Empowering Srudents with LD

EmPOWERing Children with Learning Disabilities: A Practitioner-Based Reflection

RICHARD J. CASS, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS

ABSTRACT

It is important that best practices in writing instruction be imple-mented in special education and inclusion-based general educationclassrooms. Recent reports pubhsbed by tbe Alliance for ExcellentEducation (Grabam & Hebert, 2010; Grabam & Perin, 2007), datafrom tbe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)(Salabu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008) and otbers (National Com-mission on Writing [NCWJ, 2003, 2004, 2006) indicate tbat tbeexpressive writing needs of students bave become a critical andlife- influencing problem. Unfortunately, many teacbers are at aloss as to bow to instruct cbildren, particularly tbose witb identi-fied learning disabihties (LD), in a manner tbat can assist tbem toproduce bigber quality writing. Tbis article provides an overviewof current researcb on tbe writing needs of students witb LD anda practitioner-based reflection on tbe EmPOWER writing pro-gram (Singer & Basbir, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006), a resourcetbat can belp teacbers meet tbe needs of struggling writers.

INTRODUCTION

Students must develop as proficient writers, able to express wbattbey know if tbey are to be successful at tbe middle/bigh schoollevel and beyond (Ebren, Lenz, & Desbler, 2004; Grabam &Hebert, 2010; Grabam & Perin, 2007; National Commission onWriting, 2004, 2006). In order to develop and advance as writers,students must receive bigb-quality instruction, but wbat are tbecbaracteristics of bigb-quaUty writing instruction? Can reluctantwriters, and in particular, students witb learning disabilities,acquire tbe skills and concepts necessary for composing tbenumerous paragrapbs and essays tbat are required as part of pro-viding "access to tbe general education curriculum" (34 C.F.R.§300.347(a)(l)(l)). Karger 2004, p. 3), and empbasized in dis-trict/state competency tests? For teacbers invested in supportingtbe needs of struggling writers, tbe EmPOWER writing program(Singer & Basbir, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006) is a valuableresource for teacbing cbildren bow to engage in tbe task of writ-ing an expository paragrapb or essay.

Tbe first part of tbis article presents a brief review of tbe ht-erature tbat supports tbe need for bigb-quality writing instruction,followed by an overview of best practices in writing instruction.Tbe second part describes tbe critical features of tbe EmPOWERwriting program including tbe autbor's personal experiences using

the program as a learning center specialist responsible for provid-ing inclusion-based (full class) and substantially separate, smallgroup (pull out) instruction to students witb learning disabilities.Togetber, tbe two sections offer to teacbers wbo are committed toimproving students' expressive writing skills a practitioner-basedorientation to important and practical considerations for teacbingexpressive writing to students in need of intervention.

WHY IS HIGH-QUALITY WRITING INSTRUCTIONIMPORTANT?

As witb any performance-based task, great variability exists amongstudent writers. Students witb learning disabilities, like tbeir non-identified peers, demonstrate a wide range of writing proficiency.More is known about bow cbildren and adolescents witb learningdisabihties engage in tbe act of writing tban any otber group ofstudents witb identified disabilities (De La Paz, 2007). Researcbindicates tbat cbildren witb learning disabilities produce writingsamples tbat are more poorly organized, of sborter lengtb, andinsufficient content (Gersten & Baker, 2001; Grabam & Harris,2003;Troia, 2006). Wben compared to typically developing peers,students witb LD often demonstrate deficiencies in tbeir ability toplan, organize, and revise viritten texts (De La Paz, 2007; Grabam& Harris, 2003, Singer & Basbir, 2004a).

Educators, parents, and otber stakebolders bave good reason tobe concerned about students' progress in expressive writing tasks.Tbe most recent data from NAEP (Salabu-Din et al., 2008) indi-cate tbat tbe expressive writing needs of students bave become acritical and life influencing problem. According to tbe NationalCenter for Education Statistics (Salabu-Din et al., 2008), only33% of eigbtb graders and 24% of twelftb graders attained scoresat or above tbe proficient level for writing acbievement on tbe2007 NAEP assessment. Moreover, wben 2007 results are com-pared to tbe previous 2002 data, tbe performance of twelfthgraders shows "no significant progress" in writing, while the over-all score for eighth graders reflects only a 2% increase, improvingfrom 31 to 33% (Salahu-Din et al., 2008). Although fourthgraders were not tested in 2007, when last assessed in 2002, only28% attained scores at or above tbe proficient level (Persky,Daane,& Jin, 2003).

According to researcb syntbeses produced for Carnegie Corpo-ration's Alliance for Excellent Education (Grabam & Hebert,2010; Grabam & Perin, 2007), NAEP and otber researcb reports(e.g., NCW, 2004, 2006) document an alarming trend regardingtbe writing deficits of American youtb. As Graham and Perin

59

(2007) summarize the need for improving students' writing,"These results clearly demonstrate that very large numbers of ado-lescents need interventions to help them become better writers"(p. 8). Thus, the need for increased attention to designing high-quality writing instruction is evident. Of the three "Rs," teachingchildren to be better writers has not received the attention itdeserves (Ehren et al., 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Graham &Perin, 2007; NCW, 2006).

It is generally agreed that writing is a complex act requiring theintegration of a range of skills or systems. A student must demon-strate dexterity in assimilating features from cognitive, linguistic,affective, visual-motor, and self-regulatory systems (Hayes, 2000;Schumaker & Deshler, 2003; Singer & Bashir, 2004a). However, bythe time many students reach middle school they have not devel-oped the requisite skills or cognitive framework. Confronted withthe triple-challenge of writing in multiple genre (e.g., narrative,expository, descriptive, persuasive), across content area subjects(e.g.. Science, Math, Social Studies, English Language Arts), andunder increased expectations for independent planning and pro-duction, many children experience cognitive overload and fail.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-QUALITYWRITING INSTRUCTION?

Research addressing the needs of students with learning disabilitieshas revealed that students with LD require intensive and explicitteaching of composition strategies in order to develop the necessaryconcepts and skills required for written expression (De La Paz,2007; Gersten & Baker, 2001 ; Graham & Harris, 2003;Troia, 2006;Wong, Harris, Greiham, & Butler, 2003). Unfortunately, as Calfeeand Wilson (2004) report, writing instruction in many classroomstakes the shape of a stand-alone assignment that requires students tocompose responses without a clear purpose or direct support. Thus,it is extremely important for teachers to possess a solid understand-ing of the demands involved in producing a paragraph or essay as

well as specific techniques for meeting students' writing needs inthe classroom (De La Paz, 2007; Graham & Perin, 2007).

Several useful reviews of research on writing are available forteachers who are committed to supporting students with learningdisabilities (e.g., Calfee & Wilson, 2004; Graham & Harris, 2003;Singer & Bashir, 2004a; Troia, 2006; Wong & Berninger, 2004).Since the focus of this article pertains to supporting students iden-tified as at-risk writers due to learning disabilities, two researchreviews are notable for their attention to teaching writing to stu-

o o

dents with LD.In the first review, Gersten and Baker (2001) identify three

components as crucial to any high-quality writing program.According to these researchers, a comprehensive writing programshould include: 1) explicit teaching of the steps of the ^vritingprocess, 2) emphasis on the critical features of various text genres,and 3) the implementation of a structured feedback programinforming students on the quality of their writing. These "bestpractices in writing instruction" (Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard,2000) form the building blocks of a high-quality writing program.A brief summary of each component is provided in Table 1.

The results of Gersten & Baker's (2001) meta-analysis are con-sistent with the findings of multiple research investigations of theneeds of students with learning disabilities: Students with LD

O

require intensive and explicit teaching of composition strategies inorder to develop the necessary concepts and skills required forwriting (Graham & Harris, 2003;Troia, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2000;Wong et al., 2003). In a second and more recent review of "BestPractice" research. De La Paz (2007) corroborates this finding andoffers additional advice to practitioners invested in addressing theneeds of students with learning disabilities. According to De LaPaz (2007), research over the past two decades documents the factthat the writing of students with LD and other disabilities (e.g.,cognitive impairments, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,emotional/behavioral disorders) significantly improves when

Table 1. Findings: Gersten & Baker: Meta-analysis of Expressive Writing*

Findings

1. Explicitly teach the critical steps in the writing process

2. Explicitly teach the conventions of different writing genres

3. Provide guided feedback

Brief Description of Best Practice for Writing

The teacher explicitly models how to use the steps of the writing process

(planning, writing, revising) by writing several samples for students. "Think

sheets," prompt cards, or other mnemonic devices are used to explicitly

show students how to plan, develop, and organize their thinking into writ-

ten words, sentences, and paragraphs.

Genre "text structures" provide a guide for understanding various writing

tasks (persuasive essay, personal narrative, or a compare/contrast essay).

Explicit teaching of text structures by the teacher clarifies the organizational

requirements associated with different writing formats.

Teachers (or peers) should provide frequent guided feedback to writers on

the quality and strengths of the work. Missing elements should be identified

and resolved.

* Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001).Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary SchoolJournai, 100(3), 251-272.

60 J O U R N A L O F E D U C A T I O N • V O L U M E 1 9 1 • N U M B E R 1 • 2 0 1 0 / 2 0 1 1

teachers provide instruction emphasizing explicit and directinstruction in transcription skills (spelling and handwriting) andstrategies for planning, organizing, and completing writing tasks.In particular. De La Paz recommends that teachers incorporateseveral important instructional "elements" as they design writingprograms.The "elements" include: 1 ) committing the time to pres-ent intense and explicit instruction emphasizing principles ofDirect Instruction (DI), 2) teaching "self-regulatory procedures"(planning, self-evaluating, and revising) consistent with thoseemphasized by Graham and Harris (2003; 2005) in studies usingthe Self-Regulated Strategy Development Approach (SRSD), 3)emphasizing the "connections" (shared knowledge and skills)employed during the processes of reading and writing, and 4)incorporating assistive technology (e.g., spell checkers, word pre-diction and speech to text software). Although space does not per-mit a thorough review of Gersten and Baker (2001 ) and De La Paz(2007), readers are encouraged to examine these foundationalreviews as they attempt to design high-quality writing instruction.Both pieces provide practitioners with important and valuableinsights pertaining to the thinking of students engaged in the actof writing and the practices of effective teachers.

As a whole, students with learning disabilities exhibit signifi-cant difficulty with the metacognitive processes underlying profi-cient writing (e.g., planning, ideation, organization, revision).Metacognition is defined as "one's knowledge concerning one'sown cognitive processes and products or anything related to them"(Flavell, 1976, p. 232). Although most students gradually developadequate metacognitive skills, many students require explicitinstruction to do so (Slavin, 2006). When presented with a writ-ing task, many students lack the inner voice necessary for "struc-turing" themselves through an assignment (Singer & Bashir,2004b). For example, they must be explicitly taught how to usesummarization strategies in order to proceed through the stages ofthe writing process in a more thoughtful and discursive manner(Troia, 2006;Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1997).

It is important that hest practices in writing instruction beimplemented in special education and inclusion-based generaleducation classrooms. As numerous authors caution (e.g.. De LaPaz, 2007; Gersten & Baker, 2001 ; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Gra-ham & Perin, 2007), proficient writers cannot be developed with-out high-quality instruction. The EmPOWER writing strategy(Singer & Bashir, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006) is an example of ahighly effective instructional program designed for educatorscommitted to providing a high-quality writing curriculum.

THE EmPOWER STRATEGY

EmPOWER was developed hy Bonnie Singer and Anthony Bashir(2004c) and is based on the work of Carol Sue Englert and her col-leagues (1988; 1991). Englert et al. (1988; 1991) proposed scaf-folding the writing process for students with learning disabilitiesthrough a five-step mnemonic-based acronym known as POWER(Plan, Organize, Write, Edit, Revise). Based on principles derived

from social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), POWER wasdesigned as a symbol and a language tool within the CognitiveStrategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW) Program. Emphasizing theroles of social context and the teacher as facilitator in a student'sdevelopment as a writer, CSIW and POWER attempt "to make vis-ible the tacit processes that writers undertake in the act of plan-ning, composing, and editing expository text" (Englert & Mariage,2003, p. 457).

With EmPOWER, Singer and Bashir (2004c) add steps to makeit possible for students to be more self-regulated as they engage inan expressive writing assignment. The EmPOWER strategy refiectsSinger and Bashir's stance that writing should he considered a"problem-solving task" that requires internal self-regulation (2004b,p. 247).Thus, the EmPOWER strategy guides a writer through thewriting process using six stages of problem solving: Evaluate, makea Plan, Organize, Work, Evaluate, and Re-work, and a series ofprompts. Like its predecessor, EmPOWER, is designed as an"instruction and intervention guide to writing that can be used byboth the student and teachers or speech-language clinicians tounderstand and support the writing process" (2004b, p. 247).

Singer and Bashir (2004c) also encourage educators to make theact of writing transparent and engaging. They propose that theEmPOWER strategy be introduced with a discussion of the word"empower," in an attempt to surface students' understanding of theterm and motivate them toward associating it with concepts such as"faster, easier, and in control." This introduction is important, asmany students with LD, after years of writing failure, require ongo-ing emotional encouragement in addition to academic instruction.Although many children do not initially know what the term"empower" means, most are familiar with the term "power;" andmore often than not, they are inspired by the thought of being incontrol of a task that has often left them feeling powerless.The ideaof approaching a writing task with power provides the students witha sense of optimism and inspiration. This motivational tone isenhanced further by the program's ongoing use of instructionalprompts within each of the six mnemonic steps (see Figure 1).

The EmPOWER writing program is comprised of six compre-hensive steps. In the next section, each step of the strategy isreviewed, and significant instructional elements are highlighted("Instructional Focus Points"). Observations and suggestions forenhancement based on the author's personal experience as a spe-cial educator using the program with students in inclusive and sub-stantially separate settings conclude each segment.

THE EmPOWER STRATEGY IN ACTION

Evaluate

The first step in the EmPOWER mnemonic prompts a child tobegin by reflecting on the question, "What is this assignment askingme to Jo.^'Thus, from the first moment a writing task is presented,a child is engaged in self-regulation. The E-step provides childrenwith a concrete strategy for figuring out what is expected beforethey begin formulating a response to a writing prompt.

E M P O W E R I N G C H I L D R E N W I T H L E A R N I N G D I S A B I L I T I E S 61

Figure 1. EmPOWER Steps and Student Prompts

Step 1 : E = Evaluate

• What is this assignment asking me to do?

• How many parts wiil my paper need to have?

Step 2: mP = make a Plan

• Look at what I circled and underlined. In this assignment, my

job is t o . . .

• What kind of map(s) will help me plan and organize my ideas?

• Do I know enough to write this paper?

• What is the goal for this paper?

Step 3: 0 =Organize

• Now I need to map out my ideas.

• Re-read the assignment and make sure I have mapped out all

the parts.

• Decide if I need to change, add, or get rid of anything on my

map(s).

• Number the ideas on my map(s) in an order that makes sense.

Step 4: W = Work

• Plan my topic sentence or thesis.

• If necessary, decide on subtopics.

• Plan the proof (FREDs).

• Order my ideas.

• Write the topic sentence or introduction.

• Write the body of the paragraph or paper.

• Write the conclusion.

Step 5: E = Evaluate

• Use my COLA checklist to evaluate my paper's Content,

Organization, Language, and Appearance.

• Get feedback from a friend, teacher, or parent.

• Decide how I will improve my paper

Step 6: R = Re-work

• Make all my changes.

• Write or print out a clean copy.

• Read my final draft to be sure that: it sounds the way I want

it to, it says what I mean, and it is edited correctly.

• Make additional changes (If determined as necessary at

prompt #3).

• Print out a final copy.

• Congratulate myself. Say, "I did it! Hooray!"

Instructional focus. Children are instructed to begin by evaluating

their assignment before they write or brainstorm what they know

about a topic. At this initial step, students are instructed to circle

the action words, and underline the key words that define the

actions emphasized in an assignment. In this manner, students are

taught to "dissect" writing prompts and determine the problem-

solving actions necessary for completion.The overwhelmed writer

is given an explicit skill set for analyzing an assignment, while the

impulsive writer is taught to slow down and assess the task before

beginning. The evaluation step concludes with students determin-es o Iing the number of parts they will need in their paper/response

("How many parts wiU my paper need to have?'). Thus, the initial E-step

prompts explicitly guide students through a careful analysis of anassignment in a manner that clearly reveals the expectations andrequirements, while effectively setting the stage for the subse-quent strategy steps of EmPOWER.

Personal observations and enhancements. Sadly, many children withdraw

from a writing assignment before ever attempting it because theyare confused or overwhelmed by the task. Conversely, some launchinto an assignment without truly understanding what is expected ofthem. A significant feature in the design of the EmPOWER programis the manner in which it provides educators with multiple entrypoints for incorporating instructional adaptations for individual stu-dents. Moreover, educators are not required to adopt a one size fitsall curriculum package, rather, teachers eire encouraged to presentthe routine in a manner that complements their instructionalstrengths and addresses individual students' needs.

Make a Plan (mP)

The second step of EmPOWER is Make a Plan. Anyone who hasspent time teaching writing will agree that the "good writer" isalso a "careful thinker." However, many children engage in writingassignments as if there were a prize for finishing first. At the mPstep, EmPOWER slows students down, engaging them to thinkcarefully about their assignment so that a mental representation ofa plan, appropriate for its completion, is formulated prior toengaging in the physical act of writing. This second step of theprocess provides students with four instructional prompts forguiding their thinking about an assignment.

Instructional focus. The first prompt, "Look at what I circled and under-

lined. In this assignment, my job is to . . ."engages a child in examining

the words that were circled and underlined at step one, and deter-mining what type of discourse/response the assignment requires.Many children do not understand the relationship between readingcomprehension and writing composition, or how most writingassignments fall within one of several response types, such asretelling, summarizing, providing information on a specific topic,or formulating an opinion. With this first prompt, a child identifiesan appropriate discourse purpose, or what Singer and Bashir(2004b) refer to as discourse "moves," fi-om a list of eight cognitive-linguistic options (i.e., compare, contrast, describe, persuade, sum-marize, retell, give information, give an opinion).

Once students have identified the required discourse move,graphic maps are introduced so that the discourse terms embed-ded in an assignment are explicitly linked to a visual representa-tion. The second mP prompt, what kind cf map will help me plan and

orqanize my ideas, makes this connection clear for students. Singerand Bashir (2004b) emphasize the importance of using a graphicplanner as a routine component for supporting struggling writersand recommend that teachers reinforce a student's facility withidentifying discourse moves and graphic planning through mini-lessons and guided practice. Unfortunately, many children areallowed to skip or gloss over this important step in writing, as iftheir thinking had advanced beyond the utility of proactive.


thoughtful planning. Therefore, it is important that teachers slowdown the writing process and accentuate the prompts and cuesdesigned to bring embedded or hidden cognitive actions to light.

After the students have selected a graphic map, they are readyto ask themselves the third prompt of the mP-step: Do 1 knowenough to write this paper? Quality writing cannot occur withoutknowledge, and at this point in the process students are promptedto ask themselves if they know enough about the writing topic tofulfill the assignment's demands. When students believe they pos-sess enough subject matter knowledge, then they may move on tothe fourth prompt. If not, they must determine what content islacking and locate the necessary resources for researching moreinformation on the topic.

The fourth and final prompt of the mP step requires a studentto ask. What is the goal for this paper? Once again, this promptemphasizes self-regulation. Research has shown that self-regula-tion and goal setting are important metacognitive practices influ-encing a writer (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), and as manyteachers have experienced, "good writers" always seem to "know"where they are going with their texts. EmPOWER reinforces thisway of thinking by emphasizing that it is imperative to stop, think,and make a plan prior to beginning a response.

Personal observations and enhancements. At the mP stage studentso

must understand that the language used in the presentation of anassignment provides important cues to identifying the discoursepurpose. Again, teacher modeling is instrumental in making thisinvisible cognitive act clear to students. Drawing on Ellis's (2004)four phase model for instructional routines, a teacher first modelsthe E and mP steps through a series of mini-lessons, talkingthrough the strategy ("I do it"). Second, the teacher solicits helpfrom class members as a graphic map with a different prompt isselected and used ("We do it"). Third, students practice applying amap to a different writing task while working in small groups("Y'all do it"). Finally, students work individually and apply thestrategy to complete a task on their own ("You do it").

It is extremely important to closely monitor children's profi-ciency at the mP stage. Some children will demonstrate adeptnesswith identifying the appropriate graphic map, while others willrequire months and even years of repeated, guided practice beforethey are able to consistently identify a map that fits a task. Ofcourse, a teacher can also limit students' exposure to various dis-course types until they have mastered a particular format. Conse-quently, a teacher can provide individualized instruction to thosechildren who have demonstrated facility with linking terms to textstructures and graphic representations, while also providing sup-port to the students who require more direct instruction.

As an enhancement to this step, I often ask students to writeone or two goal statements pertaining to the writing assignmenton an index card ("Writing Goal Card"). In this way, when stu-dents return to an assignment after being away from it for a while(minutes, hours, or days), rereading the goal card serves as an acti-vator for reengaging their focus. Of course other enhancements

are possible as well. For instance. Singer and Bashir (2004b)encourage teachers and students to develop goals with regard tothe production of a specific text element (e.g., direct quote, iden-tification of literary elements), a specific strategy (e.g., visualiza-tion, marking/highlighting reference in texts), or writing toaddress the perspective of the reading audience. In this way, theEmPOWER program provides teachers and related service per-sonnel with an explicit, yet flexible framework for planning awritten response.

Organize

Once all the make a Plan prompts have been addressed, studentsare prepared to move to the third step of the EmPOWER pro-gram: Organize. At this step in the strategy, students are promptedto express their ideas about a subject on paper and begin mappingtheir ideas using the cognitive-linguistic graphic identified duringthe mP phase.

Instructional focus. According to Singer and Bashir (2004c), writ-ing is a reflection of thinking and any writing assignment can belinked to one or more of six basic "thinking processes." At the O-step, the EmPOWER program provides teachers and studentswith six different visual graphics for representing and storingtheir ideas on an identified subject (i.e., brainstorm, describe,compare/contrast, cause-effect, categorize, and sequence).Beginning with the prompt. Now I need to map out my ideas, stu-dents are encouraged to select the graphic (or graphics) that bestaddresses their writing assignment. The EmPOWER graphicsprovide students with a structure for mapping their ideas ontopaper, and in doing so make implicit or invisible demandsexplicit and discernable.

When students have a visual structure (their graphic) thatreflects their thinking about an assignment, the second prompt, Re-reaJ the assignment and make sure I have mapped out all the parts, is pre-

sented. As with the goal setting prompt in the mP step, this promptsupports students in remembering the demands of the task and thepurpose of their writing. Once again, this prompt draws attentionto the value of self-regulation and careful planning.

After students have stopped and re-examined their initial planfor their assignment, the third and fourth prompts of the O stepare presented: Decide if I need to change, add, or get rid of anything on

my map(s), and Number the ideas on my map(s) in an order that makes

sense. Both prompts are designed to cue student-writers to stepback and consider whether they have addressed the assignment ina complete and logical manner.

Personal observations and enhancements. At the O-step, a brief indi-

vidual conference can ensure that the writer has correctly formu-lated a plan that addresses the writing assignment. If the childwrote one or two goals on a note card at the mP-step, a teachershould review them with the student and write any additionalcomments the child might emphasize as important in theresponse. It is worthwhile for a teacher to take the time to confer-ence and scribe a student's thinking for two important reasons.


First, by acting as a cbild's "secretary" tbe teacber can provide tbestudent witb tbe opportunity to verbalize tbe tbinking witbout tbeadded cognitive responsibility of taking notes. Focused on tbink-ing ratber tban format, many cbildren will express longer andmore complex ideas on a writing topic if a teacber intermittentlyacts as tbeir scribe (De La Paz, 2007; Moats, 2006). Tbe secondreason a teacber sbould conference witb cbildren at tbis stage is sotbe message tbat good writing requires careful tbinking and plan-ning is once again empbasized and made explicit.

A second enbancement to this step pertains to a teacber's levelof experience witb tbe curriculum. Many teacbers develop adatabase of writing assignments as they acquire experience. Forinstance, each fall one experienced writing teacher asks the chil-dren in her fifth-grade class to write an essay on "The best (orworst) day of my life" in order to learn more about her students'writing proficiency (C. Van Dam, personal communication, Sep-tember 2008). Altbougb tbe majority of students bave enjoyedwriting on tbis topic, many bave required significant structureand support as tbey attempt to sbift from brainstorming numer-ous best/worst days to focusing on a single event and its manydetails. Wben tbe cognitive requirements of tbis writing promptare closely examined, one can see tbat a child must first beginwith the brainstorming process and tben sbift to a discourseframework (e.g., description, compare/contrast, summary). Tbisis a difficult cognitive sbift for cbildren wbo are unsure bow torespond to a task's linguistic demands and independently organizetbeir tbinking. However, tbe prompts and actions outlined at tbeO-step provide students witb tbe structure necessary for mappingtbeir ideas onto paper. As a result, students are now ready to com-pose a bigb-quality written response.

Work

After mucb tbinking and planning, students are now ready to begincomposing an expressive paragrapb or essay. As witb tbe previoussteps of tbe EmPOWER mnemonic, tbe Work-step provides stu-dents witb a series of prompts to structure and guide tbeir tbink-ing through the composition phase.

Instructional focus. The first two prompts of the W-step aredesigned to bring togetber tbe "mental set" necessary for compo-sition (Singer & Bashir, 2004c). The first prompt guides studentsto Plan my topic sentence or thesis. At this stage students learn that atopic sentence is either a fact or opinion statement that they must"prove" through further explanation. If students are writing amultiple paragraph essay, they are taught that a thesis statement isa "unique opinion" that must be supported with multiple para-graphs and are further prompted. If necessary, decide on subtopics

(Singer & Bashir, 2004c). Thus, whether writing single or multi-ple paragraphs, students are explicitly oriented to construct aclear declaration.

EmPOWER instructs students that the topic sentence is a state-ment of fact or opinion that must be explained or supported witb"proof." so tbey sbould be directed to organize tbeir ideas on oneof tbe EmPOWER templates designed to assist witb organizing a

paragrapb. Inefficient and struggling writers will benefit fromusing tbese templates, as tbey provide tbe additional visual cuesmany students need wben trying to formulate a paragrapb. Tbetemplates also provide support for those children who respondmore positively to visual cues than verbal prompting.

Once students have drafted their topic sentences on the tem-plate, they are provided with the prompt: Plan tbe proof Studentsare instructed to refer to the graphics they developed at the O-stepas a resource for generating statements that support their topicsentence. Known as EREDs, these statements can be Facts (infor-mation you know is true). Reasons (reasons wby you believe wbatyou do). Examples (examples from what you have heard, read,seen or done), or Details (details about tbe topic). Moreover, tbismnemonic continues to belp students self-regulate tbeir tbinking

and planning.r o

Teaching students how to plan and self-regulate their thinkingas they formulate an expository paragraph is the primary objectiveof tbe EmPOWER program (Singer & Basbir, 2004c). As a scaffoldto this goal, students are presented with the prompt. Order myideas, after they have generated a topic sentence and supportingFRED statements. If students are writing a single paragraph, theyare encouraged to examine and order the ideas they haverecorded, determining which statements should be presentedfirst, second, tbird, and so on. If tbe assignment requires a multi-ple paragrapb response, tbe student must first number tbe orderfor subtopics and topic sentences, tben arrange tbe FREDs foreacb subtopic. As witb previous steps and prompts, tbe empbasison tbinking and planning is made explicit.

Witb ideas planned and organized, children are now ready to"break the page" and write. It is important that educators recog-nize that this is a crucial point in the production of a text as manystudents are unsure how to generate a clear introduction to tbeirpaper. Singer and Basbir (2004c) provide educators witb an inno-vative fi-amework for belping cbildren write a smootb, compre-bensible introduction known as a "BTP." As witb tbe previousEmPOWER mnemonics, tbe letters BTP represent specificprompts in tbe process of writing: B instructs cbildren to incorpo-rate background information tbat will "book" a reader into want-ing to read tbe paper; T stands for generating a tbesis, or opinionsentence that will be substantiated in tbe paper; and P representstbe importance of presenting a "preview" or overview of tbepaper's main points. Using tbis mnemonic, students can formulatetbeir introduction and proceed to producing a draft of tbe body oftbeir paper.

Tbe next prompt is tbe one most students bave been waiting tobear: Write tbe paper. However, for many cbildren, tbis directivewould be impossible witbout tbe explicit guidance and direction ofEmPOWER. On tbeir own, many cbildren cannot evaluate anassignment, plan tbe steps necessary for its completion, organizethe information, and produce a finished product. WithEmPOWER, students are able to experience what it means to bea writer. At this stage students "pull the pieces together" and for-mulate a first draft of an expository paragraph.


Before the draft is complete, the work-step has one more

important component: Write the condusion. This final prompt

reminds children that well-written paragraphs do not conclude

without emphasizing what is important. Singer and Bashir (2004c)

encourage educators to teach children to reread their text (topic

sentence and FREDs) and ask themselves, "So what?"This prompt

directs students to go beyond paraphrasing their topic sentence to

highlight the points they want a reader to take away from their

work and think more about.

Persona¡ observations and enhancements. Obviously, the Work-step of

EmPOWER is a significant phase. I recommend that educators fol-

low Singer and Bashir's advice (2004c) and incorporate mini-les-

sons on the many important topics emphasized at this step as part

of a long-term writing strategy.

Evaluate

Once students have produced a draft of their expository essay, the

next step is to reinforce the value of self-evaluation and revision.

Many students with learning disabilities, and poor writers in gen-

eral, spend little time revising drafts (Graham, 1997). When they

do attempt to revise, these children usually limit their changes to

edits, such as changing words/phrases or addressing errors in

mechanics (e.g., capitalization, punctuation). When asked to iden-

tify what good writing looks like, many students with learning dis-

abilities identify elements of form rather than content (Graham,

Swartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Troia, 2006). Unfortunately, minor

editing to writing mechanics seldom enriches an essay's content or

overall quality.

Instructional focus. During this second E-step of EmPOWER,

Singer and Bashir (2004c) encourage teacbers to instruct students

to examine their writing using a self-regulation strategy known as

COLA: Content (information included in the text). Organization

(logic of the text's macro- and microstructural elements). Lan-

guage (integrity of semantic and morphosyntactic elements), and

Appearance (adherence to the linguistic rules regarding mechan-

ics). As with the previous steps of EmPOWER, student-centered

self-regulation is emphasized as student-writers examine their

writing using the COLA mnemonic.

At this stage students receive a COLA checklist and the

prompt. Use my COLA checklist to evaluate my paper's Content, Organi-

zation, Language, and Appearance. With each letter of this mnemonic

device, students are provided with at least one explicit question

such as: Does each paragraph have a topic sentence? or Did I use transi-

tion words to connect my ideas? In this manner, metacognitive text

analysis routines are scaffolded for the students, and they are fur-

ther "empowered" to take control over their writing.

Over 20 years ago, Bernice Wong (1985) pointed out that even

when students with a learning disability employ a strategy, they

might lack the capacity to fully regulate their thoughts or behav-

iors. The second prompt of the E-step, Get feedback from a friend,

teacher, or parent, is designed to address this concern. This prompt

shifts the source of corrective feedback away from the writer to a

peer or adult. Although someone else may be acting as the editor

or evaluator, this prompt continues to empower students with

choice, as they select the source of their feedback.

Once the student writer has consulted with a peer, the third E-

step prompt. Decide how I will improve my paper, provides the scaffold

for guiding students to adopt one or several revision suggestions.

Once again, students are empowered to take ownership of their

writing. At this point they select the parts they will revise while the

teacher assumes the role of encourager and facilitator.

Personal observations and enhancements. One extremely positive fea-

ture of the EmPOWER program is the manner in which it pro-

vides teachers with a common language and framework for

making the steps of composing/editing an essay clear, while

affording them the freedom to individualize as they see fit. For

instance, different COLA checklists can be created depending on

the individual needs of children, their grade level, and the assigned

writing topic. In addition, teachers can incorporate instructional

practices that reinforce the value of other writing behaviors, such

as the importance of quietly rereading a draft to oneself in order

to attend to issues such as topic clarity, order of ideas, or adher-

ence to text structure.

Re-work

The final letter of the EmPOWER mnemonic represents what is

perhaps one of the most frustrating concepts novice and experi-

enced writers confront when receiving instruction on the craft of

writing. Revision can seem to be an endless condition without a

clear ending point.

Instructional focus. Singer and Bashir (2004c) control the ambigu-

ity associated with producing a final, polished draft by providing

students and teachers with six clear revision prompts:

1. Make all my changes

2. Write or print out a clean copy

3. Read my final draft to be sure that it sounds the way 1 want it to, it says

what / mean, and it is edited correct¡y

4. Make additiona¡ changes (if determined as necessary at prompt

#3)

5. Print out a final copy

6. Congratulate myself: "I did it! Hooray!"

Presented as six manageable steps, the struggling wTiter can see

the finish line and complete what formerly had been an over-

whelming task—the expository paragraph or essay is complete.

Personal observations and enhancements. There is probably no greater

reinforcement for a child who struggles with writing than being

able to sit back and read a finished paper. Numerous enhancements

to this final step are available, but teachers should consider the

power of immediate feedback and peer recognition. As students

complete their finished paragraphs or essays, it is important that

they receive praise and recognition for their efforts and perhaps tbe

opportunity to share their work with others. If possible, teachers


should select several pieces for public display on a bulletin board or

class publication. Many students enjoy having the opportunity to

read their work aloud to others and see it publicly exhibited.

CONCLUSION

An effective strategy is a priceless tool in a teacher's toolbox.

EmPOWER's website, www.architectsforlearning.com, docu-

ments the positive impact the program has when teachers use the

strategy with their students. According to Architects for Learning

results, students demonstrated gains in their ability to plan, organ-

ize, and complete writing tasks as part of three different school-

based, action research studies (www.architectsforlearning.com).

After learning EmPOWER strategies, students demonstrated

increased proficiency on classroom writing assignments and/or

formal state competency assessments. Bonnie Singer (personal

communication, August 2010), confirms that a developing body of

independent research is emerging that documents EmPOWER's

effectiveness in applied settings as additional research studies are

currently under way. While more extensive empirical data sup-

porting EmPOWER's impact with students would be a valuable

addition to the literature on writing, the program's theory-to-

practice connections are evident and compelling.

As the reports from the Alliance for Excellent Education (Gra-

ham & Hehert, 2010; Graham & Perin, 2007) and the National

Commission on Writing (2003, 2004, 2006) emphasize, students

must develop and demonstrate the skills necessary for communi-

cating their thoughts, observations, questions, and opinions in print

if they are to excel in academic or employment settings. Singer and

Bashir (2004c) provide educators with a valuable framework for

meeting this challenge. EmPOWER not only reduces the impact of

cognitive overload while systematically guiding a wTiter through

the phases of composition, the language and the comprehensive

structure enable students and teachers to experience learning to

write as a worthwhile and pleasurable practice. Moreover,

EmPOWER provides educators with the theory to practice con-

nections they require—and desire—in their work with students.

References

wviTv.architectsforlearning.com (n.d). Results. Retrieved from www.architectsforlearning. com /id2 3. html.

Calfee, R. C , & Wilson, K. M. (2004). A classroom-based writing assess-ment framework. In A. Stone, E. R. Sillman, B. J., Ehren, & K. Apel,(Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. S59—582). New York,NY: Guilford Press.

De La Paz, S. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing to students withspecial needs. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & j . Fitzgerald, (Eds.),Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 308—328). New York, NY: Guil-ford Press.

Ehren, B. J., Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Enhancing literacyproficiency with adolescents and young adults. In C. Addison Stone,E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & L. Wilkinson (Eds.), Handbook of lan-guage and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 681—701). New York,NY Guilford Press.

Ellis, E. (2004). The makes sense strategies model. Retrieved July 7,2007, from http://www.graphicorganizers.com/Sara/ArticlesAbout/MSS%20 overvew.pdf.

Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. (2003). The sociocultural model in specialeducation interventions: Apprenticing students in higher-order think-ing. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook oflearning disabilities (pp. 450^67). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Englert, C. S., Raphael,T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Fear, K.L., & Gregg, S. L. (1988). A case for writing intervention: Strategiesfor 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., & Fear, K. L. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talkvisible: Cognitive strategy instruction in regular and special educationclassrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337—372.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to studentswith learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Jour-nal, 101(3), 251-212.

Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students withlearning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,223-234.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning di.sabilitiesand the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L.Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning dis-abilities (pp. 323-344). New York, NY Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performanceof young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic researchfrom the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. Journal of SpecialEducation, 39, 19-33.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidencefor how writ-ing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improvewriting of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Cor-poration of NewYork. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., Swartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled andnormally achieving students' knowledge of the writing and compos-ing process, attitude toward writing, and self-effîcacy. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.

Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition andaffect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives onwriting: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6—44). Newark, DE: Interna-tional Reading Association.

Karger, J. (2004). Post IDEA '97 case law and administrative decisions:access to the general curriculum. Wakefield, MA: National Center onAccessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved April 11, 2011, fromhttp://aim. cast. org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/post_idea97.

Moats, L. C. (2006). How spelling supports reading: And why it is moreregular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 29,12-43.

National Commission on Writing for America's Families, Schools andColleges (2003). The neglected "R."The need for a writing revolution.Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.writingcommission.org.


National Commission on Writing for America's Families, Schools andColleges (2004). Writing: A ticket to work . . . Or a ticket out: A survey cfbusiness leaders. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.writing-commission. org.

to

National Commission on Writing for America's Families, Schools andColleges (2006). Writing and school reform. Retrieved July 10, 2007,from http://www.writing commission.org.

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C , & Jin,Y. (2003). The nation's report card:Writ-ing 2002. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educa-tion Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H. R., & Miller, J. (2008). The nation's report card:Writing 2007. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute ofEducation Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Can students with LD becomecompetent writers? Learning Disability Quarter¡y, 26, 129—141.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004a). Developmental variations in writ-ing composition skills. In A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K.Apel (Eds.), Handbook cf language and literacy: Development and disorders(pp. SS9-S82). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004b). EmPOWER: A strategy for teach-ing students with language learning disabilities how to write exposi-tory text. In E. Silliman & L. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and ¡iteracy¡earning in schoo¡s (pp. 239-272). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004c). EmPOWER Training Manua¡. Innova-tive Learning Partners (ILP), LLC.

Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. (2006). EmPOWER as a scaffold for effective writ-ing instruction. Retrieved July S, 2007, from http://architectsfor-learning.com.

Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational psycho¡ogy: Theory and practice (8th ed.).Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning dis-abilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Hand-book of writing research (pp. 324—336). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000).The underlying message inLD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Excep-tional Children, 67(1), 99-114.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The deve¡opment of higher psycho¡og-ica¡ processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wong, B. Y L. (198S). Metacognition and learning disahilities. InT. G.Waller, D. Forrest-Pressley, & G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Metacognition,cognition, and human performance (pp. 137—17S). New York, NY: Aca-demic Press.

Wong, B.Y. L., & Berninger, V. W. (2004), Cognitive processes of teach-ers in implementing composition research in elementary, middle, andhigh school classrooms. In C. Addison Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J.Ehren, & L. Wilkinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Devel-opment and disorders (pp. 600—624). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wong, B.Y L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S.A., & Kuperis, S. (1997).Teach-ing adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan,write, and revise compare and contrast essays. Learning Disabi¡itiesResearch and Practice, 7 2 , 2 — I S .

Wong, B.Y L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Butler, D.L. (2003). Cogni-tive strategies instruction research in learning disahilities. In H. L.Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of ¡earning dis-abilities (pp. 383-402). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemherg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulatedwriter: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 22(\), ll-\Çi\.

Richard J. Cass is a learning center specialist at the Michael Driscoll School, 64Westbourne Terrace, Brookline, MA 02446. Dr. Cass can be reached [email protected] 2.ma.us.


Empowering Srudents with LD

Documents

Transcript of Empowering Srudents with LD