expectations? Why are some students not making academic
progress? Since the 1960s, the field of learning disabilities has developed extensively through
research in a wide range of domains, and it is within the field of learning disabilities that
strategy instruction has had its strongest impetus.
Learning Disabilities
The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (2002) defines learning disabilities as;
A number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organisation, retention,
understanding or use of verbal or non-verbal information. These disorders affect
learning in individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential
for thinking and/or reasoning. As such, learning disabilities are distinct fi^om global
intellectual deficiency. Learning disabilities result fi^om impairment in one or more
processes related to perceiving, thinking, remembering, or learning. These include, but
are not limited to: language processing, phonological processing; memory and
attention; and executive functions (e.g. planning and decision-making). Learning
disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or
more of the following: oral language (e.g. listening, speaking, understanding); reading

14

(e.g. decoding, phonetic knowledge, word recognition comprehension); written
language (e.g. spelling and written expression); and mathematics (e.g. computation,
problem solving).... Learning disabilities are due to genetic and/or neurobiological
factors or injury that alters brain functioning in a manner which aSects one or more
processes related to learning. These disorders are not due primarily to hearing and/or
visual problems, socio-economic factors, cultural or linguistic differences, lack of
motivation or ineffective teaching, although these factors may further complicate the
challenges faced by individuals with learning disabilities, (pp. 1-2)
Establishing clear criteria to identify students with LD is an ongoing debate because of a
long history of varied definitions and classifications (Kahmi, 1998; Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, &
Brinckerhoff, 1995). Kahmi (1998) explains that different procedures and criteria are used
depending upon whether the objectives are for educational or research purposes. There is also
the difficulty of differentiating students with learning disabilities from low achieving students
(Gresham, Macmillan, & Bocian, 1996; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & McGue, 1982). It
appears that students with learning disabilities cannot be distinguished on the basis of
measures of academic history, behaviour problems, or social competence (Gresham et al.,
1996).
Wong (1996), however, makes the point that, despite the ongoing debate between
experts within the held o f learning disabilities, observations o f students with LD have
remained consistent ever since they have begun to be documented. Johnson and Lapadat
(2000) list a set o f characteristics that summarize learning difGculties potentially
exhibited by students with LD based on their review of the literature. The student may:

15

(a) have slow early language development, (b) process language slowly, (c) have poor
cognitive processing, (d) Gnd abstract concepts dif&cuk, (e) struggle with comprehension,
(f) have poor selective attention, (g) be impulsive, (h) have difBculty storing and retrieving
linguistic information, (i) have organisational difhculties, (j) have di&culty sequencing —
especially instructions, (k) have difhculty generalising 6om one activity or situation to
another, (1) perform or behave diSerently 6om day to day, and (m) develop secondary mental
health or social problems. Given this long list of challenges to learning, it is not surprising that
students with LD through repeated academic failure may develop such secondary
characteristics as lack of motivation, low sense of self-efiRcacy, and learned helplessness
(Wong, 1996).
Although the definition of learning disabilities by the Learning Disabilities Association
of Canada (2002) states that ineffective teaching is not a cause of learning disabilities, such
teaching can exacerbate students' difficulties at school. McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager,
and Lee (1993) observed that students with LD were treated much like other students and
were operating under a "you don't bother me, and I won't bother you" understanding. When
interventions do occur, they are typically attempts to mod% "misbehaviours" or lack of
motivation through counselling, or students with LD receive learning assistance to practice
basic skills or to complete required curriculum. The difficulty with these interventions,
although they are well established in the school system, is that they may not focus on the
cognitive processes that could potentially improve the achievement o f students with LD, who
611 further and further behind their non-LD peers (Mothus, 1997). Poplin (1988a, 1988b)
argues that the problem with past and current disabilities models is that they are deficit models

16

which focus on the weaknesses, rather than the strengths, of the learner. This means that
students practice a lot o f what they do not do well rather than being encouraged to use their
strengths as a starting point for future learning. This can be very demoralising for many
students with LD who have been and continue to be punished, in some form, for in^propriate
behaviours and incomplete or substandard assignments that may have little to do with
disobedience. She argues that society: (a) has standards for conformity that are perpetuated not questioned or altered —within the public school system, (b) has unreasonable expectations
of how and what its children should learn, and (c) uses counterproductive methods for
rewarding and punishing learning. Unfortunately, because widespread educational reform
takes time, effective methods of instruction need to be implemented promptly at the classroom
level to reduce the cycle of failure currently experienced by many students.

Research over the past three decades in cognitive and educational psychology has led to
increased knowledge about learning and how learning can be improved through instruction
(Derry, 1990). Because of research completed in the learning disabilities field, advancements
have been made to support strategy instruction models that provide students with practical,
meaningful ways to acquire, store, and access knovdedge (Ellis, 1993; Ellis & Lenz, 1987;
Hallenbeck, 2002; Pressley, 1995; Wong, 1993).
The teaching of

aAr/6 has had a long history in education; yet, published research

describing the value o f study skills instruction only gained momentum in the 1960s. Initially,
the skills themselves were the focus, regardless o f the learner's ability and background. More
recently, the focus has moved to the cognitive and metacognitive activity o f the learner. In

17

current literature, study skills are researched and discussed in terms of learning strategies, the
context and generalisability o f instruction, and student self-regulation (Hattie, Biggs, &
Purdie, 1996).
Strategy instruction is broadly interpreted in the literature. In some cases, strategy
instruction has meant teaching specihc behaviours on a need-to-know basis. A more current
view of strategy instruction is that it is a model intended to permeate all instruction
(Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992). Generally, the goal of strategy instruction is to improve
the learning, problem solving, and academic performance of all students; however, strategy
instruction has been especially beneficial for those students who are not very strategic in their
learning processes including students with LD who do not implicitly discern and develop
learning strategies as do their regular peers.
Information Processing and Knowledge
Ideally, all students should learn to become aware of and to gain control over their
thought processes (Kline et al., 1992). However, strategy instruction has its roots in the
general failure o f the education system to encourage students to think at a time when society
demands that students process large amounts o f information eSectively (Kline et al., 1992;
Mayer, 1988).
is a term for the theories that focus on how learners actively
internalise infiarmation fi"om their environment. Working memory, organisation o f long-term
memory, retrieval o f information, meaningful learning, and problem solving are concepts that
are emphasised. Information is often categorised as three levels o f knowledge: dbcAzroffve
and c o w A i i o / K i / D e c l a r a t i v e knowledge is

18

facts, procedural knowledge is the steps o f processes, and conditional knowledge, is the why
and when to apply declarative and procedural knoWedge. Learners develop as they construct,
recall, and reorganise these three types o f knowledge more ef&ctively and strategically
(Pressley, 1995). Many students have inert, declarative knowledge, which can be accessed
when prompted but which they cannot apply in meaningful ways to strategic learning and
problem solving (Palincsar et al. (1991). Traditionally, whenever there is a thrust to improve
standards, programs are put in place that tend to focus on rote improvement of basic skills
without simultaneously focussing on strategies that help students manipulate, remember,
understand, and express these basic skills (Ellis & Lenz, 1987; Weinstein, Zimmermann, &
Palmer, 1988).
Skilful Versus Strategic Learners
Alexander, Graham, and Harris (1998) draw a clear distinction between skilful learners
and strategic learners. Skilful learners recall facts, apply algorithms, and complete tasks
automatically through rote learning. These skilful learners, however, may be neither
metacognitively aware nor strategic. They may perform tasks or solve problems routinely with
little thought or reflection and without the ability to generalise the skills to new situations. On
the other hand, strategic learners, or good information processors, are thoughtful, reflective
problem solvers who can manipulate knowledge, create procedures, and generalise past
learning to new situations. Borkowski and Muthukrishna (1992) summarise ten characteristics
o f the strategic learner that tend to enhance performance. The strategic learner: (a) knows
many learning strategies, (b) understands the importance of learning strategies, (c) selects,
monitors, and reflects upon learning strategies, (d) views learning as incremental, (e) believes

19

in eSbrt, (f) is intrinsically motivated to complete tasks and master goals, (g) accepts fWlure as
part o f the learning experience, (h) perceives self in future time &ames for goal development,
(i) knows and has access to a wide variety o f knowledge, and (j) is supported as a learner both
in school and out. Alexander et al. (1998) state that learners must be given adequate time to
develop both basic skills and strategies in order to enhance their learning. Investigations of
individual differences during information processing and problem solving have led to strategy
instruction models designed to teach students, especially those with learning difficulties,
cognitive strategies to improve learning (Wong, 1993).
The Interrelatedness o f Strategies, Metacognition, and Self Regulation
Discrepant definitions exist in the field of strategy instruction; therefore, it is necessary
to define and clarify the interrelatedness of the terms strategy, metacognition, executive
functions, and self-regulation as they are used in the context of this study. Learning
strategies, planned procedures that students enact to complete academic tasks, have various
purposes (Mayer, 1988). Three categories of learning strategies are cognitive, metacognitive,
and affective. Cognitive strategies are those that focus on developing or enhancing particular
task-related skills, such as note-taking, paraphrasing, or summarizing. Metacognitive
strategies are those that focus on the management o f one's performance and learning such as
planning, monitoring, or evaluating. Affective strategies are those that focus on motivation,
self-efBcacy, and self-concept (Hattie et al., 1996). Strategies can be hirther categorised as
having a broad or speciSc application (Alexander et al., 1998). A general learning strategy,
such as note-taking, is one that can be applied to a wide range o f situations and content areas.
A domain-specihc learning strategy is applied to a content area such as note-taking for a

20

report in social studies. A task-speciSc learning strategy is applied to a single learning
outcome such as recording the main idea and three supporting details o f a paragraph without
plagiarising.
Some authors refer to the individual steps of a strategy as fO-oTegrgf which may not hilly
distinguish the cognitive processing aspect o f a learning strategy &om the behavioural
enactment of the strategy. The term tactic, although infrequently used, refers to a specific skill
within a strategy that a learner enacts to complete a task (Derry, 1990; Hattie et al, 1996;
Schmeck, 1988 ). For example, one student's report-writing strategy might begin with the
tactic of listing key words or phrases while reading research passages while a second student
might prefer to highlight the key words directly onto a copy of the passage. Schmeck
summarizes the interconnectedness of strategies and tactics; "a learning strategy is a higher
level cluster of learning tactics that work together to produce a unified learning outcome" (p.
171). Schmeck criticises strategy instruction models that focus only on specific tactics rather
than general strategies, describing the tactics as "short term props" (p. 127) that may be
incompatible with the learning style o f the student. However, the reality is that there are many
instances when a student, in our present school system, may require efrective rote learning
tactics —especially in the content subjects. I believe it would be a disservice not to provide
students with instruction on both general learning strategies and specific tactics (Deshler &
Schumaker, 1988).
Cognition, or thought, is a system o f mental processes such as memory, perception,
reason, and comprehension. Nelson (1999) describes meAzcogMifroM as the executive element
of cognition. In simplest terms metacognition is thinking about thinking. More specifically.

21

metacognition is the controlling Mature of cognition that monitors, regulates, and activates
mental processes (Pesut, 1990). The preGx meAz re&rs to the higher order o f a cognitive
process, and this higher order suggests a consciousness about the corresponding cognitive
process (van Kleeck, 1994). Thus, metastrategy knowledge involves thinking about
strategising, allows for control o f the declarative and procedural knowledge related to
strategising, and builds the conditional knovdedge, the importance and purpose of enacting
strategies (Graham & Harris, 1989a).
It is by learning to control cognitive and metacognitive operations that students become
effective, insightful learners (Borkowski and Muthukrishna, 1992; Derry, 1990; Kline et al.,
1992). Two integrated features that create a metacognitive system of control and monitoring
are executive fonctions and self-regulation (Nelson, 1999; Singer & Bashir, 1999). Executive
functions are the processes of decision-making, planning, goal-setting, and evaluating that
determine which knowledge will be applied, which cognitive processes will be activated, and
which strategies and tactics will be enacted. Self-regulation includes the thoughts learners
have and the behaviours learners enact after a judgement of learning, or evaluation of success
has occured (Nelson, 1999). For example, a learner encounters a task or a problem and enlists
executive functions to determine an initial course o f action. The learner may then realize the
initial plan is not effective and may decide to change strategies, get help, change resources,
take the assignment home for homework, or tell their partner, "Get to work!" Executive
functions and self-regulation are an informed response to the setting, social interactions, the
purpose of the task, and the difdculty of the task. Thus, the metacognitive system, which
integrates "cognitive, motivational, personal, and situational characteristics" (Borkowski and

22

Muthukrishna, 1992, p. 483), determines how effectively a student will plan,
employ, and evaluate strategies necessary for completing a task.
In order for students to develop the necessary control and monitoring of strategies,
Borkowski and Muthukrishna (1992) believe the goal o f strategy instruction ought to be
metacognitive development rather than the superhcial learning o f the strategies themselves. In
addition. Singer and Bashir (1999) believe that metacognition is mediated by language but
recognize this is a developing theory. Based on Vygotsky's belief that speech is central to
development, these researchers view students who are metacognitively aware as those who
continually talk their way through strategies either covertly or overtly. The language students
appropriate for themselves can be shaped by the social interactions in the classroom between
the students and the teacher and the students and their peers.

.<4 I F b r A r M g A f b c k / Twïrucfzo»
Kline et al. (1992) view strategy instruction, where the content of instruction is the
strategies, as a non-traditional, complex approach to instruction based on a "significantly
different instructional paradigm" (p. 400). The basic premise of strategy instruction is that
teacher explanation of a strategy is followed by extensive student practice of that strategy.
Borkowski and Muthukrishna (1992) describe a constructivist model o f strategy instruction in
which teachers are responsive to each student's needs and allow for collaboration, dialogue,
and individual adaptations o f strategies. This model counters those criticisms o f strategy
instruction that suggest that strategy instruction drills students in a manner that produces
passivity and only minimal or short term gains. Although the interpretations o f the nature of
strategies and strategy instruction may vary, five principles o f effective instruction consistently

23

emerge 6om the strategy instruction literature: (a) direct teaching, (b) scaSblding, (
c) feedback, (d) student selP-regulation, and (e) generalising applicability. Kline et al. (1992)
outline seven methods o f applying these hve principles during strategy instruction: (a) a
description o f the strategy, (b) the conditions under which the strategy may be used, (c) a
demonstration phase of the strategy, (d) a student practice phase of the strategy as it applies
to academic tasks, (e) opportunities &r student self-regulation, (f) interactions between
teachers and students for feedback purposes, and (g) opportunities for students to generalise
their knowledge of the strategy.
Direct Teaching
In the 1960s, a model called direct instruction was developed by Bereiter and
Engelmann (cited by Gersten et al, 1987). Direct instruction comprises of six features:
(a) explicit instruction o f the steps of a task or process, (b) student mastery at each step,
(c) corrections for student errors, (d) movement from teacher-directed activities toward
independent work, (e) adequate, systematic practice with a range of examples, and
(f) cumulative review of newly learned concepts. The features of direct instruction and
strategy instruction overlap in the literature because of similarities such as cumulative review
routines, mass practice, and teaching o f all component skills to mastery, hut Swanson (1992)
has suggested a distinction. Direct instruction promotes convergent thinking by reducing tasks
or process into sub-skills and discrete learning that students are intended to master before
proceeding to the next sub-skill. Discussion o f processes and the use o f general rules tend to
be minimal. The content o f direct instruction is usually associated with declarative knowledge
related to a subject area. Strategy instruction at its most ideal, on the other hand, encourages

24

divergent thinking by focusing on global skills and processes that students are intended to
learn progressively as they become more strategic, elective learners.
Scbunk (1993) states that elective strategy instruction requires four conditions to be
met: (a) Students must understand bow to apply a strategy, (b) Students must understand
when to apply a strategy, (c) Students must bebeve that strategies improve performance, and
(d) Students must bebeve that they can apply strategies eGectively. These conditions can be
met when students who are having difficulty proceeding on a task are directly taught the
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge necessary to employing the strategies
required to complete the task (Marzano & Pickering, 1997). Declarative knowledge
determines the student's ability to describe the purpose and steps of the learning strategy.
Procedural knowledge determines the student's ability to successfuUy perform the tactics and
behaviours that fulfill a strategy. Conditional knowledge, the link to metacognition, is
understanding the context of the strategy and determines the student's abibty to decide when
to use a strategy and when to generalise or adapt it to other purposes and situations.
Conditional knowledge is described by Alexander et al. (1998) as knowing that wilful and
ef&rtfiil strategy enactment is essential to and facilitates learning.
Two instructional practices suggested in the strategy instruction literature to help
students leam necessary declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge o f strategy use
are modk/Ang the strategy and

the accompanying iimer dialogues and thought

processes (Pabncsar et al., 1991). Modebing and verbabsing thoughts are a means of showing
rather than telling students how to enact a strategy as a variation o f direct instruction.
Questions, prompts, reasons, and positive self-statements verbabsed aloud by the teacher as

25

she enacts the strategy for her students, reveal to the students how someone else thinks and
solves problems. The whole point is to make explicit what ordinarily may be kept hidden &om
many students. This is the opportunity &)r the teacher to expose students to metacognitive
reasoning and positive self-reinfbrcement that can be referred to as students work together or
as the teacher circulates to scaGbld individual student performance (Deshler & Schumaker,
1988).
WfMg

Scaffolding, or supporting the learner, is based on the premise that children leam
through social interactions. In school, students are continually learning new ways to behave,
act strategically, and speak based on what they observe and hear. Traditionally, the teacher is
viewed as the expert who provides direct instruction and scaffolding to the student and then
reduces support as the student becomes more adept and independent (Palincsar et al., 1991).
However, scaffolding, when viewed only as an adult-directed activity, has been criticised by
some constructivists because of the lack of emphasis placed on the potential role of the
student to secure scaffolding, to interact during scaffolding, or to provide the scaffolding
(Englert et al., 2001; Stone, 1998, 2002). As students are viewed as wilful, active agents in
their own learning, an alternative view of scafklding is that it can be a bi-directional or even
multi-directional process o f communication. Ideally, during scaffolding, participants seek to
gain a mutual perspective about what the novice truly understands and how the expert can
actually help. Successful scaffolding has occured when the student has reconstructed
information to become personally meaningffil learning (Stone, 2002). Another alternative view
of scaf&lding is when a novice uses an expert to per&rm a task rather than just to provide

26

knowledge. In a case study o f collaborative writing, Englert et al. (2001) found that a student
with LD was able to implement writing practices that exceeded the level he could perform
alone because, through a more expert student scribe, he was able to direct the writing. As a
teacher I count on and encourage my students to work together and help each other. This
often guarantees that students are getting a steady stream o f feedback or are achieving a
higher quality of end-product than they could produce working alone.
Feedback
Feedback, providing students with information about their performance, can be viewed
as a feature of the scaffolding process. Feedback is intended to encourage students to rethink
a problem or to adjust their performance to better match a set criteria or standard. Thus,
Deshler and Schumaker (1988) describe feedback as potentially the most important feature of
the instructional process. Traditionally, the teacher has been viewed as the necessary provider
of feedback. The obvious difficulty with the teacher is the ultimate authority model is that one
teacher cannot possibly provide personal, timely, one-on-one feedback exactly the moment it
is required. As much scaSblding occurs rapidly through momentary interactions,
acknowledgements, and redirections, it is the students themselves who are often in the best
position to scaSbld. Since Sequent and explicit feedback during enactment of strategies has
been observed to help a student adopt a strategy, methods for encouraging positive feedback
between peers —especially in environments where the student-teacher ratio is high —are
continually being explored (De La Paz, 1999a).

Quality performance without continuous direct teacher feedback can occur when

27

students are encouraged to monitor their own performance. A method which has had positive
results during strategy instruction is the use o f prompts or t/nnt f AeeA which allow students
to provide themselves and each other with feedback about their performance based on
preestablished criteria or questions (Graham et al., 2000). The prompts encourage the
students to reflect upon their own performance, compare it to a desired standard, and then
regulate their performance accordingly. Triggering students' executive functions and
self-regulation mechanisms encourages the metacognitive development required to solve a
problem or complete a task. An instructional imphcation is that students must be given the
opportunity to act independently (Clark, 1993). One difference between strategy instruction
and traditional forms of instruction is the orientation of responsibility for learning. In
traditional classrooms, teachers maintain the responsibility for directing student learning and
behaviours. In an ideal classroom, Clark states that the responsibility for learning gradually
must shift from the teacher to the students so they can independently apply and refine the
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge they have. In acting independently,
students are able to leam about themselves as learners, to leam to take risks, and to leam to
generalise effective strategies to other situations.

Providing explicit information, modelling, scaffolding, providing feedback, and
encouraging self-regulation are the means to developing strategic learners. Students' progress
as strategic learners can be gauged by their ability to efkctively choose one tactic or strategy
over another and to generalise learning strategies to a broad range of situations (Gamer,
1988). Strategies are more likely to be enacted if their applicability and generalisability have

28

been made explicit, they have been developed through meaningful practice, and they have
been used in a variety o f situations (Derry, 1990). Deshler and Schumaker (1988) suggest that
information that helps students generalise strategies is interspersed continuously across
content and throughout all stages of instruction so that students are immersed in a strategic
environment.
Even when effective instructional methods, such as those described above, are being
implemented, some students may have more difficulties than others learning to behave
strategically in the classroom. Students with learning disabilities may need far more time and
scaffolding to achieve the advantages of strategy instruction (Alexander et al, 1998). In the
previous section of this paper, I gave an overview of strategy instruction and related principles
of effective instruction. What follows describes the impact that strategy instruction has had on
the teaching of expository writing to students with and without learning difficulties.
Learning Disabilities, Strategy Instruction, and Writing Instruction
The development of cognitive and metacognitive processes are essential to becoming a
skilled and effective writer because writing is "non-linear and consists of several overlapping
subprocesses" (Englert & Raphael, 1988, p.513). Not only does writing become increasingly
dominated by decontextualized, analytical language as a student proceeds through school, but
it requires a distinctive set o f thinking processes, skills, and strategies. Writing requires
students to attend simultaneously to purpose, style, word choice, organization, cohesion,
clarity, spelling, syntax, and handwriting (Singer, 1995; Sturm & Koppenhaver, 2000; Wallach
& Butler, 1994). McCormick et al. (1992) suggest that writers attend to this broad range of
writing elements by engaging in four cognitive processes known as the wnAng/wocg&y:

29

planning, translating images into words, reviewing what has been written, and monitoring the
writing process. Although most teachers acknowledge the writing process, approaches to
teaching writing vary.

Researchers examining writing pedagogy have focussed on the writing process,
higher-order thinking processes, and the social nature of writing. The resulting studies have
done much to enhance writing instruction (Wong, 2000). Thus, by integrating the findings of
these extensive bodies of research, a writing program can be developed in which students
employ strategies to leam and manipulate declarative, procedural, and conditional information
during meaningful, social writing tasks (Mothus, 2001).
Grraham and Harris (1994) summarize four approaches to writing instruction:
traditional, whole language, writing process, and environmental. The traditional approach is
skills-based in which writing is reduced to such lessons as spelling, grammar, sentence writing,
and paragraph writing. Writing often occurs through topics assigned by the teacher. Students
are expected to complete drafts and good copies in isolation of others and then hand in their
work to the teacher for final grading and corrective feedback.
The whole language approach, based on constructivist thought, develops writing
through an integrated, natural process much like learning to speak. Thus, writing is learned
through real life opportunities rather than drills. An emphasis on text structure and writing for
a purpose means students are encouraged to make their own choices about what they will
write. The classroom is viewed as a community o f developing authors Wio are encouraged to
share their work and guide each other.

30

The writing process approach, made popular and accessible by Atwell (1987), is similar
to a whole language approach. Writing occurs within a social context with many opportunities
to write. Characteristics o f this approach, include brief mini-lessons related to writing skills
and the steps of the writing process, daily writing, student-selected topics, a focus on what
students know about their topics, group-sharing, peer-editing, publication o f student writing,
and individualized writing conferences based on the students' writing (Englert & Raphael,
1988).
Based on a review of studies, Graham and Harris (1994), suggest that students in whole
language or writing process programmes develop a more "meaning" based understanding of
writing, whereas, students in a traditional writing programme develop a more "skills" based
understanding of writing. Some students make little progress in any of these three writing
programmes. Thus, Graham and Harris view the environmental writing approach as superior
to the other three approaches. The environmental approach, or a strategy instruction approach
to writing, presents writing as a problem-solving activity. Students are provided with specific
writing objectives such as, "Include a topic sentence in each paragraph o f your report." By
providing related materials and direct instruction within a social context, students engage in
the cognitive processes central to the objective they are expected to eventually include in their
own writing. Students develop as writers as they are able to consciously apply specific
knowledge, criteria, and strategies to their own writing in an evaluative manner (McCormick
et al., 1992).

Æjçxwrizon
In a study on exposition, Englert and Thomas (1987) state that expository writing

31

contains specific word patterns and text structures that signal readers about the type of
passages they are reading (explanation, compare/contrast, problem/solution, or description).
When writing exposition, the problem that students begin to explore and solve as writers is
how to recreate the distinct text structures o f exposition and what language to use to get one's
point across. Students need to be able to read and identify specific expository text structures
so that they, in turn, can apply the necessary text structures to their writing. Englert and
Thomas found that text structure knowledge is acquired developmentally. Grade 6/7 students
were better able than Grade 3/4 students to recognize supporting details given a topic
sentence (Raphael & Englert, 1990). Englert and Thomas suggest that strategy instruction
alleviates the difficulties that students experience with the semantic and syntactic devices used
in expository writing —especially for those students with LD.

Students with LD have writing profiles that differ from that of skilled writers and their
end products can be described as retellings of "whatever comes to mind ... like an automated
and encapsulated program, operating with minimal metacognitive control" (Sexton et al,
1998, p. 295). Wong (2000) describes five areas in which students with LD significantly vary
fi-om their non-LD peers. First, students with LD write very little because o f the difficulty they
have putting their ideas on paper. Second, writers with LD misconceive what good writing is
and, therefore, overemphasise mechanics. This is corroborated by Graham et al. (1993) who
conducted open-ended interviews of 39 Grade 5 to 8 students with LD and 39 students
without LD. Third, writers with LD limit their vocabulary in &vour o f easily retrieved or
easily spelled words. Fourth, students with LD make quantitatively more spelling.

32

punctuation, and grammatical errors than their non-LD counterparts. Fifth, writers with LD
require more time to master a writing strategy. Englert et al. (1988) further characterise
students with LD as lacking awareness o f the communicative purpose of writing and as
depending upon others to monitor the completion o f compositions. Added to the difdculties
listed above are the motivational problems caused by poor writing skills and exacerbated by
avoidance techniques (MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz & Schafer, 1995; Mothus, 1997).
Not unexpectedly, students with LD have difficulty with the purpose, conventions, and
features of exposition (Englert et al., 1988; Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b). To begin with,
students with LD have difficulties understanding that a paragraph is made up of a logically
ordered set of sentences containing a main idea and supporting details (Wong, 2000). Englert
and Thomas (1987) found that students with LD performed significantly less well than their
peers when generating supporting details given a topic sentence. In two studies (Thomas et
al., 1987; Englert et al., 1988), paragraph prompts, reflecting different types of exposition,
were provided to students with and without LD in Grades 3 and 6 who were then required to
complete the paragraph. Generating main ideas was difficult for even the Grade 6s with most
students scoring below 50% accuracy. Main idea scores declined for students with LD.
Generating supporting details was more successfid for all student with 63% accuracy but
again students with LD scored less well.
Students with LD were also found to be less able to integrate knowledge 6om difkrent
sources choosing to list facts randomly rather than categorising them (Englert et al., 1988). In
general, students with LD were more likely to repeat information, include irrelevancies, and
focus on their personal interests (Thomas et al., 1987) rather than viewing their composition

33

as one to inform the reader about a topic systematically.
In a 1988 study, Englert et al. examined the knowledge o f exposition of students with
LD and the relationship between their writing performance and their knoWedge. Students
were asked to give their advice on the compositions o f three hypothetical students. They
found that metacognitive knowledge about the writing process and text organization was
positively correlated to students' written performance. Compared to high achieving students,
students with LD relied more on external cues such as the teacher saying the paper was
finished, were less aware of modelled strategies, randomly listed rather than categorised facts,
had a lack of knowledge about the writing process, and did not know how to integrate
knowledge from different sources.
Englert and Thomas (1987) and Mothus (1997) believe that poor performance of
students with LD can be, at least in part, attributed to a lack of exposure to and poor
instruction of expository text. Thus, the rationale for strategy instruction is that explicit
teaching of learning strategies may, over time, compensate for academic difficulties and
improve metacognitive functioning (Ellis & Lenz, 1987) in writing o f exposition. Through
meta-analyses o f research done over the past 30 years, Gersten and Baker (2001) and
Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) found interventions used with students with LD focussing on
writing and cognitive/metacognitive processes produced moderate gains overall. The
researchers found that interventions that combined direct instruction and strategy instruction
were the most elective. Because there is an abundance o f research on writing instruction, I
conclude this literature review by summarising only those studies I found that specifically
implemented a strategy instruction model to teach expository writing to at least one group of

34

students with LD.

fPnfzng 7%ro«gA a j'frofggy ^TwAifcAoM.<4^^oacA
In reviewing studies involving strategy instruction, wnting, and students with LD, four
research groups emerge. Collectively, these researchers oSer an extensive range of research
methodologies, instructional procedures, and theoretical views relevant to strategy instruction
in writing. Three of the four groups are American researchers: (a) the University of Kansas
Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities (KU-IRLD) group spearheaded by Ally and
Deshler, (b) the Englert and Raphael group, and (c) the Graham and Harris group. The fourth
group is a Canadian group led by Wong. What gives this body of research credence is the
recognition, citations, and value each independent group places on the progress of each
others' research. I conclude this section with the developing research of my mentors, Mothus
and Lapadat, who have provided invaluable support and direction for my study which is a
branch of their developing research. For each group, I summarize the instructional approach,
outline particularly relevant studies, and then comment on their work as it helped inform my
understandings of writing and strategy instruction in my classroom,
j'frafegfgf

Kline et al. (1992) and Deshler and Schumaker

(1993) summarize the work on strategy instruction for students with LD that began in 1977 at
KU-IRLD. Their strategy instruction model, entitled the Strategies Intervention Model, was
developed with four main goals: (a) development of student independence, (b) development of
social skills, (c) graduation &om highschool, and (d) successful transition to postsecondary
education (Deshler & Schumaker, 1988). A variety o f strategies, called the Zgammg
was developed and held-tested for use in the public school system in

35

three m^or areas —acquisition, storage, and expression of knowledge. The teaching of the
strategies follows an eight step instructional process (Schumaker et al., 1984) that is intended
to be taught with sensitivity to the needs o f the student: (a) pretest and obtain commitment
6om each student to leam, (b) describe the details o f the strategy, c) model the strategy
through a demonstration and

o/cW process, (d) have students verbally rehearse the

steps o f the strategy, (d) have students practice the strategy with controlled materials and give
individual feedback, (e) have students practice the strategy with regular curricular materials
and give individual feedback, (g) posttest and obtain commitment to generalise the strategy,
and (h) generalise instruction to practice and maintain the learning strategy in a broad range of
situations. Over time, the staff at KU-IRLD have developed a training network that has spread
across the United States and into Canada. Training requires teachers to commit for a year or
longer and use the detailed manuals provided for each individual strategy in the Learning
Strategies Curriculum.
Initially, this group of researchers was interested in whether strategy instruction could
improve the academic performance of students. They found students could make gains of
greater than one year in reading, math, and writing (Deshler & Schumaker, 1993). However,
gains only validated the potential effectiveness o f strategy instruction in very controlled
settings with small groups o f high school students. As the researchers recognized that their
methodology did not address implementation o f strategy instruction on a broad-scale level,
they began a battery of studies with special education teachers described as the Aarrfgr
/JIgMfÿicaAoM ffufAgf designed to investigate variables that could impede the success of
strategy instruction (Kline et al., 1992). Impediments, or barriers, were identiSed through an

36

open-ended survey given to their own trainers which focussed on the trainers' views of
teaching skills, teacher hdelity to the instructional sequence, instructional time, and teachers'
use o f the manuals. The overall Endings were a disappointment to the researchers. Although
the teachers had completed the training session, instruction was interrupted, halted, or not
even attempted and few students were mastering the strategies. The mryor factors cited as the
cause of the lack of success of strategy instruction were teachers' mind sets, the approach to
instruction, the lack of support to the teacher, and timetabling difficulties.
Next, a series of intervention studies were conducted to assess methods of reducing
perceived barriers to strategy instruction. These studies analyzed the effects of providing the
necessary materials and interpersonal support, establishing goals and policies to minimise
interruptions to instruction, enhancing teacher to student feedback routines, and providing
inservice so strategy instruction would be reinitiated in the following year. The researchers
reported that when providing materials and support, teachers were more likely to begin
instruction, were quicker to begin instruction following training, and were better able to serve
more students. Efforts to avoid interruptions to instruction and development of feedback
routines resulted in students mastering more learning strategies in a decreased amount of time.
The most applicable study I found within this body o f research because o f the focus,
student age group, and intervention was a quantitative study by Ellis and Graves (1989) on
Ending the main ideas. The participants were forty-seven grade 5, 6, and 7 students with LD
who demonstrated accurate decoding ability but poor reading comprehension skills. To
participate in the study, the students were required to read 100 words per minute with 97%
accuracy using Grade 3 material. Four training conditions were established. The control group

37

was provided with only a dehnition o f main idea. The second group was told to reread
repeatedly the passage. The third group was taught and expected to memorise the
Paraphrasing Strategy (the same strategy I used in my study) in which students read a
paragraph and then ask themselves to restate the main idea. The Gnal group was taught the
Paraphrasing Strategy and encouraged to reread the passage. The most significant gains came
from using the Paraphrasing Strategy. The researchers found there were no significant gains
using the rereading method. Even when the Paraphrasing Strategy was combined with the
rereading method, the rereading method did not improve results over just using the
Paraphrasing Strategy. What particularly interested me about this study was the success of the
same strategy that I planned to use in my study with a similar age group.
The KU-IRLD group's work is frequently cited by other researchers because their work
has undeniably shaped and influenced the field of strategy instruction. The primary strengths
of the research done by this group is the duration of their work and the systematic manner in
which key learning strategies have been identified, developed, and tested to improve the
academic achievement o f at-risk students. The KU-IRLD group's work is a valuable starting
point for teachers to research and compile potential strategies, material, and accompanying
assessment forms for adaptation within their own classrooms.
When reading some of the KU-IRLD literature, however, I perceive a sense of
incredulity and dismay that the Strategies Intervention Model had not been better received by
teachers. The reasoning is that many teachers do not have the skills to follow a strategy
instruction model. I believe it is this lack o f trust in teachers' abilities that has limited
implementation of the Learning Strategies Curriculum. In the KU-IRLD literature, the teacher

38

appears to be the anoiqrmous obstacle. Although the researchers acknowledge that much of
their research is based on results 6om isolated classrooms or laboratories with a limited range
o f teachers, little reflection appears to exist suggesting that perhaps the scripted lessons are
too rigid and ultimately boring once the novelty has worn off. In addition, the model does not
take into account constructivist thought but continues to present isolated strategies in a
hierarchical manner (Englert et al, 1991). Nevertheless, I also believe the KU-IRLD work is
far too valuable to be dismissed because of their reductionist view. If teachers and researchers
are to be partners, as is stated in the article by Kline et al. (1992), collecting, analysing, and
valuing teachers' experiences with strategy instruction will be an essential component, I
believe, to future development of their work.
Graham, Harris, and Self-Regulated Strategy Development.

The second group of

researchers, Graham and Harris and related associates, work out of the University of
Maryland. Graham and Harris (1993a) and Graham et al. (2000) summarise the work of
approximately twenty years that began in the early 1980s. This group developed a model
called

Deve/qprnen/ that teaches students to use strategies to

accomplish academic tasks in math, reading, and writing. The Self-Regulated Strategy
Development model has been used to teach a variety o f writing strategies in more than 20
studies (De La Paz, 1999a). Self^Regulated Strategy Development was initially designed for
students with LD but has diversiSed over the years to include all levels o f students 6om
grades 4 to 8 ranging in group size &om a single student to regular, inclusive classrooms. The
ultimate goal is to encourage cognitive and af&ctive development by teaching and
encouraging students to sequence and organize elective learning behaviours. Like the Deshler

39

and Schumaker group, teachers following the Self-Regulated Strategy Development use a
mg&Kcrÿt. The researchers tape-recorded and tracked teachers' hdelity to the script during
their studies. Self-Regulated Strategy Development has seven stages that this group suggests
are flexible and recursive: (a) development o f background knowledge and preskill
development, (b) initial teacher/student conference, (c) discussion o f the strategy,
(d) modelling o f the strategy, (e) memorisation o f the strategy, (f) collaborative student
practice, and (g) independent practice. These seven stages of instruction rely on five
characteristics: (a) direct teaching, (b) collaborative learning and teacher/student interactions,
(c) individualised instruction, (d) criterion-based production rather than time-based production
to provide for individual pacing, and (e) new strategy development based on previously
learned strategies.
In a multiple case study (Graham & Harris, 1989b) involving three Grade 6 students,
students received individualised instruction on the Think! Plan! Write! Strategy and the TREE
Strategy (topic sentence, reasons, examine reasons, ending). Students were taught to
complete essays following a series of prompts to stimulate self-direction. Results were
Avourable with planning time increasing fi"om a baseline of twelve seconds to an average of
^proximately eight minutes. Irrelevant information dropped fi"om 45% to 15%. Seven
percent o f the baseline essays contained a premise, reasons, and a conclusion compared to
posttreatment results o f 82%. An interesting aspect to this study was how well the students,
when assigned a narrative story rather than an essay, could generalise the original strategies to
the new task. Two o f the three students improved without any explicit instruction in
producing narrative text and one improved after a single "booster" lesson.

40

A second study (Sexton et al., 1998), which replicated the above 1989 study, added an
attributional component (attributing success to eSbrt, strategy use, ability, task difhculty, or
luck). Again, the students signihcantly improved their planning time, number of words,
inclusion o f essay elements, coherence, quality, and strategy use. By the end of the study, two
of the three students felt more positive that their eSbrts and strategy use played a role in
improving their writing. This result suggests that attributions can be influenced by instruction.
These two studies indicate there is a correlation between students' overt planning time and the
quality of their essays. This provides a strong rationale for the planning focus inherent in the
RAP and PAR Strategies I taught the students during this note-taking/report-writing unit.
A case study by Graham and Harris (1999) began with a series of assessments on a
student with a severe writing difficulty. A checklist of the writing process guided the
observations of the student by the researchers. This student did not appear to plan, organise
information, or revise his work. Rather he used a retrieve and write approach which meant he
did not attempt to generate additional information and terminated his writing too soon. This
left him with a sparse, disorganised composition that did not include the required elements of
the genres. These observations led to instruction geared to changing this students' approach to
writing. This student was already enrolled in a class where a writing process approach was
used. Students worked independently and instruction was student-driven. It appeared that the
informal teaching methods were not enough to help improve the skills o f this particular
student. Modelling o f planning and revising essays was used to overcome this student's
negative approach to writing. The end result was that this student began generating 15 to 20
ideas before writing, wrote compositions that were two to three times longer, and made

41

twenty changes to every hundred words. His compositions were better organized, more
complete, and easier to understand. In addition, the student made fewer self-deprecating
comments and appeared to be more positive about writing.
This study was a rarity as most strategy instruction studies do not allow the reader to
get a good sense of the nature and the spedûc learning o f the student participants. The
researchers stated that the teacher of this student was very pleased with the gains that student
had made. A student's gains, subsequent pride, and greater happiness are the rewards of
teaching. This case study allowed for me to imagine this student in my classroom. The idea
that strategy instruction created this success story was believable, encouraging, and
motivating.
In a study by Troia and Graham (2002), twenty Grade 4 and 5 students with LD were
either instructed in three planning strategies or received writing instruction comparable to
what they were receiving in their regular classrooms. Instruction was highly teacher-directed
and was provided to two students at a time. In the end, students who received the planning
strategies instruction spent more time planning and wrote longer, qualitatively better stories;
however, the researchers believe the results showed only modest gains. Encouraging though,
is the fact that these results were maintained a full month later when the students were
retested on their story writing. Unfortunately, the group that received the planning strategy
instruction were not able to generalise their gains in story writing to uninstructed essay
writing. Given the lack o f generalisability to essay writing, the researchers stressed that
incidental teaching or telling students is not enough to change performance across genres.
They stress that instruction must involve active participation on the part o f the student and

42

must involve explicit instruction. In addition, the researchers, recognising the diGBculty of
rephcating such a study in an inclusive classroom situation, recommended using checklists and
simple rubrics to encourage collaboration between students for eSective feedback. Even
though this study was primarily about instruction in narrative writing, the fact that benehts
were not generalized to essay writing was enlightening to me. This validated my own
understanding that I should never assume that learning has occured just because I believe
enough has been said on the topic.
As of 1999, De La Paz reported that no studies using the Self-Regulated Strategy
Development model had been conducted in regular, inclusive classrooms with a regular
classroom teacher as the primary instructor. Thus De La Paz (1999a) conducted a study with
22 Grade 7 and 8 students, ranging from students with LD to high achieving students, who
were preparing for a state writing test requiring a five paragraph expository essay. The PLAN
Strategy (pay attention to the details, list main ideas, add supporting ideas, number your ideas)
and WRITE (work from your plan, remember your goals, include transition words, try to use
different sentences, exciting, interesting $100 000 words) were intended to assist students in
planning and composing expository essays. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development model
was modified to accommodate the class situation. Rather than using one-on-one instruction,
whole class lessons were provided and then small collaborative groups o f two or three
students were formed to allow for practice o f the lessons and peer feedback about the essays.
A special education teachers was in the classroom approximately 50% o f the thne. At
baseline, all levels of students' essays were reported to be o f a poor quality based on holistic
measures. Afier instruction, the length o f the essays doubled or more than doubled. Students

43

with LD wrote essays that were 250% longer, included less irrelevant text, and included 175%
to 312% more essay elements.
In a second study. De La Paz (1999b) worked with several general and special
education teachers over three years to develop an advance planning strategy for middle school
students with and without LD. The instructional period ranged 6om twelve to sixteen lessons
(about one month of four sessions per week) which followed the adapted Self-Regulated
Strategy Development model used in the above study. Although the length and quality of
writing improved in all levels of students, De La Paz concluded that transferring responsibility
to the students in a one month time frame was difficult.
De La Paz's contribution to my own work is the fact that her research occurred in a
similar aged inclusive classroom. What was particularly validating was the recognition that
teachers need to adapt strategy instruction models for use in inclusive classrooms. These
adaptations were valued rather than being seen as a weakness of the teacher in not being able
to follow an instructional model.
Like the KU-IRLD group, the Graham and Harris group has had a "major impact on
contemporary intervention research and practice in learning difficulties" (Wong, 2000, p. 30).
The strengths o f the Self-Regulated Strategy Development studies are the volume of the
published work, the range o f participants (from case studies o f students with LD, to multiple
case studies, to inclusive classrooms) the inclusion ofboth quantitative and qualitative results,
and the attention to methodology. Like the KU-IRLD group, recommendations for learning
are criterion-based rather than time-based, which favours the understanding that students
progress at their own rates. Unlike the Deshler and Schumaker model, the developers o f the

44

Self-Regulated Strategy Development model encourage adaptation o f their model to meet the
needs o f the teacher and students. What is still missing 6om their research, however, is the
voice, opinions and rejections of the classroom teacher.
Eng/g/%

owf Cogynifvg

Zrwïmcffo» m

In 1990, Englert

and Raphael were codirecting the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing project at the
Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University (Raphael & Englert, 1990).
Originally, these researchers and their associated colleagues, recognised that there was little
published research that examined the reading and writing performances of students with LD
when exposed to expository text. They felt that it was important to examine the differences
between students without and with LD to better inform the design and implementation of
instructional programs (Englert et al., 1989). The program initially began as the Expository
Writing Program. The purpose of the program was to improve elementary students'
experiences with informational text using think sheets to guide students through the writing
process. (The acronym POWER is a mnemonic device outlining the steps: plan, organise,
write, edit, revise). Raphael and Englert reported that although the students' writing
improved, they believed the program could be enhanced with classroom structures such as
strategy instruction, teacher modelling, explicit teaching o f knowledge about expository
writing, and peer collaboration. Thus, the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing project,
with a sociocultural ffamework, came into existence. The premise o f the program is that
reading and writing are invisible processes that can be made more visible through guided and
then eventual independent writing. Three important elements o f the Cognitive Strategy
Instruction in Writing project are: (a) teacher modelling and "thinking aloud," (b) teacher

45

scaf&lding through dialogue with students, and (c) a social context to allow dialogues
between peers. The Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing project uses 6 )ur phases of
instruction: (a) text analysis using student samples, (b) teacher modelling the writing process
followed by the class coUaboratively writing a p^er, (c) guided student practice while
creating their own compositions, and (d) independent writing with the goal of publishing in
the class magazine.
Englert (1992) reports on the three year study to develop and implement Cognitive
Strategy Instruction in Writing. The study began by observing for one year eight regular
classroom teachers and eight special education teachers who were teaching writing to Grade 4
and 5 students. The observed trends were that no teachers successfully modelled behaviours
or thinking. Furthermore, these teachers used rapid questioning formats rather than questions
encouraging dialogue and only one special education teacher and three regular classroom
teachers had students collaborate while writing. Special education teachers were found to
focus on skills and not on the social nature of writing, and they seldom provided authentic
opportunities to write.
The second phase o f the study had teachers implement Cognitive Strategy Instruction in
Writing (Englert et al., 1991). A total o f 183 Grade four and hve students 6 om twelve
schools were involved. One hundred twenty-eight students, ranging 6 om low to high
achievers 6 om regular classrooms. Fifty-Sve students were students with LD. Assessments
were done in September and May and instruction occured &om October to April. The Endings
were that students in the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing treatment group had
significantly greater knowledge about writing strategies and the writing process. In addition.

46

these students outperformed the students in the control classes by improving their ability to
master text structure, to understand the purpose o f writing, and to develop an awareness of
the audience.
The hnal stage o f the study was to take a subset of earlier participants for a more
in-depth analysis. In this case, 63 students were involved. Thirty-two students had participated
in the previous year, and 31 students had never received the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in
Writing treatment. Approximately half of each group were students with LD. Again
instruction began in the fall and carried on through the school year for two to three days per
week. Overall, the researchers felt that significant results were achieved because of the
opportunities to acquire and use language about writing through social interactions. Gains in
students with LD from the non-intervention group were very limited, and the students
appeared to remain very teacher dependent. The talk of these students remained on evaluation
and end products rather than on process and strategies. The students with LD in the
intervention group, however, improved so dramatically that there was no significant difference
between them and their non-LD peers who had not received the intervention. The intervention
was viewed as narrowing the g ^ between regular students and students with LD. Two
interesting conclusions were that performance difrerences between regular students and
students with LD are greater in writing than reading and that increases in metacognitive
knowledge may not be immediately reflected in writing. Thus progress and development is
best documented through longitudinal studies.
The Englert and Raphael group has made great inroads in compiling characteristics of
expository text. They have found that students understand exposition in a developmental

47

maimer and have argued that increasing students' knowledge and use o f exposition is a
metacognitive and social process. Their research has been viewed as artfully bridging
quantitative and qualitative research to contribute extensively to current understandings about
elective instructional models (Isaacson, 1992), although, Englert et al. (1991) have suggested
that Anther empirical research would be useful to determine the precise beneAts of the various
learning and teaching strategies of the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing model. In
addition, this group's work occured within regular classrooms within the natural time frame of
a school year. Their work has been longitudinal and has included longitudinal support for
participating teachers. A point of interest about their work was their methods for obtaining
understandings about students' knowledge of writing using hypothetical and actual student
samples to prompt students' reflections. Unfortunately, even though transcripts of teachers'
and students' words and student samples brought to life some of the participants' interactions,
the actual opinions and reflections of the participating teachers were not documented and
interpretations remained in the hands o f the researchers.
IFbng owf esçwato/y wrifrng.

Wong and associates (Wong, Butler, Ficzere, Kuperis,

Corden, & Zelmer 1994; Wong et al., 1996) working out of Simon Fraser University in
British Columbia, report on a three year longitudinal study based on the work o f two of the
groups I previously discussed —the Englert and Raphael group and the Graham and Harris
group. The students were highschool students with LD or with English as a second language
enrolled in modifled English classes. Four o f the 21 students participated all three years o f the
study, and three other students participated for two years. In the Arst year, the focus was to
write reportive essays. In the second year, the focus was on persuasive essays, and the third

48

year addressed compare and contrast essays. Students were given three 52 minute lessons per
week to complete essays and were expected to complete approximately six essays (which was
decided after the hrst year that initially required an overwhelming 12 essays) to reach mastery
o f the genre. Through teacher-directed lessons, the students were introduced to the writing
process as a three step process of plan, write, and revise, and they were taught how to use
prompt and planning sheets. After explicitly modelling how to plan the genre, the students
engaged in the following stages of composition; (a) collaborative planning between students
using plan sheets, (b) independent writing following the plan using a computer,
(c) conferencing with teacher and peer, (d) independent revising, and (e) creating a final good
copy on the computer. The overall results were that gains were made in clarity, aptness of
ideas, and organization. Gains were maintained, although the time fi'ame between the posttest
and the maintenance test is unclear. An interesting finding was that metacognitive
development was believed to take, in general, two to three years to develop in the
participants, and was reported as not occurring in three students. Furthermore, different
aspects o f metacognition developed depending upon the student. Some students became more
aware o f planning, some became more aware o f the need for clarity, and still others became
aware o f the importance of making thier writing interesting for the reader. Although
instruction was perceived to be uniform for all students, unique patterns o f development fi^om
student to student suggest the power a student's background, interest, and incidental
interactions can have upon his/her learning. A somewhat surprising finding for the researchers
was that self-efBcacy did not necessarily inq)rove with metacognitive development. The
researchers realized that development was like a "reality check" enlightening the student about

49

what they presently were not including in their writing and how much additional work they
would still have to do to become eSective writers.
A contribution of this group to the body o f literature on strategy instruction is that this
group is Canadian. In addition, this group's study was in the same province as my own study
and operating under recognisable classroom conditions established by the Ministry of
Education o f British Columbia. The conditions o f this study included the teacher as partner
and had the teacher plan instruction with the researcher and the research assistant. Some
transcripts and samples were included and discussed to inform the reader of the students'
perspective. Again, however, the reflections of the participating teacher were not included to
enlighten the reader about the teacher's role in and perceptions about successful strategy
instruction implementation.
M othus and Lapadat and the RAP/PAR Strategies.

Most relevant to this study is the

research of Mothus and Lapadat employing the Paraphrasing Strategy 6 om Schumaker et al.
(1984) with Grade 8 students with LD (Mothus, 1997, 2001; Mothus & Lapadat, 2003;
Mothus et al., 2002. Using the RAP (Read, Ask, Put) acronym, students read a paragraph, ask
themselves what the main idea and supporting details are and then put the main and
supporting details in their own words. Mothus explicitly taught students to use this strategy
with a variety o f texts and videos. During instruction, material was initially introduced orally
and then gradually students were expected to read 6 om the overhead projector. Expository
text was broken down into paragraphs and videos were paused approximately every flve
minutes to allow for an outline of main ideas and supporting details to be recorded in
complete sentences. The reading level o f material was intensifled gradually over the 80 hour

50

intervention phase until students were processing materials at their grade level. Mothus found
students signiGcantly increased their reading ability and comprehension.
The second focus o f Mothus's research was the essay writing that naturally evolved
6 om the RAP strategy. Mothus adapted the RAP Strategy by reversing the acronym to then

provide a related three-step process for writing. The PAR Strategy (Put, Ask, Record)
required students to put details into categories, ask what the main ideas were in each
category, and record the main idea and supporting details of each category in paragraphs
using their own words. Students were then expected to add an introductory and concluding
paragraph to complete the expository essay text structure. There were three instructional
phases to the PAR Strategy: (a) Students were introduced to a topic through readings,
lectures, and videos for which they enacted the RAP Strategy, (b) In co-operative groups,
students brainstormed and listed all their knowledge, new and old, and (c) Students enacted
the PAR Strategy by organising their notes and rewriting them as an acceptable essay. All but
two of the Grrade 8 students that participated in the study were able to construct an essay by
the end of Grade 8 (Mothus, 2001). One out of eleven remembered how to do this in Grade 9
and eight students only needed one review lesson.
The value o f this study is that the RAP Strategy was adapted for use in a regular sized
classroom whereas its original intention was to be used with small groups o f students in
special education classes. The invention of the related PAR Strategy ef&ctively captured the
interrelationship between reading and writing. Processing and producing the same information
required the students to engage actively and meaning&dly with the text to construct unique
versions of that same information. The two strengths of the RAP and PAR Strategies are their

51

speciScity and simplicity. For the student, the acronyms are short and their meanings terse.
The prompts are easy to remember and remind students to work systematically while
note-taking a passage. By rearranging their notes, the student have a ready outline &om which
to draA a report. Overall, this one strategy and its variation signiGcantly improved students'
reading and writing o f expository text.
The work of the Mothus and Lapadat group was the impetus for my own study so there
are similarities in our work; (a) Their research was done in the same city and school district
following the same Ministry guidelines as my study, (b) Mothus was also a teacher-researcher,
and (c) The RAP and PAR Strategies were enacted in a whole class setting. Two differences
between our studies are that my students were one to two years younger and enrolled in an
elementary school rather than a junior highschool, and Mothus had a very large reading
component in her study whereas I only focussed on gains in students' writing. There are also
two significant differences in the methodology which, I believe, complement the existing data
collected by Mothus and Lapadat. First, my class was a regular inclusive class whereas
Mothus's was a special education class in which the students only remained with her for a
portion o f the day. Second, initially Mothus's work was quantitative and she did not document
her decision making and reflective processes; however, in this groups' larger body of research,
the direction is to document the role of the teacher in successful strategy instruction
implementation (Mothus et al., 2002).
I believe that the largest gap in the research on strategy instruction is the exclusion of
the voice o f the teacher o f a regular inclusive classroom. Existing studies have included and
relied upon regular classroom teachers' participation but very seldom have included any of

52

these teachers' thoughts or reflections. Rather, the teachers' voices are reconstructed by the
researchers and do not capture the &ont-line experiences o f teachers juggling the complexities
o f teaching writing using a strategy instruction model in an inclusive classroom.

By linking research 6 0 m the Gelds o f strategy instruction, metacognition, learning
disabilities, and writing instruction, I have examined some potential views of and directions
that effective strategy instruction can take from both reductionist and constructivist
perspectives. From these broader understandings of effective instruction within regular
inclusive classrooms, my purpose in conducting this study was to examine —from my
perspective as the participating teacher —a strategy instruction approach in writing.
Specifically, I wanted to document and reflect upon how my Grade 6/7 students enacted the
RAP and PAR Strategies to create informative reports. The study focussed primarily on three
aspects: (a) instructional strategies, (b) the quahty of the students' writing, and (c) the
cognitive and metacognitive functioning of the students. The guiding research questions were:
1) What declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge do students state or apply when
engaged in a note-taking/report-writing unit?
2) What structures and procedures can I implement during strategy instruction in my inclusive
classroom to maximize the quality o f students': (a) note-taking, (b) report-writing, and
(c) cognitive and metacognitive functioning?
3) In implementing a strategy instruction model, what reflective and decision-making
processes do I experience as the classroom teacher?

53

CHAPTER THREE
Method

In this study, I implemented and evaluated, 6om my perspective as teacher-researcher, a
note-taking/report-writing unit integrating principles of strategy instruction and principles of
writing process within an inclusive Grade 6/7 class. My goals were to develop, examine, and
reflect upon my instructional practices and to develop, assess, and interpret the cognitive and
metacognitive functioning of my students. The note-taking/report-writing unit consisted of
three instructional phases over a period of thirteen weeks. The first phase of the report-writing
unit was a general introduction to report-writing. The second phase introduced the RAP
Strategy (Read a paragraph. Ask what the main ideas and supporting details are. Put the main
idea and supporting details in your own words) as a form of note-taking. The third phase
introduced report-writing as a process of choosing a topic, finding sources, note-taking,
organising notes, drafting, editing, proof-reading, and publishing.
A/e
The classroom chosen ft)r this study was my own Grade six/seven class. The school is a
rural elementary school ft^om a central British Columbia school district with busing as the
primary access. The school is situated just outside the city limits o f a city with a population of
approximately 80 000. The population of the school, at the time o f the study, was
approximately 400 students ft^om Grades kindergarten to Grade seven.
Pw/fcÿxm/r
During the course o f the study, the class population ranged ft^om 28 to 29 students, but

54

only 25 participants were included in the results o f this study. I did not receive consent to use
data &om two students, who, nevertheless, participated in the activities and assessments of the
instruction as part of their regular curriculum. A third student, for whom I did receive
consent, was absent for medical reasons and then in too much discomfort to fully participate.
Of the twenty-hve students, nine students (four females and Gve males) were in Grade six, and
sixteen (10 females and 6 males) were in Grade seven.
A Model o f Inclusion
The British Columbia public school system favours the inclusion of special needs
students within regular classrooms. According to EC Ministry of Education funding
guidelines, classroom assistants may be assigned to special needs students based on hours per
week. Within my classroom, support services included one full-time male classroom assistant
assigned to a special needs student in a wheelchair, and a part-time female classroom assistant
assigned to one low achieving male and one female student with a disability in math. Special
education services in the school, at the time, were delivered via a pullout learning assistance
model. Two students attended learning assistance in a resource room for thirty minute blocks
four times a week for instruction in reading. Another two students had been recommended to
attend but had opted out. I perceived nine participants in this study to have special academic
needs. Based on information 6om the student fles, one student was described as having a
learning disability in language and one student was described as having a learning disability in
math. Six students were described as low achievers, and one student was described as an
underachiever. As a group, the behaviours o f these students in terms o f organisation, time on
task, and acceptable classroom behaviours varied greatly. What was consistent, however, was

55

that each o f these students required much more direction, assistance, encouragement, teacher
monitoring, and my individual time than the average student. According to the school records
o f this group o f students, one student received no letter grades as his programming was hilly
modihed. Two students were partially modihed —one received no letter grade in math, and
one received no letter grade in language. The remaining seven students consistently received
Cs or C-s (a range o f 50% to 66%) in language arts.
wffA ZD
In addition to the definition of learning disabilities by the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada (2002) and the list of characterisitics of students with LD by Johnson
and Lapadat (2000), Kavale and Reece (1991), in a survey of 547 teachers in Iowa, found
more than 80% of the teachers agreed upon conditions of learning disabilities. Teachers
associated LD with the following statements: (a) There is discrepancy between ability and
achievement; (b) There are learning strengths as well as learning weaknesses present in each
student with LD; (c) There is a processing deficit that appears to interfere with learning; (d)
Students with LD are believed to be of average to above average intelligence; (e) There is a
need hir special materials and instructional techniques; and (f) Students with LD learn
diSerently than individuals with other mental dehcits.
Bender and Smith (1990) in their meta-analysis reviewing 25 studies that compared
classroom behaviour of students with LD to students without LD recognised that teacher
ratings should be used as part of the process o f identifying students with LD. I believe years of
consistent teacher comments can indicate possible learning disabilities. Based on my
experiences, most students in the British Columbia school system who are struggling

56

academically do not receive psychoeducational assessments to diagnose learning disabilities or
attention deûdt tendencies. Thus, because only three o f the students in my class had had
psychoeducational assessments, the compilation o f report card comments o f the students I had
identihed as experiencing learning diKculties in my classroom were o f particular interest to
me. Scruggs and Mastropieri (2002) validate the use o f descriptive reports as one means of
identifying students with learning dfficulties based on the relatively consistency of
observations reported over the years dating as far back as the 19th century. In addition, Wong
(1996) affirms that the "characteristics observed by parents, educators, psychologists, and
medical professionals about children with learning disabilities in 1963 are the very same
characteristics that we see today in children, adolescents, and adults with learning disabilities"
(p. 22).
The comments from the report cards in the student files as summarised for this group
were: «

wcg&RZfy,

«Mprove/MeTit, « coMfgMt ro db fAe TMfWMo/ amowMt

/Kzyg a goW aAzmdle, (/"wzfy fAe
OTMOimf q/"

zgMore f&fb-acAow, M

oW

a
worA;

on AzyAa, wedk to

/mwï /gam /o cowcgn/ra/g, woa/gf //mg,

Mggdk coTM&m/ rgm/mZerf, «ggdk /o /xzy c/bagr oZ/gm/Zo», worAj wg// w/K»

ûpp//gf /z/mae^

Tzggdk /o Agcomg morg /w/lepgyK/lgM/, and Aoy /ow jg ^ co/^dlg»cg. These report card comments
represent the observations and assessments of approximately seven previous teachers and are
a m^or source o f information suggesting possible learning disabilities for participants in this
study based on the previous definition, characterisitics, and conditions mentioned earlier in
this paper. For the purposes o f this study, I have chosen to interpret the comments as evidence

57

that nine o f my students had and have difhculties with instructional practices and expectations
found in mainstream classrooms. As up to one third o f the students in this Grade 6/7 class
exhibited quantitative and qualitative indicators o f academic difhculty typical o f a learning
disability proSle, I believe this particular grouping o f students represented a valuable
opportunity to implement and explore the effectiveness of strategy instruction within an
inclusive classroom setting. V^thin this study, I have labelled this group o f nine students as
students with LD. The difficulty of making this type of a differential diagnosis has been
discussed by some researchers in the field of learning disabilities who believe that students
with LD cannot be reliably distinguished from students who are low achieving (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 2002). Others believe they can be distinguished. Although I could get a strong
sense of the difficulties each learner was having, I could not reliably distinguish between
students with LD from those who were low achieving.
The Teacher and Researcher
I, as the teacher/researcher conducting this study, am a female, first generation
Canadian of European decent. I began my education in the British Columbia public school
system but completed the last three years to graduation in the private school system. I
immediately entered university, and after a brief unsuccessfrd attempt in a precommerce
programme, switched to elementary education having secretly nursed the desire to teach since
I was a child. I found my niche during my practica in the upper elementary grades 5 to 7 .1
began substitute teaching in my present school district in 1987, obtained a teaching contract in
1988, and have continued to teach in this district full time or part time in a range o f positions
from K to 7. In 1998,1 began a Master o f Education programme at the University ofNorthem

58

British Columbia. My undergraduate interest was primarily elementary math. In this graduate
programme, given the course work, the interest and expertise o f my professors, and my
concern with the academic difhculties experienced by many o f my students, I have focussed
my attention on language development, learning disabilities, and sociocognitive models.
I am opinionated, seek order, and place high demands on myself and others. Thus, I
prefer organising my classroom so that expectations are clearly laid out and routines are
established and adhered to. On the other hand, I envision reform because I have not been
satisfied with the status quo of the school system, of traditional teaching practices that do not
appear to yield results, or of seeing teaching as merely a job. I enjoy teaching and am most
rewarded when I see my students fully engaged in and motivated by their learning. I have,
over the years, attempted to develop teaching practices and units that encourage process
development and self regulation. My students characterise my efforts as making learning fun,
trying to help everyone understand, and being fair on discipline issues. At times, I have come
full circle, beginning with one practice, attempting another practice and then coming back to
the original practice as its value becomes more clear to me. What I am striving for is the
moment when I can stop feeling like the novice teacher and classb^ myself as a master
teacher.
As I had worked with my students ffom the beginning o f September, 2001 to the end of
January, 2002 before commencing the study, there had already been much opportunity for me
to develop routines within the classroom, allow the students to become familiar with my style
of teaching, and develop a positive rapport. I believe this paved the way for a smooth
transition into the study. I knew my students; they came to trust me; and we worked well

59

together to maximise the potential benehts of this note-taking/report-writing unit. In addition,
many students felt comfortable criticising my decisions during the study. I believe their
voices, both positive and negative, have helped bring a tangibility and reality to this study that
is missing in some o f the literature on strategy instruction.
EiAfcaZ CoMadbrofiow
To my knowledge, this study presented no risk to any participant. Rather, the
note-taking/report-writing unit benefited students, in varying degrees, by improving their
abilities to identify main idea and supporting details of expository text, to write a report
independently, and to state a more thorough understanding of the writing process as it relates
to report-writing.
Prior to the commencement of this study, approval was obtained from participating
institutions which included the school district, the participating school, and the UNBC
Research Ethics Board. A written disclosure of the purpose and procedures of the study was
provided to the parents/guardians (Appendix A), and written consent for the students' data to
be used and analyzed was obtained. The study and its integration into the regular curriculum
and report card marks were explained to the students. Parents/guardians were given the
option to terminate their child's participation in the study at any time without penalty to the
child. The understanding, however, was that all students in the class were required to
participate in the instruction as part o f their regular education program whether written
parental consent to participate in the study had been received or not.
In this report and in other presentations or publications o f the data, care has been taken
to allow each participating student to remain anonymous, and individual student reports have

60

been kept conGdential. Only the data for which written consent was given has been included in
this study. I, as both teacher and researcher, made myself available to answer any inquiries
during the course o f the study and am prepared and willing to share the results.

DwotzoM
Before the actual onset of the report-writing unit, there was an anticipatory period
(September, 2001 to January, 2002) during which I made observations of a mentor teacher
teaching the RAP Strategy to her class, I researched topics found within this paper, and
collected and prepared instructional materials required for the note-taking/report-writing unit.
During this anticipatory time, my preparations generated new experiences upon which I
reflected and, in turn, introduced into my usual instructional practices and discourse.
Specifically, during the anticipatory period, I created posters, began introducing new ways of
discussing ideas with students, and regularly reminded students about their future involvement
in my study.
The study began with a preassessment January 30, 2002 and ended with a student
questionnaire June 24, 2002. The intervention, or the note-taking/report-writing unit,
occurred over 13 weeks 6om February 4, 2002 to May 30, 2002. Because this study took
place in the naturalistic setting of my regular classroom, the study was subject to the usual
timetable disruptions such as cultural events, guest speakers, school holidays (Spring Break
and Easter), Ministry o f Education testing, and my occasional, short term absences for various
reasons 6om the classroom.

61

One teaching practice commonly found within strategy instruction is to develop and use
mnemonic devices. The purpose of a mnemonic device is to make a process, skill, or task
more accessible to students by publishing steps in written form that they can refer to or
memorise. I began creating four posters introducing the mnemonic devices that I anticipated
using in my study. The first two posters were adaptations of the RAP and PAR Strategies
described earlier (Appendix B) that would be the basis of the note-taking/report-writing
intervention. The third poster listed overt and covert students behaviours that I expected
during direct instruction. This poster entitled Teacher-Directed Lessons (see Appendix B)
uses the mnemonic LISTEN (Lapse into silence; Identify and eliminate distractions; Sit facing
the teacher* Track the teacher; Engage your brain - think! Note-take when necessary.). The
fourth was a poster of the phases of the writing process. The writing process has been
published before in many different ways, and my depiction reflects those that have for years
circulated fi’eely in schools. The one criteria that I required of my mnemonic device was that
editing and proof-reading remain separate as I believe these two processes although similar in
nature need to be separated for the developing writer who may tend to focus primarily on the
mechanics o f writing when improving writing rather than the substance. The writing process
poster (see Appendix C) is entitled the J

fAe HW/fng froce&y (^rewriting plan, gen

a draA, gerfect by editing, groof-read, gublish) which also corresponds with counting the
steps on one hand. A second writing process poster (Appendix C) is intended to introduce the
writing process as a cyclical process rather than a linear one. The five phases o f the writing
process are arranged in a circle with two directional arrows suggesting a flexible

62

multi-directional movement through the writing process. I posted the Gve above mentioned
posters in prominent positions in the classroom and referred to them throughout the
instructional unit and at other impropriate instructional times in other subject areas.
During the anticipation phase, I became much more conscious o f my teacher-directed
class discussions and my choice of words 6ir engaging students and eliciting student
responses. I began including new ways of talking about learning and thinking. From the
information processing literature, I referred to cognitive activities such as thinking,
me/nonsmg, reca/Ang;

(W apot m

Ararn wAere

and

organising. From the social constructivist literature, I used remarks like it is important to
discuss your ideas with someone else, learning often happens best with other people, my way
o f thinking is only one way o f thinking. From the learning disabilities literature, I used
remarks like some people have difficulty getting information into their brain and out o f their
Arafn,

/eamerj db tAzj, and f^afegigj W//

becomg a niore

learner.

The Gnal part o f the anticipatory period was letting the students know, &om the
beginning o f the school year that they would be engaged in a study. I was attempting to
establish a tone and structures in the class and a relationship with the students that would
allow the study to begin in a familiar rather than a contrived manner. I felt that preparing the
students for their involvement in a study would allow them to enter into the study in a relaxed
and natural manner that would best capture their usual classroom performance. In addition, I
referred to the writing o f my proposal and thesis many times. By the time it came to getting
consent, the students were familiar with being involved in a study, and I was pleased with the
support and interest I received 6om my students and their parents.

63

The report-writing unit was scheduled into the regular ninety minute language arts block
of the timetable. Ideally, this block o f time occured over three consecutive mornings, Tuesday
to Thursday. For thirteen weeks, instruction in report-writing occured 6)r a minimum of 30
minutes to a maximum o f 90 minutes per day (Tuesday to Thursday) depending upon the
schedule. Seven weeks of the thirteen weeks had three consecutive days of 90 minutes blocks,
and six weeks of the thirteen weeks had two days per week. At least one lesson a week
spanned the entire 90 minutes. In total, students had 43 hours of class time over 34 days
directly related to the instructional unit. In addition, on an individual basis, students spent
additional time completing homework, researching in the library or computer lab based on
their report topics, or using spare class time to work on their reports.
To meet curricular demands, lessons not considered part of the note-taking/
report-writing unit were also timetabled into the language arts block. In addition to the
instructional unit, students read genres other than non-hction and participated in writing
activities such as personal j oumals, learning logs, short stories and poetry; however,
similarities and diGerences o f reading and writing hction versus non-Gction were discussed in
an attempt to make coimections and create opportunities to enhance exposure to the
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge o f report-writing.

The report-writing unit was divided into three instructional phases. Phase One was the
introductory segment to report-writing. Phase Two involved teaching the students the
note-taking strategy RAP In Phase Three students independently enacted the RAP and PAR.

64

Strategies to write reports on topics o f their choice. Each instructional phase required specihc
declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge, classroom organization, teaching
strategies, student behaviours, and assessment procedures. Phases One and Two included
instructional methods linked to strategy instruction such as teacher-directed, explicit
instruction. Phase Three's instructional methods were more in keeping with a sociocultural,
writing process approach. As students were required to direct and monitor their own
progress, individualised instruction became a necessary part of my instruction. All students
began Phase One together in whole-class lessons but eventually began progressing through the
phases at their pace.
Phase one: Introduction to Report-writing
Knowledge.

Phase One, which was an introduction to expository writing through

keyword searches, vocabulary development of report-writing and memorisation of steps of
writing process, occured over the first six lessons (February 4 to February 18). Ten to fifteen
minutes of each lesson were teacher-directed class discussions that were intended to establish
the declarative information about report-writing. A working vocabulary
fdkay,

mm»

dbAuZy, Aeywordk, /)Zqgzm?am) was developed to help the students speak

about report-writing. An understanding o f plagiarism was heavily stressed as my past
experience with students writing reports was the students' strong tendency to copy because
"the words sounded so good, I couldnt change them." (It is important to note that our
working definition o f plagiarism at this time was limited to copying words. We did not discuss
taking credit for ideas as I thought it might inhibit and confuse our work on main idea and
supporting details. A broader definition o f plagiarism could be taught later on a "need to

65

know" basis.) What stemmed 6om the discussions on plagiarism was an understanding that
despite the fact that author's words should not be copied, some vocabulary is essential to
intelligent discussion of a topic and, if used, would not be considered copying. Thus, key
words were broken into two categories: wcesaoTy vocabulary (technical or essential
vocabulary for discussing a topic) and onthor'f cW ce vocabulary (words chosen dependent
upon an author's style).
Procedural knowledge of report-writing was developed by introducing students to the
writing process so that students would become familiar with the idea that over time they
would be introduced to a series of steps that would eventually lead to a completed draft of a
report. At this time students did memory work with the writing process poster. The method I
encouraged for memorising material was: Read, Cover, Say, Check! Then students would test
each other orally in partners. Finally, all students would turn their backs to the poster, and I
would randomly call on students to recite the steps of the writing process. By this point, most
students were able to recite the steps but had various degrees of understanding of the
application of these steps.
The conditional knowledge developed with the students in Phase One was: (a) Some
people enjoy reading and writing about 6cts; (b) Knowledge o f the report-writing genre is
required in high school, university, and certain careers; (c) Plagiarism is a punishable oSence;
and (d) Writing a good report is hard work but is more manageable if it is broken into the
steps o f topic and source generation, note-taking and organisation o f notes, drafting the
report, and improving the report for publication.
vf&rigTzmgyüLs.

During the remainder o f each lesson, students completed written

66

assignments. The written lessons of Phase One required students to categorise words &om
non-ûction paragraphs as either wce&swy or mftAor'f cW ce vocabulary and then substitute a
selection o f their own words instead o f the

c/wrce. I began each lesson by reading a

paragraph (o f which each student had a copy) aloud. Next, I modelled how I would locate and
highlight keywords. I recorded the vocabulary as Mece&swy or owrAor'f c/wrcg in two columns
on the blackboard.
Initially, students practised assignments with partners in the first two lessons that were
not scored but rather shared and discussed as a class. When students became familiar with the
format, they worked on assignments with a partner, and both students received the same score
for the single assignment. Finally, the students graduated to working independently and
receiving an individual score for each assignment. The students were expected to follow the
LISTEN lesson format, as described earlier, to stay focussed for the teacher-directed lessons
and then work on-task to complete each assignment. Work was collected at the end of the
lesson and marked by the following day for feedback. The next lesson would then begin with a
debriefing of the previous assignment.
AAzfeTiaZy owf a&se&RMgMf.

The paragraph materials used in Phase One's keyword

search, fi"om the Grade 3 Steck-Vaughn

(Sharpe, 1992), were

between five to eight lines in length, and each paragraph contained a single main idea. The
student handouts comprised o f five paragraphs. Each paragraph had a new topic and main
idea unrelated to the previous paragraph. Reading material below grade level was used to
minimise diSculties with reading to aid in main idea and supporting detail development.
The keyword vocabulary lists for each paragr^h were scored out o f ten. Marks were

67

taken ofF if Mece&swy vocaAw/wy had not been included. These assignments continued until a
m^oiity o f the students were attaining 80% correct,

f/KKe Two." 7%gTLiP
Students entered this phase together as a class (February 19). The format o f the lessons
was very similar to the format ofPhase One Each lesson began with a whole-class
teacher-directed discussion, continued on with whole-class practice of the assignment on the
blackboard, and ended with students completing assignments during class time.
Knowledge.

During the teacher-directed class discussions, concepts from Phase One

were reviewed, the mnemonics (LISTEN and The 5 Phases of the Writing Process) continued
to be memorised and recited, and new information regarding the RAP Strategy was
introduced. The declarative knowledge development of Phase Two covered the following
topics; (a) The RAP Strategy is one form of note-taking; b) Note-taking for a report occurs in
the prewriting phase of the writing process; (c) Effective authors organise their writing into
paragraphs which contain one main idea and a number o f supporting details; and (d) Complete
sentences begin with a capital letter and end with an end pimctuation mark. The procedural
knowledge ofPhase Two described how to read and then record, in one's own words, an
author's paragraph into one main idea and three supporting details. The conditional knowledge
introduced to the students was that the RAP strategy would help students read and write
e^ository text more easily and that note-taking is a lifelong skill required for education,
career, and personal interest.
T/iÿfrTfcfzoM.

In the Grst lesson o f Phase Two, students were introduced to the three

steps of the RAP Strategy using the poster. First, we discussed the steps, then students began

68

memorising the steps, and gnally, all students participated in guided practice (Mothus, 1997).
Each student had a copy o f the text. One paragraph was read orally by me. Next, I modelled
out loud how I would use the RAP poster to guide myself through the steps of RAP by
thinking aloud. I talked my way through Ending the main idea which I then recorded on the
blackboard in my own words and in the format I expected the students to use. Next, I talked
my way through finding each supporting detail. Again I recorded each supporting detail in the
format I expected the students to use. Meanwhile students copied the work from the
blackboard to familiarise themselves with the format. Adherence to format was highly stressed
by indicating main idea sentences on separate lines preceded with the abbreviation MI.
Supporting details followed, each on separate lines, preceded with SD and the number of the
supporting detail (Appendix L). Main ideas and supporting details were expected to be written
in complete sentences. On the second paragraph, the class worked together orally developing
the main ideas and supporting details which were recorded on the blackboard by me and
copied by the students. To end the first lesson, students worked in pairs, taking turns
recording their main ideas and supporting details while I circulated assisting students when
necessary. The work was collected at the end o f the lesson to be marked for feedback by the
next day. Subsequent lessons in RAP followed much the same format as the first lesson. The
amount of modelling I did varied as I preferred generating RAPs with input from the students.
At times, however, I felt it was again necessary to model a paragraph to reveal my
inner-dialogue as I enacted the RAP Strategy.
Because students found establishing the main idea difhcult, declarative knowledge was
introduced and fi-equently reviewed to help make finding the main idea more concrete. Three

69

tactics were given to establishing the main idea: (a) Look at the Srst sentence as it is often the
main idea; (b) Use repeated words to form the main idea sentence; and (c) Ask yourself "In
one sentence, what is this paragraph about?"
jagMMigMA.

Once students appeared to be familiar with the RAP strategy, they were

expected to complete RAP independently. The assignments were expected to be completed
during class time to encourage on-task behaviour. Students were given the criteria that to
enter Phase Three they had to achieve 80% on their RAPs three times in a row. The 80%
originates from the criteria of the original Paraphrasing Strategy (Schumaker et al, 1984) for
achieving mastery, and the three times was an arbitrary number set by me to help establish
consistent performance by students. Over time, students' differential rates of progress became
apparent so students proceeded to Phase Three at different times throughout the course of the
unit. When students reached the criteria of 80% three times in a row on their RAPs, they
graduated to Phase Three.
jMP j'frofggy TMotgnu/j uwf aMg&Kmcwt.
Steck-Vaughn Comprghe/ZHOM

The paragraph materials, again hom the

6'gngf (Sharpe, 1992) were, at hrst, Gve single unrelated

paragraphs per assignment (as were used in the key word searches in Phase One). The
students used these paragraphs to practice hnding the hve main ideas o f hve unrelated
paragraphs. Next, students were introduced to Gve paragraph articles (see Appendix D) which
were intended to resemble and introduce students to a report.
Assessment o f the students' RAPs was accomplished using the RAP Mark Sheet
(Aj)pendixE) adapted 6omThe Paraphrasing Strategy (Schumakefs et al., 1984). The
assessment sheet was divided into sections o f one main idea and three supporting details per

70

paragraph so each sentence could be separately marked and analysed. Each main idea was
given a mark o f 1 far correct or 0 for incorrect. Half marks were taken away if end
punctuation was not used, or the sentence was incomplete. Each supporting detail was given a
mark o f 1 for correct or 0 for incorrect with half marks taken away 5)r incorrect sentence
structure. The form showed a subtotal for main idea out of 5, a subtotal for supporting details
out of 15, a total score out o f 20, and a Gnal percent correct. (This scoring 5)rm weights the
supporting details more heavily than the main ideas. This is appropriate for students first
learning the RAP strategy as students appear to have more difficulty paraphrasing main ideas
than they do supporting details.) In addition, the mark sheet indicated 8 descriptors of errors;
incomplete, inaccurate, new information, repetitive, unmeaningful, not useful, too general,
and plagiarised. Thus the students received both empirical and descriptive feedback.
Phase Three: Report-writing
Phase Three was the least teacher-directed segment of the report-writing unit, although
each lesson still began with whole class discussions to review declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge. Once students entered this phase, the structure was much more
determined by each individual student and instruction was essentially individualised.
When students first entered Phase Three, they memorised the PAR poster (Put details
into categories, Ask what the main ideas are, Record the main idea and supporting details in
paragraphs using your own words) and received a small group or individualised lesson fi"om
me on its meaning. Students then were expected to independently select a topic, choose one
source, use the RAP Strategy to take notes on the source, and follow the PAR Strategy to
complete a first draft o f a report. Declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge was

71

provided by me or other knowledgeable students on a "need to know" basis. In other words,
when students perceived they could not proceed without more in&rmation, they were
expected to ask questions and get help. In addition, as I circulated, I checked R)r
understanding and gave mini-lessons on the spot as required.
The new declarative knowledge for Phase Three related to the following
topics: (a) the meaning o f the steps of PAR, (b) types o f sources &)r research, (c) the text
structure of a report, an introductory paragraph, body paragraphs, and a conclusion
paragraph, and (d) the steps of writing a report within the framework of the writing process.
There was new procedural information about how to RAP text that was not a controlled set of
five paragraphs. Up to this point, students were accustomed to doing a RAP on every
paragraph of a structured five paragraph article. This required stating five main ideas and three
supporting details per main idea. Since students were now expected to choose two sources,
their RAPs were guided by the information they wished to include in their report. This meant
as they read text, students could exclude unnecessary paragraphs and combine paragraphs
with similar or related main ideas. Generally, students' sources were also o f a higher reading
level which often exposed them to lengthier, more detailed paragraphs. Students were
encouraged to list as many supporting details, beyond the required three, per main idea as they
wished
TwfrncizoM.

Once students could show me their Phase Three RAPs, I introduced

them individually or in small groups to the PAR strategy which is the reorganisation o f their
notes to serve as an outline for their first draft o f the report. At this point, students were asked
to consider whether some main ideas and related supporting details could be blended to form

72

a new, more encompassing main idea and were asked to rearrange their main ideas and
accompanying supporting details into a logical order for the body o f their report. Once the
student had completed a hrst draA of the body of their reports, they received individual or
small group instruction on adding an introduction (grab, thesis statement, deGnition of topic,
and "road map" of main ideas) and a conclusion (restatement o f "roadmap" of main ideas and
a concluding impact statement) to fulEll the text structure requirements o f a report. Students'
drafts were not expected to be in "good copy" form but were expected to be legible enough
for me to read and score. After their first draft was scored, students received a mini-lesson
based on improving their reports. This then allowed for an editing phase followed by a
proof-reading phase of their reports. The students had the choice of publishing the report on
the computer, if they wished, for inclusion in a class publication. A suggested time line for
students to complete a report was two weeks. After students had completed one report using
two sources for their report, they were required, for their second report, to use three sources.
This was to expose students to the processes of checking discrepancies of facts, combining
similar information, and making choices about what information to limit when too many 6cts

were available.
At this point in the report-writing intervention, it is important to note that students were
either in Phase Two (structured RAP) or Phase Three (independent RAP and PAR). Because
of the range of student activities and the individualised nature ofPhase Three, I implemented
Atwell's (1987) concept o f atoAty

(Ae cAzM which is approximately a 3 minute procedure

requiring students to state what they will be working on. Students either stated their task as
doing RAP or stated which phase o f the writing process they were in.

occured at the

73

end o f the class discussion just prior to entering the independent work phase o f the lesson. As
the students settled after

I circulated to help students, both in Phase Two or Phase

Three. Even if students appeared not to require assistance, I made myself available to allow
students to approach me with questions or requests for help.
EÆR .ÿfrafggy

Because some students were still working

on Phase Two (RAP), I had a collection of articles that students were expected to proceed
through until they reached the intended criteria. Thus, students still in Phase Two also began
working at their own pace. Upon completing an article, students received the next article to
RAP until they reached the intended criteria and could graduate to Phase Three. Students in
Phase Three were encouraged to find their own sources at the school library or on the
Internet; however. I, and a classroom assistant, had compiled and organised by topic a wide
variety of materials that were placed in file folders in a banker's box. This compilation was to
ensure that students would have access to materials even when the library was not available or
when students stated, "I don't know what to write about!" Students could either use these
materials as sources for their reports or use the collection to find a topic o f interest. To ensure
that reading difhculties would not be the cause for lack o f writing, passages o f a variety of
reading levels were compiled fi^om a wide variety o f sources. This procedure was based on
Mothus's (1997) ongoing compilation o f reading materials for instructional purposes.
All reports produced during the instructional intervention period were collected and
scored using the Report Assessment Form (Appendix F) based on the British Columbia
Nfinistry of Education Writing Performance Standards. The assessment form was intended to
be ad^table as instruction progressed. The assessment form allows for certain criteria to be

74

weighted heavier, lighter, or be completely eliminated from the scoring process depending
upon the focus o f instruction.
Do&f Co/ZectfOM

There were eight sources for data collection: (a) the students' classroom assignments
and related evaluations, (b) the students' written rejections 6om their learning logs, (c) the
students' preassessment and postassessment RAP strategy, (d) the students' preassessment and
postassessment reports, (e) the student questionnaire, (f) archival records (student files), and
(g) my field notes and day book.
Data were collected for three purposes. The first purpose of data collection was to
evaluate and document student performance, to provide students with regular feedback, and
to report to parents. The data used for this purpose were daily class assignments and learning
logs. This is part of my usual work as a teacher. The second purpose of data collection was to
inform my decision-making and actions as a teacher during the note-taking/report-writing unit.
The data used for this were the daily class assignments, learning logs, and my field notes. The
third purpose o f data collection was specifically for poststudy analysis and synthesis. All data
were examined as part o f the analysis after the intervention was complete, but the
preassessment, the postassessment, the student questionnaire, and student archival records
were collected specifically for poststudy analysis. Following are descriptions of what data
were collected, how they were collected, and my rationale for including these data in the
study. (Note that I have already included descriptions of the classroom assignments earlier in
this paper as they were an integral part o f describing the note-taking/report-wiiting unit, so I
will not repeat those descriptions here.)

75

I have always used personal journals in my writing program as they are the mainstay of
spontaneous writing. On the other hand, I only recently began to include learning logs in my
writing program as a result o f recognising the needs o f my students to be given time to reflect
upon their learning and my own needs to better understand the thinking processes of my
students not revealed in regular classroom assignments. I view learning logs as a form o f a
personal journal; yet, they are more structured as they are intended for students to
communicate about their thinking, learning, or understanding rather than being a pure "free
write." (I had students write in prose for this study, but learning logs are ideal places to
employ brainstorming webs, Venn diagrams, flow charts, and other forms of information
organisers as well.) In this study, students were assigned learning log entries on the following
three topics; note-taking, the RAP Strategy, and completing a report card on me. The topics
were written on the board and students were given the guidelines to reflect on past, present,
and future implications of their learning. Even though the students received a mark for the
learmng log entries during class time, the purpose for the study was to gain qualitative data.

The preassessment utilized two ûve paragraph source articles entitled "Spiders"
(v^pendix D) and "Black Widow Spiders." Students were required to state the main idea and
three supporting details for each paragraph and then combine the two articles into a single hve
paragraph report. The "Black Widow" article was &om the Steck-Vaughn
jkngf (Sharpe, 1992), and I wrote the matching "Spiders" source article based on a
combination of sources. I perceived the topic of spiders to be somewhat 6miliar and of

76

possible interest to all my students and a neutral topic in terms o f gender. The Grst article was
a general introduction to the topic of spiders. The second article was much more specihc
subject withiu that topic.
Other than the instructions provided (Appendix I), no hirther information or directives
were provided. The only assistance I offered students was if they required me to read for
them; otherwise, when they requested help with procedure I said, "Do what you feel is
correct. I want to find out what you can do all on your own. "
As the preassessment was lengthy, and I estimated that the students might require
approximately an hour for each section, the preassessment was scheduled with a lunch break
in between. Students were given until the end of the day to complete the assessment. No
further extensions were given. As this was not a timed assessment, I did not document the
completion time o f students.
Ordinarily, in keeping with my usual instructional approach within the classroom, I
would have scored the preassessments immediately to ascertain the abilities of my student. I
made the decision, however, to score the preassessments after the completion of the study
along with the postassessments so that my scoring would be based on the same criteria for
both pre and postassessments. I also hoped to be open-minded about individual students'
potential to learn the expository writing strategies by delaying the evaluation o f their
preassessment reports.
The postassessment was intended to be as close a duplication to the preassessment as
possible with only a change o f topic &om spiders to cacti. The source articles, entitled "Cacti"
(Appendix D) and "Saguaro Cactus" were again chosen with thought to the familiarity,

77

interest, and gender o f my students. Again the Grst preassessment source article was a general
introduction to the topic, and the second article was a more speciBc subject within that topic.
The "Saguaro Cactus" article was taken 6om the Steck-Vaughn ComprgAemroM
(Sharpe, 1992), and I wrote the second article based on a combination o f sources. In the Erst
section, students were intructed to list the main idea and three supporting details for each
paragraph in complete sentences. In the second section, students were instructed to organise
and combine the information from the two articles into a single five paragraph report.
Administration of the postassessment was conducted in the same manner as the
preassessment. Students began the assessment an hour before lunch, were given a lunch break
of 45 minutes, and resumed the assessment immediately after lunch. The students were given
as much time as they required after lunch, but no further extensions were given beyond that
day. Students were not expected to do a good copy given the time and the workload required
for each assessment.

Using a questionnaire (Appendix I) to gather data, was a decision I made at the latter
end o f the study. I developed four open ended questions and published one question per page
leaving a generous space on each page ft)r responses. The purpose o f the questionnaire was to
collect a variety of student responses reflecting cognitive information, metacognitive
information, and attitude about the note-taking/report-writing unit. The questionnaire was
administered by an alternate person, which was not originally intended. I was required to be
absent fi"om school and, nevertheless, decided to proceed with the administration o f the
questionnaire. A substitute teacher, who was completely unaware o f the study and its

78

contents, administered and collected the questionnaires. Instructions for the administration of
the questionnaire were left for the substitute teacher. Students were to sit in test formation
(rows) and were e)q)ected to work quietly. Students were to be given as much time as
required within the 90 minute block of language arts with no further extensions. Once the
students had completed the questionnaires, they were instructed to hand in the questionnaire
and read quietly while remaining students completed the questionnaire. As 6 r as notes &om
the substitute teacher revealed, this procedure was followed.
Daybook and Field Notes
My teacher daybook was the record of the chronology and day-to-day activities of the
study. It is there that I tracked when and how concepts were to be introduced, what materials
were to be covered, and how students were to be grouped or regrouped. In contrast, was my
field log which was completely reflective in nature. The entries were not done daily, as were
the teacher daybook entries, but rather on my need to untangle ideas, solve problems, or
reflect on specific incidents.
Da&fvdnofyaf
Data analysis is inherent in the split second decision-making o f teachers —most of
which goes virtually unrecorded as the teacher works with her students. The diSerence
between doing regular classroom data analysis and data analysis for a study such as this one is
the depth o f the quantitative data analysis, the fine detail of the qualitative data analysis, and
the corresponding time required to elicit this depth and detail. There were two distinct phases
of data analysis in this study. The first phase was the necessary ongoing analysis that occured
while immersed in the note-taking/report-writing unit, and the second phase was the in-depth,

79

poststudy analysis.

Preparing my daybook and writing in my 6eld journal was ongoing data
analysis as I was responding to the performance o f my students and the events in the
classroom. At times, I could barely contain my thought processes. At other times there was
a lull. My held log was often my testing ground or, on a more negative note, a self-criticism of
my performance. The impetus for many of my entries was conflict within me. The journalling
process was a dynamic, problem solving endeavour in which I tried to regain a sense of
equilibrium by seeking or committing to a decision or solution. Students' misunderstandings,
errors, descriptions of their unique tactics, and interpretations were informative data that had
an impact on my decisions about pacing, timetabling, student grouping, and general progress
through the note-taking/report-writing unit.
Refinement o f the Report Assessment Form.

Another result of the ongoing data

analysis was my refinement of the Report Assessment Form (Compare Appendices F and G)
based on the British Columbia Ministry of Education Writing Performance Standards. The
Writing Performance Standards are four level rubrics to rate students on meaning, style, form
and conventions. At Level 1, the student's performance dbgf Mot meet engrecfofroTK. At Level
2, the student' performance ynmzMo/Zy mget; eagrgcAzffow. At Level 3, the student's
performancez»gg(Y gi^zgcAztfow. At Level 4, the student's performance gxcggdk
gapgcturzow. Because the rubrics are criterion based and suggest that learning is
developmental, I found the four level rubric to be appropriate for assessment within a strategy
instruction approach. However, there were two aspects o f the original informative report

80

rubric that I wanted to modi^. I found the rubric to be too general to inform either me or my
students o f the specihc criteria related to report-writing. In addition, Air establishing letter
grades for report cards, I required scores which could not be generated Aom the rubric.
As I gained experience with students' end-products in the note-taking/report-writing
unit, I began to modify the original rubric. My goals were to; (a) add a section to assess the
use of the writing process, (b) add more specific descriptors related to the text structure of an
informative report, (c) create a numerical scoring system, and (d) add a column to allow for
the weighting o f scores as related to instruction. First, I developed descriptors for the writing
process to emphasise the importance of procedure rather than just end-product. Second, I
included more precise vocabulary specific to report-writing. The refined descriptors were
effective prompts for me to maintain consistency while marking. Third, I assigned five
potential marks for each criteria for easy conversion to a percent.
I established that Level 1 (not yet meeting expectations) meant showing absolutely no
evidence of the intended criteria and would receive 0/5 (0%). If a student showed evidence
but was still not minimally meeting expectations, I used a Level 1.5 (descriptors would be a
combination of Level 1 and Level 2) which would be close to but less than a pass (50%).
Level 1.5 therefore scored 2/5 (40%). Level 2 (wzm/TKf/fy meeriMg eagpecAzrionf) received 3/5
(60%). Level 2.5 received 3.5/5 (70%). Level 3

/weeringcr/tena) received 4/5 which

also corresponded nicely with the 80% level that Schumaker et al. considered mastery in the
Par^hrasing Strategy (1984). Level 3.5 received 4.5/5 (90%). Level 4 (excgggBwg
ejçwcAf/fOMg) received 5/5 (100%).
Attempting to assign a value to qualitative descriptors reaffirmed for me the

81

di&culties o f assigning scores and letter grades to students' writing that may be best described
quabtatively. Statistically, it may bave been more eSective to bave used a continuous scale
rather than a categorical one with &ur levels. However, I wanted to maintain consistency with
the BC Ministry of Education. Thus, my scoring system has weaknesses when translating the
four level rubric to scores out o f bve, percent, and logical letter grades. The intervals are
unequal as are the school district's intervals of letter grades (F from 0% to 49%, C- from 50%
to 59%, C from 60% to 66%, C+ from 67% to 72%, B from 73% to 85%, and A from 86%
to 100%). There are the two extremes of 0/5 {does not meet expectations) and 5/5 {exceeds
expectations) which creates an assessment that "marks hard," because effort is not accounted
for if the criterion is not evident. In addition, some criterion, such as the introduction,
contained four sub-criteria all of which had to be met to exceed expectations. What was usefiil
about translating the rubric into a percent, were the indications of small changes in scores that
a four level rubric could not capture. In addition, I found I was able to derive scores that
could be translated to reasonable letter grades based on instruction. If no instruction occured,
a section could be weighted as 0 or as not applicable. The assessment form I began the study
with and used throughout the study is found in Appendix F. My frnal version which evolved
during the study and still further during the poststudy phase is found in Appendix G. The
assessment form, although only one page, represents a great deal o f my own learning as I
experienced and refrected upon the cognitive and metacognitive functioning o f my Grade 6/7
students.

The poststudy scoring and data analysis process occured over the lengthy time frame of

82

eight months. The second phase of poststudy analysis was a hve step process: (a) organising
the data, (b) comparing preassessment results to postassessment results, (c) documenting
patterns o f understandings, behaviours, and end-products o f my students, (d) analysing data
6 om all sources for themes related to strategy instruction and the writing process ^proach,
and (e) synthesising the findings for an holistic interpretation of what occured in my classroom
while using a strategy instruction approach for teaching note-taking
and report-writing.
Organisation.

The first step of the poststudy data analysis was the organisational

phase. Because I was going to analyse the data without a computer programme, I needed an
efficient retrieval system. Related data were compiled in binders depending upon the nature of
the data collection. Student data were organized in alphabetical order by the students' last
names (which were further organized chronologically). Assessment and questionnaire data
were separated from classroom assignments. Teacher data were organized chronologically and
assigned page numbers.
m fAe jure u

W

P

r

i

o

r

to the onset o f the instructional

unit, I had decided to score both the pre and postassessments after the completion of the study
using the most current revisions of the assessment forms. My goal was to remain as consistent
as possible between pre and postassessments. Over several consecutive days, I began by
scoring the note-taking section of both the pre and postassessments using the RAP Mark
Sheet (Appendix E). The first round of scoring was a quick, instinctive process familiarising
me with the students' products and yielding a total score out of 20. There was a subscore for
the five required main ideas out of five and a subscore for the required fiAeen supporting

83

details out o f Sfteen. Each main idea and each supporting detail received either a score of 1
for correct or a score o f 0 for incorrect. The RAP Mark Sheet also contained an error analysis
section for each supporting detail error. During the Grst scoring phase o f RAP, I established
criteria to ensure I was objective and consistent: (a) I did not count grammar, punctuation,
and spelling errors; (b) I did not require complete sentences as long as each main idea and
supporting detail was clearly evident; (c) I did not require students to present their work in the
RAP structure that was later learned in class; (d) I defined plagiarism as copying any five
words in a row from the source article. A plagiarism resulted in a score of 0 for that particular
main idea or supporting detaU. (I realize that five words in a row is an arbitrary, simplified
standard for the complex issue of plagiarising; however, fi"om my experience with the students'
copying, I found that five exact words signalled copying rather than a need for standard
English usage.)
The second scoring phase of the RAP sections of the pre and postassessments occured
one month later over a period of several consecutive days. The purpose was to establish final
marking criteria and to deliberate carefully over each main idea and supporting detail entry.
This phase of assessment required much more time and reflection. In addition, I added to the
results by doing an error analysis of each incorrect main idea.
The third scoring of the note-taking sections o f the pre and postassessment occured
one month later over a period of several consecutive days. The third scoring utilised all the
same criteria and was considered a "safety check" for objectivity and accuracy. I wanted to be
sure that even with the passing of time my personal scoring resulted in the same score. Where
the score varied slightly, I re-examined the criteria to make a final decision.

84

Æzferf.

The fourth and Gnal scoring of the RAP section introduced two additional

raters for main idea development. I felt that the check-recheck method o f assessment was
reliable and sufScient for the supporting details which required paraphrasing o f any three
6 cts; however, paraphrasing main ideas is more complex and open to interpretation, and I
wanted to ensure a degree of objectivity. First, each rater was given the two source articles
(about spiders) &om the preassessment and the two source articles (about cacti) 6om the
postassessment. The raters were asked to record the main idea for each paragraph
independently. The two raters and I then met to compare our main ideas. When one of the
other rater's main idea matched mine, my main idea was accepted. When no main ideas
matched mine, the main idea was rejected. A discussion then ensued between the raters and
me to establish a new main idea. We then returned to the pre and postassessments of only
those paragraphs where my main idea had been rejected. The raters and I jointly reassessed
the note-taking o f eighteen of the 24 students' pre and postassessments. I completed the
reassessment of the remaining six assessments based on the new criteria and adjusted any
scores accordingly.
Error

The hnal analysis o f the hrst section o f the pre and postassessment

was to tally errors. I also analysed the presentation o f the information o f the four assessment
articles (Spiders, Black Widow Spiders, Cacti, and Saguaro Cactus) to ascertain whether
certain text structures were easier or more difhcult for the students to process based on the
patterns of errors. I identiSed whether the main idea was stated or implicit in each paragraph,
identi&ed where the main idea, if stated, was positioned within the paragraph, and counted the
number of possible supporting details that could be derived 6om each paragraph.

85

(gMüMAAzfh'e mefAodk

I used t-tests to compare the readability levels o f the articles.

The t-tests were used to determine whether the scores 6om the two articles o f the
preassessment could be combined as one total score and the scores hom the two articles of
the postassessment could be combined as one total score. The articles were compared based
on total number of words, number o f muhi-syllabic words, sentence length, and the number of
compound sentences. A t-test was also done to compare the preassessment articles to the
postassessment articles to determine if they were significantly different in readability. When it
was determined that there was no significant difference between the readability of any of the
four articles, the scores from the two articles in the preassessment were combined yielding a
total out o f 40 and the two scores from the postassessment were combined yielding a total out
o f 40.
Once each student had a preassessment note-taking score and postassessment
note-taking score, I used t-tests to compare the total scores. I was interested to see whether
student gains could be considered significant. I did further t-tests using main idea subscores
and supporting detail subscores between the pre and postassessments to determine whether
students performed significantly differently on restating main ideas or supporting details.

fwfAer odkp&zfzoM

û K s g & s m e m f For scoring the preassessment and

postassessment reports, I again modified the Report Assessment Form (.«^pendix H) for three
main reasons. First, the assessment situation controlled the genre, the topic, the audience, and
the time fimne for wofik completion meaning my students' choices were limited. Therefore, I
eliminated three sections: purpose, audience, and publishing. Second, I wanted my analysis to

86

focus pnmarily on elements for which my students had received explicit instruction.
Therefore, I further eliminated the three sections of sentence structure, conventions, and
proof-reading. Finally, I eliminated the editing section because o f the time factor o f the
assessments and because if editing did improve the text structure, higher scores were usually
already achieved in another section. I weighted the scores according to the emphasis the
criteria received during instruction. Sections that highly corresponded to direct and explicit
instruction and required consistent effort throughout the paper were weighted more heavily.
For instance, including main ideas and supporting details, using specialized vocabulary related
to the topic, and organising the paragraphs according to main idea and supporting details were
weighted the heaviest. Thus, the assessment version of the Report Assessment Form scored
meaning out of 30, style out of 15, form out of 35, and process out of 20 for a total of 100.
In the first phase of scoring the reports, I read through and rated (based on initial
impression) all preassessment and postassessment reports using the rubric descriptors on the
Report Assessment Form (Appendix H). My intention was to familiarise myself with the range
of end-products and to clari^ and consolidate in my own mind baselines for «of /neeAMg

Once I completed the first phase o f scoring, I began supplementing the descriptors on
the Report Assessment Form with criteria I could count. First, I established that five
paragraphs (an introduction, 3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion) would meet expectations
for a report. A^fithin the body paragraphs, I expected a stated or in&rred main idea connecting
a minimum of three supporting details. (Students were not required to place their main idea
sentences in a particular location in their paragraphs, nor were they required to include a main

87

idea sentence if the information supported an implicit main idea. Part o f the instruction of
developing paragraphs was that different authors compose paragraphs difkrently and can
signify author style.) A minimum expectation was that each paragraph would contain four
sentences. Within each sentence, I could expect at least two words to be specialized
vocabulary. Within a paragraph, I could expect approximately two words to be transition
words. In the second phase of scoring, I counted and recorded occurrences of main ideas,
supporting details, specialised vocabulary, number of paragraphs, and number of words. (See
Appendix J for a detailed description of my scoring procedures.) Based on my counts, I then
adjusted any scores where my first impression appeared too low or high compared to the
counts.
The counts I applied after the first phase of scoring is much more rigid and time
consuming than I would typically use for regular classroom assessment. In addition, counts
such as those described above may not take into consideration unique language choices and
creative expression. However, there are two main reasons that I scored the assessments rigidly
for this study: (a) I wanted to maintain a degree of objectivity by being consistent fi'om
preassessment to postassessment. I prefer certain styles o f writing which I did not want to
prejudice my scoring; and (b) One purpose o f this study was to focus on the text structure of a
report. Text structure can be formulaic and can sustain some rigidity when being assessed. For
example, I initially provided students with information about text structure that could be
written as the formula: mtrodkcizoM +

+ co/zcA/ao» = rtpo/Y.

The final step was to have a second rater score the assessment reports. Approximately
30% percent of the reports (16 out o f a total o f 48) were randomly chosen by drawing eight

88

student names 6om a pool for preassessment reports and eight student names for
postassessment reports. A gender quota o f eight females and eight males was reached by
discarding a draw and redrawing until the quota had been hlled. The rater was given a
summary o f my criteria (Appendix J) . Rather than going through the lengthy process of
scoring that I did, the rater was not required to do the detailed counts that I had done but was
to be guided by the assessment form, past experience, and my summary o f the criteria. The
rater was given five practice reports which he scored and we then discussed. When the rater
felt ready, he scored the sixteen anonymous samples. The interrater reliability ranged from
86% to 100%. Interrater reliability was calculated using the formula: lower score / higher
score X 100.
Qualitative Data Analysis
My method of analyzing the data was primarily inductive as I was inferring from specific
data whether my instructional methods for promoting RAP and PAR Strategy enactment
could be considered effective or ineffective. Evidence of effectiveness were gains in scores,
improved quality of student performance, positive or insightful student comments, and
evidence from my field notes that my methods engaged students. Evidence of ineffectiveness
were little to no gains in scores, little to no growth in the quality o f student performance,
student criticisms, and evidence in my records that lessons had not gone well.
Afier organising the data fiar ef&ctive retrieval as mentioned earlier in this chapter, I
created a grid, or checklist, to document evidence o f the students' comments. The students'
names were listed vertically on the left, and spaces were leA blank horizontally across the top.
As I read through the first student's written comments, I recorded, across the top of the

89

checklist, each new topic as I encountered it. I recorded positive/neutral or negative
comments in two ways. Either, I used a checkmark to indicate a positive/neutral comment and
an X for a negative comment within one column, or I used two columns for a single topic, one
for a record o f the positive/neutral comments and one far the record o f the negative
comments. Each subsequent student's comments were analysed using the existing checklist of
topics. If new topics emerged, they were added to the checklist. A blank space indicated that a
student had made no comment about the topic. I continued this system when analysing my
field notes; however, the checklist recorded the page numbers of my field notes vertically on
the left (rather than the students' names) with the same blank spaces for topics across the top.
Using this checklist system, I could see at a glance the frequency of comments as well as trace
the comments to their precise location.
Once all data were categorised by topic, I found commonalties that linked the topics
according to the broader themes I had deductively derived from the strategy instruction
literature. The themes were intended to answer my research questions surrounding students'
knowledge and personal experiences, my teaching methods, and what I perceived to he
evidence o f cognitive and metacognitive ftmctioning.

In the first section of this chapter I describe the site, the participants, the duration oi^
and the nature o f instruction and assessment o f the note-taking/report-writing unit. The
intention o f this section was to emphasize that this study occured in a natural school setting,
included a typical range of students, and described my primary role as a regular classroom
teacher. In the second section o f this chapter, I describe my methodology surrounding data

90

collection and analysis. I summarised the sources o f data and distinguished between the
ongoing data analysis in keeping with my role as teacher and the poststudy data analysis in
keeping with my role as researcher. The data are student scores, descriptors of student
performance, student narratives, and my own teacher narratives; all o f which were cross
re&renced to develop themes for discussion. In the following two chapters, I have chosen to
combine results and a discussion o f those results. Chapter Four focuses primarily on the
progress o f the students, and Chapter Five focuses primarily on my reflections and
interpretations of my role and performance as a teacher enacting a strategy instruction model.

90
CHAPTER FOUR
Results and Discussion of Student Progress

TntrofAfcfzon
The results and related discussions are presented in Chapters Four and Five. Chapter
Four is largely a discussion of the results of students' end-products, whereas, in Chapter Five,
I present my observations of the classroom environment and discuss the processes that
occured during the note-taking/report-writing unit. In each section of this chapter, I
summarize a set of results which I then immediately interpret and discuss. Next, I explain the
decisions I made as a teacher and a researcher to contextualise the results I am presenting.
Following that, I discuss the learners' in terms of a taxonomy of student development. I
present the data in four parts; a) keyword identification, b) progress using the RAP strategy,
c) progress using the PAR strategy, and d) evidence of metacognition.
Overall Student Progress Through the Report-writing Unit
The instructional phase of this study occured over 13 weeks. As a strategy instruction
approach was new to me, I initially only outlined my unit plan in the most general of ways
when deciding upon the order o f instruction. As both the keyword and RAP sections were
criteria-based rather than time-based, I was unsure how long each instructional phase would
last. In Appendix K, I have summarised the sequence of instruction that developed over the
course of the study. Although the exact time fi-ame o f the unit was not established in advance,
I was able to communicate to the students what the expectations were for completion times of
assignments. During the keyword phase, within one lesson I expected students to read five
unrelated paragraphs and list the key words. During the RAP phase, I again expected students

91
to read Gve paragraphs and complete a related RAP 6)r each paragraph. (Some students did
not reach this criterion but only completed 3 paragraphs in a lesson.) During the note-taking
and report-writing phase, I expected students to choose a topic, End sources, read and take
notes on the sources, reorganise the notes, and complete a draA within 2 to 3 weeks (9
lessons) depending upon the depth the students wanted to attain in their reports.
Although progress through the note-taking/report-writing unit followed an instructional
sequence, students met the criteria in their own time. Students created their own pace based
on capability, ability to self regulate, collaboration with peers, and motivation. There were,
however, clusters of students that progressed at similar paces; therefore, instructional groups
could be formed based on like needs. These instructional groups varied depending upon the
students' needs at different times. First, the whole class remained as one group during the
identification and categorisation of key words and during partner work enacting the RAP
Strategy. Once students began working independently on RAP assignments, one group of nine
met the RAP criteria (three scores in a row meeting or exceeding 80%) within three or four
lessons and graduated to the more independent report-writing phase. A second group o f four
students met the RAP criteria by the seventh assignment. A third group o f six students did not
ever meet the RAP criteria o f 80% but, nevertheless, began the steps o f writing a report near
the end o f the study. This latter group of students continued to practice the RAP Strategy
during the independent work phase of each lesson.
By the end o f the unit, fiaur students had not handed in a completed report but were
either in the process o f gathering materials, reading about their topic, taking notes in RAP
form, or drafting. Nine students handed in one report and were working on their second

92
report. Seven students handed in two reports and were working on their third. Five students
handed in three reports.

At the time of the instruction, I was generally satisGed with the my students' learning.
However, afterwards as I documented the students' progress for analysis, I became more
aware o f how time and scores weakened the evidence o f progressthat I believed I had seen. I
spoke to a colleague of my doubts, and she asked, "How did you feel at the time you were
making your decisions?" Through our subsequent interchange, I was reminded that one of my
purposes in doing this study was to reflect on my problem solving and decision making with
the insights of hindsight vision. I had to come to terms with the idea that the decision making I
made during the study created the "mistakes" I later regretted. On the other hand, the
"mistakes" were the impetus for new learning. Thus, I view the "mistakes" with mixed feelings
because of the role they play in my becoming a more effective teacher.
Three criticisms regarding my students' overall progress can be made that I will
introduce and discuss here. The first criticism is that I introduced all students to the same
strategies. The second criticism is that the number o f completed reports appears to be a low
number given the duration o f the note-taking/report-writing unit. The third criticism is that
some students only advanced to the report-writing stage o f the unit near the conclusion o f the
study.
6'frofegref.

The first criticism surrounds the issue of what strategies

should be taught to which students. Within strategy instruction, there are those who believe a
strategy should only be taught to those students requiring the strategy (Harris & Graham,

93
1993). On the other hand, Vaughn, Gersten, and Chard (2000), in their meta-analysis of
interventions that included students with LD, &und in all cases that when an intervention
produced gains in students with LD, the gains were as signihcant, and most oAen greater, in
the regular students that had been included in the studies. There always seems to be room for
growth. To put this into context, I asked myself, "Would I benefit from strategy instruction
related to teaching strategies?" Without a doubt in my mind, my learning about teaching
strategies will never end. I have been a learner in many professional development situations,
and I have never walked away with no learning. I believed that my students would refine and
enhance what they already knew. Thus, going into this study, I decided that there would be
times when the whole class would receive the same generic declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge about the writing process; about note-taking and report-writing, and
about the RAP and PAR strategies. My rationale was that although note-taking and
report-writing likely would not be new for any of my students, my teaching approach and the
RAP and PAR strategies would be. Second, I believe that learning to write is developmental
and lifelong, so dif&rent learners focus on dif&rent information even when the lessons are
similar fi"om year to year. Wong et al. (1996) also discovered that diSerent students fiacussed
on difierent information although instruction was deemed to be the same for all students.
What I discovered about the RAP and PAR Strategies was that it provided those students
who already used note-taking and report-writing strategies with the opportunity to seriously
refiect upon, compare, and improve existing strategies. There was only one student who
overtly objected to my expecting her to us the RAP Strategy when she already had a
note-taking strategy in place. She felt RAP organised as main ideas and supporting details was

94
a lot o f w o it compared to her lists o f keywords and phrases. I had the agenda o f my study to
follow, so I hesitated in suggesting to students to modij^ RAP strategy in case its beneGts
would be lost. This was my reductionist tendency o f needing the end-product to look a certain
way. We never resolved our difkrence of opinion, but this student did present her notes in
modiGed RAP form and worked with great diligence throughout the unit.
Productivity. The second criticism may be levelled at the low number of reports that
students produced by the end of the study. If the numbers are compared to the six essays that
Wong and her associates (Wong et al., 1996) had participants complete in six weeks, the
numbers appear low. However, Wong's participants completed essays in approximately 2.5
hours (3 lessons) because they were short (approximately 150 words in length) and contained
information that the students already knew. The nature of the students' compositions in this
study were different than five paragraph essays. There were no restrictions on length because
it was the students' interests that directed what they would include in their reports. The
reports were structured as an introduction paragraph, a set of body paragraphs, and a
conclusion paragraph, but the bodies of their reports could contain as many paragraphs as
they wished. Their reports required substantial time for the process o f research and
note-taking in addition to the draAing and editing o f the end-product. Students required at
least six lessons to find sources, read sources, RAP their sources, organize their notes, and
then drafi their report. Once the up-fi^ont w o it o f note-taking and organising those notes had
been done, the draft o f the reports actually went quickly.
progre&y Zy fWMg ffucknt;. The third criticism is that some students remained
primarily in the RAP stage for the entire unit and only began independent report-writing in the

95
thirteenth week. If I were to repeat this study again, I would 6vour a constructivist approach
in which all levels of students were involved in authentic literacy processes &om the
beginning, while being supported in the areas in which they require further learning or
guidance. This would have allowed my students to apply their knowledge —beyond the
controlled RAP assignments. Englert and Mariage (1991) believe if the writing process is
Augmented for instruction, as is often done for students with LD, these students may have a
hard time conceptualising the "whole" of the writing process. In addition, when using a
constructivist approach, learning is seen as developmental, so inaccuracies and problems that
emerging writers have not yet solved are part of the process of learning to write better no
matter what level they are at (Englert et al, 2001). The negative implication of some students
focussing on the isolated RAP Strategy is that these students were not given very much
opportunity to experience the problem solving that accompanies producing text length papers
(Englert et al., 1988). The belief is that students who do not write well need more rather than
fewer writing experiences, and if writing is seen as a natural, developmental process, students
should be able to participate at whatever level they are able (Manage et al, 2000). As it was, I
followed a reductionist approach by isolating note-taking 6om its purpose —to produce a
report. I also required mastery (80% correct) of the RAP Strategy, as recommended by
Schumaker et al. (1984), before they could graduate to the independent report-writing stage
of the unit. This may have seemed arbitrary to the students. A Bnal potential negative
consequence of keeping a group of students at the RAP stage is the grouping itself
Homogeneous grouping has been found to have negative impacts on students because of
lowered self-esteem, restricted fnendship choices, and longer instruction in areas in which

96
they may be struggling (Vaughn et al., 2000). However, I found the homogenous grouping
was not rigid, and there were beneGts to keeping the tasks and expectations familiar and
structured.
Because o f the nature o f the note-taking/report-writing unit, every student received
some sort o f small group instruction; however, the students with LD received more
instruction from me than any other group. Whenever I worked with a group of students with
LD (the groups were fluid), I practised a new, personal discourse about learning difficulties. I
felt that it was best to admit the difficulties aloud, validate that these difficulties often required
these students to work harder than the others to get their work completed, and that my job
was to help them learn better. I found that in not laying blame, trying to understand their
difficulties, and taking on some of the load myself, I was perceived as a validator and was
more able to motivate my students with LD and in a better position to alter self-defeating
behaviours (Borkowski, 1992). Although the students knew they were not progressing
through the unit at the same rate as other students, by recognizing the demoralising effects
and countering them, I had the opportunity to say, "The way you learn is okay, but it just
might take a little longer, and you just may need more help right now." In addition, the view
that students with LD were isolated ftom the rest o f the class was not physically evident. All
students, regardless of level, participated in the whole-class discussions. Group instruction did
not occur everyday, so all levels o f students were expected to pick up where they had left off
the previous day. All students were ft"ee to choose a location to woik and were ft-ee to move
around the room asking ft)r help. Also, magni^ing the speciftc instruction that occured during
this study, does not highlight the methods that I used throughout the day to encourage all my

97
students to greater levels of independence and responsibility.
This brings me to the point that learning cannot always be gauged on productivity
related to time or end product. At many times in this study, discussion resulted in learning that
was never documented. Unfortunately, in the school system, unnatural expectations o f student
learning occurs because o f unnatural time constraints farcing a desired end product. There
never seems to be enough time to allow students to learn before having to "move on." The
students with LD did make significant gains using the RAP Strategy. The question to consider
is; Would they have made those gains iff had terminated the instruction in favour of a more
constructivist approach? Some researchers believe if "strategies acquired are not practised to a
point of automaticity, the dual demands of learning content plus strategies may result in
students abandoning a particular strategy for a simpler but less effective one" (Meltzer et al.,
2001, p.86). Poplin (1988 b) also states that "people just stop trying to learn things that seem
too difficult for them" (p. 406). However, I observed that my students with LD, with a history
of failure and behaviour issues, made a conscious effort to achieve the goal of advancing from
the RAP stage to the PAR stage. In the end, all students experienced the independent
report-writing stage, although four students did not complete a draft that could be considered
a report. I occasionally had to address behaviour and motivational issues within this study, but
overall, studœts with LD were not passive, they did learn, and I was able to cede more and
more responsibility to students with LD as they moved closer to researching independently a
topic of choice (See also Mothus, 1997).
Finally, the RAP Strategy is a far-reaching strategy integrating reading and writing.
Enacting this strategy gave students the potential to find main ideas and supporting

98
details in any genre of writing and across any content area. Using this strategy, even without
including the report-writing feature of this unit, required a considerable amount o f learning.
As with the Gndings o f De La Paz (1999a) on her work on strategy instruction, I taught RAP
to all students in my class because I viewed it as appropriate for the m^ority of the students,
regardless o f their initial reading and writing abilities.
In the previous section, I summarised the overall progress o f the students in the
note-taking/report-writing unit and presented a rationale for making the instructional choices I
made. I have addressed potential criticisms of my work before the specific results of this
study, so as to establish a context for understanding my results. In the next section, I begin
with a brief rationale of how I classified student responses. This is followed by the results
which are organized into the following sections; a) the introduction to report-writing/keyword
phase b) the RAP strategy phase, c) the PAR strategy during the independent report-writing
phase, and d) evidence of student metacognition.
Ranges o f Student Performance
In the literature, students are fi’equently referred to as low, average, or high achieving
which suggests learning is one-dimensional rather than developmental. Terms such as these
reflect a tendency o f the reductionist perspective, to create deficit models, in which students
are measured on one criterion to determine t^ether their gains are significant or not. In
contrast, I sought descriptors that would have fewer negative implications and that would
capture the potential for children's learning. A taxonomy created by Biggs and CoUis (cited in
the meta-analysis of Hattie et al., 1996) outlines the hierarchical stages through which
students progress when applying a strategy. At the first stage, the

a task

99
is not completed in an appropriate way. At the second stage, the «w&trwcA/ra/ fAage, one
aspect of the task is completed appropriately. At the third stage, the /MM/A-ffrwcAfra/ ftoge,
parts o f the task are completed serially but are not interrelated. At the fourth stage, the
re&rfzona/ fAzge, a task is completed as an integrated whole. At the hfth and jBnal stage, the
oAffrocf fAzge, understandings o f the task are generalised to a higher level. For my
purposes, I used the concept of this taxonomy to create three stages in keeping with the three
levels of knowledge; declarative, procedural, and conditional. I termed the first stage literal.
At this stage, students express declarative knowledge about task performance but do not yet
fully understand or apply the facts. I termed the second stage procedural. At this stage,
students consistently enact the RAP and PAR Strategies but meaningful personal connections
are emerging or not yet evident. I termed the third stage metacognitive. At this stage,
students provide frequent and consistent evidence of their conditional knowledge and their
awareness of themselves as learners in the past, present, and future.
Students' comments, in the following results, were retrieved from the students' learning
logs and final questionnaires. Topics or suggestions for student reflection were provided by
me at the time of the assignments but were intended to encourage open-ended responses and
to encourage reflection upon past, present, and future significances. It is important to note
that students' comments rather than the students themselves were categorised as
demonstrating a literal, procedural, or metacognitive approach to the tasks o f this unit. My
rationale for categorising comments rather than individuals was that dif&rent tasks could elicit
dif&rent levels o f expertise within an individual. In addition, high scorers in the pre and
postassessments were not necessarily metacognitive in their reflections just as low scorers

100
were not necessarily literal in their reflections. Although there were patterns that high scorers
tended to display behaviours that pointed to metacognitive functioning, and low scorers
tended to be more literal, no stage was exclusively represented by high or low scorers. In
addition, when categorising students' comments, I placed each comment within the context of
my observations and knowledge of that student during this study. Thus, there were occasions
when I rated a comment as metacognitive on the basis o f my contextual knowledge of that
student's background thinking and experiences that had lead to his/her remark, even though a
naive rater might not have rated the comment out of its context as metacognitive.
Keyword Activity
During the key word phase of the study, students were expected to read isolated
paragraphs on a variety of non-fiction topics with the intent of categorising key words as
either necessary or author's choice. Some students found categorising words easy and were
able to develop rules for themselves such as proper nouns are necessary or verbs are more
likely to be author's choice. Other students went through a phase of overcategorising words as
author's choice. They would substitute words like plane flyer for pilot or tall plant for tree.
Not only did we have some good laughs over this, but it opened discussions about levels of
sophistication o f writing and what the audience might require. One discussion was about
trying to recognize what the intent o f the author was. Was the paragraph about a commercial
flight where the word CopAmn could be substituted for the word pi/of? The second discussion
was about thinking about the level of the reader. Some students grasped that a very young
audience might better understand the words plane flyer than pilot. In the year following this
study, I changed this activity to include a category called "My Choice." Students had a third

101
column in which they replaced author choice words with words they could substitute to keep
the iniùal intent and integrity of the article.
For some students the keyword exercises and discussions were meaningful and
categorising the keywords was intuitive and automatic. These students may have been
reductionists at heart. For others, perhaps the holists, the exercise was difhcult because all
words sounded or were important to the entire paragraph. Basically, I now view the keyword
activity as an activity that could take place in the part section of whole-part-whole instruction
rather than as the first phase of the unit. The keyword activity isolates a portion of the
possible thinking of an effective paraphraser but in slow motion. An effective paraphraser
automatically in a split second paraphrases a sentence without plagiarising. This activity could
be restricted for use with only those students who are plagiarising and need a tactic when
note-taking to keep from doing so. Also, it could be used as a game to see how many different
ways students paraphrase a paragraph. Despite my reconsiderations of the role of the keyword
lessons in the overall note-taking/report-writing unit, many students appear to have benefited.
Literal: "In the past I have noticed that I plagiarised because no one has taught me how
to find key words."
Procedural: "It taught me to read the paragraph and think of the keywords and see if I
could replace them with my own."
Procedural: "The hardest part o f note-taking is making sure you dont plagiarise. In the
past I could not change a paragr^h into my own words. I did not know which words
you could change or could not change so I did not change any words."
Metacognitive: " I used to plagiarise the author's words thinking they were necessary
because I just didnt understand the difference. Going through the words sentence by
sentence and pick and change words is a great strategy for me because if I go by
sentence and not just focus on the whole paragraph, I can fiacus on each word
individually."

102
AU students within two weeks became more eSective at categorising key words as
necessary words or author's choice words; however, some students still relied on guesswork
and struggled with trying to ident% and categorize key words.
Literal: "The thing I have trouble on is sometimes Tm not sure whether its author's
choice or necessary. I know what the words mean but it dont help."
I suggested that all words are equally important in a sentence so it makes sense, but that
different words have different jobs. We focussed on the keywords, or vocabulary, that teach
us about a topic. My explanations assumed three things: that the students understood which
words were important based on the original intent of the passage, that the students had
enough knowledge of a topic to be able to substitute words, and that they had a ready list of
synonyms. Broken down this way, what initially seemed like a simple activity of highlighting
key words became a complex system of knowledge that was difficult to make explicit. I could
not capture in my instruction the automatized knowledge that one has about what words are
important, what words are necessary vocabulary, or what words are the author's choice. Nor
did I ever elicit the explanation from students who were having difficulty beyond, "I just don't
get it." If a student was at this level o f ffustration, I would typically focus on the behaviours
that the student had or had not enacted such as, "Have you read the passage?" or "Have you
highlighted the words you think are important in this paragraph?" Then I would work with the
students by guiding them through the activity and having them describe what they were doing
and why? Perhaps the time would have been better spent eliciting the thoughts and emotions
of the student, rather than focussing on the end product, until I really understood how they
were processing the paragraph in ffont of them. That way instead o f moulding the child to my

103
way o f thinlcing, I could have moulded the task to ût the thinking o f the student.

The whole purpose o f the RAP Strategy was to be able to restate an author's words as
main ideas and supporting details. Initially, I presented a rigid structure for presenting RAP.
(See Samples 1, 2, and 3 o f Appendix L.) The main idea, abbreviated #1 MI, was to be
restated in one complete sentence followed by three supporting details stated in three separate
and complete sentences, abbreviated as SD 1, SD 2, and SD 3. Most students maintained this
format even during the independent phase of report-writing. Sixteen of 25 students in the
postassessment still used the abbreviations M I for main idea and D or SD for supporting detail
as was introduced during instruction of the RAP Strategy. Other students kept the format the
same but left out the abbreviations and numbers for main idea and supporting detail.
Declarative Knowledge and Discourse Development
The students and I began to use a common language (paragraph, main idea, supporting
detail, plagiarism) in our discourse of note-taking. According to Mariage et al. (2000) all
students can become part o f a literacy community by being given a common language to
discuss text and to dialogue with one another. It was not a struggle to teach the vocabulary
because it was integrated into our everyday work and discussions. Over time, vocabulary use
devdoped naturally. Students went ft"om pointing at parts of the paragraph and saying, "This
here," to saying, "I think this sentence is the main idea." or "Can we combine these two
paragraphs because these sentences are just more supporting details." Students were able to
summarize, at various levels o f sophistication, their declarative and procedural knowledge of

104
the RAP strategy. Many students had a strong 6miliarity with and used vnth ease the working
vocabulary we had developed throughout the unit such as nofe-Aztzng, parogrcpA;, /nom
fdleo, and

dig&nk.

Literal - "I have learned how to do RAP. I have learned how to do PAR. RAP has
showed me how to take notes. PAR has showed me how to put my notes into
paragraph."
Procedural - "RAP is a simplihed way to remember how to take notes. RAP is easy
because the main idea is what your paragraph is about and the supporting details help
explain the main idea."
Metacognitive - "To find the main idea it sometimes may be in the first sentence but
some authors like to put a grab there first. If the main ideas isn't in the first sentence you
could look for repeated words or make a word list."
In general, when defining concepts or retelhng a procedure, the students with learning
disabihties had the tendency to be general and literal with little interpretation. The statements
tended to express a clear working definition with an occasional insight into process. The
metacognitive statements included a titbit of information that may have been touched upon
only fleetingly during direct instruction but provided insight into the complex nature of writing
a report.
Püüï Æjçwnencgf
Most students communicated that they,in the past, had been required to take notes for
the purposes of writing a report. Consistently, however, students perceived they had not been
taught this skill. Rather, they perceived that they were to&f to write down inkrmation that
interested them and to avoid copying. Consequently, the common description o f a note-taking
strategy that students reported to me involved reading a passage, copying a &w sentences
down — sometimes changing a &w words to avoid copying. I did not challenge students'

105
views o f their past experiences, nor did I spedhcally approach past teachers asking if they had
explicitly taught note-taking or how they had taught it if they had. (In hindsight, interviews
with past teachers may have been complementary data to the students' comments.) I did,
however, recognize that students needed to be exposed to instruction in note-taking in which
they were encouraged to reflect upon and refine their existing understandings of and
behaviours when note-taking.
Students had mentioned that part o f their past note-taking instructions were to copy
down facts they found interesting. Thomas, Englert, and Gregg (1987) and Englert et al.
(1988) found that many students, especially students with LD, included irrelevancies or
personally interesting information rather than focussing on the topic. I realized that inclusion
of irrelevancies could be attributed to a misinterpretation of instruction. The teacher says,
"Take notes on what you find interesting," recognizing that a student's interest in a topic is
critical to productivity. However, the student potentially interprets this as write about what
you find interesting without thought to the needs of the reader. When interest was the sole
strategy for inclusion o f facts, reports in the preassessment were random, subjective entries of
what the author liked and disliked about a topic rather than a cohesive retelling o f Acts
(Sample 1 in Appendix H). Instruction in the RAP Strategy provided students with a system
of taking notes that contained an inherent structure for a fliture report.

The Par^hrasing Strategy (Schumaker et al., 1984) required marks to be deducted for
sentencing errors such as capitals at the beginning o f a sentence and end punctuation. I began
to realize that deducting marks for sentencing errors was not giving me a clear picture o f how

106
accurately students were identifying main idea and supporting details. I then began deducting
fewer marks for sentencing errors to a maximum o f two marks o f twenty. In doing this,
students could still graduate 6om the RAP group without being held back for sentencing
errors. As I do not teach separate formal grammar lessons, I felt that RAP was a way to
integrate instruction about simple sentences. Some students had pre-existing sentencing skills
and were using c^itals and end punctuation appropriately; other students were capitalising
and punctuating erratically (Sample 1 in Appendix L). One student included only three periods
in his preassessment. By his postassessment, the student was readily capitalising and using end
punctuation without formal grammar lessons. I believe, this student became conscious of
sentencing because of the formatting of the RAP assignments.
Main idea sentences versus headings.

Some students had difficulty stating the main

idea as a complete sentence. Some students restated a main idea as "How spiders hunt" and
found it difficult to restate their words as a complete sentence when prompted. In order to
validate the students efforts, I stated that their words actually made excellent headings that
could immediately be followed by the full main idea sentence. On the other hand, other
students deliberately chose to state their main ideas as headings (Sample 2 o f Appendix L)
rather than complete sentences but maintained detailed and complete sentences for supporting
details. (The topic o f whether I should have required the use of complete sentences for
note-taking is an issue I had to resolve for myself which I describe in Chapter 6.)

Using the prompt in their learning log to reflect upon past experiences, a pattern of
responses indicated that students in this age group recognized a widespread tendency to

107
plagiarise. Timely to our discussions was a scandal at the university level o f mass plagarism.
this lead to discussions about plagiarism being an oGence that could lead to expulsion &om
school. Many students added the word plagiarism to their personal lexicon and used it with
the authority of understanding the academic consequences of plagiarism.
Literal - "How not to copy others words."
Metacognitive - "It is hard not to plagiarise when the original paragraph sounds so
good. If there are lots of important words (like names, dates etc.) it is especially hard to
use all the information and still make it sound like you're not plagiarising."
Plagiarism counts dropped from the preassessment to the postassessment (145 counts to
51 counts) but plagiarism was still present. In the preassessment, plagiarism was the third
most frequent main idea error (8% of total main idea errors) and the most frequent supporting
detail error (35% of the total supporting detail errors). In the postassessment, plagiarism
dropped to 4% of the main idea errors and 23% of the supporting detail errors, which was the
second most frequent supporting detail error. Sanq)le 1 o f Appendix L contains what I
categorised as exact plagiarisms, meaning the whole sentence was copied (compare to the
article in Appendix D). Whereas, the postassessment o f this same student had
substantially fewer plagiarisms that were no longer exact sentences but reduced to Gve words
in a row. I marked stringently, even if the plagiarisms were not key words, to maintain a strict
standard when scoring the assessments. I did not want to have to decide when Gve copied
words in a row would or would not constitute a plagiarism. Likely, I overreported
plagiarisms, but I was consistent from preassessment to postassessment.
Another common topic that emerged related to the concept of plagiarism was the
common understanding that students held about why they plagiarised. Many students related

108
their plagiarism to the lack o f direct and explicit instruction related to note-taking as was
mentioned earlier in this chapter. Not being taught how to note-take was the most consistent
comment 6om all students; yet, at the same time, students acknowledged they had been
required to note-take:
Literal - "In the past I have been asked to note-take when I didnt really know how. And
didnt get a good mark... .Every time I plagiarised it was two marks ofT. A lot of people
plagiarised and no one got a good mark."
Procedural "In the past teachers have never had lessons on how to take notes but we
always had to."
Metacognitive - "I have a teacher who can teach it [note-taking] really well. And
doesn't say don't plagiarise and leave it at that."
Metacognitive - "I never used to be good at note-taking because I used to focus on the
whole paragraph and miss many special words I could use in my own paragraph. Also I
had trouble with plagiarising. I didn't understand the difference between author's choice
and necessary vocabulary. Now I really understand the process because of the way it is
taught to me. Other teachers didn't take the time to make sure that all the students
understand fully. "
I am not casting blame without first pointing the finger at myself. I was also guiltyof
assuming that students could take notes. I believed that iff, or any teacher, said, "Write down
enough words to make you remember what you have read and DONT COPY!" the directions
would be followed. Why did I have this belief? Because there are those students to whom we
commonly teach who can do a reasonably successful job o f note-taking receiving limited
instructions. On the other hand, the remaining students do not benefit fi^om broad, non-explicit
instructions. Typically, in the past, I might have thought. This group o f students is not ready,
they are not teachable, or they cannot read well enough. This study clarified beyond a doubt
for me that all students were able to learn how to note-take.

109
DeAnk
It became strongly evident that identifying the main idea o f a paragraph was much more
diGGcult for students than identifying supporting details. This is corroborated in the literature.
In a 1988 study, Englert et al. &)und that, despite the intensity o f instruction, stating main
ideas was still di&cult for most Grade 6 students. Another example, including students
approximately three years older than the students in my own study, is Sjostrom and Hare's
study (1984) in which they taught Grade 9 and 10 students to identify main ideas in expository
text. After a total of five hours of direct instruction on main idea, the treatment group
averaged only just a little over 50% accuracy of main ideas.
In the preassessment, the top three main idea errors in order of occurrence were; (a)
The main idea was drawn incorrectly from the first sentence (43% of the total main idea
errors); (b) The main idea was too general compared to the author's intent (18% of the total
main idea errors); and (c) The main idea was plagiarised (8% of the total main idea errors).
The tendency of students to restate the first sentence of the paragraph as the main idea
dropped fi^om 112 counts in the preassessment to 76 counts in the postassessment. In
proportion to the other errors, however, this error remained the most fi-equent main idea error
and increased to 57% o f the total main idea errors. The second most fi^equent error remained
restating the main idea too generally. The fi"equency dropped fi"om 46 counts to 23 counts and
in proportion to the other errors, remained at about 18% o f the total main idea errors. An
example o f this type o f errors is the main idea in Sample 2 o f Appendix L written as, "Cacti's
roots." This two word heading was considered too general because it did not specify the full
main idea, "Cacti have an efhcient root system." Other main idea errors were stating the main

110
ideas as a supporting detail, including inaccurate facts, including information not found in the
source article, including information that was not use&l to the purpose of the article, and
including a statement that did not make sense. 161t the last four errors were idiosyncratic of
individual students based on a reading error such as misinterpretation rather than an inability
to determine main idea. I believe these idiosyncratic errors are inherent at ah levels o f reading
because there was little change in misreading errors from preassessment to postassessment.

I valued the instances when students were ambivalent because I felt there was a level of
honesty and objectivity in coupling positive and negative comments. I believe compliant
responses (telling me what they thought I wanted to hear) were minimal because of the
students' familiarity with me. Also, any existing novelty factor had worn off because of the
duration of the study. Finally, the students had worked hard and needed to be heard.
Literal - "RAP has not really help me. But it might of help in spelling. Or other stuff.
But I don't really like writing them. My feelings about RAP are they are alright to do."
Procedural - "What I don't like about them [RAP] is that I sometimes find it hard to find
the main idea if it is a long paragraph and I sometimes find the RAPs boring and I get
tired o f them by the time I get to the fifth paragraph. But what I do like about RAPs is
that they kind o f prepare you for highschool and most o f them are fairly easy. Some of
them are fim too so I like that about them. "
Procedural - "I hate RAPs because they're so long but I like them because they're
educational and because they're challenging and for me to leam I need challenges."
Metacognitive - "I think she should have let us write one report the way we wanted to
so she could o f seen how we write without RAP, PAR, writing process and then she
could o f shown us her way then let us use both ways. RAP and PAR take a long time to
do if you are writing a 2-3 page report. There's not a lot that Mrs. Paterson could
improve in her teaching. Most o f it was very clear to me."

Ill
It is evident 6om the above comments that all levels of students had been challenged in
this unit. The RAP Strategy obviously required both cognitive and temporal endurance. I
believe the ambivalence in students existed because they understood the value o f knowing
how to take notes but at the same time recognized there was no escaping the hard work of the
required reading, understanding, and paraphrasing.

To supplement these qualitative data, I did limited quantitative data analysis to check if
my perceptions of student gains could be verified by using t-tests to compare results fi’om the
preassessment and postassessment (An alpha level of .05 was used for all t-tests.). Scruggs
and Mastropieri (1995), in examining qualitative studies in the field of learning disabilities,
stated that qualitative and quantitative work is compatible. These researchers believe
cross-methodological procedures elicit commonalties beneficial to understanding the observed
world. In addition, Scruggs and Mastropieri suggest that qualitative methods are stronger
when they are supplemented with quantitative evidence that points directly to treatment
efficacy. I began the quantitative process with a comparison of readability levels between the
pre and postassessment source articles to ensure that indications o f gains in restating main
ideas and supporting details could be attributed to actual student progress rather than the
processing of simpler articles.
CoTMparzfOM

wYzc/gf.

Four source articles at a Grade 3/4 reading level

were used in the assessments. Two articles about spiders were used in the preassessment and
two articles about cacti were used in the postassessment. Appendix D contains one source
article from the preassessment and one source article fi"om the postassessment. Three two

112
sample t-tests assuming equal variances were used to determine whether there were
diSerences in readability between the two preassessment source articles, the two
postassessment sources articles, and between the preassessment and postassessment articles.
The results o f nine variables were combined for each article: (a) total number o f sentences, (b)
total number of words, (c) mean number o f words per sentence, (d) total number o f syllables,
(e) total number o f three syllable words, (f) total number of 6)ur syllable words, (g) total
number of five syllable words, (h) total words in the longest sentence, and (i) total number of
sentences containing subordination. The first t-test {t = 2.12, p = .70) determined that there
was no significant difference in readability between the two preassessment source articles;
thus, I was able to combine the scores from each article into one total preassessment raw
score. The second t-test {t = 2.12, p = 0.96) determined that there was no significant
difference in readability between the two postassessment source articles so the scores from
each article were also combined to create a single total postassessment raw score. A final
t-test (t = 2.12,

= .90) determined there was no significant difkrence in readability between

the combined preassessment articles and the combined postassessment articles. As there was
no significant difkrence in readability o f the preassessment articles and the postassessment
articles, students' pre and postassessment scores were comparable. Student RAP Strategy
scores measured how accurately students restated the main idea and supporting details often
paragraphs in their own words. Students received a 1 for each correct main idea or supporting
detail. Students received a 0 for each incorrect main idea or supporting detail. A total

113
preassessment score out o f 40 was calculated by combining the scores o f the two
preassessment source articles. Scores were calculated in the same manner 6)r the
postassessment.
CoMgxznaoM q/"prgmge&sweMf aWpayfmgg&nMgMf Æ4P j'/rofegy .scores.

Based on

a one-tailed t-test (f = 1.68, ^ = 4.09 E-09), there were signihcant gains in students' ability to
correctly restate main ideas and supporting details (RAP scores) 6om the preassessment to
the postassessment. Table 1 displays the mean raw RAP scores of the pre and
postassessments, the standard deviations, and the range of raw scores. The mean raw scores
are shown as a main idea subscore, a supporting detail subscore, and a total score.
Results o f students with LD.

In addition, I extracted the assessment RAP Strategy

scores of the nine students I had classified as having learning disabilities. First, I examined if
there was a difference in performance fi-om preassessment to postassessment within this
group. Then I determined if there was a difference between the group of students with LD as
compared to the students without LD. A t-test (t =2.12, p = 4.89 E-05) determined that
students with LD had made significant gains in the RAP section fi^om the preassessment to
the postassessment. A further t-test (f = 2.07, p = 0.37) comparing regular class gains to
students with LD gains determined that there was no significant difference in gain scores
between the two groups. One of the stated purposes o f strategy instruction is to align the
per&rmance o f students with LD with that o f their like-aged peers. My results indicate that
instruction in the RAP strategy was effective in promoting learning in students with LD
so they kept pace with their non-LD peers rather than Ailing even further behind as is typical

114
according to Mothus (1997). Given the history o f students with LD falling yearly further and
further behind, my students' growth in the challenging area o f note-taking was commendable.

Mean,

DewaAo», oWTdongg

Arorgf q/"fAe

q/"tAe

Preassessment

Postassessment

M

Mean

SD

Range

M

Mean

jîD

Range

Main Idea

10

1.67

1.36

0-3

10

4.88

1.94

2-8

Supporting Details

30

15

35.74

2-25

30

22.92

13.82

14-29

Total Sections

40

16.67

39.36

4-27

40

27.92

22.08

17-34

Note. There were 25 participants in this study but «=24 on the RAP section, as one participant
who fit my LD classification misplaced the preassessment, so neither the preassessment nor
the postassessment data of that participant have been included in the score comparisons.

Figure 1 shows a graph of the mean percents to illustrate the gains fi-om the pre to
postassessment for the whole class. It is interesting to note that although the gains in stating
main idea were significant, the mean o f the class remained just below 50% accuracy. This
indicates the continued difhculty many students had with id en til^ g and restating main ideas.
It is important to note that I scored the assessments more stringently than I typically would
have in class. Normally, I would allow for a broader range o f main ideas and would simply tell

115
students that if they wanted to copy the author's words, they should use quotation marks and
acknowledge 6om whom they were copying. Thus, the scores I report may be low because I
did not accommodate the reality that interpretation, interest, and a readers' choice of what
in&rmation to include shapes a students' notes. However, I was consistent &om
preassessment to postassessment.
Overall, the results o f the data analysis of the RAP strategy indicate that: (a) SigniGcant
gains were made in all levels of students to restate main ideas and supporting details in their
own words; (b) Students were beginning to modify the format of the original RAP trategy;
and (c) Students valued their new understandings of note-taking alongside their new
awareness of the effort input required for successfully strategy enactment.
This concludes the qualitative and quantitative analysis and discussion of the results of
the students' enactments of the RAP Strategy. The following section is the qualitative analysis
and discussion of the results of the students' enactment of the PAR Strategy. Results from
both the assessments and the in-class, independent report-writing phase are combined to give
an overall view of the process and end-product of report-writing.

jP/LR j'frofegy oW /(eporf-wnfzMg
To describe my students' experiences with report-writing, I frrst present the students'
declarative and procedural knowledge and perceptions o f report-writing using the PAR
Strategy, their recollections of past experiences with report-writing, and their comparison of
the RAP Strategy to the PAR Strategy. I then present and discuss the students' report-writing
performance using descriptors and samples o f the students' reports. Finally, I present a graph
comparing the gains in mean percent from preassessment to postassessment.

116
fzgw g 7

fgrceMfagg Co/xponfOM m 7MP from frgo&%&smg»f fo foy6z&sg&$mem m
Mzm 7&ÛWowf A(pporfz»gDe&ffZy m Awrce ^rAc/g fwogrop/K
Preassessment
70

Postassessment

70%

60
50
49%

40

5C»“-8

30
20
10

r%

0
Main Idea

Supporting
Details

Total
Score

RAP Scores
The PAR strategy linked the activity o f note-taking o f the RAP strategy to
report-writing. This connection is in keeping with the belief that strategy instruction should
not be a stand-alone entry in the curriculum but rather integrated into ongoing instruction
(Pressley, El-Dinary, Marks, Brown, & Stein, 1992). Englert et al. (1988) 5)und that many
students had difhculty categorising and integrating information &om diSerent sources. The
organising focus o f the PAR Strategy required students' to process their completed notes once
they feel they are complete. The P o f PAR had students
The A of PAR had students

their RAPs into related categories

themselves what the main ideas were o f the any new or

117
combined categories. Those main ideas were then to be arranged to create a logical and
cohesive order in their own reports. Corresponding upporting details were also rearranged
accordingly. Finally, the R o f PAR had students

their outline as a report. Students were

encouraged to write their introductions and conclusions after the body o f their report had been
drafted for cohesion with what was already written.
Three common patterns emerged from the students' comments about the PAR Strategy:
(a) Students defined some aspect of declarative or procedural knowledge of PAR and its
relationship to the writing process; (b) many students referred to their past experiences in
report-writing; and (c) students compared the RAP Strategy to the PAR Strategy.
Students' Declarative and Procedural Knowledge o f the PAR Strategy
The following comments reveal a range of knowledge about report-writing and the
writing process. Much of the knowledge expressed by the students was made explicit, at some
point, during class lessons or individual instruction and appears to have been meaningful or
useful to students as they wrote reports.
Students with a literal comprehension of the task instructions were either understanding
some concepts for the first time or were redefining misconceptions they had. It appeared that
a lack of understanding was a much larger &ctor in not completing work than "just not feeHng
like it." My learning not to assume, to ask direct questions, and to support the student so that
they knew they could complete the tasks successfully helped resolve student motivation
issues.
Literal: "I can memorise them [steps o f the writing process] now that I know what each
one means."
Literal: "I learned it [a report] doesn't have to be 10 pages long."

118
Students developing their procedural knowledge tended to be independent during class
time. OAen, time of^-task was not related to misunderstanding, but was a choice, as students
could tell me exactly what they had been doing and where they were going. These students
were often working alongside peers checking for understanding, sharing interesting
information they had found, and relying on each other in a variety o f ways.
Procedural: "You do not always have to stay in order o f the writing process. You can
go back and forth between different stages."
Procedural: "I didn't really know how to write a report but after memorising them [the
posters] it made the quality of my work much better because I did not plagiarise. They
[the posters] also have helped me when I need help in the order of writing reports."
Procedural: "I understand report-writing better because I didn't just get taught just to
get a topic and write down facts about that topic. I got taught to find topic, get sources
for that topic, take notes then organize notes and put them into a report. I also
understand better that there is an introduction, the body, then the conclusion."
Students at the metacognitive level were students who tended to have a long memory of
their history as report writers and who were refining their knowledge. Again, these students
acted very independently of me, requiring me to answer direct questions, or to resolve
disputes with peers about understandings. Near the end o f the study, I was developing a
conferencing routine in which I and students who had completed a draff o f an end product
would receive consultation and ffedback ffom me based on the assessment ffirm. Following
this hne-tuning could occur.
Metacognitive: "I have learned that report-writing has many steps. The prewriting vdrich
is RAP help you outline your report. Then you take our ideas and put them into a
report. Then you edit your draff deleting, changing or moving words and adding. Then
proof-reading you check punctuation errors, spelling and grammar. It doesn't matter if
you do editing or proof-reading ffrst. Then you take your draff that has been edited and
proof-read and turn it into your good copy. I learned you should have at least two

119
sources so you can compare them. I have also learned that a report has an intro, body,
and conclusion."
Metacognitive: "I was always a decent report writer, but Mrs. Paterson helped me
understand about the report-writing steps. Since Tve been using the RAP and writing
process my reports have been getting a lot better, funner, and easier to do."
foar
As with students' corhments about the RAP Strategy, students commenting on the PAR
Strategy indicated that they were able to reflect upon their past experiences of report-writing
and to make connections to their present learning. I interpreted the students' comments about
these connections as indicating that the experiences they were having in this study were
encouraging them to be reflective rather than mindless participants. Every comment I heard or
read that indicated a progress in one student's learning became my reward and encouragement.
Procedural: "When I was asked to write an essay I didn't know how so I would just
usually plagiarise or make it up or just change the sentence around a little bit to make it
sound different."
Procedural: "Last year I just started talking about what ever. Now I introduce what I am
writing about, write about it then conclude."
Metacognitive: "In the past I wrote reports much diSerently than I do now. I usually
took notes but just one word and after they [the notes] were somewhat hard to
understand. Some of the time I didn't even take notes, just read a paragraph o f a book
then copied some sentences down."

ComparfsOM

JMP j'p-afegy to rAe PAR

q/"

RtyorT-wnripg [Twr

Without being prompted, students compared the RAP Strategy to the PAR Strat%y.
For example, in one o f the comments that follows, a student recognised that the structured
articles during the RAP phase o f the unit had been easier to process than the sources she
chose ft)r independent report-writing. Although this student experienced some difBcuky with

120
the reading levels o f her sources, her knowledge o f what she was reading &r was evident. In
other comments, it is evident that there was a common preference for the open-endedness of
report-writing. Students were ident%ing how their levels of enjoyment could have an impact
on their learning.
Literal: "Tm learning about stuff that fm researching at the same time as when Tm doing
the RAP."
Metacognitive: "I like the researching better than the RAPs you gave because I have to
be interested in the topic so that's why enjoy it."
Metacognitive: "The PARs are even better because the information is of our choice so I
can learn a lot about the topic of my choice."
Metacognitive: "What's difficult for me is that I don't understand the words in some of
the books that I'm doing a report on. I also get kind of confiised about what is the main
idea. Sometimes it seems that there is more than one main idea because sometimes in
the report that I'm doing has more than one paragraph and I forget because I'm so used
to the RAPs you gave me before."
From the collection o f comments in the above sections, it can be seen that students were
becoming reflective report writers. Comments indicated that students, even those who had
perceived themselves as knowing how to write reports, were still progressing by adapting and
refining their knowledge. This supports the argument that all students can be exposed to the
same learning strategy. How each student incorporates that learning strategy into his/her
existing knowledge depends upon the needs.
In the next section, I describe the quality o f the students' report-writing. I looked far
evidence o f students enacting the writing process, creating meaning by including main ideas
and supporting details, developing an expository style through language choice, and
developing the form (text structure) o f a report.

121
'Report;
Fonw
I assessed students' reports using either o f my two versions o f the rubric I had modihed
6om the British Columbia Ministry o f Education Writing Per&rmance Standards. My choice
of version depended upon whether the report was an assessment or a report completed in
class. (My detailed scoring methods are found in the data analysis section of Chapter 4 and in
Appendix J). For each subsection (meaning, style, form, and process) on the Report
Assessment Form (Appendix H), students received: (a) a rating of does not yet meet
expectations (Level 1), minimally meets expectations (Level 2), fu lly meets expectations
(Level 3), or exceeds expectations (Level 4); (b) a qualitative descriptor within each rating;
and (c) a numerical score. I include the scores of all students who attempted the work
recognizing that my class was not a normal distribution. In presenting numerical data from the
preassessment, data were missing from two students (n=23) because one student with LD
misplaced the entire preassessment. Another student with LD did not attempt the report
section of the preassessment because he told me, "I'm too tired; I can't do anymore." As all
students completed and handed in the postassessment, »=25 . On the occasions where I
describe student gains from one level to the next, I have included the two students with LD
vdio did not have a preassessment report. I rated their level as
all subsections o f the preassessment report, based on my in-class observations o f their
perfr)rmances at the beginning of the study. Thus, in terms o f gains in performance, n=25
and provides a full view of the class.

on

122

I begin by comparing the overall ratings (Levels 1 to 4) of the reports &om the
preassessment to the postassessment. Following that, I subdivide the results o f the reports into
the subsections o f the rubric (process, meaning, style, and form) to discuss patterns of
performance within each subsection. The results are further subdivided into regular students
and students with LD so as to address patterns within the each group o f students. In
describing the range o f quality, I briefly outline the criteria related to each subsection, show
the distribution of the students at each of the four levels of the rubric, and present students'
samples from the preassessment, postassessment, and independent reports. I conclude my
presentation and discussion of the report-writing results with a graph showing the mean gains
in scores from preassessment to postassessment.
By totalling all the scores from the subsections, an overall report score and rating was
calculated for each preassessment and postassessment report. Table 2 compares the
percentage of students at each level of the rubric on the preassessment and the postassessment
reports. Prior to instruction, 48% of the students were not yet meeting expectations and 52%
were only

weeüng

vdien producing a report with sufhcient meaning

and text structure. No students^ZZy meZ or exceedbaf gxpecfoAow. These results indicate that
despite the level o f frimiliarity and number o f experiences with report-writing that the students
reported, there were areas in which students could beneSt from explicit instruction.
Afrer instruction, four students, or 16% of the class were still

rrKefZMg

whereas 84% were meefr/rg or gxceedZwg gjgwc&zfro/M. All four students
/weeffMg eoçKcWro/M were students with LD. Nine o f 25 students remained within the same

123
level (5 o f 9 were students with LD), 13 o f 25 students progressed a level (4 o f 9 were
students with LD), and three of 25 students gained two levels. Given that most o f the students
with LD did not progress beyond the RAP phase o f the instruction to independent
report-writing, except for a brief period at the end o f the unit, these results suggest some skills
may have generalised 6om their extensive w oA with the RAP Strategy to report-writing.
ToAk 2
The Distribution o f Ratings in Percent o f Regular Students, Students with LD, and the Total
Class on the Overall Quality o f the Preassessment and the Postassessment Reports

Level 1
Does Not Meet

Level 2
Minimally
Meets

Level 3
Fully Meets

Level 4
Exceeds

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

% of regular students
(n=16)

25

0

75

44

0

44

0

12

% of students with LD
(n=9)

88

44

12

44

0

12

0

0

% of class (n=25)_______ 48

16

52

44

0

32

0

8

The range of percent within each level also allows for gains within a level that are,
however, not great enough for the student to progress to the next level. The range of percent
within noiyei /neeizng eagpecAz/zow is 0% to 49%. (Refer to my rationale far converting the
four level rubric to percent in the previous chapter.) Another phenomenon was that some
students may have gained in a subsection but maintained or regressed in another subsection

124
resulting in only very slight overall gains in percent 6om preassessment to postassessment. In
other cases, the assessments were not the best indicators o f progress. Thus, the students'
results are now presented by subsections as outlined on the assessment 6)rm (Appendix H)
and draw 6om both the pre and postassessments and the independent
reports written during class time.
q/"(ke

form

The primary foci of this unit were on the prewriting and the drafting stages. Because the
assessments were controlled situations in which I prompted the students to restate main ideas
and supporting details (RAP Strategy), students received credit in the prewriting phase, only if
I could see evidence of reorganisation of those main ideas and supporting detail. In contrast,
for the independent reports I considered both the note-taking itself (RAP Strategy) and the
organisation of those notes (PAR Strategy) as prewriting because both activities were
self-directed.
A draft was assessed based on whether the writing could be identified as an informative
report, was meaningful, had minimal to no plagiarising, and had enough structure fi"om which
editing could proceed. When deciding on the completeness o f the draft, I did not Actor in
report sequence because that was scored elsewhere on the assessment form. In the
assessments, eftbrts of editing were not rated. Any improvements were absorbed by the other
subsections. Proof-reading was also not rated as conventions (e.g. sentencing in the RAP
Strategy) had only a minimal focus in this study. Table 3 compares the percentage of students
at each level of the rubric on the writing process subsection ftom the preassessment to the
postassessment.

125
Prior to instruction 72% o f the students were nof

meefrMg gxpecWrow and 28%

were meefrng but not exrger&ng agpecAzfrow. As the m^ority o f students were able to
compose a draA that was a recognisable report, the greatest weakness was little to no
evidence o f planning beyond the initial note-taking. After instruction, 44% o f the students
were still

wgefrwg

and 56% were meeirng or excgedlMg

Thirteen o f 25 students remained within the same level (8 of 9 were students with LD), nine of
25 students progressed a level (1 of 9 was a student with LD), and three of 25 students gained
two levels.
TaA/eJ
The Distribution o f Ratings in Percent o f Regular Students, Students with LD, and the Total
Class on the Process Subsection o f the Preassessment and the Postassessment

Level 1
Does Not Meet

Level 2
Minimally
Meets

Level 3
Fully Meets

Level 4
Exceeds

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

% o f regular students
(»=16)

56

19

38

19

6

50

0

12

% o f students with LD
(»=9)

100

88

0

0

0

12

0

0

% o f class (»=25)

72

44

24

12

4

36

0

8

The rmyority o f students with LD had only minimal experience with the complete
report-writing process and by the end o f the study had mostly only advance to note-taking on
a topic o f their choice. Consequently, I expected that the m^ority o f the students with LD

126
would not show marked gains in additional planning beyond note-taking because of tbeir
limited experience. However, based solely on the draft criteria (not counting the prewriting
stage) bve o f nine students with LD progressed a level. I attribute the improved drafts to the
students' practice of the RAP Strategy which helped students understand exposition and its
organisation of information.
One student with LD did not draft a report in the preassessment stating that be was tired
and it was too much work. That same student, with a great deal of RAP experience but
minimal independent report-writing experience, completed both the RAP Strategy section and
the report in the postassessment. Although all subsections of his draft still did not meet
expectations, and it was the second briefest draft with a total of 143 words, completing the
entire assessment independently was a notable achievement for this particular student. During
the postassessment, this student, from a casual observer's point of view, was aligned
behaviourally with the rest of the class —an accomphshment that was rarely achieved
independently by this student. Prior to this, in order for this student to complete the briefest of
drafts in any genre, he required coaching, scribing, and reassurance.
PZawHMgp/KMg q/"prewnfzMg.

Students used a range o f difterent methods to

reorganise their notes (PA o f the PAR Strategy). For example, students cut up their notes and
physically rearranged them, or they created webs, outlines, and numbering systems. One
student did not organise his notes in the pre and postassessment beyond using the RAP
Strategy. However, I gathered evidence o f this student's ability to plan from the independent
report this student was working on near the end of the study. Although this student did not
fully complete his independent report, he had completed notes on one source o f his choice.

127
What I received &om this student were eight strips o f lined paper cut and stapled together
(Sample 1 o f Appendix M). These strips were evidence of his planning. This student had
begun the process o f planning by cutting each group of main idea and related supporting
details into pieces that he could physically manipulate. He numbered each segment of
information in the order he wanted the paragraphs to occur in his final report. I would
consider this student's prewriting eSbrts as mmr/Wfy mgefrMg

because only a

single source was used and the number of main ideas and supporting details were sparse. On
the positive side, this student adapted the RAP format by including six supporting details fi*om
one source paragraph rather than the standard three required in the RAP Strategy. Given the
length and choice o f vocabulary, this student, in my opinion, was not plagiarising. I felt this
level of prewriting achievement for this student was a success story.
The planning in Sample 4 of Appendix M fully meets expectations. Although this
student did not show planning on the planning sheet provided in the assessment, she returned
to the RAP section and numbered the RAPs according to the order she wanted each main idea
to appear in her report. In doing this, she combined information from the ten paragraphs of
the two source articles into six body paragraphs. It was the ability to combine information
fi"om two sources, to plan and flesh out paragraphs with greater than three supporting details,
and to move away fi"om the original author's sequencing that I perceived as progressive.
Sample 2 o f Appendix M received a mzw/naf/y

ecqpgc&z/zow for a web showing

five topics which she appeared to have marked with an x when she had finished drafting that
main idea. This web seemed like a token plan rather than a useful guide for her draft provided
because it had been requested in the instructions . In this student's postassessment (Sample 5

128
of Appendix M), this student had advanced to a numbering system and an elaborate planning
table o f her own invention. On her table, she showed which notes she would include, the order
in which she wanted to present the information, the topic o f each paragraph and a suggested
heading based on the main idea. This student exceedkff
Sample 3 of Appendix M is an outline from the preassessment showing the topics of five
paragraphs. This student used the paragraph symbol to indicate each new paragraph and knew
to include an introduction. I considered this plan to minimally meet expectations. In the
postassessment, this student, unlike the student who changed tactics from a web format to a
table format, enhanced her initial outline format to an exceeds expectations by including more
details (Sample 6 o f Appendix M). This student indicated a paragraph for conclusion,
indicated the order o f the topics, and noted which segments of notes would apply to which
main idea. This student used arrows to indicate she must have changed her mind about the
order. Check marks indicate she likely kept returning to her plan to mark off which parts of
the plan she had completed.
One student chose the topic of the Bermuda Triangle (Sample 3 of Appendix L). This
student's independent notes retained the original structure o f RAP but ranged from including
two supporting details to as many as six supporting details per main idea. This indicated that
she was adapting RAP from the required three supporting details per main idea to
accommodate the sources she was reading and to accommodate her interest in specific main
ideas. Her planning indicated she was at the stage where she was beginning to combine
information from two sources but was still mostly keeping each source's information separate.
What I fiaund most important about the progress these students were making in the

129
prewiitmg phase was the individual adaptations that reflected each student's developing
personal style o f researching, note-taking, and organising. As much o f the work was
student-initiated, student-directed, and student-to-student, with only minimal input hrom me, I
was impressed with the variety and individuality that was beginning to emerge indicating
students were taking ownership of the strategies.
The drafting stage o f the writing process.

To minimally meet expectations a draft

had to be a recognisable report with only minimal evidence of copying of words. Sample 1 of
Appendix N received not yet meeting expectations for drafting. This essay was a random
retelling o f facts showing personal interest and using the words neat, cool, and gross. I
categorised this student's style of writing as informal writing rather than a report because of
the reflective and personal nature. This type of writing was described by Englert and her
associates (Englert & Raphael, 1988; Englert et al., 1992; Englert et al., 1991). These
researchers reported that students, especially those with LD, when drafting did not recognize
the important text elements of exposition. They were drawn to items with strong visual detail
or of personal interest, and tended to retell everything they knew about a topic in whatever
order it came to mind. In the postassessment (Sample 2 o f Appendix N), this same student
created a direct paraphrase o f the ftrst source article. The report contained mostly original
words, but as he had plagiarised three times in his RAP, the plagiarisms transferred to his
composition. This report was at the lowest end o f

This student

now organised the text althoug it was based on the sequencing of the original author and the
facts were no longer random retellings. Unfortunately, in attempting to reach this level of
objectivity, the student completely ruled out the subjectivity which had made his

130
preassessment article personal and interesting. So this student gained in the area of
organisation but lost the personality shown in the preassessment. Changes in writing such as
this indicate how writing, or learning, does not progress in a linear pattern. Regression in an
area may occur as students experiment with a new style.
By the end o f the unit, the only way a student could receive a

mceAng

expectations on an independent report was not to do one. Any drafts that I received were
complete enough, had enough structure to be recognized as a report, and had minimal
plagiarising. Sample 1 of Appendix O is a report by a student with LD that minimally meets
expectations. Although, this report was intended as a compare/constrast report, the student
separately listed his comparison topics of Elf Owls and Bam Owls and left the comparing to
the end of the paper. Nevertheless, this student included many facts, used headings to
demonstrate an understanding of main idea, and separated his report into clear paragraphs.
However, this student had a limited introduction, and some paragraphs were not folly
developed. He used necessary vocabulary he likely learned while researching this topic and
also may have included some vocabulary he did not folly understand. From my experiences
with this student's writing, he did not plagiarise.
Sample 3 o f Appendix O is an independent report that also mzw/Ma/Zp /weety
at the high end o f the draA subsection. This draA is very evidently a report;
however, based on my experiences with this student's writing, this student plagiarised phrases
throughout the paper, although most o f the report was paraphrased. I could identify which
AfTTM pAraygf were not typical o f this student such as the words, "The mustang is the
symbol for American ideals."

131
Samples 4 of Appendix O/«Zfy weet;

on the draft subsection. The draft is

complete, is cleaHy a report, and contains many facts. This report did, however, contain some
minor misunderstandings of the topic based on the word choice such as, "Cacti plants have
cork going all around them that are pretty long. Cacti's roots grow mostly &om the top." In
addition, the introduction and conclusion were present but required further editing. Sample 3
and Sample 4 o f Appendix O are two independent reports thatyh/fy meet eagTectatfoTw. (An
interesting aside is that these two authors, who chose to research the Bermuda Triangle and
comets, were among the few who did not choose the typical topics of animals or countries.
The limited range of topics that students chose to research suggests to me that students may
have benefited fi"om mini-lessons that encouraged brainstorming and maintaining lists of
topics. Both these reports do not exceed expectations because both contained one or two
brief, undeveloped paragraphs. This was not a reflection of these two students' ability to write
paragraphs, but rather of their choice not to do further research to add details to those
paragraphs.
Sample 6 of Appendix N is an example o f a postassessment report that meety
gapgcWtow at the high end on the draft subsection. The genre is not only clearly a report
including a sufhcient introduction and conclusion, but this author has managed to blend
information efiectively fi^om both articles in a way that no other student achieved. This author
had a talent fiar taking fiicts fi"om the source articles and combining them to create a new idea.
For instance, two separate facts were that the saguaro cactus has folds and that animals live
on the saguaro cactus. This author created the image o f the animals living within the j&lds of
the saguaro. As all drafts required editing, no draAs gxceedbef eogwcraffo/» at the time of the

132
study. Many reports were, however, moving close to exrceecBng

and some

subsections, that will be further discussed in the following sections, earned the level of

Two criteria determined ratings in the meaning subsection: (a) inclusion of main ideas
related to the topic and (b) inclusion of accurate facts and details about the topic. (The
meaning section did not include organisation of the main ideas and the facts but rather just
inclusion.) Table 4 compares the percentage of students at each level of the rubric on the
meaning subsection from the preassessment to the postassessment.
Prior to instruction 20% of the students were not yet meeting expectations and 80%
were already meeting or exceeding expectations. I perceived this data to mean that the
majority of this group of students had had previous experience with reports and were well
aware that a report was intended to inform the reader about specific facts.
After instruction, 12% of students were not yet meeting expectations and 88% of
students were meeting or exceeding expectations. Twelve of 25 students remained within the
same level (5 o f 9 were students with LD). Eleven o f 25 students progressed a level (4 o f 9
were students with LD), one o f 25 students progressed two levels, and one student, a student
with LD, regressed a level. A possible explanation fr)r the regression o f the one student was a
lack of 6miliarity with the topic of cacti (Sample 3 o f Appendix N). This misunderstanding
likely influenced this student's ability to include accurate and relevant main ideas and
supporting details. The greatest gains were perceived in the regular students, all of whom met
or exceeaW agzecAzAo/w; however, gains were made by the students with LD despite their

133
limited experience with independent report-writing.
TaAZg ^
TTfg

m fgrcgwf

j"Afdlg»ty wz(A ZD, aW fAg ToW

CZiM OM A g AfgawMg A/Afgcffon q/^ fAg frgwag&RMgnf a W (Ag fwAz&yg&STMg»^

Level 1
Does Not Meet

Level 2
Minimally
Meets

Level 3
Fully Meets

Level 4
Exceeds

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

% of regular students
(n=16)

6

0

44

0

50

88

0

12

% of students with LD
(n=9)

44

33

44

22

12

45

0

0

% o f class (n=25)_______ 20

12

44

8

36

72

0

8

Again, this suggests that instruction in and practice using the RAP Strategy —primarily out of
the context of report-writing —may have had a positive impact on the students. Overall, there
was a positive shift in the students' abilities to include adequate main ideas and supporting
details in their compositions.
As mentioned earlier, several students' preassessment reports were joumal-like entries
revealing the interests o f the author. Thus, the meaning subsection rating was Mof_ygf mggfmg
For example, Sample 1 of Appendix N was a collection o f random responses to
Acts the author found interesting Aom the original source article. Note that this student
included words like /
N this same student was able to

war, ir'j/vgrry wgÿ^ and rr'f grcwa. In Sample 2 o f Appendix
mggr g]^c6zrrow on the meaning subsection on

134
the postassessment report. In this case, this student objectively paraphrased or plagiarised the
Srst source article paragraph by paragraph including the minimum number o f relevant main
ideas and 6cts. This sample lacks a sense o f perspective which was appealing in the
preassessment, but the genre is now clearly an informative report.
Sample 4 of Appendix N w g g f f expecfafzo/M on the meaning subsection. This
student includes sufhcient details to educate the reader about the topic o f cacti. In addition,
this student had a developing sense of the main ideas and combining main ideas from both
source articles. For instance, the topic sentence, "Cacti plants have good protection and good
at getting water" demonstrates the student's progress in relating ideas that support that the
cactus is well suited to its environment.
Sample 6 of Appendix N exceeds expectations on the meaning subsection. This
postassessment report showed originality in manipulating and combining the main ideas to
generate an original main idea, "Some parts of the cactus are the stem, the spines, the flower,
the roots, and the skin. " This student combined supporting details from five separate
paragraphs to develop her single paragr^h. In addition, this student's report included many
facts and details to substantiate the main ideas and to educate the reader.

Style was limited to the single criterion of vocabulary choice o f keywords and transition
words. This criterion was based on the quantity o f keywords students used to indicate their
ability to speak knowledgeably about the topic. Table 5 compares the percentage o f students
at each level of the rubric on the style subsection fi^om the preassessment to the
postassessment. Prior to instruction, 12% o f students did «of meef eapecfofzoMj and 88% mef

135
or exrggfW

I account for ± e preinstruction success in the style subsection

because the reading levels of the source articles were below grade level, and the topic and
vocabulary relating to spiders was familiar to most students.
TbMe J

7%g Dfjïrrfwffwr q / " m fgrcewf q

/

^

j'Ardlg/rt; wrf/z ZD, owf (Ae 7b&%/

C&Kg OMAe AfAwcAoM q/^(Ae f r e w f a W fAe fag&zMe&swgMf
Level 1
Does Not Meet

Level 2
Minimally
Meets

Level 3
Fully Meets

Level 4
Exceeds

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

% of regular students
(n=16)

0

0

31

19

69

56

0

25

% of students with LD
(n=9)

33

22

22

33

45

45

0

0

% o f class (n=25)______ 12

8

28

24

60

52

0

16

After instruction, 8% o f students were

/negfrng

(Sample 3 of

Appendbc N) and 92% w e r e r n g g fr y r g (Sample 2 and Sample 4 o f Appendix N) or
gxcggdmgg]igpgc6zAow (Sample 5 o f y^pendixN). Twelve o f 25 students (4 of 9 were
students with LD) remained within the same level, eight o f 25 students progressed to the next
level (1 o f 9 was a student with LD), one o f 25 students (who was a student with LD)
progressed two levels, and 6)ur of 25 students (3 o f 9 were students with LD) regressed a
level. I did not predict a drop in vocabulary usage but suggest, as I did for the meaning
subsection, that the topic o f cacti and the new vocabulary aqgrrwo may have been unfamiliar

136
enough that students limited their writing and chose not to include new vocabulary in their
writing (Sample 3 o f Appendix N). I suggest that results indicating difhcuky with the topic
and vocabulary emphasise the need for students to be given a choice o f topic so that they can
read and communicate their knowledge more expertly.
Sample 1 o f ^ pendix O is the hrst and only independent report completed by this
student with LD who was not meeting expectations in the style subsection at the time of the
preassessment and was fully meeting expectations at the time of the postassessment. This
student chose the topic of owls and used the related vocabulary appropriately in sentence
constructions that I believe were not plagiarised.
Form Subsection o f the Assessment Form
Form was the subsection with the most criteria. Four criteria determined the ratings in
this section; (a) including an introductory paragraph, (b) sequencing the body paragraphs,
(c) grouping main ideas and related supporting details, and (d) including a concluding
paragraph. Table 6 compares the percentage o f students at each level of the rubric on the form
subsection from the preassessment to the postassessment.
Prior to instruction 76% of the students were Mofyet meeAng eapec&ffroMJ and 24%
were only /MzmmaZ/y mggfmg

No students were meefzMg

The initial

lower results o f this section compared to the relative preassessment success o f the previous
two subsections of meaning and style suggest to me that although a m^ority of the students
could write an identifrable informative report, the students were not yet including the hner
characteristics o f the text structure o f informative reports such as an introduction and a
conclusion.

137
After instruction 32% o f students were nof

/nee/mg gapecAzAow and 68% were

TMggfmgbut w f gxcged&zg gJipecWzow. Fourteen of 25 students remained within the same
level (6 o f 9 were students with LD), nine o f 25 students progressed to the next level (3 of 9
were students with LD), and two students progressed two levels. Students made the greatest
gains in this subsection by developing and sequencing the information within each body
paragr^h as well as within the body of the report. Students with LD also made gains in
developing and sequencing their body paragraphs even though they had minimal independent
report-writing practice. I believe this reflects the reinforcement of grouping main ideas and
supporting details while using the RAP Strategy. Nine students, the majority of whom were
students with LD, were still minimally meeting expectations. These students were still not
including introductions and conclusions in their reports. I had anticipated that students with
LD might not include introductions and conclusions because of their limited experience with
the entire text structure of a report during this instructional unit.
Sample 1 in Appendix N does nof j/ef meef gjigpec&zfzow and illustrates the random
retelling o f facts without attention to paragraphing or sequencing. There is no introduction to
the topic o f spiders and the paper ends abruptly. Sample 2 of ^ p en d ix N

meety

for sequencing and body paragraph development. He wWwa/Zy meet;
agzgc&ztzow as he has done a straight par^hrase o f the original source article; however, again
no introduction or conclusion is present.
The body paragraph sequencing o f Sample 4 o f Appendix N

weets gagwcAz/zow

and the majority o f her body paragraph development exceedk ejgzgc&zAow because o f the
elective grouping o f related facts.

138

D

f

m

fgrce»f o/^jkgw&zr

wzfA ZZ), coidfAbe TbAzZ

C^ü&y OM(Ae fo rw j^MAaecfzo» q/^(Ae fYgmagjameMf aw / (Ae fof6zs?eas7Me»f
Level 1
Does Not Meet

Level 2
Minimally
Meets

Level 3
Fully Meets

Level 4
Exceeds

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

pre

post

% of regular students
(n=16)

63

12

31

44

6

44

0

0

% of students with LD
(n=9)

100

67

0

33

0

0

% of class (n=25)

76

32

20

40

This student's introduction and conclusion /nfw/wa//y meef

0

28

0

0

however. The

introduction is a single thesis statement, "In this report I am going to tell you some stuff I
learned and researched about cacti." There is no attempt made to draw the reader in and there
is no indication o f the main ideas that will be discussed. The conclusion is abrupt and
acknowledges the reader but neither engages the reader nor summarises the main ideas o f the
paper. Sample 6 o f Appendix N contains an introduction and a conclusion that weety
agxc&zfioTK as it engages the reader and summarises the report. This student's body
paragraph development 611s b e t w e e n a n d exceee/fng

Finally, the

introduction in Sample 5 o f Appendix N erceeuk apecA n/ow by engaging the reader with
rhetorical questions that include amazing facts about cacti: "Did you know that some cacti can
grow bigger than a telephone pole? or "Did you know that the Saguaro Cactus can hold over

139
a ton o f water?" This author also states a thesis and then outlines the main ideas that will be
covered. The sequencing of this paper gxcgedk

by intentionally combining main

ideas and supporting details 6om both source articles. The conclusion in this sample,
however, only

meet; aipec&ffzow. Although it does summarise the paper, it is

abrupt and does not have as strong an impact on the reader as did her introduction.

To conclude the discussion of the students' reports, I compare the report scores across
subsections from the preassessment to the postassessment. The point of this data is to
highlight that gains in writing related to the initial levels of expertise. Most students coming
into Grades 6 and 7 were able to draft a recognisable report because they knew to include
specific facts and vocabulary to educate the reader. What most students were not yet
including in their reports were introductions, conclusions, and well-supported main ideas.
Figure 2 compares the mean percents of each report subsection and the mean total score from
preassessment to postassessment.
I believe the overall gains are directly related to the explicit instruction in and practice of
the RAP and PAR Strategies. In the style and meaning subsections, the gains were less
pronounced because the m^ority o f students already had a suftScient understanding of the
informative report genre in terms o f fact inclusion. If time had permitted, explicit lessons
about editing word choice, understanding the dift&rence and the power o f proper nouns versus
common nouns, including statistics, and practising transitions between sentences and
paragraphs. As it was, students in the independent phase o f report-writing were experimenting
with these issues on a "need to know" basis and from incidental exposure.

140
fXgwe 2

fgrcewty 7»

m

E/eMzemCyjv-om f/emaga^sTMg»/ fo foaüMe&$wg»f

Preassessment

i i i i i i Postassessment

AZ%

80
70

im

79%
76%

74%

69%
64%

60

60%;

50
i50%
40
30

I
10
0
Meaning

Style

Form

Process

Total

Sections o f the Report Assessment Form
Although gains in mean scores can be noted in all sections, the largest gains were in
form (introduction, body, and conclusion) and process (prewriting and drafting). The students'
reports &om preassessment to postassessment showed overall gains in planning and
organisation beyond mere note-taking, were longer because o f more supporting details per

141
paragraph, and introductions and conclusions —which were almost non-existoit in the
preassessment.
Figure 3 compares preassessment scores to postassessment scores o f regular students to
students with LD (The two students with LD who did not have a preassessment report were
not included in this data.) Although the means o f the students with LD are lower on each
section, they reflect the same patterns of gains as described for the whole class. The greatest
gains were made in the meaning and form sections of the reports. In addition, the students
with LD made greater gains (17%) in the meaning section than regular students (7%). In all
other sections the regular students made greater gains in percent; however, when overall gains
were compared to preassessment scores (regular students made gains of 15% and students
with LD made gains o f 13%), students with LD made proportionately greater gains. It is again
important to note that skiUs learned by practising the RAP Strategy appeared to generalise to
report-writing with limited report-writing practice. Unfortunately, because of my instructional
choices, students with LD did not keep pace with the regular students when writing a report
as they had done using the RAP Strategy.
As I stated, gains were made, but no student was exceeding expectations in all areas.
Improvement in identifying and restating main ideas and writing elective introductions and
conclusions are speciflc areas that suggest that the RAP Strategy could be introduced 6)r
several consecutive years at the middle school level and well into high school. The value of
these results, both positive and negative, are a contribution to the current literature
on exposition and the value o f strategy instruction.

142
figure 3

Aieo» ferceM(y Co/?gxzri»g

W A ID io f eguAzr

7» fepori-)*??^/^ fk7MeM(y

from frea&$eaame»f fo f(wïaMe^ameMf

Preassessmsnt
Postassessment

80
70

83%
75%
tx>

66%

LD

60

54%
LD

50
<ü

81%
77%

47%
LD

40

Ph

30
27%r
LD

20
10
0

Meaning

Style

Form

Process

Total

This concludes the results focussing primarily on the declarative and procedural aspects
of report-writing. Collectively, the students' developing understandings o f the writing process
and the text structure o f reports was evident in their end-products. Many students identiSed
and reflected upon the gaps in their understanding o f how to write a report and expressed the
belief that these gaps were being filled through the explicit instruction o f this unit. What
fallows in the fourth and fnal section o f this chapter are my attempts to reveal evidence of

143
students' metacognitive ûmctioning as they proceeded through the report-writing unit.

\^ th the perfect vision o f hindsight, I wish I had &ctored in time to interview each o f
my students at regular intervals during the study with a cumulative interview at the end. My
most rewarding learning came &om the times I and a student developed a joint understanding
o f his/her thinking that superseded just accomplishing the task for a mark. During the study,
my goal for student performance was based on Alexander, Graham, and Harris's (1998)
description of strategic learners as effective information processors who are thoughtful,
reflective problem-solvers who can manipulate knowledge, create procedures, and generalise
past learning to new situations.
After the study, I came across Borkowski and Muthukrishna's (1992) list of ten
characteristics of the strategic learner: (a) knows many learning strategies, (b) understands the
importance of learning strategies, (c) selects, monitors, and reflects upon the learning
strategies, (d) views learning as incremental, (e) believes effort affects per&rmance, (Q is
intrinsically motivated to complete tasks and master goals, (g) accepts Allure as part of the
learning experience, (h) perceives self in future time ftames for goal development, (i) knows
and has access to a wide variety o f knowledge, and (j) is supported as a learner in and out of
school. After reading this article, I had a better understanding o f how both constructivist and
reductionist perspectives had shaped strategy instruction. Given that my own goals are to
apply more constructivist principles in my own class, I found that the ten characteristics o f the
strategic learner helped to direct my inquiries and to organise my results.
Based on my observations in this study, I believe that metacognition is connected to the

144
amount o f knowledge a student has about a topic or process. In addition, how that student
begins to apply or reflect upon that knoWedge is developmental. Thus, the following
collection o f comments are intended to show a range o f understandings leading to and
including metacognition.

I believe any student who makes it to the Grade 6/7 level has already learned a lot. The
question is: "Is the learning of the child valued in the present school system?" Eventually, I
would like to better understand the strategies that students choose to enact —especially those
strategies enacted by students perceived as failing. However, because of the context of this
study, I am only focussing on the overt behaviours, comments, and end products related to the
RAP and PAR Strategies. By the end of the unit, I observed few students actually including
the word "strategy" in their written comments, but all students were using the acronyms RAP
or PAR or describing changes in their approaches. A colleague of mine, however, who was
also working with my students at the time o f this study, commented on my students'
vocabulary choices as she held discussions with them. She observed that the instruction my
students were receiving in my class were adding to their lexicon. She heard students using the
word "strategy" as they talked about learning, and she found they asked such questions as,
"What are the criteria for this assignment?" This colleague's observations suggest that my
students' discourse was evolving and being generalised to other subjects with other teachers.
[Wbrs&mdk rAe TmpwAzncg q/"Zeammg jjÿtraregrgf
All students at one point or another in this study recognized the value of the learning
they had received in this report-writing unit; however, certain students expressed this with

145
more conviction and a broader view.
Metacognitive: "As I progressed through the stages o f RAP, I learned that it
[note-taking] wasnt the time wasting thing I thought it was in the beginning. I realized
that it was an important part o f learning how to not plagiarise."
Metacognitive: "I think kids should learn the skills of RAP earlier so that in higher
grades note-taking is easier and it is not so hard to a^ust to the RAP system. Also RAP
is important because it shows paragraphs broken down into in&rmation that is easier to
take in."
Metacognitive: "I used to hate paragraphing, but this strategy is very useful in the
writing process."
Selects Learning Strategies
Students did not have much option to select from a variety of strategies. They did,
however, have the opportunity to refine their strategies, which most students were happy to
do as suggested by previous comments. One student did express her dissatisfaction with my
approach at focussing exclusively on the RAP and PAR Strategies. This student expressed the
desire to have had her strategies evaluated before my enforcement of RAP and PAR.
Unfortunately, because I wanted to score the preassessment in the same manner and at the
same time as the postassessment, I did not look at the preassessments until after the study was
completed. Unfortunately, as one student pointed out, this limited the knowledge I had o f my
students pre-existing strategies:
Metacognitive: "I think she should have let us write one report the way we wanted to so
she could o f seen how we write without RAP, PAR, writing process. And then she
could of shown us her way. Then let us use both ways. "
In addition, I was interested in the variations o f students receiving the same strategy
instruction. This ruled out my attention to other methods o f note-taking. However, in

146
subsequent years, I will be more cognisant o f any pre-existing strategies students have, and
End ways to accommodate a variety of approaches.

Reflecting upon the strategies was an inherent part of the students' learning logs.
Students were required to do this as a means of attempting to document their thought
processes that might not be apparent to an observer. I believe that evaluative comments about
report-writing indicated metacognitive development. To enhance the positive and negative
comments some students made suggestions as to how the report-writing unit could be
improved to meet their needs as a learner.
Procedural: "I think if Mrs. Paterson gave us more time it would be easier. I think that
because some people are not that fast of writers. That's what Mrs. Paterson should do
differently to make it better for me."
Procedural: "Mrs. Paterson could have let us have more Internet time to find more
information or started report-writing earlier so we could have more time to write the
reports."
Metacognitive: "I think it would be a lot easier and faster if we just change the words
we need to change as we rewrite the main idea."
Metacognitive: "Mrs. Paterson could have made report-writing better by giving us more
class time to research, write, and plan our reports. More opportunity to write longer
reports and count them as two or even three depending how long the original report is."
Ffewf Zearwng ay TricremeMAz/
The comments o f this characteristic o f the strategic learner can be applied also to the
previous characteristic on monitoring the strategy. Some students noted how they were
improving in the implementation o f the strategy itself while other students commented on how

147
the strategy had an impact on their writing process. Two students compared their current
performance to what they recalled about their preassessment performance.
Literal; "I like doing this because I can see how this is helping me and when we did that
on the spiders [preassessment] I can see what I did wrong and I probably could get a
much better mark now."
Procedural: "I like RAPs because I can see how I'm improving because of how fast I go
compared to when we started and what I should write down without plagiarising."
Procedural: "RAP helps me in writing a lot because that time you gave us that spider
essay to RAP to see how good we were doing and I plagiarised and missed a lot of main
ideas and details."
Metacognitive: "It makes note-taking a lot faster because you don't have to go through
the whole article and then go back through it several times."
Metacognitive: "I have improved in RAP because I can look at a paragraph for a few
seconds and I can usually find the supporting details fast. The main idea is a little harder
to find."
Metacognitive: "It seems like we have not learned anything. But this is not true. We
actually have learned a lot. The thing that makes it seem like we haven't learned
anything was that Mrs. Paterson teaches the areas in such small chunks that it seems like
nothing is going in. By the end of the chapter or lesson we have actually learned more
than we know."

The motivational aspects o f strategy use include beliefs about the value o f eGbrt,
extrinsic versus intrinsic reward, and the role o f success versus 6ilure in learning. For
whatever reason or combinations o f reasons, overall students persevered to complete daily
RAP or PAR assignments. All students at one point or another, however, exhibited ofiF-task
behaviours. I observed students offitask and reluctant. Typically, it appeared these students
did not want to work on the task and were engaging in avoidance techniques of gathering
material slowly, prolonged pencil sharpening, disrupting others, or taking fi-equent drink and

148
washroom breaks. I also observed students who were on-task but reluctant. Typically, these
students would appear frustrated, rub out their work in a fury until their paper ripped, sigh
loudly, or respond con&ontationally when I tried to help. I also observed students who were
ofF-task and eager. These students knew Wiat they needed to do and could communicate how
they were going to do it, but they were distracted by pictures in their books, distracted by
discussions between others, or wanted to visit with their ûiends. In contrast, self^regulated
students demonstrated high on-task behaviour, engaged in conversations about their work,
and moved meaningfully about the classroom engaged in activities that related to their task at
hand.
What motivated students to remain on-task and even eager? What motivated students to
continue to hand in assignments that they found difficult to complete? Sometimes the
motivators, I am sure, were simply to avoid my "evil eye," my approaching proximity, my
disconcerting questions, or fear of looming report cards. Sometimes the motivators were
goals:
Literal: I have a goal. My goal is to get 80% percent. I have had this goal for a long
time. I hope to accomplish it."
Literal: "My goal is to graduate &om RAP and become a researcher and RAP my choice
o f an article."
Literal: "My goals are to get good marks in RAP. ...In the future I wish to do better in
RAP"
The above goals were stated by students in the RAP group because they wanted to advance to
independent report-writing. What was interesting about the goals fi"om these students with LD
are that they are realistic goals with a clear understanding o f criteria. OAen in the past I have

149
found that students in general cannot state realistic goals because they are unclear about the
criteria. Unfortunately, marks were also a strong motivator:
Procedural: "In the past I have hated getting report cards in grade four because I was so
shocked about my letter grades that it really discouraged me. I was in learning
assistance I thought I couldnt get good grades any way but when I was in grade ûve I
wasnt and I thought I should try and I did good I got the honour roll and that was my
goal and I was so happy. In the present I have been getting good report cards because
I'm very confident now that I feel that I can do anything if I put my mind in to it."
Metacognitive: "Some kids are not very good at memorising. I for one am good at
memorising. The reason 1 think some kids get bad marks is because of the poor
memorization skills. I think people should choose what their letter grade depend on. If
this happened kids would get better marks and they would not feel bad. If you got to
choose what you get marked on you would not fail and you could fulfill your goals.
Letter grades stop people from doing what they want to do when you get into
highschool, university or college. "
As I became more aware o f the unnatural culture of learning in the classroom, I began
to implement ways to make high effort units like report-writing more authentic. I encouraged
students to choose topics they were passionate about, I encouraged collaborating and editing
with others, and encouraged students to publish their reports for the classroom library.
Despite this, no matter how much I tried to change the culture, the sharp fact of accountability
remained. Students would receive marks and all their eSbrts or loves or improvements would
be reduced to a pass or 6il. Nevertheless, I made it a goal to change my own discourse
surrounding assessment. I caught myself using grades as a reward or a threat. Now, I prefer to
6)cus on the criteria to direct performance. At my best, I also try to look &r reasons that a
student is not achieving rather than automatically assuming the student is at 6ult.
Finally, in regards to motivation, there is the whole issue o f those students who
remained in RAP for the m^ority o f the unit. As I have stated before, I would have had all

150
students proceed to PAR early in the unit in order to build an authentic writing community
and to establish the acceptance of all levels of writers. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore what
the potential future o f these students would be in highschool. Mothus (1997) paints a sobering
view o f highschool students with LD. Unless I can guarantee students a long term learning
environment based on constructivist thought, I have come to the conclusion to best serve the
needs o f my students in the present school systems is to expose students to tasks that require
both constructivist and reductionist activities. It was at times heartbreaking to see their
frustration and to know they wanted to move on to the PAR group. On the other hand, these
students collectively persevered. These students, whom I had witnessed pretending not to care
how well they did, came to believe that with hard work and help they could graduate to the
PAR group. This was not learned helplessness. I believe it was an awareness that they had
some control. They had knowledge and, therefore power.
Literal: "It takes times to get a good mark. To get into research. It's not too hard but
you got to get your work in. My goal is to get into the PAR group. You got to get good
marks though. That is not that hard but it takes awhile."
Believing in eSbrt, however, did not necessarily correlate with enjoying that eSbrt:
Literal: "Note taking is usually hard but half of the time it is easy but the thing I don't
like about it is that you don't give us enough time for us to do 3 paragraphs."
Literal: "I think they [RAP] don't help that good because you have to do so many
paragraphs well not lots but then there's trying not to plagiarise the sentence. Then
there's trying to separate the keywords from the others."
Procedural: "This year I have learned that report-writing is much more work than you
think it is."
Procedural: "The one thing I think is hard about RAP is trying to frnd a main idea. It's
hard if the paragraph is small. "

151
Metacognitive: "I learned that report-writing is uninteresting and boring but needs to be
done."
Metacognitive: "I don't mind doing note-taking right now but I think I have to be in the
mood like if I don't feel like doing it I can't concentrate."
I did End, however, that eGbrt levels and interpretations of eSbrt would fluctuate &om day to
day. Just as some tasks, jobs, or even hobbies require more efbrt, students favoured certain
activities, such as Ending sources, which correlated with on-task behaviour,
fercervej

m fi/rw e Trme

For GooZ Deve/qprneMf

In previous comments it can be noted that students wanted to graduate from the RAP
phase to the independent report-writing phase. This was a goal often stated by students;
however, specific steps to attaining goals were not written down although students may have
made internal plans. Most students referred to a future time frame, but in the context of
recognizing the importance of note-taking or research for highschool.
Literal: "In the future, I will need to know how to note-take for a job or for
highschool."
Literal: "If 1 don't get on the research group this year 1 don't think I will be doing RAP
any more. I hope in the future I will be able to do RAP again. If I had a chance to do
RAP again next year I would. "
Procedural: "My future will be better at doing this because I know all the errors I made
when doing RAP and PAR When I get into highschool and they might not show me
RAP and PAR because they might have thought I did and I have so it's a good thing
Mrs Paterson taught me this year. Pm glad she taught me in grade six so that I know it
better when Pm in grade seven. "
Procedural: "I believe that I will remember how to RAP and PAR for the rest of my
life."
Procedural: "I think note-taking will help me in the future and it will be a good strategy
ft)r not plagiarising. "

152
Metacognitive: "This [note-taking] would dehnitely help me in high grades because if I
know how to note-take 6ir exams and other thing I wont get caught for plagiarism. "
Metacognitive: "I will always use this process even until college! It will help me so that
I make sure I never plagiarise unless it is very necessary to. I dont want to get in
trouble with school about plagiarising."
Ænowf aw f

to a

Tanety q/^Ænowkü(^g

In this study, it was not my intention to measure the broad range o f knowledge that
students have; however, it is worth mentioning that RAP and PAR encouraged knowledge
acquisition beyond strategy knowledge. The paragraphs and articles I had chosen to assign
students in the RAP phase contained a wide range of simplified historical and scientific
knowledge such as famous people, animals, and inventions. In addition, students gained new
knowledge as they investigated topics of their choice. Several students commented that one of
the reasons that RAP was enjoyable was the titbits of information they received. Others
enjoyed being able to choose topics when engaged in the independent report-writing phase.
Procedural: "I'm learning about stuff that I'm researching at the same time as when I'm
doing the RAP."
Procedural: "I like the researching better than the RAPs you gave because I have to be
interested in the topic so that's why enjoy it."
Metacognitive: "The reasons I don't like RAP are I think RAPs are boring because you
dont need to learn the stufT she gives you so if you dont have to learn it there's no point
in writing it."
Metacognitive: "The PARs are even better because the information is o f our choice so I
can leam a lot about the topic o f my choice. "
The tenth characteristic that Borkowski and Muthukrishna (1992) included in their list
o f characteristics o f the strategic learner is being supported as a learner both in and out of
school. Because o f the limitations of this study I will not comment at all about how my

153
students were being supported as learners outside o f school; however, in the next chapter, I
describe how I attempted to support my students as we worked through the report-writing
unit.
Overall, both the regular students and the students with LD made signiGcant gains using
the RAP Strategy. The duration of instruction for students with LD allowed students with LD
to make gains that kept pace with the regular students rather than &lling further behind —
which is characteristic of their learning. Both groups of students also showed qualitative gains
in their report-writing. Collectively, the regular students went from minimally meeting
expectations on their reports of the preassessment to fully meeting expectations on the
postassessment. Students with LD went from went from not meeting expectations on the
preassessment to minimally meeting expectations on the postassessment. As students with LD
had limited report-writing exposure, the explicit instruction and practice of the RAP Strategy
appears to have generalised to their report-writing.

154

CHAPTER FTVE
Results and Discussion
Tnürfx&cfzon
In the previous chapter, I presented the data I collected &om the students, including
their records of their thoughts and understandings, samples of their work, gains in
end-product scores, and performance descriptors. Based on these data, I discussed: (a) my
students' cognitive and metacognitive knowledge about report text structure and the process
of note-taking and report-writing, (b) qualitative differences in the students' written work,
(c) quantitative gains and the range of abilities within an inclusive classroom, and (d) my
refininement of the assessment forms to better meet instructional goals.
In this chapter, I rely primarily on my daybook record and field notes to present: (a) my
teaching strategies, (b) my reactions to my students' learnings, their misunderstandings and
their behaviours, and (c) my learning while enacting a strategy instruction model. This chapter
is the most temporally distant and interpretative chapter of this thesis. Although the teaching
strategies and many reflections are in keeping with the documentation in my daybook and field
notes, much of my learning occured many months after the completion o f the study as I
confirmed to do related research and to apply a new perspective to the events in this study.
Five broad themes emerged. I begin with a theoretical discussion o f learning, individuals
within the school system and my interpretation of strategy instruction. This is fi)llowed by a
discussion o f the instructional methods I employed under the headings: direct instruction,
modelling, writing process, discourse development, questioning, scaffolding, and feedback.
Third, I discuss the strategies and materials I introduced to students and adapted as necessary.

155

The fourth main theme focuses on my understandings o f student self-regulation and
metacognition. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion about the role o f teachers in
research.

In order to interpret the strategy instruction literature and to reflect upon my
performance as a teacher, I had to come to terms with the dichotomy within the research and
myself created by the competing paradigms of reductionism and constructivism. It was easiest
to recognise the extremes. Some studies focussed entirely on the interventions and empirical
results so the subjects were nameless, faceless, and passionless. On the other hand, these types
of studies were condemned by other researchers for favouring a traditional scientific model
that had little to do with the grey areas of humanity and learning. The range of these two
perspectives led naturally to a dichotomy of the criticisms of the public school system and
teachers. A pattern I saw was that reductionists tended to criticise individual teachers for not
being able to break learning effectively into meaningful parts and teach those parts explicitly to
all levels of students. Constructivists tended to criticise the school system for perpetuating a
system that favours methodology and confiarmity over adaptation and individuality.
Nevertheless, there was research that fish between the extremes. The authors
contributing to this body of literature spoke o f the realities o f the individuals within the
present school system. These authors recognised the history, impact, weaknesses, and
strengths of traditional models o f education, yet remained hopeful of educational refiarm as
new research points to the potential of constructivism. I fiaund myself most comfortable on the
reductionism- constructivism continuum being slightly off-centre and &vouring

156

constructivism. At present as a teacher, I am most comfortable where theory and practice and
idealism and reality co-exist. Harris and Graham (1993) state, "we need not make either-or
decisions or create unnecessary dichotomies" (p. 34). Similarly Isaacson (1992) points out:
"The real issue in efkctive instruction is not whether it is holistic or reductionist. The real
issue is whether it is complete. . . . Holistic and atomistic are antithetical concepts, but not
antithetical endeavours" (p. 175).
I realise that complete looks different for different students and that I must account for
students who are natural reductionists and students who are natural constructivists. I need to
create opportunities for both convergent and divergent thought. I need to allow students to
see the whole and understand the parts. In returning to the whole-part-whole concept within
constructivism, I began to realize that the best principles and practices of constructivism
appear to sandwich the best principles and practices of reductionism. I realized, perhaps from
my teacher training and my natural style of learning, that I tended and tend to overemphasise
the part. Poplin (1988a) views learning as establishing new understandings from old
understandings to the point we may "gradually lose the ability to see these experiences in the
old way ever again" (p. 403). In order to better understand my students', I ask, "Tell me what
you do understand." At this point, students require different levels o f support, but I can offen
determine whether the student needs to better understand the whole or the part. In the past, I
typically would have re-emphasised the part.
More important, however, than constructivism or reductionism, is caring for the
individual. My greatest pleasure as a teacher comes from being able to enjoy my students and
to remain hopeffd that their learning and development will take a positive direction under my

157

care. In general, I sense that if students know I like them and want to help them, they more
easily forgive me my lapses. They are more likely to communicate with me so I can be more
elective —despite the limitations of operating within a school system where reform is difdcuh
to initiate and maintain because o f politics and Amding.

The school system perpetuates itself with rules, expectations, and assessments that are
challenging for teachers and students. I feel that teachers have a distinct advantage over
students because we have chosen to re-engage in a system in which we likely were successful
as students. However, students have little choice, and for some —especially students with LD
—learning at school can be exceptionally difficult. This may be compounded by the fact that
students who are having difficulty are being taught by teachers, such as myself, who have been
able to leam readily within the school system and have difficulty understanding those who
cannot. I think in a certain way, and I find it difficult to imagine thinking another way. So,
despite my efforts to understand my students better, my planning, instmctional approach, and
expectations are an outgrowth of my way of thinking and seeing the world. Given my
subjectivity, I need to continue to develop my ability to scaffiald all my students, not just the
ones who think as I do. At the same time, I recognize that I need to set up my classroom to
give students the autonomy to get help fi^om each other. I need to allow them to say, "I dont
understand," and to make choices about process and presentation. On the other hand, my
students are only in Grade 6 and 7 and still have a long future in the school system. I have to
encourage autonomy that will be useful in the years to come. I have to encourage students to
understand how they leam and what situations make learning easier or more difficult within

158

the present system. Ideally, however, I want the students to come to believe that, in spite of
the saliency o f letter grades, it is how one learns, the help one receives &om others, and the
learning for learning's sake that are important in the long term.

Developing instructional practices that encourage students to develop positive working
relationships with each other and their teacher builds a supportive environment in which all
students are encouraged and expected to become strategic. This is a move against the
tendency of classrooms to be competitive sites where the teacher's approval is sought. Ideally,
I want to have a classroom where individuality in learning is expected and progress in all its
forms is valued more than the rank-ordering of students. As a teacher, I want my students to
develop competence and autonomy (Pressley et al., 1992). My focus, therefore, need not be
which student is better or worse than the others. My real concern is how I can enhance each
student's learning.

AWIgMty IPzfAZD
Adding to the profile of students with LD created by the definition of learning
disabilities and the list of characteristics o f students with LD by Johnson and Lapadat (2000)
cited in Chapter 2 is Bender and Smith's (1990) collection o f maladaptive behaviour patterns
o f students with LD. In their meta-analysis o f results (based on teacher ratings o f students
with LD and the researcher's own direct observations o f students with LD), these researchers
collected evidence o f behaviours they believed was significant enough to afiect the students'
abilities to leam efiectively in the classroom. The maladaptive behaviours that they identified
were: distractibility, acting out, disturbing peers, and ofi^task activity. All o f these behaviours

159

were more time-consuming for the teacher. In a study compiling 57 teachers' and 663
students' perceptions o f strategy use, Meltzer et al. (1998) were interested in the obvious
discrepancy between teacher ratings and self-assessments of students with LD. The
researchers suggest that students with LD may misconstrue teacher praise, evaluate their
performance based on hke peers, and deny their difGculties. What I found interesting about
these data was the connection between lack o f awareness of self and learning. If students
believe themselves to be doing well then self-regulation behaviours are unlikely to be triggered
and growth may be hampered.
Coping in the system. Undoubtedly, students with LD can leam as was evident by the
significant gains made in this study. It has been suggested that the behaviours described above
are not the primary cause of not learning, but rather the students' reaction to their learning
difficulties (Mothus, 1997; Wong, 1996). What if students actually have underlying learning
difficulties because they cannot understand the instruction, the materials, or the discourse
quickly enough? It becomes obvious to me that if the instmction, the materials, or the
discourse is the problem, then my job as a teacher is to change it.
Strategy instruction has oSered me that direction o f change because o f the focus on
processes rather than content and the use o f methods that teach declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge explicitly. Strategy instruction can be seen as a vehicle for providing a
"reality check" far students about what needs to be done and how and why it needs to be
done. When clear criteria are established for performance and the end product, it is more
difficult far a student to continue to believe they have "done enough." Students may begin to
find it easier to pinpoint exact areas where personal improvement can occur. Wong et al.

160

(1997) were surprised to Gnd that aAer students had engaged in strategy instruction in writing,
gains in self-efBcacy were not made. This suggests to me that a "reality check" occurred.
Students placed their own performance against established criteria and recognised the learning
and hard work they still had to do. Although Wong et al. did not state this, I believe that a
Ending of no gains in self-efBcacy may be indicative of complementary gains in metacognitive
development, such as thinking about one's thinking or becoming aware o f one's weaknesses
and limitations. I believe that through becoming aware of our weaknesses, we can improve
them. So, when dealing with students with LD, skirting around the issue of the students'
difficulties in an attempt to be kind or politically correct or suggesting their difficulties cannot
be overcome anyway, may, in fact, be doing these children a disservice. Learning can be
self-directed when it is clear what one has to leam. This was evident in the note-taking,
organising, and report-writing behaviours demonstrated by the students in this study, the
resulting gains, and some o f their comments in the preceding chapter.
I spoke with students about the term Zewwng ûBaaAtAfzM and how school could feel so
confusing. I did not notice that this discourse encouraged students to "slack off' because they
had an excuse or a crutch. Rather, it seemed to validate some o f the feelings they had about
school. My interpretation was that it empowered students to say, "I End this hard. I never
understood this. Nobody explained this to me." In some cases, I had students say, "I
didn't realize this was the answer; it seems too simple! "
Englert et al. (1992) found, when implementing their model o f strategy instrucEon, that
the most dramatic gains in students' ardculations about the writing process and text structure
were made by students with LD. Wong et. al. found that acquiring knowledge is the Erst step,

161

but applying that knowledge requires a gradual ceding o f responsibility to the students. If a
teacher does not let go, she perpetuates students' dependence on her instead o f encouraging
students to internalise strategies and processes and regulate their own learning (Manage et al.,
2000). McCormick et al. (1992) observed in their study on writing that students with LD were
moving in a direction characteristic of all writers, although their progress was behind that of
their regular peers. I have to concur with the research literature that suggests that students
with learning disabilities are moving along the same continuum as other learners rather than
not progressing at all or proceeding in a different pattern. Yes, my students with learning
disabilities were more literal, struggled with the abstract, had a harder time being positive, and
at times felt frustrated. These students came with a history that I could not undo, but I felt
positive that I could make a difference. My students with LD did get excited about
researching a topic of their choice, were using appropriate words to discuss note-taking and
report-writing, and were refining note-taking strategies. In this study, my students with LD
did make gains in their strategy use and in their writing across all dimensions measured.

Learning is an active process for all learners. Cognitive activities can be viewed as
personal and strategic. Through experiences, a person develops strategies for absorbing new
information or retrieving memories, or tackling a problem. Learning can be viewed as
occurring through a set o f automatic or deliberate strategies that one compiles over a lifetime
(Pressley et al., 1992). Thus, strategy instruction need not be viewed as short term
remediation that assumes a child is lacking strategies or assumes ineffective strategies must be
removed (Sjostrom & Hare, 1984). Rather, the classroom can be viewed as the place in which

162

children can discover, enact, and reSne strategies that help them leam, problem solve, and
complete tasks. It is the child's experiences, past and present, that determine in the end what
strategies and tactics will evolve. What I have come to see &om this study is that introducing
single strategies such as the RAP or PAR Strategy is the beginning o f an evolution of
instruction within a classroom which allows students to develop a repertoire o f

reaching

strategies that hit at the core of what students are expected to do at and beyond school
(effective socialising, speaking, listening, reading, writing, researching, experimenting, and
problem solving). The ultimate purpose of strategy instruction is to promote learning and
metacognition (Hattie et al, 1996) so that ultimately each student develops a strategic style
unique to that child's interests, abilities, and idiosyncracies.
Instructional M odels
Ellis (1993 a) suggests that there is no particular strategy instruction model that will
meet the needs of all teachers, students, or instructional settings. He feels that it is important
for the teacher to be able to choose from alternatives. Duffy (1993) believes that an
instructional model itself is not as important as the flexibility, creativity, and reflectiveness of
the teacher, especially when class sizes may be high and availability o f resources and support
may be low. To suggest that efkctive instmction can be captured in a model is limiting if it
suggests a linear path, or a reproducible trail that other teachers can follow. Effective
instmction, strategy instmction, or best practices requires education, experience, adaptation,
reflection, and intuition. These &ctors are what teachers draw from to engage, explain, and
encourage. It is our survival kit within a large, unforgiving system.
I believe teachers do not have the luxury o f maintaining a single philosophy because we

163

must take the best of instructional methods whether it is 6om a discovery approach, a
constructivist approach or a traditional approach. Making informed instructional decisions
about methods and materials can be described as ongoing action research. Teachers explore
methods, collect data, and make ac^ustments to promote interest and learning in their
students. Being an effective teacher, as measured by student learning, is hard work. Some
theorists seem to suggest that only a few teachers have the prerequisites for implementing a
strategy instruction model. I tend to disagree. 1 believe that levels of effective instruction are
on a continuum of learning that is career long. There is no right or wrong entry point. What is
important is that teachers choose strategy instruction because they are passionate about it,
believe it will make a difference to the learning of students, and are willing to adapt their
methodology and materials until they have an instructional model that works for them. I am
critical of the initial philosophy but not of the tremendous amount of the work of the
KU-IRLD (The Kansas University Institute of Research of Learning Disabilities) group. This
group has suggested that most teachers are not capable of teaching their Learning Strategies
Curriculum. I believe teachers reject this type of attitude, rigidity, and lack of trust. If the
KU-IRLD group encouraged adaptation o f their model and supported rather than criticised
teachers, their curriculum might experience much greater adoption. AAer all. Manage et al.
(2000) found that it was the ways that individual teachers encouraged learning that
determined the instruction or eSectiveness o f instruction.

Upon beginning this study, I had 14 years o f teaching experience and felt competent
applying general managerial techniques, developing positive relationships with my students.

164

and creating an overall positive learning tone in my classroom. However, having little
experience teaching exposition and no experience with strategy instruction. I prepared myself
by gathering and reading pertinent literature, sketching out a scope and sequence outline for
the note-taking/report-writing unit, and designing and gathering materials. In the end, it was
not just the resources that determined the success of a lesson, but rather all of the intangibles
related to teaching experience. It seems that no matter how much "up-&ont" work I do, with
either commercial packages or personally prepared units, my effectiveness evolves from my
experiences with my students' experiences. This means compiling, anticipating, and responding
to the range of questions, responses, interpretations, misinterpretations, errors, and successes,
and then remembering that every new student adds depth to that range. For every action I
describe in this thesis, there are far more missing. Ironically, my reflections on my
inadequacies and "should haves" and potential limitations of this study also represent my
greatest learning and validate the need for action research that may potentially fill the void
between research and practice.
Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) make the observation that establishing routines in a classroom
while simultaneously adapting instruction and routines for individuals may represent
competing forces. Routines can make a classroom environment orderly and efBdent so that
the day-to-day classroom is comfortable and predictable; yet, at the same time, those routines
may limit spontaneity, creativity and dexibility. Thus, I found I needed to reûect upon and
then modi^ routines to encompass students' overall needs for choice and individual assistance.
For example, silent reading after lunch may be the routine; however, within that routine,
students can choose their reading material and choose vdiere they sit or lounge when reading.

165

Writing reports may be the unit of study using established routines during the writing block;
however, students may choose the topic 6)r their report and rehne individual research and
writing tactics and strategies. Personally, this means that I have had to conhont my own role
in the classroom and have had to give up some authority and control (Mariage et ai., 2000).
Basically, I wanted to establish a classroom culture in which students experienced structure
but not directiveness (Stone, 2002). Thus, the 6)ci o f the next section o f this paper describes:
(a) teacher- versus student-directed learning, (b) developing discourse, (c) scaffolding, and
(d) compiling/developing materials.
Direct instruction
In his meta-analysis of successfol interventions with students with LD, Swanson (1999)
found that combining direct instruction and strategy instruction approaches resulted in gains.
Earlier, I stated that direct instruction could be viewed as composed of such elements as
explicit instruction of the steps of a task or process, development of mastery at each step,
gradual fading from teacher directed activities toward independent work, use of adequate,
systematic practice with a range o f examples, and cumulative review o f nevdy learned
concepts. Although a model o f direct instruction may seem formulaic, it is a tradition within
reductionism that has value because it is a systematic model o f instruction and scaffolding that
breaks learning into parts so that the whole can be better understood. Yet, it is general enough
to encompass a broad range o f instructional methods and learning strategies.
I basically adhered to the above stages o f instruction during the keyword phase and the
RAP Strategy phase, but not during the independent report-writing, which was student driven.
During the keyword phase and the RAP Strategy instructional phase, I explicitly presented

166

information about keywords, non-ûction, plagiarism, note-taking, the main idea, supporting
details, and the writing process. I presented this information during whole-class instruction
and elicited AiU participation by allowing "think time" and partner communication between
teacher-directed questions. My demonstrations o f the RAP Strategy and my use o f visual
prompts were other sources o f explicit information. In the past, when students did not learn a
concept or complete a task to indicate understanding, I attributed this primarily to the
students' developmental readiness. Now, I am more aware of the need for explicitness and
realize that often students are willing to work but cannot begin because they do not
understand the instructions. I presented information in a step-by-step progression, moving
from identifying keywords to identifying main ideas and supporting details. The goal for
graduating from the RAP group to the independent report-writing group was achieving 80%
mastery. Instruction was criterion-based not time-based. Students required less and less
assistance as they showed gains in the RAP phase, receiving help either when they requested it
or when their behaviours indicated they needed help. Material was maintained at a constant
Grade 3 level during the RAP phase, but the topics were varied. I reviewed learning during
daily Wiole class discussions.
In this study, I found ft)Uowing a direct instruction model to be extremely helpftil. What
I value about direct instruction is that it is systematic, predictable, and familiar to students. It
may not appear as exciting or dynamic or engaging as discovery learning, but direct
instruction need not create passive learners, nor be boring. I believe direct instruction has its
place when complemented by other methods. Direct instruction can be eScient when
providing declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge as long as simultaneous

167

methods are being used to include all learners. Some students appear to like and beneGt, at
least at times, &om direct instruction: "I like it when I know what is going on, and the work is
easy &r me. " On the other hand, I hnd it difhcult to maintain continuous direct instruction
because o f the variation in students' learning. I need methods that challenge students who are
at a more independent stage of learning while at the same time helping those students who
need it.

Two methods of instruction that are highly recommended in the
strategy instruction literature are teacher modelling and thinking aloud (Englert & Raphael,
1988; Swanson, 1999). The point of modelling is that students observe the effective
behaviours and hear the reasoning and problem solving inner dialogues of their teacher with
the purpose of internalising the behaviours to later enact themselves. I did not perfect this
method because I found my students became restless listening to me. So I began to involve
them by asking questions and eliciting their thoughts, or the behaviours they might enact, but
then the flow of the modelling was interrupted. I think part of my difficulty with modelling
was that students at the Grade 6/7 level are less interested in adult thinking than in their peers'
thinking In addition, I believe they consider adult thinking to be serious, curtailing,
controlling, and lacking understanding. As I rejected on this study months affer its
completion, I began to formulate a way to model strategy or tactic use. It would involve
videotaping students. In my experience, material like this is rare. A video collection could be
compiled for a wide range o f strategies. Students could even be given a project to create a
videotape for students their age showing how one writes an effective report ffom beginning to

168

end. For instructional purposes, the videos could be watched as a way o f establishing the
"whole" and then reviewed for discussion. In addition, once students had seen eSective
strategy use, they could compare their own per&rmance to the strategy use of the students in
the video. An idea such as videotaping children for the purpose o f teaching children is just one
of many ways that a direct instruction model can be adapted to encompass both traditional
methods o f teaching and constructivism.
Writing process
Sexton et al. (1998) recognize the controversy within the literature suggesting that
strategy instruction methods requiring explicitness and structure may not be compatible with
whole language or writing process approaches. They argue, however, that strategy instruction
in writing need not be enacted as decontextualized teaching of isolated and meaningless skills
to a passive group of students. McCormick et al. (1992) refer to Hillocks' 1986 meta-analysis
in which he states that a process approach alone was not as effective as combined explicit
instruction and a process approach. Thus, an elective writing program facuses on the
qualities of effective writing and strategies to generate effective writing through the use of
discussion, explicit criteria, and student self evaluation. A program such as this is intended to
build students' conceptualisations o f what composing involves, to encourage effective
revisions rather than simply changing one word for another, and to promote higher-order
processes o f writing. This focus that has little to do with number o f words and neatness upon
which so many students (especially students with LD) are focussed (MacArthur et al., 1995).
Rather than viewing strategy instruction and writing process instruction as two different
models, I came to view the writing process as an all encompassing strategy containing a great

169

number of sub-strategies and tactics. Thus, instruction o f the writing process can be viewed as
strategy instruction. Within that instruction, ef&cdve practices 6om traditional models,
writing process models, and whole language models can be integrated. An instructor may
provide direct teaching o f explicit knowledge, and &cilitate strategy implementation within a
community of writers who experiment with their writing. McCormick et al. (1992) view the
teacher as a wnfmg coacA rather than as the assigner of topics and the red pen corrector of
writing who now focuses on the cognitive activities of writing rather than the end-products
alone. The writing environment created by this focus allows students to "experience" the
writing process in its entirety (Englert & Raphael, 1988) while focussing on strategies within
that process such as the RAP and PAR Strategies.
Student autonomy.

My choice to have students work independently during part of

each language block meant "letting go" as a teacher. It was freeing for the students because
they knew they had the autonomy to direct their own writing. It was freeing for me to trust
that students can learn without me and to trust that students can learn from their peers. On the
other hand, I rationalised my instructional choices to counter potential challenges by my
students, other teachers, my administrators, or parents. I was not challenged during the study,
but I was prepared to state that students needed freedom to explore their own process of
writing, that individual help was provided by me, that debriehng o f tmderstandings occurred
regularly so students could measure their learning to that of their peers, and that practice of
spelling and grammar occured during the editing and proof-reading phases. Personally, my
biggest concern about methods that encourage independence in students is not a theoretical
one, but rather I worry about students' choices o f behaviour. In giving students independence

170

to work, I also gave them independence to be oS"task. I had to control disruptive behaviour.
The irony is that the students who most desired independence and who most needed the
practice were the students who had the greatest difBculty handling independence responsibly.
Many o f these students were students with LD. My ideal is to promote a
sociocognitive-constructivist stance that encourages all students to participate in the writing
culture at their own level, regardless o f Wiat that level is. In t h e s e c t i o n hirther
along in this chapter, I list some methods I developed subsequent to this study in order to
minimise disruptions and to enhance learning.
Discourse development
An important development in my growth as a teacher was the language of the
classroom that entered my consciousness. In terms of the classroom culture, I had not hilly
realized the implications o f language and discourse and their potential to create a type of
culture. I had not ever considered that the classroom culture encompassed some students and
eliminated others. I had not thought of classroom language as a source of controversy. During
the coursework required for my Master degree, I was introduced to the view that classrooms
are communities with a culture of their own found nox^ere else (Hicks, 1996a). These unique
cultural communities are now being studied, from an anthropological view, to better
understand how their characteristic discourses and social interactions impact learning.
Mfg.

Hicks (1996a) suggests that many classrooms continue to remain

rigidly teacher-directed. Pappas et al. (1999) criticise this type o f classroom for its
management style based on the power, authority, and expertise o f the teacher which yields
discourses where "teachers not only do most o f the talking, but they also control how much

171

children talk as well as the nature o f their talk" (p.48). I have tried to attain a balance between
teacher authority and student empowerment. In doing this I have had to reflect upon my
beliefs about how children should be treated, my pedagogical beliefs, my teaching experiences,
and my comfort level with change. I am interested in implementing classroom practices that
improve learning. If learning can be improved through classroom discourses then I am
interested in improving the nature o f that classroom discourse. I am interested in practices
that promote a positive learning environment that develop self-motivated, independent
learners who are exposed to authentic, child-centered language experiences (Pappas et al.
1999).
In this study, I began to focus on several areas of language. The first was familiarising
students with the language required to discuss topics about writing process, note-taking, and
report-writing. Englert and Mariage (1991) believe that the talk in the classroom can ensure
that everyone is talking the same talk. In other words, all students should have access to the
same vocabulary, problem-solving dialogues, and information. In other words, all students
should be allowed to participate in the classroom community at whatever level they can.
Excluding students by assuming they cannot handle the language guarantees isolation &om the
culture and limits their learning. Gersten and Baker (2001) believe that developing a common
language &r all learners provides a basis 6)r quality dialogues and "demystihes" what appears
to be privileged information. It appears that learning in a social setting has a strong impact on
students' language and vocabulary acquisition (Englert et al., 1992). Vocabulary development
is not about memorising word lists and then struggling to use the word effectively in a
sentence. Vocabulary development is purpose&d and strategic (O'Connor & Michaels, 1996).

172

The teacher, in &ct, creates authentic contexts for learning and language development. The
teacher consciously groups students in diSerent ways so they practice being social and using
language to promote learning. The students are given the 6eedom to explore di&rent social
techniques while completing academic tasks. SpeciGc to writing, speciSc criteria and language
use can be associated with more effective end-products (Englert et al., 2001; Manage, et al.,
2000).
During the course of this study, I became conscious of how much I was talking and the
kind of talking I was doing. I even used a timer to try and encourage myself to direct only a
portion o f the lesson. I established with the students that there was some information that I
would provide explicitly about the topics of note-taking and report-writing. From experience,
I saw three reasons that students would not readily use the information; not hearing it, not
remembering it, or not understanding it. I recognized that I needed to put methods in place to
counteract these three tendencies.
To enhance the process of listening, I developed the mnemonic LISTEN which outlined
the behaviours that I expected students to enact during teacher-directed lessons. LISTEN
stands for Lapse into silence. Identify and eliminate distractions. Sit facing the teacher. Track
the teacher. Engage your brain - think! Note-take when necessary. These behaviours not only
encouraged students to improve their own listening but also minimised distractions which
curtailed the listening o f others. I would cue the students that it was teacher-directed lesson
time. We would take a few minutes to review what the LISTEN behaviours were. Throughout
the lesson, if students were disrupting the lesson, we would refer back to the poster. What
was positive about this was focussing on the actions and not the person. In fact, many times

173

no words would be exchanged at all. For if I paused in my lessons, students were quick to
monitor and acÿust.
Afigmonxafzon.

A second reason that students did not use the knowledge or

vocabulary is that they could not remember it. From the strategy instruction literature, I used
the concept o f displaying mnemonics or information on posters. I recognised, however, that
merely displaying these posters did not guarantee understanding or appropriate application
(Mariage et al., 2000). 1 will relate an anecdote that helped me develop this awareness during
this study. In the spelling program, students created flashcards of words they misspelled. On
the front of the flashcard was the correct spelling of the word and on the back was a tactic for
remembering how to spell that word. One particular student was not completing her spelling
cards. At first, I just assumed that she did not want to complete the work. When I finally
spoke to her, other than just reminding her I was expecting the flashcards, the spelling
strategy poster came up in our conversation. To my surprise, her whole demeanour changed.
She said to me, "Oh, that's what that poster is for. I saw it, but I didn't know what it was. I
couldn't understand how the other students were coming up with such good spelling
strategies." I could not believe I had missed the obvious fact that some students did not
understand how to apply the information o f the poster, and, worse, that I was attributing the
student's "failure" to her instead of me.
wa&z/

I finally fully realized that visuals cannot be put up fiar vicarious

learning. If I want students to refer to a poster then I have to provide an explicit lesson on
the contents of the poster and review it many times. Also, a new method was to add
memorisation opportunities during class time. Here was another example o f me expecting

174

students to memorise information at home without having provided explicit procedural
instruction. We practised diSerent types of memorisation, including the solo method ofZooA.
Cover. j(ecrte. CAect./1 also taught them to work in pairs and take turns reciting for the other
student. In the end, I would randomly check memorisation by calling on students to recite. If
they could not do this, I would say, "Check the poster!" They would do so and would then
recite successfully. There was not supposed to be any humiliation in not remembering.
A final explanation for why students might not use certain vocabulary or knowledge
would be that they did not understand it well enough to use it. So, during whole class
discussions, questioning was a powerful method of encouraging and checking for
understanding. I developed and used several techniques to improve my use of questioning as a
tool for learning.
Recitation versus discussion. A typical, traditional method of questioning, often termed
recitation, is Mehan's (cited in Hogelucht, 1994) Initiation-Response-Evaluation (I-R-E)
pattern o f interaction. This typically is a whole-class actrvrty that begins with the teacher
initiating a question, followed by a student's response, concluding with the teacher's evaluation
of the student's response. A second teacher-directed discursive practice is termed a düjcu&non
which tends to refer to any 6ee, less structured conversations. I believe it is important to note
that the activity o f questioning and the practices o f recitation and discussion are neither
inherently good nor bad (Dillon, 1988). "There is always a continuum about how various
discourse patterns are realized because these patterns are related to various purposes of
teaching and learning" (Pappas et al., 1999, p.51). However, because of the nature of the
questioning required far each practice, discussion tends to be associated with a social

175

interaction approach; whereas, recitation tends to be associated with a transmission approach.
In reality, a teacher can modi^ questioning techniques that ensures active participation by all
when she is aware o f the nature, the purpose and the outcome o f questioning (Dillon, 1988;
Morgan & Saxton, 1994).
/xzrAcgxztzo».

A concern with the I-R-E method is the danger o f only getting

participation 6om a few students who have the answers. To counteract this tendency, which
many students appeared to be content with, was my statement, "I'll wait until all hands are in
the air." If some students were immediately ready, I would encourage them to think of more
answers or examples instead of one. Students came to realize that I was serious about 100%
participation. I found it interesting to watch some long established behaviours begin to
change. Students who were rarely required to answer a question had to participate. Students
who always had an answer had to wait patiently for others, yet continue to challenge
themselves with more than one answer. When students blurted out answers, I would respond
with, "When an answer is given too soon, the thinking of others is stopped."
Another behaviour had to be employed when students knew they could not answer a
question. We developed a code where the hand in the air signihed having an answer but a
hand on the head signihed not having an answer. If I saw students with hands on their heads I
would call upon a student who would then either say, "Could you please repeat the question,"
or "I need more information. "In order to make these strategies work, I worked very hard not
become impatient so that students would Gnd these strategies useful rather than demoraliâng.
If a student asked me to repeat the question because they had not heard it, I practised patience
and repeated the question. What amazed me was the number o f times students could not

176

answer the question because they had not heard it. A whole series of learning was passing my
students by when I had only waited for a third o f my class to have their hands up. What an
irony. For years, I allowed it to be okay for students without the answers not to develop
strategies to get the answers. I have to admit, when I heard my "passive" students ask, "Can
you please repeat the question?" I felt proud of them. I thought to myself, this student has just
taken responsibility for his/her learning. I have made a difference. Of course, in requiring the
active participation of all members of the class in recitations or discussions, the time
lengthened considerably, but the learning that occurred was worth it.
Group work.

Another method that I used to increase active participation was to ask

a question and then have partners or small groups discuss the answer. Students familiarised
themselves with this routine and many relied on it to answer the questions. The purpose of the
initial question was not to test who already knew the information, but rather to have some
students access their knowledge to share with those that did not have an answers. The object
was to have students learn information without using a lecture format or recitation model.
In addition to using questioning methods to guide whole group instruction, I used
questioning techniques one-on-one with students. Wong et al. (1996) make a distinction
between the Axrofic Æo/ogMgf in the Graham and Harris work that encourages logical
reasoning and the inTeroc/rve f&a/ogwef identihed in their own studies. As a teacher, I
naturally used Socratic dialogues before I even knew what they were termed. I believe this
type of questioning is inherent in reductionism and can be extremely useful to focus a child —
especially when time constraints are an issue. Wong et al. describe the interactive dialogue as
conversations between teacher and students in which the teacher does not already know the

177

end-result o f that dialogue. This was relatively new for me, because I did control a lot of the
talk within my classroom. I found the more questions I asked to promote an interactive
dialogue, the more enlightened I became about my students. I learned a lot about my students'
learning and misunderstandings when I was not looking for the "nght"
answer.
fcacAer.

One strategy that was eSective was to have the

students question me. Different students would ask different types of questions so that
declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge was triggered. Some questions were
fulfilling because they had come fi’om the students' need to know. Other questions made me
feel uncomfortably challenged such as, "Why do we have to do this?" It was surprising to
realize that I was not on a mission to keep information ffom my students. I had to laugh at
myself when I recall the number of times I said to students in the past, "I can't tell you that.
You are supposed to figure it out for yourself." I actually still say that but ffom what I believe
is a more informed position. Now when I say, "You need to figure it out yourself." I mean, "I
don't expect you to know the answer. It is a problem, and I want you to feel okay not
knowing so that you will problem solve." If students' questions reveal a need for information,
I provide it. But if I believe the student is trying to take a short cut without doing the problem
solving, I do not provide an answer, but I may hint at the process. In general, the method o f
having my students ask questions is effective because: (a) Information may be included that I
had not thought to include; (b) asking questions becomes a norm fiar learning rather than a
sign of "being stupid," and (c) encouraging the asking o f questions honours the students'
control o f their own learning.

178

o/"ffwdlgMf

CM&now.

During whole-group instruction, there are many

diSerent ways to handle the student question period. The ideal is to have students answer each
others' questions, relying on the teacher only as a mediator. Returning to the concept of
videotaping students enacting strategies, a useful video would show students effectively
running their own group discussion. Students could hear the types of questions students their
age group ask, see how students keep control of the floor as speakers, and see how students
can effectively challenge each other's knowledge.
Do not assume.

My biggest area of learning regarding classroom discourse was

learning not to make assumptions. A warning that I was assuming too much was a feeling of
complacency. There was always a child that had been overlooked. At first, I tried to anticipate
and unravel all the explicit information that would be important to this unit by myself, when all
along I had my students' previous experiences upon which to draw. My lack of experience
with teaching note-taking and report-writing using a strategy instruction model highlighted my
tendency to make a lot of assumptions about what my students truly understood. Although we
were moving in a positive direction, my inexperience with report-writing and explicit
instruction lead to erratic pacing. Sometimes, I was too brief and had to backtrack, and
sometimes, in wanting to make information immediately explicit, my lessons went on far too
long. Effective instruction for me became a balancing act of predicting needs, applying my
day-to-day experiences the next time, and setting up structures so that individual needs for
explicit instruction could be met without boring or confusing my students.
I &lt as though the deeper we went into the unit, the more I was peeling away layers to
reveal the understandings or misunderstandings of my students. I realized what I once

179

perceived as "good enough" about my instructions and teaching was not. Some students were
not receiving enough building blocks to proceed adequately, and other students required more
information to take their learning to a more sophisticated level. Although I pride myself on my
ability to task analyse, my task analyses were not always taking all o f my learners into
consideration. Just as I was proudly telling myself 'Tve got everything covered now!" a
student's query or need for help would humble me. An example of this related to an
understanding o f the L in the LISTEN mnemonic representing" lapse into silence." After
several weeks o f having memorised and enacted this strategy, a student finally asked me,
"What does lapse mean?" Sometimes I just had to shake my head at myself.
What helped put all my good intentions in perspective was Blank's (2002) view of
classroom discourse. She validated that improving classroom discourse does take time. She
also validated that it is worth it because it encourages student interest and involvement, and
facilitates learning. Finally, in reference to my need to say something usefiil each day or
scaffold my students and make a difference. Blank believes that the point is not to eliminate
the teacher's voice, rather to repackage it. In this study, repackaging my voice meant asking
more questions, reducing my well intentioned lectures based on my assumptions. Repackaging
also meant changing my discourse to encourage students to become autonomous, to
appreciate learning for learning's sake, and to let their interests guide their learning.
Closely related to the methods I used to encourage learning through language and
discourse, was my belief about how I should help students within an inclusive classroom. My
ideal is to challenge all o f my students at a level they can handle without moving too slowly
for some and too quickly for others. Two topics came out o f the strategy instruction

180

literature —scaGblding and 6edback.

ScaSblding supports learners by providing experts who can help the
students work and learn more productively than they could have on their own. A theme that
emerged for me was the need for Sexibility. I needed to ac^ust my intended course when
learning was not progressing as I had hoped. An assumption of effective teaching is that
teachers provide support at opportune moments (Mariage et al., 2000). I became aware, when
reading through my field notes, of the speed at which I made adjustments to try to improve
what I perceived was not working either for the entire class or for a single student. For
example, one day a classroom discussion was not going well. My frustration, the students'
boredom, and the hints of mutiny made me realize, "I need to change something immediately."
This was the moment at which I suggested that my students ask the questions. What emerged
from that change of course were engaged students and a powerful method for assessing my
students' learning. My students also seemed to think that I had a sense of what they needed as
revealed in their compliments, "You know how much work we can handle" and "You don't
mind helping us."
ow f jA/dbMf growpmg. The reality o f one teacher personally trying to help
each student at once is not possible. Once that became clear in my mind, I was able to ask
myself^ "Can I find a win-win situation?" My solution was to group students. Grouping
learners for instruction has been a tradition o f education. I remember fi^om my own schooling
and firom my teacher education that students were especially grouped in reading. My intention
of grouping students in this study was for instruction, but, more importantly, I had students

181

working together to complete assignments and to engage in discussions. I had little experience
grouping students for instruction because I either worked with the whole-class or engaged in
one-on-one conferences because o f individualised programs. I found that to provide certain
explicit information during this study, it made sense to group students who were working on
the same assignment, were at the same stage of the writing process, or required the same
information. The groups, however, were not permanent and different students were grouped
at different times. When students were not grouped, they were expected to work
independently. In addition, all students were moving on the same continuum to the same end
goal. There was not an elite group receiving different, privileged information. Some students
were just receiving information at an earlier date.
In terms of grouping students, I found evidence in a meta-analysis by Gersten and Baker
(2001) that interventions for students with LD favoured student collaboration situations for
learning over a teacher-student situation. This validated my perceptions, at least for this age
group, of the students' need to socialise and to compare ideas with their peers. My comments
from my field notes suggest that the learning that does occur may not follow the path the
teacher anticipated. For instance, as I circulated to see how partners were performing their
RAP Strategy, I noticed many times how the student who was not recording was hovering
over the student who was and was correcting errors that they were witnessing:
"It appears that partner work can substitute for the teacher always modelling RAP
which can be quite dry. Once students are getting the hang o f it and understand the
expectations they can collaborate quite effectively through the work.. . . I also
hypothesise that ongoing editing and proof-reading occurs as partners watch each other
write. I haven't made this explicit yet but believe I should."
Finally, a positive pointed out by Pressley et al. (1992) is that grouping students

182

promotes co-operation rather than competition. I was told by a fellow Master degree student
that in India the students share their lunches. In Canada, I imagined the allergy concerns, the
hygiene concerns, the "haves" unwilling to support the "have nots" and recognized the daws
in our system. Despite the daily rhetoric that students hear about needing to get along, letter
grades set up the competition. If I could be rid o f letter grades at the Grade 6/7 level, I would.
I prefer students' performance being described based on criteria.
Issues o f student behaviour. 1 have had and still have remnant guilt feelings about
grouping students heterogeneously because of the view that some students may hold other
students back. All teachers know of those students who do well at school, are always
prepared, try and act socially responsibly, and try to follow the rules. We also know those
students who come to school troubled, take up an inordinate amount of teacher time, and
cause a good portion of the disruptions every day. There is a belief, and I believe it runs deep,
that the "good" students should be rewarded further for their constant "good" behaviour, and
the "bad" students should be punished for their constant "bad" behaviour. My thought is that
some students are already being rewarded. They are rewarded daily because they ht into the
system, they get the letter grades they are happy with, they get respect h"om teachers, and
oAen they receive perks for their performance. Of course, these students still need to &el
nurtured as learners and valued as people, but why more than those students that are
troubled? The reality may be that we should feel guilty for leaving students behind. All
students, for the common good, should be expected to work and leam together. This means
that all students are valued for their expertise in an area and can become a resource for the
more nowce students.

183

Feedback is the process of providing students with information about their performance.
As a lot o f strategy instruction in the research occurred with small groups o f students,
individualized, explicit, and immediate feedback was not an issue. However, the question has
emerged in the literature about how to provide feedback in large, diverse classrooms (De La
Paz, 2001; Troia & Graham, 2002). The most immediate feedback I could provide occurred
during my interactions with students; however, at the time of the study I had not developed a
tracking system nor methods for checking all students regularly. Basically, I circulated the
room looking for signs of students requiring help or responding to requests for help. The
concerns I have about this method of feedback is that I am providing feedback to students
who primarily need help. I prefer providing feedback to all students. Those who can do the
work can then be encouraged to bring their work to an even more sophisticated level. In
addition, there are those unobtrusive students who may require help but are not targetted
because they appear to be working efficiently.
Based on my reflections o f the &edback
inadequacies I perceived in this study, I developed some methods subsequent to this study
that I now use in the classroom. One method is to create a

Ziff on the blackboard.

Students add their name to the list either when they need help or when they have reached an
established checkpoint, such as showing a completed set of notes. A second method is the
Th&Ze where either I request students to come up and work near me, or students come
up on their own initiative. This combines well with the Queue List as I can continue to check
on students and even "invite" them to the Help Table if I have concerns with progress or

184

productivity. At this point, students often negotiate terms with me in order to maintain their
independent status at their desks. A third method, is the .ÿfqpwafcA. A goal o f time is set based
on the natural breaks o f the day. I say, "I need 20 minutes &om you before lunch." When I
hold the stopwatch in the air, the timer has stopped because I perceive too many students are
off-task. The signal o f the stopwatch, allows students either to monitor themselves or monitor
each other. What I find effective about this method is that I can remain objective, continue
working with students while the stopwatch is in the air, and, without a lot of intervention, can
expect a change of behaviour. The fourth method is recording time directly onto a student's
paper and calling the student up every five minutes. Both the student and I can then track the
progress. For instance, if a student is note-taking, I can see how many notes the students is
taking in five minutes. If the quantity is low, the student and I can discuss whether it is the
reading level of the source, a difficulty with the process of note-taking, or a difficulty
focussing. A decision is then made about what that student needs to do to progress. I have
found that these methods allow me to check on all students while concentrating on those that
need immediate help. In addition, these methods allow students to target and monitor their
own progress and to be a part o f the decision-making about what course of action they need
to take. In addition, it allows for my ongoing assessment o f the students. Much o f this data is
tracked on a class list so I can see at a glance who has reached a checkpoint, who has seen me
recently, and who I have not seen.
Arorcf verswf g w o A A z f f v e T h e most regular feedback that the students
received was in handing in their keyword or RAP assignment for the day. I would mark and
return them by the following day. I attached an assessment form (Appendix E) to each

185

returned RAP assignment indicating which main ideas or supporting details were correct or
incorrect, and a checklist error analysis. Students did not receive regular marks on their
report-writing. Rather, at the end o f the drafting process, students handed in a rough draft
report which I assessed using the assessment form in Appendix F
I found that the students tended to consider only the Gnal mark and were not using the
descriptive feedback. This is not surprising as I provided limited explicit instruction about the
assessment forms; consequently, the students focussed on what was familiar —their total
score on each assignment. Other than referring to marks or my help in the most general terms,
students did not refer to specific feedback comments nor did they talk about the marksheets in
the learning logs or in the student questionnaire. In other words, the assessment forms did not
appear to play a large role in the learning of the students. This is not to say that the
assessment forms could not have provided effective feedback. If I had provided explicit
instruction on how to read and interpret the forms, they could have become an assessment
tool for students. Troia and Graham (2002) suggest that checklists and simplified scoring
rubrics are a means of countering the difficulty of providing a large number of students with
&edback. The difficulty in designing effective feedback forms for the students was that I was
still focussing on designing assessment farms that were ef&ctive for my use as a teacher.
Consequently, the assessment forms were far more useful for me than they were for the
students.
I realise that student feedback forms are a valuable tool for helping students understand
the criteria and far giving them occasion to practice the discourse surrounding writing.
McCormick et al. (1992) recognise that teachers need experience with how students articulate

186

and apply personal evaluations so as to better establish criteria the students can use and
understand. These authors suggest that the upper elementary school years may be an
especially valuable time for developing this criteria as students o f this age group begin
transitioning &om aGective response to objective response and 6om simple criteria to multiple
criteria. In not taking the time to explicitly teach the assessment forms, I did not capitalise on
potential conversations about writing that could have emerged nor did I capitalise on
opportunities to have students help develop the assessment forms. Further, Gersten and Baker
(2001) contend that it is important that students receive quality, explicit feedback that also
comes ffom peers. It is important to create criteria that students can not only apply to their
own writing , but to their peers' writing.
Subjectivity o f feedback.

A final issue with feedback in general, especially in

writing, is the whole notion of right and wrong. Englert (1992) suggests that the reality is that
there is wide range o f acceptable written communication. Often writing entails personal
choice. What one person perceives as an error is another person's choice of style. Some
believe that there should be less emphasis on end-product and more emphasis on process. This
means providing student fi%dback that elucidates how eGectively they are enacting a strategy
(Hattie et d ., 1996). Thus, a strong emphasis o f assessment forms should focus on the
thought processes surrounding strategy enactment rather than on the correctness o f responses
(Pressley et al., 1992).
Finally, I believe that an important part o f a teacher's decision making process is
compiling and developing units o f study, related materials, and assessment tools. For me this
has always been a personal endeavour because I am rarely satisfied with exclusively using

187

someone else's unit. Part o f my eiyoyment as a teacher is creating my own units of study.
Teaching in many ways can be likened to an art form, and I enjoy the potential for creating
and recreating what I hope one day will be a masterpiece.

Was the RAP Strategy an eSective note-taking strategy? Yes and no. Based on my own
experiences as a researcher and the experiences of my Grade 6/7 students, I would continue to
use the first two steps o f the process of RAP (Read a paragraph. Ask myself what the main
idea and supporting details are.) but modify the output form (Put the main idea and supporting
details in my own words.) from that required by the original Paraphrasing Strategy
(Schumaker et. al., 1984). The original intent of the Paraphrasing Strategy was to teach
students to paraphrase. Students were expected to paraphrase in complete sentences. As I
wanted the students to use the RAP Strategy for note-taking, paraphrasing in complete
sentences became cumbersome. I had not made the distinction between paraphrasing and
note-taking clear in my own mind until some of my students began complaining, "This form of
note-taking is a lot o f work. Cant I just shorten the sentences to point form?" Thus, when
some students began to use point form to adapt the RAP fi)rmat, I had some inner confiict.
First, I wanted students to use the strategy for the value o f practising finding main idea, but I
knew that they would abandon the strategy as soon as I did not require it because o f the
workload. Second, I wanted the students to create complete sentences because I found it to
be an eSective exercise for understanding and using correct sentencing conventions. I had to
come to terms with the &ct that creating complete sentences did not match creating quick,
brie^ and to-the-point notes.

188

My Gnal modi&ed version o f the RAP Strategy is to have students write main ideas as
complete sentences but to use point form for the related supporting details. I jBnd this version
eSective for several reasons. First, students are still encouraged to think about and restate an
author's main ideas. Second, the longer version o f main ideas as contrasted with the point
form of supporting details is a strong visual cue for identifying the main ideas in their own
notes. Third, distinguishing main ideas &om supporting details and requiring a more formal
level of presentation (sentence rather than point form) may help students realize the
importance and value o f main ideas. A complete sentence signifies the main idea of a topic
fi*om which headings can be generated.
The RAP Strategy As a Finding Main Idea Strategy
Was the RAP Strategy an effective strategy for identifying main idea? Yes. I have to
agree that, although the students were still having difficulty restating main ideas, it was due to
the difficulty with the concept of main idea not the procedures of the strategy itself. The
original intent o f the RAP Strategy to gain meaning from the text by breaking a passage's
paragraphs into main idea and supporting details so as to better understand the organisation,
content, and purpose o f the text is deemed an important skill in the literacy literature.
Focusing on the structure o f paragraphs has been revealed by Englert et al. (1989) to be an
important skill fi^r both effective reading and writing, especially for students with LD who
may not realize that there is an order to text. Vaughn et al. (2000) found that students'
learning was enhanced when they generated questions while reading or working. This occurs
with the RAP Strategy as students are asking themselves, "What is the main idea and what are
the supporting details o f this paragraph?

189

q / " S t u d e n t ' s greatest difdculty in Ending the main idea seems
to occur for those ideas that are Aehygem (Ac /mgf rather than explicitly stated in a single
sentence (Blank, 2002). A reader must know how to connect the ideas within individual
sentences to create that executive big idea or theme. The trick for students is to learn how the
combination o f sentences contributes to the author's purpose. The difhculty with that is that
the logic o f the author may not be apparent. Williams (1988) recognises these inherent
problems with instruction of main idea. The point is how can main ideas be defined when
readers may not share the author's perspective and may have a different purpose for reading
the text? Knowing the main idea is automatic for the skilled reader; but, how does one teach
this? I found I could define main idea as "the author's purpose for writing the paragraph" or
the "author's message." What I found extremely difficult was explaining students how stating
the main idea is so automatic for me that it is no longer obvious what tactics I use and in
which sequence. I found that the original "tips" in the original Paraphrasing Strategy of finding
main idea: (a) look to the first sentence or (b) look for repeated words focussed too much on
the literal. Even though the researchers stated that one could be 60% accurate using these
methods, these methods did not help students move beyond those literal prompts to
observation o f the subtleties o f language that give meaning to a passage (Blank, 2000). I
believe that students need to continually interpret written language even when the paragraphs
are not well written.
iffga iwtmcrio». A personal bonus o f this study for me was to have to seriously
refiect upon the instruction of main ideas. The complexity o f this issue became clearest to me,
affer the study, when I and my two adult raters could not easily agree upon the main idea of a

190

paragraph. We were able to discuss and then come up with a joint understanding, but that
process in itself was interesting as we had diSerent views about what good paragraph writing
entailed. Because Poplin (1988b) pointed out that "two students 6om very difkrent
backgrounds might legitimately see difkrent main ideas in the same text" (p.397). I decided
that, for fiiture reference, I had to discover a way to help those students who could not even
come up with a plausible main idea or were using a supporting detail as a main idea. The
tactics I introduced to the students were: (a) Look at the first sentence, (b) Look for
repeated key words, (c) Ask yourself, "What is this paragraph mostly about? Although these
tactics worked for some students, they did not work for all. In fact, in the postassessment the
mean correct main ideas was only 49%, and students were still incorrectly deriving main ideas
from the first sentence of a paragraph or creating a main idea sentence that made an effective
heading but was too general for the purposes of the paragraph.
Falling back to my reductionist tendencies, I wanted to be able to give students a way to
come up with the"right" answer. One of my mentors suggested that a constructivist view of
identifying main idea is that main idea is jointly constructed by the author and the reader. This
means that difkrent readers will identify different plausible main ideas. She suggested having
students defend their main idea choices to each other which I am eager to incorporate into my
instruction. I envision dynamic discussions that would require students to use their prior
knowledge of paragraph construction or o f content to present their case.
AisA:

Finally, from the direct instruction literature, comes the

suggestion that learning is enhanced when a teacher is controlling task difBculty (Swanson,
1999; Vau^m et al., 2000). I used Grade 3 materials to control the reading level so that the

191

students could focus on the task of identifying main ideas and supporting details. During the
study and during the poststudy data analysis and research, I became more aware of text
structure and how certain text structures were more readily processed by my students. This
experience made me more aware o f how I could further control the material when having
students practice the RAP Strategy (Thomas et al., 1987)
Given the difhculty that I observed o f students Ending a main idea, I was interested in
tracking whether the placement of the main idea in a paragraph and the number of possible
supporting details impacted a student's ability to isolate the main idea. Using the agreed upon
main ideas of the raters, I categorised the 20 paragraphs of the four assessment source articles
based on whether the main idea was: (a) stated in the first sentence, (b) stated in a sentence
other than the first sentence, (c) stated in a combination of sentences, or (d) not directly stated
at all. Table 7 categorises the ten paragraphs of the two source articles of the preassessment
by the placement of the main ideas, the number of possible supporting details, and the number
of correct student responses per paragraph.
Based on correct responses, students had more success with the "Spider" source article
that contained more explicitly stated main ideas and fewer possible supporting details. When
the main idea was stated in the first sentence o f the paragraph just over half the students
correctly stated the main idea. This suggests that students are Amiliar with and may have had
previous instruction on stating main ideas in the first sentence o f a paragraph. In all cases
where the main idea was unstated no more than three students correctly restated the main
idea. Table 8 categorises the ten paragraphs o f the postassessment by the placement of the
main ideas, the number o f possible supporting details, and the number o f correct student

192

responses per paragraph. In the postassessment, students had more success restating main
ideas that were stated in the Grst sentence or in a combination o f sentences. Unstated main
ideas continued to remain diGBcult for students to restate. Overall, at the Grade 6/7 level, it
appears that students receiving the type o f instruction they received in this study, have more
success with shorter paragraphs containing a stated main idea somewhere in the paragraphs
but preferably in the first sentence.
Using materials to control task difficulty.

Now, given my new thoughts on

different main idea tactics and the difficulty students were having, I would control the reading
material during practice and explicit instruction (Ellis & Graves, 1989). I would introduce
paragraphs based on the placement of the main idea; a) main idea stated in the first sentence,
b) an opening sentence followed by a main idea in the second sentence, c) a main idea in a
sentence somewhere in the paragraph, d) a main idea stated in a combination of sentences, and
e) an unstated main idea. I would begin with paragraphs that contain a main idea and
supporting details with no extraneous or poorly written information. Gradually, I would begin
to introduce a variety of paragraphs and discuss what makes an effective or ineffective
paragraph and what personal preferences we have as readers or writers. In doing this, students
also could leam that professional writers do not necessarily write "perfectly" (Mothus et al.,
2002). One of my students stated, "I feel the people who make the paragraphs should make
them more clear. It's hard to understand what they are talking about when the paragraph
doesn't make sense." This shows that some students were becoming critical readers without a
lot o f explicit instruction.
Z&Mfgf

cAofcg aW

coMtro/.

I question how I could have built in more

193

choice during the RAP phase of the unit for the students with LD without feeling I was losing
the quality control.
7

DeAnlir,

%pe, aw/ Correc/ «yAfckM/

fo Mzm jWga

q/"f/K farqgrqpAy from (Ae freoMesame»/ ,ÿo«rcg v4rAc/&y

Paragraph Possible
Number Supporting
Details

Main Idea
in First
Sentence

Main Idea Main Idea
in
in Other
Sentence Combination
o f Sentences

Main Idea
Unstated

Total Main
Ideas
Correct

"Spiders"
1

4

2

6

3

4

4

4

5

7

Total

25

11

/
/

3
1

/

13

1

1

1

/

1

2

29

"Black
Widow"
1

4

2

6

3

6

4

4

/

3

5

9

/

1

Total

29

3

11

Note, n—24

3

/
/

2

/

0

2

2

0

194

7h6/e &

MfmAer

M%» Tidka 2)pe, WKf Correct

7{g.gxm$ef foMzi» Meo

q/^(Ae fwqgrqp/K from fAe PoaAMae&smgMf «ÿowce y4rfzc/ef

Paragraph Possible
Number Supporting
Details

Main Idea
in First
Sentence

Main Idea Main Idea
in Other
in
Sentence Combination
of Sentences

Main Idea
Unstated

Total Main
Ideas
Correct

"Cacti"
1

9

9

2

3

3

8

/

0

4

5

/

3

5

4

Total

29

1

1

8

/

2

6

21

3

6

21

4

4

5

5

/

Total

29

0

/

21

/

6

/
0

2

2

39

"Saguaro"
11

4

/

20
2

0

3

77

A^(e. M= 24
Perhaps students who needed continued practice in RAP could have alternated between
completing a prescribed RAP assignment and note-taking an equal number of paragr^hs 6om
a book o f thar choice. Thus, students would have had controlled practice using the RAP
Strategy while simultaneously compiling a sufhcient body o f notes 6om which a report could

195

have been written. The balance between prescribed note-taking practice and authentic
note-taking for a report on a topic o f the students' choice may have met my goals of
improving note-taking and giving the student the opportunity to write reports. My method of
retaining the students with LD in the RAP phase o f the unit for the greater part o f the unit
may not have instilled in students a conGdence in their writing ability. Ideally, I believe that all
students should be involved in writing programs that immerse them as authors in ways that
sentence-writing or worksheet activities cannot (Thomas et al., 1987).
Was FAR an effective strategy?
Was PAR an effective strategy to encourage students to read through their notes,
reorganise them, and then write a report? Yes. Researchers have found that developing
writers did little advance planning, were less knowledgeable about how to organise ideas, and
were less able to control and regulate the writing process (Englert et al., 1988; Englert &
Thomas, 1987; Graham & Harris, 1993a; MacArthur and Graham, 1987). I encouraged
students to see the connections between the RAP and PAR Strategies in terms o f the writing
process. The note-taking of the RAP Strategy and the organisation of the notes stage of the
PAR Strategy were emphasised as necessary steps o f the prewriting phase o f a report.
Students were experiencing that much o f the workload of a report was in the prewriting
phase.
SpeciGcally, what the process of the PAR Strategy encouraged students to do was to
think about the main ideas they had gathered in their note-taking and to make decisions about
the sequence in Wiich they wanted to present the main ideas. This also meant grouping main
ideas that were related, or that had overlapping supporting details. Students in this age group

196

were concentrating on their note-taking and making conscious eSbrts not to plagiarise,
meaning the RAP Strategy played a m^or role in the development o f the report itself.
Organisation o f main ideas was already happening at the note-taking stage because students
were already grouping supporting details from several source paragraphs under a single main
idea in their notes when they found overlaps. They eliminated source paragraphs containing
information they had already completed notes on, and they eliminated paragraphs that
contained information they did not wish to include in their reports. Once students had
completed their notes, they tended to maintain the order of their notes, with only slight
changes. At first this concerned me until I realized that in taking notes, students were altering
the original source articles because of the decisions they had made about combining or
eliminating main ideas. Students were, however, on a continuum of how original their
organisation and sequencing was in comparison to the original source material. Some students
paraphrased the source materials and kept the information from the sources relatively discrete.
Other students were beginning to reorganise their notes to match their concept of the order in
which they wanted to present the information. As our definition of plagiarism focussed on the
copying o f series o f words, there was no emphasis yet on copying an author's argument or
sequence. If time had permitted, this could have been a topic during student-teacher
conferences as students became ready to address plagiarism beyond copying words.
As it was, I was only developing a system o f con&rencing by the end of the unit.
Editing and proof-reading were not expected until after a draft was complete and handed in to
me. This way, I had a chance to read their work, assess their draft using the assessment form
(^pendix F), and then discuss possible directions for improvement. At this point, the primary

197

focus of conferences was the inclusion o f eSective introductions and conclusions.
Nevertheless, a second focus to a conference could have been a discussion about how similar
or dif&rent a student's writing was compared to the original sources. At this point, because
only a single draft had been completed, students could have been encouraged to reconsider
their sequencing and alternatives could have been discussed.
BeAgr «TK&rf&ZMdÏMg

ftrwcfWe.

Finally, by making explicit how both the RAP

and PAR Strategies coimected to the writing process, students were progressing both in how
to write and what to write in terms of the text structure of a report. If these understandings
were developed at the beginning of a school year, they could offer a base for future instruction
in other genres. For example, the process of researching, note-taking, and planning for a
report could then be discussed and compared to the purpose of a persuasive essay where
opinion and effective propaganda techniques are valued and developed in a way they are not
in a report. My vision is that a strategy from an article by Harris, Graham, and Mason (2002)
such as TREE (Topic sentence. Reasons. Explain reasons. Ending.) could be the next strategy
introduced. Without going into great detail, the spin-offs from this single report-writing unit
could be extended to an entire year, in which I could introduce four units: report-writing,
persuasive essays, short stories, and poetry. An overall structure intended for a frill year would
allow for generalisation across genres about the writing process, strategy use, and the unique
text structures o f difkrent genres. Understanding could be developed by continually
comparing and contrasting the processes required to produce each new genre.

Besides effective enactment o f the RAP and PAR Strategies, I wanted to encourage my

198

students to reflect about their thinking, writing, and learning. I did not want students to
mindlessly take notes and write reports. I wanted students to become passionate at some level
about writing, to hnd some personal hilhlment within this writing unit, and to believe they
could become more strategic as writers. In other words, I was attempting to stimulate both
cognitive and metacognitive processes.
An effective learner has to integrate "cognitive, motivational, personal, and situational
characteristics" (Borkowski & Muthukrishna, 1992, p. 483). In order for students to develop
the necessary control and monitoring of strategies, Borkowski and Muthukrishna believe the
goal of strategy instruction is metacognitive development rather than the superficial learning
of the strategies themselves. Strategy instruction, its integration of effective reductionist and
constructivist thought, and the related effective practices of instruction appear to be an
effective model for improving learning, thinking about learning, and valuing learning. Ideally, I
want my students to make effective choices and feel powerful even when faced with the
toughest problem solving situations. In order to do this, I believe the learning students require
is process and strategy based. If processes and strategies were the basis of all curricula, rather
than primarily content, it could pave the way for units o f study to he determined by the
interest and the expertise of the teacher and the students. Unfortunately, strategies, processes,
and metacognitive development still ^pear secondary to content in curriculum guides and
text books, although there does appear to be some change towards making underlying
processes of learning explicit.
Within BC Ministry of Education approved materials, strategies still appear to be
viewed as a means to an end rather than the goal itself Nevertheless, strategy instruction and

199

its implications for eSective teaching methodology have been enlightening for me as a teacher.
Typically, in the past, I have developed curriculum units by considering the topic and
developing lessons that expose students to that topic. Now, I can look at the topic and ask
myself^ "What strategies might the students require to better leam this topic?" This type of
approach requires additional work on the teacher's part because textbooks are typically set up
to teach knowledge about content rather than knowledge about strategies; however,
compiling and developing material continues to be an inherent part of a teacher's job. The
difference is that the material is compiled based on the underlying strategy. For instance, I
now file the material used in this study under note-taking/report-writing rather than social
studies, science, or language arts. This type of planning and material organisation leads to the
development of thematic units, or integrated studies, that cross domains as promoted by such
constructivist theorists as Pappas et al. (1999).
Metacognition
I gained insights into students' metacognition based on their comments and behaviours
while completing their RAP assignments or independent reports. The students' overt
behaviours, though not necessarily understood, were the clues to how they were keling, what
they had learned, and what they felt was important. I had students with learning disabilities
persevere and remain self-regulated to complete three paragr^hs, while other students, who
could have quickly completed the assignment, dragged the assignment out.
When I took the time to investigate why a student was o ff task, there invariably was a
reason. Practising my understanding o f "never assume," allowed me to better understand the
choices the students were making and to ofkr appropriate help. At this point, individual

200

conferences allowed the student to explain why they were not completing the task and
provided an opportunity &r a "counselling" session, a pep talk, or individualised instruction.
The least elective method o f encouraging students to work, o f which I am not proud, was to
prompt the child, "Get back to work!" rather than first asking, "Tell me what's going on."
I found several factors that I believe to be directly correlated to self-regulated behaviour in
this study: interest, being able to work with others, knowing what to do, and having a goal
to attain.
Interest.

Student interest was much less of an issue in the independent report-writing

phase than it was in the RAP phase as students were able to choose their own topics, were
interested in learning about that topic, and appeared motivated to display their learning in a
report. During note-taking or report-drafting, some students also were comparing their
progress to each other which was a built-in motivator. Interest in the RAP group depended
upon students' interest in the material provided, and this level of interest varied. Some
students found the range of articles interesting and others questioned why they had to read
topics that did not interest them. Given that my primary purpose in assigning specific articles
was to control the difhculty o f the task, lack o f interest was a stumbling block. In hindsight, I
realized that tweaking interest could have occurred by giving studoits a choice o f practice
articles. The gains in student motivation would have been worth the extra eftbrt on my part.
farPzer wort owf ^e^rggwtztzon. Another method o f encouraging on-task behaviour
was by promoting partner work. Vaughn et al. (2000) found that students persist longer on a
task when woddng with peers. I have found that oft^task behaviour ocurs because students do
not know how to proceed or are finding the task too difihcult or fimstrating. Because

201

instruction in this unit was explicit and all students knew how to proceed, I believe ofP-task
behaviour occurred because the work required a lot o f thinking. I perceived that the students
needed to take breaks 6om the hard work they were doing. However, in pairing students, the
students acted as on-task motivators for each other, and the cognitive work load was
lightened. I observed that students who had a track record o f off^task behaviour worked more
efdciemtly when working with others.
Goal setting and self-regulation.

A final observation was that all students had goals.

For some, these goals were never stated. For others, the goals were extrinsically expressed
such as, "I want to get 80% on this next RAP." Still others had goals that were intrinsically
motivated such as, "I want to be a good researcher so I can write a really interesting report."
Contrary to my hopes, most o f my students voiced that they wanted to get good marks. This
occurred despite the conditional knowledge they were developing about how useful
identifying main ideas and conducting research can be. I realize that by establishing the 80%
criteria for graduating 6om RAP, I reinforced the very motivator that I did not want. In future
to promote goals not related to a mark, I would have to modify the RAP assessment form
(Appendix E). The form already has a strong base o f descriptors o f errors fi^om which to make
this adjustmœt possible.
I now understand that many students are performing academic tasks in school without
really knowing why. What the students do know is that when they enact certain behaviours,
their marks are better or they stay out of trouble. As a teacher and parent, I want neither
marks nor threat o f punishment to be motivators to leam. Logically, this requires development
of conditional knowledge, such as the personal value o f learning. I found it really important to

202

think ahead about the conditional knowledge because otherwise, I tended to fall back on
having to say, "Because you will need it for high school," which students repeated quite a bit
in this unit. I think it is very important to develop conditional knowledge that students care
about and can apply to their lives beyond school. Activities that have students explain to each
other how the learning can help them in their own lives is a component o f strategy instruction.

Raphael, Englert, and Kirschner (1989) recognize that the term metacognition has been
criticised in the literature as being overused. They suggest that the concept of metacognition is
popular because it provides an explanation of how humans control their cognitive activities.
Given that much of human thinking is split second and automatic, analyzing my cognitive
activities has been an important part of being able to understand how learning might or might
not occur in others. Second, I believe that to promote metacognition validates what many
teachers do automatically —that is, to take existing understandings and to "transform this
everyday knowledge into scientific (metacognitive) knowledge by making that knowledge and
experience the objects o f study" (Englert, 1992, p. 162). Understanding the nature of
knowledge and its uses means it more likely will be generalised to new situations.
Finally, if teachers do not stimulate metacognitive development, they retain control o f the
learning. Students remain passive, unable to problem solve, and dependent upon the teacher
for approval, discipline, and assessment (Englert et al., 1988).
Restating main ideas and supporting details &om passages and then clustering these
into a logical, cohesive order required the student to make decisions (Englert et al., 1988)
about what was important, what was interesting, and ultimately what should be included in

203

their reports. My goal was to have the decision-making of report-writing remain in the
student's control with options to make changes based on suggestion &om others. During the
report-writing phase o f the unit, I began to shift my focus 6om the written products to the
process o f writing a report. I believe that I was undergoing a transformation in my praxis 6om
an approach that was primarily reductionist to one that was more oriented toward processes
and cognition. When students handed in their reports for assessment, I was reading their entire
report for the first time. Sometimes this entailed an internal dialogue for me about reaffirming
that I was doing the right thing when I saw obvious errors that could be corrected. I resisted
the urge to put marks on their writing but occasionally would star a section indicating I
wanted to discuss that part of the report. It was a challenge for me to be able to reduce their
written products to, "Here is one thing that is very effective in your report and here is one
thing you can work on for next time." Ultimately, I had to resist the desire for perfection in
the end product and convince myself that the range of writing and metacognition look
difikrent for diSerent age groups because both are developmental.
ZuMgmzgB.

Singer and Bashir (1999) believe that metacognition is mediated by

language. Englert et al. (1992) suggest that a teacher's methods for developing student's talk,
a teacher's modelling o f talk and thought, and a teacher's monitoring o f the nature of talk in
her classroom are deliberate. Specific to this study, students were required to share
knowledge and to describe and reflect upon their understandings of the writing process, the
report-writing process, and themselves as writers. Having students working in pairs and
collaborating during class discussions were efi&ctive ways for me to monitor how the students
were doing in a relatively brief time. Teacher-student dialogues through conferences are ideal

204

but were not fully developed in this unit, as I struggled with pacing. What I did 6nd extremely
elective were learning logs in which students were asked to reflect upon their thinking and
learning. Use o f journals is corroborated in the literature as a useful strategy —especially
when used Aequently —to encourage active student engagement with concepts and their own
thinking (Morocco, HSndlin, Mata-Aguilar, & Clark-Chiarelli, 2001). Learning logs allowed
me to collect some thoughts 6om all my students that became gauges for subsequent
instruction. Very often after reading the learning logs, I would have to problem solve issues
that I detected in the journals and make adjustments to my instruction.
Development.

Wong et al. (1996) believe that metacognition is slow and late even in

normally achieving students. In the learning disability literature it was stated over and over
that students with LD do not have metacognitive knowledge about writing and the writing
process. At first, I interpreted these statements as implying that students with LD and young
students are not capable of metacognitive thought. I challenge this because, as a parent, I
believe I witness metacognition, or a consciousness of thinking, when a five year old child
says, "That's too hard to remember!" or "I had a really bad dream that scared me!" As a
teacher, I do not agree with a model that suggests metacognition is not present.
Metacognition is developmental and like learning evolves over a lifetime. For those students
Wio ftnd learning at school difdcult, there are other factors operating that make it appear they
are not metacognitive. Poplin (1988a), ft"om a constructivist's point of view, suggests ftve
alternative reasons why a student may not be learning intended curricula and why the
di&culties of student with LD may be exacerbated: (a) a student's developmental unreadiness,
(b) teaching techniques that encourage student passivity, (c) a student's insufbcient

205

experiences, (d) a student's insufBcient interest, and (e) mismatch o f a student's previous
experience with intended content.
A large 6ctor may be that the thinking of a student is misunderstood because we can
only tap into thinking at the language level, and we as teachers tend to predetermine what we
want students to think about. We are relying on a child to be able to understand what we
mean when we say, "Tell me Wiat you were thinking," and to be able to communicate that
information well. I hypothesise that awareness of cognition is there; it just may not be the
awareness that we are interested in hearing about. For instance, a student may not be able to
recall anything about the parts of a report. Is the following a metacognitive statement: "I can't
remember anything about report-writing and my strategy is to wait for someone to tell me?
"As a teacher this is not the number one answer I want to hear; however, this statement
reveals that the student may be thinking about his/her thinking. I believe that the real issue
within the school system, is not whether students are metacognitive or not, but rather whether
we are triggering potential metacognition effectively and accepting students' perspectives.
Many times, aAer I had worked with a student, he/she have told me, "I knew that already. I
just thought that
answer was too simple."
Another reason that students might avoid sharing metacognitive thoughts is that it may
be uncomfortable for them. Ideas can be personal and private. Students may not want to
subject their thinking to public exposure, judgement, criticism, or debate. In addition, it may
be a strong metacognitive awareness o f one's helplessness within the conhnes o f the school
system that precipitates the "maladaptive" behaviours that are currently reported about

206

me8ective students. As stated earlier, Wong et al. (1997) discovered that metacognitive
development did not increase self-efBcacy. They A)und that awareness o f being an elective
writer did not correlate with believing that one could be an ef&ctive writer. Also, it has been
reported (Meltzer et al., 1998) that students with LD overrate their performance against that
of their teachers. Asking a student who is having difficulty at school to be metacognitive may
be asking that student to reflect upon their worst nightmare or their most embarrassing
moment. Once students realize that certain genres of writing, such as report-writing, are
tedious and difficult to write, the issue becomes getting the students to continue on knowing
they have a lot o f hard work ahead of them. The students experiencing failure at school may
spend most of their energy lightening the load, not making it exponentially greater by having
to continually reflect on how "wrong" they are and how badly they are failing.
Finally, Wong et al. (1996) found that students developed different awarenesses even
though instructions and classroom practices had been uniform. This supports the concept that
learners construct personally relevant understandings from situations and that incidental
interactions with others are valid because they can take learning in unpredicted directions.
Developing and refrecting upon these issues o f metacognition have helped affirm that,
although I can direct what occurs in my class, I have no absolute control over the situation.
Thus, I should ffiel comffirtable and take pride in allowing for errors, ineffective choices, and
freedoms in the classroom, even though others may construe these practices as too chaotic or
unpredictable. My personal goal is to better understand Wiat my students are thinking and
why they are making the choices they are making so that I can make a difference to their
learning.

207

One o f my purposes in this study was to address the notable absence o f the teacher's
voice in the strategy instruction literature. Much o f the strategy instruction literature I read
was written by researchers who were not public school teachers. In the worst case, teachers
were perceived as a m^or obstacle to success&l strategy instruction. Many articles portrayed
the teacher as a &celess, sometimes nameless, and voiceless entity, deserving little if any
comment. The most favourable opinion at least suggested the need to make teachers partners
in the research process (Wong et al., 1996). When reading the research literature, I found it
difficult to make connections with the teachers who had been involved in the research. I
wanted to be able to align my experiences and reflections alongside the experiences and
reflections of other teachers enacting strategy instruction. Occasionally, there were transcripts
of teachers and students, but the personalities, thoughts, reflections, and motivations of the
teacher participants were not revealed.
Gersten et al. (1987) criticised teachers and teachers' aides ffir having no practical
knowledge of research or eflective teaching practices. They suggested that teachers were
relying on "folk wisdom" (p. 52) or, worse yet, their teaching e;q)eriences to guide their
practices. These authors somehow managed to suggested that teachers are imbeciles rather
than a collective group o f highly eflective learners. They Anther suggested that teachers must
"overcome the traditional problems that occur whenever teachers provide feedback to each
other" (p. 53). This was not expanded upon, but I began to envision a conscious conspiracy o f
teachers to encourage each other to teach badly. Based on my personal experiences, when
teachers come together to leam or share knowledge, I am always impressed by the wealth of

208

creative methods and the teachers' concerns 6)r students today. Gersten, Woodward, and
Darch, (1986) were equally as scathing o f teachers who used methods that allowed students
to generate their own definitions which allowed discussions to "meander.. . resulting in
confusion for low-perfbrming students as to what is important" (p. 19). This set o f authors
concluded that "no curriculum is teacher-proof" (p. 23).
On the other hand. Poplin (1988a) suggests that it is the attempted objectivity of
research and scholarly journals that distances teachers from the research. She hypothesises
that experimental findings are seldom meaningfiil to teachers because of the unrealistic
controls and the sterility o f the experimental setting. Poplin recognises the need to explore and
read about teachers' and researchers' thoughts and feelings. She believes the errors,
misjudgements, back trackings, and meanderings are not weaknesses of research designs but,
rather, the key characteristics that heighten our consciousness about the human factor of
teaching and learning. Another positive voice is Borkowski (1992), who suggests that
teaching is a dynamic process beginning with the conscious development of a teaching model
during teacher training which is then continually updated. Models should "evolve gradually in
the minds of novice teachers and become carefully fitted to their unique dispositions and
histories" (Boricowski, 1992, p. 254) Instead o f discrediting teaching experience, Borkowski
values the wealth o f knowledge that experience brings to a working model that has been
"carefidly crafted, reshaped, and groomed through personal success and Ailure experiences"
(p. 254).
A colleague o f mine, in obtaining her Master degree, had her thesis criticised for
following the tradition in the social sciences o f stating the obvious. I believe, from a

209

constructivist point o f view, that learning is personal and that the value o f the connections one
has made to "state the obvious" should not be discredited. I believe that a teacher's purpose in
doing classroom-based research is to reflect upon and consolidate a model o f instruction that
is developed over a lifetime. This may mean taking the obvious in new and creative directions.
I believe the learning of a teacher should not be criticised for its simplicity. I have found that
my greatest difficulties in the classroom sometimes have taken months of reflection that ended
with a simple solution. An example is the "Queue List" I mentioned earlier. I wanted a
procedure to allow students to get help or have their work checked, but I did not want
students to waste time waiting in a line, chasing me around the classroom, or waiting at their
desks with their hand in the air. I developed one very simple, obvious classroom routine to
provide timely feedback to students. There is nothing "earth shattering" in my discovery, but
the thinking I did surrounding this issue is what is really important to my trying to become an
effective teacher. Vygotsky and Piaget both created learning theories that many parents
intuitively know without reading the complicated works of these two great thinkers. That is
that language development and learning requires social interactions and that learning is
developmental. Thank goodness Vygotslqr and Piaget stated the obvious.
Although I may criticise the research literature, I believe that a teacher's learning is
enhanced by reading current research. I also am aware that my teaching responsibilities oAen
keep me isolated in the classroom ^art Aom the realities o f other teachers and classrooms.
For years now, I have collaborated extensively with a colleagues. Most o f our work together
occurs beyond the working day, during early mornings, summer holidays, and weekends.
Recognising the need to build an authentic culture o f learning and professional development

210

for teachers, I dream o f a model in schools that encourages and allows for teachers to visit
each other's classrooms during instructional time, that aligns new teachers with seasoned
mentor teachers, and where planning, dialogue, and exchange o f ideas with others are 6ctored
into every teacher's day. Time, resources, encouragement, and trust need to be given to
teachers to keep up with current research and to develop and report on their classroom-based
research.
Needless to say, any clarity of thought comes from much research, introspection, and
discussion with others. Every time I read an article, I was seduced by the "significant
findings." When I read reductionist literature, I worried that my students were not reaching
mastery. I felt guilty that some of my open-ended approaches were detrimental to the learning
of my students. When I read constructivist literature, I worried that I was not tapping into the
interests of my students. I knew I was not allowing my students to construct their own
understandings frilly. I felt guilty when I was changing my discourse, believing it to be yet
another form of control. In the end, I must leam to trust my judgements and experiences and
aim for balance. I believe an eclectic approach allows for a teacher to combine the best of
reductionist thought, constructivist thought, quantitative research, and qualitative research.
I believe that there are more similarities between educational research and practice than
there are difrerences. I believe there is a quest for knowledge and best instructional methods,
and that caring about our children is central. The gap between research and practice may lie in
how that information is communicated to teachers and how valued teachers feel in receiving
that information. Some researchers have had the power to make me cringe y^ereas others
encouraged me to take pride in my accomplishments as a teacher. To conclude this chapter, I

211

briefly describe the work o f Du% (1993) who, over four years from 1988 to 1992,
collaborated with teachers to incorporate strategy instruction into a literacy curriculum. His
work allows me to place myself as a teacher on his continuum o f strategy instruction and
summarize where I am within my personal model of efkctive instruction.

Duf^ (1993) believes that training teachers to rely on commercial programs or
packages does not encourage the mind set, risk taking, and trust in oneself that teachers
require to construct their instructional model and materials. In Duffy's program, the teachers
were not urged to follow materials or use certain handouts, nor were they told to employ
particular techniques. Through monthly staff development sessions, teachers were provided
with research on reading, strategies, philosophies, approaches, techniques, and practices
related to strategy instruction. Strategy instruction was discussed in terms of the lowest five
students in each class whose achievement
was tracked.
During the program, Duffy identified points that teachers pass through that characterise
their instruction. He gathered this information through direct observation o f teachers and
through interviews. There are eight stages: First, the teacher is confiised and rejects a strategy
instruction model insisting she needs to follow a basal textbook and cannot create her
programmes. The teacher does not trust she has enough knowledge or ability to make the
students effective readers. Next, the teacher controls the strategies believing it is cheating to
tell students explicitly how to do a strategy. Third, the teacher is beginning to make strategies
explicit but fiacuses on declarative and procedural knowledge and leaves out conditional

212

these supersede content instruction), focuses on the metacognitive development of students,
and sees strategy use as universal instruction rather than isolated instruction. Fifth, the teacher
hits "the wall." She recognises that she has moved &om a basal reader despite limited
materials and an increase in preparation. She recognises that strategies are useful for students,
but there is guilt associated at this stage with not doing what she perceives she is supposed to
be doing. At the sixth stage, the teacher is "over the hump." She recognises that strategies
make sense, involve important, authentic experiences, and do not require approved materials.
The teacher recognises there is no single way to enact a strategy instruction model. At the
seventh stage, there are still gaps in how the end strategy instruction model will look and
what strategies will be taught. At the eighth and final stage, the teacher has become a creative
and inventive strategy instruction enactor.
I would characterise myself as primarily being in level four and five of Duffy's model of
teacher development. In this study, I viewed processes of learning and completing tasks as
more important than the topic of study or end products. I was interested in the metacognitive
development o f my students, but lacked experience in methods o f instruction and methods of
assessment. I felt that the positive changes in my approaches to instruction had an impact on
my general performance, attitude, and beliefs about teaching beyond the confines o f this study;
although, I experienced doubts and guilt.
Duffy suggests that there is a probable stage nine but it remained undefined at the time
of the publication o f his article. I have read no subsequent work by Duffy, but can oGer a
potential stage nine. Stage nine is a teacher who has the confidence and experience to share,
report, and publish her experiences beyond her normal circle o f support. She is a mentor vdio.

213

while continuing to improve her own model o f instruction, supports novice teachers. It is such
teachers as those in stage nine Wio can mediate the gtq) between research and practice.
Conc/itMon
In this chapter, I discussed the results 6 om my personal perspective as a teacher and the
ways the results relate to the larger bodies o f literature on strategy instruction, writing,
learning disabilities, and metacognition. The chapter began with a theoretical discussion of
learning, students within the present school system, and my understanding of strategy
instruction. Following that, I discussed the range of instructional methods I employed to
develop a personal model of strategy instruction and the materials that I used or developed to
enhance the curriculum. This was followed by my interpretation of the self-regulation and
metacognition that I perceived in my students. Finally, I presented my perceptions of the
teacher's role in research. The following and final chapter of this thesis is my conclusion in
which I consolidate my learning, discuss the limitations of this study, and place my work
within the context of the larger bodies of research.

214
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusion

Can strategy instruction be implemented successfully in an inclusive Grade 6/7
classroom? Absolutely, and in doing so, this approach to instruction has the potential to
stimulate and enhance students' cognitive, metacognitive, and social development; teacher
effectiveness; the learning tone of the classroom; and student autonomy. Why? Because
strategy instruction provides students with declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge
that promotes learning and autonomy. Moreover, a single teacher with a full class load can
successfully enact a strategy instruction model to benefit all students. Students benefit in
different ways and to different degrees depending upon their needs. Of course, as in any
teaching, the more expert the teacher, the more effective the strategy instruction model. The
more support the teacher receives from special education teachers and teaching assistants, the
more likely the teacher-to-student ratio can be improved for maximum scaffolding. The better
funding a school receives, the more likely a range of materials can be compiled and teachers
can be given the opportunity to collaborate.
At the time o f this study, the educational system in British Columbia was in flux and
fiinding cuts were deep and had an impact right down to the individual classroom. I mention
this to highlight the difikrence a teacher can make in less than ideal circumstances and to
suggest that effective teaching methods, such as those promoted in strategy instruction, can
minimise the damage done by high student-to-teacher ratios, lack of support fiar students
experiencing difhculty, and the general shortage o f funds. However, in saying that, I believe

215
that the philosophy and structures o f strategy instruction help "to make the best of a bad
thing." In no way do I want to be misconstrued as suggesting strat%y instruction excuses
anti-educational policies that impose large, diverse and undersupported classes on British
Columbia's teachers and learners. Strategy instruction can be elective in spite o f large,
underfunded, inclusive classes. It is my belief that strategy instruction would be even more
elective in adequately funded schools and classrooms.

CoMfrrkrrrow
Although this study and my related reflections have been a personal journey of
professional development, there are a number of ways I believe my work contributes to the
larger body of literature. First, a strategy instruction approach and a writing process approach
can be combined for a note-taking/report-writing unit that explicitly teaches the declarative,
procedural, and conditional knowledge that all students need to become more effective writers
of exposition. Second, students involved in this study, including those with LD, improved
their ability; to identify and restate main ideas and supporting details, to reduce plagiarisms,
and to include text structures and vocabulary specihc to exposition. Third, the RAP and PAR
Strategies, as described in this study, are generaliseable and can be adapted by teachers for
primary or highschool use or could be integrated across curricula. Of course, students'
performances related to strategy use, writing, and metacognition would vary depending on the
students' ages and developmental stages. In a similar vein, teachers' choices of methods would
develop according to their belief and expectations. A fourth contribution is my voice as a
teacher. Teaching can be an isolating experience when one is meeting the demands o f running
a single classroom ef&ctively. lust as students need be immersed in a writing culture, teachers

216
need to be immersed in a culture where their professional development is not incidental.
Rather, teachers should be given the opportunity to develop into educational experts of the
highest calibre.
My reflections about the paradigms o f contructivism and reductionism, my techniques
for encouraging student autonomy, my eSbrts to teach the di&cult concept of identi^dng
main ideas, and my methods for teaching explicitly are intended to be shared, reflected upon,
and further developed. Finally, I recognize that this study, in terms of results, is not exactly
reproducible, nor is that necessarily the point (Poplin, 1988b). Although determining the
effectiveness of my instructional methods and enhancing students' learning were two goals,
there was no single path by which this could be achieved. It would interest me to observe how
a note-taking/report-writing unit could take shape in another teacher's classroom or how a
strategy instruction model might develop for another teacher. I hope that my experiences,
decisions, reflections, and modifications can inform and possibly help other teachers who are
reflecting upon their teaching paradigms and refining their instructional model. I believe that
every teacher's voice that is heard in the research encourages that missing link between
research and practice.
I profoundly believe in and hope fiar educational reform. I believe that refi]rm is about
individuals who want to make a difi&rence. Research methods and results need to reach and be
valued by teachers. In education, interventions or treatments or control groups are really
about teachers and students. There is no way to eradicate their humanity fi"om the picture
without losing what really matters. Attention needs to be given to the social factors and norms
that exist within a classroom, a school, and also in society at large (Swanson & Hoskyn,

217
1998). Traditional experimental paradigms need to be expanded to account for the individuals
and their interactions. I feel that classroom research by teachers has a valuable place in
educational research, especially, as in this study, when the work is guided and overseen by
experienced researchers.
Zf/w&xirow
A school is a dynamic setting, and many unforeseen events can have an impact on
instruction. Usually these are seen as limitations within a study; however, the point is that
strategy instruction can be effective in a naturalistic setting where instructional challenges
occur on a regular basis. I have an issue with the term limitation because I believe it is a
remnant of the traditional experimental paradigm where an absolute must be achieved. The
word limitation suggests to me that a person's choices in his/her own learning can be faulty,
which does not give credibility to the mistakes, that I am coming to understand, are a
necessary part of learning. Coming from a sociocultural constructivist stance, there are no
ultimate and tidy models. I did catch myself thinking, " I wish I had known then what I know
now," which is ironic given that I needed to have the experiences in the Erst place to inspire
the learning.
I also recognize that the learning and understandings in this paper are uniquely my own
and do not extend beyond my perspectives and misunderstandings. The perspective in this
paper is my interpretation and understanding of a great many educators, thinkers, and
researchers. My study has been a personal learning experience. Reading a qualitative paper
such as this one requires that the reader, at least in part, accepts the anecdotal accounts o f the
participants (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995). Even my students are presented through my

218
Gltering o f their comments and end-products. Data collection procedures cannot fully
document or measure my students' covert strategic thought processes. By including a variety
o f data collection methods, there is less ambiguity when attempting to assess a student's
cognitive and metacognitive processing (Gamer, 1988); however, there is much I did not
uncover.
Teaching is a long term endeavour and elective instructional strat^ies take years to
develop (Pressley et al., 1992). This study is just a point on a continuum of my development
as a teacher. I am not sure there is even something as tidy as a continuum that describes
effective teaching. It seems to me that effective teaching is more like a tangled web of
discoveries and rediscoveries that sometimes require returning full circle to a method once
rejected. In other words, I do not believe a teacher's paradigm or teaching model remains the
same even when it may look the same. Even though research strongly suggests that the
teacher is the key element to strategy instruction (Duffy, 1993), the findings of this study are
best synthesised with others' previous findings to establish effective instructional approaches
(Wilson-Schae^ 1985).

fwAfre

gwcA

Today, researchers may feel the need to distance themselves fi-om either qualitative or
quantitative research depending upon their purpose. Perhaps, a balance can be fbimd by
establishing an alternative methodology that encompasses both (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1995). Given the nature o f the data collection a teacher does everyday, quantitative and
qualitative methodology may blend especially well when a classroom is the research setting.
Kline et al. (1992) ask the question: "What constitutes successful implementation of

219
strategy instruction" (p.397)? These researchers found that their program designers and
evaluators were having difBculty determining what standards could be considered acceptable.
Their Zeommg .yfrafegzes CurrzcuAan followed a reductionist model o f design and
implementation in which the teacher was given the package and the learners were expected to
learn the prescribed material. I believe that the researchers were beginning to realize that in
keeping control o f the learning o f both the teacher and the student, they had lost the interest
of the teachers who needed to be able to take ownership of new practices and materials and
imbed them into their current models of instruction.
I believe that the future of research in strategy instruction needs to focus less on trying
to promote a particular model. Instructional models are the personal signatures of teachers.
Rather, learning strategies that improve student learning and teacher practices that enhance
student learning, autonomy and generaUsation of strategy use need to be developed, reflected
upon, and shared. The sharing occurs with the understanding that each teacher or student who
adopts a strategy will transform it and personalise it. The vehicle for this may be classroom
research led by single teachers or small groups o f teachers and, if possible, guided by expert
researchers. Vaughn et al. (2000), believe that elective principles o f instruction
(e.g. controlling task difBculty, small group instruction, and directed response questioning) are
not being implemented in classrooms in a widespread manner. These researchers state, "We as
researchers know a great deal about these principles, and therefore the responsibility is ours to
ensure that they are implemented (p. 111)." I suggest that a collaborative model uniting
researchers and teachers to share the responsibility o f linking research and practice may be the
impetus for educational reform. So, in response to Vaughn et al., I rebut: We as teachers

220
know a great deal about the realities o f the inclusive classroom; therefore, it is our right to be
included in a collaborative process of educational research. It is also our responsibility to
direct that research for the betterment o f public education.
CoMc/waoM
I experienced Srst hand the beneGts o f classroom research under the mentorship of two
university-based researchers. Without a doubt, my hardest thinking and deepest learning came
from all the experiences, over a six year time period, of completing my coursework towards
my Master degree in curriculum and instruction, of conducting this study, of writing this
thesis, and of responding to this learning within my own classroom. Still, I feel like I am only
at the packing my suitcases stage of a long journey.
Teachers are criticised for being ineffective and for not keeping up with the research.
We are being viewed from a deficit model. That is, there is something wrong with us because
children are not learning what they are "supposed" to be learning. As we, for the sake of our
students, rethink how our classrooms can become meaningful learning centres, we also need
to rethink how research and teacher education can become meaningful for teachers. The
teachers I know care a great deal about their learning and that o f their students. We are a
receptive group to paradigm shifts and educational innovations. My experience with teachers
and administrators are that they are passionate about education.
Poplin (1988b) articulates that the dominating paradigm in education is reductionism.
She believes that the principles o f reductionism make it easier to articulate, develop
curriculum, and train and evaluate teachers. She states that reductionism is pervasive but
imperceptible within the system. Implementing non-reductionist practices remains extremely

221
complex. I understand Poplin's view. I was caught expressing and enacting reductionist
principles numerous times by my mentors as they edited my drafts o f this thesis. I was
promoting constructivist methods but speaking o f my students and myself in reductionist
terms without even being conscious o f it.
My work surrounding this paper has allowed me to view learning strategies,
instructional models, learning disabilities, student thinking, and reductionism from the
perspective o f constructivism. Regardless of the paradigm, I believe that effective teachers,
through teaching experiences, professional development, and research development, construct
their own individual model of instruction over a lifetime. It is important that these models of
instruction are better understood by grounding them in theory or making the theories behind
the practice explicit rather than implicit. As Poplin (1988b) states, "Many teachers have begun
to write about their practices, and in so doing, to reveal the essence of constructivism far
more clearly than theoretical description can do" (p. 413). Teachers should be encouraged to
write about their experiences for the purpose of research.

222
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Committee on Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in the Schools, (1980, March). DeGnitions for communicative
disorder and dif&rences.
22, 317-318.
Anderson, L. M., R^hael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Stevens, D. D. (1992). TeocAmgwnAMg
WrA a ww zMftrwcAoMa/ wiodle/. varmAorw m feacAerf' AeA^, fwün/cfzoMaZ/yacAce,
aw f tAerr
East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 994)
Alexander, P A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R (1998). A perspective on strategy research:
progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (2), 129-154.
Atwell, N. (1987). 7A (Ae mfdWk. wnfzMg; readA% awf /gar»mg WiA adb/eacg»6 .
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Bender, W. N , & Smith, J. K. (1990). Classroom behaviour of children and adolescents with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 23(5), 298-305.
Blachowicz, C. L. (1994). Problem-solving strategies for academic success. In G. P. Wallach,
& K. G. Butler (Eds ), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and
adolescents: Some principles and applications (pp. 304-322). Toronto: Maxwell
MacmiUan Canada.
Blank, M. (2002). Classroom discourse: A key to literacy. In K. G Butler, & E. R. Silliman
(Eds ), «^pgatfMg, reacAwg, aw / wn/mg m cAfZdSren wf(A Zawgw^g /garmng düaA;AAe.s.
New paradigms in research and practice (pp. 151-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Borkowski, J. G (1992). Metacognitive theory: A 6 amework for teaching literacy, writing,
and math skills. JowTKz/ q/"Learw»gDfaaAzAAef, 23(4), 253-257.
Borkowski, J. G , & Muthukiishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom:
"Woiking models" and elective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R Harris, & I. T.
Guthrie (Eds ),
acadb/mc campefewg aw / /Aeracy m scAoo/ (pp. 477-501).
San Diego, CAj Academic Press, Inc.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules 6 )r summarizing texts: The development o f
expertise. Jaarwz/ P^Aa/ Lgammg aw / PerAa/ Aawowr, 22, 1-14.
Clark, F. L. (1993). Preparing teachers to implement strategy instruction.
faf/w g, 3&(1), 50-52.

&Aoo/

223
De La Paz, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with learning and
writing disabilities to conq)ose persuasive and expository essays. ZearwMg DwoAf/ifzef
20(3), 227-248.
De La Paz, S. (1999a). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings:
Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning
Dfao&f/ffzgf /(esgwcA nWPractice, 7^(2), 92-106.
De La Paz, S. (1999b). Teaching writing strategies and self-regulation procedures to middle
school students with learning disabilities.
OMExrgpAowz/
37(5), 1-16.
De La Paz, S. (2001). Teaching writing to students with attention deficit disorders and
specific language impairment. Journal o f Education Research, 95{l), 37-47.
Derry, S. J. (1990). Remediating academic difficulties through strategy training: the
acquisition of useful knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 11(6), 19-31.
Deshler, D. D , & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how
to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.) Alternative educational
delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options fo r all
Washington, DC:
NASP
Deshler, D. D , & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple
matter. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 153-165.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual o f practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Duffy, G. C. (1993). Teachers' progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers.
JowTKz/, 9^/(2), 109-120.
Ellis, E. S. (1986). The role o f motivation and pedagogy on the generalization o f cognitive
strategy training. JowTza/
D r a o A f 79(2), 66-70.
Ellis, E. S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content
area subjects to adolescents with learning disabilities. Jiwrna/
26(6), 358-383.
Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A W. (1989). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A
paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension o f main ideas.
EdkcofzoM jgzfwfgr/y, 70(2), 2-10.
Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1987). A component analysis o f effective learning strategies for
LD students. 7,ear»mg 7)Ma6f&fzej 7«bcw:y, 2(2), 94 - 107.

224
Englert, C S. (1992). Writing instruction 6 om a sociocultural perspective: The holistic,
dialogic, and social enterprise o f writing. JbrrmaZ Z/garwMg DrsaMrAgf, 2J(3),
153-172.
Englert, C S., Berry, R., & Dunsmore, K. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process:
Another perspective on the apprentice and the scaSblding metaphor. Jbwrwo/ q /
Z/garMZ/rgDrsaMrrrgf, 34(2), 152-171.
Englert, C S., Manage, T. V. (1991). Shared understandings: Structuring the writing
experience through dialogue. ./owTKz/ Z e a r w M g / r 24(6), 330-342.
Englert, C S., & Rf^hael, T. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure,
and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children 54(6), 513-520.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Fear, K. L., & Gregg, S. L.
(1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategies for writing informational text.
Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 98-113.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D (1991).
Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special
education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28 (2), 337-372.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Gregg, S. L., & Anthony, H. M. (1989).
Exposition: Reading, writing, and the metacognitive knowledge o f learning disabled
students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5(1), 5-24.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1992). Socially mediated instruction;
Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. EZemenfwy
JbwTKzt
92(4), 411-449.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E , Fear, K. L., & Anderson, L. M., (1988). Students'
metacognitive knowledge about how to write information texts. Zearnmg DraaWf(y
77(1), 18-46.
Englert, C S., Stewart, S. R , Hiebert, E. H. (1988). Young writers' use o f text structure in
expository text generation. JbwnaZ q/"Edkcafzo»a7P^cAo/qgy, ^0(2), 143-151.
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. Zeammg
Qwwfgr7y,70, 93-105.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology o f teacher-student
interaction in classroom conversations. In D Hicks (Ed.), Dwconrae, /eammg
acTwoZmig (pp. 29-62). New York: Cambridge University Press.

225
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D (1998). General educators' instructional adaptation 5)r students
with learning disabilities. ZeammgDzaaAfAry gnwrer/y, 27, 23-33.
Gamer, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C E.
Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds ), ZewTzmg oW
znatrucAo», nW gvaZwaAon (pp. 63-76). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 707(3), 251-272.
Gersten, R , Camine, D , & Woodward, J. (1987). Direct instruction research: The third
decade. RASE, 5(6),48-56.
Gersten, R , Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: a research-based
approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17-31.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efiBcacy. Journal o f
Educational Psychology, 57(3), 353-361.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students' skills at
composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56(3),
201-214.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993a). Improving the writing of students with learning
problems: Self-regulated strategy development. School Psychology Review, 22(4),
656-671.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993b). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students
with learning problems develop as writers. Z/ememü/y
Joumo/, 9^(2), 169-181.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R (1994). Implications o f constructivism far teaching writing to
students with special needs. JbwTKz/ q / " E d k c o A o » , 25, (3), 275-289.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R (1999). Assessment and intervention in overcoming writing
difBculties: An illustration 6 om the self-regulated strategy development model.
Zwzgizqge,
awf Ægwzng
in
30(3), 255-264.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R , & Troia, G. A. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development
revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Tqpicf m Zangizagg
Diwrdlerf 20(4), 1-14.

226
Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C A. (1993). Knowledge o f writing and the
composing process, attitude toward writing, and self^efBcacy for students with and
without learning disabilities. Jbwrw?/
D f A g 26(4), 237-249.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low
achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than diSerent? Jiwroa/ q/"
leom m g DwaAzAAgj, 29(6), 570-581.
Hallenbeck, M. J. (2002). Taking charge: Adolescents with learning disabilities assume
responsibility for their own writing.
DwaAzAfz&r
25, 227-246.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and whole language: A
case study. Remedial and Special Education, 14(4), 30-34.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Deshler, D (1998). Teaching every child every day: Learning in
diverse schools and classrooms. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Harris, K. R , Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2002). POW plus TREE equals powerful opinion
essays. Teaching Exceptional Children, S4(4), 74-77.
Harris, K. R , & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive
strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student
learning: A meta-analysis. Review o f Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.
Hicks, D. (1996a). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning. In
D. Hicks (Ed ), D üccwfg, /eommg WKf jc/ww/mg (pp. 104-141). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hicks, D. (1996b). Introduction. In D. Hicks (Ed ), Discourse, learning and schooling
(pp. 1-29). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hogelucht, K. S. (1994). Mowqgmg c&wwooTM dSfacowrae. ^4» exam/MorzoM q/^
mremctioM. San Jose, CA: Annual Meeting o f the Western States Communication
Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 116)
Isaacson, S. L. (1992). Volleyball and other analogies: A response to Englert. Jowmo/ q/^
LearwngDrjoAzAfre25(3), 173 -177.
Johnson, C L. & Lapadat, J. C. (2000). Parallels between learning disabilities and fetal
alcohol syndrome/e@ect: No need to reinvent the wheel. ÆccepriwKZ&ry Education
70(3), 65-81.

227
Kahmi, A. G (1998). Trying to make sense o f developmental language disorders. Zangwage,
aw fÆgarrng m &A0 06 , 29, 35-44.
Kavale, K. A , & Reese, J. H. (1991). Teacher b elief and perceptions about learning
disabilities: A survey o f Iowa's practitioners. Zearwng DrsaArAry gwarfer/y,y4,
141-160.
Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D , & Schumaker, J. B (1992). Implementing learning strategy
instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T.
Guthrie (Eds ),
acackmrc
aw^A/gracy m fcAooI (pp.311-336).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Lapadat, I. C (2000). Teachers in the Canadian North reflecting on discourse practices.
Networks.' An On-line Journalfo r Teacher Research. Retrieved from
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (2002, January 30). O fficial definition o f
learning disahilities.KesinQveû April 27, 2004 from
http://www.ldac-taac.ca/english/defined/defmew.htm
Levy, N. R. (1996). Teaching analytical writing: Help for general education middle school
teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(2), 95-103.
MacArthur, C. A , & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students composing under three
methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal o f
Edkcofro», 27(3), 22-42.
MacArthur, C. A , Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Scha&r, W D (1995). Evaluation o f a
writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and
word processing.
278-291.
Mariage, T. V., Englert, C. S., & Garmon, M. A. (2000). The teacher as "more
knowledgeable other" in assisting literacy learning with special needs students. TkodSmg
owJ IFntmg
16, 299-336.
Marzano, R. L, & Pickering, D. J. (1997). DrmeTmoTM
edition. Aurora, CO: McREL.

T e o c J K r 2nd

Mayer, R. E. (1988). Learning strategies: An overview. In C E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, &
P. A Aexander (Eds ), ZewmMg nW
ffrategfgj. Z&Mfgf m a&ye&sment,
fTKtmchoM, araf
(pp. 11-22). San Diego, CA Academic Press, Inc.

228
McCormick, C B., Buscbing, B. A., & Potter, E. F. (1992). Children's knowledge about
writing: The development and use o f evaluative criteria. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, &
J. T. Guthrie (Eds ), frowo/rng acackwrc
aW Aferacy m fcAoo/
(pp. 311-336). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D , &Lee, O (1993). Observations of
students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional
CArlk&'gn, 60(3), 249-261.
Meltzer, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L, & Roditi, B. (2001). The impact o f efkrt and
strategy use on academic performance: Student and teacher perceptions. Zeammg
DisaAz/fty 0zarter(y, 24, 85-98.
Meltzer, L., Roditi, B., Houser, R F., & Perlman, M, (1998). Perceptions of academic
strategies and competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal o f Learning
Disabilities, 37(5), 437-451.
Morgan, N., & Saxton, J. (1994). Asking better questions: Models, techniques and classroom
activities fo r engaging students in learning. Markham, Ont: Pembroke Publishers.
Morocco, C. C , Hindlin, A , Mata-Aguilar, C , & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2001). Building a deep
understanding of literature with middle-grade students with learning disabilities.
Z^arnmgDfjaWz(y0zwYer(y, 24(1), 47-58.
Mothus, T. G. (1997).
fZrotggy zwïrwcZzo» o» zAe recK&Mg cozTgzrgAgmzo»
achievement o f junior secondary school students. Unpublished masters thesis,
University o f Northern British Columbia, Canada.
Mothus, T. G. (2001). Writing successfully: Writing strategies fo r high school students with
wnZmg
. Paper presented at the Ministry o f Education Sponsored Education
Research Symposium, University o f British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Mothus, T. G , & Lapadat, I. C. (2003). A strategy intervention to increase the reading
comprehension o f junior high school students with reading disabilities. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Mothus, T. G., Lapadat, J. C , Struthers, L., Fisher, J., Paterson, K. A (2002, March).
j'z/aZegzc mZervenriww Zo ZTMprove zAe wnring odb/gfceMZf wzZA
/gwTzmg
Paper presented at the Mmistry o f Education Sponsored
Education Research Symposium, Vancouver, BC
Nelson, T. O (1999). Cognition versus metacognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed ),
cqgmrioM (pp. 625-641). Cambridge, M A MIT Press.

MoAzre q/^

229
O'Connor, M. C , & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant &ameworks: Orchestrating
thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed ), Dwcowae, /eurwMg aW
fcAoo/mg (pp. 63-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., David, Y. M., Wnn, J. A., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Examining the context
o f strategy instruction. jkmedïaZ owf .ÿecW
72(3), 43-53.
Palmer, D J., & Goetz, E. T. (1988). Studier's beliefs about self and strategies. In C. E.
Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P A. Alexander (Eds ), Learning and study strategies:
T&wef m u&ye&sTMgnt, f/zrfrucüoM, uTKf evaA/oAo» (pp. 41-61). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Pappas, C. C , Kiefer, B. Z , & Levstik, L. S. (1999). vf/x mfegrateff
the elementary school: An action approach (3rd ed ). New York: Longman.

m

Poplin, M. S. (1988a). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process:
Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal o f Learning Disabilities,
27(7), 401-416.
Poplin, M. S. (1988b). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by
reducing the present. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 27(7), 389-400.
Pressley, M. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York: HarperCollins.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., Marks, M. B , Brown, R., & Stein, S. (1992). Good strategy
instruction is motivating and interesting. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp
(Eds), The Role o f interest in learning and development (pp. 333-357). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructing
meaning.
7(gocB»g TeocTKr, ^3(6), 388-400.
R^hael, T E., Englert, C S., & Kirschner, B W (1989). Students' metacognitive knowledge
about writing. 7(g.searcA m X/K
23(4), 343-379).
Schmeck, R R (1988). Individual difierences and learning strategies. In C E. Weinstein,
E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds ), TLeam/Mg o w 7 j X r a f e g r g f . T&wef m
a&sg&smgyxf, mstrwcüo»,
ewzAxatroM (pp. 171-191). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P. H., & Deshler, D. D. (1984). 7%e /garur/xg fXÿ-oXegrgf
cxxrrxcixAxxxx. 7%g/xxrqp/xruaxxxg aTrafggy. Lawrence: The University o f Kansas Institute
fiar Research in Learning Disabilities.

230
Schunk, D. H. (1993). EMAoMcmg Aÿ-ofegy fwe; Zr^«e»cgf f^rafggy W «e aWgoaZ
ongMüafio». Atlanta, GA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting o f the American
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359
217)
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A (1995) Qualitative research methodology in the study of
learning and behavioural disorders.
m Zeommg wnf
DZaaAZAA&y,
9, 249-272.
Scruggs, T. E , & Mastropieri, M. A (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the
problems o f identi&cation o f learning disabitlities. Zgammg Df&zAi/ftzgf jgwarterZy, 25,
155-168.
Sexton, M., Harris, K. R , & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the
writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64(3),
295-311.
Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Brinckerhoflf, L. C (1995). Operationalizing a
definition of learning disabilities. Journal o f Learning Disabilities, 28, (9), 586-597.
Sharpe, D. (1992) Comprehension skills series. Austin, Texas, Steck-Vaughn Company.
Singer, B. D. (1995). Written language development and disorders: Selected principles,
patterns, and intervention possibilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 76(1), 83-98.
Singer, B. D. & Bashir, A. S. (1999). What are executive functions and self-regulation and
what do they have to do with language-learning disorders? Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 265-273.
Sleeter, C E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The social construction o f a special education
category.
55(1), 46-54.
Stone, C A. (1998). The metaphor o f scaffolding: Its utility for the Geld o f learning
disabilities. JoMmoZ
57(4), 344-364.
Sturm, J., & Koppenhaver, D. A (2000). Supporting writing development in adolescents with
developmental disabilities.
in Zanguqge Dr&wdbrj, 20(2), 73-92.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for
students with learning disabilities: Support far a combined strategy and direct
instruction model.
74(3), 129-140.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis o f treatment outcomes. 7(ewew
Tk&ewcZ:, 68(3), 277-321.

231
Thomas, C C , Englert, C S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis o f errors and strategies in the
expository writing of learning disabled students. Æ4&E, &(1), 21-30.
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002). The ef&ctiveness o f a highly explicit, teacher-directed
strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance o f students with learning
disabilities.
ZeommgDfsaAr/rAgf, 3J(4), 290-305.
VanKleeck, A. (1994). Metalinguistic development. In G P. Wallach, & K. G. Butler (Eds ),
Zangwogig
aB&zAfAtrgs m
owf odb/efceMt;. j'orne
prrncÿles owf apg?/fcorzo7M (pp. 53-98). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 57(1), 99-114.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MET Press.
Wallach, G P. & Butler, K. G. (1994). Creating communication, literacy, and academic
success. In G. P. Wallach, & K. G. Butler (Eds ), Language learning disabilities in
school-age children and adolescents: Some principles and applications (pp. 304-322).
Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
Weinstein, C. E., Zimmermann, S. A., & Palmer, D. R. (1988). Assessing learning strategies:
The design and development of the LAS SI. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A.
Alexander (Eds ), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and
evaluation (pp. 25-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: A basic aspect of reading comprehension.
Tqprcf m Z h w r d l e r f , j(3), 1-13.
\Wson-Schae^ A (1985).
rgo/zfy."
j^ocfgfy. New York: Harper Paperbacks.

m a wAfrg mo/e

Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C (1988). Direct instruction o f reading comprehension strategies:
The nature o f teacher explanation. In C E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A Alexander
(Eds ), Zeammg
stwfy sfrafegrgs." Zyswes m OKSgsangnf, InafrvcfroM, owf eva/wfrroM
^p. 121-139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Pursuing an elusive goal: molding strategic teachers and learners.
J o u r n a lZearmngDfsoArAAes, 26(6), 354-357.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1996). 7%g

San Diego: Academic Press.

232
Wong, B Y L. (1999). Metacognition in writing. In R. Gallimore, L. P. Bemheimer, D L.
MacMillan, D. L. Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds ), D e v e / q p r n g T z A z / o n c/uiÜ5rgn
wffA Mg/?-ync7d5gncg
(pp. 183-198). Mahwah, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wong, B. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for adolescents
with and without learning disabilities. Tcpicf in Zongwogg Dworokr.;, 20, (4), 29-44.
Wong, B. Y L., Butler, D L., Ficzere, S. A , & Kuperis, S., Corden, M., & Zelmer, I.
(1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through
two instructional modes: Student-teacher versus student-student interactive dialogues.
Learning Disabilities Research, 9(2), 78-90.
Wong, B Y L , Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers
and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal
o f Learning Disabilities, 29(2), 197-212.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A , & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents
with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise
compare-and-contrast essays. Learning D isabilities Research and Practice, 72(1),
2-15.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M. R., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and
differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. The Journal
TSdkgatioM, 76(1), 73-85.

233

Appendix A

CoM&e»/

awf Fonw

Karin Paterson
c/o Administration Offices
1894-9th Avenue
Prince George, BC V2M 1L7
phone:
Re: Research on Expository Writing in an Inclusive Grade Six/Seven
January 29, 2002
Dear Parents/Guardians,
I would like to request your child's participation in a study I am conducting from
January 2002 to May 2002 on essay writing.
I am currently a graduate student in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of
Northern British Columbia. I am intending to collect data toward my masters thesis:
Expository Writing in an Inclusive Grade Six/Seven Classroom. I plan to teach students a
strategy to help them improve their reading and writing of essays. The data I am intending to
use for the study will be the students' writing, their learning log entries, and tape recordings of
class lessons and teacher/student conferences.
As my teaching throughout the study will resemble what I normally do in the classroom,
there is no greater risk associated with this study than the usual school activities. I am very
excited about the research I have already done on the topic o f essay writing and expect
improved quality o f essay writing &om all my students.
Your child has been chosen to participate in this study as he/she is enrolled in my
classroom. Your child is required to participate in the essay writing unit as part o f the regular
curriculum and will be graded for the report card as usual. Your child will be expected to
participate in writing strategy instruction, related class discussions, and writing activities. I
will only use data in my thesis for which I have received your consent. This means your child
will be required to complete the assignments, but your child's data will not be included as part

234
o f the study unless you have consented. You may terminate your child's participation in the
study at any time without penalty to your child.
People who will have access to the data include school staf^ the UNBC research
committee, and School District 57 administration. Additionally, the information 6om this
study may be published in academic research journals. As a parent, you have unlimited access
to your own child's data but not the data of any other child. You may get a copy of the
research results upon completion o f the study.
Your child will remain anonymous in the reporting of the data. All interpretation of data
will be kept confidential and off the school premises. Data will be kept for five years.
I am available at 963 - 7060 to answer any questions. You may also contact my thesis
supervisors Dr. Judith Lapadat at 960 -6667 and Mrs. Trudy Mothus at 960 - 5639. If you
have any complaints about the study, they should be directed to the Vice-President Research
at UNBC at 960 - 5820.
Please complete the attached consent form and have your child return it to me as soon
as possible. You wall receive a copy of your completed and signed consent form for your
records.
Thank you very much for your support.
Sincerely,

Karin Paterson

235
Please answer each o f the following questions by circling either a YES or NO Sign and
clearly print your name and 511 in the date on the lines provided. Have your child return this
farm to me as soon as possible.

1) Do you understand that you have been asked to give permission for YES

NO

your child to be in a research study?
2) Have you read and received a copy o f the attached

YES

NO

3) Do you understand that your child may be tape recorded?

YES

NO

4) Do you understand the benefits and risks of your child's

YES

NO

YES

NO

6) Do you understand that you are free to refuse to allow your child to YES

NO

information letter?

participation in this study?
5) Do you understand that you may ask questions and discuss this
study with the researcher?

participate, or you are fi*ee to withdraw your child from the study at
any time?
7) Do you understand that your child will remain anonymous in the

YES

NO

YES

NO

reporting o f the data?
8) Do you understand who will have access to the data collected in
this study?

236
I agree to allow my child to take part in this study:

(Signature o f Parent/Guardian)

(Date)

(Printed Name o f Parent/Guardian)

I, Karin Paterson, believe that the person signing this form understands what is involved in the
study and voluntarily agrees to let his/her child participate.

(Signature of Researcher)

(Date)

237

Appendix B

For JVofe-foA:mg (%4^
R - Read a paragraph
A - Ask yourself^ "What is the main idea and what are the supporting details?"
P - Put the main idea and supporting details in your own words.

For PFrifmg o F ^ o rf
P - Put your RAP's into new or combined categories.
A - Ask yourself, "What is the new main idea of each new category?"
R - Record each main idea and the related supporting details in a paragraph in
your own words.

238

L - Lapse into silence
I - Identify and eliminate distractions
S - Sit6cing the teacher
T - Track the teacher
E - Engage your brain. Think!
N - Note-take when necessary.

240

Appendix D
/4rAc/ef

Many people think spiders are insects, but insects have six legs. Actually, spiders have
eight legs and are called arachnids («A Æ4RTwzAdk).
Spiders have a tough outer skeleton. Their bodies bave two parts: a joined head and
chest and an abdomen, or belly. All spiders have claws called fangs. They stab an insect with
their fangs. Then they suck the insect's body fluids.
Spiders have short silk-spinning organs called spinnerets on their abdomens. Wherever
a spider goes, it spins a silk thread. The spider can get away from enemies by hanging in the
air on its thread or dropping to the ground.
Spiders hunt in different ways. Spiders eat mainly insects. Most kinds of spiders spin
webs to catch insects. Hunting spiders often creep up on insects. Sometimes they hide and
then pounce on the insects.
Most male spiders make special movements to signal &male spiders not to eat them.
Afler they mate, the &male spiders lay eggs. When young spiders hatch, they begin spinning
threads. Many o f them "fly" to other areas. They climb to a high place and spin their lines.
The breeze catches their silk and lifts them into the air.

241
Cocff
Cactuses, or cacti, are a type of plant. Cacti grow in North and South America. Most
cacti grow in hot, dry places. Cacti can also grow in rain forests and mountains. Some cacti
even grow in cold places. The cactus &mily includes more than two thousand species of
plants. Most o f them are xerophytes. Xerophytes are plants that can live and grow without a
lot of water.
Cacti come in all shapes and sizes. For example, the giant saguaro (suh GWAH roh)
can grow taller than a house. Other cacti are less than 2.5 centimetres. Some small cacti look
like small, round pincushions, starfish, or even blades of grass.
Cacti have spines rather than leaves. The spines may be long or short and soft or sharp.
They may have straight or hooked tips. They protect the plant from being eaten by animals.
The spines do not produce any food for the plant like the leaves of trees. It is the thick,
fleshy, green stems rather than the spines that make food. These stems also store water. They
have tough, waxy skins to prevent water being lost through evaporation.
The roots are covered with cork and are very long. Because the roots grow near the
top o f the ground they an collect water from even the smallest rain&ll.
All cacti have flowers. White or colourful flowers bloom after a rainfall. Many cacti
also produce the fruit that humans and animals can eat. Some people even make jams and
jellies from the fruit.

<N
cs
RAP SC O R E SHEET
r.1ii*n itfea |_

be

Incom plete i Inaccurate , New I -.*a ' Repetitive

IJ^.. 'Sci’ iii', u

r oi iK«^f".

.( / • ■. - ■lei P'auien:^

Paragraph 1
D1
D2
D3

Di

02
%

I

I

#D2
103

02
10 3

Pai^raph^
01
02
03
C alcu latin g th e Score: Main Idea Points (maximum 1/paragraph) =
Total S core
# p a rag ra p h s x 4

Supporting Detail Points (maximum 3/paragraph)=

en

REPORT WRITING RUBRIC
;

A S rM C I

1 N -" '•t'A 'ith -n E y p 9 il= 'fo n s

Fully Moc^ g F ^p p rtatin n s

[C N A PSH O f

The report Is difficult to follow
b ec au se of th e m any errors.

The report m eets m o st requirem ents The report is e a sy to follow and
but h as noticeable errors.
accom plishes th e b asic purpose.

Not clear. U nfbcussed.

sta te d . F ocus m ay w ander.

Inaccurate or copied.

L evel 1

Lovcl 4

Lev«l 3

1, nvel 2

[qUAUTV

F

* -i

F'TPCte* on»-

T h e report is clear, com plete,
concise, an d effective.

//

Clear. G enerally focussed.

Clear. Focussed.

XI

/4

G enerally accurate.

Mostly accurate. Com plete.

A ccurate, com plete.M ulti-sources.

X1

M

Few, irrelevant, o r repetitive.

S o m e irrelevance o r Inaccuracy.

Mostly relevant.

Specific clarification.

X1

M

No sen se.

Little sense.

S o m e sen se.

A w areness an d consideration.

X1

IMEANIN3

m

V l'U rp o w
liifom iat'O it
” d P tsils
jiid is n c e

m

/4
m

*»i iip k repetitive.

" an g' agw

• d e n tc n c e H iu e tin e Very flawed.
R un-ons/fragm ents.

§

I

Simple. Often vague.

Clear. S o m e varied/specialized
vocab.

Clear, varied, specialized vocab.

X2

m

Varied length, b ut few patterns.
Errors.

Varied length.C om plex sen te n ces
errors.

V aried length an d patterns.
Sm ooth.

X2

/8

FORM
>■ Introduction

P u rp o se unclear.

P u rp o se stated but to o general.

Clearly presen ted purpose.

Clear. Engaging.

X2

/8

■ b o d y s e g t is n r s

Disjointed. U nclear
connections.

Mostly e a sy to follow.

Logical. Sim ple connecting w ords.

C ohesive.C onnecting
w o rd s/p h rases.

X2

/8

° o o d y p aragrap h s

Ineffective o r omitted.

A ttempts. Most m ain id e as stated.

Main ideas an d details. S o m e errors.

Main id eas an d supporting details.

X2

/8

1 c o n c lu s io n

May omit.

Abrupt or weak.

Logical. Limited
focus/overgeneralization.

S u m s up Info. A ttem pts to im pact.

X2

/8
m

COW; E N T IO N S ^
X1

/4

C orrect including co m m as.

X1

/4

Rules followed. O ccasio n al errors.

Follows all rules.

X1

/4

S o m e evidence. Sketchy plan.

Planning attem p ted but so m e gap s.

Well planned.

X2

(S

S p a rse b ut draft is com plete.

Draft Is com plete.

Energy Is put into drafting.

//

N/A

S o m e evidence.

P iece Is Improved but Items
overlooked.

Significant ch an g es.

X2

f8

No evidence. M any errors.

S o m e evidence. Errors rem ain.

Most errors corrected though so m e
rem ain.

Very few errors.

X2

/8

II ’II’' ’ iH difficult to read.

Legible.

Neatly presented. S o m e special
features.

Very neat. Includes special
features.

//

N/A

r rjx M in q

Many b asic w ords m isspelled. M ost b asic w ords spelled correctly.

M ost familiar w ords spelled correctly. M ost w ords spelled correctly.

» p u n ctu ation

F requent errors.

Mostly correct but com m a/capitals
errors.

C orrect but m inor co m m a errors.

Many errors Including word
choice

S o m e errors including word choice.

No evidence.
incom plete draft.

g u r m ir

m
■>otav/r,titig

pon a dratt

pprf'T T b y e d ltln o 1r
» prootroad r '
p u b lis h

L . L

' noe.

noo
'

<N
REPORT WRITING RUBRIC
'OUA. ITV

I tv el 1

A SP C ri

N o' 'i at VViili .1
E .n eN at ons

file s's Expectations f t nim aii

jM'EANirJG

0

3

Level 3

Li-wel 4

F u ly ' I W s &ypF titu .-

E x c eed s E x p ed atio n s

;
5

4

[’ p jrifK sa

No focus

F o cu s w anders.

Clear. Focussed.

Powerful. Engaging.

[4 m a.n id e a s

No s e n s e of m ain id e as of
topic.

S o m e m ain id eas included to develop
topic,

Main Ideas sufficiently develop topic.

Main id eas thoroughly develop th e
topic.

* farx«/def iil$

Irrelevant, repetitive, or
inaccurate.

R elevant but too few details.

Sufficient and meaningful to topic.

Specific, highly inform ative facts.

;•* aiidiPHce

No s e n s e of reader.

Little s e n s e of reader.

S o m e aw aren e ss a n d consideration.

D raw s th e read e r in.

Sufficient u s e of connecting w ords and specialized
vocab.

Engaging u s e of connecting w ords
an d specialized vocab.

F ew patterns. Errors.

Developing varied lengths a n d patterns.

S m ooth. Well developed.

An attem p t is m a d e but intro is too
sp arse.

An ad eq u ate grab, th e sis statem en t, and overview
of main idea is included..

Specific thesis. C lear outline.
Engaging grab

R andom retelling o f facts.

Little thought to overall order.

k n overall order is attem pted.

C o h esiv e p ap e r developed w th a
clear plan.

• erd y
p a r s g ia p h s

U ndeveloped.

A ttem pted grouping of facts.

Alt facts grouped by m ain idea.

Main id eas developed with carefully
organized facts.

e e o n c lu s in n

Not present.

Abrupt o r weak.

S um m arizes paper. A ttem pts to im pact reader.

Powerfully su m m arizes paper.
Im pacts reader.

M any spelling errors.
P a p e r Is difficult to read.

M any spelling errors b ut p a p e r can be
read.

Com m on spelling errors.

Very few spelling errors.

‘ fe q u e n t errors. P a p e r Is
difficult to read.

Many errors including end punctuation. End punctuation is generally correct but com m a
errors are present.

s ty te

§
0

I
1

I
I

<■'-.ig u a g e

Very few connecting words Limited u s e of connecting w o rd s an d
und specialized vocab.
specialized vocab.

4 s e n te n c e

Very flawed,
1R un-ons/fragm ents.

s t'u c iu r e

ro R f fl
......... ........ ..............
Not present.
• in iiod ii- •!.<'

s^^îiJVF'JTIiif Ü
!• s p e llin g
4

pjnctMOtiosi

• graiom ar

M any errors Including word S o m e errors including w ord choice.
choice.

C o m m as, colons, hyphens are
generally u s e d correctly.

R ules followed. O ccasio n al errors.

Follows all rules.

Sufficient planning.

W ell planned.

> * H ll..r ,» H O r F - S
» p 'ew n tin g

No evidence.

'd ra ftin g
,i<

'111 lom plete.

« e d itin g

No evidence.

F ew ch a n g es m ade.

P iece is im proved but item s overlooked.

Significant changes.

• L ior-'reaa

Mo evidence.

F ew ch a n g es m ade.

Many errors corrected though so m e rem ain.

Majority of errors corrected.

P a rts a re difficult to read.

Legible.

Neatly presented. S o m e special features.

Very neat, includes special features.

p iih l s h

Little evidence of planning.

Much copying. S p a rs e but com plete re p o rt S o m e
copying.
N ot e v id e n tly a re p o rt.

C om plete and sufficient report. Little to no copying. Well w ritten report. No copying.

M Kl

245

Appendix H
Aeporf

Form

fo .^core Fre omf Foj^ûK$g&$meMty

R E P O R T WRITING RUBRIC
C.-j A JT Y

L ev el 1

L e v el Î

L ev el 3

L evel 4

A 2 = E .r r

Mot Y at W ithin
E x pectations

M eets E x p e ctatio n s (M inim al)

Fully M eets E x p s d a h o n s

E x c e e d s E x p e ctatio n s .

0

MEANING

4

3

MK

0#

5

No focus.

F o cu s w an d ers.

C lear. F o cu sse d .

Pow erful. E n g ag in g .

//

N/A

No s e n s e of m ain id e a s of
topic.

S o m e m ain id e a s included to d evelop
topic.

M ain id e a s sufficiently develop topic.

M ain id e a s th o ro u g h ly dev elo p th e
topic.

X3

/1 5

~ fs c ts f d e t a lls

irrelevant, repetitive, or
in accu rate.

R elevant but to o few details.

Sufficient an d m eaningful to topic.

Specific, highly inform ative facts.

X3

MS

• a u o ie n w

No s e n s e of reader.

Little s e n s e o f reader.

S o m e a w a re n e s s an d consideration.

D raw s th e re a d e r in.

//

N/A

Sufficient u s e o f c o n n e d in g w ords an d sp ecialized
v o cab .

E n g a g in g u s e o f co n n e ctin g w o rd s
an d s p ecialized vocab.

X3

/1 5

F ew p a tte rn s. Errors.

D eveloping v aried len g th s an d p attern s.

S m o o th . W ell d ev elo p ed .

//

N/A

Not p resen t.

An a tte m p t is m a d e but intro is to o
s p a rs e .

An a d e q u a te g rab , th e sis statem e n t, a n d overview
of m a in idea is included..

S p ecific th e sis. C le a r outline.
E n g ag in g grab.

XI

/5

R an d o m retelling of facts.

Little th o u g h t to overall order.

An overall o rd er is attem p ted .

C o h e siv e p a p e r d ev e lo p ed with a
cle a r p lan .

X2

/10

■ t» 4 y : '
I p e r a g ia p h s

U ndeveloped.

A ttem pted grouping of facts.

All fa c ts gro u p ed by m ain idea.

M ain id e a s d ev e lo p ed w ith carefully
o rg an ized facts.

X3

/I S

* c o n c lu s io n

N ot p resen t.

A brupt or w eak.

S u m m a riz e s pap er. A ttem pts to im p act read e r.

Pow erfully s u m m a riz e s pap er.
Im p a c ts read e r.

XI

/5

i ' s p e llin g

M any spelling errors.
P a p e r is difficult to read.

M any spelling erro rs b u t p a p e r c a n b e
read.

C o m m o n spelling errors.

V ery few sp ellin g errors.

//

N/A

1® p c n c tu c tio r

F req u en t errors. P a p e r is
difficult to read.

M any errors including end p u n ctu atio n . E n d p u n d u a tio n is generally correct b ut c o m m a
e rro rs a r e p resen t.

C o m m a s , co lo n s, h y p h en s a re
g en e ra lly u s e d correctly.

//

N/A

• g 'a n i n a r

M any erro rs Including word S o m e errors including word choice.
choice.

R u le s followed. O ccasio n a l errors.

Follow s all rules.

//

N/A

Sufficient planning.

W ell p la n n ed .

X2

/1 0

C o m p le te an d sufficient report. Little to no copying. W ell w ritten report. No copying.

X2

/to

‘ p u rp ose
n s i r id e s s

STYLE

fia

.

f la n g u a g e

V ery few connecting w ords Limited u s e of connecting w o rd s an d
an d sp ecialized vocab.
sp ecialized v o cab .

• sen te n c e
' str u c tu r e

V ery flaw ed.
R un -o n s/frag m en ts.
.

IFORM
I* In tro d u cfior
p b b d Y -* -,-^
[s e q u e n c e

'

0 0

ICONVENTIONS

iWRîTING PR O C ESS

O#
Little ev id en ce of planning.

“ p re w ritin g

No evidence.

1» d r a f tin g

Incom plete. Much copying. S p a r s e b u t co m p lete report. S o m e
copying.
N o t e v id e n tly a re p o rt.

~ e e . t ' ig

No evidence.

F ew c h a n g e s m ade.

P ie c e is im proved b u t item s overlooked.

S ig n ifican t c h a n g e s.

U

N/A

No evidence.

F ew c h a n g e s m ade.

M any erro rs co rrec ted th o u g h s o m e rem ain.

M ajority of e rro rs co rrected .

U

N/A

P a rts a re difficult to read.

Legible.

N eatly p resen ted . S o m e sp ecial featu res.

V ery n e a t. In clu d es sp e c ia l featu res.

' p jii s r

1 0 T :_

//

N/A
/1 0 0

246
Appendix I
AwdleTff Dfrgcfzo/w a» TTygg ^ffg&$mgM^

firg-aKyg&RMg»^ oW

AJ List the main idea and 3 supporting details for each paragraph on the lines below in
complete sentences and in your own words.
B/ Combine the information from the two articles about spiders to write a 5 paragraph report
in vour own words. You may use the space below to plan your writing. Do a draft and a
good copy on your own paper.

Student Questionnaire

1) Describe as clearly as you can and in full sentences, everything you learned about report
writing this year.
2) What do you understand better about report writing this year than you did last year?
3) Explain how you believe RAP, the writing process and report writing fit together.
4) What do you think your teacher could have done differently to make report writing better
for you?

247
Appendix}
f

f

o

r

fr e - oW fo5ï-oaae&aMe»(y

TwfrMcfzow fo r ^dk6fzo»o/ foferf
1) Read through all 16 samples first to familiarize yourself with the reports.
2) Begin establishing the level of each aspect being scored based on the criteria. Mark the
student text to code or count observations. Place a checkmait in pencil on the mark sheet to
establish your initial assessment of the student's level.
3) Go back and recheck your assessment. Commit with pen your final assessment.
4) Score and total the each students' final total.

1) Meaning Subsection
Main Ideas: Assume one main idea per paragraph. If there is no paragraphing, note where
they would be for assessment purposes. The main ideas may be paraphrased or combined from
the articles or the main idea may be understood rather than directly stated based on how the
supporting details link. The main idea may not be paraphrased (5 or more copied words in a
row)
Level 1: substantially more than half of the main ideas are unacceptable.
Level 2: about half of the main ideas are acceptable
Level 3 : all main ideas are correct but not original
Level 4: all main ideas are original as compared to the articles
Facts/Detaib: Supporting details are the number o f fiicts that are included not matter how
they are grouped. Do not count supporting details that are plagiarized or are inaccurate as
related to the articles.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4

less than 10 facts
10 -1 4 6cts
15 - 25 fiicts
26+ 6cts

2) Style Subsection
Language: looking for connecting words and specialized vocabulary. Count a word only once
no matter how many times it is repeated (see attached list for examples)
Connecting Words
Level 1:
Level 2:

0 - 2 connecting words
3 - 6 connecting words

248
Level 3:
Level 4:

7 - 1 3 connecting words
14+ connecting words

Specialized Vocabulary
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4

less than 10 specialized vocab
10 -1 9 specialized vocab
20 - 39 specialized vocab
40+ specialized vocab

Sentence Structure: look 6)r a variety o f sentence types. Rater's sense based on knowledge
of grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric
31 Form Subsection
Introduction: a paragraph distinct from the body of the report. Rater's sense based on
knowledge of grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric
Body Sequence: the order the main ideas and supporting details are presented. Rater's sense
based on knowledge of grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric
Body Paragraphs: main ideas are supported by the accompanying supporting details
Level 1: less than 2 supporting details per paragraph
Level 2: some paragraphs have only 2 supporting details
Level 3 : all paragraphs have 3 to 5 supporting details
Level 4: all paragraphs have 6 or more supporting details
Conclusion: is distinct from the body o f the report. Rater's sense based on knowledge of
grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric
41 W riting Process Subsection
Prewriting: any type of planning you may have to look at their RAP's to see if they have
coded them in some way to represent grouping or order. Rater's sense based on knowledge of
grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric
Drafting: look at the best version o f their report if they did a "good copy." Rater's sense
based on knowledge o f grade 6/7 writing and descriptors on rubric

249

j^pendix K

Dafg

DgacnipffOM

January 25

Letters of informed consent go home to parents.

January 30

Pre-assessment is administered.

February 4

Lesson 1; introduction to non-fiction, keywords, and the writing process.

February 5

Lesson 2; introduction to non-fiction, keywords, and the writing process.

February 6-18

Lessons 3-6: collaborative and independent key word assignments

February 19

Lesson 7: The RAP Strategy is indroduced.

February 20

Lesson 8: The RAP Strategy is reviewed. Collaborative assignments.

February 21

Lesson 9: Review of keywords. RAP continues. Observed by mentor.

February 26

Lesson 10: RAP continues.

February 27

RAP lesson modelled by mentor.

March 4 & 5

Substitute teacher

March 6

Lesson 11 : Review of main idea. First PAR Strategy group emerges.

March 7

Lesson 12: Collaborative or independent work on RAP or PAR.

March 12

Lesson 13 : Collaborative or independent work on RAP or PAR.

March 13

Lesson 14: RAP practice moves fi^om individual paragraphs to 5
paragraph essays. Students filtering into PAR group.
SPRING BREAK

March 26

Lesson 15: Review. RAP and PAR collaborative or independent wodc.

March 27 - April 4 Lessons 16-19: RAP and PAR collaborative or independent woik.
GRADE SEVEN FOUNDATIONS SKILLS ASSESSMENT
^ r il 30 - May 16 Lessons 20-26: RAP and PAR collaborative or independent work.
May 21 - June 4

Lessons 27-34: All students working on PAR and independent reports.

June 11-13

Lessons 35-36: Cumulative review

June 18

Post-assessment is administered.

June 24

Student Questionnaire is administered by a substitute teacher.

250
Appendix L
j'frofggy

;« Ongz/zo/ Form

6"ûmy)/e 7.

Fer?p)B'

w ^ e c ' t ‘?

/ n c ^ i/ e

‘y p i c ^ e / 'c
^ p tc J

Ày-e

^h'/'J-h\
' y

h c ^ \/-e

^ C \ / '' t

/

'rhA.-t ■hho-/^/^à ^

/ e ^ 5>________________________

% j^ h i~ '

____________________

(S'TG ^hi/iiÀ .Ç ___________________________

hôu/e^- (A- to\Ac/7
nvx-te.F^'
S ' -e '
■’
'^hfi,-''
Pûcûi I f t
l-ic-Kx./'f
F
rFc_______
r/v/Z ^T 9 îd '.erc ho.\/t cfgy'^ç Cjca! l-erA. Fo/->^.<
-W ?r y
<K >hC-^çF''
Hn
e
Sample 2:

-(

Ccir;V

r -o n t^ ,

O ^ '^ G /f O o ^
,
-\VNe^Ç

f4? G.

ccxcMJS

C r » A u 6 < r r n \6
aroorp '^ ^

0uf^\(Xce. 't <\€<i

Cua'Cs

r_ 0 \/p rg rf

o .fe\n m rx f\4 q r^ w
) ü
\corr\ 4-\\e.

(^-eV Wo^er

.

Sample 3:
4 - ^ ____________________________________
L| n o % .-^ % c o :_ w _

I

o?sopp% <^

. ______ , ..........

.m

.

i

_

‘

.

c t v Q

;%)-AcfGw
i^ u n r )

c n ,C

/^ -

G

'

:(3:î J%Q,_crthei^
^yhj2)ChhO(7nc)

...................... ............

sh ip )

_ ...... .

on

i 9*3' C h
b oc^ c c)
e v c r v ^ th r K W
:
?/1 -6 jn C
z ^ T c j h ^ p\cA (oe/k:)C /6r'C J')S^

I

C^r'euj

: D^Vi /h g h o o k

uu G<_5

_. . .

nc> cjrierc

/cL st -6y/?7€_ -6A e
c u (^ s

<x^rî% f;6rr\

" tC b /y

251

Appendix M

&%7np/e y. mfMZ7»a/(y mgg(y gigxcafzoyw

1 ^ , T . C c\/7 (9 v c

^
/

ov//-e

/:) p a /o /i^
;^ /n o i7 ^ c d r '/-c /
6 /? C /\r c: A f
^ r -e
C c-r/y /o c t

&zmp/g 2." /Mfwma/(y /neety gapgc6ffzow

fA c

252
3."

mggty gapgcùzAoyM

4J 3

m c A - iCA) v - c A d t+ s

&

y o a i^

(Çj 5
&zy?yZg ^.'yU/Zy /Mgg(; gjg^gg&zfzow

Article 2:

' A

\h e,

^ ^ a o -^ ro

Y / ^ Sao^ugn^
^

_L^

r?&n

th e

M'Aivx

ü[ \

~ f V \ '€ S .^

,

CoC+Ui>

a

s

c x fr^ c^ ':)

Q \ o u 4 9 r \ ________

Q-rg__c o v \ A

(j-p l'0^-> A? / d(/al^

~TV\e Ç* W-og.Avl._ oyri'U 0 € auT 4 a
[r

\r e

T r i_ ù \\
'T h L i

sn^if

o 9

4 h ^ .se

\
Qric:)w&

-pfr)._c,er"^

4 k \f

b 3 & .e

I4

"?eon\€ n^Arù)cx m ^ \c e -f^&ôe^-GroxV^

^

l-qp ^ -arm's oA^'h.s
lASe-Ct:)

OifocAin r^n 2. ôa^ü^yn

V/hp'y^ ifk Ti'p^.
c9

f V o r i Y \ / 4 neriC2:.

IS
a, h o > \A \^ 4 q. v ^ n c /i ~^r\( r? a ^^
h , a 'n V• $ a c T ^ ^ r ô ' s s&
A!^V i

y?-ec^iu'^
A co u f\A

b t u c a c W s ^

lo (q ^ ;^ 4

grc)L^) 4 n

^Va\--'Â) C a c ^ 6
cr€ {VA

r r -

i ^ . ^ a reaijK /

.

cb-A /Z L -^ ou^e^m,

1"^ "^Mv
^nfo xpAXarv'»
^

253

1

C A 'ilp M

\

C a^C '^G ':^

g)

1vVc^6

3

c y 6 t< '

____ ^

% Ü 0x-

6-)Hc^V i t o, Ccic^us-P?
-------------- 7—\ '■■
Kokj o'g (
———-----r
T ^r
/Vo
k a v /f^ Y

1eao<f5

..............._

4

fO O ^

A la o ^ :-WL
,6o c\0 c.<_£0^ 3^

________

*\a 0\UO"C------ ------------

c?
- /,v /

McC\n

Ç

i)

10

h o^

<XO^&-

'S

!

Sample 6: exceeds expectations

(Xc6%r<rYV:<z.

/I
w v tc c

G /0
Ir4r^
N
C)T\

o 'd -

,
tn i--

254
Appendix N

&z»^/e 7." D oef

TefMeef ÆjçwcAzfzoTW

I think the black widow is pretty smart. I like how smart they are because they now how to

hunt there food and to protect there babies. And it's neat how the female has red stipes but the
male has no stripes on there belly. Its pretty werd how the female black widow eats it'male
and it's babies sometime's. An its neat how the black widow spider also has a head a chest and
a belly that only two parts joined together out off their hole body. Its gross how the black
widow uses there fang's to suck the blood out of their pray. Its cool how the spider can spin
silk thread. Its werd how the baby spider can fly to different areas. And the male is only a 3rd
of the size o f a female black widow.
Sample 2: Does Not Yet Meet Expectations
Cactuses and saguaro are very different, they take very long to grow, but who could take,
even longer, saguaro is the biggest one of all. Even if the cactuses were A meter bigger it
would not compare in size with the huge size of the sagauro. The cactus is to small, being tall
doesnt have the greatest advantage of all though, it has small roots to give it close range of
water, and animals can get to it easier. There are two thousand plants and these that I am
talking about are only a mear two of them out of those numbers.
will there be bigger plants or is there already not found yet? no, becuase sagauro is the
biggest cactus ever to be seen.
Sample 2: Minimally Meets Expectations (low end)
Lots o f cacti are grown in sunny [unidentifiable word] places. A little bit of cacti grows
in chilly places. A family of cactuses includes more than 2 000 different species of plants.
Suhgwah grows higher than a house. Different cacti are smaller than 2.5 cm tall. Some
cacti look just like round pincushions, starfish, and blades of grass.
Cacti are short and long, sharp and soff. Cacti have straight hooked tip. The straight
hooks protect them fi"om animals.
The roots are smered with coik and is very long. The roots spread all around the plant.
The roots grow close to the ground so they can collect water.
Colourful or white fiowers grow after a rain 611. Cacti can make finit that animals and
humens eat. People make jam and jellies fiem the finit.

255

In this report I am going to tell you some stufFI learned and researched about cacti the
plant.
Cacti can grow in many different places. Cacti grows in mostly hot desert places. Some
cacti can grow in the cold atmospheres. The cactus family produces over 1 thousand plants
including xerophytes & Xerophytes than can last a while longer than others without water.
Cacti plants can grow big or small. Cacti plants can grow 8 feet or taller eg. saguaro.
Some cacti can be as short as 20.5 mm. The smaller cacti's look like many various different
things such as blades of grass, round pincushions or even a starfish. The cacti spins can be all
different. Cacti may have sharp or soft short or long spins. Cacti may even have hooked or
straight tips. The cacti plant protecs and produeses food for there selfs and has waxy skin to
keep the water inside them to store.
Cacti plants have good protection and good at getting water. Cacti plants have cork
going all around them that are pretty long. Cacti's roots grow mostly from the top. It's easier
to collect water the way the cacti plant is built with the roots growing on the top of the
ground.
Most cacti plants make and produce things. Cacti grows flowers after a rainfall either
colourful or white flowers. Cacti plants also make fruit for animals and humans to eat. Some
humans even make jelly or jams from the fruits. The saguaro plant starts to bloom in May.
Sticky flowers start coming on top of the cactus with yellow centers. The flowers start to
open up on the cactus at night. The nice sweet smell the flower has attrakes flying animals eg.
bees & more. In aprox 35 day's fruit tends to start growing on the flower. After the fruit is not
green anymore it opens. Inside this finit it is red with black seeds and is juicy. In June the
Native American's that live close get the fruits to make candy & jam.
Saguaro is one of the biggest plants in the world. Saguaro is a very very tall cactus that
is like a tree. A saguaro plant grows in North America only in Sonora desert. Animals like
birds & some insects live under a saguaro.
Saguaro gets help from animals to plant more saguaro's. Coyotes, packrats and birds
come to eat the fruit. The Suits on the cactus has aprox two thousand seeds in it. When
animals eat the fruit they spit out the seeds and then the seeds grow new saguaro's. Saguaro
plants grow slowly. When a Saguaro is 2 years it is 10 mm tall. When a saguaro is 25 years it
is 100 cm tall. When a saguaro is full grown it is about 150 years old the plant may have 6 or
7 arms it lives until it's a 200 years old.
I have just told you about cacti the plant I hope you have eigoyed this report as much as
eiÿoyed researching it.

Did you know that some cacti can grow to be bigger than a telephone pole or a house?
Or did you know that the Saguaro Cactus can hold over a ton o f water? If not you should
read my report on cacti, I will be talking about the parts o f a cactus, the different shapes and
sizes of cacti, where they grow, and the Saguaro Cactus. A cactus is a plant that can grow
mostly anywhere like in dry, hot weather, cold weather, and in North and South America.

256
They have thick green stems and tough waxy skin that helps prevent water loss, their roots
grow dose to the surface which makes it easier to collect water.
Some parts o f the cactus are the stem, the spines, the flower, the roots, and the skin.
The stem is a thick and green coloured, the skin is the part surrounding the stems it is tough
and waxy. The skin helps prevent water loss in the dessert sun. The flowers on some cacti are
white others are many diSerent colours some bloom aAer rainfall. Many also produce huit.
The 6uit it produces is edible to both humans and animals. Some people even make jams and
jellies 6om the &uit. The cacti roots grow near the sur&ce o f the soil which makes it easier to
collect water, the roots are wrapped in a type o f cork.
Cacti come in many diSerent shapes and sizes. Take for an example the Giant Saguaro it
can grow to be taller than house. Some other cacti are twenty-Gve millimeters, other small
cacti look like pincusions, starfish, or even a blade of grass. As you can tell cacti come in
many different shapes and sizes.
Where do cacti grow? In the desert most people say. Well have I got news for you.
Cacti can grow just about anywhere. It just depend on the cactus, they can grow just about
anywhere.
The Saguaro is a type of cactus that can grow to be as tall as a telephone pole and can
hold up to a ton of water. It provides animals with a place to live such as Hawks,
Woodpeckers, and insects, but also provides the local natives with food because they collect
the fruit to make jam and candy, and other animals such as coyotes, birds and packrats eat the
sweet fruit. The flowers of the cactus generally bloom in early may. The sweet scented flowers
are white and feel waxy they have yellow centers and bring birds, bees, and bats to drink the
nectar, but the flowers only open at night. Each fruit has about two thousand seeds. The
animals that eat the fruit spread the seeds by dropping them while they eat. It takes about five
weeks for the fruit to mature, when the green fruit is ripe it explodes. Inside that fruit is a juicy
red middle with little black seeds.
The Saguaro Cactus is only one centimeter tall at twenty-four months, at twenty-five
year it is one meter, at one hundred fifty years old is has reached its full height and may have
six or seven arms. They may live to two hundred years old.
In this report I have talked about the part o f a cactus, the different shapes and sizes,
where they grow, the Saguaro Cactus and its li& line.
6.

(high end)

Did you ever wonder How tall a cactus can grow? The answer is taller than a telephone
pole. In this report, I will talk about a very tall cactus called the saguaro, the general
appearence of cacti, which is the plural o f cactus, where cacti live, and other cacti's sizes.
The appearence o f many cacti are simular. Most have spines, that may be long, short,
soft or sharp. Some spines are straight while others have hooked ends. Rather than the spines
producing fr)od fr)r the cactus, the stem does. The stem also stores water. The stems have
strong, waxy skins so water doesn't evaporate.
The cactus gets water fr"om it's roots. The roots o f a cactus are covered with cork. A
cacti's roots are long and grow near the top o f the ground. The roots are so dose to the
ground's surface they can get water form the tiniest rainfall.

257
Cacti also have huits and flowers. A cacti's colourful, or white flowers bloom after it
rains. Some cacti even produce 6uit that is edible &r humans and animals. Many people use
the &uit to make jams and jellies.
Cacti grow in both South and North America. Most grow in hot and dry areas, but
some grow in rain forests or mountains. Their is over 200 types o f cacti and most are
xerophytes which are plants that can live without much water.
Small cacti can be less than 2.5 cm tall. The small species may look like starGsh or
blades of grass. The saguaro cactus may grow taller than a house.
The saguaro cactus is the largest cactus in North America, but it only grows in the
Sonara Desert. The saguaro can be as tall as telephone pole and hold up to a ton of water.
Hawks, woodpeckers, and insects live in the folds o f the saguaro skin. During a rain6U the
fold grow bigger.
The saguaro is only 1 centemetre tall when it's 2 years old and 1 meter tall when it's 25
years old. By the time it is 150 years old it has finally reached its full height and has 6 or 7
arms. The saguaro may live up to 250 years old.
The saguaro's flowers bloom in May. They are white and waxy with yellow centers and
grow at the top of the cactus and on the arms. When the flowers open at night the smell
attracts bees, birds and bats who spread the pollen. Five weeks later green fiuit begans to
grow at the base of the fiowers. When it is ripe it bursts open revealing that inside it is juicy
and red with black seeds. Native Americans collect the fiuit in June to make jam and candy.
Coyotes, birds, and packrats may also eat the fiuit. When the animals eat the fiuit, they drop
the seeds. Each one of the fiuits has over 2000 seeds. That is one of the ways seeds spread
and new saguaros grow.
I hope you have learned alot about cacti and saguaros. In this report I have talked about
the General appearence of cacti, where cacti grow, their size, the saguaro's special features
and growing patterns and, the saguaro's fiuit and its fiowers.

258
Appendix O
q/" Zw&peMdknf

aW 7%ezr ÆoZ/f^ic j&ffmg;

&w^/g 7. A6wma/(y Meg($ Æàç?ec6zAow (7ow gw()
Owls
report is on a comparison o f E lf Owls and Bam Owls.
Elf Owls
Appearance:
The elf owl is the smallest owl in the world. The elf owl's 5 to 6 inches long. The elf owl
is 1.4 ounces. It's wing span is 14 to 15 inches wide. The elf owl has yellow eyes, short tail
and is buff in colour. The elf owl does not have any ear tufts.
Prey:
The elf owl may be small, but it eats large insects. It eats spiders, scorpion and small
reptiles. The elf owl is an nocturnal animal.
Habitat:
Elf owls live and breed in three places: Lower California, Arizona, and Texas. Elf owls
live in abandoned Woodpecker holes in cactus or an oak, pine, or other tree. The elf owl
migrates from the United States to Mexico in the Winter.
Communication:
The elf owl has a high pitch hoot that is used to communicate with other elf owls. When
elf owls are in danger, they play dead.
Breeding:
Female elf owls lay 3 to 4 white eggs in April and May. Female Elf incubates the eggs
for 24 days. After they hatch, female owl will feed them for about 15 weeks and then they
have to hunt for themselves. Female owl will leave the eggs for the male to incubate at dusk
so that she may hunt.
Bam Owls
Appearance
Bam Owls are medium size owls. It is 15 to 20 inches in height. It has long frathery
legs. It's wing span is 40 to 45 inches wide. It is mostly white with buf^ yellow and tawny
shadings other names o f the bam owl are Golden Owl, Monkey Face, and White Owl The
Bam Ot\i has no ear tufrs. Its &ce is heart shaped with small dark eyes.
Prey:
The Bam owl usually eats mice, gophers, rats and sometimes in the winter small birds.
It hunts for its food at night. The bam owl is more nocturnal than other owls. It waits until it
is very dark to hunt.
Habitat:
Bams Owls live in old abandoned buildings, in hoUow trees, or a hole in a rocky cliff
They stay there during the day.
Breeding:
Bam owls lay eggs anywhere. Bam owls make no efrbrt to build or line a nest. The

259
Female lays 5 to 7 white eggs. It takes 32 to 34 days to incubate the eggs. The owlets have
snow white down for 6 days. Owlets are hungry all the time. Both parents are busy night and
day Ceding them At 7 1/2 weeks they take their ûrst hunting and flying lesson.
Communication:
Bam owls make a loud rasping hiss and not a hoot like other owls.
Conclusion:
E lf owls and Bam Owls are mostly the same. Elf owls are smaller and eat smaller things.
Bam owls are larger and eat larger animals. They both do not have ear tuffs and thy have a
heart shaped face. Bam owls have a rasp hiss and elf owls have a high pitched hoot.
I think owls are very interesting birds. My favourite ovds are the E lf owl and the Bam
owl.
Sample 2: Minimally meets expectations (high end)
If horses are your thing I hope this would intrest you. This report you will hear about
Mustangs. You will also hear about the symbol, relitives, and changse in the land and much
more.
Mustangs:
Mustangs, what are they? They are a wild horse. Not very many people have an
opportunity to see a beautiful mustang because they live in the mountains and the desert.
Mustangs will also live in remote places of the United States.
Extintion:
The beautifiil animal was almost gone! People thought the mustang was not native to
the land. So it denied protection laws. In the 1800's, an estimated 2 million mustangs lived in
the United States. In 1968 there was only 17 thousand mustangs left. People feared they
would be extinct. After twelve years a law came to protect the mustangs. This act was called
the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Any one who harmed or killed the mustang would be
punished. 10 thousand mustangs could be counted in eleven of the states after the law was
enforced.
Still there was law breakers who killed the horse. There was other people who would
sell the horses at auctions. The buyer could do with it as they pleased. The law o f saving the
mustangs was being ignored
Evolution:
Eohippus is what the mustang evolved ftom. It was the size o f a house with four toes.
In rock layers fossils. As time went on the Eohippus evolved into the mustangs. The Early
horse fossils prove the Early horse lived in North america. When Columbus came to see
horses Columbus didn't see horse but horse were not extint. The horses crossed a land bridge
that conected Siberia and Alaska. The Early horse evolve into the mustangs.
Saving horses:
People are trying to save the mustang. By creating a new laws to help save it. They
work to renforce the New laws. Horse parcks have been set up to help the horses and keep it
ftom harm.
Symbols:
The mustang is a symbol for Ameircan ideals. The mustang stands for beauty spirit and
fteedom. You might not be able to see this horse in the wild western plains but you can know

260
that the mustang still lives in America
Changes in the land:
Millions o f years ago the enviormnent and climate began to change the horse. When
people started to tame and breed the horse it had the greatest influence in the horse story.
Unanswered questions still remain o f the horse. Scientists can show how the horse spread out
across the land. As climates changed species of animals appeared and disappered. The fittest
and adaptable dindn't disapper. Then people came. They started to tame and ride the horse
that nature has created talented and tough enough for the animal Kindom.
Relitives:
The mustang and it relitives belong to group called the Equus. The horse has a single
toed hoof on each leg. This hoof makes it easy to ident%. Some relitives to the horse are
zebras donkeys and mules
You have just read my report on the mighty mustang. I hope you eigoyed it. I also hope
you learned something about mustangs.
Sample 3: Fully Meets Expectations
This report will be on the Bermuda Triangle. In it I will be writing about where the
Bermuda triangle is located, disappearences in the Triangle, and explainations for the
disappearences.
The Bermuda Triangle covers hundreds of miles of the Atlantic Ocean. The boundries
stretch firom the island ofBermuda to Florida and then to the West Indies.
It is believed that the Bermuda Triangle has strange and mysterious powers. In all, over
1000 people have disappeared in it's waters without a trace, though many planes, ships and the
people inside have crossed safly. The Vagabond was a ship that did not cross safiy. In July of
1969 the crew of a passing ship found the Vagabond. Everything was in place, but there was
no sign of the crew. The last time the log book was written in was July 2, 1969, 4 days earlier
than the ship was found. Missing ships and boats are usually found in the following categories:
#1; the ship or boat is found, but there is no sign of the crew, and #2; there is no sign of the
ship, boat, or the crew.
Alien Abduction is a theory in the Bermuda Triangle disappearences. Some people think
the aircrafts, ships or the people inside them have been taken by aliens for investigations and
experiments. Others believe that Atlantis is responsible. The theory o f Atlantis came for a
6mous Bermuda Triangle author, Charles Berlitz. He and many others believe that Atlantis
technology still exists and is shooting down the passing ships and boats. There is actually no
proof that Atlantis actually existed.
Some believe that black holes are taking ships, aircraAs and the people, then
transporting them to another universe or time. This theory was proposed by Vincent Gaddis.
Alot o f people have had mysterious experiences in the Bermuda Triangle, but lived to
tell. One o f those people was Captain Don Henry. In 1966, his salvage tug was towing a
barge, when he began to experience engine and electrical Ailures. He went onto the deck and
saw the barge was invisable, but the tow rope still tight. After a while the barge reappeared
and the engines began to work once again.
In 1974 the radar on a U.S. Coast Gaurd boat, called the Hollyhock, detected a large
land mass in the waters o f the Bermuda Triangle. The radar was examined and was woddng,

261
but as the boat moved towards it, the land mass disappeared.
In this report you have just read was on the Bermuda Triangle. In it I have talked about
were the Bermuda Triangle is located, disappeaeances in the Triangle, and some explainations
for the disappearences.

Do you ever wonder what a comet is? If so you should read my report on comets. I will
be talking about the parts of the comet, the orbit, their nickname and how they got them, and
some other interesting &cts. A comet is a head and a tail; and bums ofT gas whenever it's near
the sun to form and get the tail.
The parts o f the tail are very interesting in that the nucleus is made o f ice, snow, rock,
gases (mainly ammonia, methane and water vapour) and dust. The coma is the cloud around
the nucleus. It is made of gases, dust, and water vapour. The Hydrogen Envelope of
Hydrogen Cloud is made when the comet absorbs ultra violet light, a chemical processes lets
go hydrogen which escapes the comet's gravity thus forming the Hydrogen Envelope or
Hydrogen Cloud. The Ion tail is called a "Type I Tail" and is made mostly of gases giving off a
blue colour pointing straight away from the sun. The Dust Tail is called a "Type II Tail" and is
made mostly of dust and is often curved it is a yellow colour.
The comets orbit is of an elliptical shape. The longest comets orbit that is known to
mankind is Comet Deavan ins 1914 came near the sun but then sped back into outer space not
returning for another 24 million years! The shortest orbit known to mankind is the one of
Encke's Comet and it returns to our area of the solar system around every 3.3 years.
Comets have three nicknames and they got them for the way they appeared in the sky;
they are; "icy mud balls"
"dirty snowball"
"dirty iceberg"
Here are some interesting facts about comets and the solar system. The Oort Cloud is
like a huge shell like object that the inside edge is 20 000 kilometres times away from the sun
than the earth is and the outer edge is 100,000 kilometres times away from the sim than the
earth. The sun melts and blows some o f the gases away from it to form the "Type I Tail" (Ion
Tail).
Discoverers o f Comet Hale-Bopp and Hailey's Comet. The discoverers o f Comet
Hale-Bopp are Alan Hale and Thomas Bopp. Thomas Bopp isnt even a professional
astronomer; he was using his friend's telescope at the time o f the discovery (he didnt own
one!). Alan Hale was a serious amateur astronomer. Edmund Hailey discovered Hailey's
comet. People thought that Hailey's Comet was three difterent comets but Edmund Hailey
explained that they were one and in 1682 he predicted that it would come back into view in
1758 and he was right. But he died before he could see the comet again so the comet was
named in his honour.
When someone discovers a comet they send an e-mail or telegram to the International
Astronomical Union (lAU) in Cambridge, Massachusetts so they can frnd a name for it.
I have just talked about the Comet's parts, their orbit, their nicknames and how they got
them and some other interesting facts about them. Than you for reading my report on
Comets.