Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self regulated strategy development

ABSTRACT: Thís studj evuluates the quality of the research and evidence base for a writing intervention called Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; . Five experimental and quasi-experimental studies and 16 single-subject studies investigating SRSD were analyzed on numerous methodological dimensions. Both tbe group design and single-subject studies also met proposed standards for an evidence-based practice. Tbe potential value of analyzing approaches and interventions using tbe proposed quality indicators and standards for evidence-based practices is discussed, as are implications for research and practice. ore than any other aca-tion of skills and knowledge including organizdemie domain, writing ing information and ideas, using established offers students the oppor-writing conventions (e.g., grammar, punctuatunity to both express their tion); writing legibly; identifying and implefeelings and opinions on a menting rhetorical structures; and writing in a particular topic as well as demonstrate their way that engages a specific audience. Any of knowledge of specific content. Becoming an these elements can present challenges for typical effective writer involves developing a constella-writers, and many are poorly developed in Exceptional Children 3O3 students with learning disabilities (LD; Few educators question the value of directly teaching students to write effectively. Yet factors such as the amount of time students spend being taught systematically how to write seem to conflict with the importance educators attach to writing In the past, it was common for educators to think of writing instruction somewhat passively, consisting mainly of having students read extensively and encouraging them to apply to their own writing what they observed in the writing of others. Research on these types of exposure methods indicates that they do not help students becorrie better writers, leading to an era of advocacy for more explicit approaches CONSEQUENCES OF POOR WRITING Although the importance of fostering effective writing skills among students is unquestioned, there is clear evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) that these efforts are insufficient (Graham &C Perin, 2007). On the NAEP writing assessment for 2002, students in Grades 4, 8, and 12 wrote narrative, informative, and persuasive essays, and their performance was categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, or Advanced. Basic is defined as "partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade" (Institute of Education Sciences, 2004). In other words, students who score at Below Basic and Basic levels are not meeting minimum standards for competent writing. On the 2002 NAEP, in Grades 4, 8, and 12, 72%, 69%, and 77% of students respectively wrote at Below Basic and Basic levels On the NAEP 2007 report, which provides writing results for Grades 8 and 12 (Institute of Education Sciences, 2007), there were slight increases overall in the percentage of students in the proficient category and above, and for each demographic subgroup. However, for students with disabilities, the outcomes are troubling. Ninetyfour percent of students with disabilities scored in the Basic and Below Basic categories. In other words, only 6% of students with disabilities were considered to have proficient writing skills. In summarizing research on writing instruction for students with LD, Gersten and Baker The value of writing effectively is not confined to accomplishing academic tasks in school settings. Recent reports by the National Gommission on Writing (2004Writing ( , 2005 indicated that the majority of public and private employers state that writing proficiency is critical in the workplace and directly influences their hiring and promotion decisions. Writing is no longer a requirement limited to the daily tasks of professionals, but it is a workplace demand that extends to nearly all living-wage jobs. The lack of fundamental writing skills among new employees is such that the National Gommission on Writing estimated that 30% of employers require on-thejob training in basic writing skills. The financial cost of this workplace remediation is considerable. Private companies spend approximately $3.1 billion annually on writing remediation, and state governments spend about$221 million annually 3O4 Spring 2009 RESEARCH ON WRITING INSTRUCTION The consequences of illiteracy, including problems students experience with fundamental writing skills, has spurred research on writing instruction in K to 12 settings. Although this research base is not as extensive as the research on reading instruction, many studies have been conducted and special education researchers have played leading roles in these efforts (see The research on writing instruction that has blossomed in the last 20 years has increasingly focused on the quality of writing content rather than writing mechanics (Cersten, Baker, Pugach, Scanlon, & Chard, 2001). A catalyst for this increase of studies on writing quality was the metaanalysis on writing instruction by Since Hillocks' (1984) meta-analysis, researchers have increasingly focused on ways to improve writing content and have embedded methods within wtiting instruction across multiple stages of the writing process. Different researchers have identified different numbers of stages, but essentially the stages are: (a) instruction in planning to write (e.g., Englert et al. Recently, Craham and Perin (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on writing interventions for students in Crades 4 to 12 and found 142 studies that met their inclusion criteria. From these studies, they calculated 176 effect sizes. This magnitude of research is in sharp contrast to the 29 effect-size calculations Hillocks (1984) derived for similar types of studies targeting students in Crades 4 to 12. Based on their findings, Craham and Perin described 11 elements of effective instruction in Crades 4 to 12. Although the elements were separated in the analysis, many of the elements overlapped and included multiple stages of the wtiting process. For example, in studies on collaborative writing approaches, students are taught to work together to plan, draft, and revise their writing samples. Studies on teaching students writing strategies also focus on these stages of writing. Other studies honed in on specific stages of writing, such as approaches that teach sentence combining, whete students are taught how to write more complex sentences. Craham and Perin encouraged readers not to consider the elements "as isolated but rather as interlinked" (p. 11). It is the linkage of the elements that leads to comprehensiveness in writing instruction. Less research has been conducted on students with LD specifically. Examining primarily published studies (Craham and Perin, 2007, reviewed a much broader range of studies), Cersten and Baker (2001) conducted a meta-analysis involving 13 experimental and quasi-experimental studies of interventions designed to improve writing content in a variety of genres with students with LD. The analysis focused specifically on how the writing process was taught, and the results indicated that teaching writing strategies to students with LD could result in considerable improvements in writing quality. Although single-subject studies were not targeted in this meta-analysis formally, the informal examination of single-subject studies also supported this conclusion about the positive benefit of teaching writing strategies directly to students with LD. A comprehensive approach to writing instruction that has been used with students with and without disabilities has been developed by Craham and Harris and their colleagues (Harris 1. Students are explicitly taught background knowledge needed to use a strategy successfully. 2. The strategy-as well as its purpose and benefits-is described and discussed. 3. The teacher models how to use the strategy. 4. Students memorize the steps of the strategy and any mnemonic associated with it. 5. The teacher supports or scaffolds student mastery of the strategy. 6. Students use the strategy with few or no supports. Students are also taught a number of self-regulation skills including goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement. These skills help students manage the writing strategies, the writing process, and their bebavior during instruction. Studies of SRSD in writing represent one of the most consistent efforts to explore the specific features of an instructional intervention, including systematic replications of research. Although previous reviews have been conducted on SRSD METHOD Our research team carried out its work in four phases: (a) identifying intervention studies on SRSD in writing with students with LD or at risk for LD; (b) screening the studies to ensure they met inclusion criteria; (c) development, refinement, and application of a quality indicator rubric, based on published standards, for evaluating the methodological quality of the studies; and (d) application of published quality indicators and standards to determine whether the studies were of sufficient quality to deem SRSD an evidence-based practice. Each phase is described here in detail. PHASE I-IDENTIFYING THE LITERATURE To conduct a thorough search of literature focused on SRSD in writing instruction, we completed a three-step process. 3O6 Spring 2009 Second, we conducted an ancestral search using the reference lists from three secondary sources that focused specifically on research on writing instructional interventions for students with LD or students struggling with writing. These sources included

Measuring instructional interactions in kindergarten mathematics classrooms through a direct observation system

xvi, 115 p. : ill. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number.There is convincing evidence that many students struggle to learn mathematics proficiently. One plausible contributor to the low math achievement is the quantity and quality of learning opportunities provided in classrooms. These opportunities may fall short of addressing the learning needs of students, especially those at risk for failure in mathematics. Against this backdrop, the purpose of the dissertation was to validate a direct observation instrument. The Coding of Academic Teacher-Student interactions (CATS) observation instrument systematically measures the instructional interactions that occur between teachers and students during kindergarten mathematics instruction. The dissertation harvested data from the Early Learning in Mathematics: Efficacy Trials in Kindergarten Classrooms (ELM-ETKC) project, a randomized control efficacy trial. ELM-ETKC is investigating the efficacy of the Early Learning in Mathematics curriculum within 65 kindergarten classrooms across three school districts in the state of Oregon. The dissertation utilized student and classroom-level information collected in 65 ELM-ETKC kindergarten classrooms across the 2008-2009 school year. At the student level, data included scores from 929 kindergarten students on the Test of Early Mathematics Ability-Third Edition (TEMA) and two curriculum-based measures: Oral Counting and Number Identification. Information at the classroom level included observational data from 191 classroom observations. Utilizing the extant data, the dissertation addressed research questions related to content validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-predictive validity. Additionally, the study examined if observers could reliably use the CATS instrument in classrooms. To address two of the research questions, the dissertation employed a hierarchical design and fit multilevel models that nested (a) observations within classrooms and (b) student posttest TEMA scores within classrooms. Predictors of the models included student risk status and rates of observed instructional behaviors. The study found promising evidence for using the CATS instrument to collect information about the quantity and quality of kindergarten mathematics instruction. Independent observers reached acceptable interobserver agreement across the observations. The CATS instrument demonstrated high levels of content validity, as well as sensitivity to treatment conditions. Results also found statistically significant relationships between the mean rate of instructional behaviors and student posttest TEMA scores. Implications for future research and practice are provided.Committee in charge: Robert Homer, Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences; Christopher Murray, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences; Scott Baker, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences; Joe Stevens, Member, Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership; Thomas Dishion, Outside Member, Psycholog

Cohesive Integration of Behavior Support Within a Process of Data-Based Reading Intervention Intensification

Academic and behavioral difficulties are often co-morbid, a co-occurrence that is likely due to bi-directional and reciprocal interactions between behavior and learning. There is evidence that interventions provided within tiered systems of support that target reading skills or behavior have been associated with improved student outcomes in their respective domains. However, large scale evaluations have revealed that schools struggle to implement tiered intervention systems with quality and consistency, improvements in one domain (i.e., reading or behavior) have not been reliably associated with collateral improvements in the other, and previous efforts to merge tiered reading and behavior intervention systems can often be characterized as representing combinations of supports rather than cohesive integration of reading and behavior interventions. There is a need to identify strategies that support students’ academic engagement, a self-regulatory behavior that is directly tied to learning, that can be integrated within reading interventions and multi-tiered systems of support in efficient and cohesive ways. As such, this study will investigate the following research questions: (1) For 2nd and 3rd grade students with reading difficulties, what is the benefit of integrating behavior self-regulation strategies within Tier 2 reading interventions on students’ reading and behavior outcomes? (2) For students that demonstrate adequate response to Tier 2 intervention, what is the benefit of integrating behavior self-regulation strategies into core instruction (i.e., Tier 1)? (3) For students that demonstrate inadequate response to Tier 2 intervention, what is the benefit of integrating behavior self-regulation strategies within intensified and customized reading intervention? (4) To what extent does improvement in behavior self-regulation mediate the effects of intervention on students’ reading outcomes