As we noted in the previous example, many students with LD have difficulty identify-ing the important details in text. Another common problem experienced by students with LD is difficulty finding the main idea of a passage. The ability to locate the main idea is an essential skill. It affects students’ ability to study effectively, draw inferences, and read critically (Williams, 1988). There is good evidence that strategy instruction can improve students’ ability to locate the main idea in text (e.g., Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004; Malone & Mastropieri, 1992). However, it’s also important to remember that students with LD may need help to activate and correctly use a strat-egy that would help them identify the main idea.
With this in mind, Jitendra and colleagues (Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin, 2000) devel-oped a main idea comprehension strategy that used monitoring to help self-regulate the correct use of the strategy. An eight-step instruction process was used:
1. Students were taught the rule “Name the person and tell the main thing the person did in all the sentences.”
2. Students were taught to generate a group name and tell the main things the group did.
3. Next students were given practice in discriminating main ideas by selecting a sentence that best described a sample passage.
4. At this stage distracter sentences (i.e., sentences not related to the main idea) were introduced. Students were taught to find the distracter and then to cre-ate a main idea sentence that reflected most of the sentences in a passage.
5–8. The remainder of the lessons focused on creating main idea sentences for pas-sages that described where, when, why, or how something looked or was done. For each lesson, students were provided with a prompt sheet (see Fig-ure 7.3) that helped to cue them to activate the strategy.
To help cue students to use the strategy, the researchers used self-monitoring. Stu-dents were provided with a card to help them check to see if they had used each step of the strategy. As they performed the strategy, students were to place a check mark by each of four steps as they performed them:
• “I read the paragraph.”
• “I used the prompt card to recall the strategy steps.”
• “I applied the strategy to identify the main idea and construct a main idea sen-tence.”
• “I wrote out the main idea sentence.”
This self-monitoring procedure was used throughout the instruction process and was modeled and discussed as teachers would with any other SRSD component. Figure 7.4 shows an excerpt from a sample script used. This example is similar to the math strat-egy (Dunlap & Dunlap, 1989) discussed earlier. Once again the students are self-monitoring the use of the strategy in order to ensure that the strategy is used correctly
Finding the Main Idea Does the paragraph tell:
What or who the:
Subject is? Action is?
(single or group) (category) Why something happened?
Where something happened?
When something happened?
How something looks or is done?
Note: Some paragraphs may contain a sentence or two that don’t tell about the main idea!
FIGURE 7.3. Main idea prompt sheet. From Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000).
Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summa-rization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. Copy-right 2000 by PRO-ED, Inc. Reprinted by permission.
FIGURE 7.4. Excerpt from a sample script for self-monitoring and reading comprehension. From Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for stu-dents with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruc-tion. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. Copyright 2000 by PRO-ED, Inc. Reprinted by per-mission.
Now let’s use the four steps on this card [the card with the self-monitoring steps] to help us identify the main idea. The first step says to read the paragraph [teacher reads pas-sage aloud]: “Ann went to the park. She swung on the swings. She slid down the slide.
She climbed on the bars.” I read the paragraph, so I will put a check by “read the para-graph” [teacher makes a check mark]. The second step tells me to use the prompt card to help me find the main idea of this passage. The prompt reminds me to name the sub-ject (i.e., who the passage is mainly about) and categorize the action (i.e., the main thing the subject did in all the sentences). I used the prompt card to remind me of the rule or strategy, so I will put a check by “used the prompt card” [teacher checks card].
The third step tells me to use the strategy to generate the main idea. The rule tells me to name the subject and categorize the action. In this passage, the subject is Ann. Because all the sentences tell that Ann played in the park, the action category is played. Now I will put a check by “used the strategy” [teacher checks]. Next I will write the main idea (i.e., Ann played in the park) and put a check by the fourth step, “wrote the main idea”
[teacher checks].
and consistently. This is an important consideration, because as we noted earlier, stu-dents with LD will often skip steps or forget to use a strategy. Self-monitoring helps to focus attention on the steps of the strategy. Note also that the skills involved in the strategy are at a higher cognitive level than those required for the math strategy.
INTEGRATING STRATEGIES TO SOLVE MATH WORD PROBLEMS
Research has consistently shown that students with LD have difficulty solving arithme-tic word problems (Case, Harris, & Graham, 1992; Parmar, Cawley, & Miller, 1994). One of the difficulties encountered by students with LD is translating written problems into math sentences. Apart from any problem caused by reading difficulties, word problems pose special problems because students must (1) understand what question is being asked, (2) locate the relevant information within the problem, (3) set up the problem correctly, and (4) determine what arithmetic operations will be used to solve the prob-lem.
Cassel and Reid (1996) developed the FAST DRAW strategy to help students with LD successfully solve word problems. FAST DRAW combines a content strategy with a self-instruction strategy, self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement. The strategy is designed to help students find the important information in word problems, set up the problem properly (i.e., use the correct operations), and solve the problem. The steps of the FAST DRAW strategy are shown in Table 7.3.
After the strategy has been discussed, the teacher can discuss the importance of self-speech and how what we say can affect what we do and how we feel. The student and teacher then work together to generate statements he or she could say to help use the strategy and record the self-statements on a strategy check-off sheet. Some exam-ples of these statements are: (1) to find the question, look for the sentence ending with a question mark; (2) when setting up the problem, remember to write the larger number on top; (3) to tie down the sign, ask, “Am I putting together, so my answer will be larger than the other numbers?” (if yes, use addition), or “Am I taking apart, so my answer will be smaller than the largest number?” (if yes, use subtraction).
TABLE 7.3. FAST DRAW Strategy
• Find and highlight the question, then write the label.
• Ask “what are the parts of the problem?” then circle the numbers needed.
• Set up the problem by writing and labeling the numbers.
• Tie down the sign (i.e., decide whether to use addition or subtraction).
• Discover the sign (recheck the previous step).
• Read the number problem.
• Answer the number problem.
• Write the answer and check to see if the answer makes sense.
Note. Based on Cassel, A. J., & Reid, R. (1996). Use of a self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem solving skills of students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 6, 153–172.
The instructor models the use of the strategy using the following self-instructions:
• Problem definition—“What is it I have to do?”
• Planning—“How can I solve this problem?”
• Strategy use—“FAST DRAW will help me organize my problem solving and remember all the things I need to do in order to successfully complete a word problem.”
• Self-monitor—“To help me remember what I have done, I can check off the steps of the strategy as they are completed.”
• Self-evaluation—“How am I doing? Does what I am doing make sense? Did I complete all the steps?”
• Self-reinforcement—“Great, I’m halfway through the strategy. Oops, I made a mistake, but that’s OK because I can correct it. Fantastic!”
Following the modeling, the teacher and student discuss how self-statements helped the teacher use the strategy. Next, the student generates and records on his or her strategy check-off sheet examples of statements for each of the six categories. The teacher and student discuss how self-instructions do not always have to be spoken aloud, but can be whispered or thought to oneself. The instructor and student review the assessment and recording process for self-monitoring strategy use (i.e., using the check-off sheet to record strategy steps and self-instructions. during the support stage, the instructor uses collaborative practice to support the student as he or she moves toward independently solving word problems while using the strategy and self-instructions. The instructor prompts and facilitates the student’s strategy use. Correc-tive feedback and posiCorrec-tive reinforcement are initially provided by the instructor to facilitate correct use of the strategy and self-instructions.
FINAL THOUGHTS
In this chapter we presented examples of how regulation procedures (i.e., self-monitoring, self-instruction, self-reinforcement, and goal setting) can be combined with strategy instruction. The combination of self-regulation and strategies is a powerful in-structional tool. To reemphasize some of the points made in the chapter: First, it is important that teachers integrate the strategy and the self-regulation procedures. This entails making the self-regulation mesh with the strategy. Self-regulation procedures should enhance the students’ ability to use strategies consistently and correctly. It should not interfere with strategy use (i.e., they should not be cumbersome, time con-suming, or aversive to the student). Some strategies (e.g., WWW, What = 2, How = 2) have already integrated self-regulation with a powerful strategy. However, this tends to be the exception. In most cases, teachers will need to develop appropriate self-regulation procedures and integrate them. Note that research suggests that sometimes simply teaching a strategy can enhance self-regulation (e.g., Reid & Harris, 1993). Sec-ond, self-regulation strategy procedures must be included in the instructional process.
The self-regulation procedure must be discussed, modeled, committed to memory, and
practiced collaboratively, just as you would a content-area strategy. Teachers cannot assume that students will simply “pick up” the self-regulation strategy.
Third, there is no “best” way to self-regulate. Teachers frequently ask, “What is the best self-regulation strategy?” They need to consider the match between the student, the strategy, the task, and the environment. For example, we have worked with some students who had a great deal of difficulty with self-monitoring. However, they could use self-instructions quite easily and effectively. Sometimes there may be a mismatch between the task and the self-regulation method. For example, self-monitoring atten-tion may interrupt students while they are performing a task. Some students dislike this, and prefer monitoring performance because they don’t need to stop to self-record at frequent intervals. Alternatively, some students dislike self-monitoring per-formance because it requires counting up practices.
Finally, several examples used multiple self-regulation strategies. This can lead to the impression that if using one self-regulation strategy is good, using two must be even better, and so on. That would be wonderful if true, but in practice you can over-load students with self-regulation strategies. Resist the temptation to over-load up every self-regulation procedure you can fit. It can literally be too much of a good thing. When procedures become time consuming and unwieldy, students resist using them. This defeats the purpose of strategy instruction. The idea is to use just as much self-regulation as necessary and no more. Remember that the purpose of self-self-regulation is to make students effective, independent strategy users.
REFERENCES
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Case, L. P., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19.
Cassel, A. J., & Reid, R. (1996). Use of a self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem solving skills of students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 153–172.
Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 309–314.
Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace the traditional spelling instruc-tion? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 235–247.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R., & Sawyer, R. (1987). Composition instruction with learning disabled students: Self-instructional strategy training. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(4), 4–11.
Harris, K. R. (1986). The effects of cognitive-behavior modification on private speech and task performance during problem solving among learning-disabled and normally achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 63–76.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1988). Effects of strategy training on metamemory among learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 54, 332–338.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for stu-dents with learning problems: The role of summarization strategy and self-monitoring in-struction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
Johnson, L., & Graham, S. G. (1997). The effects of goal setting and self-instruction on learning a reading comprehension strategy: A study of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 80–91.
Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–
279.
Parmar, R., Cawley, J., & Miller, J. (1994). Differences in mathematics performance between stu-dents with learning disabilities and stustu-dents with mild retardation. Exceptional Children, 60, 549–563.
Reid, R., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of perfor-mance: Effects on attention and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 60, 29–40.
Short, E., & Ryan, E. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers:
Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225–235.
Williams, J. P. (1988). Identifying main ideas: A basic aspect of reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 8, 1–13.
Strategies in Written Language
W
riting is a difficult and demanding task requiring attention to multiple processes.Not only do students need to learn to attend to the mechanics of writing, they also need to develop effective and efficient composition skills (Graham & Harris, 2003). Writing involves three fundamental processes: (1) planning what to write and how to organize the composition, (2) translating that into written language, and (3) revising what is written to make improvements. All of these processes are essential in proficient writ-ing. Moreover, writing requires constant self-regulation and attention control. Skilled writers use strategies to plan, write, and revise their compositions, as well as strategies to self-regulate performance. The ability to regulate and monitor one’s own composing process is an important part of writing (Graham & Harris, 2003).
Because of the complexity of the writing process many students experience diffi-culty. National and state writing assessments provide evidence that a majority of American students need to improve their writing skills (De La Paz, 1999). Negotiating and coordinating basic skills, knowledge, strategies, and conventions of written lan-guage can be difficult for even skilled writers. Often students are not equipped with appropriate strategies to overcome obstacles presented with composing. Five areas that present particular difficulties are (1) content generation, (2) creating and organizing structure for compositions, (3) formulation of goals and higher-level plans, (4) quick and efficient execution of the mechanical aspects of writing, and (5) revising text and reformulating goals (Graham & Harris, 2003).
125