SRSD For Writing Strategies

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Six basic stages of instruction are used to introduce and develop genre specific and general writing and self-regulation strategies in the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model for writing strategies instruction:

  1. develop background knowledge
  2. discuss it
  3. model it
  4. support it
  5. memorize it
  6. independent performance

Throughout the stages, teachers and students collaborate on the acquisition, implementation, evaluation, and modification of these strategies.

There are five critical characteristics of SRSD instruction. One, writing (genre specific and general) strategies and self-regulation strategies, as well as declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge are explicitly taught and supported in development. Two, children are viewed as active collaborators who work with the teacher and each other during instruction. Three, instruction is individualized so that the processes, skills, and knowledge targeted for instruction are tailored to children’s needs and capabilities. Goals are adjusted to current performance for each student, with more capable writers addressing more advanced goals. Instruction is further individualized through the use of individually tailored feedback and support. Four, instruction is criterion based rather than time based; students move through the instructional process at their own pace and do not proceed to later stages of instruction until they have met criteria for doing so. Importantly, instruction does not end until the student can use the strategy and self-regulation procedures efficiently and effectively. Five, SRSD is an on-going process in which new strategies are introduced and previously taught strategies are upgraded over time.

SRSD is intended for use in grades 2 through high school. It is designed for use with students with disabilities, (including learning disabilities, and behavioral disabilities), English language learners and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is writing (including sentence construction, planning and revising, and genre element knowledge) and self-regulation strategies for writing (including goal setting, self-instructions, self-assessment and self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement).

Where to obtain:
Karen Harris
Arizona State University
Telephone: 480-727-7533
Email Address: Karen.r.harris@asu.edu

Cost:

SRSD is not sold as a commercial program.

SRSD is designed for use with individual students or small groups of two to four students.

SRSD takes 20-40 minutes per session with a recommended three sessions per week for 6-11 weeks depending on the criterion.

The program includes a highly specified teacher’s manual. No special technology is required.

Training teachers in small groups has taken 9-12 hours; training teachers individually has been done in 6-8 hours. (Teachers can learn to do SRSD using support materials available online or in print, but efficacy of this has not been studied).

Instructors are provided with detailed directions for implementing all lessons and activities in small group or one-on-one training sessions.  Instructional methods are modeled for the trainees, and they practice implementing the instructional procedures until they can do so without error.  They are taught to use checklists to check off the key instructional steps as they go through each lesson.

Instructors must be paraprofessionals. The training manual has been field-tested with the target population of instructors and students through programmatic piloting and research for over 25 years.

The program developers and associates are available to provide support, and on-line and print resources and tutorials are available.

 

Participants: 
Participants content: 

Sample size: 48 students in third grade in one school district. (24 students in the treatment group and 24 students in the control group).

Risk Status: A norm-referenced measure, the Story Construction Subtest from the Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3) was used to identify children who were at-risk in writing. When the teachers of the identified participants were interviewed, the at-risk students were identified as having difficulty with writing and as being among the weakest writers in the class. Supporting evidence of writing difficulty was obtained using a second norm-referenced assessment, the Writing Fluency Subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational battery-Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) that measures the ability to write a sentence from a picture prompt accompanied by three written words. The mean standard score for the 72 students who completed this study was 7.6 (SD=3.4) where the mean for this subtest is 10 (SD=3), indicating that the identified students performed more than two-thirds of a standard deviation below the normative sample.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

24

100

24

100

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

19

79.1

18

75

 

  American Indian

0

0

0

0

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

0

0

1

4.16

 

  Hispanic

2

8.33

2

8.33

 

  White

2

8.33

3

12.5

 

  Other (Unknown)

1

4.12

0

0

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

15

62.5

14

58.34

 

  No subsidized lunch

9

37.5

10

41.67

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Mental retardation

 

 

 

 

 

  Other – Has a disability (type not specified in the study)

6

25

6

25

 

  Not identified with a disability

18

75

18

75

 

ELL status

  English language learner

3

12.5

3

12.5

 

  Not English language learner

21

87.5

21

87.5

 

Gender

Female

9

37.5

12

50

 

Male

15

62.5

12

50

 

Training of Instructors: Six graduate students majoring in education delivered instruction after receiving two weeks of training to learn how to implement the instructional strategies. They practiced until implementation was error free. Instructors were provided a step-by-step checklist for each lesson as well as a set of detailed directions for implementing each lesson. Instructors were blind to the hypotheses of the study. On-going support was provided as well. Instructors met weekly with the second and third authors to discuss issues with implementation.

Design: 
Design content: 

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: No.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1? No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: 
Fidelity of Implementation content: 

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained:
1. Instructors were provided a step-by-step checklist of the lesson plans that they checked off as they completed each step.
2. Thirty percent of lessons were tape recorded and checked for fidelity.
3. Overall quality of the lessons that were tape recorded were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1-5, where 1 is of low quality and 5 is of high quality)

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Inspection of the step-by-step lesson plan checklist showed that 99% of the steps in all lessons were completed (in both SRSD and SRSD+Peer Support conditions, combined). Analysis of the tape recorded lessons showed that 97% of the steps were completed correctly in the SRSD only condition. The average quality rating across all tape recorded lessons (both SRSD only and SRSD+Peer Support conditions combined) was 4.98 on a 5-point scale.

Measures Targeted: 
Measures Broader: 
Measures content: 
Targeted Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

Composing Time – amount of time students spent writing the paper

Time 0-…
(students had as much time as they needed to complete their paper)

Not indicated

All measures are based on responses to writing prompts in the selected genres(story writing or persuasive essay). Before the study, prompts were evaluated by one third-grade and two second-grade teachers in terms of suitability forth is population. All prompts included in the study were selected as appropriate by the teachers.

Number of words – total number of words, included all written words regardless of spelling which represented a spoken word

Number0-…

All papers were scored for total number of words by first author and ½ of the papers were rescored by a graduate student.
Interrater reliability was .99

Story elements

Total of binary scores (0 or 1) for each of the 7elements (main character(s), locale, time, what the main character(s) want to do (goals), action to achieve goal(s), consequence of actions, and characters’ reactions) 0-7

All stories were scored by a trained graduate student and a second trained graduate student scored ½ of the compositions
Interrater reliability = 0.86

Persuasive elements

Rated on binary scale (0 or 1) for 4 elements (premise,reason, examples, and conclusion) where reasons and examples get a point for each instance.
0 - …

All stories were scored by a trained graduate student and a second trained graduate student scored ½ of the compositions
Interrater reliability = 0.86

Quality

Likert-like scale 1-8 (1 is of low quality, 8 is of high quality) Total Quality score is the average score of the two raters

Interrater reliability
Story = 0.87
Persuasive = 0.93

 

Broader Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

Not Applicable

 

 

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 
15 Writing
Effect Size content: 

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Writing Composing Time Story Prompt Only 1.64***, u
Writing Number of Words Story Prompt Only 2.05***, u
Writing Elements Story Prompt Only 1.91***, u
Writing Quality Story Prompt Only 2.03***, u
Writing Composing Time Persuasive Prompt Only 1.73***, u
Writing Number of Words Persuasive Prompt Only 2.05***, u
Writing Elements Persuasive Prompt Only 1.90***, u
Writing Quality Persuasive Prompt Only 2.10***, u
Writing Composing Time Narrative Prompt Only 0.10 u
Writing Number of Words Narrative Prompt Only 0.15 u
Writing Elements Narrative Prompt Only 0.93*, u
Writing Quality Narrative Prompt Only 0.13 u
Writing Composing Time Informative Prompt Only 0.86*, u
Writing Number of Words Informative Prompt Only 1.11*, u
Writing Quality Informative Prompt Only 0.98*, u

 Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not Applicable  

 

Key
*      p ≤ .05
**    p ≤ .01
***       p ≤ .001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Disaggregared Data for Demographic Subgroups: 
No
Disaggregared Data for Low Percentile: 
No
Administration Group Size: 
Small groups
(n=2)
Duration of Intervention: 
20 minutes
3 times a week
10.7 weeks
Minimum Interventionist Requirements: 
Paraprofessional
2 weeks of training
Additional Research Studies on the Intervention: 
80 studies
Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: 
No
Study: 
Graham, Harris, & Mason (2005)
Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
u
Targeted Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
*
Mean ES - Targeted: 
1.31
New: 
Updated: 
Broader Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
Broader Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse Content: 

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Additional Research Studies

Not Reviewed by NCII or WWC:

Adkins, M. H. (2005). Self-regulated strategy development and generalization instruction: Effects on story writing among second and third grade students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Albertson, L. R. (1998). A cognitive-behavioral intervention study: Assessing the effects of instruction on story writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Albertson, L. R., & Billingsley, F. F. (1997, March 24-28). Improving young writers’ planning and reviewing skills while story-writing.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Anderson, A. A. (1997). The effects of sociocognitive writing strategy instruction on the writing achievement and writing self-efficacy of students with disabilities and typical achievement in an urban elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston, Houston, TX.

Asaro, K., & Saddler, B. (2010). Planning instruction and self-regulation training: Effects on writers with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 77, 107-124.

Berry, A., & Mason, L. H. (2010). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED, Remedial and Special Education, RASE Online First, June 23, 2010. doi: 10.1177/0741932510375469.

Brunstein, J. C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self- regulated writing strategies improve upper-elementary school students’ composition skills: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 922-938..

Cuenca-Sanchez, Y. (2010). Middle school students with emotional disorders: Determined to meet their needs through persuasive writing. Unpublished dissertation. George Mason University.

Curry, K. A. (1997). A comparison of the writing products of students with learning disabilities in inclusive and resource room settings using different writing instruction approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Reading and Behavior, 25, 295-322.

Delano, M. (2007a). Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345-351.

Delano, M. (2007b). Use of strategy instruction to improve the story writing skills of a student with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 252-259. doi: 10.1177/1088357607022040701.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 92-106.

De La Paz, S. (2001). Teaching writing to students with attention deficit disorders and specific language impairment. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 37-47.

De La Paz, S. (2005). Teaching historical reasoning and argumentative writing in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 139-158.

De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174-192. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203-222.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects o the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63, 167-181.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291-304.

Fidalgo,R., Torrance, M., & Garcia, J. N. (2008). The long-term effects of strategy-focused writing instruction for grade six students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 672-693.

Garcia-Sanchez, J., & Fidlgo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 181-211.

Germain, J. C. (2004). Remediation of written expression deficits in an elementary school population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.

Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310.

Glaser, C., Budde, S., & Brunstein, J. (2011). Improving writing competence in fourth-grade classrooms: Effects of a teacher-implemented self-regulated writing program on students’ strategy-related knowledge, planning skills, and writing performance. Unpublished paper.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disables students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.

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

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133-152.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322-334.

Guzel-Ozmen, R. (2006). The effectiveness of modified cognitive strategy instruction in writing with mildly mentally retarded Turkish students. Exceptional Children, 72, 281-297.

Hacker, D., Dole, J., Ferguson, M., Adamson, S., Roundy, L., & Scarpulla, L. (2011). The short-term and long-term writing gains using self-regulated strategy development in middle school. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disables students’ composition skills: Self-control strategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27-36.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Atkins, M. (2012). Tier 2, Teacher implemented writing strategies instruction following practice-based professional development. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Harris, K.R., Lane, K., Driscoll, S., Graham, S., Wilson, K., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., &        Schatschneider, C. (in press). Teacher-implemented class-wide writing intervention using         Self-Regulated Strategy Development for students with and without behavior concerns:      Elementary School Journal.

 Harris, K.R., Lane, K., Graham, S., Driscoll, S., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (in press) Practice-based professional development for strategies instruction in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education.

Jacobson, L. (2009). Improving the writing performance of high school students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and writing difficulties. Unpublished dissertation. University of Nebraska.

Jacobson & Reid. (2010). Improving the expressive writing of high school with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 76, 361-377.

Jones, K. (2001). The effectiveness of the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model when applied to the writing curriculum of seventh grade Belizean students with severe writing difficulties. Unpublished dissertation. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania.

Kiuhara, S., Harris, K., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & McKeown, D.  (2011). Examining the effectiveness of Self-Regulated Strategy Instruction with an on-demand writing task. Unpublished manuscript.

Kiuhara, S., O’Neil, R., Hawken, L., & Graham, S. (in press). The effectiveness of teaching 10th grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text. Exceptional Children.

Konrad, M., & Test, D. (2007). Effects of GO 4 IT…NOW! Strategy instruction on the written ISP goal articulation and paragraph-writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 277-291.

Konrad, M., Trela, K., & Test, D. (2006). Using IEP goals and objective to teach paragraph writing to high school students with physical and cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 111-124.

Korducki, R. A. (2001). An instructional program integrating strategies for composition and self-regulation: Effects on the English and Spanish Language writing skills of bilingual Latino students with learning difficulties. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.

Lane, K., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Little, M. A. Sandmel, K., & Brindle, M. (2010). Story writing: The effects of self-regulated strategy development for second grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 107-128.

Lane, K., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 234-253.

Lewis, W., & Ferretti, R. (2011). Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 334-354.

Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 66-78.

Lienemann, T. O., & Reid, R. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to improve expository writing with students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 74, 471-486.

Little, A., Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2010). Self-regulated strategies development for persuasive writing in tandem with schoolwide positive behavioral support: effects for second grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 157-179.

Luschen, K., Kim, O., & Reid, R. (2011). Paraeducator-led strategy instruction for struggling writers. Submitted for publication.

MacArthur, C., & Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 22, 1021-1039. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9142-x.

MacArthur, C., & Philippakos, Z. (2010). Instruction in a strategy for compare-contrast writing. Exceptional Children, 76, 438-456.

MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research, 6, 201-210.

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Hoover, T. (in press). Effects of quick writing instruction for high school students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Kostewicz, D., Cramer, A. M., & Datchuk, S. (2011). Improving quick writing performance of middle school struggling learners. Unpublished manuscript.

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Taft, R. (2009). Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education. J Spec Educ OnlineFirst, October 21, 2009. doi: 10.1177/0022466909350780.

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., Valasa, L. L., & Cramer, A. (2010). Evaluating effective writing instruction of adolescent students in an emotional and/or behavioral support setting. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 140-156.

Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L., & Cramers, A. (in press). A qualitative examination of intervention effects on students’ motivation for reading and writing. Reading and Writing Quarterly.

Mason, L. H., & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for six elementary students with emotional behavioral disorders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 71-93.

Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69-89.

Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Mills, S., Cerar, N., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Allen-Bronaugh, D., & Regan, K. (2009). Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write fluently. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 19-40.

Meltzer, L. (2006). The effects of co-constructed strategy instruction versus teacher-directed strategy instruction on the writing performance of students with learning and writing problems and their higher achieving peers. Unpublished dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Mourad, A. (2009). The effectiveness of a program based on self-regulated strategy development on the writing skills of writing-disabled secondary school students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 7(17), 5-24.

Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for written expression with students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 73, 53-68.

Rogevich, M., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on science summarization of a reading comprehension intervention for adolescents with behavioral and attentional disorders. Exceptional Children 74, 135-154.

Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 291-305.

Saddler, B., & Asaro, K. (2007) Increasing story writing ability through self-regulated strategy development and revising practice: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 223-234.

Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 3-17.

Sandmel, K., Wilson, K., Harris, K. R., Lane, K., Graham, S., Oakes, W., Kiuhara, S., & Steinbrecher, T., (2011). Success and failure with Tier 2 SRSD for rimed writing tests among 2nd and 5th grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties: Implications for evidence-based practices. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in Learning and Behavioral Difficulties: Assessment and Intervention, 24, 251-294. Bingley, UK: England.

Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992) Direct teaching, strategy instruction and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340-352.

Schnee, A. (2010). Student writing performance: Identifying the effects when combining planning and revising instructional strategies. Unpublished dissertation. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Schneider, A. (2010). Comparing and combining accommodation and remediation interventions to improve the written language performance of children with Asperger’s syndrome. Unpublished dissertation. City University of New York.

Scott, T. D. T. (2009) The effectiveness of the response-to-intervention process for at-risk high school students. Unpublished dissertation. Capella University.

Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64, 295-311.

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76-103.

Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & Garcia, J. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17, 265-285.

Tracy, B., Reid, R., & Graham, S. (2009). Teaching young students strategies for planning and drafting stories: The impact of self-regulated strategy development. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 323-329.

Trela, K. (2008). The effects of I write now strategy on high school students with significant cognitive disabilities participation in composing an opinion paragraph. Unpublished dissertation. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Troia, G., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65, 235-252.

Wong, B. Y. L, Hoskyn, M., Jai, D., Ellis, P., & Watson, K. (2008). The comparative efficacy of two approaches to teaching sixth graders opinion essay writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 111, 57-63.

Zumbrunn, S. (2010). Nurturing young students’ writing knowledge, self-regulation, attitudes, and self-efficacy: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Unpublished dissertation. University of Nebraska.

Effect sizes are available for measures that were equivalent on the pretest.: 
Subject: 
Writing
Grade Level: 
Elementary
Middle School
Citation: 
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241.