See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247498928

Enhancing the Oral Narratives of Children with

Learning Disabilities

Article  in  Reading and Writing Quarterly · August 2007

DOI: 10.1080/10573560701501610

CITATIONS READS

29 1,115

4 authors, including:

Rebecca Nathanson Karen J. Saywitz

University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of California, Los Angeles
13 PUBLICATIONS   495 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   2,953 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karen J. Saywitz on 16 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23: 315–331, 2007
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1057-3569 print=1521-0693 online
DOI: 10.1080/10573560701501610

ENHANCING THE ORAL NARRATIVES OF CHILDREN

WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES

Rebecca Nathanson
Joe N. Crank

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Karen J. Saywitz

University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA

Erica Ruegg

Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA

Oral narration is a ubiquitous activity that is essential for academic

success and social competency. Research into the oral narratives of
children with learning disabilities (LD) indicates that these children
verbally report significantly less information about past events than
children without LD. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of
narrative elaboration training (NET), an instructional program aimed
at aiding in the organization and retrieval of information about a past
event. A post-test-only control group design was utilized to evaluate
treatment effects on learning-disabled children’s completeness and accu-
racy of statements regarding the details about a past event. Thirty-nine 7-
to 12-year-old children with LD participated in small groups in a staged
event (history lesson). Two weeks later, they were randomly assigned to
participate in one of two treatment conditions before being interviewed
about the history lesson: NET, the experimental condition; or motivating

Address correspondence to Rebecca Nathanson, UNLV Boyd School of Law, 4505

Maryland Parkway, Box 451003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-1003, USA. E-mail: rnathans@unlv.
nevada.edu

315
316 R. Nathanson et al.

instructions, the control condition. Analysis showed that the narratives

of students who were taught the narrative elaboration procedure
contained significantly more information about the prior event than
the narratives of the children in the control group. The implications
of these results are discussed.

Oral narration is an essential language-based activity for academic

and social success both in and out of the classroom (Scott & Windsor,
2000). For example, effective oral narration is necessary for the com-
mon activities of story telling or giving accounts of events in which
individuals have participated (Garnett, 1986; Wiig, 1993). Narratives
are used for activities such as ‘‘show and tell’’ or describing weekend
or world events to friends or teachers. Bloome, Katz, and Champion
(2003) refer to narration as ‘‘ubiquitous’’ and present a strong case
for the importance of narration for academic success. Garnett
(1986) posits that narration is a carrier of culture and proposes that
oral narration is a fundamental mode on which humans develop their
versions of reality. According to Longacre (1990), oral narration is a
discourse of an account of events, usually in the past, that describes a
series of events that are contingent upon each other and focuses on
a performer of actions. Folk stories, historical events mythology,
and personal experiences are general examples of narrative text. In
this article, we studied a form of narration defined as providing ver-
bal accounts about a past event of which the student has experienced.
Proficient narration has been shown to be important in several
contexts. In the school setting, the research on narration has
largely related to the written expression and reading comprehen-
sion genres of narration rather than the spoken or verbal form
(see De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Graham & Harris, 1993). There
is considerable research linking oral narration and academic skills.
In a research study of children’s narrative production, Kaderavek
and Sulzby (2000) reviewed the literature and concluded that
oral narrative skills are a bridge that links children’s oral language
and reading, a penultimate academic skill. The relationship between
academic success and narrative ability has also been demonstrated,
at least in part, by research showing that children with learning dis-
abilities have continuing difficulties over time in narrative production
(Feagans & Short, 1984). Also supporting the underlying contention
about the link between narrative abilities and academic progress,
Feagans and Applebaum (1986) make the case that narrative
ability is one of the best predictors of school success for children
with LD.
Enhancing Narrative Skills 317

According to Hughes, McGillvray, and Schmidek (1997), limita-

tions in providing complete oral narratives can lead to academic
problems. For example, limited oral narration may indicate that
a child has not comprehended a reading assignment or understood a
teacher’s instructions. In a broad sense, narration is essential for
discussion and to show comprehension. Bloome et al. (2003) studied
the oral narratives of young African-American children and the man-
ner in which narratives are evaluated. They state that narratives are
a major vehicle by which teachers evaluate children’s knowledge.
Moreover, they make a strong argument for the importance of
narration in building social relationships and identities. Children
and teachers also use narration as the medium by which social or per-
sonal problems are addressed and potentially resolved, as exemplified
in the surface counseling process (Crank, Deshler, & Schumaker,
1990), where children’s full narrative accounts of past events are
necessary for problem solving.
Oral narration has been a focus of considerable research related to
children’s testimony in criminal of civil legal proceedings, where com-
plete and accurate accounts of prior events are necessary (Saywitz &
Snyder, 1996). These researchers suggest that children’s ability to give
complete narratives of past events is impeded by impoverished
memory strategies for retrieving and organizing event details, often
referred to as scripts. To address deficiencies in strategies and scripts,
Saywitz and Snyder (1996) developed a strategy, called narrative
elaboration training (NET), to enhance the narrative accounts of
children about a past event. This instructional program is used to
teach children a strategy for retrieving details of an event by organiz-
ing the elements of the event into categories. These categories are
derived from script theories (Stein & Glen, 1978) and are thought
to be salient constructs that guide event recall (Mandler & Johnson,
1977). Several studies have shown that NET significantly increases
the completeness and accuracy of recall about a past event in children
without disabilities in the forensic context (Comparo, Wagner, &
Saywitz, 2001; Dorado & Saywitz, 2001; Saywitz & Snyder, 1996;
Saywitz, Snyder, & Lamphear, 1996). In the current study, we have
chosen to investigate the usefulness of the strategy for children with
learning disabilities. It should be noted that other models have been
developed for promoting language competence based on a meta-
cognitive or strategy approach. A good example is Wiig’s (1989)
Level of Competence Model. This model features four levels: basic
training; extension to pragmatic uses; extension media, participants,
and contexts; and self-directed training. Wiig has also proposed a
micromodel for language strategy training and student learning of
318 R. Nathanson et al.

five hierarchical steps. This model, The Process Model for Strategy
Development, for example, includes steps to identify context in
problem solving and self-monitoring.

ORAL NARRATION IN CHILDREN WITH LD

Oral narration appears to be more problematic for children with

learning disabilities (LD) as compared to their non-disabled peers
(Lerner, 1997). In a study comparing children with LD to a group
of children without LD, Scott and Windsor (2000) found that chil-
dren with LD performed lower than their non-LD peers in relation
to elements of spoken exposition (narration) such as pragmatics.
Roth (1986) also suggested that these students were not able to cor-
rectly use components of narration such as semantics and pragmatics.
Wiig (1993) also found limitations in the communication of many
children with LD, stating that there is a higher incidence of such pro-
blems in children with LD. In fact, it has been estimated that 90% of
children with LD exhibit mild to moderate language deficits (Gibbs &
Cooper, 1989).
When children lack narrative content in their conversations or
pronouncements, they are perceived as being less effectual, both aca-
demically and socially (Bloome et al., 2003). Lack of narrative con-
tent manifests itself in telling less information from stories children
have read or listened to, sharing fewer details about videotapes or
shows that have been viewed, or reporting fewer details about events
in which children have participated.
A cognitive view is widely accepted in understanding the reasons
for apparent deficits in narration. Accordingly, students do not actu-
ally lack the abilities by which to give full narrative accounts; rather,
they lack the strategies for organizing and delivering narratives.
Indeed, a general characteristic of many students with LD is that
they possess deficient strategies or manifest poor use of strategies
for accomplishing many tasks (e.g., academic tasks; see Deshler &
Schumaker, 1993). Wiig (1993) applied the principle of meta-
cognition to an understanding of spoken language (narration), stat-
ing that limitations in language describing past events is a result of
a lack of strategies for recounting these events. Fivush (1993) also
suggested that children’s narratives are often impoverished due to
limited strategies for attention, retrieval, and retention of event facts.
In summation, students such as those with learning disabilities
who do not demonstrate effective cognitive strategies may experience
difficulty developing into competent academic individuals (Hunt &
Enhancing Narrative Skills 319

Marshall, 2002). Underlying our study is the contention that children

who do not use effective narrative strategies and produce deficient
narratives are judged poorly regarding their competence.
In the legal context, NET has shown to be an effective method by
which to enhance children’s narratives of past events in the legal form
of testimony. NET utilizes several elements of ‘‘best practice’’ teach-
ing in assuring that the child learns and uses the strategy. For
example, NET ‘‘chunks’’ information about prior events into four
categories, thus simplifying the manner in which children recall event
details. NET also uses visual depictions for organizing the categorical
information. These methods of using graphic and visual adjuncts
have been well documented in the literature for students with learning
disabilities (Crank & Bulgren, 1993; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1998) as
well as for non-disabled learners (Saywitz & Snyder, 1996; Vekiri,
2002).
Although NET has been shown to enhance the narrative accounts
of children without learning disabilities in the legal context, the effec-
tiveness of this strategy has not been documented with children with
LD. In the legal context, complete and accurate oral narrative
accounts are imperative in providing testimony. Increases in accurate
free recall without distortions (errors) reduces the need for extensive
follow-up questioning that often leads to complex issues of suggest-
ibility. In the present study, free recall and errors were also evaluated.
Because much recall in the academic context is based on the recall of
non-fictional information, it is believed that these measures are
appropriate for this arena as well. It is hypothesized that children
who receive NET will provide more complete and accurate oral
narratives about a past event than children who receive motivating
instructions (control) only.

METHOD

Participants

Thirty-nine children identified as LD by their school district partici-

pated in this study. Due to the difficulties in establishing valid and
useful sub-groupings of LD children (Keogh, 1982) and the
challenges for researchers focusing on children with LD that arise
from the issue of heterogeneity (Rosenberg et al., 1993; Segal &
Wolf, 1993), this study provides a comprehensive description of the
participants according to guidelines recommended by the Research
Committee for the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD).
320 R. Nathanson et al.

The school district in which the participants of this study were

enrolled utilizes the definition of Specific Learning Disablity stated
in the Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 388. 117 (2006) to
identify children with a specific learning disability. This code defines
specific learning disability as

a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes

involved in understanding or using spoken or written language which
is not primarily the result of a visual, hearing, or motor impairment,
mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, or an environmen-
tal, cultural, or economic disadvantage. The disorder may manifest
itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or perform mathematical calculations. The disorder includes without
limitations, such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury,
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

All participants had the commonality of being eligible as learning

disabled per the state’s administrative code.
Complete assessment data were available for 32 of the 39 children
who participated in this study. Assessments utilizing the Wechsler
Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC III) revealed full-scale intelli-
gence scores ranging from 86 to 110, with a mean of 98.2. The
Wechsler Individual Achievement Tests (WIAT) was utilized to
assess achievement levels. Academic skill information is presented in
Table 1. All subjects showed a significant discrepancy in at one area,
and 47% of the children who participated in this study demonstrated
a severe discrepancy in more than one academic area. Thirty-eight
percent of the children demonstrated a severe discrepancy in written
expression; 53% demonstrated a severe discrepancy in basic reading;

Table 1. Achievement data from 32 of the 39 study participants

Percentage of sample exhibiting

Academic area Discrepancy (%) Min. SS Max. SS Mean SS SD

Written expression 38 59.00 106.00 82.73 11.05

Basic reading 53 67.00 103.00 84.53 8.91
Reading comprehension 25 71.00 114.00 88.55 10.52
Mathematics calculations 41 70.00 111.00 89.66 11.52
Mathematics reasoning 09 74.00 124.00 96.28 11.53

Note. Forty-seven percent of the children who participated in the study demonstrated a
severe discrepancy in more than one academic area.
Enhancing Narrative Skills 321

25% demonstrated a severe discrepancy in reading comprehension;

41% demonstrated a severe discrepancy in mathematics calculations;
and 9% of the children demonstrated a severe discrepancy in math-
ematics reasoning.
All of the students were educated in the general education classroom
and in the resource room for part of the day. They spent an average of
12.5 hours per week receiving support from the resource room teacher.
The age of the participants ranged from 7 years old to 12 years old
(M ¼ 10.4). There were 26 males and 13 females. Seventeen of the stu-
dents were identified as Anglo, 13 Hispanic, 4 African-American, and
5 were identified as other. The participating children were considered
middle socioeconomic status. The students were recruited through their
individual schools for participation in the study, and written informed
consent was obtained from a parent or legal guardian.

Design and Procedure

A post-test-only control group design was utilized to evaluate

treatment effects on children with LD’s completeness and accuracy
of details about a past staged event. This design was chosen because
it eliminates the possible contamination of practice effects from
repeated testing as could be presented in a pre=post-test design.
Moreover, this design includes the most adequate assurance of a lack
of initial biases between groups, randomization (Campbell & Stanley,
1963). The children in the present study were randomly assigned
to treatment groups. Additionally, all children were individually
administered the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning
(WRAML) to assess their baseline memory and language skills to
ensure that the treatment and control groups were comparable in
their memory and language skills prior to intervention.
A classroom lesson served as the stimulus event for the experiment.
Children in groups of six to eight participated in a 30-minute history
lesson about Mexico in a classroom at their school. The lesson was
taught from a written script by a research assistant who served as a
teacher confederate. The confederate rehearsed the history lesson
before teaching it and taught each lesson utilizing the script. All
lessons were videotaped so that the student’s statements about the
lesson could be accurately evaluated. Thus, if the teacher deviated
from the script, any deviations were noted and children’s statements
about the lesson event were compared to the videotape of the staged
event they participated in as opposed to the script of the event.
To further enhance ecological validity of the setting and activity,
322 R. Nathanson et al.

the children were not told in advance that they would be questioned
about the event.
Two weeks after the history lesson, the subjects were randomly
assigned to one of two treatment conditions: Narrative Elaboration
Training (NET), the experimental condition, or motivating instruc-
tions, the control condition. They then participated in two 30-minute
individual treatment or control sessions, two days apart, with a
research assistant. The research assistant practiced teaching the
NET strategy and motivating instructions prior to teaching the chil-
dren and utilized scripted lessons to teach the experimental or control
strategies (NET or motivating instructions). An analysis of teacher
effects on children’s recall data did not yield significant differences.
Immediately following the second session, the same research
assistant who taught the NET strategy or motivating instructions
interviewed each child about the lesson content and associated activi-
ties of the stimulus lesson in which they participated in two weeks
prior. Before the questioning ensued, the children were told that
the interviewer had little knowledge of what occurred during the
prior even. At the conclusion of the interview, the children were com-
plimented for their effort and thanked for their participation, and
they returned to class.

History Lesson

A 30-minute history lesson about Mexico was used as a stimulus

event for evaluating the students’ narratives of the event. A research
assistant teacher confederate taught the lesson, which included a
lecture, a craft activity, a song, and a folk dance. The lesson was
complex with four distinct episodes and rich in detail and action.
Each lesson was videotaped for later comparison to the children’s
verbal narrative about details of the lesson.
This pre-developed and rehearsed lesson was essential for the
examination of the effectiveness of NET on the narrative reports of
children about a past event they had experienced. It allowed for a
structured and accurate evaluation of the students’ memories for the
actual details of the lesson. This live event, rather than video or writ-
ten vignettes, was used because of its social validity in that the event is
interactive, personal, and more proximal to the reality of a classroom.

Treatment Conditions: NET

NET is an instructional program aimed at enhancing the recall of

previous events through the use of visual cues to four categories
Enhancing Narrative Skills 323

of information. These visual cues, referred to as ‘‘reminder signs,’’ are

forms of information organizers and are generic in character in order
to be useful across different settings and situations germane to the
details of prior events. A modification of the steps of acquisition
(Deshler and Schumaker, 1993) was used to teach the NET strategy.
This instructional process has been shown to be an effective means by
which to teach academic and cognitive strategies to children with LD.
Rationale
The students with LD were given an explanation of the value and
reasons for using the NET strategy. In brief, they were told, for
example, that just as writing something on paper helps them to remem-
ber things they have been taught, there are also better ways to remember
and tell about things they have seen or activities they have been part of.
Description
The students were given a verbal description of the NET strategy.
The four information categories (i.e., participant characteristics,
setting details, actions and behaviors, and conversation=affective
states) were described. The cue card depictions (see Figure 1) of each
category were described. For example, children were shown the ‘‘par-
ticipant’’ card and told, ‘‘This is the people card. When you tell about

Figure 1. Sample of reminder cards utilized in narrative elaboration training.

324 R. Nathanson et al.

things that have happened, you will need to remember the people
who were there (identify), what they looked like (physical appear-
ance), and how they were dressed (clothing).’’ It was explained that
the students should use the reminder card to help remember details
of an event or activity. Each card was introduced in a similar fashion.
Modeling
In this step, the teacher=research assistant showed how to use the
pictorial cards for each of the categories via a ‘‘think aloud’’ process.
Verbal Rehearsal
In this step, the students identified each pictorial card by name and
content and described what each symbol represented.
Graduated Practice
First, individually, each student practiced utilizing the first category
of information (i.e., characteristics of people) in the NET strategy
by simply describing the clothes and hair of the presiding research
assistant. This step required the students to use the reminder cards
of the strategy. During graduated practice to more difficult tasks,
the subjects watched a video vignette of a school activity. After
watching the video, they practiced the category activity by describing
the participants in the video, utilizing the cue cards. This graduated
practice procedure was used for each of the information categories.
Corrective Feedback
The students with LD were given corrective feedback regarding the
completeness and accuracy of their narrative accounts and the correct
usage of each aspect of the instructional program. As an example of
correction, the children’s responses were elaborated upon by the
researcher if necessary by stating additional kinds of information
(e.g., participant characteristics such as hair, skin, and eye color, or
body size, age, or eye wear).

Control Condition: Motivating Instructions

The students with LD in the motivating instructions condition spent

the same amount of time with the same research assistant and were
involved in similar activities as the experimental group. For example,
these children were given a rationale for ‘‘doing their best’’ when
describing a past event. They practiced describing the researcher
training them and the participants in the video. However, they were
given motivating instructions such as ‘‘Try your best to tell every-
thing you remember,’’ instead of specific strategy instructions that
included the four categories of information on the picture cue cards.
Enhancing Narrative Skills 325

Interview about the Event

Following the second training session, the subjects’ statements about
the history lesson were individually evaluated. The interview involved
two tasks. The first was a free recall task in which the children were
asked via an open-ended question to give a narrative account about
what happened during the prior history lesson on Mexico (i.e., Do
you remember about two weeks ago when you went into the CM room
with some other students and some people from the University? I want
you to tell me everything about that time.). One prompt was given at
the conclusion of the child’s narrative (i.e., Is there something else you
can tell me about what happened?) The second task was a cued recall
task. At the conclusion of the children’s free recall narrative reports,
the interviewer presented each of the four reminder cards of the infor-
mation categories (participant characteristics, setting, actions and
behavior, and conversations=affective states) individually and asked,
Does this card remind you to tell anything else?. The cards were pre-
sented in random order. All interviews were audiotaped for accurate
evaluation of the students’ narrative accounts.

Data Coding
A 450-item checklist applying a propositional analytic system to the
script of the history lesson was utilized for coding children’s recall
data. We chose to use this system as it had been used previously
and had been validated for this purpose. The checklist, developed
by Saywitz and Snyder (1996), was created by establishing an exten-
sive list of propositions constituting the history lesson, and facts
imbedded in propositions were the units of interest for this study.
(See Saywitz & Snyder [1996] for a detailed discussion of the develop-
ment and testing of the checklist.) Propositional analysis has been
shown to be the method of choice for analyzing the elements of mean-
ing present in sentences and discourse (Kintsch & Van Dijk, 1978). It
is considered a sensitive and robust indicator of comprehension and
memory for detailed information. It is well established that the num-
ber of propositions in any stretch of discourse is correlated more
highly with comprehension and memory for the event retold than
the evaluation of micro-level variables such as number of words or
sentences (Snyder & Downey, 1991). Other narrative evaluation sys-
tems have been developed for rating children’s written narratives.
These include the evaluation of the elements coherence and cohesion
referring largely to transition, flow, and overall comprehensiveness of
the narrative. Because we wanted to evaluate children’s oral narra-
tives related to accuracy and completeness, the Saywitz system
seemed most appropriate.
326 R. Nathanson et al.

The videotape of each history lesson was viewed in order to note

any deviations from the script. Thus, the children’s’ statements of
the event were compared to the videotape of the actual lesson in which
they participated. Audiotapes of the interviews were transcribed. The
students’ free recall responses were scored as correct, incorrect, or
omitted based upon the co-occurrence of recall with the items on
the checklist. For example, if a student stated, ‘‘Kim, the history tea-
cher, taught us about Mexico,’’ then that statement was scored as two
correct responses: one point was given for identifying ‘‘Kim’’ as the
history teacher, and the other point was given for stating that she
taught them about Mexico. The cued recall scores were derived from
new information that was not reported during free recall.
Inter-rater Reliability
Twenty-five percent of the data was coded for inter-rater reliability.
Ninety-two percent point-by-point inter-rater reliability was obtained.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted on the students’ WRAML

scores to determine if any differences in narrative content between
the experimental and control groups could be attributed to baseline
memory and learning abilities. No differences between the two
groups were found.

Effects of Narrative Elaboration Training on Free and Cued Recall

One-way fixed effects model analyses of variance (ANOVA) were

conducted to analyze the effects of treatment condition on the
number of correct and incorrect items recalled during free and cued
recall. Table 2 presents the means for memory measures by treatment
condition.
Correct Recall
Children who received the experimental treatment (NET) stated sig-
nificantly more correct information during cued recall, M ¼ 2.62,
than children who received only the control motivating instructions,
M ¼ 0.35, F(1,36) ¼ 6.61, p ¼ .01. In fact, the children who did not
receive the training recalled on average approximately one-third of
an additional item of information beyond the information initially
reported in free recall, whereas children who received the training
recalled almost eight times more information than the children who
Enhancing Narrative Skills 327

Table 2. Mean number of items recalled during free and cued recall by
treatment condition
Treatment condition

Narrative elaboration Motivating instructions

Memory measure (N ¼ 21) (N ¼ 18) F Effect size

Free recall
Correct 10.24 (6.90) 8.29 (5.25) 0.92 0.37
Incorrect 0.57 (0.81) 0.59 (0.87) 0.95
0.02
Cued recall
Correct 2.62 (3.56) 0.35 (0.79) 6.61 2.87
Incorrect 0.24 (0.62) 0.05 (0.24) 1.24 0.79

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.


p ¼ .01.

received on motivating instructions. Although there was a marginal

trend for an increase in free recall in the training group as well, this
difference did not reach significance.
Effect Size
Calculating effect size (ES) allows an examination of relative benefits
of an intervention compared to another intervention.Effect size was
calculated and the data are included in Table 2. According to Cohen
(1988), effect sizes that exceed .8 are considered large. In our study, a
large effect size was determined for the dependent variable of narra-
tive elaboration training and cued recall. This finding adds to a con-
clusion that there is a real difference between the group outcomes as
measured in our study. These data were calculated by subtracting
mean scores of the groups and dividing by the SD, a common method
for performing effect size calculations.
Errors
When the number of incorrect responses during free and cued recall
were each entered into the analyses, no significant differences
between treatment conditions emerged. Thus, not only did NET
increase children’s correct reports during cued recall, it did not
adversely affect their narrative accounts by increasing incorrect
reports during free or cued recall.

DISCUSSION

Oral narration is a ubiquitous activity and a vehicle by which aca-

demic and personal competency is shown and judged. Proficiency
in given verbal narratives is important for successful academic
328 R. Nathanson et al.

and social functioning (Bloome, Katz, & Champion, 2003; Garnett,

1986). It is the bridge between language and reading success (Kaderavek
& Sulzby, 2000). In this study, we have examined an important type
of oral narrative, giving accounts of prior events (Longacre, 1990).
The purpose of the present study was to examine a strategy for
enhancing the narrative accounts of children with LD. The results
of this study revealed that the narratives of children with LD could
be enhanced in terms of the amount of information they stated about
prior events. In fact, the students in the experimental group recalled
49% more items of information about the history lesson=prior event
than the children in the control group. Moreover, this increase in the
amount of information was obtained without generating an increase
in the number of errors reported. Therefore, completeness of recall
was enhanced without adversely affecting the accuracy of recall. This
is important to note, as the primary difference that emerges consis-
tently in the literature when comparing the narrative accounts of
children with and without learning disabilities is in the amount of
information recalled and stated. That is, children with learning
disabilities tend to recall significantly less information than their
non-disabled peers. The results obtained in this study are similar to
results obtained from previous studies utilizing NET with non-disabled
children in the forensic context (Comparo et al., 2001; Dorado &
Saywitz, 2001; Saywitz & Snyder, 1996; Saywitz et al., 1996).
In examining the information recalled during free recall (i.e., when
children were instructed to tell the interviewer what happened during
the prior event), children in the training group recalled more than
24% more items of information than children who did not receive
the training. This difference, however, was not statistically signifi-
cant. This finding is not surprising, as children in the present study
were not instructed to utilize the newly taught strategy during free
recall instructions; they were taught to use NET to expand cued
recall, not reorganize free recall efforts. Similarly, in previous studies
examining the effectiveness of NET with non-LD children, when
compared to control groups with motivating instructions, no differ-
ences in free recall emerged (Comparo et al., 2001; Dorado &
Saywitz, 2001; Saywitz et al., 1996).
The fact that NET was beneficial in significantly increasing the
amount of information that children with LD correctly stated about
a previous event is very encouraging, as several implications emerge
from this study. The study adds to the growing body of literature
validating the effectiveness of cognitive strategies, in general, for
students with LD to become more planning and organized. Most
importantly, the findings may help lead to a way to address the
Enhancing Narrative Skills 329

assumptions by Bauer, Keefe, and Shea (2001), that children who are
able to convey information in an organized manner are seen as being
academically and socially competent.
We believe that the experimental narrative elaboration training
strategy shows promise of being a general method for positively
affecting the competency across several important aspects of human
functioning.

Limitations and Conclusions

From our understanding of the literature in this area, little has been
written about this particular topic. Therefore, some of our work
could be expanded, leading to other findings, or replicated. We chose
a method of coding that had been validated and was appropriate for
this project, but other systems could be used, such as those that evalu-
ate micro-levels of narrative production. There are different forms of
oral narration, such as fictional narration, yet we chose to study per-
sonal narrative due to its prevalence. Our research crossed at least
three professional disciplines—learning disabilities, language, and
interviewing—and the term ‘‘oral narrative’’ may have different
meaning in those contexts. There is still much exciting research to
be done abut methods to enhance the oral narratives of children with
learning disabilities and many of the associated issues.

REFERENCES

Bauer, A. M., Keefe, C. H., & Shea, T. M. (2001). Students with learning disabilities
or emotional=behavioral disorders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bloome, D., Katz, L., & Champion, T. (2003). Young children’s narratives and
ideologies of language in classrooms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(3),
205–223.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Dallas, Tex.: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Comparo, L., Wagner, J., & Saywitz, K. (2001). Interviewing children about real and
fictitious events: Revisiting the narrative elaboration procedure. Law and Human
Behavior, 25(1), 63–80.
Crank, J. N., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1990). A self-instructional
surface counseling program: Development and validation. Learning Disabilities:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(3), 102–112.
Crank, J. N. & Bulgren, J. (1993). Visual depictions as information organizers for
enhancing achievement of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 8(3), 140–147.
330 R. Nathanson et al.

De La Paz, S. & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on

the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties.
Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181.
Deschler, D. D. & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students:
Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 153–167.
Dorado, J. & Saywitz, K. (2001). Interviewing preschoolers for low and middle
income communities: A test of narrative elaboration recall improvement
technique. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 566–578.
Feagans, L. & Applebaum, M. (1986). Validation of language subtypes in learning
disabled children. Journal of educational Psychology, 78, 358–364.
Feagans, L. & Short. E. J. (1984). Developmental differences in the comprehension
and production of narratives by reading-disabled and normally achieving
children. Child Development, 55, 1727–1736.
Fivush, R. (1993). Developmental perspectives on autobiographical recall.
In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses (pp. 1–24).
New York: Guilford.
Garnett, K. (1986). Telling tales: Narratives and learning disabled children. Topics
in Language Disorders, 6, 44–56.
Gibbs, D. & Cooper, E. (1989). Prevalence of communication disorders in students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 60–63.
Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping
students with learning problems develop as writers. Elementary School Journal,
94, 169–181.
Hughes, D., McGillivray, L. R., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language.
Eau Claire, Wis.: Thinking Publications.
Hunt, N. & Marshall, K. M. (2002). Exceptional children and youth: An introduction
to special education (3rd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kaderavek, J. N. & Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative production by children with and
without specific language impairment: Oral narratives and emergent readings.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 34–49.
Keogh, B. (1982). Research in learning disabilities: A view of status of need.
In J. P. Das, R. F. Mulcahey, & A. E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning
disabilities (pp. 41–60). New York: Plenum.
Kintsch, W. & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension
and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies
(7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Longacre, R. E. (1990). An appratus for the description of participant reference in
narrative discourse. In W. Bahner, J. Schildt, & D. Viehweger (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguistics, Berlin, 3, 2172–2175.
Mandler, J. M. & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story
structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.
Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1998). Constructing more meaningful relation-
ships in the classroom: Mnemonic research into practice. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 13, 138–145.
Nevada Administrative Code. (2006). Chapter 388. 177.
Enhancing Narrative Skills 331

Rosenberg, M. S., Bott, D., Majsterek, D., Chiang, B., Gartland, D., Wesson, C.,
Graham, S., et al. (1993). Minimum standards for the description of parti-
cipants in learning disabilities research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4),
210–213.
Roth, F. (1986). Oral narrative abilities of learning disabled students. Topics in
Language Disorders, 7, 21–30.
Saywitz, K. J. & Snyder, V. (1996). Narrative elaboration: Test of a new procedure
for interviewing children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
1347–1357.
Saywitz, K. J., Snyder, L., & Lamphear, V. (1996). Helping children tell what
happened: A follow-up study of the narrative elaboration procedure. Child
Maltreatment, 1(3), 200–212.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in
spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children
with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 43(2), 324–339.
Segal, D. & Wolf, M. (1993). Automaticity, word retrieval, and vocabulary develop-
ment in children with reading disabilities. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment
and instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 141–166). Austin,
Tex.: ProEd.
Snyder, L. & Downey, D. M. (1991). The language-reading relationship in normal
and reading disabled children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34,
129–140.
Stein, N. & Glenn, C. (1978). The role of temporal organization in story comprehen-
sion. Tech. Rep. No. 71. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, Center for Study
of Reading.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational
Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–310.
Wiig, E. H. (1989). Steps to language competence: Developing metalinguistic strategies.
San Antonio, Tex.: Psychological Corp.
Wiig, E. H. (1993). Strategy training for people with language-learning disabilities.
In L. J. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning
disabilities (pp. 167–220). Austin, Tex.: Pro-Ed.
View publication stats