Teaching Storytelling to a Group of Children With Learning Disabilities: A Look at Treatment Outcomes Joan S. Klecan-Aker lynn K, Flahive Sally Fleming ‘Texas Christian University, Fe, Worth, TX though a stated goal of the public education system is literacy, schoo! curricula is often é presented in a manner that assumes linguistic proficiency. Wiig and Semel (1980) pointed out how this ‘occurs as children advance through school. For example, in kindergarten through second grade, the emphasis is on perceptual-cognitive skills preparatory for teaching reading and writing. In third and fourth grades, teaching shifts to the content areas of sciences, social studies, and literature, placing greater demands on fluency in linguistic and symbolic language and the ability to abstract, analyze, and synthesize information. By the time a child is in the fifth and sixth grades, mastery of the basic academic skills of reading and writing is implicit, and recall of previously learned information is mandatory. Therefore, ‘with this emphasis on Linguistic ability, it is not surprising ABSTRACT. The purpose of the present investigation was. to measure the elects of a Ueatment program on the Slorteling abit of chiles with learning abilities Subjects were elementary school youngsters ltending a private laboratory schoo! fox chien with leaning Sissies. The methudology consisted of teaching the ‘hilden the appropriate use of story grammar compo. nents and the accompanying sjiax that marches thet tse, Results mdicaled thatthe children assigned to the fxpetinental pou improved to greter degree fo helt ability to tall more complex stories than did children in the conto! group. These resuls are discussed the iparance of esching soning and messing, treatment outcomes, that the ability to organize the language, in oral and written form, plays an important role in a school-age child's academic success, ‘The ability to organize language in narrative form may also be related to cognition or thought. Concepts of intentionality and causality are essential aspects of mature narratives, and these concepts express the understanding that in stories, human actions are planned, Narrative discourse, it seems then, involves the underlying knowledge that stories are causal chains of events that are temporally linked together through their purposes, the actions ctosen by characters and the way in which they relate to possible consequences or outcomes, and the way in which the actions affect achieving the purpose and the specific content of events that can occur (Gordon & Braun, 1985: Silliman, 1987; Silliman & Diet, 1995; Stein, 1983; Whaley, 1981). ‘Additionally, narratives are an integral part of routine in classroom events, particularly in the primary grades. In the classroom, many activities involving language comprehen- sion include children’s oral retelling of a story that was either read to them by the teacher or read aloud in reading. ‘groups. Children who are not proficient at retelling the story, or who do not convey the content of the story in an organized way according to the expectations of the teacher, are at risk for being seen as language/leamning disabled (Hedberg & Westby, 1993; Pallinsear & Brown, 198%; Silliman, 1987). Heath (1986) pointed out that academic ‘success is not dependent on the language a child knows, Dut rather on the way of using language that a child knows. In other words, children are often judged on their proficiency in oral expression and their skill inthis area‘may affect the quality of their interactions with their teachers. A lack of proficiency might be evident for any fone of a number of reasons. One reason may be that some individuals could genuinely possess a language/ learning disability that resulted in a difficulty in organia- ing units of talk, including the ability to include only relevant details and/or the ability (0 use appropriate and ‘meaningful cohesion to tic their utterances together in a logical form (Garnett, 1986; Klecan-Aker, 1993; Kleca ‘Aker & Brueggeman, 1991). These children may actually achieve average scores on Vocabulary and/or syntax, but will still have difficulty producing coherent, well- organized oral and written stories (Klecan-Aker & ‘osnes, 1991). Westby, Van Dongen, and Maggart (1989) suggested that this difficulty in producing coherent and ‘well-developed narratives may be due to a strong conceptual foundation that underlies the content of well- structured stories. In other words, a child who is having difficulty organizing his or her thoughts or is having. trouble expressing relationships between ideas during ‘oral presentations may actually lack the conceptual knowledge required to comprehend texts and discussions, ‘This lack of conceptual understanding or ability t0 express linguisticelly how ideas are related can have @ substantial impact on many aspects of academics. Given the possible importance of narrative ability in the academic area, the purpose of the present investigation was to determine if a program to improve storytelling or narrative ability could be taught successfully to children with learning disabilities. METHOD. Subjects Fifteen students with learning disabilities from a remedial primary school dedicated to addressing the special needs of the student with learning disabilities were randomly selected to serve as subjects. All subjects met the criteria of having a gap of one standard deviation (1 SD) between IQ and achievement. A simple standard deviation formula between the scores of an IQ test and an achievement test ‘was used in making this determination, Children were given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R, Wechsler, 1974) to measure intelligence. Full seale IQ scores for all children were within or above the normal range, Average to above average intelligence was defined as a full scale IQ no lower than 80. Subjects consisting of eight males and seven females, ranged in age from 6:2 (years:months) to 8:9, with a mean chronological age of 7:2. All subjects were also given the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised (CELF-R, Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 1987) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R, Dunn & Dunn, 1981). Finally, all subjects were given the reading silbest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R, Wilkinson, 1984), Means and standard deviations for all test scores are summarized in Table 1. All childsen passed a speech and Table 1. Description of subjects in both the experimental and contol groups Test Mean Standard deviation wisc-R Performance 09.18 1233 Verbal ross 1678 Pull scale 10773 1230 CELE-R Receptive 92.23 1380 Expressive 8523, 686 ‘Tot 9033 1578 PevEeR 102.93 374 WRAT-R 18.08 am heating screening administered by a graduate student in speoch-language pathology. This screening was to ensure that articulation and hearing acuity were within the normal range for the purposes of conversational speech, Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. Mater ls and Equipment Baseline measurements of narrative abilities were using The Expression Connection (Klecan-Aker & Brueggeman, 1991), which was developed for use as a criterion-referenced measure of narrative ability aad 10 demonstrate a highly structured treatment program for individualized intervention with children with language learning disabilities. The Expression Connection is a structured approach to teaching language organiza‘ion to school-age children. It was designed to help speech- language pathologists treat children who exhibit difficulty expressing themselves in organized ways, given tte fact that language organization seems to be an importent skill for school success. ‘The Expression Connection (Klecan-Aker & Bruggeman, 1991) is the culmination of a number of research projects that were all designed to discover the best ways cf eliciting, transcribing, and analyzing children’s steries (Applebee, 1978; Klecan-Aker, 1993; Klecan-Aker & Kelty, 1990; Klecan-Aker, Melngvale, & Swank, 1987; Klecen- Aker & Swank, 1987; Stein & Glenn, 1979), It consists of an elicitation procedure, a procedure for transcribing and analyzing the stories, and a specific intervention program. ach of these tacets of The Expression Connection wall be discussed in detail in the procedure section of this article Other visual stimuli consisted of sequence cards and. elementary school handouts. Magazine photographs and hand-drawn pictures were also used during the treatment program, Subjects were seen for three 30-minute sessions per week for a period of 12 weeks. Audiotaping equipment consisted of a voice-actvated variable speech-control cassette recorder model VSC-2002 and 15 60-minute audio cassette tapes, one tape per subjectProcedure Before treatment began, two narratives were elicited from each child using procedures described in The Expression Connection (Klecan-Aker & Brueggeman, 1991). Elicitation: Elicitation was conducted in a small, quiet room with the examiner and child seated across from each ‘other at a small table. All elicitation were audiotaped. Elicitations for each child were 7 days apart (time points 1 and 2 on the figures). Each child was given the follow- ing instruetion: “I am going to tell you a story. Listen to me carefully so that you will know what a story is. Then [Pm going to ask you to make up a story of your own, Are you ready?” ‘The examiner chose one of four pictures contained in ‘The Expression Connection (Klecen-Aker & Brueggeman, 1991) and told the matching story. She then chose a second story and gave the following instruction: “Now it's time for you to make up your own story. You may begin.” Each ‘child was allowed as much time as needed. AM children generated a story in less than 10 minutes. Prompts were ‘occasionally used, but they consisted only of “Can you tell me more?" or “What else? because other types of prompts Would create a dialogue instead of a monologue. No more than two prompts were used per ehild. Once the child hed ‘completed the story, the tape recorder was turned off and the story was transcribed, A sample story containing all the sory grammar components identified in ‘The Expression ‘Connection can be found in Appendix A. ‘Transcription: All narratives were transcribed with no capitals of periods, as if they were running speech. The transcription was tiple spaced, leaving room for the analysis on the same form, After each story was transcribed, the story was replayed a second time to check for the reliability of the ial transcription. If there were diserepancies, they were ‘corrected before the analysis was begun, Analssis: Stories were transcribed and divided into t- units, A runt is the equivslent of a simple or complex sentence. A compound sentence would consist of two or more f-units. Fach unit was assigned a story grammar component label and subsequently a developmental level was determined (see Appendix B for a sample t-unit analysis and Appendix C for definitions of story grammar components and developmental levels) All subjects told level 2 stories during both elicitations. Level 2 stories Uescribe events, actions, or objects and follow a central theme. Examples of level 2, 3, 4, and 5 stories can be found in Appendix D. (All of these developmental levels were used as part of the assessment or trestment program). Ou completion of the Laseline measutewent, eight of te subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment program, ‘This group consisted of four females and four males ranging in age fom 6:6 to 8:9, with a mean age of 7:1 ‘These children represented two grade levels within the school, kindergarten and first-second grade. Every 4 weeks uring the 16-week treatment period, nacratives were again elicited from children in both the experimental and control ‘group. Narratives were always elicited using the same procedures that were specified for gathering the baseline ‘measures. Only one narrative was elicited during the actual tweatment time. At the end of the 16-week period, «0 stories were again elicited from each subject (time points 6 and 7 on the figures). Given that baseline data identified the children’s siories at level 2, teaching the skills necessary to tell Tevel 3 stories was the first major objective of the intervention program. Level 3 stories contain the three story grammar components of initiating event, action, end consequence (Gee Appendix ©), Each treatment session was audiotaped in order to allow for a review of what had actually transpired during the session. One of the first tasks encountered in developing @ ‘methodology for the intervention group consisted of Ctlablishing an cnvironment that was conducive to leaning. In a group setting, it can be extremely challenging to keep track of all interactions that oceur end to maintain the attention of the entire group. Although the goal was for the children to participate freely and enthusiastically, betavior management became an issue that had to be addressed. A list of behaviors to modify to aid in maintaining the childeen’s attention and controlling their interactions was generated, That list included making certain the chileren ‘wore sitting while the clinician stood, speaking in © quiet “inside voice,” allowing enough space between children to avoid bodily contact, Keeping questions wo the children short and precise so as to keep momentum moving, switching back and forth between children to maintain attention, adhering strictly to @ continuous 1:1 reinforce ‘ment program, using a tangible reward system, and providing multi-sensory stimuli for each activity With any language treatment program, the definition and explanation of terminology present an important starting point, As suggested by information process theory (Gwens, 1996), there appears to be a relationship between the understanding of a concept and the ability to learn and recall it. Therefore, during the first 2 weeks of intervention, teaching the concepts that underlie the three major story agrammar components found in level 3 stories became the goal. Using a felt board and pictures to represent intiating events (beginnings), actions (middles), and the conse quences (ends) of simple objects and entities, these terms were discussed until each child could Tabel, explain, and list each of the salient terms with 100% accuracy. ‘The Expression Connection (Klecen-Aker & Brueggeman, 1991), the foundation of the intervention program, suggests that the teaching of basic terminology be followed by ‘multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank activities as the next logical steps in showing children how to use different story {grammar components in creating narratives. When a child Cousisteully wakes eppropiiate choices frou the mulliple choice format, then the clinician moves to & fll-in-t-e- blank structure, which is « more difficult response set for the child. Examples of the multiple-choice format ani the fillin-the-blank format for teaching level 3 stories ae: 1. A boy's kite got stuck up in a tall tre. He thought he could do several things: a. Cry. 1. Climb way up into the tre all by himself ¢. Call his Dad to get a ladder.4. Leave the kite up in the tree forever. ‘The best choice is? 2, Once there was a family who lived in a big house on Elm Street. They came home one afternoon and found a big alligator sitting on their front porch, So they. Beginning initially with scenarios (beginnings) related to the lives of the children (Le., a child forgets his lunch; @ Lite giel is cold), the subjects were asked to select the ‘most appropriate Solution to the problem given three choices. Presenting three choices instead af four is an adaptation of the original intervention program. This adaptation was made in response to the attention and behavior difficulties that sometimes occurted with this group of children, When the children made an inappropriate choice, that choice was discussed until all subjects were able (0 select fan appropriate answer, The scenarios were then modified to be less conerete (je., car gets caught in the snow; an elephant is hot and thirsty). When the subjects were all able to obtain eight out of ten correct responses in the multiple choice activities, the examiner then presented the same types of tasks in the fil-in-the-blank format. This format provides an initiating event (beginning) and requites the child to develop an appropriate action (middle) and consequence (ending) for the given scenario, ‘When the children once again selected eight out of cen choices correctly, the clinician then added an additional story grammar component fo the lesson. Over the course of the 16 weeks of treatment, story levels 3, 4, and 5 were taught to the children in the experimental group. In fessence, when the children successfully completed level 3 stories (stories with an initiating event, action, and! conse> quence), they were then taught level 4 stories, In these stories, the story grammar component of internal response ‘was added. Internal responses are thinking or feeling statements that express motivation for actions and feelings regarding consequences of actions. Level 5 stories consisted ‘of adding a setting statement to the other four components. [As with the other story grammar components discussed with the level 3 stories, examples relevant to the child's life were provided first. For instance, when talking about {internal responses, children were taught the meaning of the following feelings: mad, happy, sad, embarrassed, scared, and bored. Examples of when children would experience different feelings were provided and group discussion focused on their personal experiences with each feeling. A. similar procedure was followed when the setting statement ‘was added for the level 5 stories. In summary, the procedure began with the collection of baseline data. This baseline data resulted in level 2 stories for most subjects across two elictations (time points 1 and 2). These data provided the rationale for the selection of the treatment program beginning with level 3 stories. Every 4 weeks, stories were again elicited, with one story for time points 3, 4, and 5, Two stories were again elicited at the end of the treatment program (time points 6 and 7). Design ‘This investigation used a pretest-posttest contral group design. The essential features of this design are the formation of an experimental treatment group and a control treatment group followed by the administration of a pretest and posttest to each group. This involves a random assignment of subjects to both the experimental and control ‘groups, administration of pretest to both groups, adminis- tration of the treatment to the experimental group but not to the control group, and administration of a postest to ‘both groups. I is important to realize that both groups rust be treated as nearly alike as possible except for the luexameut variable (Borg & Gall, 1999), Thesefors, chikdien were assigned to a group regardless of their scores on language tests RESULTS. Analyses were run on the number of units, clases, words, words per runit, words per clause, clauses per unit, and story level for both the control and experimental subjects. Analyses were run on all aspects of the sories because we believed that, as the complexity of the develop- ‘ment level changed, other aspects of the story might change as well. If clauses per runit increased over time in the experimental group, for example, that might indica that children were also learing about cohesion as a by-product fof teaching story complexity. This type of pattern would hhave clinical significance, We were also interested in ‘examining not just differences in the two groups o” subjects, but also how the groups differed over different tine points. ‘The measurement of change presents special problems for researchers who study it, from the diffieulty of following subjects over time to the issue of appropriate date analysis techniques. The latter issues include the biased ecrrelation ‘of baseline data to change scores and the supposed unreliability of change scores. One way to avoid some of ‘the problems of assessing change is to take samples of behavior over several time points. Repeated observations give the advantage of additional sensitivity to change by virtue of the increased power afforded by the increased degrees of freedom, ‘Although many means exist at present to analyze such ata, one of the simplest, particularly for small data ses, is profile analysis, The purpose of this analysis is co invest zgate change by comparing the profiles of the groups over time. The appropriate desiga is a two factor with repeated ‘measures on one factor, The main effect of group assesses ‘overall level differences between groups, that is, t shows ‘whether one group has « consistently higher profile chan the other. The main effect of time (the repeated measure) asseses the flatness of the profile, that is, it askes whether there was change or did the groups remain flat. The question it answers is whether one group profile differed from the other. Statistical analyses of repeated measures designs are ‘complicated by the fact that the repeated measures are notindependent. Univariate analyses of such designs require additional assumptions regarding the nature of the relations among the repeated measures that are referred to as the sphericity assumption. When this sssumption is unmet, multivariate analyses are more appropriate for the repeated ‘measures factor (Kirk, 1995; Timm, 1975). ‘Therefore, a two factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on one factor was used to test for differences in growth patterns over time. Treatment group was the between subjects factor and time was the repeated measures factor, Because the study was experimental, the major concern ‘was the interaction, that is, differential changes over time Ly gioup. Whew siguificant cesults wate fouund for the repeated measures factor or the group by repeated measures term, the tests were followed up by a profile analysis, Differences between adjacent time points were compared, For example, the difference between time I and time 2 for the experimental group would he compared to the same difference for the control group. Because there were seven time points, there were six differences between groups to bbe compared. If the profile analysis failed to yield signifi- ceant findings, an orthogonal polynomials approach was taken in which the changes over time were transformed into linear and nonlinear components. The linear and nonlinear components were compared between groups. For the f-units, no significant differences were found between groups either overall or over time. The data were quite varied, with the control group changing fom 9.0 t0 5.8 over the first four time points. However, the differences Were in the opposite direction for the experimental group, ‘but not enough to reach significance. (F(1, 13) = .60; 45). The flatness test indicated no variations in the level of ‘units over time, ignoring group (F(6, 8) = 1.16; p = 41). ‘The interaction of group by time approached significance but did not reach it (F(6, 8) = 2.93; p = .08). The results ‘are displayed in Figure 1 For the number of clauses, there was a significant ‘maltivarite test indicating that the changes over ti varied by group (F(6, 8) = 3.86; p = .04), A profile analysis indicated a significantly greater slope for the experimental group (FU, 13) = 3.65: p <.05, one-taled). ‘These results are displayed in Figure 2. ‘A similar result was found for the number of words, although it was a trend for the univariate test (F(6, 2.015 p = 07). not the multivariate test. This profile analysis indiested a borderline trend between time points 4 ud 5 by gsoup (FUL, 13) = 3.62, p = .08) aud a aire sulbstantial difference between time points 6 and 7 by group (FA, 13) = 5.15; p < .05). The former reflected an increase by the control group compared to a decrease by the ‘experimental group. The latter reflected just the opposite See Figure 3 for a display of these results. For words per ‘unit, there was an overall difference between groups (FCI, 13) = 12.23; p <1), with the ‘experimental group consistently doing better than the controls. There were no differences of any kind on clauses per runit. See Figures 4, 5, and 6 for a display of these results The most consistent results were found with story level, where there was a significant change over time (F(6, 78) 2.47: p < .05), but this depended on the group (F(6, 78) 3.40; p < (01). The profile analysis revealed no signifi- cant differences between adjacent time points by grup. but @ polynomial analysis indicated that the slope of the experimental group was significantly greater than that of| the controls (F(1, 13) = 15.795 p < 05). Figure 7 displays this analysis, Figure 1. Number of tunis over time by group. TunisFigure 2. Clauses overtime by group, Number of clauses [= Exponent |e contotFigure 5. Words/clause over time by group. Ne ~ ger 5 = 2 Number of Clausa-UntIn conclusion, the results demonstrate that + there were no significant differences between the contro] and experimental groups either overall or over ‘ime in the number of t-units contained in the story: + the number of clauses within the stories changed over time, with the experimental group increasing their clause usage and the control group decreasing their usages + a similar result to the number of clauses existed for the number of words used in the stories; + for the number of words per unit, the experimental group outperformed the control group (e.g., they used icantly more words in their stories), + the experimental group told statistically significant ‘more complex stories than the control group by the end of treatment; and + no differences existed in the number of clauses per ‘unit between the groups DISCUSSION ‘The primary purpose of the present investigation was 10 measure the outcome of a treatment program designed to prove storytelling ability. The results indicated some statistically significant findings, as well as some interesting trends. First and most importantly, the experimental group improved significantly over time in their ability to tell stories. Although both the control and experimental groups were telling level 2 stories before treatment, the experimen- tal group was telling level 5 stories at the end of 16 weeks of treatment, whereas the control group made, although individuals varied somewhat, little or no progress. ‘This finding is not entirely surprising because the treatment program used in this study was similar to a treatment program used in two previous studies (Klecan- Aker, 1993; Klecan-Aker, Brueggeman, & Flahive, 1995). In those studies, both subjects were able to tell increasingly ‘more complex stories at the end of the treatment program. However, a single subject design was used. With single subject designs, itis impossible to state empirically that the lrealment program itself was responsible for the improve ment in the subjects because there could be a number of uncontrolled variables that might also be responsible for the change in storytelling ability (Borg & Gall, 1989). A second statistically significant finding was the number of clauses used by the subjects. What is interesting about this sesule is that atthe first time point, the control group was using more clauses in their stories than the experimen- tal group. Then, there was a drop in the number of clauses for the control group, with an increase in clause usage for the experimental group. The increase in clause usage is reasonable for the experimental group. As story complexity increases, one would expect the number of clauses and f units to increase as well because children begin to use more cohesive devices to tie their utterances together as they explain the relation among events that have happened in the story (Merritt & Liles, 1987), Even though there was not a significant difference in the ‘number of runits used by both groups of subjects, the trend was that the experimental group used more funits ‘over time than the control group. Again, this was w be expected because as stories become more complex, @ child is adding additional story grammar components, thereby ‘making his or her story longer. ‘What is of further interest is the time periods when changes occurred. For example, the experimental g-oup made a big jump in clause usage at the third point in time. ‘This may have been a result of the first 4 weeks of ‘reatment. The variability between time points 1 and 2 is also important to note because it suggests that elic:ting lonly one story may not provide an accurate picture of @ child's storytelling ability. This same variability is evident in time points 6 and 7, the story elicitations that ovcurred ‘a the end of treatment Clausesit-unit yielded an interesting finding in that there was no significant difference between the groups, although the control group exhibited slight improvement. Clause usage is an interesting component of language in that even normally developing children in the elementary grades typically use only 1.0 to 1.2 clauses/-unit when telling Sories (Klecan-Aker & Swank, 1987). In the teatnent program used in this study, many of the components taught to the children were taught using one clause/-unit story grammar structures. The only time the children needed to Add clauses fo units was to express such structures as cause-effect relationships. That type of story grammar component did not occur often within the stories. ‘The last finding to be discussed is words/t-unit, The experimental group used more words/t-unit than the control group. Again, this finding is not unusual given the fact that as children become more adept at storytelling, thei- clause Jength and r-unit length should increase. In summary, this investigation demonstrated that the storytelling treatment method used in this study improved the storytelling ability in terms of story complexity of children with learning disebilities. This investigation further demonstrated that children vary in their performance from fone time point to another, hereby suggesting the importance of obtaining more than one story sample before and after ‘treatment fo ensure the reliability of the stories elicited, Tn a world where collaborative language treatmest is ‘becoming the norm, it seems that teaching childrer how to tell better stories would be an effective tool for the speech- language pathologist who will be expected to provide language treatment within a classroom setting. Futare research necds to examine treatment programs for leaching children how to tell different types of sarratives as well as looking at the relationship between storytelling ability and other academic areas that might be related, such as written Tanguage and reading comprehension. REFERENCES Applebee, A. (1978). The child's concep of story Chiago, Ts "The University PressBorg, Wo, & Gall; M. (1989). Education recearch: A traduction (Sth ed). New York: Longman Dunn, L., & Duna, L, (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Cisse Pines, MN: American Guidance Servi, Garnett, K. (1986). Telling ales: Nareatives and leaning-disabled children. Topies in Language Disorders, (2), 44-55, Gordon, Cx, & Braun, C. (1985), Metacognitive processes: Reading and waiting narrative discourse, In D. L. Forert-Presley & GE. Waller (E45), Meracognition, cognition and himan performance (vol. 2, pp. 124-187). New York: Academic Pres Heath, S. (1986). Taking 4 crosscutural lok a natives. Topics in Language Disorders, (1), 84-94, Hedberg, N., & Wesths, C. (1993). Analyzing storytelling skits ‘Theory to practice. Son Antonio, TX: Comminication Skil Builders Kirk, R, (1995). Experimenal design. Belmont, CA: BrooksCole Kecan-Aker, J. (1993). A woutment programme for improving storytelling ability: A ease study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. (2), 105-L15. Kiecan-Aker, Jy & Beueggeman, L. (1991). The Expression Connection. Vero Beach, FL: Speech Bin, Kiecan-Aker, J Brueggeman, L., & Plahive, L. (1995). Language therapy with @ child with sensory integration Aysunction: A ease study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 1G), 273-288, [Klecan-Aker, J, & Kelty, K. (1990), An investigation of the orl ‘artes of normal and language-leering disabled children, ournal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 13(2), 207-216, ‘Klecan-Aker, Jy Melngvale, G., & Swank, P. (1987), Stns considerations in narrative anclysis of normal third grade ehiliren, Language ond Speech, 30(1), 12-23 [Klecan-Aker, J, & Rosner, J (1991, May 10), Inerisciptinary ‘assesoment. Paper presented atthe College of Optometty Grand Rounds, Houston, TX ‘Klecan-Aker, Jy & Swank, P. (1987). The nacative styles of| normal fist and third grade children. Language and Speech, 30(3), 251-262, Merritt, D., & Liles, B. (1987). Story grammar ability in ebilren with and without language disorder Story generation, sry ce telling and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30(4), $39-55} ‘Owens, R. (1996). Language devetopment: A introduction (th es). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. insear, Ax, & Brown, D. (1987), Enhancing instruction tine through attention to meracognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(2), 65-75 Semel, F., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1987). Cnical Evaluation of ‘Language Fundamental Revied. Stn Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp. an, E. (1987), Individual differences in the classroom performance of Inaghagrimpained chiles Seminars in Speech ‘and Language, 8(4, 357-375, ian, Ea & Diehl, . (1995) Foreword. Toples in Language Disorders, 158), vi-in ‘Stein, N. (1983). On the goals, functions, and knowledge of reading and writing. Contemporary Education Peychologs, 83) 251-292 Stein, Ns & Glenn, C. (1979), An analysis of story comprehen- sion in elementary school children. Ia R. Freedle (Ed), Hew directions in discourse processing (pp. 33-120), Norwood, NE |Ablex Publishing, ‘Timm, N. (1975). Multivariate analysis with application in ‘education and psychology. Monterey, CA: Brook Cole Wechsler, D. (1974) Hechalr Intelligence Test for Childres- eused. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp ‘Westby, Cx; Van Dongen, R., & Maggart, Z. (1989). Assesing ‘narrative communication competence. Seminars in Speech and Language, 11), 63-16. Whaley, J. (1981). Readers’ expectations fo story stretures Reading Research Quarters, 1711}, 90-114 Wiig, Ba, & Semel, B. (1980). Language dlabiies in chien ‘and adolescens. Columbus, OH: Chatles E. Merz, Witkinson, G. (1984), Wide Range Achievement Test-Revsed, Los ‘Angeles, CA: Wesieen Psychological Services, ms si si APPENDIX A Once upon a time there was a giant who lived in the sky. He had no friends. He was very sad so he decided to come down from the sky and look for a friend, He climbed down from the clouds and saw & litle boy playing ball. The litte boy was frightened when he saw the giant, but Soon they began to talk. The giant liked the litle boy. They became friends, and the giant came to visit him every day. The giant was never lonely again. Continued2 ee li SU SE RES APPENDIX B 1 nel Once upon a time there was @ giant who lived in a caste/the castle was in the 13 C=t ™ TS C=1 ‘mountains/the giant had no one to talk to/he was very unhappy/he was also angry/the giant 16 TIC decided to steal a companion/he went into the village and stole a little boylall the townspeople T8C=1 cel Tio c= became angry an ran after the giantithe little Roy started to ery/he was frightened/the giant took. THC m1 TI3 Cal the litle boy back to the villagelthe townspeople were very happy/and they let the giant come to 14 visit every day/the giant was never lonely agein APPENDIX C Definitions of Story Grammar Components Setting: Introduces the msin character and tell where the story takes place Initiating event: A statement of a problem ‘Action: An attempt to solve the problem Internal response: Thinking or feeling statements Consequence: The result of an action; an outcome Ending: A resolution of the problem; can also be a sum- ‘mary statement Definitions of Complexity Levels Level 1: No real use of story grammar components Children are Iebeling or describing events, actions, of ‘objects. There is no central theme. Level 2: No real use of story grammar components. Children are still labeling or describing, but this time their statements follow a central theme or one topic. Level 3: These stories contain the three story grammar ‘components of initiating event, attempt, and consequence. Children are also beginning to use subordination Level 4: These swries cuulain the duce sity yvammas components found in level 3, plus one more. The fourth ‘component may vary from child to child. Level 5: These stories contain the three story grammar components found in level 3, plus one more and an ending. If a child is using all the story grammar components, the narrative will also be clasified as a level 5. The endings fof level 5 stories are strong and indicate a resolution to the initial problem. Level 0: Any story that cannot be placed in one of the other categories. APPENDIX D Level 2 Story: I drove in the car with my mom today. We went to the store and bought some groceries. Thea we went to get ice eream and I had a hot fudge sundae, It was 00d, Then we went to the bank and I got a belleon. Level 3 Story: One day Bill's cat got stuck up in a tall maple tree. The cat had climbed up to the very tcp. Bill called his dad to got the ladder and rescue the ex. His dad ccame over with the ladder and brought the cat down safely. ‘Then the cat ran off down the street Level 4 Story: Once upon a time John went to the park ‘with his Mom. He went to play on the monkey bars with his friends, When he tried to hang upside down, he fell off and landed on his head. He went to his mom and asked her to look at the bump on his head. She gave him some ice to put on the bump so it would go away. Level 5 Story: Once upon a time there was a git named Sue, One afternoon she sneaked into the kitchen ‘0 get a cookie. She knew she wasn't supposed to eat before dinner, ‘When she reached into the cookie ga, i fell on the floor ‘nd broke. She felt had and scared, She cleaned xp the ‘mess and went to tell her mother. Her mother told her she ‘could use her allowance to buy 8 new cookie jar. Sue never sneaked cookies before dinner again.