Volleyball and other analogies: a response to Englert.

Abstract

Englert and her colleagues have contributed much to our knowledge about effective writing instruction. They have demonstrated that interventions that make explicit the writing process and text structures are successful with students with learning disabilities as well as those without. Englert attributes this success to the holistic, social, and interactive nature of the instruction. However, one must keep in mind that CSIW was a package approach that included other validated instructional components. CSIW teachers presented conceptual models, used examples and nonexamples to illustrate text structure concepts, modeled thinking overtly while demonstrating the process, provided guided practice by prompting the process through dialogue and think-sheets, faded prompts as students took over more of the responsibility for the process, and taught for generalization by addressing more than one text structure and promoting student talk about the process. As Englert reported, most teachers seldom do these things, even when they claim to teach the writing process. Englert allows for the possibility that all students with learning disabilities may not be ready for cognitive strategy instruction as it is described in her article, and professionals must acknowledge that different techniques may be more effective for students of different ages and abilities. Swanson (1990) emphasized that there must be a match between strategy and learner characteristics and that strategies must be considered in relation to a student's knowledge and capacity. Strategic teaching requires that the teacher have a repertoire of approaches along a continuum that encompasses coaching students to use their own mental resources at one end and basic skill instruction at the other.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)