Does a Production Deficiency Hypothesis
Account for Vocabulary Learning Among
Adolescents with Learning Disabilities?
might account for differences in findings. This suggestion is supported by
studies comparing
performance
across recall tasks, which indicated
that whether an individual uses a
strategy depends on the task (Johnson,
1985; Kail, 1979).
Criticism of the production deficiency hypothesis emphasizes that it is
rarely tested using school tasks (ShepPeter C. Griswold, Lynn M, Gelzheiser, and
herd, Gelzheiser, & Solar, 1985; TorMargaret Jo Shepherd
gesen & Licht, 1983). Jenkins, Heliotis,
Haynes, and Beck (1986) have stated
the problem directly: "The extent to
To test a production deficiency view oflearning disabilities, students identified as learn- which the passive learning characing disabled or normally achieving were compared on a vocabulary learning task. Sub- terization of LD students accounts for
performance on more natural school
jects studied a list of words and definitions and then took a sentence completion
tasks remains unproven" (p. 71).
vocabulary test. Subjects were not told how to study. The learning disabled group
Thus, the present study was delearned fewer words than the normally achieving group, as indicated by vocabulary
signed
to test whether a production
learning test scores. The two groups did not differ in the observable learning strategies
deficiency
would account for learning
used during the study period; the mostfrequently observed strategy was rehearsal with
disabled
students'
relatively poor perself-testing. For all subjects, strategy use did not accountfor vocabulary learning score.
formance
on
a
school
assignment that
Scores on standardized reading vocabulary and comprehension tests predicted
required
memorization.
The task of
vocabulary learning test score for the total group. The implications of these findings
memorizing
the
definitions
of new
relative to a production deficiency view of learning disabilities are discussed.
vocabulary words was chosen for
arclay and Hagen (1982) pro- first to observe that changes in the several reasons. Vocabulary learning
posed a production deficiency ability to recall are linked to increased is a common school task (Jenkins &
hypothesis to explain learning dif- use of memorization strategies. He Dixon, 1983) and a regular component
ferences between groups of students also observed that efficient strategy of science and social studies curricula
identified as learning disabled and use is acquired over time. Flavell used (Archer, 1979). In an informal survey,
normally achieving. They suggested the term production deficient to describe we asked 10 junior high school teachthat achievement in school requires children who did not spontaneously ers to identify assignments they gave
the use of learning strategies, and that use an appropriate strategy to mem- that required the use of memorization
the poor achievement of students with orize items for a recall test, but who skills; each specified vocabulary aslearning disabilities is a consequence responded to instruction to use a stra- signments (Fountaine & Gelzheiser,
1986). Finally, learning disabled
of failure to use strategies appropriate tegy and showed improved recall. Beto learning academic skills. Further, cause extensive instruction was not re- groups are less proficient at vocabuthey asserted that the achievement of quired to elicit a strategy, Flavell lary learning than normally achieving
students with learning disabilities concluded that the children had the groups (Pany, Jenkins, & Schreck,
1982; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1982).
would improve if they were taught to requisite skills but for some reason
use learning strategies. Torgesen failed to produce the strategy.
This study asked whether the failure
The concept of a production de- to spontaneously produce appropriate
(1977, 1980) proposed a similar hypothesis, characterizing students with ficiency among normally developing strategies for memorizing the definilearning disabilities as inactive learn- children arose from analysis of per- tions of vocabulary words would acers. Both of these hypotheses imply formance on laboratory recall tasks. count for differences between learning
that strategy use is influenced pre- Most of the evidence used to support disabled and normally achieving
dominantly by students' characteris- the production deficiency/inactive groups' performance on a vocabulary
tics or traits, and not by differences learner explanation of learning dis- test. The production deficiency/inacabilities comes from research that tive learner hypothesis predicts that
among tasks or strategies.
Both the production deficiency and used these same tasks (Torgesen & the two groups would differ in both
inactive learner hypotheses derive Licht, 1983). However, these studies strategy use and vocabulary learning
from Flavell's (1970) concept of a pro- differ in the extent to which they sup- test scores. It further predicts that high
duction deficiency. As normally devel- port the hypothesis (for a review, see vocabulary learning test scores would
oping children grow older, the amount Shepherd & Gelzheiser, 1987). Shep- be associated with the use of sophisof information they are able to mem- herd and Gelzheiser suggested that ticated learning strategies; low vocabulary learning test scores would be
orize increases. Flavell was among the differences across studies in tasks
B
Journal of Learning Disabilities
620
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
associated with the use of few and inefficient learning strategies.
METHOD
Subjects
Three school districts where teachers regularly assigned vocabulary
learning tasks were identified. These
districts were located in suburban
communities in New Jersey and Connecticut. From a pool of 53 volunteers
from these three districts, 38 eighth
graders classified as learning disabled
(26 boys, 12 girls) were selected using
criteria specified below. These students had been classified according to
the districts' interpretation of state and
federal guidelines for the identification of students with learning disabilities. They had been recommended for
special education programs consisting
of daily remedial language arts instruction conducted in a resource
room. From a pool of 148 volunteers
enrolled in middle-track English classes in one district, 38 normally achieving eighth graders (20 boys, 18 girls)
were selected using criteria specified
below. Normally achieving subjects
had never received supplemental, remedial, or special education.
A first selection criterion, designed
to locate subjects who did not know
the words on a vocabulary learning
test, was a score below 50% correct on a
vocabulary knowledge test designed
for this study. All 53 (100%) of the students identified as learning disabled
and 80 (54%) of the 148 normally
achieving students scored below 50%
correct on the vocabulary knowledge
test. Three other criteria were used to
select both groups of subjects: a verbal
IQ score between 85 and 130; a native
language of English; and no evidence
in school or medical records of hearing impairment, uncorrected visual
impairment, gross neurological impairment, or primary emotional disturbance. A fourth selection criterion
was the student's score on a standardized reading comprehension test obtained from school records. To insure
that the groups did not overlap in
achievement, subjects identified as
learning disabled were selected if they
scored below the 50th percentile in
reading comprehension, and normally achieving subjects were selected if
they scored above the 50th percentile.
Reading comprehension test scores
were not available for four students
identified as learning disabled. These
subjects were included in the study on
the basis of poor performance on
statewide reading competency tests.
IQ and achievement test scores were
obtained from students' school records. IQ scores were taken from tests
given within 3 years prior to the study,
and achievement scores from tests
given within a year prior to the study.
For subjects identified as learning
disabled, IQ scores were obtained
from the Comprehensive Tests of
Basic Skills (CTBS)(CTB/McGrawHill, 1978) or the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R)
(Wechsler, 1974); achievement test
scores reflected performance on the
CTBS, the Stanford Achievement Test
(SAT) (Gardner, Rudman, Karlsen, &
Merwin, 1982), or the California
Achievement Tests (CAT) (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1977, 1978). For nondisabled subjects, both IQ and
achievement test scores were obtained
from the CTBS. Mean IQ and achievement test scores for each group are
reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
For purposes of group comparisons,
these various tests were treated as
equivalent and scores were averaged.
The learning disabled group had a
lower mean verbal IQ score than the
normally achieving group, t (74) =
2.92,/? < .01, and a lower total IQ score,
t (74) = 2.97,/? < .01. On achievement
tests, the learning disabled group had
Table 1
Subjects' Intelligence Test Performance
CTBS
Learning Disabled
WISC-R
Average Score
Normally Achieving
CTBS
Verbal Test
Mean
SD
N
92.7
7.6
7
100.6
11.2
31
99.1
11.0
38
105.3
6.8
38
Total Test
Mean
SD
N
98.6
5.1
7
102.4
10.4
38
103.3
11.1
31
108.3
6.4
38
Table 2
Subjects' Reading Test Performance
CTBS
Learning Disabled
CAT
SAT
Average Score
Normally Achieving
CTBS
Reading Vocabulary
Mean
SD
N
24.0
12.3
9
35.0
17.1
12
22.6
9.0
13
27.4
14.1
34
72.8
13.6
38
Reading Comprehension
Mean
SD
N
23.6
12.3
9
25.1
10.8
12
20.5
14.3
13
22.9
12.4
34
72.3
15.5
38
Note: Scores are reported as percentiles.
621
Volume 20, Number 10, December 1987
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
a lower mean percentile rank on measures of reading vocabulary, t (70) =
13.91, p < .001, and reading comprehension, t (70) = 14.80, p < .001.
The learning disabled group also had
a lower mean score on the vocabulary
knowledge test designed for this study,
mean of 19.3, SD of 12.0, versus mean
of37.1,SDof 10.4,r(74) = 6.95,/? < .001.
The majority of subjects in both
groups had at least one parent rated as
professional or manager using U.S.
Bureau of Census (1981) descriptors
(64.9% of the learning disabled group
and 86.8% of the normally achieving
group). Eighty-nine percent of the
learning disabled group were Caucasian, and all of the normally achieving
subjects were Caucasian.
In summary, from naturally occurring groups of students classified as
learning disabled or normally achieving, subjects were selected according
to criteria established for a vocabulary
knowledge test score; verbal IQ score;
native language; sensory, neurological, and emotional development; and
reading comprehension test score.
These selection procedures were used
to insure that subjects in the learning
disabled group conformed to a uniform definition of learning disabilities. In spite of uniform selection
criteria, groups differed in vocabulary
knowledge and verbal IQ. Groups
were selected so as to differ in achievement, that is, reading comprehension.
Groups were allowed to vary naturally
in race, sex, and socioeconomic status,
given a lack of knowledge of a relationship between these variables and
learning disabilities. Of course, this
process of subject selection limits the
population to which the findings can
be generalized.
Materials
Materials were developed according
to the requirements of both the descriptive study reported here and an
instructional investigation not reported. A vocabulary knowledge test was
constructed for the purposes of identifying unfamiliar words and selecting
subjects. This was a paper-and-pencil
sentence completion vocabulary test.
The test included 96 sentences to complete that were divided into eight sets.
For each set of 12 sentences, subjects
were presented with a list of 12 correct
choice words, and three distractors. A
sample item is "The sad music makes
me feel
." (The correct response was "melancholy.")
The 96 words that were correct
choices were selected from the Scholastic Dictionary of Synonyms, Antonyms, and Homonyms (Scholastic
Book Services, 1965) as follows. From
a section of the dictionary containing
approximately 2,000 entry words and
their synonyms and antonyms, 48
words having a synonym and judged
among the most difficult were selected.
These words also met the criterion that
at least one of the first five synonyms
could be read by a third grader. From a
section of the dictionary containing
approximately 750 homonyms, 24
pairs of homonyms, judged among the
most difficult, were selected. This set of
48 words met a second criterion: Each
member of the homonym pair differed
from its mate in vowel orthography at
the middle or the end of the word.
Under this limitation pairs like nay
and neigh were included, while rap and
wrap were excluded. Words with synonyms and homonyms were selected
because of the requirements of the instructional study not reported here.
The 24 distractors were selected from
another dictionary (Morris, 1969).
Four equivalent vocabulary learning tests were developed, one for use in
this study. This vocabulary learning
test was designed to be used after a
study period to measure how well subjects recalled the vocabulary words
and their definitions, which they had
studied. It was a sentence completion
test containing 20 sentences organized
into two sets of 10; for each set, 10
words and no distracors were presented. To select eight words with synonyms and four homonym pairs for
the vocabulary learning test, the 30
words with synonyms and 14 homonym pairs on the vocabulary knowledge test missed most frequently by
the normally achieving subjects were
ranked according to the number of
subjects who used them incorrectly.
The first and every fourth synonym
and homonym pair were selected. Because of the requirements of the instructional study, four additional
words, not used on the vocabulary
knowlege test and without a common
synonym or homonym, were selected
from a dictionary (Morris, 1969).
Words were randomly ordered on
the test.
Other materials constructed for the
study included a vocabulary study
sheet containing the 20 words from the
vocabulary learning test, their definitions (taken from NewMerriam Webster
Pocket Dictionary, Simon & Schuster,
1970; Thorndike & Barnhart, 1979a,
1979b), and space for writing beside
each word and definition. An observer's checklist, used to record observations of strategy use, included a list
of study behaviors and space for recording study time and additional observations. An interview record included probes about studying and a
space for recording subjects' responses.
Procedure
The study was conducted in two
stages. During the first stage, the vocabulary knowledge test was administered and scored, the vocabulary
learning test was constructed, and subjects were selected for the second stage
of the study. In the second stage, which
occurred 1 month later, subjects studied words and their definitions and
took the vocabulary learning test.
All but three of the students identified as learning disabled took the
vocabulary knowledge test in groups
during their resource room period.
The normally achieving students and
three students identified as learning
disabled took the vocabulary knowledge test in groups during English
class. The teachers who gave the tests
told students that the purpose of the
test was to select words they did not
know in order to plan vocabulary
lessons. Students were encouraged by
the teachers to read the words listed in
each set to see if any were familiar,
and to try to use any words they knew.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
622
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Students read the directions, which
told them to complete sentences with
words listed in the set, using each word
only once. These directions noted that
there were 15 words in each set, but
only 12 sentences. Students were assisted in decoding upon request, but
otherwise read and worked independently. The students had as much time
as needed to complete the test.
In the second stage of the study, subjects worked individually with one of
12 trained examiners. Subjects were
told they would take another, shorter
vocabulary test that included words
from the first test and for which they
could prepare, that is, the vocabulary
learning test. They were given the
study sheet, and the examiner read
aloud the 20 words and definitions, instructing the subject to read silently as
the examiner read. The subject read
the words and definitions silently and
then the examiner reread the words
and definitions. The subject read the
words and definitions aloud, and
decoding errors were corrected. Limited evidence indicates there were few
decoding errors. Decoding accuracy
was recorded for 30 subjects identified
as learning disabled, who averaged 1.7
errors in reading the words and
definitions. Twenty-three normally
achieving subjects averaged 1.3 errors.
Subjects were then directed to study
for the vocabulary test, which would
have sentences to complete using
listed words. They were asked to study
in any way they thought would help
them to learn the words, and to tell the
examiner when they were ready for the
test. Pencils and a copy of the Scholastic Dictionary (Scholastic Book Services, 1965) were provided.
During the study period, examiners
recorded observations of strategy use
and study time. The vocabulary learning test was given immediately following the study period. Subjects were
then interviewed about how they
learned the words. Subjects were
asked to describe the way that they
prepared for the test, if they knew special methods to learn vocabulary, and
if they used different methods for different words. Responses were recorded verbatim.
Dependent Measures
changed the meaning of the definition, the omission was not considered
Two corrections were made to the to be condensation. Transformation
vocabulary learning test. First, the four was defined as generating words not in
words that were not on the vocabulary the definition to aid recall. Transforknowledge test were not credited be- mation included subject-generated
cause prior knowledge had not been synonyms, paraphrased definitions,
assessed. Further, subjects were not sentences using the test words, and
given credit on the vocabulary learn- words with the same root as the test
ing test for words they had used cor- word, for example, generating leeward
rectly on the vocabulary knowledge in studying the word lee.
test, as these words did not indicate
Subjects were credited with obvocabulary learning. Learning dis- served use of rehearsal and rehearsal
abled and normally achieving groups with self-testing on the basis of study
differed reliably in the number of behaviors noted by observers on their
known words included on the vo- checklists. They were credited with obcabulary learning test, t (74)= 2.53,/? < served use of letter-pattern matching,
.05, although the difference was not condensation, and transformation
large (2.23 words vs. 3.34 words). After through examination of notes subjects
correction, individual subjects could made on their study sheets that perlearn 8 to 16 words. Because the vo- tained to their unknown vocabulary
cabulary learning tests varied in words. To determine the reliability of
length, a vocabulary learning score wasexaminer observations, a random
reported as a percentage of a subject's sample of 10 students was observed by
unknown words that he or she learned two examiners, with 100% agreement
during the vocabulary study period. in observer ratings of study behavior.
The reliability of these learning tests of To determine the reliability of evidence
up to 16 unknown words was com- of study behavior taken from study
puted using vocabulary learning test sheets, a random sample of 10 study
scores and was indicated by a Kuder- sheets was rated by two examiners for
Richardson alpha of .81.
evidence of study behavior, with 100%
A second dependent measure was agreement in ratings.
observed use of vocabulary learnA third dependent measure was
ing strategies. Five dichotomous subjects' self-reported use of vocabcategories of vocabulary learning ulary learning strategies. Subjects' restrategy use were defined. A rehearsal ports of study behavior, as recorded on
strategy was defined as reading or writ- the interview record, were categorized
ing the words and definitions more into the samefivevocabulary learning
than once. A rehearsal with self-testingstrategies used for observed strategies.
strategy was defined as repeating or To determine the reliability of this
writing the words and definitions measure, a random sample of 10 intermore than once while looking away view records was rated by two exfrom the study sheet. Subjects credited aminers with 90% agreement in stratewith using rehearsal with self-testing gy ratings.
were not credited with using rehearsal.
The amount of time a subject chose
Letter-pattern matching was defined as to study on the vocabulary learning
underlining, circling, or placing in test was a final dependent measure.
quotation marks a match between a
spelling pattern in the word to be
learned and one or more of the words RESULTS
in the definition. For example, one
subject marked ex in the word explicit
Vocabulary Learning Score. Learnand its definition "clearly stated or re- ing disabled and normally achieving
pressed." Condensation was defined as groups differed significantly in the
omitting words from the definition, percentage of unknown words learned
either by rewriting the definition or by on the vocabulary learning test, 36.7%
underlining only selected words in the versus 67.4%, t (74) = 6.78,/? < .001.
definition. If the omitted words Groups also varied in the number of
Volume 20, Number 10, December 1987
623
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
the total group, there was 54.2% agree- learn a particular word, they learned
ment for rehearsal, 58.3% agreement 40% of the words to which those stratefor rehearsal with self-testing, 50.0% gies were applied, a level of accuracy
agreement for letter-pattern matching, not substantially different from the
10.0% for condensation, and 21.4% for group's overall accuracy rate of 37%.
transformation. This relatively low The normally achieving subjects who
level of agreement between observed used additional stategies learned 63%
and reported strategy use is typical of the words to which they applied the
Use of Vocabulary Learning Strate- (Schneider, 1985). It may be a conse- strategy, not substantially different
gies. Table 3 summarizes strategy use quence of limitations in both the ob- from the group's overall accuracy rate
for both groups. All but one subject servation system and subjects' ability of 67%. Evidently, use of additional
strategies was not more closely related
identified as learning disabled and all to describe how they studied.
to vocabulary learning score than use
of the normally achieving subjects
were observed to use either rehearsal or
Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning of other strategies. Use of additional
rehearsal with self-testing strategies. Strategies. Vocabulary learning score strategies did not alter rate of learning
One subject identified as learning dis- was not significantly correlated with for either group.
abled simply read the words and their observed or reported use of rehearsal
definitions once. Chi square analysis or rehearsal with self-testing, for the
Study Time. A Mest indicated that
indicated that learning disabled and total group, the learning disabled learning disabled and normally
normally achieving groups did not dif- group, and the normally achieving achieving groups did not differ sigfer significantly in the proportions ob- group, all ps > .05. Biserial cor- nificantly in the amount of time they
served to use rehearsal. Groups also relations are reported in Table 4.
spent studying, 7.97 versus 9.87 mindid not differ significantly in the proWhen subjects identified as learn- utes, respectively. Study time was not
portions using rehearsal with self- ing disabled employed an additional significantly correlated with the pertesting.
strategy of letter-pattern matching, centage of words learned for the total
Six subjects identified as learning condensation, or transformation to group, the learning disabled group,
disabled and seven normally achieving subjects made notes on their study
sheets indicating that they also apTable 3
plied another strategy at least once.
Proportions of Subjects using Strategies (Observed and Reported)
Learning disabled and normally
Learning Disabled
Normally Achieving
achieving groups did not differ in
the proportion observed to use
Observed Strategy Measure
letter-pattern matching, condensaRehearsal
39.5
36.8
tion, and transformation strategies, all
Rehearsal with self-testing
57.9
63.2
Letter-pattern matching
2.6
5.3
ps > .05. The number of applications
Condensation
10.5
13.2
of these strategies was small; the six
Transformation
10.5
18.3
subjects identified as learning disabled used these strategies in studying
Reported Strategy Measure
Rehearsal
34.2
31.6
a total of 25 words, and the seven norRehearsal with self-testing
42.1
36.8
mally achieving subjects used these
Letter-pattern matching
2.6
5.3
strategies with 40 words.
Condensation
2.6
2.6
Learning disabled and normally
Transformation
0
15.8*
achieving groups did not differ in the
proportions reporting use of rehears- * p < . 0 5 .
al, rehearsal with self-testing, letterTable 4
pattern matching, and condensation,
Correlations Between Strategy Use and Vocabulary Learning Score
allps > .05. They did differ in the proTotal
Learning
Normally
portion of students reporting use of
Achieving
Group
Disabled
Observed Strategy Measure
transformation, x2 0 , N = 76) = 4.52,
p < .05.
-.07
-.18
.09
Rehearsal
.08
.18
Rehearsal with self-testing
-.08
To compute the percentage agreement of occurrence between observed
Reported Strategy Measure
and self-reported strategy use, the
.11
Rehearsal
-.05
-.15
following formula was used: 100 X
Rehearsal
with
self-testing
.00
.07
.03
number of occurrences/(total observations — agreements on nonoccur- Note: All correlations are biserial correlations.
rence) (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1985). For
words learned, 4.97 words versus 8.47
words, t (74) = 5.89,/? < .001. A multiple regression equation indicated that
38% of the variance in vocabulary
learning score was accounted for by
classification as learning disabled or
normally achieving.
624
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
activity that could not be observed.
Differences in the strategy use reported by subjects and observed by exPredictors of Vocabulary Learning aminers provides some evidence for
Score. The best predictor of vocabu- this explanation.
Factors other than strategy use may
lary learning score was reading vocabulary score earned on standardized contribute to vocabulary learning
achievement tests, r = .66, p < .001 for (Levin & Pressley, 1985). Our findings
the total group, r = .33, p < .05 for the suggest that prior knowledge conlearning disabled group, and r = .36, p tributes more to vocabulary learning
< .05 for the normally achieving than memorization strategies as they
group. Reading comprehension scores are typically defined. Performance on
predicted vocabulary learning scores the vocabulary learning test was best
for the total group only, r = .62, p < explained by prior vocabulary knowl.001. For the total group only, vocabu- edge and reading comprehension
lary learning score was also correlated score.
with performance on the vocabulary
Specific features of the design of this
knowledge test, r = .50,/? < .001. IQ study may have influenced the findscore was not significantly correlated ings. Factors that were not controlled
with vocabulary learning score.
for in subject selection (such as race,
sex, socioeconomic status) or that
could have been controlled for
DISCUSSION
through matching (IQ, vocabulary
knowledge) may have influenced difThe results obtained in this study ferences in vocabulary learning. For
are not the results predicted by the example, if girls learn vocabulary
production deficiency/inactive learn- more readily than boys, the disproporer hypothesis. Specifically, although tionate number of males in the learnlearning disabled and normally ing disabled group might have reachieving groups differed in the pro- sulted in a lower vocabulary learning
portion of words learned during a score for the group.
brief study period, group differences
Another alternative is that the proin learning were not accompanied by duction deficiency/inactive learner
differences in strategy use or study hypothesis may be flawed. Current
time. Counter to the production defi- psychological theory (Brown, Bransciency/inactive learner hypothesis, ford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Jenstrategy use did not explain perfor- kins, 1979; Turnure, 1986) emphamance differences. In the paragraphs sizes the need for multidimensional
that follow, we describe certain factors explanations for performance, ackthat could account for these findings. nowledging the contributions of the
It is possible that differences in learner's characteristics and learning
strategy use in fact account for dif- activities, the nature of the materials to
ferences between the groups in vo- be learned and the test criteria, and the
cabulary learning, but that our mea- contributions of the intervention prosures of strategy use were not sensitive vided (Turnure, 1986). In focusing alto these differences. Specifically, it is most exclusively on learning activities
possible that the groups were using the such as strategies, the production desame strategies, but the normally ficiency/inactive learner hypothesis
achieving group used them more may not be sufficiently rich to account
fluently, or with a better understand- for the achievement deficits of stuing of the value of the strategy in learn- dents identified as learning disabled.
ing the words. Or, the normally
achieving group may have been using
strategies that our observation system ABOUT THE A UTHORS
did not detect. While it seems unlikely
Peter C. Griswold, EdD, is a resource room teacher
that subjects were using observable with theMilburn Public Schools, Milburn, New Jerstrategies that we failed to notice, it is sey. This study is based on his doctoral dissertation,
possible that they engaged in strategic completed through the Department of Special Eduand the normally achieving group, all
ps > .05.
cation, Teachers College, Columbia University. He
is interested in children's use of learning and memory strategies in the classroom. Lynn M. Gelzheiser,
EdD, is assistant professor in the Department of
Educational Psychology and Statistics, State University of New York at Albany. Her interests include
instruction designed to enhance strategy use, appropriate assessment, and mainstreaming. Margaret
Jo Shepherd, EdD, is associate professor and coordinator of the Learning Disabilities Program at
Teachers College, Columbia University. Currently,
she is interested in beginning reading instruction for
children who are at risk for reading disability. Address: Margaret Jo Shepherd, Box 223, Department
of Special Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York, NY 10027.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Eric Larsen, Joel Levin, and Robert Wozniakfor their thoughtful comments on drafts of this
manuscript. The research reported here was supported in part by a contract (300-80-0620) between
the Institutefor the Study of Learning Disabilities at
Teachers College, Columbia University, and the Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of
Education, through Title VT-G of Public Law 91230. A version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
REFERENCES
Archer, A. (1979). Reading instruction in the content
areas. In D. Carnine & J. Silbert (Eds.), Direct instruction reading (pp. 354-383). Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
Barclay, C.R., & Hagen, J.W. (1982). The development of mediated behavior in children: An alternative view of learning disabilities. In J.P Das,
R.F. Mulcahy, & A.E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and
research in learning disabilities (pp. 61-84). New
York: Plenum Press.
Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, RA., & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
understanding. In J.H Flavell & E.M. Markman
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1977, 1978). The California
achievement tests. Monterey, CA: Author.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1978). Comprehensive tests of
basic skills. Monterey, CA: Author.
Flavell, J.H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H W. Reese & LP. Lipsitt (Eds.),
Advances in child development and behavior
(Vol. 5, pp. 181-211). New York: Academic
Press.
Fountaine, M., & Gelzheiser, L.M. (1986). /Teacher
report of memorization requirements of the junior
high school curriculum./ Unpublished raw
data.
Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1982). Stanford achievement test (7th
ed.). New York: Psychological Corp.
Jenkins, J.J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L.S.
Cermak & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels ofprocess625
Volume 20, Number 10, December 1987
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
ing in human memory (pp. 429-446). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Jenkins, JR. & Dixon, R. (1983). Vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8,
237-260.
Jenkins, JR., Heliotis, J., Haynes, M., & Beck, K.
(1986). Does passive learning accountfor disabled
readers' comprehension deficits in ordinary reading situations? Learning Disability Quarterly, 9,
69-76.
Johnson, S. (1985). [Learning disabled, underachieving, and normally achieving adolescents' use of memory strategies on three recall
tasks]. Unpublished raw data.
Kail, R. (1979). Use of strategies and individual differences in children's memory. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 251-255.
Levin, JR., & Pressley, M. (1985). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: What's fact, what's fiction?
In R.F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual differences in
cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 145-172). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Morris, W. (Ed.). (1969). Dictionary of the English
language. New York: American Heritage.
Pany, D, Jenkins, JR., & Schreck, J (1982). Vocabulary instruction: Effects on word knowledge
and reading comprehension. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 5, 202-215.
Salvia, J, & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1985). Assessment in
special and remedial education (3rd. ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the
metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An
integrative review. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E.
MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Cognition,
metacognition, and human performance (Vol. 7,
pp. 57-109). New York: Academic Press.
Scholastic Book Services. (1965). Scholastic dictionary of synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms. New
York: Author.
Shepherd, MJ. & Gelzheiser, L.M. (1987). Strategies
and mnemonics go to school. In HL Swanson
(Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities,
Suppl. 2 (pp. 245-261). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Shepherd, M.J., Gelzhieser, L.M., & Solar, R.A.
(1985). How good is the evidencefor a production
deficiency among learning disabled students?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 553-561.
Simon & Schuster. (1970). New Miriam Webster
pocket dictionary. New York: Author.
Thorndike, EL, & Bamhart, C.L (1979a). Scott
Foresman beginning dictionary. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Thorndike, EL, & Bamhart, C.L. (1979b). Scott
Foresman intermediate dictionary. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman..
626
Torgesen, J.K. (1977). The role of non-specific factors in the task performance of learning disabled
children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10, 27-34.
Torgesen, J.K. (1980). Conceptual and educational
implications of the use of efficient task strategies
by learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 354-371.
Torgesen, J.K, & Licht, B.G. (1983). The learning
disabled child as inactive learner: Retrospects and
prospects. In J.D. McKinney & L Feagens (Eds.),
Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp.
3-31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Turnure, J.E. (1986). Instruction and cognitive development: Coordinating communication and
cues. Exceptional Children, 53, 109-117.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1981). Household and
family characteristics: March 1980 (Table 7). In
Current population reports (Series P-20, No. 366).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, DM. (1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In C.J.
Brainerd&M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in
children (pp. 189-264). New York: SpringerVerlag.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. New YorkPsychological Corp.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016