THE IMPACT OF EFFORT AND STRATEGY USE ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: STUDENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTIONS.

Abstract. This study was designed to examine academic self-perceptions in adolescents with learning disabilities as part of a two-year intervention project. The major objective was to compare students' perceptions with their teachers' judgments of their level of effort, strategy use, and academic performance in reading, writing, spelling, and math. The sample consisted of 308 students with learning disabilities, 355 average achievers, and their 57 teachers. Findings indicated that the students with learning disabilities viewed themselves as motivated, hard-working, appropriately strategic, and academically competent, thus reflecting positive academic self-concepts. Teachers' judgments were significantly more negative and they rated the overall group of students with learning disabilities as below average in their strategy use, academic performance, and organization. The most interesting finding occurred when the results were analyzed for students whose overall academic achievement was in the high-average range. Teachers rated the effort and strategy use of students with and without learning disabilities as above average, indicating that their perceptions were influenced by students' academic success and were not negatively impacted by the existence of a learning disability. In contrast, teachers judged low-achieving students with learning disabilities more negatively than their low-achieving peers without learning disabilities. Thus, teachers' perceptions of students' effort and strategy use were influenced by students' academic success and their learning disabilities did not interfere negatively with this perception. Lastly, findings indicated that hard work, in combination with efficient strategy use, can lead to success in the classroom.

Academic performance is shaped by students' understanding of their individual learning profiles, their self-awareness, their strategic knowledge, and their motivation to expend the effort and persistence needed to learn (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Meltzer & Montague, in press; Pressley, Borkowski, Forrest-Pressley, Gaskins, & Wile, 1993; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999; Wong, 1991). For students with learning disabilities, the cluster of traits that includes effort, motivation and persistence is particularly critical for accessing the strategies needed to bypass their areas of weakness and to succeed academically.

Investigations of academic performance in students with learning disabilities have provided us with an improved understanding of the difficulties these students experience with strategy selection and strategy execution (Harris & Graham, 1992, 1999; Pressley, Symons, Snyder, & Cariglia-Bull, 1989; Stone & Conca, 1993; Swanson et al., 1999; Wong, 1986, 1987). Specifically, students with learning disabilities do not develop the range of strategies or the broad content knowledge that enable more successful students to approach task demands flexibly. Further, strategies acquired are not practiced to a point of automaticity and the dual demands of learning content plus strategies may result in students abandoning a particular strategy for a simpler but less effective one (Borkowski et al., 1990; Ellis, 1994). Even after students with learning disabilities have increased their knowledge of strategies, they are less able to apply this knowledge to tasks in new contexts (Wong, 1991), are less likely to use strategies spontaneously (Meltzer, 1995), and have difficulty recognizing when a strategy is ineffective and therefore should be changed (Ellis, 1994). Finally, students often do not believe that their use of more sophisticated strategies will increase their efficiency and maximize the results of their effort (Meltzer & Montague, in press). It is therefore important to investigate how strategy use, a component of the cognitive domain, interacts with effort and motivation, components of the affective domain, to mediate performance.

In contrast to the large body of research on strategic learning in students with learning disabilities, investigations of effort have been sparse. Effort has not been defined systematically, but has been included in definitions of academic motivation as "the ability of the learner to persist with the task assigned, the amount of time spent on the task, the innate curiosity to learn, the feelings of efficacy related to an activity, or a combination of these variables" (Poonman, 1997, p. 13). For the purposes of our research, we have defined effort as a conscious attempt to achieve a particular goal through persistence over time.

Over the past two decades, studies of the role of effort in the learning process have provided varied descriptions of the effort of students with learning disabilities (Licht, 1983; McPhail & Stone, 1995; Meltzer, 1995; Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, & Perlman, 1998; Montague & Applegate, 1993; Sawyer, Nelson, Jayanthi, Bursuck, & Epstein, 1996). Earlier studies described students with learning disabilities as failing to see the relationship between appropriate effort and success (Licht & Kistner, 1986) and as being perceived by their teachers as less motivated than their low- and average-achieving peers (Grolnick & Ryan, 1990). It was hypothesized that after a history of school failure students with learning disabilities did not apply adequate effort because they believed it was useless (Licht, 1983).

Challenges to this set of assumptions have been posed by recent investigators who have analyzed self-concept and effort in greater depth and have differentiated general self-concept and academic self-concept. An increasing body of research has documented positive general self-concepts and strong levels of effort in students with learning disabilities (see reviews by McPhail & Stone, 1995; Stone & Conca, 1993).

These discrepant findings indicate the importance of focusing on intra-individual differences in effort, strategy use, and achievement in students with learning disabilities, especially in students who are achieving at average or above-average levels. In a study of homework practices of high school students with learning disabilities, students who had experienced success in homework tasks attributed their achievement to "the desire to do well and making the effort to do well despite (a perception of) limited ability" (Sawyer et al., 1996, p. 84). Similarly, Pintrich and his colleagues (1994) identified shared patterns of motivation, metacognition, and comprehension that cut across learning groups in a study of middle school students with and without learning disabilities.

Overall, there is still a paucity of research on the strategy-effort link, possibly because of the challenges involved in defining and measuring these constructs. Furthermore, only a limited number of studies have examined the perspectives of both teachers and students regarding the roles of effort and strategy use in the learning process (Grolnick & Ryan, 1990; Katzir-Cohen, Miller, Houser, & Meltzer, 2000; Meltzer et al., 1998; Meltzer, Miller, Katzir-Cohen, & Roditi, 2000). One of the themes that emerged from our previous studies was that the students with learning disabilities rated themselves as hard workers who learned strategically whereas their teachers judged them as less proficient. Nevertheless, teachers rated the effort of students with learning disabilities as stronger than their other executive processes such as organization, planning, and checking (Meltzer et al., 1998).

The current set of studies was designed to further analyze the role of effort in relation to the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. We were particularly interested in evaluating how effort interacts with strategy use to mediate the academic performance of successful students with learning disabilities. In other words, we sought answers to such questions as: Do teachers recognize the extraordinary effort that students with learning disabilities often need to exert in order to use strategies and to succeed in the classroom? Is there a negative halo effect that clouds the perceptions of teachers so that they judge students with learning disabilities negatively regardless of their actual performance?

Phase one of our research focused on a comparison of students with and without learning disabilities in terms of their ratings of effort, strategy use and achievement, and examined a number of factors associated with effort in students with learning disabilities. This phase was also designed to evaluate the congruence of student and teacher ratings. In phase two, we examined the impact of effort and strategy use on achievement. In particular, we compared average to high achievers with learning disabilities and average to high achievers without learning disabilities. The following questions were addressed:

A. Students' and teachers' judgments of academic effort:

1. Do students with learning disabilities differ from average achievers in their perceptions of their academic effort and hard work in school?

2. Do teachers rate the academic effort of students with learning disabilities and average achievers differently?

B. Students' and teachers' perceptions of academic effort in relation to strategy use and achievement:

1. How do students and teachers perceive the contribution of effort and other executive processes (planning, checking, and organizing) to strategy use?

2. Is there a relationship between students' perceptions of their effort and strategy use and their performance in the four academic domains of reading, writing, spelling and math?

C. Comparisons of average and high achievers with and without learning disabilities:

1. When average to high achievers with learning disabilities are compared with average to high achievers without learning disabilities, are there differences in students' self-perceptions of their effort and strategy use? Are there differences in teachers' judgments of their effort and strategy use?

2. When low-achieving students with learning disabilities are compared with low achievers without learning disabilities, are there differences in students' self-perceptions of their effort and strategy use? Are there differences in teachers' judgments of their effort and strategy use?

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 663 students and their 57 general education teachers from grades 4-9. To ensure generalizability, the sample was selected from seven schools in two school systems -- one urban city school, the other a suburban school. The two school systems were selected to provide representation over a broad socioeconomic range.

Each teacher was asked to identify 12 students to participate in the study, 6 students with learning disabilities (LD) and 6 students who were achieving at an average but not an above-average level (AA). The final sample consisted of 308 students with learning disabilities and 355 average achievers, who were matched with the students with learning disabilities on the basis of age range, grade level, and attendance in an urban or suburban school. The sample represented an equivalent gender ratio in the two groups.

Students with learning disabilities were selected if they met one or more of the following criteria: (a) IQ score in the average to above-average range (IQ [is greater than] 85), (b) diagnosis of a learning disability based on in-school or outside testing, (c) on an educational plan and receiving special education services in school, (d) a history of a diagnosed learning disability with possible private remediation but no school-based special education services, and (e) previous referral for testing but special education services had not yet begun. The demographic characteristics of the sample are provided in Table 1.

Table 1
Demographics and Characteristics of Sample

                  LD     Average Achievers (Non-LD)    N

Females           31%               50%               271
Male              69%               50%               392

Education Plan    80%                1%

Grades
      4            47               53
      5            44               56
      6            48               52
      7            49               51
      8            50               50
      9            42               58

Eighty percent of the students with learning disabilities were on educational plans and were receiving school-based special educational services for part of their school day, ranging from a minimum of one or two periods per week to a maximum of six periods per week. Much of the remediation occurred within the general classroom setting as part of the inclusion program in both school systems. Many of the remaining 20% of the students with learning disabilities were not on educational plans because they were receiving private remediation or because school-based remediation had been discontinued.

Measures

All the self-report measures were developed at the Research Institute for Learning and Development (Research ILD) using a theoretical model of strategic learning as a flame of reference (Meltzer, 1995). All measures incorporate a 5-point rating scale with a range from "never" to "always." Data relating to the reliability and validity of these scales have been published previously (Meltzer, Roditi, Houser, & Perlman, 1996, 1998).

The Student Self-Report System (SSRS) was completed by all students. This 50-item questionnaire evaluates students' perceptions of the extent to which they use strategies in five academic areas: reading, written language, spelling, math, and organization (see Table 2 for examples of items).

Table 2

Sample Items from the Student Self-Report System (SSRS)

Selected Reading Strategy Items
* When I read, I ask myself questions to help me remember.
* Before I begin to read my textbook, I look at the headings and
  pictures to get an idea of what I will be reading.

Selected Spelling Strategy Items
* I use many tricks to remember how to spell words.
* Remembering what a word looks like helps me to spell it correctly.

Selected Writing Strategy Items
* Before I write, I plan my ideas on paper.
* I use an outline to organize my writing.

Selected Math Strategy Items
* I use tricks to help me remember math facts.
* I have a step-by-step plan before I start solving a math word
  problem.

Selected Organizational Strategy Items
* When I want to remember something, I write it down.
* I use aids like flashcards and charts to help myself study for tests.

Note. The SSRS consists of 50 items with a 1-5 rating scale (always,
usually, sometimes, never, rarely).

Students with learning disabilities completed the questionnaire independently and were encouraged to request assistance if items were difficult to read or understand. In most cases, help was not needed. The scoring system for the SSRS incorporated a rating scale from 1-5, with a total score derived in each domain.

The Teacher Observation System (TOS) is a 20-item questionnaire designed to provide teachers with a method of rapidly rating students' efficiency and flexibility in strategic learning as well as their self-monitoring strategies in reading, writing, spelling, math, and organization (see Table 3 for examples of items).

Table 3

Sample Items from the Teacher Observation System (TOS)

Reading
* Readily completes reading assignments.
* Can summarize stories in own words.

Spelling
* Checks work for spelling errors.
* Corrects spelling errors systematically.

Writing
* Uses outlines to organize writing.
* Makes drafts of reports and stories.

Math
* Remembers math facts readily.
* Uses strategies (e.g., pictures) to solve word problems.

Organization
* Comes to class prepared.
* Uses an assignment notebook.

Note. (1) The TOS consists of 20 items, four items in each of the five
academic domains.

(2) Teachers rate students on a 1-5 rating scale
(1 = always true, 2 = usually true, 3 = sometimes true, 4 = never true,
S = rarely true).

The Student Rating System assessed students' judgments of their academic performance on a 5-point scale ("I am one of the best in my class," "I am above average in the class," "I am average in the class," "I am below average in the class," or "I do very poorly in the class."). Students rated their performance in the five academic domains that were included on the SSRS, namely, reading, writing, spelling, math, and organization. Students also rated their level of effort and their ability to plan, to check their work, and to apply strategies to their schoolwork.

The Teacher Rating Scale evaluated teachers' judgments of their students' performance in the same nine domains as the Student Rating System.

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered to the 663 students by each of the 57 teachers, who concurrently completed their own questionnaires. The study reported here focused on an analysis of a subset of the data that related to effort, strategy use and academic achievement.

RESULTS

The results were analyzed using multiple regression. To determine whether there were significant differences between the students with and without learning disabilities, ANOVA and t-test analyses were completed.

Effort in School: Students' and Teachers' Perceptions

This set of analyses focused on only the effort and strategy ratings. Composite strategy scores were obtained by summing the strategy ratings across the domains of reading, writing, spelling, and math. Two separate composite scores were obtained, one for students and one for teachers. Effort ratings were obtained from students' ratings of their ability to work hard on a 1-5 scale (1 = I do very poorly in the class, 2 = I am below average in the class, 3 = I am average in the class, 4 = I am above average in the class, 5 = I am one of the best in the class). Similarly, teachers rated the effort of each student on a 1-5 scale.

As is evident from Table 4, students with learning disabilities judged themselves as hard workers who put forth above-average effort to achieve academically. Students with no learning disabilities (average achievers) rated themselves as making an above-average to superior effort in their academic work. Although the self-ratings of the students with learning disabilities were above average, they were still significantly lower than the ratings of the average achievers [t(1,578) p [is less than] .001].

Table 4
Self-Ratings and Teacher Ratings of Effort: Comparisons of Students
with and without Learning Disabilities

                                        LD             Non-LD

Student Effort Ratings (M & SD)    3.64 (1.06)    4.00 (.88)(***)
Teacher Effort Ratings (M & SD)    2.93 (1.00)    3.42 (.87)(***)

(***)p < .001.

Teachers' ratings of all students were lower than students' self-ratings (see Table 4). Specifically, teachers rated students with learning disabilities as close to average (2.93) and the students without learning disabilities as above average (3.42). Once again, this difference was significant [t(1,578) p [is less than] .001)].

The combined effects of effort and strategy use on reading, writing, spelling, and math. Separate multiple regressions were conducted to determine whether teachers' and students' ratings of strategy use could be predicted on the basis of their ratings of effort, organization, planning, and checking (see Tables 5a and 5b).

Table 5a

Relative Contributions of Organization, Planning, Checking and Effort
to Strategy Use: Students' Ratings

                   Self-Ratings of Strategy Use
                               LD

Variable             B      SE B    Beta
Effort             .372    .058    .335(***)
Planfulness        .234    .051    .246(**)
Self-Checking      .227    .059    .203(*)
Organization       .005    .051    .053

                   R = .655   [R.sup.2] = .429

                   Self-Ratings of Strategy Use
                            Non-LD

Variable             B      SE B    Beta
Effort             .228    .059    .229(***)
Planfulness        .197    .060    .206(***)
Self-Checking      .206    .067    .195(***)
Organization       .112    .054    .124(*)

                  R = .575    [R.sup.2] = .330

Note. Multiple-regression analysis. Students rated their strategy use
on the SSRS.

(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01, (***) p < .001.

Table 5b
Relative Contributions of Organization, Planning, Checking and Effort
to Strategy Use: Teachers' Ratings

                   Teachers' Ratings of Strategy Use
                                 LD

Variable             B      SE B   Beta
Effort             .284    .037    .319(***)
Planfulness        .374    .053    .395(***)
Self-Checking      .219    .054    .224(***)
Organization       .004    .045    .042

                   R = .888   [R.sup.2] = .788

                   Teachers' Ratings of Strategy Use
                               Non-LD

Variable             B     SE B    Beta
Effort             .225    .036    .260(***)
Planfulness        .417    .055    .449(***)
Self-Checking      .223    .055    .232(***)
Organization       .004    .049    .041
                   R = .884   [R.sup.2] = .782

Note. Multiple-regression analysis. Teachers rated strategy use on
the TOS.

(***) p < .001.

The beta values in Tables 5a and 5b indicate that students in both learning groups rated effort, or their ability to work hard, as the most important predictor of strategy use, whereas teachers rated planning as the most important predictor of strategy use. Interestingly, both groups of students did not perceive as strong a relationship between the combined effects of their planning, checking, effort, and organization, on the one hand, and their use of strategies, on the other hand (LD group: R = .655, R squared = .429; AA group: R = .575; R squared = .330). In contrast, teachers' ratings of the combined effects of students' planning, checking, effort and organization predicted a significant amount of variance in students' strategy use for the group of students with learning disabilities (R = .888, R squared = .788) and for the average achieving students (R = . 884; R squared = .782).

The next set of analyses was designed to evaluate the combined effects of effort and strategy use on academic performance in the four domains of reading, writing, spelling and math. Separate forced-choice multiple-regression analyses were performed for the two groups (students with learning disabilities and average achievers). The possible influence of gender and grade level was also evaluated by adding these variables to the regression analyses (see Table 6).

Table 6

The Combined Effects of Effort and Strategy Use on Academic Performance
in Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Math -- Results of
Multiple-Regression Analysis

                           LD
                   B         SE B     Beta

Reading         R = .463  [R.sup.2] = .215
Variable
Effort           .347        .047      .408(**)
Strategy Use     .009        .076      .069
Grade            .000        .031      .002
Gender          -.009        .108     -.046

Writing         R = .630  [R.sup.2] = .397
Variable
Effort           .224        .51       .263(***)
Strategy Use     .258        .80       .198(***)
Grade            .00         .32      -.04
Gender          -.155        .122     -.60

Spelling        R = .602  [R.sup.2] = .363
Variable
Effort           .312        .065      .288(***)
Strategy Use     .204        .102      .119(*)
Grade           -.573        .04      -.083
Gender          -.187        .141     -.076

Math            R=.556    [R.sup.2] = .304
Variable
Effort           .261        .063      .243(***)
Strategy Use     .268        .101      .159(**)
Grade           -.05         .039      .088
Gender          -.404        .140     -.168

                          Non-LD
                   B         SE B     Beta

Reading         R = .649  [R.sup.2] = .422
Variable
Effort           .448        .050     .477(**)
Strategy Use     .124        .064     .100
Grade            .004        .025     .099
Gender          -.170        .083    -.104(*)

Writing         R = .632  [R.sup.2] = .400
Variable
Effort           .326        .054     .341(***)
Strategy Use     .146        .068     .199(*)
Grade            .003        .27      .73
Gender           .122        .089     .067

Spelling        R = .609  [R.sup.2] = .371
Variable
Effort           .346        .062     .318(***)
Strategy Use     .223        .083     .141(**)
Grade           -.005        .031    -.09
Gender          -.007        .102    -.04

Math            R=.585    [R.sup.2]=.342
Variable
Effort           .352        .062     .316(***)
Strategy Use     .223        .081     .147(**)
Grade            .004       -.31     -.73
Gender           .434        .100    -.222(**)

(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01, (***) p < .001.

In both groups, effort was the most important contributor to academic performance in all eight regressions. Effort, in combination with strategy use, predicted the majority of the variance in all four academic domains in the students with and without learning disabilities. Interestingly, the contribution of effort in the average achieving group was systematically higher than in the students with learning disabilities. Neither grade level nor gender played major roles in predicting performance in the four academic areas.

Comparisons of High and Low Achievers Across Learning Status

To determine whether students' actual school performance influenced teachers' ratings to a greater extent than the existence of a learning disability, students with and without learning disabilities were combined into one group. Teachers' ratings of students' achievement in reading, writing, spelling, and math were used to determine group membership. Students who were rated as performing at an average or above-average level in all four academic domains were considered high-average achievers (referred to here as high achievers for ease of understanding). Students who performed at a below-average level in more than one subject were considered below average achievers (referred to as low achievers).

High-average achievers with and without LD vs. low achievers with and without LD. When the high-average achievers were compared with the low achievers across learning status, they differed significantly on all measures (see Figure 1).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

As is evident from Table 7 and Figure 1, high-average achievers rated themselves as working extremely hard and making extensive use of strategies to read, write and do math. They also perceived themselves as devoting an above-average level of effort to their schoolwork. Low achievers' self-ratings of their strategy use and effort were significantly lower than those of the high achievers (p [is less than] .001). Nevertheless, they still rated themselves as making an average effort and as using strategies with appropriate frequency. Teacher ratings of these two groups revealed even larger differences, which were again highly significant for both strategy use and effort (p [is less than] .001). Teachers judged the high-average achievers as superior in their use of learning strategies as compared with the low achievers, whom they viewed as extremely deficient in their use of strategies. Teachers also viewed the high-average achievers as very hard workers and rated their effort as above average. In contrast, low achievers were judged as making limited effort and as working at a below-average level.

Table 7

High-Average vs. Low Achievers across Learning Status: Teacher and
Student Ratings of Effort and Strategy Use

                            Student Ratings
Variable           High-average Achievers        Low Achievers

Effort Rating             4.08 (.89)             3.54 (1.1)(***)
Strategy Rating           3.61 (.95)             3.04 (1.05)(***)

                            Teacher Ratings
Variable           High-average Achievers        Low Achievers

Effort Rating             3.49 (.89)             2.61 (.90)(***)
Strategy Rating           3.90 (.78)             2.01 (.70)(***)

Note: Students with and without learning disabilities were combined;
students' ratings were based on the SSRS; teachers' ratings were based
on the TOS.

(***) p < .001.

High-average achievers with LD vs. high-average achievers without LD. As is evident from Figure 2 and from Table 8, high-average achievers with and without learning disabilities did not differ significantly in their self-ratings of their strategy use (M LD = 3.60, M non-LD = 3.64).

Table 8

High-Average Achieving Students: Teacher and Student Ratings of Effort
and Strategy Use for Students with and without LD

                     Student Ratings
Variable              LD         Non-LD

Effort Rating     3.98 (.89)    4.17 (.86)
Strategy Rating   3.60 (.92)    3.64 (.97)

                     Teacher Ratings
Variable              LD          Non-LD

Effort Rating     3.61 (.90)    3.60 (.83)
Strategy Rating   3.05 (.85)    3.27 (.72)

Note. Students' ratings were based on the SSRS; teachers' ratings
were based on the TOS.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Both groups also viewed themselves as hard workers and judged their effort as well above average (M LD = 3.98, M non-LD = 4.17). In other words, students who achieved at an average or above average level perceived their strategy use and effort as above-average, regardless of whether or not they exhibited learning disabilities.

In summary, when students' self-ratings were considered, there were no significant differences between the self-ratings of the students in the two groups of high-average achievers. Teachers rated the effort and strategy use of the high-average achieving students in a similar way, regardless of whether these students had learning disabilities. Teachers therefore viewed high-average achieving students as strategic learners with a strong work ethic irrespective of whether they exhibited learning problems.

Low achievers with LD vs. low achievers without LD. If high-average achievers are viewed as hard workers who consistently use strategies regardless of whether they exhibit learning disabilities, how are low achievers judged? In contrast to the high-average achievers, low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities differed significantly on most variables as reflected in the independent t-test analyses. Students' self-ratings of their effort were also significantly different, although their teachers judged the effort of the two groups as similar (see Table 9 and Figure 3).

Table 9

Low-Achieving Students: Teacher and Student Ratings of Effort and
Strategy Use for Students with and without LD

                         Student Ratings
Variable                 LD           Non-LD

Effort Rating       3.55 (1.14)    3.87 (.76)(*)
Strategy Rating     3.10 (1.07)    3.44 (.92)(*)

                    Teacher Ratings
Variable                 LD           Non-LD

Effort Rating       2.70 (.949)    2.75 (.89)
Strategy Rating     2.06 (.74)     2.39 (.60)(**)

Note. Students' ratings were based on the SSRS; teachers' ratings were
based on the TOS.

(*) p < .05, (**) p < .01.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

When students rated their own effort, students with learning disabilities judged themselves as hard workers who made an above-average effort to succeed in the classroom (M = 3.55). Nevertheless, the self-ratings of effort of these students were still significantly lower than the self-ratings of the low achievers without learning disabilities (M = 3.87, p [is less than] .05). Students with learning disabilities rated themselves as average in their use of strategies (M = 3.10) whereas the low achievers without learning disabilities rated themselves as significantly higher (M = 3.44, p [is less than]. 05. Interestingly, teachers rated the effort of both groups similarly, with ratings in the borderline-average range for both groups. Nevertheless, they still rated the students with learning disabilities as significantly less strategic (M = 2.06) than their peers without learning disabilities (M = 2.39, p [is less than]. 01).

DISCUSSION

The findings of both phases of this study indicated that students with learning disabilities viewed themselves as motivated, hard working, appropriately strategic, and academically competent. This is consistent with previous findings that students with learning disabilities frequently show strong general self-concepts, perceive themselves as capable and effective, and rate themselves very positively (Grolnick & Ryan, 1990; Meltzer et al., 1998; Priel & Leshem, 1990; Vaughn, Hogan, Kouzekanani, & Shapiro, 1990).

One theme that emerged from the study was the discrepancy between students' and teachers' assessments of the effort students applied in the classroom. While students with learning disabilities rated themselves as hard workers with above-average effort, their teachers viewed them as exerting an average level of effort that was, nevertheless, still significantly lower than the effort of their average-achieving peers.

Students and their teachers also differed in their judgments of the relative importance of effort and strategy use as predictors of academic performance. In a previous study across four academic domains, teachers viewed strategy use as the most important predictor of academic achievement (Meltzer et al., 2000). In the current study, students with and without learning disabilities viewed effort as the most important predictor of academic achievement. These findings support the results of previous studies showing that students with learning disabilities display positive self-concepts and feelings of self-worth and therefore hold a resilient belief that effort plays a critical role in achievement.

A different theme characterized the average- to high-achieving students with learning disabilities whose classroom performance was strong. Interestingly, teachers rated these students as equivalent in their strategy use and classroom effort, regardless of whether they displayed learning disabilities. These findings suggest that teachers' judgments of students' effort, hard work, and strategy use were influenced by students' academic success and that the existence of a learning disability did not interfere negatively with this perception. In other words, students with learning disabilities who succeeded academically when they made the effort were judged as motivated and academically competent by their teachers. Academic success therefore overrides the negative halo effect that often clouds teachers' perceptions of students with learning disabilities. Students also recognize that their effort and hard work in implementing strategies has resulted in successful academic performance in the classroom. This, in turn, feeds students' self-esteem and their willingness to continue to use strategies and to work hard.

These findings suggest that effort and success often sustain each other. In other words, hard work and efficient use of strategies result in academic success, which enhance motivation and effort. This, in turn, results in more efficient strategy use and more successful academic performance irrespective of the existence of a learning disability. Most critical is the efficiency with which students use strategies to learn. Hard work that is not accompanied by strategy use is often ineffective in changing academic performance. This may be the case for low-achieving students with learning disabilities. For these students, the discrepancies between their self-perceptions and the perceptions of their teachers may relate to the inefficiency of their strategy use. In other words, low-achieving students with learning disabilities may work harder than their teachers realize but their inefficient or incomplete use of strategies does not result in academic success and their academic performance does not reflect their level of effort. Thus, while average high-achieving students with learning disabilities do not differ from their average high-achieving peers without learning disabilities, low-achieving students with learning disabilities may seem to be trapped in a cycle of failure (Montague, 1997a, 1997b).

These findings further support the notion of a reciprocal strategy-effort interaction. That is, when students are successful academically as a result of their hard work and strategy use, they feel empowered to take more responsibility for their work, to value the strategies they have used, and to continue to work hard. In other words, the positive outcome of their hard work and strategy use feeds self-concept and motivates them to continue to work hard and to make the effort to use the appropriate strategies. Students must believe that making the effort to use strategies is worthwhile because these strategies will lead to efficient and accurate academic performance. In other words, effort is central to strategy use which, in turn, results in improved academic performance.

The results of the current study suggest a number of directions for further investigation. First, the findings indicate the need for a more refined methodology that takes into account the heterogeneity of learning disabilities and the variability in these students' academic performance, rather than assuming that all students with learning disabilities are academically unsuccessful. Future research could begin to identify those characteristics that allow students to overcome the limitations imposed by their learning disabilities and to attain academic success. It is also important to investigate whether success in one or only a few areas is adequate to sustain effort or whether the absence of failure is enough to preserve effort in students with learning disabilities. An approach that begins to define effort and success more carefully will allow us to move beyond the negativity and halo effect that often flame societal perceptions of students with learning disabilities.

This study also points to the importance of defining effort more carefully, measuring effort more accurately, and describing what determines efficient effort. Further research could investigate whether effort is efficient when it is flexible, guided by strategies, and well adapted to the task demands. Future studies could also focus on the development of an effort scale as well as a series of timed tasks to determine how effort interacts with self-concept and persistence to mediate academic performance. As has been discussed previously (Meltzer et al., 1998), it is important to explore these processes in greater depth as the combined traits of effort; persistence, and resilience can exert a major influence on whether or not a student with a learning disability becomes a successful achiever. Finally, the relationship between ability, interest, and effort needs additional research as the interactions between these processes may help us to understand the complex relationships that affect the performance of students with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, further research on students' and teachers' perceptions of the relationship between effort, strategies, and achievement is critical in view of the current trend toward inclusion of students with learning disabilities in the general education classroom. Given the importance of strategic learning, effort attributions, and academic self-concept, an improved understanding of these issues could result in major changes in classroom teaching methods, particularly for students with learning disabilities.

REFERENCES

Borkowski, J. G., Cart, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 53-92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis E. S. (1994). Integrating content with writing strategy instruction: Part 1 -- Orienting students to organizational devices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(3), 169-179.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: A multiple-group comparison study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 177-184.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Helping young writers master the craft: Strategy instruction and self-regulation in the writing process. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Press.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251-263.

Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L., Houser, B., & Meltzer, L. (2000). Self-perceptions of effort, strategy use and achievement in students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, British Columbia, Canada.

Licht, B. G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational factors that contribute to the achievement of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 483-490.

Licht, B. G., & Kistner, J. A. (1986). Motivational problems of learning-disabled children: Individual differences and their implications for treatments. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 225-255). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McPhail, J. C., & Stone, C. A. (1995). The self-concept of adolescents with learning disabilities: A review of the literature and a call for theoretical elaboration. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 9, 193-226.

Meltzer, L. J. (1995). Strategic learning in students with learning disabilities: The role of students' self-awareness and self-perceptions. In T. E. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Meltzer, L. J., Miller, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., & Roditi, B. (2000), Effort, stratesy use, and academic performance: Student and teacher perspectives. Paper presented at the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, British Columbia, Canada.

Meltzer, L. J., & Montague, M. (in press). Strategic learning in students with learning disabilities -- What have we learned? In D. Hallahan & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research and global perspectives in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William J. Cruickshank Chapter 7. NJ: Erlbaum.

Meltzer, L. J., Roditi, B., Haynes, D., Biddle, L., Paster, M., & Taber, S. (1996). Strategies for success: Classroom teaching techniques for students with learning problems. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Meltzer, L. J., Roditi, B., Houser, R. F., & Perlman, M. (1998). Perceptions of academic strategies and competence in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 437-451.

Montague, M. (1997a). Student perception, mathematical problem solving, and learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 46-53.

Montague, M. (1997b). Cognitive strategy training in mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164-177.

Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Middle school students' mathematical problem solving: An analysis of think-aloud protocols. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 19-32.

Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in, motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(6), 360-370.

Poonman, C. D. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 12-19.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., Forrest-Pressley, D., Gaskins, I., & Wile, D. (1993). Closing thoughts in strategy instruction for individuals with learning disabilities: The good information processing perspective. In L. J. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities: From theory to practice (pp. 355-377). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction research comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.

Priel, B., & Leshem, T. (1990). Self-perceptions of first and second grade children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(10), 637-642.

Sawyer, V., Nelson, J. S., Jayanthi, M., Bursuck, W. D., & Epstein, M. H. (1996). Views of students with learning disabilities of their homework in general education classes: Student Interviews. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 70-85.

Stone, C. A., & Conca, L. (1993). The origin of strategy deficits in children with learning disabilities: A social constructivist perspective. In L.J. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities: From theory to practice (pp. 23-59). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.

Vaughn, S., Hogan, A., Kouzekanani, K. B., & Shapiro, S. (1990). Peer acceptance, self-perceptions and social skills of learning disabled students prior to identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 101-106.

Wong, B. Y. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A review of a view. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 9-29.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1987). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 189-195.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). Assessment of metacognitive research in learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 265-283). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

AUTHOR NOTES

We would like to thank Robert Houser, Ph.D., for his methodological and statistical assistance. We would also like to thank Judith Stein, Ph.D., Susan Taber, M.Ed., Joan Steinberg, M.A., Kathy Boyle, Ed.M., and Wendy Stacey, M.S., for their help with the data collection involved in this study. Thanks, too, to Thelma Segal for her help with preparation of the manuscript.

The findings reported here are based in part on a paper presented in a symposium entitled School Performance in Students with Learning and Behavioral Difficulties: Teacher and Student Perceptions at the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, Vancouver, July 2000.

This research was funded in part by a grant from the Ronald McDonald Children's Charities and the Stratford Foundation. Request for reprints should be addressed to: Lynn Meltzer, Research Institute for Learning and Development, 5 Militia Drive, Lexington, MA 02420.

LYNN MELTZER, Ph.D., is executive director of the Research Institute for Learning and Development, an adjunct associate professor at Tufts University, and an associate in Education at Harvard University.

TAMAR KATZIR-COHEN, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Child Development, Tufts University.

LYNNE MILLER, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Child Development, Tufts University.

BETHANY RODITI, Ph.D., is president of the Research Institute for Learning and Development and director of education at the Institute for Learning and Development.