Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Strategy Training and Teacher- vs. Student-Controllled Study Conditions: Effects on LD

Students' Spelling Performance
Author(s): Steve Graham and Sally Freeman
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 267-274
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510590 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STRATEGYTRAINING AND TEACHER-VS.
STUDENT-CONTROLLLEDSTUDY
CONDITIONS: EFFECTS ON LD STUDENTS'
SPELLING PERFORMANCE
Steve Graham and Sally Freeman

Abstract. This study examined learning disabled students' spelling performance

in response to strategy training and variations in study conditions. After training
in the use of a five-step study strategy, subjects studied spelling words under one
of three conditions: (a) directed study; (b) student-controlled; and (c) teacher-
monitored. Students assigned to a control group studied words in any manner they
chose. Results indicated that students who were taught the five-step study strategy
recalled the correct spelling of more words than controls who devised their own
study method. However, the spelling performance of students who received strategy
training was not differentially affected by variations in study conditions. Results were
interpreted to suggest that learning disabled students' spelling difficulties are
associated with problems in self-regulation of organized, strategic behavior.

Deliberate learning for the purpose of im-
mediate recall is important to academic success
since many school tasks require purposive
memorization of ideas, words, symbols, and so
forth. Compared to normal students, children
identified as learning disabled (LD) exhibit per-
vasive performance deficitson tasks requiringim-
mediate recall (Bauer, 1979; Connor, 1983;
Torgesen, 1980). LD students' poor performance
on memory tasks has traditionallybeen attributed
to specific structuralor ability deficits. However,
recent research indicates that these students' per-
formance problems are frequentlyassociated with
strategy-productiondeficiencies, that is, difficulties
in self-regulation of organized, strategic behavior
(Harris,in press; Torgesen & Kail, 1980; Wong,
1980, 1982). Although LD students are often
capable of using appropriate learning strategies,
they typically fail to use them spontaneously or
flexibly in response to the requirements of a
specific task.
Spelling is an example of an academic area in
which learningfor the purpose of immediate recall
is critical.The deliberate memorization of a basic
spellingvacabularyis an integralpartof most spell-
ing programs (Graham, 1982, 1983a). Although
spelling problems are particularlypronounced in
the LD population (Carpenter & Miller, 1982;
Moran, 1981; Poplin, Gray, Larsen, Banikowski,
& Mehring,1980), spellinginstructionfor disabled
learnershas received littleattentionin the research
literature. It is generally agreed, however, that
allowing students to devise their own methods for
studying spelling words is not advisable (Graham
& Miller, 1979).
According to Tobias (1976), students with
severe academic difficultiesrequire a great deal
STEVE GRAHAM, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor,
Department of Special Education, Universityof
Maryland.
SALLYFREEMAN,Ph.D., is Assistant Professor,
School of Education, University of Montana.

Volume 8, Fall 1985 267

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of instructional support, especially when the
material to be learned is novel. Several ex-
perimentershave examined whether instructional
support via modificationsin the externalprovision
of the lesson (i.e.,teacher-controlledinterventions)
results in an improvement in LD students' im-
mediate recall of spelling words. For example, in
a study by Foster and Torgesen (1983), the spell-
ing task was structured so that all subjects were
required to repetitively spell target words in the
same manner. In two other studies (Bryant,
Drabin, & Gettinger, 1981; Gettinger, Bryant, &
Fayne, 1982), effective teaching principles such
as mastery learning, cumulative and distributed
practice, and corrective feedback were incor-
porated into the spellingtask. Although these pro-
cedures were found to be effective,developing and
implementing instructionalstrategies add to the
alreadytaxing demands on a teacher'stime. Final-
ly, in additionto often failingto obtaindurableand
generalizable effects (Harris, in press; Sabatino,
Miller,& Schmidt, 1981), teacher-controlled in-
terventions may preclude students learning how
to learn.
LD students' performance on tasks that require
immediate recall may also be improved by
teaching them effective and efficient study
strategies (Graham, in press; Harris, 1982). To
date, Bendell, Tollefson, and Fine (1980) have
conducted the only published study which ex-
amines whether prompting LD students to direct
their own learning through the use of a specific
study strategy(i.e.,student-controlledintervention)
results in improved immediate recall of spelling
words. In this investigation, LD adolescents with
an external locus-of-control orientationincreased
the number of correctly recalled spelling words
when they were told to independently use a study
procedure described by the examiner. In contrast,
disabled learnerswith an internallocus-of-control
orientation performed best when assigned to a
study condition in which they were allowed to
learn words in any manner they chose. The find-
ings from this study suggest that LD students'
responses to different types of study conditions
may vary depending upon their locus-of-control
orientation.
Although the resultsof the Bendell et al. (1980)
investigation provide only partialsupport for the
use of student-controlledinterventionsin spelling,
teaching children a strategy for regulating their
own study behavior should prove advantageous
268 Learning DisabilityQuarterly
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for several reasons. As Johnston (1984) noted,
mastery of a study strategy allows students to
develop productivelearningbehaviorswhich may
lead to increasedmotivationand on-task behavior.
Student-controlled procedures may also insulate
a given learning task, thereby reducing student
distractibility.However, Doyle (1983) indicated
that without a great deal of training, many low-
ability students will use learning strategies only
when instructionalprompts are available. Thus,
even afterLD students have been taught a specific
study strategy, they may still require teacher
assistance in order to apply it successfully.
The purpose of the present study was to com-
pare LD students' immediate recall of spelling
words, after instruction in the use of a specific
study strategy, under study conditions which
varied in terms of teacher versus student control.
Fourth-gradeLD students were assigned to one
of four study conditions. In directed study,
students were firsttaught a five-step study strategy
and then given verbal guidance by an instructor
in how to apply each strategy step during subse-
quent study sessions. Students in the student-
controlled group were taught the same five-step
procedure and were told to use the strategyto in-
dependently directtheir own study behavior. The
teacher-monitored condition, in turn, involved a
combinationof teacher and student controlin that,
after being taught the aforementioned strategy,
subjects were told not only to use the procedure
independently but also that the instructorwould
render assistance whenever necessary. Finally, a
group of students in a free study condition were
allowed to learn words in any manner they chose,
thus acting as controls. The performance of the
subjects in the three strategy-traininggroups was
compared to determine optimal teaching pro-
cedures for LD students. In addition, a mean per-
formance by the controlgroup, significantlypoorer
than that of the three strategy-traininggroups,
would provide evidence that LD students' spell-
ing difficultiesare associated with problemsin self-
regulation of organized, strategic behaviors.
Since scores on a dictated spelling test may be,
in part, a function of prior spelling achievement
and/or locus of control (Bendell et al., 1980;
Deno, Mirkin,Lowry, & Kuehnle, 1980), a spell-
ing achievement test and a standardizedmeasure
of locus-of-control orientation were administered
to each subject priorto any of the study sessions.
In addition, the on-task behavior of subjectsin the
student-controlled and free-study conditions was
monitored. Data on the on-task behavior of sub-
jects in the other two study conditions were not
collected since these students were prompted to
stay on task.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects, all of whom were enrolled in public
schools in Northern and Central Indiana, were
selected on the basis of the following criteria:(a)
fourth-grade placement; (b) parental consent to
participate in the study; (c) IQ scores between
84-116 on either the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Test or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children-Revised; (d) scores of 7 or less on a
pretestof the 30 wordstargetedfor instructiondur-
ing the experimentalconditions;and (e) identifica-
tion as learning disabled by their local school
system. Since selection criteriafor identificationas
learningdisabled often differacross school districts
(DeRuiter,Ferrell,& Kass, 1975; Shepard, Smith,
& Vofir, 1983), a two-step process was im-
plemented (Graham, 1980) to provide a substan-
tial degree of certainty that subjects were indeed
learning disabled. First, the LD teachers in each
of the participatingelementary schools completed
a summary sheet on prospective subjectspertain-
ing to age, sex, grade, IQ, achievement test scores,
attemptedremedialproceduresand results,clinical
impressions, and other pertinentinformationsuch
as medical background. Second, three specialists
independently rated each summary on a scale
from 1 to 100 as to the probabilitythat the sub-
ject met the U.S.O.E. definition of learning
disabilities.Each specialist had at least two years
of graduate training in learning disabilities and
three years' experience in diagnosing this syn-
drome. Subjects were judged to be learning dis-
abled if none of the independent ratings was 75
or less and if their mean ratingswere 80 or above.
Based on these criteria, 40 subjects were
selected from an initialpool of 84 fourth-gradeLD
students. Thirty-two of the subjects were male,
eight were female. Subjects'mean IQ was 97, with
a mean chronological age of 10 years and 8
months. The subjects' average score on the
30-word pretest was 2.7; their mean grade
equivalent on the Testof WrittenSpelling (Larsen
& Hammill, 1976) was 2.53.
Instrumentation
The Intellectual Achievement Responsibility
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(IAR)scale, developed to assess "children's beliefs
that they, ratherthan other people, are responsi-
ble for their intellectual-academic successes and
failures"(Crandall,Katkovsky,& Crandall, 1965,
p. 91), consists of 34 orally administered items
which are designed to measure a student's locus-
of-control orientation (internal or external) in
academic situations. The developers of the scale
have reported a test-retestreliabilitycoefficient of
.69 for third- through fifth-gradestudents. Addi-
tionally, MacDonald (1973) found that the IAR
has "acceptablereliabilityand evidence of both
divergent and convergent validity"(p. 195).
The Testof WrittenSpelling (TWS)is a dictated-
word test consisting of two subtests - Predictable
Wordsand UnpredictableWords - that measures
a student's ability to spell phonetic and non-
phonetic words (Larsen & Hammill, 1976). The
authors reportinternalreliabilitycoefficientsof .80
or greater for grades two through seven. Also,
validitycoefficients ranging from .63 to .92 have
been noted for the TWS and four other spelling
tests.
Dictated-word tests. Two dictated-wordtests,
A and B, containing 15 items each, were designed
specificallyas part of this study. The followingtwo
criteriawere used to insurethat the test items were
appropriate:(a) the meaning of each word should
be familiarto fourth-grade students; and (b) test
items should consist of words that fourth-grade
students infrequently encounter in their reading
or writingactivities. On the basis of these criteria,
30 test items were selected. Accordingto informa-
tion compiled by Dale and O'Rourke (1976), the
meaning of each test item was familiarto 75% or
more of all fourthgraders.Furthermore,examina-
tion of the Thorndike and Lorge (1963)
vocabulary list revealed that each item occurred
less than 50 times per million writtenwords. The
30 test items were randomly assigned to test A or
B, and theirposition on each test was randomized.
Observation procedures. On-taskbehavior
was assessed via a 30-second momentary time-
sampling system (Sulzer-Azaroff& Mayer, 1977).
Using this procedure, the examiner records
whether or not the subject is on task at the end
of each 30-second interval.On-task behavior was
defined as students (a) having eye contact with
the list of study words or the practice sheet used
for writingthe study words; (b)pronouncingwords
on the study list; (c) asking the examiner to pro-
nounce a word; (d) verbalizingthe steps in a word-
Volume 8, Fall 1985 269
study technique; (e) spelling a word out loud; (f)
asking the examiner how much time is left in the
study session; (g) performing a step in a word-
study technique; and/or (h) writingwords on the
practice sheet.
In order to determine reliability,two examiners
independently scored four of the experimentalses-
sions. Interobserveragreement, computed as 100
x number of agreements divided by number of
agreements plus disagreements,ranged from 81%
to 95%
Procedures
Prior to data collection, three instructors in-
volved in the study were required to attend six
practicesessions. Duringthe firsttwo sessions they
were familiarizedwiththe experimentalprocedures
and the assessment instruments. During the last
four, participantspracticedadministeringboth the
assessment instruments and the treatment pro-
cedures to a normally achieving fourth-grade
student.
Followingthe practicesessions, the IAR and the
TWS were individuallyadministeredto each sub-
ject, whereupon the 40 LD students were ran-
domly assigned to one of the four study condi-
tions: directed study, student-controlled,teacher-
monitored, and free study. Each subject was also
randomly assigned to one instructorwho directed
the study sessions. All procedureswere individual-
ly administered.'
Student training. Each subjectparticipatedin
a 20-minute trainingsession. Subjects assigned to
the directed-study,student-controlled,or teacher-
monitored groups received instructionand prac-
tice in using a five-step word-study strategy to
study unknown spelling words. This strategy,
which was based on Graham's (1983a) recornm-
mendations, required the students to: (a) say the
word; (b) write and say the word; (c) check the
word; (d) trace and say the word; (e) write the
word from memory and check; and (f) repeat the
first five steps.
Trainingin the use of the word-study strategy
involved (a) modeling: the subjectwas directedto
watch the examiner model the procedure; (b)
practice with assistance: under the directionof the
examiner, the student practiced using the pro-
cedure with several different words; and (c)
demonstration of proficiency: if the subject was
able to successfully apply the word-study strategy
to two consecutive words Withoutany assistance,
instruction was terminated.
270 Learning Disability Quarterly
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Subjects in the free-study group received in-
struction and practice in how to play the spelling
game, Individual Challenge (see Graham,
Freeman, & Miller, 1981). To play this game the
student selects a word and writes it verticallyon
a piece of paper. The student then tries to write
a word from each letter. The instructional pro-
cedures used to teach the spelling game were
similarto those used in masteringthe word-study
technique.
Study sessions. Afterthe trainingsession each
subjectwas presented with several sheets of paper
and a writtenlist of the 15 words from one of the
two dictated-word tests. To control for possible
order effects, half the subjects in each study con-
dition were randomly assigned items from form
A; the other half received items from form B. The
examinerpronounced each of the assigned words,
and subjectswere informedthat they were allowed
30 minutesto studythe wordsbeforehavingto take
a spelling test.' Subjects were furthertold that the
examinerwould pronounce, on request, any of the
study words. Two days later, subjects participated
in a second study session, identicalto the firstwith
the exception of the word lists. In the second ses-
sion subjectswho had studied words from form A
were requiredto study items fromform B, and vice
versa.
At the conclusion of each study session, the ap-
propriatedictated-wordtest was administered.The
examiner pronounced each test item, used it in a
sentence, and pronounced it again. Subjectsin the
student-controlled and free-study groups were
asked to describe the method they had used to
study the spelling words.
Study conditions. Subjectswho were assigned
to the directed-studycondition were verballyguid-
ed by the instructorduringthe two study sessions.
For each word, the examiner read the study-
strategy steps to the student. If the subject per-
formed a step correctly,the examiner proceeded
to the next step. If a step was performed incor-
rectly, the examiner demonstrated the correct
response and asked the subjectto repeat the step.
If all 15 assigned words were completed before
30 minutes had expired, the subject was allowed
to restudy self-selected words.
In contrast, subjects in the teacher-monitored
group were explicitlyinstructedto independently
use the word-studystrategyand were told that the
instructor would provide assistance when
necessary. Assistance included (a) prompting the
 Table 1
Analysis of Covariance with Repeated Measures
Source
Between-Subjects
Study Conditions(A)
1st Covariate(TWS)
2nd Covariate(IAR)
All Covariates
Errorbetween
Within-Subjects
Sessions (B)
Ax B
Errorwithin
*p .05.
* p .001.
student to use the study strategy or a particular
step; (b)providingcorrectivefeedback if a step was
performed incorrectly; (c) answering questions
related to the spelling task; and (d) promptingthe
student to stay on task. If the subject completed
all 15 words before 30 minutes had expired,
he/she was instructed to restudy self-selected
words. During each study session, the examiner
recorded the amount and kind of assistance
provided.
Subjects assigned to the student-controlled
group were explicitlydirectedto use independently
the word strategy, whereas subjects in the free-
study condition were simply told to study the word
list. Students in both groups were informed that
the only assistance the examiner would provide
was pronouncing, upon request, any of the study
words. During each study session, examiners
recorded on-task behavior via the observation
instruments.
Design
An experimentalposttest-only design (Cambell
& Stanley, 1963) was employed to examine the
effectiveness of the four study conditions. Data
were analyzed using a 4 x 2 analysis of covariance
with repeated measures (Dixon & Brown, 1977).
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
df SS F
3 148.549 3.88*
1 846.060 66.28* *
1 .220 .02
2 846.066 33.14* *
34 433.983
1 .612 .22
3 3.237 .38
36 101.650
The four-levelbetween-subjectsvariablewas study
condition, whereas the within-subjects variable
represented the two study sessions. The depen-
dent variablewas subjects'scores on the dictated-
word tests; the covariatesconsisted of the subjects'
scores on the IAR and TWS.
RESULTS
Separate univariate analyses of variance were
performedto determine any significantdifferences
between the four study groups on important
subject-selectionvariables.Thus, no significantdif-
ferences between the groups were found on
chronologicalage (F = 1.19, df =3/36, p < .01),
IQ (F = 196, df = 3/36, p < .01) or present
scores (F = 2.33, df = 3/36, p < .01).
A summary of the analysis of covariance with
repeated measures is presented in Table 1; ob-
tained and adjusted means are listed in Table 2.
Although subjects' scores on the TWS and the
combination of TWS and IAR scores were
significantly related to performance on the
dictated-wordstests, IAR scores were not. In ad-
dition, the F ratio for interactionand session was
not statisticallysignificant. The F ratio for study
group, however, was significant. Consequently,
Volume 8, Fall 1985 271
multiple comparisons were made among the ad-
justed means by using the Newman-Keuls test
(Hicks, 1973). Resultsshowed that at the .01 level,
the mean performance of the subjects in each of
the three experimental groups was greater than
the mean score of subjects in the control group
(free-studycondition). However, no significantdif-
ferences were noted between the mean scores of
the three experimental groups.
A one-way analysis of variance was performed
to determine any significant differences between
the student-controlled and the free-study groups
on on-task behavior. Results showed that the two
groups did not differ significantly (F = 3.09,
df = 1/18, p < .05).
DISCUSSION
Results of the present study indicate that LD
students' performance on an academic task such
as spelling can be improved via adult-imposed
processing plans or structure.Thus, LD students
who were taught a task-specificstudy strategyand
were instructedto use the procedureindependent-
ly and/or received direct instructionalassistance
were able to immediately recall the correct spell-
ing of more words than students who were
directed to study in any manner they chose. This
finding is consistent with those of several other
studies (Bryantet al, 1981; Foster& Torgesen,1983;
Gettinger et al., 1982). In addition, LD students
can be taught how to successfully direct and
regulate their own study behavior. Results of this
study as well as those of previous research
(Graham, 1983b; Harris & Graham, 1985;
Kosiewicz,Hallahan,Lloyd, & Graves, 1982) sug-
gest that self-controlprocedures can be effective-
ly used to improve LD students' writing skills.
The present study also provides support for the
contention that students with learning problems
should not be allowed to devise theirown methods
for studying unknown spelling words. Subjects
who were told to study in any manner they chose
were able to immediately recall the correct spell-
ing of less than 20% of the words they were
directedto learn duringa 30-minute study period.
At least two explanations may be offered for these
students' poor performance. One, the students
may not have been actively engaged in the pro-
cess of learning.This explanation,however, seems
unlikely. Although students assigned to the self-
controlled condition correctly recalled the spell-
ing of more words than students in the free-study

Table 2
Obtained and Adjusted Means for Dependent Measure

Standard
Study Condition Obtained Mean Deviation Adjusted Mean

DirectStudy
Session One 8.50 5.64 6.90
Session Two 8.50 4.52 6.90
Teacher-Monitored
Session One 5.40 3.24 6.90
Session Two 5.30 3.19 7.10
StrategyTraining
Session One 7.80 4.08 6.60
Session Two 7.50 5.04 6.30
Free Study
Session One 2.20 4.66 3.20
Session Two 3.00 3.59 4.00

272 Learning DisabilityQuarterly

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
group, the two groups' on-task behavior was
similar.A second and more plausible explanation
is that free-study subjects did not spontaneously
produce effective strategic behaviors. Informal
observationsby the examiners revealed that these
students often used ineffective study procedures
such as repeatedly rereading a stimulus item or
writingthe correct spelling of the word only once.
Furthermore, it was possible to improve spelling
performance by either training and/or inducing
students to perform operations that have been
shown to result in retention of information.
In terms of immediate recall, no significantdif-
ferences were noted between the direct-study,
teacher-monitored, and strategy-traininggroups.
This finding suggests that once instructionin an
appropriate spelling strategy has been provided,
a student-controlled intervention can be as effec-
tive as teacher-controlledinstruction.Consequent-
ly, providinginstructionalsupportto students who
already possess an effective word-study method
may have littleor no effect on their performance.
Since self-control procedures may result in pro-
ductive learning behaviors and may minimizethe
supervisory time required of teachers (Harris,
1982; Johnston, 1984), the use of student-
controlled interventions to improve spelling per-
formance warrantsfurther investigation.
Finally,no main effect was found for session or
the interactionbetween session and study condi-
tion, indicating that the four student groups
demonstrated a similarperformance pattern over
a short period of time. Significantdifferencesmay
have emerged if the number of study sessions had
been increased.This possibilityshould be examined
in the future. In addition, it is recommended that
subsequent investigationsfocus on delayed as well
as immediate recall of words targeted for
instruction.
In conclusion, the present study provides
evidence that some of the spelling difficultiesof
LD children are associated with problems in self-
regulation of organized, strategicbehaviors rather
than specific ability or structural deficits. Even
though LD students appear capable of using task-
specific strategies effectively, they often fail to
spontaneously engage in strategicbehaviors that
adequately match the requirements of a specific
task. As demonstrated in this study, however, LD
students'performanceon an academic task which
requiresdeliberatememorizationcan be improved
by trainingthem to use an efficientstudy strategy.
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REFERENCES
R.
Bauer, (1979). Recallaftera shortdelayandacquisi-
tion in learningdisabledand nondisabledchildren.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 596-607.
Bendell,D., Tollefson,N., & Fine,M. (1980). Interac-
tion of locus-of-controlorientationand the perfor-
mance of learningdisabledadolescents.Journalof
Learning Disabilities, 13, 83-86.
Bryant,D., Drabin,I., & Gettinger,M. (1981). Effects
of varyingunitsizeon spellingachievementin learn-
ing disabledchildren.Journalof LearningDisabilities,
14, 200-203.
Cambell,P., & Stanley,J. (1963). Experimental
and
quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago:
RandMcNallyPub. Co.
Carpenter,D., & Miller,L. (1982). Spellingabilityof
reading disabled LD students and able readers.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 65-70.
Connor,F (1983).Improving forlear-
schoolinstruction
TheTeachersCollegeInstitute.
ningdisabledchildren:
Exceptional Education Quarterly,4, 23-44.
Crandall,V.C.,Katkovsky, W.,& Crandall,V.J.(1965).
Children'sbeliefsin theirowncontrolof reinforcement
in intellectual-academicachievementsituations.Child
Development, 91-109.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke,J. (1976). The living word
vocabulary.Elgin,IL:Field EnterpriseEducational
Corp.
Deno,S., Mirkin,P., Lowry,L., & Kuehnle,K. (1980).
Relationshipamong simple measures of spelling and
performanceon standardizedachievement tests. Min-
neapolis,MN:University of Minnesota.(ERICDocu-
ment ReproductionServiceNo. ED 197 508)
DeRuiter,J., Ferrell,W., & Kass,C. (1975). Learning
classification
disability by Bayesianaggregationof test
results. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 32-39.
Dixon,W.,& Brown,N. (1977).Biomedicalcomputer
programsP-series.Berkeley:University
of California
Press.
Doyle,W. (1983). Academicwork.Reviewof Educa-
tional Research, 53, 159-199.
Foster,K., & Torgesen,J. (1983). The effectsof direct
studyon the spellingperformanceof two subgroups
of learningdisabledstudents. LearningDisability
Quarterly, 6, 252-257.
Gettinger,M.,Bryant,D.,& Fayne,H. (1982). Design-
forlearning-disabled
ingspellinginstruction children:
An emphasison unitsize, distributedpractice,and
trainingfor transfer.Journalof Special Education, 16,
439-448.
Graham,S. (1980). Wordrecognitionskillsof learning
disabledchildrenand average students.Reading
Psychology, 2, 23-33.
Graham,S. (1982). Compositionresearchand prac-
tice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 14, 1-16.
Volume 8, Fall 1985 273
Graham, S. (1983a). Effective spelling instruction.
Elementary School Journal, 83, 560-568.
Graham, S. (1983b). The effect of self-instructionalpro-
cedures on LD students' handwritingperformance.
Learning Disability Quarterly,6, 231-234.
Graham, S. (in press). Teaching basic academic skills
to learning disabled students: A model of the
teaching-learning process. Journal of Learning
Disabilities.
Graham, S., Freeman, S., & MillerL. (1981). Spelling
games and activities.W. Lafayette,IN:Purdue Univer-
sity. (ERICDocument ReproductionService No. ED
208 425)
Graham, S., & MillerL. (1979). Spelling research and
practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 12, 1-16.
Harris, K. (in press). The effects of cognitive training
on privatespeech and task performanceduringprob-
lem solving among learning disabled and normally
achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology.
Harris,K. (1982). Cognitive-behaviormodification:Ap-
plication with exceptional students. Focus on Excep-
tional Children, 15, 1-16.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning
disabled students' composition skills: A self-control
strategy training approach. Learning Disability
Quarterly,8(1), 27-36.
Hicks, C. (1973). Fundamental concepts in the design
of experiments. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Johnston, P. (1984). Instruction and student in-
dependence. Elementary School Journal, 84,
338-344.
Kosiewicz, M., Hallahan, D., Lloyd, J., & Graves, A.
(1982). Effects of self-instructionand self-correction
procedures on handwriting performance. Learning
Disability Quarterly,5, 71-78.
Larsen, S., & Hammill, D. (1976). Testof writtenspell-
ing. San Rafael, CA: Academic Therapy Pub.
McDonald, A. (1973). Internal-externallocus of con-
trol. In J. Robinson & P. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of
social-psychologicalattitudes (pp. 169-244). Ann Ar-
bor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Moran,M. (1981). Performanceof learningdisabledand
low-achieving secondary students on formalfeatures
of a paragraph-writing task. Learning Disability
Quarterly,4, 271-280.
Poplin, M., Gray, R., Larsen, S., Banikowski, A., &
Mehring,T. (1980). A comparison of components of
274 Learning DisabilityQuarterly
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:06:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
written expression abilitiesin learning disabled and
non-disabled students at three grade levels. Learn-
ing Disability Quarterly,3, 46-53.
Sabatino, D., Miller,P., & Schmidt, C. (1981). Can in-
telligence be alteredthroughcognitive training?Jour-
nal of Special Education, 15, 125-144.
Sheppard, L., Smith, M., & Vofir,C. (1983). Character-
istics of pupils identified as learning disabled.
American Educational Research Journal, 20,
309-331.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. (1977). Applying
behavioranalysisprocedures withchildrenand youth.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment interactions.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 61-74.
Torgesen, J. (1980). The use of efficienttask strategies
by learningdisabledchildren:Conceptual and educa-
tional implications. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
13, 364-371.
Torgesen, J., & Kail, R. (1980). Memory processes in
exceptional children. In B. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in
special education (Vol. 1) (pp. 55-101). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Thorndike, E., & Lorge, I. (1963). The teacher's word
book of 30,000 words. New York: Bureau of
Publications.
Wong, B. (1980). Activatingthe inactive learner: Use
of questions/prompts to enhance comprehension
and retention of implied information in learning
disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly,3,
28-37.
Wong, B. (Ed.). (1982). Metacognition and learning
disabilities[Specialissue]. Topicsin Learningand Lear-
ning Disabilties,2(1).
FOOTNOTES
'A pilot study was conducted with four fourth-grade
LD students to determine the number of words to be
studied and the length of the study session. On the basis
of pilot-studydata, it was decided that 15 words would
be presented during each session and that subjects
would be allowed 30 minutes to study the words.
This study was in part supported by a grantfrom the
United States Office of Education (G008102716). The
ideas expressed herein are the authors' and do not
necessarily reflect USOE position or policy.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Steve
Graham, Department of Special Education, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.