lessons learned: an action research project in self...

THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 10

JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights

LESSONSLEARNED:ANACTIONRESEARCHPROJECTINSELF-REGULATEDSTRATEGYDEVELOPMENTWRITINGINSTRUCTIONFORSECONDARYSTUDENTSWITHEMOTIONALANDBEHAVIORALDISORDERSMandyE.Lusk

ClaytonStateUniversity

CalliLewisChiu

CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton

DonnaSayman

WichitaStateUniversity

Abstract:Secondarystudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders(EBD)oftenstruggleinvarious

academicareas,specificallyinwrittenexpression.Researchershavefoundthatwhenculturallydiverse

learnerswithEBDlearneffectivewritingstrategies,studentscaneffectivelyexpressthemselves.Self-regulated

strategydevelopment(SRSD)isasystematicinstructionalmodeldesignedtoaddressmanydifficulties

associatedwithwriting,includingmotivation,attitudes,andbeliefsaboutthewritingprocess(Harris,Graham,

Friedlander,&Laud,2013).ThepresentstudyinvestigatedtheeffectofanSRSDinterventiononthe

persuasivewritingskillsofculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBD.Resultsofthestudysupportthat

theSRSDinterventioncontributedtovariedincreasesintotalwordswrittenandinessayquality.The

researchersencounteredmanychallengesduringtheactionresearchproject.Thismanuscriptdocumentsthe

challengesandreflectsonpossiblesolutionsforthereaderstoconsiderwhenengaginginactionresearch.

Keywords:actionresearch,SRSD,emotionalandbehavioraldisorders,secondary,specialeducation,writing

Introduction

Studentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders(EBD)oftenstruggleinvariousacademic

areas(Ennis,Jolivette,&Boden,2013;Graham&Perin,2007;Mason,Kubina,Kostewicz,

Cramer,&Datchuk,2013).Thesestudentsoftenhaveaverageintelligence;however,their

internalizingandexternalizingchallengingbehaviorsprohibitthemfrombeingsuccessfulin

academicskillsincludingwrittenexpression(Losinski,Cuenca-Carlino,Zablocki,&

Teagarden,2014).TheIndividualswithDisabilitiesImprovementAct(IDEIA;2004)usesthe

termemotionaldisturbance,alsoknownasEBD,anddefinesitas:

Aconditionexhibitingoneormoreofthefollowingcharacteristicsoveralongperiodof

timeandtoamarkeddegreethatadverselyaffectsachild’seducationalperformance:

(a) Aninabilitytolearnthatcannotbeexplainedbyintellectual,sensory,orhealthfactors.

(b) Aninabilitytobuildormaintainsatisfactoryinterpersonalrelationshipswith

peersandteachers.

(c) Inappropriatetypesofbehaviororfeelingsundernormalcircumstances.

(d) Ageneralpervasivemoodofunhappinessordepression.

(e) Atendencytodevelopphysicalsymptomsorfearsassociatedwithpersonalor

schoolproblems((§300.8(c)(4)(i)).

Emotionaldisturbanceincludesschizophrenia.Thetermdoesnotapplytochildrenwhoare

sociallymaladjusted,unlessitisdeterminedthattheyhaveanemotionaldisturbance

(§300.8(c)(4)(ii)).

Specificallyrelatedtowriting,studentswithEBDoftenlackknowledgeofstrategicelements

neededtoproduceacohesive,qualitywritingsample(Losinskietal.,2014).Researchers

havefoundthatwhenstudentswithEBDlearneffectivewritingstrategies,theycan

effectivelyexpressthemselvesand,consequently,receivefavorablefeedbackfromtheir

peers,families,educationalprofessionals,andotherindividualsintheircommunities(Tindal

&Crawford,2002).

LiteratureReview

Actionresearchtoimproveteachingpractice.ThispresentstudywasinitiatedwhenthedirectorofaneducationalprogramforstudentswithEBDapproachedthefirstauthor,who

alsoservesasresearchpartnerwiththiseducationalprogram,regardingresearch-based

writinginterventionsspecificallydesignedforstudentswithchallengingbehaviors.He

expressedadireneedforwritinginterventionsamongthisstudentpopulation.Thedirector

statedthatthestudentswithEBDwithinthiseducationalprogramoftenfailedthewriting

sectionoftheirstateassessments.Knowingthatthatself-regulatedstrategydevelopment

(SRSD)isaresearch-basedstrategyforteachingwritingtostudentswithchallenging

behaviors(Ennis&Jolivette,2014;Lane,Harris,Graham,Weisenbach,Brindle,&Morphy,

2008;Mason,Snyder,Sukhram,&Kedam,2006),theauthorsdecidedtoconductanaction

researchprojectusingSRSD.Throughengaginginactionresearch,theauthorshopedto

bridgetheubiquitous“researchtopracticegap”.Teachersoftenciteconcernsthateducationalresearchisnotadequatetomeetthedailychallengesofteachingandthatresearchfindingsarenotpresentedintermsthatareeasytounderstand(Mills,2014).Theresearchersdevelopedaplanforanactionresearchprojectdesignedtoimprovestudents’abilitiestowritepersuasiveessays.Thepurposeofthisarticleistwofold.Theauthorspresentinformationaboutthewritinginterventionandtheresultsoftheintervention.TheresearchersalsodiscusschallengesandlessonslearnedthroughouttheactionresearchprocessintheResultsandFutureDirectionssections.

Self-regulatedstrategydevelopment.Developedin1982,SRSDisasystematicinstructionalmodeldesignedtoaddressmanydifficultiesassociatedwithwriting,includingmotivation,attitudes,andbeliefsaboutthewritingprocess(Ennis&Jolivette,2014).Themodelincorporatestechniquesforsettinggoals,self-monitoring,self-instruction,andself-reinforcement.Whentaughttomastery,thestrategiesmaybegeneralizedacrosssettingsandretainedovertime(Harris,Graham,Mason,&Friedlander,2008).

SRSDiscomprisedofsixstages:(a)developbackgroundknowledge,(b)discussit,(c)modelit,(d)memorizeit,(e)supportit,and(f)independentperformance(Harrisetal.,2013).Duringthefirststage,developbackgroundknowledge,theteacherandstudentsworktogethertodevelopskillsrelatedtowritinginstruction(Ennis&Jolivette,2014).Activitiesforthisstageincludereadingwritingsamplesofthegenretobetaught(e.g.,persuasive,narrative,expository)andteachingrelevantvocabulary.Studentsalsolearnaboutsettinggoalsandself-monitoring.Duringstagetwo,discussit,theteacherandstudentsdiscusstheimportanceofwritingandthestudentslearntheimportanceofusingstrategieswhentheywrite.Studentsmayevaluatetheircurrentwritingperformanceusingrubricsandgraphs.Lastly,thestudentsareintroducedtoastrategy,oftenamnemonic,tohelpguidetheirwriting.Stagethree,modelit,involvestheteachermodelingtheuseofthestrategy;explicitinstructionisprovidedregardinghowtousethestrategy.Additionally,studentsaretaughthowtouseself-talkastheymovethroughthewritingprocess.Inthefourthstage,memorizeit,studentsmemorizethestrategytheylearnedduringthediscussitstage.Duringthisstage,thestudentsaretaughtstrategiestohelptheminternalizetheimportanceofthestrategy.Instagefive,supportit,teachersmonitorstudents’useofthestrategiesintheirwriting.Supportitistypicallythelongeststage,andteachersshouldprovideampleamountsofsupportandreminderssothatstudentsaresuccessfulinutilizingthestrategy.Agradualincreaseofindividualcriterionlevelsshouldbeincorporatedinthisstage,andopportunitiesforgeneralizationshouldbeprovided.Duringthefinalstage,independentperformance,studentsimplementthestrategyindependentlyandself-regulatetheirownwriting.Opportunitiesforgeneralizationoftheskillslearnedshouldcontinuetobeprovided(Harrisetal.,2013).

SRSDandsecondarystudents.Chalk,Hagan-Burke,andBurke(2005)usedasix-stepSRSDmodelamonghighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilitiestodetermineiflengthandqualityofessayswouldimprove.Thestepsoftheinterventionwereasfollows(a)stepone:

developbackgroundknowledge,(b)steptwo:initialconferenceanddiscussionofstrategy

goals,(c)stepthree:modelthestrategy,(d)stepfour:memorizethestrategy,(e)stepfive:

collaborativepractice,and(f)stepsix:independentpractice.Resultsofthestudyindicated

thatbothlengthofessaysandqualityofessaysimprovedovertime.

AnotherstudyexaminingSRSDamonghighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities

producedsimilarresults.AstudybyHoover,Kubina,andMason(2012)utilizedtheSRSD

strategyknownasPOW+TREE(Pickmyidea,Organizemynotes,Writeandsaymore,Topic

sentence,Reasons–threeormore,Examine,Ending)toteachpersuasivequickwrites.Four

highschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilitiesparticipatedintheresearchandresults

demonstratedincreasesinthenumberofwordswrittenandinthenumberofresponse

partswritten.

SRSDandyouthwithEBD.SRSDisshowntobeeffectiveinteachingwritingtostudentswithchallengingbehaviors(Ennis&Jolivette,2014;Masonetal.,2006;Laneetal.,2008).A

studyfoundsignificantgainsinthepersuasivewritingofsecondarystudentswithEBDwhen

anSRSDinterventionwasimplementedtwiceperweek(Ennis,Jolivette,Terry,Frederick,&

Alberto,2015).Additionally,aSRSDinterventionusedtoteachstorywritingtosecondgrade

studentsatriskforEBDwasfoundtoproducelong-termimprovementsinareasincluding

storycompleteness,length,andquality(Laneetal.,2008).Additionally,SRSDinstruction

hasbeenfoundtopositivelyimpactparticipants’abilitytotransferthestrategiesfromstory

writingtopersonalnarratives(Adkins&Gavins,2012).Withempiricalstudiessupporting

SRSDasaneffectiveinterventionforbothsecondarystudentswithdisabilitiesandstudents

withEBD,theresearchersfeltconfidentmovingforwardwithanSRSDinterventionforthe

purposesofthisactionresearchproject.

Methodology

Researchquestions.Forthepurposethecurrentstudy,theauthorschosetofocusontwoprimaryareasofconcerninwrittenexpression:fluencyandquality.Theresearchquestions

areasfollows:

1. WhenculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBDaretaughthowtowritea

persuasiveessayusingSRSDinEnglishLanguageArts(ELA),doesthetotalwords

written(TWW)increase?

2. WhenculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBDaretaughthowtowritea

persuasiveessayusingSRSDinELA,doesessayqualityimprove?

Settingandparticipants.ThestudywasconductedintwohighschoolclassesandonemiddleschoolclassinschoolsforstudentswithEBDinthesoutheasternUnitedStates.

Therewereapproximatelyfivetoeightstudentsperclassroom.Tobeeligibleforthestudy,

participantshadtodemonstratedifficultywithwrittenexpressionandscoreintheaveragerangeofintelligence.Eligibilitycriteriaweredeterminedfor12participants,andinformedconsentandassentwereobtained.Theparticipantsrangedgradelevelsfrom6thgradethrough11thgrade.AllparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesasAfricanAmerican,andallparticipantswereoflowsocio-economicstatus(i.e.,theywereeligibletoreceivefreelunch).Thirteenofthefourteenparticipantsweremale.Pseudonymsareusedinlieuoftheparticipants’truenames.ParticipantinformationispresentedinTable1.

Table 1: Participant Information

Participants’ Pseudonyms Gender Race Grade

Ms. Oak’s Students

Devon Male African American 10th

Jasmine Female African American 10th

Trevor Male African American 10th

Ms. Christopher’s Students

Casey Male African American 7th

Paul Male African American 7th

Justin Male African American 7th

Deandre Male African American 7th

Jermaine Male African American 7th

Steven Male African American 7th

Ms. Gaines’s Students

Calvin Male African American 11th

Chris Male African American 10th

Allen Male African American 11th

ThedirectorrecruitedthreeEnglishLanguageArts(ELA)teacherparticipantsforthestudy.Theteacherparticipantsexhibitedvariedlevelsofteachingexperiences(e.g.,beginningspecialeducationteachers,teachersofstudentsfromvariousdisabilitycategories,teachersofstudentsfromvariousagelevels).Forexample,oneteacherparticipantwasaformergeneraleducationliteracyteacher.Anotherteacherparticipantwasathird-yearteacherofstudentswithEBDwithlimitedknowledgeofteachingwritingstrategiestostudentswith

disabilities.Teacherparticipantsgaveconsenttoparticipateinthestudyand,aswiththe

studentparticipants,pseudonymsareusedfortheparticipatingteachers.

Intervention.TheELAteacherparticipantsreceivedtrainingcomprisedofsixscriptedSRSD

lessonplanstobepresentedoversixweeks.Theresearchersinformedtheteachersofthe

datathatwouldbecollected,andteachersweregivenspecificinstructionsabouttheir

involvementregardingdatacollection.Theresearchersgavetheteachersbinderswithall

materialsneededfortheintervention:(a)teachertrainingpresentation;(b)SRSD

interventiontimeline;(c)lessonplans;(d)SRSDresourcesincludinggraphicorganizers,

rubrics,writingprompts,andtransitionwordcharts;(e)TREEflashcards;(f)POW+TREE

mnemoniccharts,and(g)self-talkstatements.Studentparticipantsreceivedfolders

containingPOWgraphicorganizers,mnemoniccharts,self-talkstatements,TREEflashcards,

andgraphingsheets.Afterbaselinedatacollection,theteachersimplementedthe

interventionbyteachingoneSRSDlessonperweekforsixconsecutiveweeks.The

researcherssentweeklyemailstotheteacherswithdetailsofthestudyexpectationsforthe

week.Theresearchersalsomaintainedcontinuouscontact,viaemailandinperson,withthe

teacherstoencourageanopendialogueaboutthestatusoftheinterventionanddata

collection.

SRSDandculturallyresponsiveteaching.Culturallyresponsiveteachingisdefinedas“usingtheculturalknowledge,priorexperiences,framesofreference,andperformancestylesof

ethnicallydiversestudentstomakelearningencountersmorerelevanttoandeffectivefor

them”(Gay,2010,p.31).Understandingthesignificanceofculturallyresponsiveteaching,

theresearchersintegratedculturallyresponsivepracticesthroughouttheintervention.For

example,writinginstructionforstudentsfromculturallydiversebackgroundsshouldbe

accompaniedbythewritingsofauthorsthatreflectdiversity(Callins,2006;Fox,1992;Gay,

2010).Therefore,intheintroductorylesson,studentparticipantswereaskedtobrainstorm

anddiscussexamplesofindividualsfromtheircultureusingpersuasivespeechorwritingin

socialmedia.Theexercisepresentedstudentparticipantswithanopportunitytoreflecton

thewritingsandspeechofindividualsfromtheirownbackgroundsandculture.

Anothertenantofculturallyresponsivewritinginstructionsupportsthatallowingstudents

tochoosetheirowntopicsanddemonstratinghowwritingcanbeusedtoaffectchangecan

beparticularlymotivatingforstudentsfromdiversebackgrounds(Callins,2006;Hornick,

1986).Also,studentsbenefitwhenteachersintegratestudents’socialcontextsintowriting

instruction(Callins,2006).Foreachwritinglessonintheintervention,participantswere

supportedingeneratingtopicsforwritingthatwereofpersonalsignificance.Thiswas

accomplishedasteachersassistedtheparticipantsinbrainstormingcurrenteventsabout

whichtheywereinterested.Doingsoensuredthatthesubjectmatterofthewriting

resonatedauthenticallywithparticipants.Lastly,culturallyresponsiveclassroomsencourage

cooperativelearningtosupportindividuallearningwithinagroupcontext(Cartledge&

Kourea,2008;Ladson-Billings,1994).Therefore,alessonfortheinterventionwasdeveloped

inwhichstudentsworkedinsmallgroupstocomposeanessay.Theactivityallowedthe

studentstopracticewritinginagroupsettingbeforewritinganessayindependently.

Datacollectionanddataanalysis.Baselineandinterventiondataconsistedofparticipants’scoresonpersuasivewritingprobes.Foreachprobe,theresearchersencouragedthe

teacherparticipantstoworkwiththestudentparticipantsindevelopingculturallyrelevant

prompts.Researchersalsogavetheteacherparticipantstheoptionofusingapreviously

generatedprompt(e.g.,Shouldthedrivingagebeincreasedto21yearsold?).Foreach

writingprompt,participantshad30minutestorespondinwritingtotheprompt.Each

writingproberequiredparticipantstocomposeapositiononatopicandwritereasons

supportingtheirposition.Theresearchersevaluatedtheprobesusingtwomeasured:essay

qualityandlengthofwritingresponseindicatedbyTWW.Essayqualitywasdetermined

usingarubricranginginscoresfromonetoeight(AppendixA;Mills,2012).Therubric

encompassedaspectsofwritingincluding(a)numberofessaycomponentsperwriting

sample,(b)presenceofintroductionsentences,(c)presenceofconcludingsentences,and

(d)whetherexplanationswereprovidedforthereasons.Thehighestscoreofeightincluded

thefollowingcriteria,

• “Persuasiveessayincludestopicsentence,morethanthreereasonswithatleast

threeexplanations,andanendingsentence.Essayiswritteninalogicalsequence

thatstrengthensthewriter’sargument.Thewriterusesmorethanonecounter

argument/pointintheessay.”

• Alowerscoreoffivewasassignedtopersuasiveessaysthatincludedatopic

sentence,threereasonssupportingtheargument,andanendingsentence,butwas

lackingotherelementslistedinthecriteriaforascoreofeight.Eachresearcherscoredeachprobeindividually.Ininstanceswhereadiscrepancybetweenscores

wasevidenced,theessaywasassignedanaveragescoreofthetwo.

Inter-raterreliability.Priortoscoringparticipantessays,theresearchersindependentlyscoredtwosampleessaysusingthecodingrubric(Mills,2012).Thentheresearchersmetto

comparehowtheyscoredeachoftheessaysanddiscrepancieswerediscussed.Athird

sampleessaywasscoredbyeachoftheresearchers,andfullinter-rateragreementwas

achieved.

ResultsandDiscussion

Theresearchersanticipatedandexperiencedhighratesofmissingdatainthepresentstudy

basedonthecategoryofdisabilityoftheparticipants.StudentswithEBDoftendemonstrate

highratesofabsenteeismduetolivinginsituationswheremultipleriskfactorsarepresent

includingmultiplechildrenwithdisabilitiesandmaternaldepression(Ennis,Harris,Lane,&

Mason,2014).Additionally,becauseoftheseverityoftheirdisability,studentswho

demonstratesignificantchallengingbehaviorsarefrequentlysuspendedandexpelledfrom

schoolsettings.Theelevatedratesofmissingdatainthepresentstudyhadmultiple

repercussionsfortheresearchers.First,theinterventionmayhavehadmarginalefficacyfor

participantswhowerenotpresentforeachlessonoftheintervention.Thesecond

consequenceofthemissingdatarelatestothedataanalysis.Oftheninewritingprobes,or

datacollectionpoints,onlytwoofthe12participantswerepresentoneachdayofdata

collection.Theresearchersengagedindialogueregardinghowtonavigatetheissueof

missingdatainfutureprojects.Asthecurrentstudywasnineweekslong,withdata

collectedonceperweek,theresearchersdiscussedthepossibilityofdeveloping

interventionsdesignedtobeimplementedoverashorterperiod,withdatacollection

occurringmultipletimesperweek.

ThegoalsoftheSRSDinterventionweretoimprovestudents’essayqualityandincrease

students’TWW.Resultssuggestthattherewereincreasesinthestudents’TWWforthe

participantswhoreceivedintervention,butverylittleincreaseinthequalityoftheessays.

Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention.Eventhoughherstudentsdidnot

receivetheintervention,twoofthreestudentsshowedsomeimprovementinessayquality.

ForTWW,theparticipants’averagesdecreasedovertime.Calvinbeganwithanaverageof

34TWWandendedwithanaverageof32.75TWW,adifferenceof-1.25words.Chrisbegan

withanaverageof139TWWandendedwithanaverageof82.75TWW,adifferenceof-

56.25words.Allenstartedwithanaverageof307TWWandendedwithanaverageof50.50

words,adifferenceof-256.50words.

Ms.OakandMs.Christopherimplementedtheintervention.Intheseclasses,many

participantsdemonstratedincreasesinessayqualityandTWW.InMs.Oak’sclass,Trevor

wastheonlyparticipantwhoshowedanincreasefrombaselinedatatointerventiondata

regardingessayquality.Devondemonstratedadecreaseinessayqualityovertime.

Jasmine’sbaselinedatawasazeroandinterventiondatawasatwo.InMs.Christopher’s

class,PaulandJustinweretheonlytwostudentstoshowanincreasefromthebaselinedata

andinterventiondataforessayquality.JermaineandStevendidnothaveabaselinedata

andtheyhadmissingdata.Themissingdatamadeitdifficulttodetermineifthe

interventionhelpedthemincreaseessayquality.Caseydidnotshowanincreasefromthe

baselinedatatotheinterventiondata.

TheinterventionappearstohavebeenmoreeffectiveinincreasinginTWW.InMs.Oak’s

class,Jasmine’sbaselinedatawasanaverageof0.33TWWandincreasedby42.17words

afterreceivingtheintervention.Trevor’sTWWincreasedbyanaverageof29.53wordsfrom

hisbaselinedata.DevondemonstratedadecreaseinTWW.InMs.Christopher’sclass,Paul

increasedhisTWWbyanaverageof50words,JustinincreasedhisTWWbyanaverageof

148words,andDeandreincreasedhisTWWwrittenbyanaverageof95words.Casey

showedadecreaseof16.67TWW.ProgressregardingJermaineandSteven’sTWWwas

difficulttodetermineduetoalargeamountofmissingdata.Changesovertimein

participants’essayqualityscoresandTWWaregraphedinFigures1through6,and

numericaldatadetailingthechangesarepresentedinTables2and3.

Figure1.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Oak’sHighSchoolClassroom

Figure2.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Oak’sHighSchoolClassroom

Figure3.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Christopher’sMiddleSchoolClassroom

Figure4.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Christopher’sMiddleSchoolClassroom

Figure5.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom

Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.

Figure5.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom

Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.

Figure6.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom

Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’totalwordswrittenforherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.

InMs.Oak’sclass,Trevordemonstratedthegreatestgainregardingessayquality.Duringbaselinedatacollection,Trevoraveraged1.67andaftertheintervention,heaveraged3.80inessayquality.Ms.OakreportedthatTrevorenjoyedtheSRSDlessonsandstatedhefeltsuccessfulwithhiswritingforthefirsttimeinhisschoolcareer.Ms.OakmotivatedTrevorwithverbalpraiseandtangiblereinforcementsalsocalledpositivebehaviorinterventionsandsupportwhenhecompletedhiswritingprompts.Trevor’sTWWalsoincreasedfrompre-interventiontopostintervention,fromanaverageof94.67wordswrittentoanaverageof124.20words.

Inadditiontopromotingacademicsuccess,practitionersareusingpositivebehaviorinterventionsandsupports(PBIS)asaframeworktoencouragebehavioralsuccessofstudentsinschools.PBISisusefulforeducatorsseekingpreventionandinterventionstrategiesforstudents’problematicbehaviors(Bradshaw,Koth,Bevans,Ialongo,&Leaf,2008).Furthermore,itisbasedonaproblem-solvingmodelpreventinginappropriatebehaviorthroughteachingandreinforcingappropriateconduct(OfficeofSpecialEducationProgramsTechnicalAssistanceCenteronPBIS,2012).PBISemphasizeseducatingat-riskstudentsintheleastrestrictiveenvironmentutilizingappropriateeducationalsupports(Lewis,Jones,Horner,&Sugai,2010).

AsevidencedinTables2and3,Jasminedemonstratedthemostpositivegainsfromtheintervention.Thismayhavebeentheresultofactionstakenbyherteacherparticipant,Ms.

Oak,whotookanunconventionalapproachtoJasmine’semotionalissuesandheracademic

work.Jasminedemonstratedwritingskillsapproximatelyfourgradelevelsbelowheractual

gradelevel.Inadditiontothesignificantacademicdeficit,significanttraumathatJasmine

experiencedseveralyearspriorresultedinJasmineexhibitingselectivemutism.However,

Jasminewouldoftenspeakifthesubjectmatterwasrelatedtoclasswork.Becauseofher

limitedwritingskills,JasminestruggledwiththeSRSDlessons.Ms.Oaksoughtwaysto

accommodatethelessonsforJasmine,andfoundthatwhenJasminedictatedherSRSD

responses,insteadofwritingherownresponses,Jasmine’sanxietyseemedtolessenand

herproductivityincreased.Theresearchersmetanddiscussedthisunconventional

situation.Althoughthegoaloftheinterventionwasforstudentstoconstructessays

independently,theresearchersfeltitwasnecessarytoreporttheprogressJasminehad

madeanddisclosetothereaderthatMs.OaktranscribedJasmine’sresponses.

Table2:AveragesforEssayQualityandAmountChanged

Participants AverageEssayQuality

Pre-Intervention

(Probes1-3)

PostIntervention

(Probes4-9)

Difference

(After-Before)

Ms.Oak’sClass

Devon 1.67 1.33 -0.33

Jasmine 0.00 2.00 2.00

Trevor 1.67 3.80 2.13

Ms.Christopher'sClass

Paul 2.33 3.00 0.67

Justin 3.67 4.67 1.00

Deandre 4.67 4.50 -0.17

Jermaine N/A 4.00 N/A

Steven N/A 2.00 N/A

Ms.Gaines’sClass

Calvin 1.00 2.00 1.00

Chris 3.67 4.00 0.33

Allen 7.00 1.50 -5.50

Table3:AveragesforTotalWordsWrittenandAmountChanged

Participants AverageTotalWordsWritten

Pre-Intervention

(Probes1-3)

PostIntervention

(Probes4-9)

Difference

(After-Before)

Ms.Oak'sClass

Devon 41.33 15.50 -25.83

Jasmine 0.33 42.50 42.17

Trevor 94.67 124.20 29.53

Ms.Christopher'sClass

Casey 62.00 45.33 -16.67

Paul 37.00 87.00 50.00

Justin 49.00 197.00 148.00

Deandre 97.00 192.50 95.50

Jermaine N/A 188.00 N/A

Steven N/A 121.00 N/A

Ms.Gaines'sClass

Calvin 34.00 32.75 -1.25

Chris 139.00 82.75 -56.25

Allen 307.00 50.50 -256.50

Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup

DifficultiesRelatedtotheStudy

DifficultiesinimplementationofSRSDafterapilotstudy.Uponanalyzingdatafromthecurrentstudyandfindingerraticscoresandmarginaleffectivenessoftheintervention,theresearchersengagedindialoguetogenerateideasabouthowtheinterventionmightbeimprovedupon.Approximatelyoneyearearlier,theauthorshadconductedapilotstudyoftheSRSDinterventionamongsecondarystudentswithEBDatadifferentsite.Theresearchersagreedthatatremendousamounthadbeenlearnedfromthepreliminarystudy.Likewise,theresearchersconcurredthatasignificantamountoftroubleshootinghadbeenresolvedsincethepreliminarystudyandthatthepresentstudyhadbeencarriedoutinamuchmoreefficientmanner.Forexample,theresearchersimplementedlessonswithgreaterfidelitythanhadtakenplaceinthepreliminarystudyandthedatacollectionprocedureshadbeenimprovedupon.Theresearchersweresurprisedthatdespiteimprovementsmadetofidelityanddatacollectionprocedures,dataanalysisofthecurrentstudyshowedinconsistenteffectsinpersuasivewritingqualityandTWWfortheparticipants.

DifficultiesrelatedtospecificlessonsandimplementationofSRSD.Theresearcherscontinuedparticipatingindialogueregardingthepossiblereasonsforthelackofefficacyoftheintervention.Theresearchersreviewedthewritingsamplesagain.Theresearchers,whoallhaveexperienceteachingwrittenexpressiontochildrenandyouthwithavarietyofdisabilities,determinedthataplausiblereasonfortheineffectivenessoftheinterventionisthatitsimplywasnota“goodfit”basedontheparticipants’currentwrittenexpressionskills.Forexample,manyparticipantsdemonstratedsignificantdifficultywritingacompletesentence,yetthegoaloftheinterventionwasforparticipantstousemnemonicstoproduceentirepersuasiveessays.TheresearcherscontemplatedtheirpreviousexperiencesteachingwritingtostudentswithEBD,andconcludedthat,perhapstheinterventiongoalsexceededtheparticipants’currentabilities.Itwasdiscussedthatmanyoftheparticipantswouldlikelyhavebenefittedmorefromexplicitinstructioninbasicwritingskills(e.g.sentencestructure,

grammar,punctuation),thanfromaninterventionthataimedtoteachparticipantshowto

draftessays.Theinvestigatorslearnedavaluablelessonininterventionresearch:ensure

thattheinterventionmatchestheparticipants’abilitylevels.Firstassessingtheabilitiesoftheparticipants,andthenselectinganinterventionforempiricalstudycanaccomplishthis.

DifficultiesrelatedtoteacherparticipantsandimplementationofSRSD.Anothersetofchallengesinvolvedateacherparticipant.Ms.Gainesoriginallyagreedtoparticipateinthe

studybyimplementingtheintervention.However,duringtheweekofthefourthSRSD

lesson,sheinformedtheresearchersthatshenolongerwishedtoparticipate.Ms.Gaines

statedthatherstudents’behaviorsweretoounpredictableforhertofollowthroughwith

weeklylessons.Ms.Gaineslatertoldtheresearchersthatsheonlygaveherstudentsthe

independentwritingprompts,andthatshehadnottaughtanyoftheSRSDlessons.The

researcherslearnedfromthissituationthatrelationshipswithpartnersinactionresearchcanbetenuous,andthatgreatcareshouldbetakeninsupportingthepartners.

DifficultiesrelatedtodatacollectionandimplementationofSRSD.Theleadauthorconductedweeklyfidelitychecksthroughoutthecourseoftheintervention.Datacollection

beganthefirstweekofOctoberofthefallsemester.Threeweeksofbaselinedatawere

collected,followedbysixweeksofSRSDinterventiondata.Duetotheacademicschoolyear

schedule,theSRSDinterventionwasimplementedasthewinterholidayseason

approached.Researchhasshownthatstudents’inappropriatebehaviorsoftenescalate

beforeandduringthewinterholidayseason(Lastrapes,2014);therefore,itwasnosurprise

thattheteacherparticipantsreportedthattheirstudents’behaviorswereunusually

challengingduringthemid-NovemberandDecembermonths.Infact,theleadresearcher

observedfivephysicalaltercationsatonehighschoolontheFridaybeforetheThanksgiving

holidays.AllthreeoftheclassroomteacherschosenottoworkontheSRSDinterventionthe

weekbeforetheThanksgivingholidaybasedontheirstudents’challengingbehaviors.The

researchersconcludedthatcarefulattentionmustbegiventotheschedulingofthe

intervention.Whendevelopingtimelinesforactionresearchinschoolsettings,researchers

shouldtakeintoaccounthowextraneousfactorsmayimpedetheperformanceofnotonlythestudentparticipants,buttheteacherparticipantsaswell.

DifficultiesrelatedtoteachingexpectationsandimplementationofSRSD.Anotherchallengeencounteredbytheresearcherswasthedifficultyofensuringthateachlesson

wastaughtwithfidelity.Thedirectorwhorecruitedtheteacherparticipantsforthis

researchstudyandtheteacherparticipantsexhibitedvariedlevelsofteachingexperiences.

Forexample,oneteacherparticipantwasaformergeneraleducationliteracyteacher.

Anotherteacherparticipantwasathird-yearteacherofstudentswithEBD,buthadlimited

knowledgeofteachingwritingstrategiestostudentswithdisabilities.Itwasimpossiblefor

theresearcherstoobserveandprovidefeedbackforeachlessonthateachteacher

participanttaught;however,theresearcherscollectedinformationontreatmentintegrity

forthreerandomlessonsduringtheinterventionaswellasfieldnoteswhilevisitingthe

classroomseachweek.Thelessonsmayhavebeendeliveredwithgreaterfidelityifthe

researchdesignincludedaplanforprovidingtheteacherparticipantswithsignificantly

moresupportinlessondelivery,includingmodelingandcoaching.

FutureImplications

Theinconsistentresultsofcurrentstudyshouldbeinterpretedinlightofseverallimitations.

Aspreviouslymentioned,theparticipants’attendanceandchallengingbehaviorsmayhave

impactedtheirresponsivenesstotheintervention.Somestudentsmissedclassdueto

consequencesofproblematicbehaviors.Theresearchersalsowanttobringattentiontothe

factthatwhencodingthesewritingpassages,thecodingissubjective.Thescorers

calibratedtheircodingamongeachother;however,itisimpossibletoremoveallbiases

whencoding.Furthermore,asmentionedpreviously,theresearcherswereunableto

observeandprovidecriticalfeedbackforeverywritinglesson.However,theresearchers

collectedinformationontreatmentintegrityandrecordedfieldnotesduringdatacollection.

Whiletheresultsofthisstudyarepromising,additionalresearchinacademicinterventions

forstudentswithEBDisessential.Researchinintensive,individualizedwritinginterventions

designedforculturallydiverselearnerswithchallengingbehaviorsiswarranted.Itisalso

recommendedthatresearchcontinuetoreplicateandextendthebodyofliteratureon

SRSDinstructionforstudentswithEBDacrossgradelevels.Finally,theresearchers

encouragemoreresearchtobeconductedwithteachersasinterventionagentsin

classroomsettings.

AbouttheAuthors

MandyE.Lusk,Ph.D.hasbeenalife-longspecialeducatorwhocurrentlyservesastheprogramchairandassistantprofessoratClaytonStateUniversityinspecialeducation.Asa

practitionerinspecialeducationfornumerousyears,Dr.Luskpredominantlytaught

studentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.Inaddition,sheearnedherPh.D.from

theUniversityofNorthTexasinstudentswithbehaviordisorders.Dr.Lusk’sresearch

agendaincludespreparingteacherstopositivelyeducateculturallyandlinguisticallydiverse

learnerswithchallengingbehaviors.Email:mandylusk@clayton.edu

CalliLewisChiu,Ph.D.isProgramDirectorandAssistantProfessorofSpecialEducationat

CaliforniaStateUniversity,Bakersfield.PriortoearningherPh.D.,shetaughtstudentswith

moderatetoseveredisabilitiesinavarietyofsettingsfor10years.Herresearchinterests

includeculturallyresponsiveeducationalpracticesandteacherpreparation.Email:

calliglewis@gmail.com

DonnaM.Sayman,Ph.D.isanassociateprofessorofspecialeducationatWichitaState

University.Dr.SaymancompletedherPh.D.atOklahomaStateUniversity.Herresearch

interestfocusesonhowoccupationsbecomegendered,socialjusticewithinspecial

education,andteacherpreparationfordiversepopulations.Shehascollaboratedactively

withotherresearchersintheareasoffamilyparticipationinspecialeducationserves,and

culturallyandlinguisticallydiversepedagogies.Email:donna.sayman@wichita.edu

References

Adkins,M.H.,&Gavins,M.V.(2012).Self-regulatedstrategydevelopmentandgeneralizationseffectsonstory writingandpersonalnarrativesamongstudentswithsevereemotionalandbehavioraldisorders. Exceptionality,20(4),235-249.Bradshaw,C.P.,Koth,C.W.,Bevans,K.B.,Ialongo,N.,&Leaf,P.J.(2008).Theimpactofschool-widepositive behavioralinterventionsandsupports(PBIS)ontheorganizationalhealthofelementaryschools. SchoolPsychologyQuarterly,23(4),462-473.Callins,T.(2006).Culturallyresponsiveliteracyinstruction.Tempe,AZ:CenterforCulturallyResponsive EducationalSystems.Cartledge,G.,&Kourea,L.(2008).Culturallyresponsiveclassroomsforculturallydiversestudentswithandat riskfordisabilities.ExceptionalChildren,74(3),351-371.Chalk,J.C.,Hagan-Burke,S.,&Burke,M.(2005).Theeffectsofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentonthe writingprocessforhighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly28(1), 75-88.Ennis,R.P.&Jolivette,K.(2014).Existingresearchandfuturedirectionsforself-regulatedstrategy developmentwithstudentswithandatriskforemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.TheJournalof SpecialEducation,48(1),32-45.Ennis,R.P.,Jolivette,K.,&Boden,L.J.(2013).STOPandDARE:Self-regulatedstrategydevelopmentfor persuasivewritingwithelementarystudentswithE/BDinaresidentialfacility.Educationand TreatmentofChildren,36(3),81-99.Ennis,R.P.,Jolivette,K.,Terry,N.P.,Frederick,L.D.,&Alberto,P.A.(2015).Classwideteacher implementationofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentforwritingwithstudentswithE/BDina residentialfacility.JournalofBehavioralEducation,24(1),88-111.Ennis,R.P.,Harris,K.R.,Lane,K.L.,&Mason,L.H.(2014).Lessonslearnedfromimplementingself-regulated strategydevelopmentwithstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisordersinalternative educationalsettings.BehavioralDisorders,40(1),68-77.Fox,T.(1992).Repositioningtheprofession:TeachingwritingtoAfricanAmericanstudents.Journalof AdvancedComposition,12(2),291-303.Gay,G.(2010).Culturallyresponsiveteaching:Theory,research,andpractice(2nded.).NewYork,NY: TeachersCollege.Graham,S.,&Perin,D.(2007).Ameta-analysisofwritinginstructionforadolescentstudents.Journalof EducationalPsychology,99,445-476.Harris,K.R.,Graham,S.,Mason,L.H.,&Friedlander,B.(2008).Powerfulwritingstrategiesforallstudents. Baltimore,MD:Brooks.Hoover,T.M.,Kubina,R.M.,&Mason,L.H.(2012).Effectsofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentfor POW+TREEonhighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.Exceptionality,20(1),20-38.

Hornick,K.(1986).Teachingwritingtodiversestudents.ERICClearinghouseonUrbanEducationDigest,32,1- 3.

IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct,PublicLaw,108-446,108thCongress,(2004).

Ladson-Billings,G.(1994).Thedreamkeepers:SuccessfulteachersofAfricanAmericanchildren.SanFrancisco:

Josey-Bass.

Lane,K.L.,Graham,S.,Harris,K.R.,&Weisenbach,J.L.(2006).Teachingwritingstrategiestoyoungstudents

strugglingwithwritingandatriskforbehavioraldisorders:Self-regulatedstrategydevelopment.

TEACHINGExceptionalChildren,39(1),60-64.

Lane,K.L.,Harris,K.R.,Graham,S.,Weisenbach,J.L.,Brindle,M.,&Morphy,P.(2008).Theeffectsofself-

regulatedstrategydevelopmentonthewritingperformanceofsecond-gradestudentswith

behavioralandwritingdifficulties.JournalofSpecialEducation,41(4),234–253.

Lastrapes,R.(2014).Usingthegoodbehaviorgameinaninclusiveclassroom.InterventioninSchooland Clinic,49(2),225-229.

Lewis,T.,Jones,S.,Horner,R.,&Sugai,G.(2010).Schoolwidepositivebehaviorandsupportandstudents

withemotionalandbehavioraldisorders:Implicationsforprevention,identification,andintervention.

Exceptionality,18,82-93.

Losinski,M.,Cuenca-Carlino,Y.,Zablocki,M.,&Teagarden,J.(2014).Examiningtheefficacyofself-regulated

strategydevelopmentforstudentswithemotionalorbehavioraldisorders:Ameta-analysis.

BehavioralDisorders,40(1),52-67.

Mason,L.H.,KubinaJr.,R.M.,Kostewicz,D.E.,Cramer,A.M.,&Datchuk,S.(2013).Improvingquickwriting

performanceofmiddle-schoolstrugglinglearners.ContemporaryEducationalPyschology,38,236- 246.

Mason,L.H.,Snyder,K.H.,Sukhram,D.P.,&Kedem,Y.(2006).TWA+PLANSstrategiesforexpositoryreading

andwriting:Effectsforninefourth-gradestudents.ExceptionalChildren,73(1),69–89.

Mills,G.(2014).Actionresearch:Aguidefortheteacherresearcher.Boston,MA:Pearson.

Mills,S.J.(2012).Theeffectsofinstructioninpeer-revisiononthepersuasivewritingofstudentswith

emotionalandbehavioraldisabilities(Doctoraldissertation).Retrievedfrom

http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1920/8083/Mills_gmu_0883E_10201.pdf?sequence=

1&isAllowed=y

OSEPTechnicalAssistanceCenteronPositiveBehavioralInterventions&Supports.(2012).School-widePBIS. Retrievedfromhttp://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.html

Tindal,G.,&Crawford,L.(2002).Teachingwritingtostudentswithbehaviordisorders.InK.L.Lane,F.M.

Gresham,&T.E.O’Shaughnessy(Eds.),Interventionsforchildrenwithoratriskforemotionaland behavioraldisorders(pp.104-124).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon.

Appendix A: Scoring Rubric

Score of 10. Persuasive essay includes: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 3 explanations, (d) more than 1 counter argument/point in the essay, and (e) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 9. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 3 explanations, (d) 1 counter argument/point in the essay, and (e) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 8. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 2 explanations, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 7. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) three reasons, (c) at least 2 explanations, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.

Score of 6. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) 3 reasons, (c) least 1 explanation, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay’s sequence is weak, therefore limiting the writer’s argument.

Score of 5. Persuasive essay includes (a) topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) 3 reasons, and (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.

Score of 4. Persuasive essay includes 4 of the following parts: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) reasons, or (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.

Score of 1. Persuasive essay includes one of the following parts: topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, reason(s), or an ending sentence that relates to the writer’s position on the topic.

Score of 0. No essay parts.

lessons learned: an action research project in self...

Documents

startup lessons learned

lessons learned

lean lessons learned - lean startup methodology and lessons...

lessons learned

lessons learned, opportunities and innovations in...

lessons learned from “lessons learned” · 2 lessons...

lessons learned from accident investigation seminar/ihs -...

lessons learned & not learned at msu

successes, challenges, & lessons learned...successes,...

lessons learned and lessons to be learned: investment law &...

assessment & lessons learned from african diaspora...

liaison lessons learned

lessons learned:

lessons&learned&in&deploying&akka&...

learned lessons:

lessons learned globally - campaign for tobacco-free...

detecting financial reporting fraud – lessons learned ·...

lessons learned after 190m lessons served

nsdi lessons learned

lessons learned and good practices...lessons learned lessons...