Skip to main content

Self-regulated strategy development instruction for writing an opinion essay: Effects for six students with emotional/behavior disorders

Reading and Writing volume 21, pages 71–93 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

A multiple-probe across-subjects design was used to examine persuasive writing performance of six 2nd- through 5th- grade students with emotional/behavior disorders (EBD). Students’ writing was evaluated before and after self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instruction for the POW (Pick my idea, Organize my notes, Write and say more) + TREE (Topic sentence, Reasons – three or more, Ending, Examine) strategy. Students’ essays written during and immediately after instruction indicated that the students had learned to write independently a persuasive essay with five parts. Generalization and maintenance performance, however, varied across students and appeared to be associated with behavior as opposed to the inability to transfer or remember the strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2005). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., Gertsen, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C. S. (1989). The effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp 323–344). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. H. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 251–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling writers in second grade: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 295–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1978). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple probe baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivarie, J. J. (1986). Effects of proficiency rates on later performance of a recall and writing behavior. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders: 1990 to present . In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.). Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–486). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H. (2006). [Explicit instruction for strategy development in two multi-component expository reading interventions: Effects for students who struggle with comprehension.] Unpublished raw data.

  • Mason, L. H., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-regulated strategy development for story writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 496–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Jones, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine 4th-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., & Meadan, H. (2006). [Longitudinal effects of self-regulated reading comprehension and writing strategy instruction for 4th grade students who struggle with learning: A components analysis.] Unpublished raw data.

  • Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2005) Teaching students with learning problems (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, M., Enders, C., & Castro, M. (2005). Academic and behavioral outcomes for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., & Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status and trends of academic research for students with emotional disturbance. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K. L., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penno, D. A., Frank, A. R., & Wacker, D. P. (2000). Instructional accommodations for adolescent students with severe emotional for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 325–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, K. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Promoting expressive writing among students with emotional and behavioral disturbance via dialogue journals. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, K. L., & Berlinghoff, D. H. (1992). Research on improving behaviorally disordered students’ academic performance: A review of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H., & Yoder, P. J. (2002). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise and opportunities to respond for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (1989). Central processing strategy difference in gifted, normal achieving, learning disabled, and mentally retarded children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 378–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. New York: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003). Research on the academic status of children with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961 to 2000. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 198–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Instructional strategies for enhancing learning disabled students’ reading comprehension and comprehension test performance. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 2, 128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, S., Nelson, J., Christenson, S., Johnson, D. R., Dennison, A., Triezenberg, H., Sharpe, M., & Hawres, M. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this article was funded by Campus Research Board Grant, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The authors would like to thank Rahul Ganguly, Yore Kedem, Diana Sukrham, and Ray Taft for their support in this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 210 CEDAR, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Linda H. Mason

  2. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA

    James G. Shriner

Authors
  1. Linda H. Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James G. Shriner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda H. Mason.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Holistic Quality Score

Score of 10. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, more than three reasons with at least three explanations, and an ending sentence. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument. Writer uses more than one counter argument/point in the essay.

Score of 9. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, more than three reasons, at least 3 explanations, and an ending sentence. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument. Writer uses 1 counter argument/point in the essay.

Score of 8. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, more than three reasons, at least 2 explanations, and an ending sentence. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 7. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, three reasons with at least two explanations, and ending sentence. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 6. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, three reasons with at least 1 explanation, and ending sentence. Essay’s sequence is weak, therefore limiting the writer’s argument.

Score of 5. Persuasive essay includes topic sentence, three reasons, and ending sentence.

Score of 4. Persuasive essay includes four of the following parts: topic sentence, reasons, and ending sentence.

Score of 3. Persuasive essay includes three of the following parts: topic sentence, three reasons, and ending sentence.

Score of 2. Persuasive essay includes two of the following parts: topic sentence, reasons, and ending sentence.

Score of 1. Persuasive essay includes one of the following parts: topic sentence, reason, and ending sentence.

Score of 0. No essay parts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mason, L.H., Shriner, J.G. Self-regulated strategy development instruction for writing an opinion essay: Effects for six students with emotional/behavior disorders. Read Writ 21, 71–93 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9065-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9065-y

Keywords

  • Behavior Disorders
  • Essay
  • Instruction
  • Strategy writing