This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 16 October 2014, At: 03:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning DisabilitiesInternational: Overcoming Learning DifficultiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl19

COLLABORATIVE PEER WRITING GROUPSCatharine R. Whittaker a & Spencer J. Salend aa State University of New York , New PaltzPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Catharine R. Whittaker & Spencer J. Salend (1991) COLLABORATIVE PEER WRITING GROUPS, Journalof Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 7:2, 125-136, DOI:10.1080/0748763910070204

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0748763910070204

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COLLABORATIVE PEER WRITING GROUPS

Catharine R. Whittaker and Spencer J. SalendState University of New York at New Paltz

Recently educators have recognized the value of teaching writing by usingcollaborative peer writing groups. This article describes a variety ofcollaborative writing strategies teachers can employ within the foursubprocesses of writing: prewriting, drafting, revising, and publishing.Guidelines for teaching peers to work collaboratively also are presented.

To some educators, the term collaborative writing may appear to bean oxymoron. Whereas partners may conduct a scientific experimentor a group may construct a contour map, writers traditionally areexpected to labor alone. Until recently, this view of the solitarywriter also has guided writing instruction. Teachers chose a topic andassigned a specific length, frequently leaving students to discovertheir own strategies for producing a final draft. Without an under-standing of the writing process and specific strategies and support forwriting, many students relied on what prior experience had taughtthem about writing: Stay within the lines and spell correctly. Thosewho were not proficient at these skills often developed negative atti-tudes toward writing.

Recently educators have discovered that writing, like any othercognitive task, need not be a solitary activity. Because both readersand writers bring their own meaning to the text (Bartholomae & Pe-trosky, 1986), collaboration can facilitate and complement the writingprocess. Collaborative peer writing groups can be particularly effec-tive in facilitating the writing skills of students who have disabilities(Gilles & VanDover, 1988; Graham & Harris, 1988; Salend, 1990). Allcollaboration need not be highly structured, and learners can be en-couraged to use collaborative skills through a variety of peer-mediated strategies.

Peer-mediated strategies have several advantages that make themsuperior to individualistic approaches. Peer-mediated strategies canpromote group cohesiveness and cooperation and facilitate the devel-opment of responsibility to a group (Salend, 1987). Additionally, theycan foster mutual respect and learning among students of various

Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7:125-136, 1991 1 2 5Copyright © 1991 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

126 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J . SALEND

academic performance levels and racial and ethnic backgrounds(Sharan, 1980). Finally, because peers are a numerically larger re-source than teachers, peer-mediated strategies can help alleviatesome of the demands on a teacher's time.

In light of the educational value of using peer-mediated strategies,the purpose of this article is to describe a variety of strategies thatemploy collaborative peer writing groups. Research suggests thatwriting be taught through a four-step process approach (Bos, 1988;Calkins, 1986; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Graves, 1983); therefore wepresent peer-mediated strategies within these four subprocesses.

PREWRITING

The first step in the writing process is prewriting. In the prewritingstage, students identify the purpose of the writing assignment, createand categorize ideas, and determine the ways to present the materialto the reader (Englert & Raphael, 1988). Many students with disabili-ties have difficulty with this phase of the writing process (Graham &Harris, 1989). McArthur and Graham (1987) reported that studentswith learning disabilities spend less than 1 minute in planning theirwriting. Thomas, Englert, and Gregg (1987) reported that studentswith disabilities frequently employ a knowledge-telling strategywhereby they write all they know about a topic rather than differen-tiating relevant from irrelevant information about a topic. Further-more, because they do not pay attention to the order in which thecontent is presented, many students with disabilities produce writingthat is disorganized and difficult to read (Scardamalia & Bereiter,1986).

A peer-mediated strategy that can help students with disabilities toidentify topics and ideas is brainstorming. Although students writebest about topics they have chosen for themselves, brainstorming as agroup can trigger memories of individual experiences or understand-ings. Similarly, teachers can provide group experiences such as simu-lations, field trips, films, videos, interviews, music, sensory experi-ences, pictures, guest speakers, and oral readings of stories writtenby class members (Fleming, 1988; Tompkins & Friend, 1986; Whitt,Paul, & Reynolds, 1988) and ask the groups to discuss and plan towrite about the experience. In brainstorming responses to these ex-periences, students should (a) generate as many ideas as possible, (b)avoid positive and negative comments concerning the ideas gener-ated by the group, and (c) list all ideas generated, including those thatare redundant (Whitworth, 1988).

Once the group generates topics for writing, the group can orga-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

COLLABORATIVE WRITING 127

nize the product by developing an organizational structure. One typeof organizational structure is a semantic map, which is a visual dis-play of the key concepts and words that the topic comprises (Herre-man, 1988; Whitt et al., 1988). A semantic map can help students inthe group understand the interrelationships among the key conceptsidentified. Initially, visual graphics such as pictures or photos can beadded to the categories listed in the map to provide a concrete stimu-lus for students who have difficulty with writing (Kretschmer & Wan-del, 1989).

Because writing is inextricably linked to reading (Sternglass, 1988),students can develop ideas for their writing from reading. Studentsoften are asked to develop a written response to either fictional andnonfictional texts. Younger students can create their own stories bychanging the characters or their actions in a story they have heard orread. Predictable books are well suited for such rewritings (Newman,1985) because the group can easily generate a list of nouns and verbsthat fit into the repetitive lines and yet experience the satisfaction ofcompleting a meaningful story. One peer-mediated strategy that canhelp older students work together to plan their writing in the contentareas is Directed Reading and Writing (Cox & Woods, 1988). Theteacher first reads the selected text to students, and then they readthe passage silently. After discussing the text with the teacher, eachgroup generates questions concerning the information presented inthe text. These questions are discussed with the teacher, and theanswers to generated questions are outlined using an expansion grid.Next, the group writes a topic sentence based on information avail-able in the expansion grid and develops a paragraph outline. Finally,the groups receive feedback from the teacher concerning the topicsentence and the paragraph outline with respect to order and rele-vance and independently write a paragraph as a group.

In facilitating these prewriting activities, the teacher should askquestions that will cause students to identify the metacognitive pro-cesses underlying their responses. Queries such as "What did Dale saythat made you think of that idea?"; "Why do you think this shouldcome first?"; or "Should we list this under this category on the mapor start a new one?" can assist students in understanding their owndecision-making processes and learning from others.

DRAFTING

Students begin to write about the ideas in the drafting phase. Duringthis phase, writers attempt to organize and present their ideas inmeaningful sentences and paragraphs. Although it should not be ac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

128 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J . SALEND

centuated at this time, Bos (1988) suggested that writers also devotesome attention to grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Fleming (1988) proposed three models for employing collaborativegroups in the drafting process: the chunk model, the blended writingmodel, and the raisin bread model. In the chunk model, each groupmember writes a specific part (chunk) of the writing assignment. Forexample, if a group were writing a short story, different group mem-bers could be assigned to draft the exposition, the conflict, the risingaction, the climax, and the resolution. Blended writing requires thegroup to work together to compose and discuss each sentence in theproduct. Using this model, the group would agree on each sentence inthe story and have one member record it. The raisin bread modelallows one group member to transform the written products of indi-vidual group members into a larger group draft. Using this model,each group member would write a draft of the story and one groupmember would select the best parts of each group member's story toinclude in the group's draft.

Another example of the blended model is the discussion test. Thediscussion test can be used to promote group drafting for writingtasks such as answering study questions and writing letters to guestspeakers (Herreman, 1988). Students work in groups of four to sevenmembers to discuss and draft a response. Each group member mustpartake in the discussion, agree on the content of the group's re-sponse, and assist in the construction of the answer.

Students who are writing individual pieces often need the reac-tions of a group while they are in the midst of their first draft. Ashort time at the conclusion of each writing session known as "groupshare" is a way of soliciting comments from peers (Atwell, 1987). Atfirst, the teacher might ask all students to read the introduction oftheir stories without soliciting comments. This establishes a safe envi-ronment that demands little risk. Later, only a few students will readtheir works in progress and ask for their peers' reactions to issuessuch as the information included, the effectiveness of the introduc-tion or conclusion, word choice, or genre chosen.

REVISING

Writers should revise their products based on feedback from a realaudience. Whereas some students may be able to revise their ownwork, many students with disabilities will benefit from receivingfeedback from peers (Issacson, 1988; MacArthur, Graham, & Skar-voed, 1986). For example, because students with learning disabilitiesoften fail to include all of the critical elements of a writing product

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

COLLABORATIVE WRITING 129

(Graham & Harris, 1989), peer feedback can ensure that the writtenproducts of these students contain all the elements associated with aspecific type of writing task.

Initially, students may need guidance in offering feedback on writ-ing assignments. Thompson (1988) used a three-step model to teachstudents how to offer feedback on writing assignments. Teachers in-troduce group revision through demonstration and student role-playing. They monitor the students' progress and review strategiesfor revising and offering feedback. Finally, students discuss whatworked or did not work in their groups and what alternatives shouldbe considered.

Moore, Moore, Cunningham, and Cunningham (1986) proposedseveral guidelines for providing feedback through collaborative peerwriting groups. These guidelines include (a) directing initial feedbackon positive features of the written product, (b) presenting negativeaspects as questions, (c) providing feedback orally and in writing, and(d) offering the author time to react to the feedback given. Elbow(1981) recommended that groups provide authors with reader-basedand criterion-based feedback. Reader-based feedback refers to thereaders' reactions as they are reading the product. Criterion-basedfeedback deals with the mechanics and style of writing and includesfeedback deals with the mechanics and style of writing and includeselements such as paragraph development, sentence structure, wordchoice, and grammar.

In addition to training peers to give constructive and specific feed-back, writers will need guidance in accepting feedback construc-tively (Copeland & Lomax, 1988). Teachers can help structure therevising and editing process by establishing rules for accepting reac-tions from peers. Examples of such rules are as follows:

• Listen carefully to all comments.• Ask for feedback from as many individuals as possible.• Do not dispute another person's reaction.• Do not dismiss feedback from others.• Seek further clarification or examples if you do not understand

what your peer is telling you.• Check your understanding of the reader's reactions by paraphras-

ing the statements in your own words (Elbow, 1973).

At first, it is best to have peers offer primarily reader-based feed-back and later provide for criterion-based feedback. Taylor (1989)suggested that peers begin the feedback process by using a "say-back" technique, asking each group member to repeat a word or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

130 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J. SALEND

phrase that he or she particularly remembers or likes. As studentsbecome proficient in giving feedback, teachers can structure peerfeedback on individualized or group writing assignments by introduc-ing the author's chair (Graves & Hansen, 1983). When a student com-pletes a first draft of a product, he or she sits in the author's chairand reads the draft to peers. Peers then discuss positive aspects ofthe piece and ask questions of the authors about strategy, meaning,and writing style. Because some students with disabilities may needauditory feedback in order to identify errors in their writing (Espin &Sindelar, 1988), the author's chair strategy can be adapted so that theauthor listens to his or her piece as it is read by peers.

Sometimes it is appropriate for the feedback to focus on contentquestions but include grammatical or organizational questions thatrelate to recently taught skills. Copeland and Lomax (1988) suggestedthat teachers provide students with a response key that lists criteriathat peers should use in evaluating the product. For example, anabbreviated response key for a critique of a short story might containthe following questions:

• What did you like about the story?• Are the paragraphs presented in the correct sequence?• Does the author adequately introduce and describe the main char-

acters and the setting?• Is the plot clearly developed and explained?• Does the story have an ending that resolves the conflicts and

presents the outcome's effects on the main characters?• What about the story maintained your attention? (Salend, 1990).

Because the questions the students will need to address in evalu-ating a written product will vary depending on the nature of thewriting assignment, the response key should be modified accordingto the type of writing task the students have been assigned (Cope-land & Lomax, 1988; Salend, 1990). Additional guidelines and ques-tions teachers can employ to develop response keys are available(Mohr, 1984; Russell, 1983; Thompson, 1988; Tompkins & Friend,1988).

Criterion-based feedback can be given by peer editors (Tsujimoto,1988) or editing groups (Herreman, 1988). Tsujimoto (1988) advo-cated the use of peer editors whereby peers work individually toedit their classmates' writing assignments. Each student's product isedited by two peers and the teacher. Peer editors edit the papersusing different colored pens and sign their names at the bottom ofthe paper. The teacher then meets with the author to review the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

COLLABORATIVE WRITING 131

comments of the peer editors. In addition to grading the writer, theteacher also grades the editors. To facilitate the editing process, edi-tors and writers can be taught to use and understand the proof-reader's marks (Tompkins & Friend, 1988; Whitt et al., 1988).

Editing groups are similar to peer editors; however, the editing isdone by the group rather than by individual students. In editinggroups, each group member reads his or her paper aloud while thepeer editors follow along on a photocopy. Peer editors record theirreactions and comments on their photocopy and then present anddiscuss the written product as a group (Foley, 1988). With youngerand less proficient writers, it may be best to focus editing on no morethan two mechanical skills. These skills can be listed in a checklist ora record of frequent errors from previous writings. Herreman (1988)modified editing groups so that each group focuses on a specific as-pect of the written product. For example, the class is divided intofour groups: a punctuation group, a grammar group, a capitalizationgroup, and a spelling group. The written products are then reviewedby each of the editing groups, who provide feedback concerning itsarea of focus.

PUBLISHING

Few posters, newspapers, periodicals, or books are published by asingle individual. The layout and production of any piece of writingprovides many opportunities for students to work collaboratively.Whether the class wants to publish a book of poems, advertise a bakesale to raise money for the class trip, or produce a children's book,many tasks must be accomplished that involve a team effort. Theclass may first discuss what jobs will be necessary based on the sizeand type of publication. Then they will need to determine a systemfor job assignment: nomination and voting, volunteering, or randomchoice. Discussing these alternatives again provides excellent oppor-tunities for students to practice collaborative skills.

On small publications such as a letter to the editor, two studentsmay sit in front of a computer, taking turns typing and checking forcorrect format and typing errors. Larger publications such as a classnewspaper may involve a whole staff, including the editor-in-chief, amanaging editor, page editors and their layout assistants, typists,printers, collators, and distributors. The excitement that accompa-nies being in print is a strong motivator for reluctant writers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

132 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J. SALEND

TEACHING COLLABORATIVE SKILLS

Students with disabilities frequently lack the self-esteem and inter-personal skills important to collaboration. Therefore, just as studentsneed deliberate instruction in each of the subprocesses of writing,many students will need to be taught to work cooperatively. Onemethod teachers can use to assist students to work as a group is roledelineation (Schniedewind & Salend, 1987). Students are assignedroles that enhance the group's ability to work collaboratively. Forexample, task-oriented roles could include a recorder who recordsthe contributions of individual group members, a team leader whocoordinates the group's activities and decision making, and a readerwho reads the group's products. In addition, process-oriented behav-iors such as listening, responding, clarifying, and making proceduralstatements can be assigned to various group members, giving stu-dents practice in communication skills (Herreman, 1988).

Without revealing role assignments, the teacher can tell some stu-dents to be withdrawn or off-task so that the group has practice indealing with problem members as well. Or a specific skill such aslistening can be pinpointed. For example, Herreman (1988) suggestedthat teachers occasionally interrupt the group process, asking onestudent to summarize what has been said and state what should bedone next. Another alternative is to have all members write down asummary and compare their perceptions.

Students will benefit from occasionally analyzing or discussing theprogress they are making after a particular group session or writingstep has been accomplished. A specific way of providing such feed-back is processing, whereby the teacher queries the students aboutthe group's performance (Morton, 1988). For example, students canbe asked to reflect on their group experience by responding to gen-eral questions such as what did group members do to help the group?or what could the group do differently to make the group work moreeffectively? Booher (1988) provided specific questions for processinggroup interactions, becoming aware of a positive writing environ-ment, planning and drafting, monitoring progress, and recognizingattitudes toward writing.

Students also can offer their perspectives on how well the group isworking collaboratively through writing. To ensure shared responsi-bility, the group could maintain a process journal that specifies theroles and contributions of each group member (McCormick, 1988).The journal can be reviewed periodically to determine whether thegroup is working cohesively or to identify problems that need to beresolved. Similarly, students can complete evaluation sheets that ask

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

COLLABORATIVE WRITING 133

them to react to the roles and contributions of group members as wellas what the group could do to improve (Morton, 1988).

Collaborative writing does not imply that all writings and all partsof the writing process should be accomplished jointly. However, byslowly introducing various collaborative strategies first to partnersthen to groups, teachers can help students with disabilities to identifytheir own strengths, develop friends, express feelings and opinions,take on others' viewpoints and improve their writing skills (Crouse &Davey, 1989).

REFERENCES

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Reading, writing and learning with adoles-cents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. (1986). Facts, artifacts, and counterfacts:Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Upper Montclair,NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Booher, E. K. (1988). A writing teacher's guide to processing small-groupwork. In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 43-46). Ur-bana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bos, C. S. (1988). Process-oriented writing: Instructional implications formildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 521-527.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Copeland, J. S., & Lomax, E. D. (1988). Building effective student writing

groups. In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 99-104).Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Cox, J. P., & Woods, E. (1988). Directed reading and writing. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 20, 33-35.

Crouse, P., & Davey, M. (1989). Collaborative learning: Insight from our chil-dren. Language Arts, 66, 756-766.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Pro-

cess, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54,513-520.

Espin, C. A., & Sindelar, P. T. (1988). Auditory feedback and writing: Learn-ing disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 55, 45-51.

Fleming, M. B. (1988). Getting out of the writing vacuum. In J. Golub (Ed.),Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 77-84). Urbana, EL: National Councilof Teachers of English.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Foley, M. (1988). Revising response groups. In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on col-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

134 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J. SALEND

laborative learning (pp. 117-122). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teach-ers of English.

Gilles, C., & VanDover, M. (1988). The power of collaboration. In J. Golub(Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 29-34). Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1988). Instructional recommendations forteaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54,506-512.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Improving learning disabled students'skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Excep-tional Children, 56, 201-214.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. H., & Hansen, J. (1983). The author's chair. Language Arts, 60,176-183.

Herreman, D. (1988). None of us is as smart as all of us. In J. Golub (Ed.),Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 5-12). Urbana, IL: National Councilof Teachers of English.

Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantita-tive measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528-534.

Kretschmer, R. E., & Wandel, J. E. (1989, November). Some applications oflinguistics and metacognition in the classroom: Reading, writing andvocabulary development. Paper presented at the meeting of the New YorkState Federation of Chapters of the Council for Exceptional Children, Sar-atoga Springs, NY.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' compos-ing under three methods of text comprehension: Handwriting, word pro-cessing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.

MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Skarvoed, J. (1986). Learning disabled stu-dents' composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and wordprocessing (Tech. Rep. No. 109). College Park, MD: Institute for the Studyof Exceptional Children and Youth.

McCormick, V. (1988). The sound of music: A harmonious meeting of minds.In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 117-122). Urbana,IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Mohr, M. M. (1984). Revision: The rhythm of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ:Boynton/Cook.

Moore, D. W., Moore, S. A., Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (1986).Developing teachers and writers in the content areas. White Plains, NY:Longman.

Morton, T. (1988). Fine cloth, cut carefully: Cooperative learning in BritishColumbia. In J. Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 35-42).Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Newman, J. M. (1985). Whole language: Theory in use. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

COLLABORATIVE WRITING 135

Russell, C. (1983). Putting research into practice: Conferencing with youngwriters. Language Arts, 60, 333-340.

Salend, S. J. (1987). Group-oriented behavior management strategies. Teach-ing Exceptional Children, 20, 53-55.

Salend, S. J. (1990). Effective mainstrearning. New York: Macmillan.Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In

M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778-803).New York: Macmillan.

Schniedewind, N., & Salend, S. J. (1987). Cooperative learning works. Teach-ing Exceptional Children, 19, 22-25.

Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: Recent methods and effectson achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of EducationalResearch, 50, 241-272.

Sternglass, M. (1988). Strengths and limitations of seeing reading and writingas cognitive processes. In C. J. Reynolds & J. Z. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceed-ings of a conversation in the disciplines: Writing models and programsfor the learning disabled college student (pp. 3-15). New Paltz, NY: StateUniversity of New York/The College at New Paltz.

Taylor, D. F. (1989, November). Portfolio evaluation and group share: Mak-ing the most of your students' best. Paper presented at the 95th annualconvention of the National Council of the Teachers of English, Baltimore.

Thomas, C. C., Englert, C. S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors andstrategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Reme-dial and Special Education, 8, 21-30.

Thompson, E. H. (1988). Ensuring the success of peer revision groups. In J.Golub (Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 109-116). Urbana: IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

Tompkins, G. E., & Friend, M. (1986). On your mark, get set, write! TeachingExceptional Children, 18, 82-89.

Tompkins, G. E., & Friend, M. (1988). After the students write: What's next?Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 4-9.

Tsujimoto, S. E. (1988). Partners in the writing process. In J. Golub (Ed.),Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 85-92). Urbana, IL: National Councilof Teachers of English.

Whitt, J., Paull, P. V., & Reynolds, C. J. (1988). Motivating reluctant learnersto write. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 36-39.

Whitworth, R. (1988). Collaborative learning and other disasters. In J. Golub(Ed.), Focus on collaborative learning (pp. 13-20). Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.

About the authors Catharine R. Whittaker, Ph.D., is an assistantprofessor of special education at the State University of New York atNew Paltz. She has published articles dealing with curriculum andbehavior management strategies for students with disabilities. Herresearch interests include application of cooperative learning strate-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

136 C. R. WHITTAKER AND S. J. SALEND

gies to the academic and social behavior of students with mild disabil-ities.

Spencer J. Salend, Ph.D., is a professor of special education of theState University of New York at New Paltz. He has published numer-ous articles on mainstreaming and is the author of Effective Main-streaming. His research interests include the use of peer-mediatedinterventions and the delivery of special education services to mi-grant students.

Request reprints from Catharine R. Whittaker, SUNY at New Paltz, Room 307,Old Main Bldg., New Paltz, NY 12561.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 03:

28 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014