Cultivating Self-Regulation for Students With Mild Disabilities

Abstract

The WHAT’S UP? strategy is a type of interactive writing between a student with social, emotional, and/or behavioral challenges and an adult. The written exchange serves as a technique for involving a student in “talking” about what can be better and engaging the student in a problem-solving process. The strategy encompasses components of problem-solving strategy skills, the self-regulated strategy development model, and interactive writing. The authors describe the strategy and how the strategy can be employed in the classroom.

Keywords

writing self-management/regulation learning disabilities social emotional functioning/development problem solving

Students in school settings encounter social problems every day. Many students solve problems by talking with others, developing potential solutions, and/or seeking assistance from an adult. Students who solve problems successfully are self-regulated learners, who are generally characterized as being motivated and efficient managers of their own actions, environment, and behavior through monitoring and strategy use (Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). They set realistic goals in and outside of school, self-evaluate their performance, self-direct their learning, seek social assistance when needed, and effectively evaluate alternative choices to given situations (Garavalia & Ray, 2003; Glago, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009). According to Harris, Graham, Mason, and Friedlander (2008), successful self-regulated learners demonstrate four skills:

Setting a goal for learning

Self-monitoring performance

Developing and following self-instructions

Reinforcing performance

The literature suggests that some students with learning and/or behavioral disabilities often lack some, if not all, of the skills required to be a self-regulated learner (Graham, 2006; Reid, Trout, & Schwartz, 2005; Swanson & Deshler, 2003). They may struggle not only with time management and attention problems but also with persevering through tasks, feeling self-doubt, and being strategic (Harris, 1982). In addition, from age 9 through adolescence, students with disabilities are often characterized as having difficulty with social information processing and generating solutions to social problems (Bauminger, Edelsztein, & Morash, 2005).

Students with mild to moderate disabilities who have the capacity to respond and formulate questions can learn to identify problems, clarify problems, contemplate possible solutions, and participate in and benefit from a problem-solving intervention (Cote, 2009). Investigations of multicomponent interventions that promote self-determination skills such as problem solving have shown positive effects for elementary students with mild disabilities (Cote, 2011; Glago et al., 2009; Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). To build familiarity with problem-solving interventions, another peer or adult may be involved to model the self-regulation skills (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007).

Interactive Writing

Providing students and teachers an opportunity to participate in interactive writing is one way to present problem-solving instruction. First-grade students have better ideas, organization, word choice, and spelling during interactive writing (Roth & Guinee, 2011), whereas kindergarten students have acquired early reading skills following classroom interactive writing (Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010). Struggling learners have also benefited from interactive/collaborative writing opportunities (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000). One type of interactive writing strategy, the dialogue journal, involves a teacher or peer in a written exchange modeling the inherent structure and organization of letter writing and spelling accuracy. A dialogue journal is a responsive form of writing in which a student and teacher carry on a conversation over time, sharing ideas, feelings, and thoughts for the purpose of both social and academic learning (Staton, 1987). The focus of a dialogue journal is written expression, so the mechanics of writing are deemphasized.

When used with students with emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD), the dialogue journal was a motivating vehicle for providing engaged writing instruction (Regan, 2003). In dialogic exchanges with the teacher, the length of student responses, writing quality, and student time on task improved (Regan, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2005). Regan et al. (2005) first investigated the written expression skills of five students with EBD via the dialogue journal. For approximately 6 weeks, the students and teacher wrote back and forth four times a week regarding a particular social/emotional challenge. Students reported a preference for dialogic writing in comparison to traditional writing probes (e.g., write about your weekend), and a student satisfaction scale indicated that the dialogue journal was better than talking out loud about problems and helped the students to problem solve in new ways. Although promising for five students with EBD, the interactive journaling did not include an explicit instructional sequence or support for students who struggle with planning, organizing thoughts, and clearly expressing ideas (Regan, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2009). A method for strategy acquisition instruction that incorporates self-regulation supports for students is the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model.

Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model

Self-regulated strategy development is an evidence-based writing instructional approach (Baker, Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, & Doabler, 2009; Graham, 2006; Rogers & Graham, 2008) that uses an inherent structure of particular writing formats (e.g., persuasive, story writing), accompanied by mnemonics, graphic organizers for planning, and self-regulation supports. Self-regulation, with regard to writing, refers to the thoughts and actions writers use to improve their skills and focus and to enhance writing quality (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). The SRSD approach includes all four of the self-regulation skills to help students write effectively: goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement (Graham & Harris, 2005). Self-regulation skills are considered as a secondary or tertiary support for students who are otherwise not responsive to the primary instructional program (Menzies & Lane, 2011).

Self-regulated strategy development contains six stages of instruction: (a) develop background knowledge, (b) discuss it, (c) model it, (d) memorize it, (e) support it, and (f) independently perform it. More than 40 studies examining SRSD have reported favorable results for the writing performance of students with disabilities as well as their typical peers (Baker et al., 2009; Graham & Perin, 2007; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006). Students with/or at risk for EBD (Lane et al., 2008; Little et al., 2010; Mason, Kubina, Valasa, & Mong Cramer, 2010; Mastropieri et al., 2009), as well as students whose primary disability is other than learning disabilities (Taft & Mason, 2011), have benefited from SRSD.

The Interactive WHAT’S UP? Strategy

WHAT’S UP? is an interactive writing strategy with specific self-regulation components. The purpose of the interactive writing strategy is not necessarily to resolve problems but rather to collaboratively “talk” by writing about and considering ways to approach a problematic situation. In the written exchanges, students receive adult guidance about what needs to be better. First, with an adult’s help, the student accurately identifies the problem. The adult then provides feedback for the student’s problem-solving solutions via comments or questions, in a nonthreatening manner, to encourage the student to modify or consider alternative solutions.

Students with disabilities are challenged to effectively remember information (Brigham & Brigham, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2010). Therefore, the WHAT’S UP? strategy uses a mnemonic so the strategy steps are explicit and allow the student to self-monitor his or her writing performance (Rafferty & Raimondi, 2009). The mnemonic is WHAT’S UP? (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The WHAT’S UP? mnemonic.

Each letter of the mnemonic represents a part to be included in the interactive writing strategy. All of the parts collectively resemble a traditional letter-writing format in which the context is a conversation about a specified student issue, referred to as something that needs to be better. The WHAT’S UP? strategy has nine parts for students to include in each response (“Talk about the options” includes one sentence for each of the three options). When students add more than the required sentences for “Talk about the options” and/or “U ask questions,” a 13-sentence response is possible. To support student recall of the mnemonic, colored highlighters are introduced to correspond with each of the letters of WHAT’S UP? (i.e., W = purple, H = dark blue, A = light blue, T = green, S = yellow, U = pink, P = red). Students identify the correct color for the corresponding part of the mnemonic and use the colors to highlight the parts of their own writing. Color coding helps students self-monitor. For example, if students see that their written responses are highlighted with all colors except green, they should refer back to the mnemonic and recognize that “Talk about the options” is an area to improve for next time. Using the number of parts chart (see Figure 2), students decide on a feasible goal to meet and monitor progress toward that goal by coloring in the number of parts after completing a written entry. Goals encourage students to put forth more effort and persist at the task (Menzies & Lane, 2011). The choice chart also supports students in planning and generating text. The choice chart (see Figure 3) and graphic organizer (see Figure 4) provide sentence starters for the W, H, T, and P parts of the mnemonic.

Figure 2.

WHAT’S UP? number of parts chart.

Figure 3.

WHAT’S UP? choice chart.

Figure 4.

WHAT’S UP? graphic organizer.

How to Teach the Strategy

Over the course of nine scripted lessons, the six stages of the SRSD instructional model are incorporated. Each SRSD stage and the application of the WHAT’S UP? strategy are explained below.

Stage 1: Develop Background Knowledge

During this stage, the teacher first evaluates the student’s prior writing skills, including his or her ability to spell accurately and to compose syntactically accurate sentences, and his or her handwriting. Reviewing the student’s individualized education program (IEP), writing samples, and/or recent writing assessments is appropriate. Preskills of writing, such as spelling and mechanics, may need to be reinforced within the instructional process. Also, the teacher should ask the student about his or her perceptions of writing and experiences with letter writing. During this stage, the teacher wants to ensure that the strategy matches the needs of the student.

Stage 2: Discuss It

During Stage 2, the teacher and student discuss specific details about letter writing, including the parts and format. The teacher should determine the student’s familiarity with and ability to self-regulate by showing the mnemonic, the graphic organizer, and the self-monitoring graphing chart. The teacher may share the purpose of the strategy and the benefits of using the strategy. Some students may be motivated by the use of a contract; thus, during this stage a contractual agreement may be made between the student and the instructor to indicate a commitment to one’s learning. This written contract explains the commitment, lays out the time frame, and identifies the people who will be completing the contract. A reinforcer, such as “a homework pass,” may be earned on completion of the agreement.

Stage 3: Model It

This stage takes about three lessons to complete. To best model the application of WHAT’S UP?, the instructor uses fictitious student vignettes. These vignettes are one- to two-page descriptions detailing problematic situations for a similar-age student in a narrative engaging format (see Danforth & Boyle, 2000, for example vignettes). Collabora-tively, the teacher and student can read the vignette and infer what needs to be better. After reading the vignette out loud, a T-chart of the fictitious student’s strengths and weaknesses can be created to serve as an organizer. In subsequent lessons, a sample letter written by the fictitious student is provided. The letter is already color coded to model the inclusion of all strategy parts. The teacher uses this letter to further discuss the characteristics of the sentences. Use of a think-aloud and intermittent prompts to the student are helpful during this stage (e.g., How many options were included? What color did he highlight the options? Did he have any sentences that don’t “fit” any of the parts in the mnemonic?).

A fictitious teacher’s letter would be introduced next for further modeling. As the student becomes more and more familiar with the strategy, the teacher can fade supports. For example, on the fictitious teacher’s response letter, the sentences may be highlighted in gray. Then, collaboratively, the instructor and student highlight over the gray to indicate, in color, what part of the strategy each sentence represents. This serves as a way to model self-monitoring. The teacher may rehearse out loud: “Do I have all of my parts? I am missing a pink sentence, so I need to form a question.” Finally, the teacher can show the student how to chart the number of parts included on that day’s letter. Problem-solving interventions should include ample student training, practice, review, and evaluation during instruction (Cote, 2009; Glago et al., 2009).

Stage 4: Memorize It

This stage provides rehearsal of the steps of the mnemonic frequently and intermittently with the student. After the introduction of the mnemonic, the teacher begins every lesson by prompting the student to verbally recall the mnemonic parts. The SRSD approach is recursive, moving back and forth between stages to reinforce skills, as needed. Fading the visual support of the color-coded mnemonic and asking the student to recall the strategy and the corresponding colors are necessary throughout the stages.

Stage 5: Support It

During this stage, the teacher and student are collaboratively exchanging letters back and forth as modeled earlier with the fictitious student and teacher. Before the teacher writes the first letter, the student and teacher establish the topics that need to be better and set a goal for the number of parts to include in their first letter. Students find the choice chart and graphic organizers to be helpful tools for planning their initial written responses. The organizers facilitate student brainstorming via three possible solutions, with the intention being that the student executes at least one solution and evaluates the outcome in subsequent written exchanges (Guerra, 2009). The student is more comfortable with the planning supports when the teacher shares a completed graphic organizer and/or completes one while thinking out loud. The student will explicitly see and hear how the organizer is used effectively. The teacher may explicitly contemplate the list of options to demonstrate that there is not necessarily a correct answer to the problem (Menzies & Lane, 2011).

During this time, a teacher can also verbalize the cognitive thoughts one says to oneself to persevere through the writing process. These cognitive thoughts are referred to as self-statements. Self-statements are encouraging, simple statements that can be displayed or said softly to oneself (e.g., “You can do it!”; “Let me think about this for a little bit and then write”). Finally, because students with learning and behavioral challenges have deficits in monitoring their performance, a self-evaluation checklist is introduced to ensure that the strategy steps are accurately followed (see Figure 5). The student can check off the boxes when each step of the WHAT’S UP? writing strategy is completed.

Figure 5.

WHAT’S UP? instructional checklist.

Stage 6: Independent Performance

If a student demonstrates at least six of the nine strategy parts during the Support It stage, the student has met the criterion and can be considered to have mastered the strategy. At this time, the written exchange can happen without any further modeling or direct instruction. The student may or may not choose to use the self-regulatory tools before, during, or after writing (i.e., graphic organizers, self-monitoring chart, self-evaluation checklist). However, if the student fails to include specific steps, the self-evaluation checklist should be reintroduced. Booster sessions are used, as needed.

Practical Tips for Success

To determine potential topics for what could be better for a student, we suggest asking the student, asking the student’s teacher, and/or reviewing the student’s IEP. A previous investigation of the WHAT’S UP? strategy was completed one to one with upper-elementary students for an average of 9 days, meeting 3 days a week, in sessions lasting 25 to 35 minutes (Regan & Martin, 2010). Following instruction, students independently read the journal entry written to them by an adult, planned their response, and then responded to the teacher’s letter in a 20- to 25-minute session. The next day, the teacher presented the student with an immediate written response that followed the WHAT’S UP? components. The folder containing the self-regulatory tools to support student writing (e.g., graphic organizers, number of parts chart) was accessible for the student. In the example provided next, tips for how to craft responses are included.

An Example: Jay

Jay was a 12-year-old sixth grader in a self-contained classroom for students with EBD (see Note 1). Jay’s primary disability was other health impairment, with secondary diagnoses of a learning disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The primary topics for Jay’s exchanges included using less daily self-referrals to go to the support room and managing anger. (The support room was available for students who were asked to relocate from their typical school routines and/or when students requested support because of a behavioral, social, and/or emotional need). A written exchange between Jay and an adult is presented in Table 1. Over the course of six exchanges, Jay and the adult arrived at potential options in lieu of Jay taking a self-referral: using a choice chart, making self-statements (to stay on task), and/or taking frequent, but brief, breaks (i.e., water or bathroom).

Table 1.

Example Exchange Between Jay and an Adult.

Jay’s response 6	Teacher’s response
Dear [adult], So you suggest that I make a choice chart or a break chart! I could be better at handling my anger, when somebody makes me extremely angry at them. I have the option to follow the directions from the teacher who gave me directions to follow. I could work better and faster. I s hould learn to write a whole right better. Getting away from somebody who is being mean works 50% of the time. It’s hard to know exactly what they want to do or what they like. I would love to help the other kids with their work if they are not done when I am done. It has always been hard for me to come out of my shell and ask for help, because I am a kind of shy person when it comes to asking for help with something or asking if someone else needs any help. I think I have been doing really good taking less self-referrals. I have been taking only 3 self-referrals a day. What is your puppy’s name? How old is your puppy? What city or town do you live in? I would love to have Officer Braithwaite to come to the school. I would also love to have lunch with you on May the 12th. If we do have lunch on May the 12th, would you like a cupcake? Adios, [Jay]	Dear [Jay], I think I heard you say that it is hard to make friends but that you have tried strategies at school to improve. Congratulations on taking less self-referrals! I agree that it is tough to know what others who may be good friends want to do or what they like. What qualities do you have that would make a good friend to someone else? I don’t think you need to work faster but maybe your focus and time on task (getting started) could be better. You have a great attitude for helping others. What are you good at? I too can be shy about asking for help. I suggest asking if someone needs help first. Do you help younger students in the other classes? Also, you should know that if someone does not want your help, to not have your feelings hurt. My puppy’s name is [dog]. He’s 1.4 years old. I live in [city] and I’m looking forward to celebrating your birthday in May . . . with cupcakes PLEASE!! To work on your focus, maybe try the self-statements and sit/work away from your distractions. Sincerely, [adult]

Jay’s response 6

Teacher’s response

Dear [adult], So you suggest that I make a choice chart or a break chart! I could be better at handling my anger, when somebody makes me extremely angry at them. I have the option to follow the directions from the teacher who gave me directions to follow. I could work better and faster. I s hould learn to write a whole right better. Getting away from somebody who is being mean works 50% of the time. It’s hard to know exactly what they want to do or what they like. I would love to help the other kids with their work if they are not done when I am done. It has always been hard for me to come out of my shell and ask for help, because I am a kind of shy person when it comes to asking for help with something or asking if someone else needs any help. I think I have been doing really good taking less self-referrals. I have been taking only 3 self-referrals a day. What is your puppy’s name? How old is your puppy? What city or town do you live in? I would love to have Officer Braithwaite to come to the school. I would also love to have lunch with you on May the 12th. If we do have lunch on May the 12th, would you like a cupcake? Adios, [Jay]

Dear [Jay], I think I heard you say that it is hard to make friends but that you have tried strategies at school to improve. Congratulations on taking less self-referrals! I agree that it is tough to know what others who may be good friends want to do or what they like. What qualities do you have that would make a good friend to someone else? I don’t think you need to work faster but maybe your focus and time on task (getting started) could be better. You have a great attitude for helping others. What are you good at? I too can be shy about asking for help. I suggest asking if someone needs help first. Do you help younger students in the other classes? Also, you should know that if someone does not want your help, to not have your feelings hurt. My puppy’s name is [dog]. He’s 1.4 years old. I live in [city] and I’m looking forward to celebrating your birthday in May . . . with cupcakes PLEASE!! To work on your focus, maybe try the self-statements and sit/work away from your distractions. Sincerely, [adult]

In Table 1, the discussion of what needs to be better included making friends and following directions. Although Jay did express himself through writing, his ability to stay on topic was often challenging, and there was a notable preference on his part for asking the instructor questions that were often irrelevant to the topic. Jay would frequently share his outside-of-school interests, request activities, and/or ask about the adult’s dog and/or family. As observed in Table 1, the adult answered his questions and used the interactive opportunity to model and encourage appropriate social skills for the student. Jay appeared to use the interactive writing as a way to build rapport with the adult. When a relationship has been formed, adults can be somewhat more influential on student behaviors (Regan, 2003).

When interacting, the adult needs to provide feedback to guide the student’s thinking about the proposed options/solutions. Although Jay would present potential options for problem solving, he demonstrated a relative reluctance to generate a definitive plan of action for any one of the identified problems. For example, in Table 1, the teacher subtly suggests that Jay reevaluate his judgment about “working faster.” The adult needs to guide the student to what Cote (2011) referred to as justify solutions. In Table 1, the teacher prompted Jay to consider his positive attributes. Forming friendships is challenging for many students with disabilities, but a first step is to identify the positive attributes one has to offer in a friendship.

Jay and the adult were able to have only 15 written exchanges. Continuing the interaction would have been beneficial for two reasons. First, when a student struggles to stay on topic in the written interaction and needs a lot of feedback, there may need to be many exchanges before generating viable solutions to the problem. Second, Jay was consistently motivated to participate in the WHAT’S UP? strategy, and he expressed an eagerness to continue the written exchange.

Summary

Teachers seek not only instructional strategies to support student learning but also strategies that support a student’s social and emotional needs. We consider the WHAT’S UP? writing strategy to do both. WHAT’S UP? is an interactive writing strategy that includes self-regulation components. The strategy has promise for supporting the social/emotional aspects of children with mild disabilities, developing problem-solving skills, and encouraging a positive student–adult relationship.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Baker

Chard

Ketterlin-Geller

Apichatabutra

Doabler

(2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 303–318. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/exceptionalchildren/

Bauminger

Edelsztein

H. S.

Morash

(2005). Social information processing and emotional understanding in children with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 45–62. doi:10.1177/00222194050380010401

Brigham

F. J.

Brigham

M. S. P.

(2001). Current practice alerts: A focus on mnemonic instruction (Issue 5). Arlington, VA: Division for Learning Disabilities and Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Cote

D. L.

(2009). Increasing skill performances of problem solving in students with intellectual disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Cote

D. L.

(2011). Implementing a problem-solving intervention with students with mild to moderate disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 259–265. doi:10.1177/1053451210395387

Danforth

Boyle

(2000). Cases in behavior management. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

Garavalia

Ray

(2003). Distinctions among subgroups of developmental students: Differences in task value, self-regulated learning, and grade expectations. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 19(2), 29–40.

Glago

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). Improving problem solving of elementary students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 372–381. doi:10.1177/0741932508324394

Graham

(2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In MacArthur

Graham

Fitzgerald

(Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Guilford.

10.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

(2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

11.

Graham

Perin

(2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of Adolescents in middle and high schools (report to Carnegie Corporation of New York). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

12.

Greene

J. A.

Azevedo

(2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372. doi:10.3102/003465430303953

13.

Guerra

N. S.

(2009). LIBRE stick figure tool: A graphic organizer to foster self-regulated social cognitive problem solving. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 229–233. doi:10.1177/1053451208328835

14.

Harris

K. R.

(1982). Cognitive-behavior modification: Application with exceptional students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1–12.

15.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Mason

L. H.

(2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–338. doi:10.3102/00028312043002295

16.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Mason

Friedlander

(2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

17.

Jones

C. D.

Reutzel

D. R.

Fargo

J. D.

(2010). Comparing two methods of writing instruction: Effects on kindergarten students’ reading skills. Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 327–341. doi:10.1080/00220670903383119

18.

Lane

Harris

Graham

Weisenbach

Brindle

Morphy

(2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 41, 234–235. doi:10.1177/0022466907310370.

19.

Little

M. A.

Lane

K. L.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Story

Sandmel

(2010). Self-regulated strategies development for persuasive writing in tandem with school wide positive behavioral support: Effects for second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 157–179. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/behavioraldisorders/index.cfm

20.

Mason

Kubina

Valasa

Mong Cramer

(2010). Evaluating effective writing instruction for adolescent students in an emotional and behavior support setting. Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 140–156. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/behavioraldisorders/index.cfm

21.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2010). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiated instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22.

Mastropieri

Scruggs

Mills

Irby Cerar

Cuenca-Sanchez

Allen-Bronaugh

Regan

. (2009). Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write fluently. Behavioral Disorders, 35(1), 19–40. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/behavioraldisorders/index.cfm

23.

McCarrier

Pinnell

G. S.

Fountas

I. C.

(2000). Interactive writing: How language & literacy come together, K–2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

24.

Menzies

H. M.

Lane

K. L.

(2011). Using self-regulation strategies and functional assessment-based interventions to provide academic and behavioral support to students at risk within three-tiered models of prevention. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(4), 181–191.

25.

Palmer

S. B.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary school: Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 115–127. doi:10.1177/07419325030240020601

26.

Rafferty

L. A.

Raimondi

S. L.

(2009). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Examining the differential effects among students with emotional disturbance engaged in independent math practice. Journal of Behavior Education, 18, 279–299.

27.

Regan

(2003). Using dialogue journals in the classroom: Forming relationships with students with emotional disturbance. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36, 36–41. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tec/

28.

Regan

Martin

P. J.

(2010, May). Self-Regulated strategy instruction for interactive dialogue writing among students with EBD. Paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) National Convention, Denver, Colorado.

29.

Regan

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2005). Promoting expressive writing among students with emotional and behavioral disturbance via dialogue journals. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 33–50. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/behavioraldisorders/index.cfm

30.

Regan

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(2009). Advances in literacy practices for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. In Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(Eds.), Applications of research methodology: Advances in learning and behavioral difficulties (Vol. 22, pp. 317–341). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

31.

Reid

Trout

Schwartz

(2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377.

32.

Rogers

Graham

(2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.

33.

Roth

Guinee

(2011). Ten minutes a day: The impact of interactive writing instruction on first graders’ independent writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(3), 331–361. doi:10.1177/1468798411409300

34.

Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578

35.

Staton

(1987). The power of responding in dialogue journals. In Fulwiler

(Ed.), The journal book (pp. 47–63). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

36.

Swanson

H. L.

Deshler

(2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135.

37.

Taft

R. T.

Mason

L. H.

(2011). Examining effects of writing interventions: Highlighting results for students with primary disabilities other than learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32(5), 359–370. doi:10.1177/0741932510362242

38.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Risemberg

(1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919