Instructional Parameters Promoting Transfer of Learned Strategies in Students with Learning Disabilities

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Instructional Parameters Promoting Transfer of Learned Strategies in Students with LearningDisabilitiesAuthor(s): Bernice Y. L. WongSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 110-120Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511181 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 02:35

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 91.229.229.86 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:35:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511181?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


INSTRUCTIONAL PARAMETERS PROMOTING TRANSFER OF LEARNED

STRATEGIES IN STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Bernice Y.L. Wong

Abstract. This article addresses the problem of facilitating student transfer of learned strategies, presenting what may be two essential instructional parameters: (a) mediated mindfulness during strategy learning and at transfer (b) and transfer- promoting instruction. Mediated mindfulness integrates two concepts: Feuerstein's concept of mediated learning and Salomon and Globerson's concept of mindfulness. The notion of transfer-promoting instruction originates from Larkin. The au- thor explicates how inculcating mediated mindfulness in students with learning disabilities and engineering transfer-promoting instruction is likely to enhance strategy transfer in these students.

Student transfer of learned strategies is the desired goal of every intervention researcher within and outside the field of learning disabilities. This article, however, focuses on students with learning disabilities because they have particular problems in strategy transfer (Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead, & Hale, 1989; Borkowski & Turner, 1990).

Strategy transfer refers to students' spontaneous, unprompted, appropriate use of previously learned strategies in tasks/situations that differ from those in which the strategies were originally learned. If students demonstrate appropriate strategy use in tasks that are very similar to those used during their strategy learning, they would be judged as having shown near transfer. On the other hand, if they demonstrate suitable strategy use in tasks that differ much from practice tasks given during their strategy acquisition, then they are judged as having shown far transfer. Far transfer appears difficult to obtain (Brown & Campione, 1984; Campione, 1987).

Teaching LD and non-LD students cognitive and metacognitive strategies does not appear to be unduly difficult (cf. Scruggs & Wong, 1990;

Wong, 1992). But teaching these strategies to effect substantial improvement of their academic performance and to result in their spontaneous selection and deployment in various learning contexts is the crux of the problem for intervention researchers and teachers (Palincsar & Klenk, 1992).

Much theoretical and empirical effort has aimed at conceptualizing and researching parameters that promote strategy transfer. Currently, the literature on academic intervention research suggests the cardinal importance of both metacognition and motivation in students' strategy acquisition, maintenance, and transfer (Borkowski & Turner, 1990; Borkowski et al., 1989; Brown, 1980; Brown & Campione, 1984; Campione, 1987; Kuhl, 1987; Weinert, 1987).

Within the field of learning disabilities, clear attempts have been made to relate and apply this literature to intervention research involving students with learning disabilities (LD) (Ellis, Lenz,

BERNICE Y. L. WONG, Ed.D., is Professor in Education, Simon Fraser University.

110 Volume 17, Spring 1994



& Sabornie, 1987a, 1987b; Wong, 1986, 1991). Moreover, heeding Brown and Campione's (1984) warning that training not be "welded" to specific training contexts, various intervention researchers in learning disabilities have implemented the use of multiple trainers, settings, and materials (Graham & Harris, 1992; Mastropieri & Fulk, 1990; Schumaker & Deshler, 1992, at the Kansas University Institute of Research in Learning Disabilities, KU-IRLD).

These researchers and their research associates have been most systematic and ingenious in developing acquisitional and self-regulatory procedures and mnemonic devices to enhance strategy acquisition, maintenance, and transfer in students with LD. However, despite such valiant attempts, strategy transfer in students with LD has not been a consistent empirical outcome in published intervention studies.

That strategy transfer in students with LD remains elusive despite conceptual and method- ological advances on transfer underscores its complexity. Essentially, transfer is a complex instructional and motivational problem. Because of the enormous complexity, intervention researchers in learning disabilities will always be challenged to reconceptualize previously identi- fied parameters as well as to discover new ones that effect or promote transfer. In this vein, I propose for consideration by intervention re- searchers1 in learning disabilities two instructional parameters that potentially can promote transfer of learned strategies in students with LD. These are: (a) mediating student mindfulness during strategy learning and at transfer and (b) engaging in transfer-promoting instruction.

MEDIATING STUDENT MINDFULNESS DURING STRATEGY LEARNING

AND AT TRANSFER How much thinking students engage in while

they learn a strategy deserves scrutiny because the extent and depth of it apparently affect criti- cally their subsequent strategy transfer. Salomon and Globerson (1987a, 1987b) reasoned that in order for a previously learned strategy to transfer, students must both learn and transfer with mindfulness. The authors defined "mindfulness" as "a state of mind involving volitional, metacog- nitively guided employment of non-automatic, usually effort demanding processes" (Salomon & Globerson, 1987a, p. 625). In other words, dur-

ing strategy learning, students must have the will to learn and must deploy self-awareness and self- regulation to direct and focus cognitive resources and effort at abstracting underlying principles of the strategy.

Likewise at transfer, students need to think deeply and intently whether or not the previously abstracted principles in the learned strategy are applicable to solving the current problem or are facilitative in the new learning situation. Clearly, mindfulness at transfer involves as much mental work and effort as in strategy learning. That is why Salomon and Globerson (1987a, 1987b) expressively termed transfer as "dig out transfer." They wanted to emphasize that strategy transfer does not "pop up" spontaneously from students' instantaneous recognition of su- perficially similar perceptual cues.

The notion of insufficient mindfulness during strategy learning appears to explain the difficul- ties in obtaining transfer among students with LD. This is because the typical intervention with students with LD rarely permits them to engage in the kind of deep and intent thinking Salomon and Globerson (1987a, 1987b) advocated. Instead, students are herded to master strategy components. During strategy learning, therefore, after the intervention researcher has explicitly modeled the target strategy, students with LD may not have had the needed opportunity to fully reflect on and retrack for themselves the underlying principles in the strategy.

Moreover, rarely are students with LD given time or opportunity to reflect on their use of the strategy, in particular, the relationship between their strategy use and the subsequent successful learning outcome. When such opportunity was deliberately built into the intervention, subjects' transfer was greatly enhanced (Reid & Borkowski, 1987). More typically, however, the intervention researcher directs LD students' attention to the relationship between their strategy use and their successful learning, rather than having the students themselves spend time re- flecting on the consequence and relevance of their strategy use.

Absence of mindfulness at transfer may well explain weak strategy transfer among students with LD. This is because LD intervention researchers appear not to allow these students to play a pivotal role in mindfully discovering for themselves where they can apply the learned

Volume 17, Spring 1994 111



strategies and in actively seeking connections between prior learning and the new learning task (Resnick, 1989).

This situation is typified in learning disabilities interventions in which the intervention researcher instructs (tells) students with LD to transfer strategies, and discusses with them areas of potential applications of those learned strategies. Instructions and discussions to transfer learned strategies may have hortative rather than substantive effects on LD students' subsequent strategy transfer, because the latter have not been given transfer tasks on which to practice deep and intent thinking that results in transfer! The moral here is that intervention researchers must realize that LD students need to learn to think or to "dig" at transfer, rather than merely being told to transfer or being directed where to transfer learned strategies.

Based on these findings, clearly, there is a need to induce mindfulness during strategy learning among students with LD. To ensure reflective and active learning of principles underlying a strategy, we need to provide mediated learning (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) in mindfulness during strategy learning.

Feuerstein et al. (1979) defined "mediated learning" as an intervention by an adult or care- taker of a child, in which the adult deliberately structures the environment to focus the child's attention on a stimulus or activity. Specifically, the adult intentionally shapes the child's attention and behavior to promote optimal learning from the experience (stimulus/activity). S/he in- terprets the event for the child, and provides feedback on the child's behaviors. Feuerstein et al. (1979) believe that children must have mediated learning experiences in order to develop ef- ficacious and independent control of the environment. Moreover, they credit such adult- mediated learing experiences with producing in children an active and efficient attitude toward thinking and problem-solving (Feuerstein et al., 1979).

Because students with LD lack good thinking skills and learn best when given ample instructional scaffolding (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), inculcating mindfulness in them through mediated learning appears to be an appropriate instructional route. Moreover, because students with LD are passive learners and tend to avoid active participation in learning for fear of courting fail-

ure or being unable to repeat success (Covington, 1983, 1984), we need to help, coax, and show them that active learning or thinking hard can be rewarding. We may need to patiently model for them how to think system- atically during strategy learning in order to incul- cate progressively the desired state of mindfulness.

Without mediated learning and instructional scaffolding, it is unlikely that students with LD who lack habits of applying themselves at active thinking can reach the necessary state of mindfulness during strategy learning. Some suggestions on how the intervention researcher can mediate mindfulness in strategy learning and at transfer are provided in a later section of this article. A Problem in Inducing Mindfulness in Students with LD: Volition or the Will to Learn

Intervention researchers face a serious problem in trying to induce/mediate mindfulness in students with LD; namely, these students' volition or will to learn. It is widely recognized that students with LD have to learn that a planful, strategic approach to learning is more effective and that learning is effortful (Borkowski et al., 1989). But the question is: How do we persuade them to exert the necessary effort to learn cognitive and metacognitive strategies? This is a difficult question not only because of factors that impede strategy use (Borkowski et al., 1989), but also because of problems involving self-concept, self-efficacy, and maladaptive attributions in students with LD (Bryan, 1991; Licht & Kistner, 1986; Pearl, Donahue, & Bryan, 1986). These problems in their self-systems orig- inate from their repeated academic failures (Licht & Kistner, 1986; Torgesen, 1977).

Perhaps we need to begin by working on changing students' poor self-concept and low self-efficacy. A plausible way may involve explor- ing with them their notions of smartness or their implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). According to Dweck (1989), children who think intelligence is a fixed capacity (an entity view of intelligence) adopt performance goals; that is, they perform with a view of preserving others' good esteem of their abilities. Consequently, they avoid challenging tasks in case of failure, which they think would reduce their intellectual status in others' perceptions.




On the other hand are children with an incremental view of intelligence. They think intelligence is malleable and that the more one learns, the smarter one becomes. Hence, for them knowledge equates intelligence, and they are un- daunted by failure. Rather than discouraging them, failure energizes them to generate alternative strategies. These children's idea of intelligence leads them to adopt learning goals, which means they look to mastering given tasks (Dweck, 1989).

Although there is no direct research on ideas of intelligence in students with LD, anecdotal ac- counts by teachers relate that many of these students spontaneously say they are dumb. Clearly, we need to research this issue and how to change the self-perceptions of students with LD. If we obtain data indicating that students with LD embrace an entity view of intelligence, we would have the necessary rationale for designing interventions to change their viewpoint to the more adaptive incremental view of intelligence. For if they think intelligence equates knowledge, they would be more positively disposed towards learning, and we would be more likely to succeed in inculcating mindfulness in them during strategy learning and at transfer.

Because mindfulness in strategy learning and at transfer demands much sustained mental effort, the learner must possess the necessary volition that mediates such effort expenditure. Specifically, (a) s/he must maintain a task-ori- ented focus/intention and dispel impeding thoughts of prior failures, particularly failures at similar tasks; and (b) s/he must ward off distrac- tions from competing action tendencies, such as watching TV rather than working on current tasks (Kuhl, 1984).

Kuhl (1984) argued that volitional processes enable learners to engage in "action control" that directs and maintains their intentions in learning so that they are not distracted by irrele- vant thoughts of past failures or alternative courses of action. Kuhl (1984) also maintained that researchers have neglected these volitional processes, having focused exclusively on motivation (i.e., goals). Therefore, he basically suggested that we consider volitional processes (will to learn) in tandem with motivational processes (goals or goal orientation) in student learning.

Kuhl's thesis that volitional processes mediate learners' "action control" has merit when we

consider successful strategy learning in students with LD. These students have a history of academic failure (Licht & Kistner, 1986; Torgesen, 1977), which appears to impede their present academic learning and performance. Specifically, Kamann (1989) found that despite having mastered computational procedures involving fractions, children with LD persisted in poor test performance because they were over- wrought with anxiety stemming from previous test failures. That is, memory of past test failures engendered in them distractive, negative self- talk. After they were trained to generate appropriate positive self-talk to cope effectively with test anxiety through cognitive behavior modification, the same children with LD improved substantially in math tests, performing at a level comparable to that of children without LD (Kamann, 1989).

Clearly, we need to teach students with LD to cope with their past failures and to contain inter- fering thoughts that erode their task focus or concentration. In this way, we may optimize mo- bilization of volitional processes that mediate the necessary mental efforts at mindful strategy learning and transfer.

Fostering mindfulness in students with LD during strategy learning and at transfer. Just how do we intervention researchers in academic intervention research foster mindfulness in strategy learning among students with LD? The following scenario is intended as a guideline for developing experimental procedures in the instructional phase of an intervention study with students with LD. (We will assume that we have the ideal instructional ratio of one intervention researcher to 4-6 students with LD):

After the intervention researcher has ex- plained the rationale of the target strategy, and explicitly modeled it for the students with LD, she asks them to think about what she has said (the rationale) and to think about what she has shown them (strategy steps). She invites questions. Then she divides the students into dyads. Members of each dyad have to explain to one another the rationale of the strategy. The intervention researcher closely monitors the students' explanations to assess thoroughness of understanding.

Next, students return to the small-group instruction formation. They practice using the target strategy to perform a given task successfully.




When they have finished, the intervention researcher asks each one of them to think about how their successful performance can be at- tributed to their use of the learned strategy. Each student has to verbalize to the group his/her analysis of the relationship between his/her use of the learned strategy and his/her success at the first practice task. The intervention researcher would challenge students by asking why they could not succeed without the learned strategy. The students with LD would have to really think through their strategy use and justify it well.

At the end of this session of analysis and justi- fication of strategy use, the intervention researcher shares with the students with LD her own experiences in using the strategy, the efforts and frustrations involved, and the rewards of successful strategy-based learning or problem- solving. She continues to give two more tasks to them to solve or work on. At the end of each task, she repeats the process of making the students think about the relationship between their strategy use and their successful learning/performance outcome. Again, students have to verbalize to the whole group their own analysis of effective strategy use.

At this point in strategy learning, we may assume that the students with LD are progressing nicely in mindfulness of the rationale behind strategy use and the relationship between their strategy use and successful learning/performance outcome. The intervention researcher now moves on to induce or mediate mindfulness in using the various component steps (to avoid rote use of strategy steps/components). She again divides the group of students with LD into dyads. One student uses the strategy to work on a new task provided by the intervention researcher, while the other student helps and prompts him/her in strategy use. The former student is encouraged to use whichever strategy steps/components s/he deems fit (i.e., strategy modification is encouraged). However, the con- straint is that s/he must clearly explain his/her actions and must explain to the partner the prin- ciple(s) that underlies the working of the learned strategy. The second member of the dyad is encouraged to ask clarifying questions and make suggestions (e.g., "How about using strategy step 4 and leave out step 3?").

The intervention researcher closely monitors

these interactive dialogues in the dyads to make sure that the students stay on track and focus on the goals of being mindful about the underlying principles and the flexible use of strategy steps/components. For example, she may help the students with LD express themselves more clearly, "Do you mean..." "I see you want to tell Curtis you are combining the middle two steps to make a shortcut..." "I see you have knocked off the last step of self-checking because you've checked every step you've used." Or she may ensure that a shy student is not dominated by a more assertive partner: "Steve, you let Richard be. He does not want to use your suggestion." Or, "Ashley, Josh's explanation of the strategy principles is very good. It's clear enough, so don't keep saying you want more clarification. You two can move on to the next task now."

The above scenario of mediated mindfulness during strategy learning contains a blend of direct explanation, modelling, instructional scaffolding, and guided practice (Brown & Campione, 1984; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Gradually, the intervention researcher removes her instructional scaffolds and deliberately teaches and guides the students with LD to be their own teachers and mentors. It is important here that the transfer of self-regulation to students is gradual and is carefully monitored. At each stage of learning, students with LD are gauged in terms of their readiness for more self- regulation and self-direction in learning. Further, the intervention researcher is always at hand to ensure that students are progressing towards the instructional goals (e.g., that they have internal- ized appropriate ways of questioning in interactive dialogues through prior interactive dialogues with her) and to give immediate help when needed.

As mentioned, there is also a need for mediated mindfulness at transfer. I propose that intervention researchers provide students with LD practice in transfer tasks from which, under guided discovery, they can develop the kind of deep thinking that is necessary. More specifically, in pilot study, the intervention researcher can determine the approximate number of practice transfer tasks that subjects require to reach a designated level of mindfulness at strategy transfer. S/he may also experiment with the number of near- versus far-transfer tasks to be given for practice. Figure 1 illustrates how mediated mind-




fulness at strategy transfer can be carried on. The procedure illustrated in Figure 1 can be

repeated until the student with LD demonstrates sufficient mindfulness at the practice transfer tasks (i.e., reaches the criterion level of mindfulness designated by the intervention researcher). After a suitable interval, say a week, the students with LD can be given new transfer tasks to com- plete independently, and their strategy transfer assessed. The students' performance scores here constitute the dependent measure of strategy transfer. We predict that students with LD who had been given practice transfer tasks in mediated mindfulness will demonstrate substantially more strategy transfer than those without such training.

The proposed procedures for promoting mindfulness during strategy learning and at transfer among students with LD overlap with instructional procedures developed by Ellis

(1993), Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, and Clark (1991), and Ellis, Lenz, and Sabornie (1987a, 1987b). Specifically, the overlap occurs in instructional goals of strategy maintenance and transfer and in instructional procedures de- signed to meet those goals. Like Ellis and his associates, I emphasize the importance of ensuring that LD students thoroughly understand the rationale behind using a particular learned strategy as well as the functional relationship between appropriate strategy use and successful learning outcome.

The procedural overlap between the instructional approaches of Ellis and associates and the strategies proposed here should not obscure important distinctions, however. Clearly, Ellis et al. (1991) showed remarkable comprehensiveness in their consideration of teacher needs when designing the meticulous steps/procedures for im- plementing strategy instruction. In particular,


Mediating Mindfulness in Student Strategy Transfer

Given the first transfer task: The intervention researcher ptonipts the student with LD:

What do you make of this task? (Ascertaining student's understanding of task demands) Can you think aloud what you are thinking?

Student with LD:

I think this task is... Intervention researcher:

Can you see any relationship between this new task and the tasks you've worked through previously with me?

Student with LD:

Responds... Intervention researcher:

What are you thinking now? Tell me. What steps are you going to take in doing this task (or solving this problem)?

(If student with LD does not activate knowledge of learned strategy, intervention researcher will prompt) speificaly:

You remember the strategy that you've learned with me; can you use any of it here in doing this task/or solving this problem?

Student with LD is given time to think and act, and is asked to verbalize his/her thoughts and explain his/her action.

Figure 1. Illustration of mediated mindfulness in student strategy transfer.



they introduced an ingenious way of controlling student motivation to learn through collaborative goal-setting between student and teacher. But the conceptual underpinnings of these procedural steps appear thin. At best, Ellis et al. (1991) can point only to prior empirical work and posi- tion papers in instructional psychology (Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989; Roehler & Duffy, 1984) as support for their own instructional strategies.

In sum, Ellis et al. (1991) and Ellis (1993) ad- vocate for a bottom-up approach to strategy instruction and have presented teachers very useful teaching strategies. The source of their ingenious strategy designs is their own insights which, in turn, come from their experiences in strategy research and instruction. The combined skills and insights into strategy design of Deshler, Schumaker, Lenz, Ellis and Clark and their research associates are impressive, to say the least, and explain the comprehensive nature of the instructional procedures in the strategies they have developed. Nevertheless, the short- coming of inadequate conceptual base remains.

In clear contrast, the procedures proposed here provide broad instructional scaffolding for teachers and instructional researchers to induce mindfulness in LD students during their strategy learning at transfer. These broad guidelines have a clear conceptual anchorage in the work of Salomon and Globerson and Feuerstein. Moreover, the proposed strategy instruction leans clearly towards guided discovery, and towards fostering students' self-regulation through teachers progressively ceding control to them in the instructional process. By comparison, a scrutiny of the instructional procedures in Ellis et al. (1991) indicates the prominence of teacher control/structure.

In sum, the proposed approach to strategy instruction represents a unification of top-down conceptual and bottom-up procedural considera- tions. The efficacy of both strategy instructional approaches, Ellis et al.'s and mine, calls for in- tensive empirical testing, however.

TRANSFER-PROMOTING INSTRUCTION What new perspectives or fresh outlooks can

we cast on the perpetually nagging question of "How can we teach students (LD and normally achieving) so that we can enhance transfer?" I propose adoption of Larkin's (1989) notion of

teaching transportable general strategies in related domains in tandem with more domain-specific strategies.

Larkin (1989) illustrated her notion using the computer problem solver FERMI. FERMI contains a repertoire of general strategies that are (a) applicable to/across several related domains of knowledge, and (b) are separable from more domain-specific strategies within each of those domains. These two kinds of strategic knowledge: general knowledge/strategies, separable from specific domains, and more domain-specific knowledge/strategies are used by FERMI to solve problems. Larkin (1989) illustrated how FERMI tackles a specific problem by applying both kinds of knowledge/strategies to a typical problem in fluid statics. Two fluids, oil and water, with varying density form two layers. Both the densities of the fluids and the locations of two specific points are given. The problem is to compute the pressure drop from one point to the other with these points transversing the two fluids.

Knowledge specific to the domain of fluid statics is mobilized by FERMI to yield the computed product of pressure drop along a horizontal or vertical path in an area of homogeneous density. But this domain-specific knowledge applies only to pressure drop within one fluid state. Because the problem concerns pressure drop within two fluid states, water and oil, the domain-specific knowledge is insufficient for solving the problem. To resolve this problem, therefore, FERMI mobi- lizes general knowledge of two strategies: decomposition and invariance. The general strategy of decomposition applies to computing pressure drops along "alternative paths." Only with the combined use of general strategy knowledge and domain-specific knowledge can the problem in fluid statics be solved.

Although the illustrations in Larkin's (1989) chapter pertain to physics, her idea of transferable knowledge is potentially applicable to other areas as well. Essentially, she maintains that within a cluster of related domains of knowledge, it is possible to identify more general knowledge that can be applied to all of them. This more general knowledge is strategic in nature and separable from the more domain-specific kind of knowledge. Finally, it is this general strategic knowledge that is transferable or transportable across related domains of knowledge.




Larkin's idea of transportable general knowl-

edge can be applied to writing instruction in the following way. Specifically, I have the agenda task of teaching junior-high grade eight students three genres of writing: reportive essays, opinion essays and problem-solving expository essays. I ask myself: "What are the cognitive processes that are transportable/transferable from genre to genre here?" I can think of three broad categories of cognitive and metacognitive processes: planning, writing, and revising. Students need to activate these broad categories of processes to generate essays in all three genres. That is, they need to learn to engage and implement cognitive and metacognitive processes in planning, writing and revising. Consequently, I would need to devise broad-based strategies in planning, writing and revising for them.

Then I need to turn to the question of: "What are the cognitive and metacognitive processes that are more genre-specific and not intended for general transfer from genre to genre?" Here, I think of the characteristic of thematic salience

in reportive essays. For example, if the reportive essay is on "The best model of a car I can have," and a student chooses the Mazda 626, then s/he must make salient the theme of why the Mazda 626 in his/her view is the best model of a car to have. Such thematic salience must occur at the very start of the essay, be maintained throughout the essay, and be reiterated at the end.

Regarding an opinion essay, for example, "Should Canadians have been involved in the Gulf War?," the genre-specific characteristic appears to be the juxtaposed presentation of two clearly opposing viewpoints, and a well-reasoned reconciliation of the two at the end of the essay.

Regarding a problem-solving expository essay, for example, "Reforestation in British Columbia," the genre-specific characteristic appears to be the statement of the problem im- plied in the title: forestry is the major resource industry in British Columbia. However, logging has decimated forests at a much faster rate than tree growth produced by the local government's


General

Strategic Planning, writing

Knowledge

More Domain- Reportive Essay: Opinion Essay: Thematic salience. 1. Objective

Specific exposition of Knowledge two opposing

views.

2. Reasoned rec- oncilation of views.

Recursive processes

Figure 2. Transfer-promoting instruction in writing intervention.



reforestation program. Then follows the presentation of potential solutions, which the writer may choose to present in a descending or an as- cending order of usefulness/importance. The essay ends with a brief recapture of the problem and the suggested solution. The organization of the essay should be tight and coherent.

In teaching the three genres of writing: reportive, opinion, and problem-solving expository essay, I would first teach the students the three broad categories of cognitive and metacognitive processes: planning, writing (sentence genera- tion) and revising. I view these as broad, transferable/transportable strategies (Larkin, 1989) across the three genres. As I teach each of the three genres, I would teach the genre-specific characteristics as described above. And I would inform the students at the start of the writing instruction of the kinds of broad, transportable or transferable strategies that they would be taught to use for the three genres. I would further tell them that attached to these strategies, they would be taught more genre-specific strategies that are not transportable to the other two genres. Figure 2 captures schematically the division between general strategic knowledge and more domain-specific knowledge in writing instruction.

I believe the aforementioned instructional approach holds promise for fostering transfer. If we analyze our subject matter with the goal of clustering related knowledge domains, searching for transportable processes across them, surely we would be able to identify subsets of related knowledge domains that share certain mediating cognitive and metacognitive processes as well as more domain-specific processes. We can teach these transportable processes first and then use them as an anchor for more domain-specific processes. In the domain of physics, Larkin (1989) has shown how such an instructional approach enhances transfer.

EPILOGUE While students' metacognition and motivation

play important roles in strategy acquisition, maintenance, and transfer, other factors play equally important roles in an effective academic intervention for students with LD. One source of such factors pertains to the nature of instruction. If we focus on and succeed in teaching students with LD to apply "mindfulness" (Salomon & Globerson, 1987a, 1987b) in strategy learning

and at transfer, we would likely produce active learners and thinkers despite their learning disabilities. By participating actively in their learning, these students would attain a deeper level of understanding of their learned strategies from a constructivist viewpoint (Paris & Byrnes, 1989). And such qualitative understanding may well enhance future strategy transfer. Similarly, if we teach students transferable, general strategic knowledge coupled with more domain-specific knowledge in related knowledge domains, we may sharpen their understanding of strategy transfer. Thus, I emphasize the need for LD intervention researchers to instruct their students to engage in reflective abstraction of strategies learned, and to attempt transfer-promoting instruction.

Although students with LD need persuasion and mediation to develop mindfulness during strategy learning and at transfer, they can attain that kind of thinking. After all, intervention researchers have successfully taught them various kinds of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Scruggs & Wong, 1990; Wong, 1992). And although intervention researchers may need to spend time extracting and analyzing common strategic principles in their instructional con- tents, they can develop transfer-promoting instruction along the lines proposed by Larkin (1989). In sum, this article presents two new parameters to the study of what affects or pro- motes strategy transfer in students with learning disabilities. Empirical research is needed on the efficacy of these procedures.

REFERENCES Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, M.T., Milstead, M., & Hale,

C. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57-70.

Borkowski, J.G., & Turner, L.A. (1990). Transsituational characteristics of metacognition. In W. Schneider & F.E. Weinert (Eds.), Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance (pp. 159-176). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B.B. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1984). Three faces of transfer: Implications for early competence, individual differences, and instruction. In M.E. Lamb, A.L. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in de-




velopmental psychology (vol. 3, pp. 143-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryan, T. (1991). Social problems and learning disabilities. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 195-229). New York: Academic Press.

Campione, J.C. (1987). Metacognitive components of instructional research with problem learners. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 117-137). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Covington, M.C. (1983). Motivated cognitions. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 139-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Covington, M.C. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1). Student motivation (pp. 77-113). New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C.S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Ellis, E.S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content-area subjects to learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(6), 358-383, 398.

Ellis, E.S., Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1-24.

Ellis, E.S., Lenz, K., & Sabornie, E.J. (1987a). Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to natural environments: Part I: Critical agents. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 60-20.

Ellis, E.S., Lenz, K., & Sabornie, E.J. (1987b). Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to natural environments: Part II: Research into practice. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 623.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M.B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers (pp. 70-72). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1992). Self-instructional strategy development: Programmatic research in writing. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 47-64). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kamann, M.P. (1989). Inducing adaptive coping self-statements in the learning-disabled through a cognitive behavioral intervention. Unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser University.

Kuhl, J. (1987). Feeling versus being helpless: Metacognitive mediation of failure-induced performance deficits. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 217-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a com-

prehensive theory of action control. In B.A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (vol.13, pp. 99-171). New York: Academic Press.

Larkin, J.H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfer? In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 283-305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Licht, B.G., & Kistner, J.A. (1986). Motivational problems of learning-disabled children: Individual differences and their implications for treatment. In J.K. Torgesen & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Psycho- logical and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 225-256). New York: Academic Press.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Fulk, B.J. (1990). Enhancing academic performance with mnemonic instruction. In T. Scrugg & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 102-121). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Palincsar, A.S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Examining and influencing contexts for intentional literacy learing. In C. Collins & J.N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the 21st century (pp. 297-315). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paris, S.G., & Byres, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 169-200). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pearl, R., Donahue, M., & Bryan, T. (1986). Social relationships of learning-disabled children. In J.K. Torgesen & B.Y.L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 194-224). New York: Academic Press.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.

Reid, M.K., & Borkowski, J.G. (1987). Causal attributions of hyperactive children: Implications for training strategies and self-control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 225-235.

Resnick, L.B. (1989). Introduction. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roehler, L.R., & Duffy, G.G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In G.G. Duffy, L.R. Roehler, & L.J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 265-280). New York: Longman.

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987a). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-637.




Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987b). Rocky roads to transfer. Second annual report to the Spencer Foundation. Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University.

Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with LD: Results of a programmatic research effort. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 22-46). New York: Springer- Verlag.

Scruggs, T.G., & Wong, B.Y.L. (Eds.). (1990). Intervention research in learning disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Swanson, H.L., & Cooney, J.B. (1991). Learning disabilities and memory. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 104- 127). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Torgesen, J.K. (1977). The role of nonspecific factors in the task performance of learning-disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 27-34.

Weinert, F.E. (1987). Introduction and overview: Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 1-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1986). Metacognition and special edu-

cation: A review of a view. Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 9-29.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1991). The relevance of metacognition to learning disabilities. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 232- 258). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wong, B.Y.L. (1992). Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities. New York: Springer- Verlag.

FOOTNOTES 'Intervention researcher refers to a researcher engaging in instructional research. Typically s/he investi- gates the efficacy of a particular cognitive strategy of a "system of strategies" (cf. Ellis, Deshler, Schumaker, Lenz, & Clark, 1991) in enhancing students' learning and performance.

I thank Ruth Gamer and Phil Winne for their valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. I also thank Mrs. Eileen Mallory for her patient word-processing of the numerous versions of this paper. I also want to thank the two reviewers for their helpful comments.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Berice Wong, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Buraby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6.

Kennedy KriegerInstitute Postdoctoral Fellowship

in Developmental Disabilities

The Kennedy Krieger Institute, the Division of Child Development for the Department of Pediatrics Of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, offers a 12 month appointment for a Ph.D. or Ed.D. in Special Education at The Center For Learning And Its Disorders. The fellowship will provide the opportunity to enhance clinical evaluation skills, participate in interdisciplinary team discussion and didactic sessions, and contribute to ongoing clinical research projects in the evaluation, diagnosis, and management of children with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Specific Learning Disability, or other Central Processing Deficits. Send letter of application, curriculum vita, and three (3) letters of reference to Marjorie A. Fessler, Ed.D., Kennedy Krieger Institute Center For Learning And Its Disorders, 707 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205 (410-550-9880). EOE.




Documents

Instructional Parameters Promoting Transfer of Learned Strategies in Students with Learning Disabilities