Abstract
This study used a multiple-probe, multiple-baseline single-case design to investigate the efficacy of planning, and then revising strategy instruction using self-regulated strategy development on the compare–contrast writing performance of three late elementary students with language-learning disabilities. After receiving the planning instruction, all three students spent more time planning and generated quality written plans. Their essays were longer, included more text structure elements, and demonstrated better overall quality. After receiving the subsequent revising instruction, further increases in writing accuracy were found, but planning time, quality of written plans, text length, and text structure elements somewhat decreased. Also, overall essay quality did not further improve following revising instruction. Positive gains were maintained for 4 weeks and generalized to writing explanatory essays.
Children need to demonstrate sufficient writing skills to meet curriculum demands for writing and to succeed in their classes, as well as to deepen understanding of themselves and the world (Graham & Perin, 2007). However, writing often is a difficult and complex task that requires children not only to have the cognitive resources for producing varied texts, such as topic, genre, and linguistic knowledge and specific writing skills and techniques, but also to have adequate meta-cognitive abilities to monitor their writing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and to maintain a positive attitude toward writing (Troia, 2006).
Children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) who display normal nonverbal cognitive abilities but experience oral and written language difficulties that adversely affect their academic performance (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities [NJCLD], 1990) have been found to demonstrate difficulties in many aspects of writing (Dockrell, Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009). Compared with their same-age peers, children with LLD compose shorter texts (Dockrell et al., 2009); demonstrate a limited ability to generate and organize their ideas; display many errors in grammar, spelling, and other writing conventions (Dockrell & Connelly, 2009); and write papers with poorer overall quality (Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004).
Writing Strategy Instruction
To address the writing difficulties that children with LLD experience with idea generation and organization and transcription accuracy, and to help improve their overall writing performance (e.g., text quality), explicit strategy instruction is likely to be beneficial (Graham & Perin, 2007). Planning strategy instruction has been employed to teach children with learning disabilities (LD) to write across different genres including stories and personal narratives (Saddler, 2006), informative papers (MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010), and persuasive essays (Troia & Graham, 2002), and evidence has shown that the planning strategies help children more effectively generate and organize their ideas and write longer texts in these genres with better overall quality (Tracy, Reid, & Graham, 2009). Compared with the existing planning intervention studies for children with LD in general, a limited array of research has addressed the writing problems of children with LLD specifically (De La Paz, 2001; Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006),
Varied revising strategies have been adopted to help children with and without LD to revise personal narrative (Graham, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1995), expository (MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010), and persuasive papers (Moore & MacArthur, 2012) and the results from these studies have shown that revising strategy instruction contributes to both the use of more substantial revisions and better overall writing quality. Other studies targeting revision strategy instruction have included students who are English language learners (De La Paz & Sherman, 2013) and college developmental writers (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Ianetta, 2015). In De La Paz and Sherman’s (2013) study, 23 sixth graders (English learners and English proficient learners with varying writing abilities) learned a revising strategy with the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD; described below) model by focusing on key essay elements, detecting mismatches between writing intentions and the actual draft, and then implementing appropriate changes. All the students were found to use more meaning-changing revisions, contributing to improved overall expository essay quality. The instructional gains also were well maintained for at least 1 month. Similarly, MacArthur et al. (2015) found that teaching strategies to facilitate planning, drafting, and revising can help college students write longer persuasive essays with better text quality. However, to date, no studies have included struggling writers with LLD as the target population for revising strategy instruction.
Teaching Compare–Contrast Text Structure
Compare–contrast is one of the common expository text structures, together with sequence, classification, explanation, cause–effect, and problem solution (De La Paz & McCutchen, 2011). Previous research suggests that compare–contrast is relatively more difficult than the other expository structures (e.g., Englert & Hiebert, 1984). Students tend to find it easier to write compare–contrast essays when simply describing topical similarities and differences (Meyer & Freedle, 1984) than when organizing these using superordinate categories of attributes (Englert & Hiebert, 1984). In the present study, the participants were taught to identify superordinate attributes and then to compare and contrast within these categories for each paragraph. As the Common Core standards place greater emphasis on expository writing as well as using writing as a tool to facilitate learning (Graham & Harris, 2013), compare–contrast writing is a high-leverage genre that helps students better understand content area information by asking them to highlight key information, generate categories for that information, and make comparisons of attributes within the categories (MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010).
To date, only a few research studies have included compare–contrast texts as a targeted genre in writing instruction (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991; Hammann & Stevens, 2003; MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996). For example, Englert et al. (1991) taught fourth and fifth graders with and without LD to write explanation, compare–contrast, and problem-solution texts using the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW) program. The set of strategies incorporated into this instructional program was referred to by the acronym “POWER,” representing plan, organize, write, edit, and revise. The results suggested that the students who received the writing instruction wrote compare–contrast and explanation texts with better organization and overall quality compared with texts written by students in the control group who only received process writing instruction. In MacArthur and Philippakos’s (2010) study, six students ranging in age from 11 to 14 years were taught to plan, write, and revise compare–contrast essays with SRSD using a strategy that was based on the specific text structure. The results showed that all the students made significant improvements on measures of text structure and writing quality. Gains in compare–contrast text structure were well maintained at 4 and 8 weeks for four students who completed maintenance probes, and quality gains were maintained for two of those four students. More recent studies targeting compare–contrast writing mostly include typical classroom students or English language learners (Fidalgo, Torrance, Rijlaarsdam, van den Bergh, & Álvarez, 2015; Torrance, Fidalgo, & Robledo, 2015; Turgut & Kayaoğlu, 2015). For example, Fidalgo and colleagues (2015) randomly assigned 62 sixth graders into three groups (using a combined lagged-group and cross-panel design) to receive strategy instruction to facilitate writing of compare–contrast and opinion essays. Four instructional components were used with all three groups in the same sequential order: instructor modeling and reflecting, declarative instruction on writing strategies, practice of taught strategies with peer feedback, and independent practice. All three groups were found to generate texts with better organization, coherence, and holistic text quality.
Although studies have shown that strategy instruction can help typically developing students, English language learners, and students with more general LD write better compare–contrast essays, few studies have been conducted to examine how students with LLD, as a unique subpopulation of LD, could possibly benefit from strategy instruction. De La Paz (2001) taught the planning and composing strategies PLAN (Pay attention to the prompt, List main ideas, Add supporting ideas, Number your ideas) and WRITE (Work from your plan to develop your thesis statement, Remember your goals, Include transition words, Try to use different kinds of sentences, Exciting, interesting, US$100,000 words) to three middle school students (one with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] and two with LLD) to facilitate their expository writing. After instruction, all three students were found to generate written plans in advance of writing. They wrote longer texts and included more functional essay elements, leading to substantially better overall writing quality. The two students who completed the maintenance test 4 weeks later still wrote quantitatively and qualitatively better expository essays than before instruction. Mason and her colleagues (2006) taught nine fourth-grade struggling students (one with LLD) the strategies of TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading) for comprehending expository texts and PLANS (Pick my goals, List ways to meet my goals, And, make Notes, Sequence notes) for writing informative essays using the SRSD model. The students were found to demonstrate improved performance on all the measures, including main ideas, information units, holistic quality, and text length. The gains were maintained for at least 3 months. As pointed out by Taft and Mason (2011), research that focuses on writing instruction for LLD is still emerging. It also is worth mentioning that most prior studies combined planning and revising strategies into a whole intervention package instead of teaching revising as a separate aspect of the writing process within the SRSD framework; we have located only a single study that taught planning and revising strategies separately (Schnee, 2010), which included typically developing students who struggled with writing. Sequential planning and revising strategy instruction was provided in this study with the planning strategy instruction focused on teaching students to generate and organize ideas and compose compare–contrast essays and little emphasis on revising. The additive revising strategy instruction helped students learn about revising both at substantial (e.g., meaning changing and text organization) and mechanical (e.g., spelling, punctuation, and capitation) levels. Bearing in mind that students with LLD might have different writing needs, we provided sequential planning and revising instruction in this study to understand to what extent the students with LLD might benefit from planning and revising instruction differently, which would ultimately inform teachers’ consideration of tailoring their writing instruction to meet the unique needs of these students. In addition, the nature of the multiple-probe, multiple-baseline across participants design enables direct comparison between the efficacy of planning instruction versus planning plus revising instruction on these students’ writing performance.
The Current Study
This study examined the efficacy of planning, and then revising strategy instruction using the SRSD instructional framework for compare–contrast text composing by fourth to sixth graders with LLD. SRSD is an instructional approach developed by Harris and Graham to help children develop knowledge about writing, execute effective writing strategies and self-regulation, and display more positive attitudes toward writing (Graham & Harris, 1993; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003). Previous studies consistently show that SRSD can help students gain better knowledge about writing, improve their approaches to writing, produce better quality writing, and boost writing self-efficacy (e.g., De La Paz & Sherman, 2013; MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010). SRSD also targets the generalization and maintenance of strategies gained from the writing instruction (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Tracy et al., 2009).
When taking into consideration the difficulties that children with LLD experience with writing, SRSD should prove to be an effective framework for planning and revising instruction to help students with LLD: (a) develop more ideas pertaining to a topic, organize those ideas based on text structure, compose texts with fewer errors, and revise at both mechanical and substantive levels, all of which contribute to improved overall text quality; (b) gain more in-depth understanding of the taught strategies and the writing process through teachers’ explanations, modeling, and scaffolding and students’ independent practice with the strategies; (c) obtain better maintenance and generalization of a strategy through instructional sessions that engage students in thoughtful discussion about how to continue strategy use in the face of obstacles and how to adapt strategies for diverse writing tasks; and (d) develop capacity for effective self-regulation through setting appropriate goals and subgoals, monitoring writing behaviors, and maintaining a positive attitude toward writing with self-instructions designed to combat counterproductive thoughts, feelings, and actions. Taking into consideration the prominent language difficulties students with LLD exhibit in the areas of vocabulary and grammar comprehension and usage, the instructional language in this study was designed to be easily understood (i.e., complex sentences and abstract and/or low frequency vocabulary were avoided or pretaught). In addition, transition words were explicitly taught during the planning strategy instruction to help students display better text organization.
The study was expected to address the research gap in writing instruction for students with LLD, a unique subgroup of students with LD who experience difficulties in many aspects of language comprehension and use, which negatively affect writing performance. These students with LLD were expected to benefit from incorporating language/vocabulary support into established SRSD writing instructional procedures to reduce the heavy demands that writing instruction might place on their language abilities. We anticipated that the strategy instruction would contribute to enhanced planning and revising behaviors as well as essays that included more compare–contrast text structure elements, contained fewer errors, and exhibited higher quality. The intervention effects were expected to be maintained for at least 4 weeks and to generalize to writing in another uninstructed but related genre, explanatory papers.
Method
Participants
Participants with LLD in fourth to sixth grade were recruited from communities in the Great Lakes region. Each participant met the following stepwise criteria: (a) identification by a speech-language pathologist as having language impairment and having an Individualized Education Program (IEP) with receptive and/or expressive language goals; (b) a nonverbal intelligence score at or above 90 on the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–Third Edition (TONI-3) to represent normal nonverbal cognitive ability; (c) scores on either the Listening Comprehension or Oral Expression subtest of the Oral and Written Language Scales–Second Edition (OWLS-II) that fall at least 1.25 standard deviations below mean (i.e., <81) to indicate an oral language impairment; (d) a score on the Written Expression subtest of the OWLS-II that falls at least one standard deviation below mean (i.e., <85) to demonstrate difficulties in writing achievement; and (e) absence of hearing difficulties, frank neurological impairment, and emotional/behavioral problems.
A total of three students, Sarah (fourth grader), Kayla (fifth grader), and Ethan (sixth grader), were identified using the criteria outlined above. The average age (in months) for the three students was 127.33. The three students were referred to the study for experiencing difficulties with oral language and writing performance. Sarah received writing strategy instruction first. She also was diagnosed as having ADHD and received special education services under the category of speech/language impairment during the time of the study. As reported by her parent, she experienced notable memory problems due to birth anoxia. Ethan was the second student to receive writing instruction. He also was diagnosed with comorbid ADHD, and received special education services under the category of speech/language impairment. Kayla was the last student to receive writing instruction. She was diagnosed as having LLD, and received special education services under the category of speech/language impairment. According to the results from the screening assessments, all three students met our selecting criteria of having LLD prior to receiving the writing instruction. More detailed participant information is presented in Table 1. It is worth noting that both Sarah and Ethan who had a clinical ADHD diagnosis took medication during all assessments and instructional sessions. Therefore, the potential negative impact of the ADHD characteristics on these two participants’ performance was minimized. All three students received writing instruction in a one-to-one manner in a quiet room at a local community center.
Participant Information.
Note. LC subtest, OE subtest, and WE subtest were all from the OWLS-II; all scores are standard scores with a mean of 100 and SD of 15. TONI-3 = Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–Third Edition; OWLS = Oral and Written Language Scales; LC = Listening Comprehension; OE = Oral Expression; WE = Written Expression.
Writing Prompts
Compare–contrast writing prompts were administered during baseline, instruction, posttest, and maintenance phases of the study. All the writing prompts used the same format: “Write a paper comparing and contrasting ___ and ___” as used in MacArthur and Philippakos’ (2010) study (e.g., mammals vs. reptiles, car vs. bicycle). An explanation expository writing prompt (e.g., “Think of a person who is one of the most interesting people you have ever met and explain what this person is like”; “All living things grow and change. Think of a living thing that you know about, and explain how it grows and changes”) also was given at baseline, posttest, and maintenance to examine generalization effects of the compare–contrast writing strategy instruction. Prior to the study, three intermediate grade elementary teachers were asked to rate a pool of potential prompts for the study based on familiarity, interest, and difficulty for students in Grades 4 to 6, and some prompts were eliminated accordingly. In addition, each study participant was asked to rate their familiarity with each prompt; those prompts with low familiarity were eliminated. A final pool of 40 compare–contrast prompts and 10 explanation prompts were available. To control for order effects, the following steps were taken. First, administered prompts were randomly selected from those available. Second, all essays written at a given point in the study were in response to the same prompt (e.g., the three posttest essay prompts for Sarah and the final three baseline essay prompts for Ethan were the same).
Measures
Writing process measures
Planning
Planning time was recorded using a stopwatch to investigate how much time students spent planning before composing. Written plans produced by the participants were collected and scored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (no advanced planning) to 5 (fully developed planning) based on the extent to which their plans contained writing goals, key attributes for comparisons, and elaborations organized to support each attribute.
Revising
The instructor (first author) observed and took notes on any revising behaviors in which the students engaged during the baseline, posttest, and maintenance phases. Any change made to the texts during or after the composing process was counted as a revision. Revising could occur at a substantial level (i.e., revising that changes meaning or text organization) or superficial level (i.e., revising that addresses capitalization, punctuation, and spelling errors). The instructor tallied the number and type of revisions in each phase of the study.
Writing process measures
Total words written (TWW)
TWW is an index of writing productivity. All essays were scored for TWW using the word count feature of Microsoft Word.
Percentage of correct writing sequences (%CWS)
This is an index of students’ writing accuracy (Jewell & Malecki, 2005) and is obtained by dividing the number of correct writing sequences (i.e., two adjacent words that are correctly spelled, capitalized, and punctuated, and grammatically and semantically acceptable within the context of the sentence) by the total number of writing sequences and multiplying by 100.
Text structure elements
Compare–contrast text structure elements were scored using scoring procedures adapted from MacArthur and Philippakos (2010). Elements included introduction, hook, comparisons, traits, supporting details, summary of all the traits, conclusion of what the reader should learn, and use of transition words. Each text structure element was awarded points based on whether the element was included, with 0 representing not included, 1 representing partially included, and 2 representing fully presented. There was no maximum score for this measure given that some elements may have occurred more than once and, thus, were awarded additional points (i.e., comparisons, traits, and details). However, a well-organized and fully elaborated essay that includes three traits with supporting details would receive a score of 34. The rubric used to evaluate text structure is provided in Appendix A.
Writing quality
Each student’s essay quality was evaluated using a six-point rubric for four key traits (developed by Education Northwest): ideas, organization, word choice, and sentence fluency; these trait scores were summed to create a total writing quality score out of 24 points. Prior to scoring, the students’ papers were typed and identifying information was removed, with any grammar or mechanical errors corrected.
A graduate student who was unfamiliar with the study’s research design independently scored all the written plans and essays. To establish interrater reliability, the first author also scored all the written plans and essays. Interrater reliabilities, calculated as the proportion of exact agreement, for written plans, %CWS, text structure elements (for compare–contrast essays only), and overall writing quality were .89, .86, .84, and .90, respectively.
Experimental Design
A multiple-probe, multiple-baseline across participants design was adopted for experimental control. The three students were administered a series of baseline probes, then planning strategy instruction, followed by a series of posttest probes, then revising strategy instruction, followed by an additional series of posttest probes, and finally maintenance probes. During baseline, posttest, and maintenance phases, each participant was asked to compose an essay within 40 min based on a given writing prompt. Lined paper and a pencil were provided. The participants were prompted to plan and revise during baseline. Once a stable baseline was established, defined as consistent performance on the measure of text structure elements, the planning strategy instruction was introduced to the student. Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla completed three, five, and six compare–contrast baseline essays, respectively. Each student also wrote one explanation essay during baseline. Two instructional conditions (i.e., planning and revising strategy instruction) were included in the intervention. During each, students received 40-min instructional sessions three times a week. Both conditions included the six stages of SRSD as described by Graham and Harris (1993). Some stages of SRSD took more than one session to complete. Subsequent instruction was contingent on mastery of content covered in each session, defined as 100% correct on oral questions regarding key instructional elements. Only when the first student demonstrated improvement and the second student maintained a stable baseline did the instruction for the second student begin, and so on for the third student. For planning strategy instruction, Sarah took 14 sessions, Ethan 10 sessions, and Kayla 11 sessions. For revising strategy instruction, Sarah required 10 sessions, Ethan six sessions, and Kayla nine sessions. During posttest, Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla completed three compare–contrast essay probes for Posttest 1 immediately after the planning strategy instruction and three compare–contrast essay probes for Posttest 2 immediately after the revising strategy instruction. The participants were asked to plan and revise their essays during the posttest. Each student also wrote one explanation essay during Posttest 1 and Posttest 2. They also completed a satisfaction survey during Posttest 2. Four weeks after revising instruction, each student completed two maintenance compare–contrast essay probes and one explanation essay probe.
Instructional Procedures
Planning strategy instruction
The participants were provided with a strategy reminder card and a planning graphic organizer. The strategy mnemonic developed by Troia (2013), TREE BRANCH (TREE = Tell what you are comparing and why, Report important similarities and differences, Elaborate on each point, End with what the reader should learn; BRANCH = Brainstorm idea words; Recite self-talk; Ask if ideas will meet goals; Now write with good organization, powerful words, and accurate information; Challenge myself to come up with more ideas; Have a look for mistakes), was used to help students not only plan and write compare–contrast papers but also engage in self-regulation of cognitive processes, such as goal setting, self-evaluation, and self-encouragement that are highlighted by the SRSD approach (see Appendix B). The planning instruction lesson plans were adapted from MacArthur and Philippakos (2010).
Lesson 1: Activating background knowledge
The instructor introduced compare–contrast expository writing and the TREE BRANCH planning strategy and discussed with the student the importance of learning the planning strategy. The instructor then showed two good examples of compare–contrast essays representing two different ways to organize similarities and differences, one at a time, and discussed with the student how each of the genre structure elements in TREE was well presented in the essays. The instructor asked the student to highlight the key attributes on which things were being compared in each paragraph (e.g., physical size of two animals) as well as transition words (e.g., however). Complex and abstract words were pretaught and explained in detail. For example, when teaching the transition phrase “in contrast,” the instructor first provided a student-friendly definition of the phrase, then presented a picture showing a dinosaur versus a bird to demonstrate the contrasting feature of size between the two. The instructor also discussed with the student a few examples and nonexamples using the phrase in sentences to promote in-depth understanding of the phrase and help mitigate the language difficulties a student with LLD might experience during the writing strategy instruction. A negative text exemplar was then shown to the student as a contrast and the student was asked to think about how this essay missed key compare–contrast structure elements. When finishing the discussion of all the essay examples, the instructor modeled how to track the number of TREE parts and key attributes included in the essay examples using a progress-tracking chart. Each progress-tracking chart contained four tree-and-flower sets, with each tree with four branches representing the four TREE parts and three flowers representing three attributes (more flowers could be added as necessary). The student then was given one of his or her compare–contrast essays produced during the baseline phase, and practiced recording TREE parts and attributes on the progress-tracking chart with the help of the instructor.
Lesson 2: Modeling
The instructor reviewed the previous lesson and the student needed to correctly answer all the questions (regarding their understanding of what a compare–contrast essay is and its importance to schooling and decision making in daily life) so as to continue the lesson. The instructor then modeled using TREE BRANCH step-by-step, from completing the planning sheet (see Appendix C) by establishing writing quality (e.g., including all four parts of TREE) and quantity goals (e.g., including at least three important traits to compare), brainstorming and organizing ideas based on text structure (TREE), writing down self-talk statements, and using transition words, to composing a compare–contrast essay on a given topic. After modeling, the instructor modeled recording the number of TREE parts and key attributes included in the compare–contrast essay on the progress-tracking chart. At the end of this lesson, the instructor discussed with the student the improvement in writing performance by comparing the paper the instructor just wrote using TREE BRANCH to the student’s own pretest paper. The student was also asked to think of other tasks to which she or he could apply TREE BRANCH to promote generalization of the taught strategy.
Lesson 3: Guided practice
The instructor first reviewed the TREE BRANCH mnemonic with the student. During this lesson, the instructor practiced using TREE BRANCH to plan and compose a compare–contrast essay collaboratively with the student. The students were also guided to practice using transition words from the list. The instructor and the student then evaluated this essay together by recording the number of TREE parts and key attributes included on the progress-tracking chart. At the end of this lesson, the instructor discussed with the student the improvement in writing after using TREE BRANCH and promoted generalization of the strategy to other tasks.
Lesson 4: Memorization
The instructor told the student that she or he needed to memorize the TREE BRANCH mnemonic aid, the planning sheet, and some transition words (at least two for similarities, differences, and conclusion from the list) for compare–contrast writing. At the end of the lesson, the instructor rehearsed TREE BRANCH with the student and checked the student’s drawing of the planning sheet on a blank paper to make sure she or he memorized to criterion (defined as writing down TREE BRANCH, including the quality and quantity goals and self-talk statements, and drawing the graphic organizer that reflected the compare–contrast text structure).
Lesson 5: Independent practice with mnemonic chart
The student was asked to independently use the TREE BRANCH mnemonic and the planning sheet to plan and compose a compare–contrast essay on a given topic. The transition words list was also provided. The student also was asked to evaluate this essay by recording the TREE parts and attributes included on the progress-tracking chart. The instructor provided help and feedback as needed. At the end of this lesson, the instructor discussed with the student the improvement in writing after using TREE BRANCH and promoted generalization of the strategy to other tasks.
Lesson 6
Independent practice without mnemonic chart.
The instructor first reviewed the TREE BRANCH mnemonic with the student and told the student that this lesson focused on weaning off the strategy reminder card and planning sheet. The student was given a blank paper and asked to individually plan and compose a compare–contrast essay on a given topic without using the mnemonic aid or planning sheet. The student was encouraged to write down TREE BRANCH at the top of the blank paper, and then write down goals, self-talk, and transition words, and draw the graphic organizer for use during planning. The instructional phase was ended when the student independently planned and wrote a compare–contrast essay including all four parts of TREE, following all steps of BRANCH, and including at least three key attributes.
Revising strategy instruction
The students were taught to use the SEARCH checklist (Set goals, Examine paper to see if it makes sense, Ask if you said what you meant, Reveal picky errors, Copy over neatly, and Have a last look at errors; Ellis & Friend, 1991) to address both content and writing mechanics (see Appendix D). Throughout revising instruction, students learned to revise their baseline essays instead of writing in response to new prompts. A compare–contrast essay quality scoring sheet (see Appendix E) was introduced, modeled, and practiced for scoring the quality of the example compare–contrast essays so that the students could explicitly understand how the revising strategy could help improve essay quality.
Lesson 1: Activating background knowledge
The instructor first discussed the purpose for learning the revising strategy, and then showed the student the SEARCH checklist and explained each step of SEARCH. Self-talk statements to facilitate the use of the revising strategy were discussed, and the student was reminded to use his or her self-talk consistently throughout the revising process. The instructor then presented a compare–contrast essay quality scoring sheet, explained the rubric in detail, and modeled scoring the quality of the example compare–contrast essays used in the planning instruction (one good example vs. one poor example).
Lesson 2: Modeling
The instructor reviewed the previous lesson and asked the student to explain the purpose and the importance of using the revising strategy. The instructor then presented the student with the first compare–contrast essay she or he wrote during Posttest 1, and modeled using the scoring sheet to evaluate the quality of this essay. The instructor then modeled using the SEARCH checklist step-by-step to locate problems and revise accordingly. When finished revising, the instructor used the same scoring sheet to evaluate the essay a second time and discussed the improvement due to the use of the revising strategy. At the end of this lesson, the student was asked to think about other tasks for which she or he could use this strategy.
Lesson 3: Guided practice
The instructor first reviewed the SEARCH checklist. The student was then given the second paper she or he wrote during Posttest 1, and was asked to help the instructor to revise using the SEARCH checklist. The instructor guided the whole revising process, but the student engaged actively by responding to the instructor’s prompting questions when going through each step of the SEARCH checklist and providing suggestions for revising.
Lesson 4: Memorization
The instructor told the student that she or he needed to memorize the SEARCH checklist so as to use it for successfully revising his or her essays in the future. At the end of the lesson, the instructor rehearsed the SEARCH checklist with the student and made sure the student memorized all the steps to criterion (defined as reciting the acronym and all associated steps for SEARCH with 100% accuracy).
Lesson 5: Independent practice with mnemonic chart
The student was given the third compare–contrast essay that she or he wrote during Posttest 1 and was asked to independently use the SEARCH checklist to revise this paper. The student also used the quality scoring sheet to evaluate and compare the essay before and after applying the revising strategy. The instructor provided help and feedback as needed. At the end of this lesson, the instructor discussed with the student the improvement in writing quality after using the SEARCH checklist and encouraged generalization of the revising strategy to other tasks.
Lesson 6: Independent practice without mnemonic chart
The instructor first reviewed the SEARCH checklist and told the student that this lesson focused on weaning off the checklist. The student was given a blank paper and encouraged to write down the SEARCH mnemonic on top of the paper, together with all the key steps. The student then revised one of the compare–contrast essays that she or he wrote during baseline and also used the quality scoring sheet to evaluate and compare the essay quality before and after applying the revising strategy. The instructional phase was ended when the student could independently revise an essay following SEARCH steps.
Treatment Integrity
A treatment integrity checklist that described every detailed instructional step was developed to ensure that intervention procedures were implemented as intended. The instructor checked off each step as it was completed. All the instructional lessons were audio recorded, and the graduate student who scored written plans and essays listened to half of the taped lessons selected at random and checked off the steps on the checklist. At the end of the study, the examination of this checklist showed that the instructor completed 94% of the planning instruction lessons steps and 96% of the revising instruction lessons steps as intended.
Social Validity
A student satisfaction interview was given after the intervention phases were completed. The students were asked to respond to a series of questions to determine how well participants believed each kind of strategy instruction worked.
Results
Writing Process Measures
Planning time
None of the students spent time planning for compare–contrast essays during baseline. After receiving the planning instruction, the average planning time for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla was 12.67 min, 12.67 min, and 8.33 min, respectively. After receiving the additive revising instruction, all three students spent relatively less time planning, with average planning time of 3.67 min, 4.33 min, and 7.67 min for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. During maintenance probes given 4 weeks after, the average planning time for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla was 8 min, 3 min, and 8.5 min, respectively (see Table 2).
Compare–Contrast Writing Process and Product Measures at Baseline, Posttest, and Maintenance.
Note. TWW = total words written; CWS = correct writing sequences; Posttest 1 = immediate posttest after planning instruction; Posttest 2 = immediate posttest after revising instruction; Maintenance = probe administered 4 weeks after revising instruction.
Written plans
None of the students generated written plans for compare–contrast essays during baseline. Plans were scored based on their inclusion of goals, key traits for comparisons, and supporting details. During Posttest 1, all three students generated good written plans, with average scores for written plans of 4.33, 4.67, and 4.00 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. During Posttest 2, all three students generated written plans with average scores of 3.33, 2.33, and 4.00 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. During maintenance, all three generated written plans with average scores of 3.50, 2.00, and 4.00 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively (see Table 2).
Positive instructional effects generalized to planning for explanation essay writing. None of the students engaged in any planning during baseline. During Posttest 1, Sarah did not engage in planning, whereas Ethan and Kayla spent 7 min and 6 min, respectively, for planning. During Posttest 2 and maintenance, all three students spent some time planning (see Table 3).
Explanatory Writing Process and Product Measures at Baseline, Posttest, and Maintenance.
Note. TWW = total words written; CWS = correct writing sequences; Posttest 1 = immediate posttest after planning instruction; Posttest 2 = immediate posttest after revising instruction; Maintenance = probe administered 4 weeks after revising instruction.
Revising behaviors
None of the students was found to engage in any revising either at baseline or Posttest 1 for compare–contrast essays. After learning the SEARCH checklist, the three students purposefully allotted time at the end of the writing lesson for revising their essays at Posttest 2 and maintenance. However, all the revisions (10 revisions per essay on average) made by the students focused mostly on mechanical errors, except that Sarah corrected a few errors that altered meaning for one essay during Posttest 2 and one essay during maintenance (see Table 2).
The treatment effects generalized to revising explanation essays. None of the students engaged in revising at baseline or Posttest 1. All spent about 5 min on average to revise their explanation essays at Posttest 2 and maintenance. However, all the revisions (eight revisions per essay on average) made by the three students focused on mechanical errors, except that Sarah corrected two errors that changed meaning for one essay during Posttest 2 (see Table 3).
Writing Product Measures
TWW
During baseline, the average length of the compare–contrast essays written by Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 23, 54, and 106 words, respectively. During Posttest 1, the average length of the essays written by Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 155, 149, and 282 words, respectively. The average length increases for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla from baseline to Posttest 1 were about 574%, 176%, and 166%, respectively. During Posttest 2, the average length of essays written by Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 104, 120, and 192 words, respectively. Although all three students’ essays demonstrated decreased length from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2, the average length of their papers written during Posttest 2 were about 352%, 122%, and 81% greater than those written in baseline for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. During maintenance, the average length of the essays that Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla wrote were 227, 86, and 213 words, respectively. Comparing with Posttest 2, Sarah and Kayla showed an increase in text length at maintenance, whereas Ethan demonstrated a decrease. However, they were substantially longer than those written in baseline: 887%, 59%, and 101% for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively (see Table 2).
The positive gains in compare–contrast length generalized to explanation essay length. The average length increases for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla from baseline to Posttest 1 were about 570%, 162%, and 215%, respectively. During Posttest 2, Sarah and Ethan were found to show increased essay length from Posttest 1, whereas Kayla showed some decrease in length. However, all the essays written at Posttest 2 were longer than those written in baseline, with increases of about 615%, 200%, and 86%, respectively, for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla. Comparing with Posttest 2, all three students showed a decrease in essay length during maintenance. However, the length of all maintenance essays was greater than the length of those written in baseline, with increases of 435%, 131%, and 21.6% for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively (see Table 3).
Percentage of correct writing sequences (%CWS)
During baseline, the average %CWS of the compare–contrast essays written by Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 46.9%, 54.5%, and 71.8%, respectively. During Posttest 1, the average %CWS of the essays written by Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 69.9%, 74.9%, and 67.3%. Therefore, Sarah and Ethan showed average increases in %CWS of 23% and 20.4%, respectively, from baseline to Posttest 1, while Kayla showed a decrease in %CWS of 4.5%. During Posttest 2, the average %CWS of the essays that Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla wrote were 68.8%, 91.3%, and 81.5%, respectively. Sarah demonstrated a slight decrease in %CWS from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2, whereas Ethan and Kayla both showed some increase. The average increases in %CWS at Posttest 2 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 21.9%, 36.8%, and 9.7%, respectively, compared with baseline. During maintenance, the average %CWS of the essays that Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla wrote were 74.9%, 81.1%, and 77.0%, respectively. Comparing with Posttest 2, Sarah showed an increase in %CWS for maintenance, whereas Ethan and Kayla demonstrated some decrease in %CWS. However, the average increases in %CWS at maintenance for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 28.0%, 26.6%, and 5.2%, respectively, compared with baseline (see Table 2).
The positive training gains in %CWS generalized to explanation essay writing. Ethan and Kayla showed increases in %CWS of 41.3% and 7.0%, respectively, from baseline to Posttest 1, whereas Sarah showed a decrease in %CWS of 14.3%. All three students demonstrated increases in %CWS from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2. The increases in %CWS during maintenance for Ethan and Kayla were 55.4% and 5.0%, respectively, compared with baseline. Sarah, however, showed a decrease at maintenance of 4.4% (see Table 3).
Compare–contrast text structure elements
Compare–contrast text structure elements were scored based on the inclusion of an introduction, hook, comparisons, traits, supporting details, summary of all the traits, conclusion of what the reader should learn, and use of transition words. Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla established a stable baseline with mean levels of 4.3, 7.0, and 11.2, respectively, for the compare–contrast text structure elements. During Posttest 1, all three students’ essay structure scores were higher than baseline, with mean levels of 20.7, 22.7, and 26.7 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. The average gains for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 16.4, 15.7, and 15.5, respectively, and the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND; effect sizes reported for single-subject experimental design, defined as the proportion of data points in the planning and revising strategy instructional conditions that exceed the highest value in the baseline phase) for each was 100%. Immediacy of effect was evident after the planning intervention with an increasing trend consistent across all three students. During Posttest 2, all three students showed some decrements in text structure elements, with Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla obtaining mean levels of 13.0, 17.3, and 24.7, respectively. Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla demonstrated average decreases in text structure element scores of 7.7, 5.4, and 2.0, respectively, from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2. The PND for each was 0% for Posttest 2, compared with Posttest 1. An immediate slightly decreasing trend after the additive revising intervention was observed for Sarah and Ethan; a flat trend without showing immediate intervention effect was observed for Kayla. However, the mean levels of included text structure elements for all three students were higher than their baseline performance. During maintenance, the mean levels that Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla obtained were 14.0, 16.0 and 26.0, respectively. Sarah and Kayla demonstrated increased performance from Posttest 2 to maintenance (average increase of 1 for Sarah and 2.7 for Kayla), whereas Ethan showed decreased performance (average decrease of 1.3). The PND for each was 100% for maintenance, compared with baseline. An increasing trend during the maintenance was observed for Ethan; a decreasing trend was observed for Sarah and Kayla. However, the mean levels included text structure elements for all three students at maintenance were higher than their baseline performance (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
Compare–contrast text structure elements.
Writing quality
Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla established a stable baseline with mean levels in writing quality of 9.0, 10.4, and 10.6, respectively, out of maximum 24 for overall compare–contrast writing quality. During Posttest 1, all three students wrote better quality papers than in baseline, with mean levels of 17.0, 18.3, and 18.3 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively. Therefore, the average gains in writing quality were 8.0, 7.9, and 7.7 for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla, respectively, and the PND for each was 100%. Immediacy of effect was evident with an increasing trend for Sarah; immediate effects with a flat trend were observed for both Ethan and Kayla. During Posttest 2, all three students showed slightly decreased performance in overall writing quality compared with Posttest 1, with Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla obtaining mean levels of 16.0, 17.7, and 18.0, respectively. The PND for each was 0% for Posttest 2, compared with Posttest 1. No immediate effects were observed for any of the students after the additive revising instruction. A slightly increasing trend, a flat trend, and a slightly decreasing trend were observed for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla. However, the mean levels for all three students during Posttest 2 were higher than their baseline writing quality. During maintenance, the mean levels in writing quality that Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla obtained were 16.0, 16.0 and 18.5, respectively. Sarah’s performance in posttest 2 was maintained; Ethan’s performance slightly decreased from Posttest 2 (with average decrease of 1.7), whereas Kayla’s performance slightly increased (with average increase of 0.5). However, the mean levels for all three students during maintenance were higher than their baseline performance, and the PND for each was 100% for maintenance, compared with the baseline (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
Compare–contrast and explanation text quality.
Positive gains in compare–contrast essay quality generalized to writing explanation essays. Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla each made gains in quality of five points from baseline to Posttest 1. During Posttest 2, all three students showed further enhanced performance in overall writing quality compared with Posttest 1. The gains in quality for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 8, 7, and 7, respectively, compared with their baseline performance. All three students demonstrated decreases in quality for their explanation papers from Posttest 2 to maintenance, but compared with baseline, the gains in quality for Sarah, Ethan, and Kayla were 5, 6, and 5 (see Table 3 and Figure 2).
In general, compare–contrast text structure element scores during baseline, Posttest 1, Posttest 2, and maintenance were slightly more variable than quality scores. However, both scores demonstrated low variability across all phases for all three students. In addition, the results also showed a consistency of data patterns across similar phases for the three students.
Social Validity
All three students believed they benefited from the writing instruction. Kayla indicated she would like to keep using the TREE BRANCH strategy to help with planning and writing in the future. Sarah and Ethan believed TREE BRANCH was very helpful. All three students also indicated willingness to keep using the SEARCH checklist to help revise papers in the future.
Discussion
The planning instruction implemented within the SRSD framework included explicit teaching of the TREE BRANCH strategy to facilitate compare–contrast essay planning and writing and the procedures for regulating the taught strategy and the writing process. After receiving the planning instruction, all the students demonstrated significant increases in writing performance on all the writing process and product measures. The three students were found to spend more time with planning prior to composing after receiving the planning instruction. The average scores for written plans across the three students increased from 0 (i.e., no written plans) to above 4 (i.e., good written plans that included the graphic organizer, three traits, and supporting details). The students also were found to obtain average gains in length of at least 300%. Two of the three students showed increased writing accuracy. All three students included substantially more compare–contrast text structure elements following planning instruction, with the average scores increasing by nearly 16 points. All also were found to demonstrate better overall writing quality; the average posttest compare–contrast essay increased by nearly 8 points on a 24-point scale.
These findings are consistent with prior studies showing that planning instruction using SRSD can help improve the writing behaviors and performance of struggling writers in terms of increased planning time (Saddler, 2006) and better written plans (De La Paz, 2001), longer (Graham et al., 2005) and more accurately written (Schnee, 2010) essays, and papers that include more text structure elements with better overall text quality (MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010). What is most notable is that these gains were observed in children with LLD, a population that has received little attention in writing strategy intervention scholarship; thus, SRSD is a viable instructional model for teaching such students to write and TREE BRANCH is a potentially useful strategy for teaching them how to compose compare–contrast essays.
After receiving the supplemental revising instruction, the students demonstrated increases in writing accuracy (average scores for %CWS for two of three students increased from 71.1% to 86.4%) and revising behaviors (average number of revisions per essay increased from 0 to 10), and decreases in planning time (average planning time across the three students decreased from 11.22 min to 5.22 min), quality of written plans (average scores for written plans across the three students decreased from 4.33 to 3.22), text length (average decreases across the three students were 29% fewer words), and text structure elements (average scores for text structure elements across the three students decreased from 23.4 to 18.3) compared with receiving the planning instruction alone. The added revising instruction did not affect overall essay quality (average scores for writing quality across the three students decreased very slightly from 17.9 to 17.2). The increase in writing accuracy and revising behaviors for all three students was expected given that the students learned to address mechanical errors from the revising instruction. This finding replicated those obtained by Schnee (2010), possibly because revising seemed to increase awareness of writing conventions. All three students spent some time engaging in revising behaviors after receiving the revising instruction, but the fact that the revisions applied focused on writing conventions might indicate that they had not internalized the revising instruction and could only perform revising at a superficial rather than meaning-changing level.
The finding of decreased text length after receiving the revising instruction was consistent with prior studies (De La Paz, Swanson, & Graham, 1998), suggesting that revising seems to have minimal effects on text quantity. Schnee (2010) also found that planning instruction had a greater impact on text length compared with combined planning and revising instruction. Although few studies have differentiated the effects of planning instruction alone and the additive effects of planning plus revising instruction on the planning time and quality of written plans, the decreased performance on these two measures suggests that supplemental revising instruction did not contribute to longer planning time or better written plans. It is possible that as the students were asked to use TREE BRANCH to help with planning and composing as well as to use the SEARCH checklist to revise compare–contrast essays all within 40 min during probes, they spent less time on planning and only wrote down the most helpful information in their plans so as to save time for revising at the end, as observed by the instructor.
All three students showed decreased scores in compare–contrast text structure elements after the additive planning and revising instruction. No prior studies have compared the effects of planning instruction alone and the additive effects of planning and revising instruction on compare–contrast text structure in struggling writers (including those with LLD). Schnee (2010) found that the addition of revising instruction seemed to help students reach the criterion of including seven story elements compared with planning instruction alone. However, whether the planning instruction alone or the combined planning and revising instruction had a greater impact on the number of story elements was not clear in that study. One possible explanation for the decreases in text structure elements might be that with decreased text length, the overall amount of ideas included in essays also decreased. This was supported by the finding that after receiving the revising instruction, all three students demonstrated major decreases in the number of traits, comparisons, and supporting details, which were all idea related. The supplemental revising instruction did not produce gains in overall quality for the three students. This result was contrary to Schnee’s finding showing that planning plus revising instruction had a larger impact on quality of story writing than planning instruction alone. One possible explanation might be that the three students in this study did not internalize the revising strategy to enable sufficient use of SEARCH during Posttest 2, although each student did meet the criterion of being able to apply the SEARCH checklist for revising independently during instruction.
All three students performed the maintenance writing task 4 weeks after revising instruction ceased. Gains were well maintained for all the compare–contrast process and product measures for the three students. This finding was consistent with prior studies showing that gains from writing instruction with SRSD can be well maintained for at least 4 weeks (Graham et al., 2005). All three students spent some time on planning (average planning time across the three students increased from 0 min to 6.5 min compared with baseline and average scores for written plans increased from 0 to 3.17 compared with baseline). Compared with their baseline performance, all the students maintained gains in writing length (average increases for writing length across the three students were about 187%), accuracy (average scores for writing accuracy across the three students increased from 57.7% to 77.7%), revising behaviors (average number of revisions per essay increased from 0 to 10), text structure elements (average scores for text structure elements across the three students increased from 7.5 to 18.7), and overall quality (average scores for text quality across the three students increased from 10 to 16.8) 4 weeks after the writing instruction ceased. The maintenance of the gains was expected as the planning and revising instruction targeted the maintenance of the taught strategies and the students were constantly reminded to keep using the strategies in the future.
Positive planning and additive revising intervention effects were found to generalize to writing in an uninstructed but related expository text structure, explanation essays. Compared with no planning in baseline, the students spent time planning and generated written plans that included key ideas for their explanation essays. They wrote longer essays, demonstrated increased accuracy and revising behaviors, and showed better overall quality. These findings are consistent with prior research showing that writing instruction with SRSD can promote generalization to writing in other genres (Tracy et al., 2009). The generalization effects to explanation writing were well maintained 4 weeks after revising instruction ceased.
Limitations
As with any study, this study had several limitations. First, the participants were not a pure LLD group. Prior studies have documented that ADHD frequently cooccurs with LLD (Jonsdottir, Bouma, Sergeant, & Scherder, 2005), with an estimate of comorbidity between 3% and 5% (Mueller & Tomblin, 2012). Therefore, children with comorbid LLD and ADHD tend to experience more significant academic difficulties due to the negative impact of both cognitive deficits associated with ADHD (e.g., decreased verbal and spatial working memory) and language deficits associated with LLD. We assume that the potential negative impacts of ADHD characteristics on the two students’ performance were minimized given that they both took medication for ADHD during the writing instruction. However, future studies targeting LLD students are encouraged to rule out any possible comorbid conditions so as to further validate our findings. Second, the current research design allowed only the examination of the possible additive effects of the revising instruction, rather than its own effects on students’ writing performance. Future research might incorporate a staggered design for the revising instruction to establish a functional relationship between revising instruction and writing outcomes, hence to examine the direct effects of revising instruction. Third, each student with LLD was asked to use TREE BRANCH to plan and compose and the SEARCH checklist to revise a compare–contrast essay within 40 min during probes. It seemed that the students did not have enough time to complete all these tasks thoroughly in the time provided. In future studies, researchers may consider allotting more time for probing to give students ample time to complete all steps of the writing process. In addition, more substantial time and practice opportunities should be given to the students with LLD to internalize the taught strategies.
Implications for Practice
The current study has implications for teaching students with LLD. First, teachers should consider integrating planning and revising instruction such as that described here on a regular basis and tailor it to meet the unique needs of each struggling writer with LLD. For example, students with LLD will likely require instructional language that is easy to understand (e.g., limited compounding and embedding) and explicit teaching of complex and/or abstract words to support their comprehension and use of necessary vocabulary, as was done in this study. Second, for those students who experience the most difficulties with planning, teachers might focus on teaching students to brainstorm and organize their ideas prior to composing using scaffolded supports such as TREE BRANCH; for those who experience difficulties with revising content, teachers might consider focusing more on the steps within the SEARCH checklist that target macrostructural elements that will alter meaning; for those who experience difficulties particularly with editing errors in conventions, teachers might focus more on those parts of the SEARCH checklist that address spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors. Revising has been a critical yet challenging to teach aspect of the writing process. Therefore, teachers need to allow sufficient time for students with LLD to learn and practice using the SEARCH checklist (or some other revising/editing checklist) to help students revise at content and/or mechanical levels as needed. Teachers may also provide progress monitoring writing probes on a regular time basis to assess students’ strategy use (as assessed by following each step of the taught strategy) and writing performance (as assessed by text length, text structure elements, writing accuracy, and overall quality). Third, to further boost motivation to write for students with LLD, teachers should consider selecting a menu of writing topics from which students can chose that are of personal interest to the students and with which they have some degree of background knowledge, as we did in this study.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded jointly by a College of Education Research Fellowship and Graduate Student Research Enhancement Award from Michigan State University.