Teachers’ Voices: Perceptions of Effective Professional Development and Classwide Implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Writing

Coding

The first author analyzed the transcripts using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), applying a code to each meaningful phrase and constantly comparing and contrasting new comments to those already coded. After three passes through all transcript data and cross-checking with the video recordings to confirm each code accurately reflected tone and context, 29 codes were identified (see Supplementary Table S2 in the online version of the journal). Each of these codes could be tagged as being strength/positive, weakness/negative, or changed/needs to change. Using this set of codes, the first author compared the transcripts and codes against the videos during a second and third viewing. During these viewings, 12 surface-level corrections were made to the transcripts that did not affect meaning.

Field notes contained theoretical notes, personal notes, and codes with the intent of keeping each separate from the other (Spradley, 1979). One example is a theoretical note made when analyzing teacher comments about lesson plans. Two teachers had concerns about the lesson plans and a theoretical note was made, “Does liking the lesson plans affect implementation? Follow-up: Not true. One teacher quoted had highly ranked implementation.”

Once the initial set of codes was established, the first two authors analyzed the transcripts together. For each comment, they went through a series of decisions: (a) Does the comment contain important, relevant information? If no, mark for later analysis; if yes, go to question b; (b) Is the comment similar or different than what has been said earlier? If similar, group like comments; if different, start a new group (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Through this iterative process, codes were reduced through collapsing or elimination (Fetterman, 1989). Collapsing occurred when there were few examples of the code and/or the code was strongly related to another code and codes with singular examples were eliminated (see Supplementary Table S2 in the online version of the journal). By the third collaborative pass through the data, 18 codes remained that were, predictably, organized around the semistructured interview questions. These were used to establish a codebook. The codes and tags (strength, weakness, or change) were applied independently by the fifth author to 25% of the transcripts to increase trustworthiness (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Agreement was 95%. The only disagreement was that the fifth author believed one code (student independence in writing), previously collapsed into a larger category (student change), should stand on its own based on volume of comments. After discussion, the authors agreed, making a final count of 19 axial codes (see Supplementary Table 2 in the online version of the journal).

During analysis, some statements cut across codes. In these cases, we coded only the sections of the statement relevant to the code, even though this broke the natural flow of the statement. In reporting, we use the complete statement to maintain coherence of the participant’s meaning. In the rare case when one coder was unsure if an item was positive, negative, or a change, the coders discussed potential influencing biases, re-read the comments, and reached consensus. For example, one comment on modeling was, “I could see the benefit to the kids [strength], but it didn’t feel comfortable [weakness].” The comment has both a strength and a weakness, so we agreed to divide the comment for coding.

Coding Consensus

Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins (2010) addressed coding for consensus in focus groups. Consensus coding helps mediate the limitation of not having each participant offer their opinion and input independently. In this study, the first author watched the videos again solely to document agreement or dissent on the identified codes. Agreement or dissent was determined by documenting the verbal or nonverbal response of each focus group member for each discussion comment made relevant to the codes. Qualitative indicators such as tone or body language were also documented to substantiate the counts. The following consensus codes, based on Onwuegbuzie and colleagues (2010) were used: (a) A = indicated agreement (i.e., verbal or nonverbal); (b) D = indicated dissent (i.e., verbal or nonverbal); (c) NR = did not indicate agreement or dissent (i.e., nonresponse). Nonverbal responses were indicated only for those in view. Because the researchers were immersed in the data, voices were easily distinguished, thus recognizable vocal agreements were coded even if off screen.

In the following sections, we share teachers’ feedback about the PD and SRSD. Findings are presented by their codes and grouped by areas (i.e., feedback on PD, feedback on SRSD, impacts on students, suggestions for improvement of PD and/or SRSD, and final thoughts). If comments within the code were further grouped by strength, weakness, or change, the variation is presented as well. Guba (1981) encouraged researchers to look for similarities among objects of inquiry but noted we should equally occupy ourselves with differences. Thus, we present at least two examples of typical responses that best fit the phenomena in that category. However, all disconfirming cases are presented and discussed.

Active Learning and Practice

In terms of the roles of active, interactive learning and sufficient practice, Helena began,

I felt like I knew what I was doing when I first started [SRSD] because we went through the process and did it ourselves. That helped to sit and do it and act like we were teaching the lessons, especially never having touched this before. It helped to actually do the lessons in the groups.

Gretchen agreed,

I am very thankful we were able to go through so many examples together so by the time we started, I had it.

Faye also found the amount of time spent in PD worthwhile:

We had two days to spend, not just a two-hour crash course. We actually had a sufficient amount of time to think about it and read . . . That was helpful.

Teachers suggested the most difficult part of both the PD and implementing SRSD in the classroom was the cognitive modeling, especially using self-statements while modeling. They appreciated the time they had here to become comfortable with this relatively new demand. Nina explained,

The training we got was good. It’s always hard to do modeling for your fellow teachers. There’s this self-conscious feel about it. And I think despite the training, it’s not until you actually do it that it starts making sense.

PD Group Size

The number of teachers who participate in a PD group emerged as a critical consideration for these teachers because it related not only to active learning and practice but also to trust and relationships. We believed the number needed to be large enough to build a community but small enough to feel safe discussing delicate matters, such as student or teacher needs. Furthermore, a characteristic considered important in the evidence base for PD is relating the PD to teachers’ current students. PD was held in the fall after the school year started, so teachers were able to discuss current students’ writing abilities and needs, and their current writing instructional practices and goals, in detail. Small groups allowed us and the teachers to brainstorm during PD on how they might meet the needs of particular students.

Ella said of group size, “I wouldn’t want it to be more than ten,” while Gretchen said six was her ideal number. Gretchen elaborated,

It was small enough, it was safe, but it was so small, you [PD leaders] had a very personal interest in my kids. It was really nice to sit down and learn about my class. If you get many more [participants], I am not going to share the nitty gritty like I did.

Group size may also affect participation. Gretchen continued, “The smaller group made us try. Also, I got to do it, not just say I saw someone do it. In a larger group, you may not get that.” Thus, the small group size also facilitated relationships among PD leaders and teachers, helping to create the personalized nature of PD seen as important to teacher buy-in and learning (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014). This is also consistent with the views expressed by teachers regarding desirable aspects of PD (Boston Consulting Group, 2014): a personalized, interactive approach; time for modeling and practice; and PD leaders who understands teachers’ and students’ strengths and needs.

Differentiation (Adaptability)

As explained in the Method section, teachers were encouraged throughout PD to maintain all elements of SRSD instruction but to adapt lessons, materials, pace, and more to their classrooms. As Desimone and Stuckey (2014) noted, there can be tension between the need for high fidelity and teachers’ needs to adapt to suit their own settings and needs. Becky appreciated the freedom to adjust, “I think it wouldn’t have been as rich without the PD. We wouldn’t have been as open to modify. They [students] would start to get bored, so I had to think about how I could change this, maybe do it on the computer, and such.” However, Isaak and Nina were concerned about differentiating too much. Nina said she “wanted to be sure I was doing what you needed me to do for the research.” Two teachers in her session agreed.

These 14 teachers were involved in a research study with observers monitoring fidelity during instruction. Several teachers indicated this may have discouraged them from personalizing the lessons and differentiating during instruction for fear of having lower fidelity. Isaak explained, “I was worried about not checking things off of the fidelity sheet . . . it took away some of the authenticity.” Two teachers in his session agreed. These concerns directly highlighted the tension between fidelity and adaptation. Yet, overall teachers expressed frequent adaptations. One example many commented on was their approach to student learning of the mnemonics; mnemonics not only represented genre elements but also served as reminders to use all of what students knew about effective writing in that genre.

In this study, students learned a genre-specific writing strategy for either opinion writing or story writing as well as general writing strategies such as beginning with a catchy opening and good word choice. The genre-specific writing strategy for writing opinion essays was represented by the mnemonic TREE (T—Topic sentence, Tell what you believe!; R—Reasons, three or more, Why do I believe this? Will my readers believe this?; E—Ending, Wrap it up right!; E—Examine, do I have all my parts?). The genre-specific writing strategy for writing stories was represented by the mnemonic WWW, What = 2, How = 2, (W—Who is the main character or characters?; W—When does the story happen? W—Where does the story take place?; What—What does the main character do or want to do? What do the other characters do?; What—What happens then? What happens with the other characters?; How—How does the story end?; How—How does the main character feel? How do the other characters feel?). In this discussion, we will refer to these as the opinion essay writing mnemonic and the story writing mnemonic.

Differentiation: Memorizing and Internalizing Writing Strategies

Memorizing the mnemonics (and the meaning, characteristics, and importance of each genre element represented in a mnemonic) is a key to students internalizing and using the strategies independently. While teachers were provided flash cards and a poster of the mnemonic, they were encouraged to be creative and use a variety of methods to engage all students. Each of these teachers reported incorporating hand motions representing each letter of the mnemonic, raps or songs, and/or movement to support recall, understanding, and use of the strategies.

Leigh shared,

My kids really liked the mnemonics. We had little motions and they would really get into that part of it. They brought it into everything. When I asked them to write a summary of the story we were working on, they would write it [the mnemonic] on the sides of their papers and that’s how we would get their summaries. It’s fabulous!

Chris’s students named themselves the Power Writers and developed a catchy jingle to motivate their writing. To the tune of “Who Let the Dogs Out” they would chant, “Who let the words out? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof! Who let the kids write? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof!” She also described a movement-based activity she believed was effective to for memorization. “In the beginning, to practice memorization, we formed two circles where the inner circle of students sat at their desks and the outer circle walked around to music. When the music stopped, they quizzed whoever they landed in front of.” “I loved the different strategies,” Gretchen said, “I taught them a song that goes with it [the mnemonic]. With that, they were able to take the song and . . . develop their own graphic organizer.” The teachers who implemented these complimentary activities to enhance memorization reported their students singing or doing the hand motions during writing time to manage the writing process, stay on task, and to remember the steps. To aid students in completing the steps of the strategy during writing, Danielle shared, “I had them use little cards [with the mnemonic on them] . . . They put [the cards] in order and turned them face down as they used them.”

Kelly, on the other hand, found some students initially struggled to learn and apply the longer story writing mnemonic. She said,

I saw difficulty in learning the story writing mnemonic . . . They learned so many W words and H words, but when they went to write, they had problems merging it all together . . . The long mnemonic is a little difficult.

While her students did master this strategy, an adaptation here may have been useful. Longer mnemonics, such as the story writing mnemonic, can be broken into pieces for learning as needed; this is something to be emphasized in future PD.

Detailed Lesson Content and Materials

The nature of curricular materials, just how detailed they should be, and their importance in PD has been noted as an important consideration by several researchers (cf. Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2015). Teachers received and worked with all teacher and student materials. In addition, based on our experience with teachers learning SRSD for writing, we have created detailed professional learning lesson plans as well as notes and comments to teachers within these lesson plans focused on ideas for adapting/differentiating, formative assessment, and so on. We have found that SRSD lessons include so many moving parts that most teachers find these materials useful over time as they continue to develop SRSD instruction in their classrooms. Teachers were told the lessons plans were a meta-script designed for professional learning purposes, to guide them through learning about the genre strategies and SRSD and were not to be taught from directly or used as scripts. Teachers were encouraged to use the professional learning lesson plans flexibly as a guide when creating their own lesson plans. The structure and detail of their own lesson plans as they began teaching was up to them.

Detailed Professional Learning Lesson Plans

Of the 14 teachers, 13 found the detailed model lesson plans to be both an important learning tool and a helpful reference for planning instruction. Leigh reflected, “I think there was enough structure . . . I thought the plans were flexible. I liked the detail in the lesson plans because it gave you a good start.” During PD, teachers were also encouraged to adapt the lesson plans to meet their students’ needs. Michelle explained, “The lesson plans did say at one point you can use this or you can choose to do something different. So it let you transition to where you are comfortable.”

Teachers with less experience with writing instruction may benefit more from the detailed, model plans during PD. Nina noted, “I did think the lesson plans were very complete, they gave you enough that even if you weren’t a writer to start with you had a good place to start and teach your students from.” One teacher had difficulty with the lesson plans and another made suggestions to improve them. Kelly shared,

The lesson plans are very difficult to follow, maybe too detailed and too wordy. As an elementary school teacher you have six subjects you’re teaching and [writing instruction] was 20 minutes. You don’t have two hours to sit and read about a lesson. We are used to seeing larger, less academic font.

Jackie added, “I had a hard time with the lesson plans too. What might be more helpful is to bold the first big thing you need to do and use bullets.” The third teacher in their focus group disagreed and teachers in the other focus groups did not report problems with the lesson plans. Michelle summarized, “I really think that the lesson plans were really easy. You don’t have to go home and study them. It’s fairly easy to implement especially once you do it.” Thus, overall these teachers found the detailed professional learning lesson plans useful. Some suggestions for improvements were made.

Finally, some teachers received PD in one genre and after implementing it, went on independently to use the professional learning lesson plans from the other genre, but without PD. Chris was one of those teachers and said, “I definitely think it [the PD] was beneficial . . . we [implemented] the other strategy but didn’t receive PD for it, so we are realizing how beneficial PD was.” Teachers who taught both genres indicated the detailed professional learning lesson plans for the genre they had not yet taught were very important, but they also relied on each other to clarify differences between genres and for instructional ideas. They also believed SRSD instruction for the second genre would have been easier with additional PD.

Genre-Specific Writing Samples to Analyze

One way in which students learned to identify the genre-specific elements of compositions was by analyzing/scoring exemplar and nonexemplar stories or persuasive essays provided in the professional learning lesson plans. Teachers were encouraged to create additional essays as desired or needed. Critical, however, was that these exemplars and nonexemplars were written at the students’ writing level, not their reading level. In other words, students needed proximal models rather than stories or essays written by adults for them, although books and other classroom resources were also used as teachers related the writing strategies being used to reading and other parts of the day.

“The examples really helped them to understand all the parts,” shared Ella. Teachers, like Gretchen, said the students enjoyed critiquing the models:

I liked the stories that were provided because you could really break them apart. And the stories were appropriate because they could see what a good story looks like and what a story looks like that doesn’t follow the rules.

Having “good” and “poor” genre-specific papers to analyze, discuss, revise, and rewrite was an important part of learning to write well for these teachers and their students.

Applying Story Writing Skills to Reading

By learning the structure and essential elements of the genre, students are able to identify those elements in reading passages. Chris’s students used their knowledge of story parts in story retell. “They won’t miss the parts if they know [the story writing mnemonic]! Feelings [in stories] are commonly missed because you have to infer, but because they knew all the story parts they won’t miss feelings again.”

The Graphic Organizer

Teachers were given a genre-specific graphic organizer to help support students planning for writing during PD, however, we stressed that teachers should decide whether to use it or have students begin with creating the same graphic organizer on scratch paper. Teachers who chose to use the graphic organizer faded its use in later lessons by modeling how students could make their own organizer; Faye, for example, had her students write the letters down the side of their paper to represent each story element. Some teachers, however, like Nina, chose not to introduce the formal graphic organizer:

I never used the graphic organizer provided. I just had them write [the complete mnemonic for story writing] on their paper. I really think they needed to do that for everything because I found when I told them they didn’t have to do it, the writing fell off.

Others, such as Gretchen, chose to only use the graphic organizer with her struggling writers saying, “I think the lower writers really need the graphic organizer.” Many teachers said they would teach students to make their own planning sheet from the start rather than use the graphic organizer when teaching the following year.

This is an important modification to be carefully considered for classwide SRSD and should be addressed in future PD. Some students, especially those who struggle with writing, may need the more formal graphic organizer to begin with and may need extra support transitioning to creating their own organizer. Furthermore, previous research with typical writers, students struggling with writing, and students with disabilities indicates they like the graphic organizers and recommend that they be used with future students (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; Harris & Graham, 2017).

Planning to Write

Students were taught to make notes while planning their essays using “caveman talk,” or short phrases, rather than full sentences. Making short notes reduces cognitive demand and provides a way to efficiently organize ideas prior to writing. Some students, however, struggled with the idea of using notes instead of full sentences during planning. Based on our experience, we anticipated this problem and discussed addressing it during PD. Teachers consistently reported this was one of the more difficult parts of SRSD instruction. “The note taking really threw some of mine,” Helena admitted, “They liked the caveman talk but their notes were essays, not notes. Struggling writers had this problem.” Gretchen’s struggling writers also had challenges. “I had a couple of struggling writers who struggled with brainstorming. They would finish a story and then go back to find the parts [and make notes].” The other two teachers in this session agreed notes were difficult for their students.

To address the obstacles with making notes, we recommend more in-depth discussion of lesson adaptations during PD. For example, when the teacher models making notes during the planning phase, students can generate the short phrases for the teacher or write their own notes simultaneously. If students write sentences on their planning sheets, teachers can help students learn to rewrite using phrases. Teachers can also model and practice with individuals or small groups how to develop phrases. Students who are concerned about forgetting their ideas can initially write a bit more on the plan while avoiding full sentences. Finally, some students may benefit from working together to turn sentences into short notes.

Other obstacles to planning exist. Students who are resistant to planning may rush to finish because they have difficulties with the physical act of handwriting or with working memory. Offering positive feedback on plans and reminding students of the purpose of the plan (e.g., notes will not be read by others) will often motivate students to complete the plan. For students who have a physical difficulty with handwriting, teachers may encourage the use of a keyboard, planning software, audio recorder, speech-to-text program, or a peer or adult to transcribe their ideas. Students can also develop their own abbreviations for commonly used words and ideas. Collaborative planning and note making is also important for some students, with assistance in making notes gradually faded.

Teacher Modeling of Writing and Self-Regulation

Teachers in this study believed, and research has demonstrated, that the modeling stage is critical to student success (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Harris, Lane, Driscoll, et al., 2012). “Modeling was most useful because everything you teach should be modeled. Children learn not by what you tell them but by what you do,” Becky expressed. While modeling, teachers talked aloud through their thought processes, struggles, and successes using self-regulatory statements. “The modeling built into the lessons was really helpful,” explained Michelle, “The kids who I never thought would come up with those parts suddenly were able to do it because we had modeled it so much.”

During the modeling stage, teachers encouraged students to generate positive self-talk (e.g., “I can use my imagination to do better work,” “I need to look to see if I did it right”), which can affect motivation and perseverance in any academic task, not just writing. Students were free to make up their own or use modeled self-statements. When Danielle modeled struggling with a writing task, her students offered support. “The students helped me. They would sometimes write down a self-statement and hand it to me.” Ella shared,

My kids are doubters. They don’t talk well to themselves sometimes. I had them write at least three [self-talk statements] and put them on the tree [on our wall] (a bulletin board for the opinion essay writing mnemonic and students’ selected examples of personal self-speech). I would see them look to the tree when they were writing.

Leigh shared, “My students really took to the self-regulatory talk. They were bringing it into ALL of our other subjects and saying it to each other during group work.” One teacher was concerned that students were not saying the statements out loud. Research indicates that it is not necessary for students to engage in self-talk aloud; it can be “in their heads” (Harris & Graham, 2017), but if teachers see students struggling, they should offer support and remind students to refer to their written list of self-statements and use them while writing, either covertly or overtly. While some teachers may be tempted to leave out the development of self-statements in SRSD, researchers have found that students identify the use self-statements during writing as highly effective and recommend other students learn such statements (Harris & Graham, 2017; Harris et al., 2008).

Many of these teachers identified modeling as initially difficult and awkward. Jackie recognized, “Self talk? I was bad at that. I can see a benefit for my kids, but it didn’t feel comfortable.” Three of the four focus groups addressed this discomfort. Over time, however, teachers found modeling became more comfortable and agreed that modeling and self-talk made a difference and believed it kept students on task, motivated, and rewarded. Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to determine how and when to encourage student assistance and contributions during modeling (Harris & Graham, 2017; Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2008).

Some teachers in this study, however, initially restricted student involvement during modeling and expressed changing to engage more with their students during modeling, allowing students to interact, offer ideas, and collaborate. As Michelle noted, “I found one of the hardest things was modeling because when you model you ask yourself questions and my group wanted to answer them.” Alice added “My kids couldn’t restrain themselves from talking to me. They would try to talk me through it [the Model It stage]. Why should I keep their enthusiasm down?” During PD, we noted that as long as teachers are leading the modeling process, students can and should collaborate with the teacher. Further demonstration of this in future PD may be helpful.

Student Self-Evaluation

Formative assessment was supported as students analyzed their plans as well as collaborative and individual essays for genre parts and other aspects of good writing (e.g., strong opening, linking words, effective vocabulary, powerful ending) by graphing the number of included genre elements and characteristics on a rocket graph (each student had sheets with several blank rockets used throughout instruction). Each rocket was divided into sections representing the key genre elements (differing for stories and essays), and stars around the rocket were used to record use of other aspects of good writing in that genre. Rockets are completed as students progress in SRSD instruction, allowing students to set goals and self-monitor progress, and to enhance motivation (see Harris et al., 2008 for examples).

Teachers varied in when they asked students to complete the rockets and how they used this tool; here again, flexibility was stressed in PD. This further illustrates the issue of adaptability addressed previously. Some teachers asked students to self-evaluate using a rocket after they finished a composition. Others, like Danielle, had students wait a while before evaluating their work. She explained,

My kids love the rockets. We did get to the point where before we start a new writing we went back and filled in our rockets after we left the paper alone for a while. There was no pressure during class because everyone filled in rockets at the same time.

Still others, such as Nina, used the rockets to facilitate writing conferences with students. Students evaluated their work, completed the rocket, and then met with the teacher to talk about both their self-evaluation and their composition. Teachers also saw value in helping students learn how to evaluate the work of others by expanding on the rockets. As Jackie explained, “I like the blankness of the rocket because then I can use it for anything. [For example], ‘How much did this person persuade you? Complete the rocket.’ We became very critical of work we put up [in the classroom].”

Researchers who have interviewed elementary students after SRSD instruction have consistently noted that the “rockets” (or other graphing device) are identified by the majority of students as one of their favorite parts of SRSD (Harris & Graham, 2017). Isaak shared, “Initially students were very excited about the rockets. The notion of blowing the top off your rocket (by having more good reasons or story parts than the minimum) was a little more energizing.” Three teachers in this study indicated that while a majority of their students were excited to use the rockets, some were not. Jackie noted, “For some of them, it didn’t seem important. They didn’t self-monitor themselves all the time.” Alice shared that as students progressed, “They would go back to make sure they had all the parts, but they didn’t necessarily fill in the rocket. But they still had all their parts!” We noted in PD that as students internalize the essential parts of the genre and aspects of the craft of writing and develop proficiency using the strategies, the self-regulation strategies, including the rockets, may be faded, and these teachers saw that happening. Further, students may react differently to differing self-regulation strategies, but should all learn to self-evaluate and self-monitor progress.

Changes in Student Behavior and Confidence

Findings from the experimental study (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012) indicated significant growth in the overall quality and number of genre-specific elements included in student writing after the intervention. In addition, in the present study, teachers shared a number of changes they observed in their students across ability levels, from more capable to average and struggling writers. Becky summarized, “Every single student benefitted. Even the highest student in my class who could write a 2-page story before, she just wrote more.” Ella added, “I saw huge improvements in my lower writers.”

Most of the observed changes were in the quality and length of student writing, but there were also noticeable changes in the writing behavior of some students. Furthermore, these teachers worked with some students with challenging behaviors. Faye shared a story about one of these students whose enthusiasm grew along with his writing ability:

I have a boy who struggles. He had good ideas but you couldn’t read anything he wrote. Now, he has these great stories with paragraphs and they make sense and you can read it. He produces some of the best stories out of the whole class. He enjoys writing now . . . It’s really great to see him loving to write.

Ella added,

I had one little boy [who had] ADHD . . . [SRSD] helped him to put a sequence to his thoughts. He was able to make valid arguments because before he couldn’t pull it all together. His writing has gone from 2s to 4s and 6s [on a scale of 0–6].

For some students, SRSD instruction increased focus and engagement. Alice noted,

I had one who wrote zero in the beginning and wrote a persuasive paragraph in the end. He grew a lot and he was able to write and stay focused and keep on track, check all his parts, had his rocket, and the whole bit.

Alice shared her feelings about the effectiveness of SRSD and her experiences with two students who avoided writing tasks, one who was more externalizing (e.g., out of seat, talking loudly) and one who was more internalizing (e.g., unresponsive to questions, refusing peer interaction):

I do not feel like there wasn’t anyone it wasn’t effective for. My top internalizer and top externalizer both had tremendous behavior changes. When I asked her [internalizer] to speak to the class, she refused . . . in the end, she was writing full essays and reading them aloud to the class proudly and in a voice that could be heard. My externalizer, when I said it was writing time, he suddenly had an urge to go to the bathroom or he might have hurt his toe and had to go see the nurse. He would go and actually write. It was nice to see the engagement for him just to be able to sit down and do the task at hand. He had all the steps and confidence.

Gretchen recounted similar experiences with a student, stating,

His writing was all over the place just like his behavior, but when we got the song and motions, he got excited about that. Now instead of writing all over the place, now he’s pulling out 5’s [on a 0–6 scale] and honestly, his behavior has gotten better. It helped and he’s finishing a story and it makes sense. I have a few who have that same behavior type. Their writing has gotten better and more organized too.

Teachers also noted that SRSD enhanced some students’ confidence during the classroom writing time. Helena described a girl who cried during writing prior to learning the strategies in SRSD:

I had a child who doubts herself a lot. If she can’t do it perfectly she actually comes apart so writing was one of those things . . . she struggles and she knows it. Anytime we did writing, it was tears. As we got into SRSD and breaking it down . . . this child became so excited to write. She made a stand against the entire class on a persuasive essay and wrote a wonderful essay. Writing wasn’t drudgery any more. That for me was very helpful because before I didn’t know what to do. She never felt successful. But with this, the checklist, the graphic organizer, she was.

Frequently, students who have difficulty with an academic task such as writing also exhibit challenging behaviors, perhaps as a result of ongoing frustration and failure, as a coping mechanism, or as a means of avoiding the task. The teachers in this study believed SRSD instruction benefited their students regardless of ability level and behavioral challenges, reporting improvements in both student writing and behavior during writing time.

Students Knew How to Start Writing

Getting students to start writing can be a challenge. These teachers consistently indicated that SRSD instruction resulted in students knowing what to do to get started. Students knew how to begin writing and how to continue through the next steps toward completion. Becky said, “Not a single student said, ‘I don’t know what to write about’ or ‘I can’t write’ after the intervention. And it’s still like that to this day.” Ella emphasized, “They know how to lead in now. That’s the hard part… for kids to even know how to start [writing].” Isaak shared,

This [strategy] allowed kids to grab on to something that had been missing in other kinds of writing instruction. This, they grabbed whether they realized or not. And they just wrote . . . no one had the excuse of “I don’t know what to write.” That was taken off the table.

There was consensus from teachers in each session on this point.

Students Were More Independent Writers

In every focus group session, teachers shared examples of their students writing more independently. Michelle shared,

I had a little boy who was not confident with any task. He was at my side without attempting to do the task. But when I gave him the strategies, he was just at work. It was almost like nothing. Once he knew it, he was like, “Yeah, I can go do that.” It gave him confidence.

Isaak offered a different example,

One (student) of mine has a sharp wit, sharp tongue, and the persuasive was right up his alley. He wrote things purposely to get somebody’s goat. I couldn’t have asked for more! He would have given little effort if I had just said “What are you going to write about today?” He had definite opinions and wanted you to know. He became very involved.

Organizing Ideas and the Writing Process

Another common difficulty in student writing is organization of both the process of writing and ideas for writing (Harris & Graham, 2017). Several teachers reported their students knew the mnemonic and used it to help them remain on task and manage the writing process as they moved from planning to writing, resulting in a more organized written product. As Helena explained, “several [students] had a mass group of thoughts before, but after continually repeating a pattern of how to organize the thoughts on paper, they got it.” Gretchen said, “SRSD kept them more organized with writing. Every time we come to writing, they want to use it. They have seen the first part of [the story writing mnemonic] will help with any story.” Nina stated, “It gave students a direct plan on how to put their writing together.”

Generalization and Maintenance

Generalization, the appropriate and effective application of strategies to a new writing task or situation, is built into SRSD instruction. During PD, teachers discussed fostering generalization and maintenance by (a) ensuring students understand the purpose and benefits of the strategy; (b) discussing, modeling, and supporting strategy use in other settings; (c) providing booster sessions as needed; (d) helping students develop an understanding of when and how to use the strategy; (e) developing skills for adapting strategies to other writing tasks and situations; (f) fostering peer collaboration and support in writing tasks; and (g) promoting strategy use across settings by collaborating with other school personnel and family members. As Danielle expressed after SRSD instruction, “When they can apply the knowledge in a new situation, that’s true learning.” Teachers in both genres reported student application of the self-regulation and writing strategies to other academic areas (e.g. reading and math). Helena shared, “Several weeks later [after completing SRSD], we wrote a persuasive letter to their parents. Those letters went home and they were good, valid persuasive arguments.”

Opinion Writing in Real-World Applications

As noted previously, teachers reported discussion and use of the story writing strategy during reading. Teachers also reported several examples where students used the opinion writing strategies for their own purposes beyond the classroom. Alice shared,

We do a school-to-home journal. There was a lot of “Dear Mom and Dad, I feel that we should get a hamster . . . the first reason is.” And the parent wrote back that the student had made good points and they could talk about getting a hamster. They started to realize, “This might benefit me!”

Michelle noted that her students “wanted to convince the principal to put a hot chocolate and ice cream machine on the playground. He responded saying the PTO might take this on as a project. The students noticed there was power in [persuasive writing].”

Mechanics of Writing

Several teachers in this study felt mechanics needed to be a part of the evaluation stage so students would attend to both the genre parts and mechanics. Alice, who taught the opinion essay strategy, explained,

The examine part of [the strategy] was great in that it checked ‘does it have every part’, but it didn’t really have a lot of focus on the mechanics. And . . . when we began, my students were really good at the mechanics of writing (periods, capital letters), and because the focus got shifted so much to all the parts (transition words, great belief statement), some of those mechanics got thrown to the wayside. We had to say “Examine isn’t just doing your parts, it is capitals and end marks.” That is the one bit our team talked a lot about. We plan to teach it again next year, but we will make that adjustment [to include writing mechanics].

Gretchen wished, “there was a grammar and punctuation part on the rockets as well.”

As discussed with teachers during PD, SRSD is not intended to be a complete writing program and should be embedded in a comprehensive writing curriculum. Therefore, teachers were encouraged to integrate instruction in the mechanics of writing, encourage students to set mechanics-related goals, and ask students to evaluate themselves on their use of mechanics in addition to the essential genre elements. Greater attention to this may be needed in future PD, or teachers may become more comfortable integrating with increased SRSD experience.

Meeting the Needs of More Capable Writers

Based on our experiences with classwide SRSD, we are concerned that SRSD instruction might limit more capable writers if it is not differentiated to create greater challenges and learning for these students (Harris & Graham, 2017; McKeown et al., 2015). Teachers who discussed this were split on this topic; four said it limited their higher achieving students, and four disagreed. Ella was among those concerned saying, “My higher writers got burnt out a lot quicker than the lower ones did. Their reaction was, ‘What else can we do?’” While more advanced goals for these students were discussed during PD, greater discussion and planning for supporting more capable writers was needed. Teachers may be unsure how to create and meet specific goals for some students, or they may need experience with SRSD instruction to move on to greater differentiation. Helena suggested providing additional lessons specifically for higher achieving writers. “We need to take those higher learners and move them forward. We may need additional lessons for higher writers.”

We had discussed during PD that teachers can meet the needs of more capable writers by changing the pace, intensity, level of independence, and complexity of the writing task. For example, to meet the needs of Nina’s more capable writers, she shared,

When I do it again next year, I will probably let my higher writers go a lot sooner than I did. I think they got a little frustrated having to stick to the whole group and I do think that would free me up to work with some of my lower writers. I could give them more encouragement.

Teachers can also encourage more capable writers to set writing goals to include more elements and more complex ideas in their writing based on their prior performance. Michelle plans to do that next year, saying, “Some of those higher writers learn the concept pretty quickly but didn’t go quite as far as they could have. Now that I’ve done it once, I can do that.” We will also strive to incorporate greater problem solving and planning for more capable writers in future PD.

Utilizing Small Groups and Pairs

The stages of SRSD are recursive and can be repeated as necessary, often with small groups or individuals. For example, some students may benefit from the teacher re-modeling in a small group, where they are better able to attend and contribute and the teacher can adapt modeling to their needs. During PD, we encouraged teachers to carefully consider the challenges each student in a small group faces and then model encountering and overcoming those challenges. We suggested teachers might group students who are struggling with a specific genre element and provide a mini-lesson on that element (e.g., endings), or might pair writers to work together on a composition or provide feedback to each other on individual compositions.

Teachers reported approaching re-teaching or re-modeling as needed with small groups, pairs, and/or individual students in various ways depending on how many students needed help and what type of assistance was needed. Teachers approached this in a variety of ways to address the needs of their class. Four teachers reported using small group instruction and paired peers for collaborative work. “I used the intermediate step of having them write together rather than going immediately to writing on their own so they had someone else to help them with putting ideas down on paper,” expressed Nina. Helena did the same:

As we moved away from me modeling, I knew I couldn’t just set them on their own. I went to pairs. Working together to come up with a persuasive essay made all the difference because they were so excited to read what they had written. Now they could do it on their own; they weren’t afraid.

Ella also had small groups of two to three students write a whole essay together before setting them off to work individually. She and Faye both used the small group time to provide additional support to those who needed it. Faye explained, “We started writing sooner than the plans. I set them off saying, ‘See what you can do’ except those who needed more support. Those, I pulled into a small group and worked with them.” Based on the input from these teachers, we plan to spend more time on possibilities for small grouping in each teacher’s classroom as part of brain storming and problem-solving. Feedback and assistance to teachers here could be an important focus for future research.