Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Strategy Instruction on Expository Writing Skills for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Students with disabilities trail behind their peers without disabilities while in school, as well as in post-secondary outcome areas. Given that self-determination and enhanced academic skills are associated with improved post-school outcomes, one possible solution is to identify interventions that teach self-determination and academic skills simultaneously. This study investigated the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on expository writing skills of five high school students with low-incidence disabilities. Using a multiple-probe-across-participants design, the authors measured the effects of strategy instruction on quality of expository paragraphs and quality and content of individualized education program (IEP) goal paragraphs. Results indicated a functional relation between the intervention and improved paragraph writing. Limitations, suggestions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

self-determination writing instruction students with disabilities

Despite efforts to improve services and instruction for students with disabilities, in-school and post-school outcomes for these students remain unacceptable (Newman et al., 2011). For instance, the results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported 45% of students with disabilities completed a below standard curriculum compared with only 24% of students without disabilities. Overall, students with disabilities completed fewer credits in academic courses compared with their peers without disabilities (Nord et al., 2011).

When students with disabilities leave high school, their challenges often follow them. For example, the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) data show employment, post-secondary education, and independence are three areas in which students with disabilities show significant deficits compared with their same-age peers in the general population (Newman et al., 2011). Specifically, Bouck and Joshi (2012) analyzed data from NLTS2 and discovered less than half of students with a mild intellectual disability were employed, 26.1% attended post-secondary education, and 26.1% lived independently.

To address these gaps between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities, researchers have worked to identify predictors of improved outcomes for individuals with disabilities. One such predictor is academic skills (Test et al., 2009). For instance, for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), academic performance plays a role in post-secondary education outcomes, employment opportunities, wages earned, and hours worked (Migliore, Timmons, Butterworth, & Lugas, 2012). These findings are consistent with earlier research conducted by Halpern, Yovanoff, Doren, and Benz (1995) who found students with disabilities, who exhibited high academic performance in the areas of reading, writing, math, responsible behavior, and problem-solving skills, were more likely to attend post-secondary education. In addition, students who passed more than half or all of their academic courses were more likely to enroll and attend post-secondary education. Wagner, Newman, and Javitz (2014) found that grade point average and earning credits in general education academic courses were related to improved post-school outcomes for students with disabilities.

Another predictor of success for students with disabilities is self-determination, defined as a dispositional characteristic manifested as acting as the causal agent in one’s life (Shogren Wehmeyer, Palmer, Forber-Pratt, et al., 2015, p. 2). Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, and Wood (2007) found that instruction in self-determination component skills can have a positive effect on academic achievement for students with disabilities. Students’ levels of self-determination when exiting high school also appear to be positively correlated with improved post-school outcomes (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015).

Given the importance of both self-determination and academic skill development for students with disabilities, interventions that infuse self-determination and academic content standards could assist special education teachers who are responsible for teaching both transition skills (including self-determination) and academic skills. This could in turn assist in increased post-school outcomes for all students (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015).

Previous research suggests teaching students learning strategies is an effective way to enhance academic skills for individuals with disabilities (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003). One approach to strategy instruction is self-regulated strategy development (SRSD), which explicitly teaches students a writing strategy using and mnemonic and six stages of instruction: developing background knowledge, discussing the strategy, modeling it, memorizing it, supporting it, and providing opportunities for independent performance (Harris et al., 2003). Although most research on strategy instruction focuses on students with learning disabilities, Joseph and Konrad (2009) found evidence suggesting that those with intellectual disabilities can also learn to use writing strategies through modified and systematic instruction.

Strategy instruction that addresses both academic and self-determination skills may offer at least a partial solution for today’s special educators who are tasked with the challenge of teaching such a broad range of skills. One such approach is GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction, which integrates self-determination skills, strategy instruction, and common core writing skills (Rowe, Mazzotti, & Sinclair, 2015). Specifically, the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! mnemonic—Goals, Objectives (4 objectives), Identify Timeline, Name topic, Organize details, Wrap it up—teaches students to write six-sentence paragraphs about potential individualized education program (IEP) goals and to generalize their skills to other types of paragraphs.

Konrad, Trela, and Test (2006) conducted a study to investigate the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on the ability of high school students with physical and cognitive disabilities to write paragraphs about potential IEP goals and their overall paragraph writing skills. Results indicated a functional relation between GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction—delivered in a one-to-one teaching format—and enhanced writing skills. Konrad and Test (2007) extended these findings by investigating the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction—delivered in a small-group teaching format—on the writing skills of middle school students with high-incidence disabilities. Results indicated a functional relation between GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction and students’ abilities to write potential IEP goals and objectives in paragraph format. In both studies, results for generalization to other types of paragraphs were mixed and were identified as an important area for future research. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on expository paragraph writing skills of high school students with autism and intellectual disabilities. We sought to answer the following research question:

What are the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on (a) the quality of expository paragraphs, (b) the quality of IEP goal paragraphs, and (c) the content of IEP goal paragraphs for high school students with autism and intellectual disabilities?

Method

Participants

Five male high school students with mild intellectual disabilities participated in this study. To be included in the study, students had to (a) be able to write simple sentences, (b) be unable to compose a cohesive paragraph, and (c) have signed student assent and parent permission forms. All participants were enrolled in the occupational course of study, which provides instruction in (a) all academic areas including basic writing skills, (b) vocational skills, and (c) self-determination skills.

Brian

Brian was a 16-year-old White male identified as having autism and mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 59; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition [WISC-IV]). His academic skills were in the low average range in the areas of reading and writing (Woodcock–Johnson III [WJ-III]). He did not have any physical limitations, and his adaptive scores (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Rating Scales [Vineland]) were moderately low in the areas of communication and socialization.

Cameron

Cameron was a 17-year-old White male identified as having autism and mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 65; WISC-IV) and who struggled with academic skills. His academic skills were in the low average range in basic reading, reading comprehension, and written expression (WJ-III). He did not have any physical limitations.

Dominic

Dominic was a 17-year-old Black male identified as having mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 71; WISC-IV). His academic skills were significantly below grade level for all areas, including reading, math, and written expression (WJ-III). His most recent evaluation indicated he struggled to stay on-task and had a current IEP goal concerning appropriate behavior. He did not have any physical limitations.

Andrew

Andrew was a 19-year-old White male identified as having a mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 63; Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales-2) and Down syndrome. His academic skills were in the low average range for all areas, including reading, math, and written expression (WJ-III). He did not have any physical limitations.

Brendan

Brendan was a 17-year-old White male identified as having autism and mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 63; WISC-IV). His academic skills were in the low average range in all areas, including reading, math, and written expression (WJ-III). He did not have physical limitations but had limitations with social interaction skills (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition [ABAS-II], Childhood Autism Rating Scale).

Setting

Students attended a public, suburban high school in the Southeastern United States. All lessons and data collection took place in a small conference room located within the school building. The experimenter sat next to the student(s) at a table during data collection and intervention sessions.

Experimenter

The second author served as the experimenter. She had a master’s degree in school administration and was in her first year of a doctoral program in special education. She had 8 years of experience teaching students with autism, intellectual disabilities, and behavioral and emotional disabilities at the high school level.

Dependent Variables

Quality of expository paragraphs

The primary dependent variable was the quality of students’ expository paragraphs measured using a 10-point scoring guide (see Konrad et al., 2006). Points were distributed as follows: (a) 2 points for a topic sentence, (b) 1 point for each supporting detail (up to 4 points), (c) 1 point for logical presentation of ideas, (d) 1 point for the appropriate use of transition words, (e) 1 point for a restatement of the topic sentence in the concluding sentence, and (f) 1 point for staying on topic.

Quality of IEP paragraphs

As a secondary variable, the quality of students’ IEP paragraphs was measured using the same 10-point paragraph-scoring guide used to measure the writing quality of their expository paragraphs. This measure focused on paragraph writing skills, not on the content.

Content of IEP goal paragraphs

Content of participants’ IEP goal paragraphs, another secondary variable, was measured using a 12-point scoring guide. The scoring guide contained six items: (a) student’s goal was based on an identified need, (b) Objective 1 was a step toward reaching the goal, (c) Objective 2 was a step toward reaching the goal, (d) Objective 3 was a step toward reaching the goal, (e) Objective 4 was a step toward reaching the goal, and (f) the timeline established was no longer than 1 year. Each of these items was scored as follows: 0 (i.e., no evidence of the skill), 1 (i.e., shows an attempt, but response is incomplete), or 2 (i.e., response is complete, makes sense, and reflects understanding of self and process). This scale was used in earlier GO 4 IT . . . NOW! studies (see Konrad et al., 2006).

Social Validity

To measure consumer satisfaction, on the last day of intervention, students completed an eight-item questionnaire that was a modified version of the Student Intervention Rating Profile (SIRP; Snyder, 2002). The questionnaire used a 4-point rating scale (1 = I strongly disagree, 2 = I disagree, 3 = I agree, 4 = I strongly agree) to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement, with higher scores indicating greater treatment acceptability. Directions and statements were read to students. Students were instructed not to put their names on surveys and to be honest when responding.

In addition, participants’ special education teachers completed an eight-item questionnaire to provide feedback on their perception of the intervention and student outcomes. Two general education English teachers also completed a nine-item questionnaire on their impression of the intervention and student outcomes. All teachers responded using the same 4-point rating scale used by student participants.

Last, two general education English teachers who did not know the purpose of the study were given writing samples from baseline, Session 14 (last lesson of intervention), and maintenance. They were instructed to indicate which paragraphs they would find acceptable in their general education classrooms and which paragraphs they felt were best within each student’s writing samples. Paragraphs did not have any identifying information to show when they were completed.

Experimental Design

The experimental design was a multiple-probe-across-participants design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). All students received three initial baseline probes, and decisions about when to begin intervention were based on the primary dependent variable. The student with the most stable baseline scores on expository paragraphs was chosen to begin intervention first. Once the first student began intervention, the other students were probed during Sessions 7 and 14 on both the expository paragraph and the IEP goal paragraph for quality and content. The student in intervention was probed daily on the expository paragraph probe, and during Sessions 7 and 14 on the IEP goal paragraph probe. Data collected after Lesson 14 on expository paragraphs and after Session 15 for IEP goal paragraphs indicated whether the participant moved to post-intervention or into booster sessions. Once participants reached mastery, which was defined as 80% on the quality of the expository paragraph, 80% on the quality of the IEP goal paragraph, and 75% on the content of the goal paragraph, they then moved to maintenance. Maintenance data were collected each week for three consecutive weeks. The same rules were used to begin intervention with each subsequent student.

Procedures

Pre-intervention instruction

Prior to collecting baseline data, all participants received pre-intervention instruction on the contents of an IEP for 5 days (see Table 1). Specifically, they received instruction on the purpose of an IEP, the meaning of present levels of performance, and how they are determined. These pre-instruction lessons were delivered in a small group—all five students participated together. As part of the pre-intervention instruction, students identified 13 needs they wanted to address in academic (e.g., I need to work on multiplying fractions), non-academic (e.g., I need to make more friends), and vocational areas (e.g., I need to fill out job applications). These were used throughout the intervention as the topics of their IEP goal paragraphs.

Table 1.

IEP Goal Paragraphs Scope and Sequence.

Lesson	Objectives	Sample activities
Pre-intervention lessons
Pre-1	Define IEP and describe its purpose.	Students read about and discuss the IEP document and process.
Pre-2	Identify four areas of transition. Write a vision statement.	Teacher provides examples of the four areas of transition. Students write vision statements.
Pre-3	Define present level of performance. Identify strengths.	Teacher explains list of strengths, and students highlight their own personal strengths.
Pre-4	Identify needs.	Students identify academic and non-academic needs.
Pre-5	Identify needs.	Students write needs identified in previous lesson on a summary sheet.
Intervention lessons
1	Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! and name paragraph parts.	Teacher shows examples and non-examples of paragraphs. Teacher introduces GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
2	Identify strong/weak goals. Match objectives to goals.	Teacher models turning poorly written goals into better ones. Students match objectives to goals.
3	Identify an annual goal based on a need.	Teacher shares verbs to use in writing goals. Teacher models turning needs into goals.
4	Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy.	Teacher models strategy use with one academic need/goal.
5	Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy.	Teacher models strategy use with one non-academic need/goal.
6	Describe how to apply the NOW portion of the strategy.	Teacher models NOW part of the strategy with an expository paragraph prompt.
7	Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Write a goal paragraph.	Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified needs.
8	Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related paragraph.	Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-evaluate it with checklist.
9	Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Write a goal paragraph.	Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified needs.
10	Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related paragraph.	Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-evaluate it with checklist.
11	Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Write a goal paragraph.	Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified needs.
12	Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related paragraph.	Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-evaluate it with checklist.
13	Write a goal paragraph independently.	Students write an IEP goal paragraph with no assistance and then revise with assistance.
14	Revise and self-evaluate non-goal-related paragraph.	Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-evaluate it with checklist.

Note. IEP = individualized education program.

Baseline

Initial baseline sessions took place over 3 days. Each day, participants were prompted to compose an expository paragraph based on a prompt randomly selected from the list of predetermined topics (e.g., “Name your favorite type of music and explain why this type of music is your favorite”). Students were also prompted to write an IEP goal paragraph addressing one of the needs they identified during pre-instruction. The prompts were given over three consecutive days using a different prompt each day for the expository paragraph and with instruction to use a different need each day to write their IEP goal paragraph.

GO 4 IT . . . NOW instruction

Instruction included fourteen 45-min scripted lessons delivered in a 1:1 format (see Table 1 for lesson scope and sequence). Lesson sequence was based on the six stages of SRSD (Harris et al., 2003) and was divided into two phases. For the last two participants, instruction was delivered in a 1:2 format for all sessions across both phases of the intervention. Each student received a workbook (i.e., a binder with worksheets for each lesson).

To promote generalization, we enhanced lessons using three strategies suggested by Alber-Morgan, Hessler, and Konrad (2007), which in turn were based on those presented by Stokes and Baer (1977): (a) teaching self-management, (b) teaching enough examples, and (c) programming common stimuli. Specifically, students set their own goals and monitored their performance by revising and editing their own work (self-management). Students used graphic organizers for prewriting and drafting, had explicit instruction with models of correct paragraph writing, and participated in mini-lessons to evaluate their writing during the revising and editing stages (teaching enough examples). Last, students were provided with a mnemonic to help them remember the steps they needed to follow (i.e., GO 4 IT . . . NOW!), and were provided with a transition word pyramid to help them remember key transition words (programming common stimuli).

GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Phase I

The first phase of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction consisted of five lessons. During these lessons, students learned (a) how to identify the parts of a paragraph, (b) the purpose of the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy and when to use it, (c) the difference between goals and objectives, and (d) how to identify an annual goal based on their individual needs. Instruction during this phase focused on modeling of both an expository paragraph and an IEP goal paragraph and memorizing the strategy.

GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Phase II

In Lessons 6 through 14, students (a) learned how to apply the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy, (b) continued memorizing the strategy, (c) practiced writing a range of paragraph types with assistance and feedback, (d) learned to use feedback to revise their paragraphs, and (e) gradually moved toward writing paragraphs independently. Instruction included guided practice, individualized feedback, and a gradual removal of writing supports. For the last two participants, Lesson 7 took 2 days to complete because one of the students worked at a slower pace and this particular lesson was longer than the others.

Maintenance

Once a participant reached mastery criteria, the participant entered the maintenance phase. Maintenance conditions were identical to baseline conditions. Data were collected every 7 days for 3 weeks. During maintenance probes, participants wrote an expository paragraph based on generalization prompts they had not already written about and wrote an IEP goal paragraph based on a need they did not use during intervention.

Inter-Observer Agreement

To determine inter-observer agreement, a second scorer independently scored 30% of the paragraphs. An item-by-item analysis was used to determine agreement for all dependent variables. Scorers assigned points for the items, and the number of agreements was divided by the total number of items (i.e., nine items on the paragraph quality scale and six items for the goal content scale). The quotient was multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. Mean agreement on the quality of expository paragraphs was 96.7% (range = 90%–100%). Mean agreement on writing quality of IEP goal paragraphs was 98.3% (range = 90%–100%). Mean agreement on the content of the goal paragraphs was 99.2% (range = 90%–100%).

Procedural Fidelity

Two doctoral students were trained to collect procedural fidelity data and observed 31% of the intervention sessions. They observed different instructional sessions across all participants. Observations were distributed across the intervention to have procedural reliability checks in each of the instructional stages of the intervention. To document the adherence to the intervention, the observers had a lesson plan of the session to use as a checklist. The lesson plan was divided in steps, and the observer marked each section as present or not. Number of present steps across the session was divided by total number of steps and multiplied by 100 to obtain a procedural fidelity mean score of 98% (range = 90%–100%).

Results

Figure 1 illustrates each student’s quality scores on their expository paragraphs. Figures 2 and 3 show students’ scores on IEP goal paragraphs, quality, and content, respectively. Finally, Table 2 shows students’ ratings on the consumer satisfaction measure.

Figure 1.

Quality of expository paragraphs.

Figure 2.

Quality of goal paragraphs.

Figure 3.

Content of goal paragraphs.

Table 2.

Students’ Ratings on the Student Intervention Rating Profile.

Item	M	Range
The writing training was fair.	4	4–4
The training was challenging but not too difficult.	3.5	3–4
This was a good way for me to learn how to write my IEP goals and objectives.	4	4–4
This was a good way for me to learn how to write paragraphs.	3.5	3–4
I like the training I received for writing my own IEP goals and objectives.	3.5	3–4
I think learning to write my own IEP goals and objectives will help me do better in school.	3.5	3–4
I think learning to write paragraphs will help me do better in school.	4	4–4
The training I received would be good for other students with IEPs.	4	4–4

Note. IEP = individualized education program.

Writing Quality of Daily Expository Paragraphs

Brian

During baseline, Brian’s mean score was 2.7 (range = 2–3). Upon introduction of the first phase of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! instruction, there was little change in paragraph quality. However, following the third session in Phase II, there was a clear increase, and although there was some variability following that session, there was a clear improvement in paragraph quality and an increasing trend. During intervention, Brian’s mean score was 5.2 (range = 2–10). In maintenance, his mean score was 7.6 (range = 7–9).

Cameron

During baseline, Cameron’s mean score was 1.2 (range = 0–3). During Phase I of the intervention, there was little change in paragraph quality; however, during Phase II, his scores showed a distinct increase after Lesson 3. There was some variability, but then scores show an increasing trend. During intervention, Cameron’s mean score was 5.6 (range = 2–9). In maintenance, his mean score was 8.3 (range = 8–9).

Dominic

During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 1.7 (range = 1–2). During the first phase of intervention, the change in paragraph quality was slight. During Phase II, there was a clear increase after Lesson 3, and paragraph quality steadily increased for the remainder of the phase. Dominic’s mean score was 5.6 (range = 2–8). In maintenance, his mean score was 7.7 (range = 7–8).

Andrew and Brendan

Andrew and Brendan went through intervention together because there was not enough time left in the school year to teach each student individually. During baseline, Andrew’s mean score was 1.6 (range = 1–2). During Phase I of intervention, his scores slowly increased; during Phase II, his scores continued to slowly increase throughout the rest of intervention. During intervention, Andrew’s mean score was 4.8 (range = 2–7). During baseline, Brendan’s mean score was 3.1 (range = 3–4). During Phase I of intervention, there was a slight increase. During Phase II, there was a clear increase in the quality of his paragraphs after Lesson 3. During intervention, Brendan’s mean score was 6.8 (range = 4–9). No maintenance data were collected for these two participants due to the end of the school year.

Writing Quality of IEP Goal Paragraphs

Brian

During baseline, Brian scored a 2 for each paragraph written. During intervention, Brian’s mean score was 8.7 (range = 8–9). His maintenance scores were 9 for each data point, indicating that he was able to maintain the skills he learned.

Cameron

During baseline, Cameron’s mean score was 1.2 (range = 1–2). During intervention, Cameron’s mean score was 7.7 (range = 5–9). His mean maintenance score was 8.7 (range = 8–9), indicating he was able to maintain skills over time.

Dominic

During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 2.7 (range = 2–3). During intervention, Dominic’s mean score was 7.25 (range = 4–10). His mean maintenance score was 7.3 (range = 6–8), indicating he was also able to maintain the skills he learned.

Andrew and Brendan

Andrew and Brendan entered intervention together as a dyad. During baseline, Andrew’s mean score was 0.71 (range = 0–1). During intervention, Andrew’s mean score was 4.7 (range = 4–5). During baseline, Brendan’s mean score was 2.8 (range = 2–3). During intervention, he scored a 9 for each paragraph written. Due to time constraints, maintenance data were not collected and booster sessions were not provided for Andrew, who made progress at a slower rate than Brendan.

Content of IEP Goal Paragraphs

Brian

During baseline, Brian earned a score of 1 each session. During intervention, Brian’s mean score was 9.7 (range = 8–11), indicating a clear change in level. His maintenance scores were 11 for all three paragraphs, indicating he was able to maintain these skills over time.

Cameron

During baseline, Cameron’s scores earned a score of 1 each session. During intervention, Cameron’s mean score was 7.7 (range = 5–9), indicating a change in level. His maintenance scores were 9 for all three paragraphs, indicating he maintained skills over time.

Dominic

During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 1.2 (range = 1–2). During intervention, Dominic’s mean score was 7.3 (range = 2–11), indicating a clear change in level. His mean maintenance score was 7.7 (range = 5–9), indicating he was able to maintain skills over time.

Andrew and Brendan

Andrew and Brendan completed the intervention together. During baseline, Andrew earned a score of 1 each session. During intervention, Andrew’s mean score was 4.3 (range = 4–5), demonstrating a clear increase in his scores. During baseline, Brendan’s mean score was 1.1 (range = 1–2). During intervention, Brendan’s mean score was 10.3 (range = 10–11), indicating a significant increase in level. Due to the end of the school year, no maintenance data were collected.

Social Validity

Table 2 presents students’ mean scores and ranges on the SIRP. Mean student scores ranged from 3.5 to 4, indicating high levels of student satisfaction with procedures and outcomes. Students also made comments during the intervention supporting the social significance of the intervention:

I want to go to my IEP meeting now, so I can hear what they have to say and tell them some things I want to do.

This is going to make me the best writer ever!

I think this is really helping me write in my other classes. It makes writing easier for me, I can think about how to put it together. My teacher even said my writing is getting better.

This strategy is easy to remember and it is helping me get better at writing.

Participants’ special education teachers’ mean score for the acceptability of the goals of the intervention was 3.7 (range = 3–4), indicating they felt it was important for students to be able to write paragraphs, IEP goals, and objectives, and to have an intervention that combined writing skills with self-determination skills. Their mean score on the acceptability of outcomes was 3.8 (range = 3–4), indicating they felt GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction helped their students learn to write paragraphs, state their goals, and learn about their IEPs. They also indicated they would like to use GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction in the future.

General education English teachers’ mean score on acceptability of intervention goals was 3.3 (range = 3–4), indicating they felt it was important for students to (a) be able to write paragraphs, (b) be able to write about their future goals, and (c) have an intervention that combined writing skills with self-determination. Their mean score for acceptability of outcomes was 3.5 (range = 3–4), indicating they felt GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction helped students to write clearer, closer to grade level, and cohesive paragraphs. Their scores also indicated general education English teachers felt that the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction was helpful, and they would like to use in the future.

The two English teachers consistently identified writing samples from Session 14 (last intervention session) and maintenance sessions as acceptable in their general education classroom. Specifically, for expository paragraphs, general education teachers identified 10 paragraphs from Session 14 and maintenance as acceptable and only one from baseline as acceptable. For IEP goal paragraphs, general education teachers identified 12 paragraphs from Session 14 and maintenance as acceptable and only one IEP goal paragraph from baseline as acceptable.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on expository paragraph writing skills for high school students with disabilities. Results indicated a functional relation between GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction and students’ abilities to compose quality expository paragraphs based on generalization prompts and to articulate potential IEP goals and objectives in written IEP goal paragraphs. Given 14 or 15 instructional sessions, students in this study were able to improve their ability to write expository paragraphs, as well as paragraphs about potential IEP goals, and they were able to maintain these skills over time.

These findings extend those of earlier studies on the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction (Konrad & Test, 2007; Konrad et al., 2006) by demonstrating that with additional practice and feedback, students can generalize the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy to a range of paragraph types. Learning to write paragraphs about goals is a good first step for students to make toward learning about setting and reaching goals and improving their writing skills. However, if they cannot generalize these skills to more practical tasks, the intervention is limited. Indeed, Alber-Morgan et al. (2007) contended “every writing task is a generalization task” (p. 124) and provided guidance for promoting generalization of writing skills based on those presented by Stokes and Baer (1977): (a) teaching self-management, (b) teaching enough examples, and (c) programming common stimuli. To ensure generalization was achieved, in addition to embedding additional instruction to promote generalization, the primary dependent variable was a generalization task, given that each writing prompt addressed a different writing topic.

In addition, although Konrad et al. (2006) included students with multiple disabilities, none were identified with autism. These results provide evidence to support the growing literature on effective writing instruction for students with intellectual disabilities using strategies such as modeling, guided practice, feedback, and systematically promoting generalization (Joseph & Konrad, 2009). They also add support to the effectiveness of explicit instructional strategies for students with ASD (Pennington & Delano, 2012).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Although findings indicate a clear functional relation, there were some limitations. First, there was considerable variability in the expository paragraph quality data. Over time, students’ data stabilized and maintained, so this variability was likely a function of the fact that it takes time for writing skills to improve to a consistently high level.

Another potential limitation of this study was that continuous data were not collected for the two secondary dependent variables, which could have compromised the rigor of experimental control. There were several reasons for not collecting data on the IEP goal paragraphs continuously throughout the intervention. First, the primary dependent variable and focus for the study was on generalization to expository writing. Second, each IEP goal paragraph students wrote was based on one of 13 needs the student identified during pre-instruction. Continuous data collection throughout intervention would have required students to identify even more needs, which would likely result in their identifying needs solely for the purpose of this study (i.e., “needs” that were not their true needs). Finally, written expression gains are not often seen immediately (Sexton, Harris, & Graham, 1998). Due to these issues, it did not make sense to collect data on every variable throughout intervention.

As with all applied research, individual student characteristics and disruptions in the environment may pose limitations. For instance, during Brian’s Session 12, another teacher and student entered the conference room and began talking while he was writing his expository paragraph. He was given the option to move to another room or to stop and continue in a few minutes. He chose not to stop or move to another room. Then, when the other student sat down near him, he stopped writing and said he was “done” for the day. This data point shows a drop in his scores; however, this data point may not be an accurate representation of his knowledge due to outside factors. Some students, particularly those with autism, can experience anxiety with changes in schedules and interruptions in their environment. Future studies focusing on this population would be beneficial to add to the literature base on written expression interventions for students with autism. Researchers may consider adding the following adaptations to the intervention, including written instructions, a visual schedule for the lesson, and a calendar of activities.

Another possible limitation was that instruction was delivered in a one-on-one format but then for the last two participants in a one-to-two format. Because a functional relationship had been established with the first three students, it was decided to implement the intervention with the final two students using a small-group format. One-to-one instruction may not be practical for teachers who are responsible for teaching larger groups of students. This is a limitation because it can be hard to determine whether this intervention would be effective with students in small groups. The last two participants participated as a group of two, and both made gains in all areas of writing. However, one of the students worked at a slower pace and wanted to rush through his work if the other student was already finished. Also, Session 7 took these two participants 2 days to complete due to time. Future research should seek to determine whether this instruction could be modified for small groups of two or three students, and that study should pair students by skill level and/or build in strategies for addressing students’ different paces.

Implications for Practice

Findings from this study indicate GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction may help students learn to write paragraphs and become actively involved in their own educational planning. The standards-based reform movement has focused on providing academic instruction and access to the general education curriculum for all students (Thurlow, 2002). Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, and Little (2008) discussed the importance of bringing transition education and standards-based education together to ensure students are receiving adequate instruction in both areas. GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction brings these two together in one intervention by addressing core academic skills (i.e., writing) and essential transition skills (e.g., goal setting) concurrently. This intervention may allow teachers to teach both content areas together and maximize instructional time. It may also ensure teachers have time to address both areas and help students gain skills needed to be successful after high school. Classroom teachers may need to make modifications to address the students in their classrooms. Depending on student needs, they may want to add direct instruction, visual aids, and word banks when students struggle and to assist students in generalizing these skills to other forms of writing across the curriculum.

During this study, some participants struggled with breaking goals into specific objectives or steps to reach their goal. Teachers may want to add a bank of possible objectives for students to choose from based on their goals. This would give students a voice in their objectives, while providing assistance for students who struggle to generate ideas independently.

When students are able to develop IEP goal paragraphs, teachers should identify meaningful ways for students to use their paragraphs to become involved in their IEP process. For example, students can learn how to record data on their progress on goals and objectives they have developed. Then they can share data with their families and IEP teams at their meetings. Also, students can turn their goal paragraphs into an IEP essay that can be used to develop their next IEP. Students can share essays with the IEP team and work with their teacher on how to lead parts of the IEP meeting to share their ideas. In addition, students could develop a PowerPoint presentation to share with the IEP team on the needs they have identified and the goal paragraphs they developed based on those needs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, students with disabilities are struggling to attain in-school and post-school success comparable with their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011; Nord et al., 2011). Emphasis on teaching academic content to all students is promising for students with disabilities who previously were excluded from the general curriculum (Thurlow, 2002). However, teachers need research-based interventions that allow them to teach the general curriculum without sacrificing instruction in other important areas, such as self-determination. This study adds to the evidence that GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction is one viable approach.

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.

References

Alber-Morgan

S. R.

Hessler

Konrad

(2007). Teaching writing for keeps. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 107–128.

Bouck

E. C.

Joshi

G. S.

(2012). Functional curriculum and students with mild intellectual disabilities: Exploring postschool outcomes through the NLTS2. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 399–409.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.

Halpern

A. S.

Yovanoff

Doren

Benz

M. R.

(1995). Predicting participation in postsecondary education for school leavers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 151–164.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Mason

L. H.

(2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.

Joseph

L. M.

Konrad

(2009). Teaching students with intellectual or developmental disabilities to write: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1–19.

Konrad

Fowler

C. H.

Walker

A. R.

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 89–113.

Konrad

Test

D. W.

(2007). Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on the written IEP goal articulation and paragraph-writing skills of middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 277–291.

Konrad

Trela

Test

D. W.

(2006). Using IEP goals and objectives to teach paragraph writing to high school students with physical and cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 111–124.

10.

Lee

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Soukup

J. H.

Little

T. D.

(2008). Self-determination and access to the general curriculum. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 91–107.

11.

Migliore

Timmons

Butterworth

Lugas

(2012). Predictors of employment and postsecondary education of youth with autism. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 176–184. doi:10.1177/0034355212438943

12.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school (A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 [NLTS2; NCSER 2011-3005]). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

13.

Nord

Roey

Perkins

Lyons

Lemanski

Brown

Schuknecht

(2011). The nation’s report card: America’s high school graduates (NCES 2011-462; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

14.

Pennington

R. C.

Delano

M. E.

(2012). Writing instruction for students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 158–167. doi:10.1177/1088357612451318

15.

Rowe

D. A.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Sinclair

(2015). Strategies for teaching self-determination skills in conjunction with the common core. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 131–141.

16.

Sexton

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64, 295–311.

17.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Little

T. J.

Lopez

(2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 251–262.

18.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Rifenbark

G. G.

Little

T. D.

(2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256–267.

19.

Snyder

E. P.

(2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meetings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 340–357.

20.

Stokes

T. F.

Baer

D. M.

(1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

21.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

Fowler

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

22.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195–202.

23.

Wagner

M. M.

Newman

L. A.

Javitz

H. S.

(2014). The influence of family socioeconomic status on the post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 5–17. doi:10.1177/2165143414523980