The Writing Achievement, Metacognitive Knowledge of Writing and Motivation of Middle-School Students with Learning Difficulties

  • Christina E. van Kraayenoord
  • Karen B. Moni
  • Anne Jobling
  • John Elkins
  • David Koppenhaver
  • Robyn Miller


This chapter reports on the writing achievement, writing-related metacognition and motivation of students with learning difficulties. The students were in the middle years of schooling (Years 5, 6 and 7 in primary school and Years 8 and 9 in English in high school). The study examined how the students performed at pre-implementation, post-implementation and follow-up following an intervention based on the WriteIdeas Model that was provided by their teachers. The study–s outcomes indicated that the teachers were effective in implementing units and lessons involving the WriteIdeas Model and that the students– writing achievement and metacognitive knowledge about themselves as writers were positively influenced.


Developmental Disability Professional Learning Teacher Professional Development Metacognitive Knowledge Good Writer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Our special thanks go to Robyn Miller, one of the authors of this chapter and the WriteIdeas Project Manager, for undertaking the statistical analyses, and to Dr. Asad Khan and Dr. Michelle Haynes for statistical advice. This research was funded by the Australian Research Council, Grant Number DP0344749.



Appraisement is a process of data collection regarding the achievement and needs of students who may have learning difficulties. At the time of writing it was used in Queensland, Australia by schools to identify the educational support requirements of individual students. The process is undertaken to recommend the level and kind of support needed, beyond that provided by the regular educational program in the school, to help these students to access the curriculum more effectively, and to meet achievement expectations consistent with their age cohort.

Developmental disabilities

Within the WriteIdeas project, students with developmental disabilities may be those with congenital disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, developmental apraxia and specific language disorders. Difficulties may also be the result of impairments associated with amytrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brain injury, spinal cord injury or stroke.


The World Health Organization defines disabilities as a general term that comprises three aspects <>. These are impairments, which refer to problems in body function or structure; activity limitations, which refer to difficulties experienced by individuals in completing tasks or actions in everyday life and participation restrictions, whereby individuals have problems in their involvement in life and social situations. Disabilities may arise or are evident early in life and may continue across the lifespan. They include conditions such as intellectual disabilities, vision disabilities, hearing disabilities and physical disabilities.

Learning difficulties

This is a term used in Australia to describe students who experience problems in learning at school. These problems may be across the curriculum or in specific areas of learning, such as literacy or numeracy.

Normally achieving

This refers to the measured performance of a student in an area of learning that is within the performance range of peers who are of the same age and in the same grade level.


  1. Alber-Morgan, S. R., Hessler, T., & Konrad, M. (2007). Teaching writing for keeps. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(3), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bos, C. S., & Fletcher, T. V. (1997). Sociocultural considerations in learning disabilities inclusion research: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 92–99.Google Scholar
  6. Bottomley, D. M., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1997–1998). Assessing children’s views about themselves as writers using the writer self-perception scale. Reading Teacher, 51(4), 286–296.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 170–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cairney, T. H. (2003). Literacy within family life. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 85–98). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Chan, L. K. S., & Dally, K. (2000). Review of literature. In W. Louden, L. K. S. Chan, J. Elkins, D. Greaves, H. House, M. Milton, S. Nichols, J. Rivalland, M. Rohl, & C. van Kraayenoord (Eds.), Mapping the territory – Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy (Vol. 2, pp. 161–331). Canberra: Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, J. W. (1988). Learning disabled children’s self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58, 347–371.Google Scholar
  12. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12, 4–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EducationQueensland. (2006). A chronology of special education in Queensland. Retrieved 12 May 2009, from
  15. Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (2003). The sociocultural model in special education interventions: Apprenticing students in higher-order thinking. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 450–467). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1992). Socially mediated instruction: Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. The Elementary School Journal, 92(4), 411–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forgan, J. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Adolescents with and without LD make the transition to middle school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Preventing and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on the story composition of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 88–93.Google Scholar
  24. Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (1997). Assessment of social competence in students with learning disabilities. In J. L. Lloyd, E. J. K. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 129–152). Los Angeles, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1996). Test of written language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  26. Hay, I. (1996). Understanding the interactions between self-concept and classroom practice for students with learning difficulties. Specific Learning Disabilities Bulletin of New Zealand, 7(3), 16–24.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organisation of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10–23.Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1993). Knowledge of revision and revising behaviour among learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moni, K. B., Jobling, A., van Kraayenoord, C. E., Elkins, J., Miller, R., & Koppenhaver, D. (2007). Teachers knowledge, attitudes and the implementation of practices around the teaching of writing in inclusive middle years’ classrooms: No quick fix. Educational & Child Psychology, 24(3), 18–36.Google Scholar
  31. Muckert, T., Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2003). Teacher log. Unpublished assessment tool, School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  32. Muckert, T., van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2003). Weekly account of lessons: Sequence of events and reflections. Unpublished assessment tool, School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  33. Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Potato, J. A. (1980). Informal assessment of written expression. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pressley, M. (2002). Conclusion: Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the future. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 385–399). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Rowe, D. W. (2008). Social contracts for writing: Negotiating shared understandings about text in the preschool years. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 66–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubric: An instructional approach with struggling writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 54.Google Scholar
  38. Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 30, 1–12.Google Scholar
  39. Swanson, H. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Originally published in Russian in 1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wakely, M. B., Hooper, S. R., de Kruif, R. E. L., & Swartz, C. (2006). Subtypes of written expression in elementary school children: A linguistic-based model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(8), 447–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Honan, E., & Moni, K. (2007a). Improving and sustaining literacy through pedagogical change: The report. Brisbane, QLD: School of Education, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  44. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Honan, E., & Moni, K. (2007b). Handbook of principles for improving and sustaining literacy through pedagogical change. Brisbane, QLD: School of Education, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  45. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2004). The student writing interview – Revised. Unpublished assessment tool, School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  46. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., Jobling, A., & Koppenhaver, D. (2004). The WriteIdeas classroom observation tool – Revised. Unpublished assessment tool, School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  47. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., Jobling, A., Koppenhaver, D., & Elkins, J. (2003). WriteIdeas: Enhancing writing – Teaching students in the middle phase of learning with developmental disabilities [and learning difficulties] in regular classrooms: The Manual. Brisbane, QLD: School of Education, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  48. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., Jobling, A., Koppenhaver, D., & Elkins, J. (2004). Developing the writing of middle school students with developmental disabilities: The writeideas model of writing. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 12(2), 36–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina E. van Kraayenoord
    • 1
  • Karen B. Moni
    • 1
  • Anne Jobling
    • 1
  • John Elkins
    • 2
  • David Koppenhaver
    • 3
  • Robyn Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Griffith UniversitySouth BrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Appalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations