View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of SRSD College Entrance Essay Exam Instruction for High School Students with Disabilities or At-Risk for Writing Difficulties

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of SRSD College Entrance Essay Exam Instruction for High School Students with Disabilities or At-Risk for Writing Difficulties
Language: English
Authors: Ray, Amber B., Graham, Steve, Liu, Xinghua
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Jun 2019 32(6):1507-1529.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Grade 10
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Writing Strategies, Teaching Methods, High School Students, Students with Disabilities, Writing Improvement, Persuasive Discourse, At Risk Students, Writing Difficulties, Grade 10, Cues, Writing Processes, Essays, Scores, Learning Processes, Student Attitudes, College Entrance Examinations, Writing Tests, Instructional Effectiveness, Test Preparation
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: ACT Assessment
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3
ISSN: 0922-4777
Abstract: Strategies instruction has improved the writing of high school struggling writers in previous studies, including students with disabilities. This study examined the effectiveness of argumentative writing instruction for the ACT writing exam using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model with high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Using a multiple baseline across participants design, four 10th grade students (three males, one female) were taught to analyze ACT prompts, plan, and write an argumentative essay using the SRSD model. Following instruction, students increased quality of their plans, number of argumentative elements, overall ACT essay score, number of words, and number of transition words in their ACT essays. Students were positive about the strategy, learning process, and its effects.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1216230
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEC2_14dROHwWmqBJyhUwMOAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOjOseVHEMZGkLJdtQIBEICBm8Kc98IaYiDl-jfB7-dcFw7Y75Lh56Xo1F-GxyagBZa2esmEEJrtjNMRDlm2eW7kT4egqd77g_zuQf6clIWb4RJzMKhWs2UrMbg9uCaE0XRzqjN_pqnXA3lILdyhxanIvouUXQvc8qoW3QzpJZc8S24TQsFmVq112rXD4lfqUVCkDQUT7u5IzmimJdNwbBPvGFxMcCvrWioPwc5V
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0136539279;2ap01jun.19;2019May22.11:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0136539279-1">Effects of SRSD college entrance essay exam instruction for high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties </title> <p>Strategies instruction has improved the writing of high school struggling writers in previous studies, including students with disabilities. This study examined the effectiveness of argumentative writing instruction for the ACT writing exam using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model with high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Using a multiple baseline across participants design, four 10th grade students (three males, one female) were taught to analyze ACT prompts, plan, and write an argumentative essay using the SRSD model. Following instruction, students increased quality of their plans, number of argumentative elements, overall ACT essay score, number of words, and number of transition words in their ACT essays. Students were positive about the strategy, learning process, and its effects.</p> <p>Keywords: Writing intervention; Secondary education; Self-Regulated Strategy Development</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Writing is an important skill for college and beyond. The significance of writing is especially emphasized in the influential Common Core State Standards (CCSS; Common Core State Standards Initiative, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]). CCSS stresses that students need to be able to compose text for a variety of purposes including organizing, understanding, analyzing, and synthesizing information. Despite the importance of writing, mastery of this skill presents a challenge for many students. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing data, collected in 2011, revealed only 24% of 12th graders performed at the proficient level in writing which represents "solid academic performance" (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>], p. 7), with just 5% of 12th grade students with disabilities at this level.</p> <p>Writing instruction has become a high priority, as CCSS established challenging goals for students' writing attainment. This includes developing the writing skills needed to be prepared for college and the work place. The standards shift the focus of writing instruction from narrative and opinion writing to developing students' skills at producing "evidence-based writing along with the ability to inform and persuade" through composition (CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>CCSS emphasis on college readiness is consistent with the importance that many colleges place on writing as a gateway skill to college entrance. Many schools require and hundreds more recommend that students take the writing portion of college entrance exams as part of the college admission process (Barge, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]). While admission decisions are based on many components, the high-stakes college entrance exams (i.e., the ACT and SAT), including the written assessments, are an important part of this process. Many universities require students to achieve a minimum score on college entrance exams, and course placement decisions may be based on these tests. While the writing assessment, on a test like the ACT, is not the same as a college writing assignment, it analyzes students' abilities to develop ideas around a specific topic and write in a coherent manner using logic and reasoning (ACT, Inc., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]). Furthermore, the ACT is now being considered for use as a high school outcome exam by many states (Gewertz, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since the ACT writing test was first administered, students' average writing scores across the United States (U.S.) have declined from a 7.7 in 2006 to a 6.5 in 2017, on a scale of 2–12 (ACT, Inc., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). Similar declining scores were found for the SAT (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]) writing test. While there are some studies which have examined the effectiveness of specific procedures for enhancing students' performance on the multiple choice portions of college entrance exams (e.g., Lane, Robertson, Mofield, Wehby, & Parks, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]), we were unable to locate a study designed to improve the performance of struggling writers on the ACT or SAT writing tests. Thus, there is a need to identify effective methods for improving students' performance on writing exams, like the ACT.</p> <p>In the present study, the effectiveness of teaching high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties a strategy for planning and drafting argumentative essays is examined. The strategy was designed to enhance performance on the ACT writing exam. The ACT writing test was selected because a new ACT writing exam was introduced in September 2015, making it important to identify effective methods for improving all students' writing, especially less skilled writers, performance on this test. Additionally, the ACT was particularly important to students in this study because their school was an official ACT exam site.</p> <p>The ACT writing test is an exercise in argumentative writing. The prompts used to assess students' writing asks students to write an argumentative essay where they evaluate multiple perspectives on a given issue, develop their own perspective on this issue, and make clear the relationship between their perspective and provided perspectives. While the current study was designed to specifically improve performance on this test, stronger argumentative writing is beneficial, in general, as it is a critical skill in high school, college, and the workplace (CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students with disabilities and struggling writers are at a disadvantage on the ACT writing test because they have difficulties with the required writing tasks (Graham, Harris, & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). Students with disabilities struggle to understand writing prompts and rarely generate advanced plans to organize their ideas. Furthermore, these students often compose text that has limited ideas and is poorly organized. To address these writing difficulties, students in this study were taught a strategy that emphasized procedures for analyzing the prompt, generating and organizing ideas, and drafting a suitable argument based on this plan.</p> <p>Analysis of the writing prompt was emphasized because the ACT exam is very specific about what needs to be included in the essay, and student success on this test depends on meeting these requirements. Developing a written writing plan before writing was stressed in this study, as advanced planning provides the writer with an organized conception of what they want to say (Flower & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]), creating a visible representation of their writing intentions that is not subject to forgetting (Kellogg, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). This further reduces the need to plan while writing, making the process of drafting an essay less cognitively demanding (Scardamalia & Bereiter, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]). Students were taught to plan quickly due to the time demands of the ACT writing exam (i.e., 40 min). Finally, the strategy directed students to implement their plan, while modifying it as needed which included rereading their essay to make it better. Thus, planning was not limited to planning in advance, as good writers often plan before and during writing (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref15">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>As they learned the planning and drafting strategy, students were also taught about basic elements of argumentative writing, the use of transition words, and good word choice when writing. Each of these attributes are characteristics of good writing (Education Northwest, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]). In addition, students with disabilities and struggling writers often have trouble managing and regulating the writing process (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]). Thus, students were taught self-regulation strategies including goal setting for their writing, self-evaluating their performance, applying self-instructions to help with troublesome aspects of composing, and self-reinforcing their accomplishments. The use of such self-regulation procedures when added to writing strategy instruction can enhance overall writing performance of less skilled writers (Graham, Kiuhara, McKeown, & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The instructional approach used to improve ACT writing performance in this study was Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). SRSD is a method of explicit instruction that provides scaffolded support for struggling writers. The instruction includes a genre specific writing strategy, self-regulation strategies, and six stages of instruction for teaching the strategies. The instructional stages are (a) developing background knowledge, (b) discussing the strategy, (c) modeling the strategy, (d) memorizing the strategy, (e) supporting the strategy, and (f) independent performance. The SRSD instruction is described in detail in the method section.</p> <p>SRSD was chosen because it has been an effective method for teaching writing strategies (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]; Rogers & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]), and deemed an evidence-based approach by four independent groups (Baker, Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, & Doabler, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; Graham & Perin, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref22">19</reflink>]; National Center on Intensive Intervention, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]; U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]). A recent meta-analysis of writing intervention research literature showed that SRSD instruction resulted in the largest effect sizes on writing performance of all tested interventions (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]; Graham & Perin, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>SRSD has been especially effective in teaching argumentative writing to high school students with disabilities and those at-risk for writing difficulties (Chalk, Hagan-Burke, & Burke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; Hoover, Kubina, & Mason, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]; Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]; Kiuhara, O'Neile, Hawken, & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]; Lewis & Ferretti, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]; Mason, Kubina, & Hoover, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]). For example, Kiuhara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]) enhanced the writing performance of 10th grade students with high incidence disabilities by using SRSD to teach them a strategy for planning and drafting argumentative text. Likewise, Hoover et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]) enhanced argumentative quick writes by 11th and 12th graders with learning disabilities using SRSD instruction. Due to the unique nature and importance of the ACT argumentative writing task, I examined if SRSD instruction could be used to effectively help struggling writers meet the specific challenges of the ACT writing test.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-3">Research questions</hd> <p>This study addressed two research questions. First, what is the effect of SRSD instruction for college entrance test writing on enhancing the elaboration of students' advanced plans, overall ACT writing scores, number of argumentative essay elements, number of words written, and number of transition words? The second research question concerned social validity: Did SRSD instructed students view this instruction as valuable? We predicted that students would generate more elaborated plans and increase their overall ACT writing scores, number of argumentative essay elements, length, and number of transition words. We also anticipated that instructed students would find the treatment as acceptable and effective. Both hypotheses align with results from previous SRSD studies with less skilled high school writers which found similar positive results (Chalk et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Hoover et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]; Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]). To answer these two research questions, a multiple baseline across participants design was implemented with four less skilled 10th grade writers.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0136539279-5">Setting and participants</hd> <p>This study took place in a suburban private high school in a southwestern state. The Catholic college preparatory school served approximately 580 ninth through twelfth grade students. The school's population was 62% Caucasian, 22% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% Native American, 2% African American, and 8% other, with 99% of students attending college.</p> <p>After receiving permission from the Institutional Review Board, students were identified for possible participation. Each student was considered at-risk for writing difficulties according to the following criteria (a) recommendation by the student's language arts teacher that the student had writing difficulties, (b) produced 8 or less argumentative elements on an ACT pretest, and (c) scored at or below the 25th percentile on the essay composition portion of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III). Students who were recommended by their teacher took the WIAT-III essay composition test which was administered before the start of the study and followed the standardized procedures outlined in the WIAT-III manual. The reliability of the alternative form for this test for grades 6–12 is 0.85 (Psychological Corporation, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]). All WIAT-III essays were scored by the authors, who both had previous training and experience scoring the WIAT-III. Interrater reliability, calculated through Pearson correlation, was 0.99.</p> <p>For each of the students that met the inclusion criteria, parental consent and student assent were obtained. The four students who participated in the study were all in 10th grade and two had a disability. English was the primary language for all the students.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-6">Dominic</hd> <p>The first student instructed was Dominic. He was a 15 years and 11 months old Hispanic student. He scored at the 16th percentile on the WIAT-III essay composition test. At the end of the first semester of 10th grade, his cumulative percentage average was 74% and he was at 65% in his English course. He had a Cognitive Skills Quotient (CSQ) of 91 on the High School Placement Test which is interpreted in the same manner as an IQ score. He had a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Anxiety Disorder.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-7">Gabrielle</hd> <p>Gabrielle was the second student to be instructed. She was a 15 years and 8 months old Hispanic student. On the WIAT-III essay composition test, she scored at the 25th percentile. She had a cumulative percentage average of 78% and an English grade of 83% at the end of the first semester of 10th grade. Her CSQ was 78 on the High School Placement Test.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-8">Kevin</hd> <p>The third student to be instructed was Kevin. He was a 15 years and 3 months old Caucasian student. He scored at the 16th percentile on the WIAT-III essay composition test. At the end of the first semester of 10th grade, he earned a 77% cumulative percentage average and English grade. On the High School Placement Test, he had a CSQ of 126.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-9">Mark</hd> <p>The fourth student instructed was Mark. He was a 15 years and 1 month old Caucasian student. He scored at the 25th percentile on the WIAT-III essay composition test. At the end of the first semester of 10th grade, he earned a cumulative percentage average of 76% and a 70% English grade. His CSQ on the High School Placement Test was 93. He had a diagnosis of dysgraphia and dyslexia.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-10">Writing benchmark</hd> <p>Additionally, all four students scored below the writing benchmark on the ACT Aspire test. The benchmark indicates whether a student is on track to be successful in their first year of college courses. Students who score below the benchmark can benefit from the type of writing instruction provided in this study, which includes prewriting strategies, reviewing model essays, practice organizing an essay so it builds in a logical progression, writing a strong and clear thesis, and other skills to improve their overall writing (ACT, Inc., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-11">Classroom setting and instructor</hd> <p>Two of the students were taught one-to-one by the first author. The other two students, Kevin and Mark, were taught together in the last leg of the study. The instructor was a former high school teacher with experience teaching students who find school learning challenging. She had previous experience using SRSD instruction. Instruction was held in a classroom during the last period of the school day. For all students within the school, the last class period was an opportunity to receive extra help with class work or to use the time as a study hall.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-12">SRSD instruction</hd> <p>SRSD instruction involved three central components (a) an argumentative writing strategy, (b) self-regulation strategies, and (c) six stages of SRSD instruction for teaching writing and self-regulation strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-13">Argumentative writing strategy</hd> <p>The argumentative writing strategy was represented by the mnemonic HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups>, a strategy developed by the first author. The strategy was designed to help students be successful on the ACT writing test by providing them with a mechanism for analyzing the ACT writing prompt; creating a quick plan for composing their argument; and using the plan, expanding it, and checking their work as they drafted their essay. A mnemonic served as a reminder to carry out the mental operations included in the strategy. The first word of the mnemonic, HIT, outlined the essential introduction paragraph elements (a) Hook, (b) Introduce the topic, and (c) Thesis. The next part of the mnemonic, SONG, was repeated three times to analyze each of the perspectives stated in the prompt; (a) State the perspective, (b) Outlook on the perspective, (c) Need examples, and (d) Give your opinion. The final portion of the mnemonic, S<sups>3</sups>, reminded students what needed to be included in the conclusion paragraph; (a) Support your thesis, (b) State the relationships between your thesis and the perspectives given in the prompt, and (c) Summary.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-14">Self-regulation strategies</hd> <p>Self-regulation strategies were also taught to students as they learned to use the HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> strategy. This included goal setting, self-instructions, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement. Students worked with the instructor to set writing goals for each essay. This included creating essays with all necessary argumentative elements and other goals that were individualized for students. For instance, students would set the goal of adding an additional example within their essay or using different transitions words at the beginning and within paragraphs. When working through the writing process, students were taught to use self-instructions to assist them in thinking of good ideas, composing their essay, and to check their work. Students created their own self-instructions based on their needs. For example, a student who tended to rush through work, instructed himself to take his time when writing. Moreover, students self-evaluated their essays each time they completed writing an essay collaboratively or independently. Students would assess whether they had analyzed the prompt, planned using the strategy, and wrote a quality essay that made sense and incorporated all the argumentative elements. After students evaluated an essay, they graphed their score on a chart to help them see their progress towards their goals. Lastly, students were taught to self-reinforce their progress. After completing each step of the writing process, students were encouraged to compliment themselves. They were further taught to celebrate their hard work when they completed an essay.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-15">Six stages of instruction</hd> <p>The argumentative writing and self-regulation strategies were taught using the SRSD instructional model which includes six stages of instruction (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]). The instructional stages were applied recursively according to individual student's needs. Moreover, the instruction was highly interactive and discourse-rich. For each instructional stage, students were taught to criterion before moving on to the subsequent stage of instruction. The first stage of SRSD was to develop and activate background knowledge. The instructor worked with the student to advance understanding of argumentative writing elements. The instructor also discussed with the students the structure and requirements of the ACT writing test, and they conjointly analyzed an ACT writing prompt. The criteria for completing this stage was the ability to articulate the basic elements of a quality ACT argumentative essay.</p> <p>Discussing the strategy was the second stage of SRSD instruction. The instructor presented the strategy, HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups>, and discussed with the student the importance of each part of the strategy and how to implement it during the writing process. The strategy was further explored by reading and identifying the parts of HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> in exemplar ACT argumentative essays. Low quality ACT argumentative essays were also analyzed, with the teacher and students working together to improve the poorly written essay by using the strategy. For this stage, students had to meet the criteria of being able to identify the parts of the strategy within a sample essay and identify the purpose of the strategy and when to use it.</p> <p>The third stage was modeling the strategy. The instructor modeled how to use the writing strategy while analyzing an ACT writing prompt, engaging in planning, writing, and evaluating what was written. To make these processes more visible, she thought aloud, making her thinking visible as she engaged in these activities. While modeling, the instructor applied self-regulation strategies involving self-instructions, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement. For instance, when thinking aloud during the writing process, the instructor modeled getting overwhelmed after reading the prompt and used the following self-instruction, "There is a lot I need to do to respond to the prompt, but I know I can use HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> to help me write a good essay." The instructor also modeled self-evaluation by changing ideas from the notes to make a stronger argument when composing the essay and by rereading the completed essay and correcting any mistakes. When the instructor finished, she modeled self-reinforcement. After modeling, the teacher discussed and analyzed with the students the writing strategy and self-instructions she used. The instructor also discussed setting writing goals with students; the starting goal for each student was to write an essay that included all the parts of HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups>. The criterion for this stage was students developing personalized self-instructions that would assist them when writing.</p> <p>Memorizing the strategy was the fourth stage of instruction. The instructor worked with the students to memorize the strategy because they cannot bring notes with the meaning of HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> with them when taking ACT test. The criterion for this stage of instruction was being able to state each step of the strategy correctly from memory.</p> <p>The fifth stage was supporting the student's use of the strategy and application of self-regulation procedures. During this stage, the student worked collaboratively with the teacher to use self-instructions and self-reinforcement when working through the writing process and evaluated and graphed their progress on a goal setting sheet. The instructor and student continued to write together as the instructor gradually shifted control of the writing process to the student. The student worked towards independence while receiving prompts from the instructor. The criteria for this stage required students to be able to analyze an ACT writing prompt, create a plan, compose an essay, and evaluate their essay with minimal prompts from the instructor.</p> <p>Independent performance was the last stage in SRSD instruction where students independently wrote an essay responding to an ACT writing prompt using learned strategies. Students' criteria for completing this stage was being able to independently use the writing and self-regulation strategies and produce an essay with at least 18 argumentative elements.</p> <p>Each writing lesson lasted 30 min and occurred on consecutive school days unless a student was absent. The first student taught, Dominic, received 13 lessons totaling six and one-half hours of instruction. Gabrielle, the second student taught, received 12 lessons totaling six hours of instruction. The third student receiving instruction was Kevin and he participated in 14 lessons totaling seven hours of instruction. Mark, the fourth student taught, received 10 lessons totaling five hours of instruction. While Kevin and Mark were taught together, Mark received less instruction due to being absent from school.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-16">Treatment integrity</hd> <p>The fidelity of each lesson was assessed in two ways. First, the instructor used lesson plans as a guide for instruction and checked any step of a lesson that was completed. All steps were checked as completed for each student. Second, a professor in the field of writing instruction observed 36–42% of the lessons for each student. Using the same checklist applied by the instructor, the observer checked any step that was completed. The treatment fidelity across each of the lessons was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-17">Writing prompts</hd> <p>There were twenty-two argumentative writing prompts that were used during testing and instruction. The prompts were from practice ACT writing tests designed to be relevant for high school students (e.g., topics included intelligent machines, endangered species, and experiential education). All writing prompts were structured in the same way in order to maintain consistency and prepare students for the ACT writing test. Each prompt included a heading which stated the overall topic as well as an introductory paragraph that gave a brief overview of the topic. The prompt then instructed students to carefully consider the three perspectives provided on the topic. Finally, students were directed to write their essay evaluating each of the perspectives given and to develop and support their own perspective on the issue (ACT, Inc., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). Students' perspectives could be in full or partial agreement with any of the perspectives provided or entirely different.</p> <p>To illustrate, the ACT prompt on the topic of Intelligent Machines began with an introductory paragraph describing how intelligent machines are now a part of our daily lives. The paragraph gave examples of intelligent machines such as self-checkout in grocery stores and robots building cars on assembly lines. The paragraph ended by asking the reader to consider the repercussions of the increasing prevalence of intelligent machines. The prompt then provided three perspectives on intelligent machines. The first perspective was strongly against the use of intelligent machines describing how we lose our own humanity by replacing people with machines. Perspective one pronounced that there is a lack of respect and tolerance for other people due to our increasing encounters with machines versus people. The second perspective was in full support of intelligent machines stating that machines are better than humans at many jobs such as extremely precise jobs. Perspective two further specified that the use of machines leads to progress and a more prosperous world. The third perspective considered how the use of intelligent machines can challenge our ideas about the world. Perspective three described that intelligent machines can lead us to new, unimagined possibilities. The prompt then provided students with a description of the essay task which asked students to write an essay about the increasing presence of intelligent machines. The essay task explained that students should state their own perspective on intelligent machines, analyze the three perspectives in the prompt, describe the connection between their own perspective and the perspectives in the prompt, support their claims by describing the strengths and weaknesses of the perspectives in the prompt, and provide examples to support their claims using their own knowledge and experiences. The essay task then reminded students to organize their thoughts in a logical manner and to write in English. Finally, students were provided with a page to plan their essay. A full example of the Intelligent Machines prompt can be found at https://<ulink href="http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/writing-sample-essays.html?page=0&chapter=0">www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/writing-sample-essays.html?page=0&chapter=0</ulink>.</p> <p>Students wrote argumentative essays in response to practice ACT prompts at baseline, post-instruction, and maintenance phases. The students were given the prompts in sample ACT books and provided the same directions used during ACT test administration. Students had 40 min to complete the essay test, per ACT test guidelines. The order of prompts for testing was randomly assigned. The tests were administered by a person who was not involved in instruction. Further, the test administrator was trained to criterion on conducting tests.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-18">Outcome measures</hd> <p>Before the essays were scored, identifying information was removed and all essays (<emph>N</emph> = 33) were typed in order to reduce presentation effects (such as poor handwriting) that could influence judgments made by raters about the text written (see Graham, Harris, & Hebert, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]). No grammar or spelling corrections were made when typing student essays. All outcome measures were scored independently by the first author and a trained rater who was blind to the design and purpose of the study. Interrater reliability was calculated using Pearson correlation.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-19">Planning</hd> <p>Students were provided a separate page to plan their essay. Plans were scored using a 0 to 5-point scale. Students received a score of 0 if no plan was evident, a score of 1 if they wrote their essay on the planning sheet and then copied it onto the essay paper, a score of 2 if they wrote an essay or words related to their essay on the planning sheet and made changes between their plan and essay, a score of 3 if words were listed related to developing a plan, a score of 4 if a strategy was used but there was no change between their plan and essay, and a score of 5 if a strategy was used and there was a change between their plan and essay. Interrater reliability for planning scores was 1.00.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-20">Overall ACT writing score</hd> <p>The ACT scoring rubric was used to analyze the overall ACT writing score of students' essays (complete rubric: <ulink href="http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Writing-Test-Scoring-Rubric.pdf">http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Writing-Test-Scoring-Rubric.pdf</ulink>). The students received overall ACT writing scores ranging from 2 to 12 which is the combined average of four subscores: (a) ideas and analysis, (b) development and support, (c) organization, and (d) language use. Each subcategory was scored on a scale ranging from 1 to 6 (with 1 representing a lower score). Ideas and analysis examined if the paper analyzed multiple perspectives and established a clear argument and thesis. Development and support evaluated use of rationale and examples to support claims. Organization assessed arrangement of paragraphs and use of transition words between and within paragraphs. Language use addressed word choice, voice, sentence structure, grammar, and spelling within the paper. Interrater reliability was 0.98.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-21">Argumentative elements</hd> <p>There were twelve essential elements identified for writing an argumentative essay in response to an ACT prompt including: a hook, introducing the topic, stating a thesis, stating perspectives from the prompt, stating the outlook on each perspective, discussing each perspective using examples, giving an opinion on each perspective, restating the thesis, providing rational for the thesis, stating the relationship between the thesis and perspectives, summarizing key ideas, and leaving the reader thinking. Students received 1 point for each element presented in their essay. Additional points were given when students provided more than one element for a category (e.g., restating all three perspectives from the prompt resulted in 3 points). There was no ceiling for this measure as students could include as many examples as time allowed to support their claims. Interrater reliability was 0.98.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-22">Number of words</hd> <p>The total number of words in an essay was identified using the Microsoft Word Count feature.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-23">Number of transition words</hd> <p>Transition words were identified by looking at the first words or phrases at the beginning of each sentence. Words or phrases were considered a transition if they were on the list of acceptable transitions from the WIAT-III scoring protocol. Each transition identified received 1 point. The interrater reliability was 0.98.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-24">Social validity</hd> <p>Each student was interviewed by the instructor after the completion of instruction. The instructor audio recorded the interview and took notes as students responded. Students were asked what they liked and disliked about the strategies, what they liked about how they learned to use the strategies, what they would do differently to help other students learn these strategies, and to share any other thoughts about learning to use the strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-25">Experimental design and analysis</hd> <p>A multiple baseline design across participants with multiple probes in baseline was implemented and occurred within four staggered phases (Gast & Ledford, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]). Phase one was baseline where students were administered multiple writing probes. Each probe required students to write an argumentative essay responding to an ACT essay prompt within a 40-min time limit. Once baseline data was stable for student one, the second phase of the study began which included SRSD instruction. Stability was operationalized as three or more data points in a similar pattern that could be used to predict future data points if the intervention was not introduced (Gast & Ledford, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]). Instruction ended when a student was able to independently use writing and self-regulation strategies to reach their writing goal of including 18 or more argumentative elements. The third phase was post-instruction; probes were given immediately after instruction was complete and continued until students reached stability on administered writing probes. Maintenance was the fourth phase where writing probes were administered 4 weeks after instruction for all students. The percent of non-overlapping data (PND) was calculated for each outcome variable by counting all the data points that do not overlap and counting the total number of data points. Then the number of non-overlapping data points was divided by the total number of data points and then multiplied by 100 (Gast & Ledford, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-26">Results</hd> <p>After SRSD instruction for HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> all students showed improvement in elaborated planning, overall ACT writing score, number of argumentative elements (see Fig. 1), number of words, and number of transition words on an ACT writing prompt. Table 1 provides the <emph>M</emph> and <emph>SD</emph> for each student's scores at baseline, post-instruction, and maintenance.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1The effects of SRSD writing instruction for the ACT writing test on the number of argumentative elements included in an ACT essay across four high school students with writing difficulties</p> <p>Means and standard deviations of students' scores at each stage</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Student</p></th><th align="left"><p>Baseline</p><p><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Post-instruction</p><p><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Maintenance score</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Dominic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Elaborated planning</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>0.67 (1.16)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>2.67 (2.52)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Overall ACT score</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.33 (0.58)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>8.67 (1.15)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Argumentative elements</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.67 (0.58)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>18.00 (1.00)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Number of words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>86.67 (19.43)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>324.67 (14.01)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>217</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Transition words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>0 (0)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>4.67 (1.16)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gabrielle</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Elaborated planning</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>0 (0)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.67 (1.16)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Overall ACT score</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>4.50 (1.00)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>9.33 (1.15)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Argumentative elements</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>7.00 (0.82)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>18.33 (0.58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Number of words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>229.00 (68.45)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>390.33 (23.03)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>372</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Transition words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>1.75 (1.26)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>4.67 (0.58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kevin</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Elaborated planning</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>0.40 (0.89)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>5.00 (0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Overall ACT score</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>5.40 (0.89)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>10.00 (0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Argumentative elements</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>7.20 (0.84)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>19.67 (0.58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Number of words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>257.40 (22.94)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>336.00 (85.86)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>355</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Transition words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.40 (0.55)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>7.00 (1.00)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mark</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Elaborated planning</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.00 (0)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>5.00 (0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Overall ACT score</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>2.60 (0.55)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>6.67 (1.15)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Argumentative elements</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3.80 (0.45)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>15.67 (1.16)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Number of words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>192.60 (31.94)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>247.67 (33.50)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>171</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Transition words</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>1.20 (1.30)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>2.33 (0.58)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0136539279-27">Planning</hd> <p>Planning was scored on a 0 to 5-point scale with 0 representing no plan and 5 representing an elaborated plan was created and students showed evidence of using a planning strategy and planning continued as they wrote. At baseline, Dominic and Kevin planned their first essays, writing several words on the planning sheet, whereas Mark planned all of his pretest essays, developing a plan in the form of a word web. No other pretest essays were planned (i.e., 59% were not planned).</p> <p>On posttest probes, all essays by each student were planned in advance, except Dominic did not plan his last post-instruction essay. All of Kevin's and Mark's post instructional plans received a score of 5, as did the first post-instructional plan written by Dominic and Gabriel. The other post-instructional plans developed by these two students received a score of 3 (a plan that listed the steps of the strategy). PND for post-instructional plans was 92%. Even more impressive all students planned on their 1-month maintenance probe (PND = 100%), receiving either a score of 5 (Kevin and Mark) or a score of 3 (Dominic and Gabrielle).</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-28">ACT writing score</hd> <p>Students' performance on the overall ACT writing score, evaluated on a 12-point scale, showed substantial improvement across all participants at post-instruction and maintenance when compared to baseline performance. The ACT writing scores ranged from an average of 2.60–5.40 at baseline and 6.67–10.00 at post-instruction. PND for the four students indicated a large effect at both post-instruction (100%) and maintenance (100%).</p> <p>Dominic's mean performance on the ACT writing score increased from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 3.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 8.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.15) by 260% and from baseline to maintenance by 240%. Gabrielle's mean performance over doubled from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 4.50; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.00) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 9.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.15), whereas her maintenance score increased by 222% from baseline. Kevin's mean performance increased by 185% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 5.40; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.89) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 10.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0), as did his maintenance score. Finally, Mark's mean performance increased by 256% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 2.60; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.55) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 6.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.15) and by 231% from baseline to maintenance.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-29">Argumentative elements</hd> <p>Criterion of 18 argumentative elements was established with no ceiling for this measure, as students could produce an essay with an unlimited number of elements. On all writing probes, students obtained higher scores at post-instruction and maintenance than at baseline (see Fig. 1) with students including three to eight argumentative essay elements in baseline essays and 15–20 argumentative essay elements in their post-instruction essays. PND for each student was 100% at post-instruction and 100% at maintenance.</p> <p>Dominic's mean performance improved by 491% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 3.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 18.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.00). At maintenance his score of 12 was 327% above baseline. Gabrielle's mean performance increased from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 7.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.82) to post-instruction by 262% (<emph>M</emph> = 18.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58). The same level of increase was evident at maintenance. Kevin's mean performance increased by 273% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 7.20; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.84) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 19.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58), as did his maintenance score. Lastly, Mark's mean performance increased by 412% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 3.80; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 15.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.16), as did his maintenance score.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-30">Number of words</hd> <p>SRSD instruction resulted in an improvement in number of words written, but these effects were not as strong as they were for the previous three variables. PND for the four students was 75% at both post-instruction and maintenance, with PNDs at both time points at 100% for Dominic and Gabrielle; and 67% for Kevin at post-instruction and 100% at maintenance. Mark, however, had a PND of 33% at post-instruction and 0% at maintenance.</p> <p>Dominic increased on total number of words by 375% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 86.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 19.43) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 324.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 14.01) and 250% from baseline to maintenance, where he wrote 217 words. Gabrielle's mean performance increased from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 229.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 68.45) to post-instruction by 170% (<emph>M</emph> = 390.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 23.03) and from baseline to maintenance, where she wrote 372 words. Kevin's mean performance increased by 131% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 257.40; <emph>SD</emph> = 22.94) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 336.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 85.86), as did his maintenance score of 355 words. Mark's mean performance increased by 129% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 192.60; <emph>SD</emph> = 31.94) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 247.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 33.50). He dropped slightly from baseline to maintenance, where he wrote 171 words.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-31">Number of transition words</hd> <p>Each transition word or phrase at the beginning of a sentence that a student used in their writing was counted. SRSD instruction resulted in an improvement in the number of transition words students used in their essays. The results were similar to the number of words written measure, with PNDs at both time points at 100% for Dominic, Gabrielle, and Kevin. Mark, however, had a PND of 0% at post-instruction and maintenance.</p> <p>Dominic increased by almost fivefold from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 0; <emph>SD</emph> = 0) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 4.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.16) on number of transition words, and threefold from baseline to maintenance, where he used 3 transition words. Gabrielle's mean performance increased from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 1.75; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.26) to post-instruction by 267% (<emph>M</emph> = 4.67; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) and from baseline to maintenance by 457% where she use 8 transition words. Kevin's mean performance increased by 206% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 3.40; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.55) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 7.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.00), as did his maintenance score of 7 transition words. Mark's mean performance improved by 194% from baseline (<emph>M</emph> = 1.20; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.30) to post-instruction (<emph>M</emph> = 2.33; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58) and by 167% from baseline to maintenance, with the use of 2 transition words.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-32">Treatment acceptability</hd> <p>After completing SRSD writing instruction, students were interviewed about the intervention. All of the students liked learning the HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> strategy and felt that it helped them improve their essay writing. Students discussed that the strategy helped them develop a plan and made writing easier because they had a way to organize their thoughts. They also felt the mnemonic helped them remember the key elements to include in their essay. When asked if there was anything they did not like about the strategy, they indicated they liked all of the aspects. One student stated that the strategy made her write more than she usually would for a paper. The students were also asked what they liked about the way they learned to use the strategies. Students found it beneficial to analyze an exemplar and poor sample essays. They also liked collaborative writing stating, "It was helpful to write essays together." Additionally, one student exclaimed, "Modeling helped me a lot!" None of the students felt there was anything to change about the way they learned to use the strategy. When given the opportunity to share other thoughts about the strategies or instruction, one male student proclaimed, "It was fun!"</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-33">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, we examined if SRSD instruction for college entrance test writing enhanced the elaboration of students' advanced plans, overall ACT writing scores, number of argumentative essay elements, number of words written, and number of transition words. After receiving SRSD instruction using the strategy HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> students' planned more consistently and produced more elaborated plans, received higher overall ACT scores, and increased the number of argumentative essay elements, words, and transition words in their essays. The only exception involved Mark who showed minimal gains in number of words written and transition words used following SRSD instruction. Nevertheless, the findings from this study strongly support the use of SRSD instruction as a means for improving ACT writing test taking performance of less skilled high school writers. Below we discuss students' performances in each area, indicating how it replicated or extended previous research.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-34">Planning</hd> <p>SRSD instruction for the ACT writing test had a large effect on the elaboration of students' plans. All students improved their plans as a result of instruction. Before receiving SRSD instruction, three students did not develop a plan for a majority of their essays. If they did plan, it usually involved writing down a few key words from the prompt or words related to the format of their essay (i.e. introduction, body, and conclusion). The one student, Mark, who consistently planned before writing on baseline tests drew a web with the title of the prompt in the middle and wrote words about essay format (i.e. body, perspective, and conclusion).</p> <p>After SRSD instruction, all students developed an elaborated plan and engaged in additional planning as they wrote for at least their first post-instruction essay. Their plans involved creating their own graphic organizer with short notes about what they were going to write about in each paragraph. Two students, Dominic and Gabrielle, did not develop plans this thorough after their first post-instruction test, creating plans that only wrote out the steps of the strategy. During the interview at the end of the study, they each indicated reducing planning due to time concerns, and felt they could still use the strategy and organize thoughts in their head.</p> <p>Prior research using SRSD to teach argumentative writing strategies to high school students with disabilities and at-risk for writing difficulties also examined students' planning behavior, measuring the amount of time students spent planning (Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref50">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>]). In all of these single case design (SCD) studies, students increased the amount of time they spent planning from baseline to post-instruction. This study extends the literature by evaluating the elaboration of students' plans, showing SRSD instruction had salutary effects on this measure.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-35">Overall ACT writing score</hd> <p>All students improved their overall ACT writing scores immediately following instruction and at maintenance. At baseline, students structured their essays using paragraphs, included a few transition words, and had good language use. Many of the pre-test essays written by students did not include thesis statements. However, when a thesis statement was included, it was usually a summary of the prompt. For example, on her first pre-test Gabrielle wrote: "This article is explaining how the United States is taking charge and trying to protect those endangered species."</p> <p>Overall ACT writing scores were evaluated on a 12-point scale with the national average ACT writing score of 6.5 (ACT, Inc., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>]). After receiving SRSD instruction, all students' scores went from below to above the national average. Students' post-instruction essays typically included unified ideas, analysis of perspectives provided in the prompt, and developed and provided support for their thoughts. Students further improved their skills by writing theses that conveyed their point of view and the argument of the essay. For instance, Gabrielle's thesis from her first post-instruction essay was, "I believe that funding for the arts is necessary because it helps students in many different ways."</p> <p>While the overall ACT essay score is a measure unique to this particular writing assessment, the rubric has similar components to measures applied in other SCD studies to score essays for quality (Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]). Prior studies have demonstrated that SRSD instruction with high school students with disabilities and at-risk for writing difficulties enhanced quality of writing (Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>]). This study replicates and extends this finding with a similar, but different measure of writing quality.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-36">Argumentative essay elements</hd> <p>The number of argumentative essay elements students incorporated into their essays increased for all students after receiving SRSD instruction and was sustained through the maintenance phase. At baseline all students incorporated at least three argumentative essay elements which typically included summarizing the three perspectives given in the prompt and a statement of the student's opinion. For example, Kevin's first pre-test essay only included one body paragraph which stated:</p> <p>To start off, some believe protecting endangered species should be done. They think that scince we can help them with our technology we have, we should. Another perspective is tht conservation decisions shold be based on the risk and value of the species to the Earth, not just the publicly well-known species. Lastly, a final perspective would be helping species at risk due to human activities and factors. Some conservation programs have unintended consequences that can create environmental hazards (spelling not corrected).</p> <p>On their post-instruction essays, students provided more analysis and evaluation of each of the perspectives from the prompt and included examples and rationale for their argument. Kevin's first post-instruction essay included three body paragraphs each of which analyzed a perspective from the prompt. An example of one of his body paragraphs is:</p> <p>To start off, perspective one states that our society should strive for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It shows that freedom cannot interfere with that. This is a strong perspective because benefits the greater good. For example, someone who drive reckless creates risks for themselves and others. If that person was able to drive that way, that would cause health risks that could harm others. I agree with this perspective because it benefits the greater good (spelling not corrected).</p> <p>The finding that SRSD instruction increased number of argumentative elements replicates the findings of many prior SRSD SCD studies providing instruction in argumentative writing (Hoover et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref58">20</reflink>]; Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref61">24</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref62">27</reflink>]), but extends these findings to a new measure.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-37">Number of words written</hd> <p>Increasing the number of words written was not an explicit goal for students in this study, but all the students' average number of words written increased from baseline to post-test. During their interviews, students indicated that during baseline testing they were often unsure of what the prompt was asking them to write. In essence, they wrote what they thought was being asked of them, which typically resulted in three paragraphs: an introductory paragraph about the topic, a summary paragraph of the perspectives given in the prompt, and occasionally a paragraph about the student's opinion on the topic.</p> <p>After SRSD instruction, the students had a clearer understanding of the expectations of the writing assignment, which resulted in writing more text than at baseline. During post-instruction and maintenance students wrote an introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs that analyzed each of the perspectives provided in the prompt, and a conclusion paragraph that provided their stance on the topic and support for their opinion.</p> <p>Improvements in amount written were reported in five other SRSD SCD studies conducted with high school students with writing difficulties (Chalk et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]; Hoover et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]; Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref67">27</reflink>]). This study replicates these findings.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-38">Transition words</hd> <p>Students in the present study increased their use of transition words from baseline to post-test and maintenance. All but one student used transition words during baseline, and such words typically included: also, but, not only, another, and in conclusion. These words were mostly used at the beginning of paragraphs. Following SRSD instruction there was not only an increase in transition words (up to eight transition words in one essay), but students also used a greater variety of transition words and used them at the start and within paragraphs. Example transition words used after SRSD instruction were: to begin with, for example, for instance, although, on the other hand, overall, ultimately, and finally. This study replicates findings from two previous SRSD SCD investigations (Jacobson & Reid, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]) demonstrating SRSD enhances high school students with writing difficulties use of transition words when writing an argument.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-39">Social validity</hd> <p>The second research question asked if students who received SRSD instruction viewed this instruction as valuable. All students responded positively about the strategy and instruction. Students shared that SRSD instruction helped them prepare for the ACT writing exam which was important to them because ACT test scores have implications for college admissions. This study replicates previous social validity findings of SRSD instruction with high school students with writing difficulties, as students in three previous SCD studies found SRSD writing instruction effective and acceptable (Hoover et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref70">20</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref71">24</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref72">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-40">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>There are several limitations that need to be mentioned. First, the study had a small sample size of four students. The generalizability of results was also limited because all students were in 10th grade at a private school. Third, the instruction was provided by the first author in either a one-to-one or one-to-two setting during an end of the day study period. Also, instructional fidelity was measured by number of steps completed which may not capture all of the important aspects of SRSD instruction. Finally, data was not collected on students' scores when taking the official ACT writing examination.</p> <p>The limitations of this study suggest possible areas for future research. First, there are limits to the generalizability of this study's results. The students were all from a college preparatory school which may have impacted the amount they wrote, their persistence when writing, and positive behavior throughout the writing instruction and testing. A randomized control trial with a larger number of students taught in a group and examining the effectiveness of this strategy with additional students with disabilities, students from diverse populations, and students at varying grade levels would provide additional information about the effectiveness of SRSD teaching HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups>. Additionally, having the instruction taught by classroom teachers would determine if this relatively complex strategy can be applied in typical school contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0136539279-41">Implication for practice</hd> <p>In the U.S., 69.2% of high school graduates attend college (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>]). Entrance into college can be influenced by writing skills and performance. The instruction and strategies taught in this study are tools that teachers can use to address this issue for students who find writing challenging, including those with disabilities. The strategy HIT SONGS<sups>3</sups> can successfully be taught one-on-one or in a small group to help students make meaningful gains on the ACT writing exam, but additional research is needed to determine if such instruction is effective when delivered at the whole class level. In addition, this study supports the use of SRSD as a mechanism for teaching writing strategies to students with disabilities and at-risk for writing difficulties at the high school level. When combined with prior research in this area demonstrating its effectiveness with typically developing students and those experiencing writing difficulties from early elementary through secondary school (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>]; Graham & Perin, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]), it is clear that SRSD instruction provides a valuable tool for teaching writing that should be applied in classes where writing is taught.</p> <ref id="AN0136539279-42"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ACT, Inc. (2017a). ACT profile report—National: Graduating class of 2017. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/P%5f99%5f999999%5fN%5fS%5fN00%5fACT-GCPR%5fNational.pdf">http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/P%5f99%5f999999%5fN%5fS%5fN00%5fACT-GCPR%5fNational.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ACT, Inc. (2017b). Exemplar early high school writing test prompt. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.discoveractaspire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6359-Aspire-Exemplar-Writing-EHS%5fFINAL%5fweb%5f01.12.17.pdf">www.discoveractaspire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6359-Aspire-Exemplar-Writing-EHS%5fFINAL%5fweb%5f01.12.17.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> ACT, Inc. (2018a). Writing sample essays. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/writing-sample-essays.html?page=0&chapter=0">www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation/writing-sample-essays.html?page=0&chapter=0</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> ACT, Inc. (2018b). Writing test scores. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/writing-test-scores.html">http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/writing-test-scores.html</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker SK, Chard DJ, Ketterlin-Geller LR, Apichatabutra C, Doabler C. Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children. 2009; 75: 303-318</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barge, M. A. (2018, January 11). Complete list: Which colleges require ACT writing? 100+ schools. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://blog.prepscholar.com/complete-list-which-colleges-require-act-writing-all-schools">http://blog.prepscholar.com/complete-list-which-colleges-require-act-writing-all-schools</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chalk JC, Hagan-Burke S, Burke MD. The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing process for high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2005; 28: 75-87. 10.2307/4126974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018a). English language arts standards introduction key design considerations. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/">http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018b). Key shifts in English language arts. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/">http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Northwest. (2012). What are the traits. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://educationnorthwest.org/traits/trait-definitions">http://educationnorthwest.org/traits/trait-definitions</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flower LS, Hayes J. The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication. 1980; 31; 1: 21-32. 10.2307/356630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gast DL, Ledford JR. Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. 20142: New York, NY; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gewertz, C. (2017, February 8). Feds: States must make case for ACT. Education Week (p. 9).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S Alexander P, Winne P. Writing. Handbook of educational psychology. 2006: Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum: 457-478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, Hebert M. It is more than just the message: Presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2011; 44; 4: 1-12. 10.17161/foec.v44i4.6687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, McKeown D Swanson L, Harris KR, Graham S. The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. Handbook of learning disabilities. 20132: New York, NY; Guilford Press: 405-438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Kiuhara S, McKeown D, Harris KR. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104: 879-896. 10.1037/a0029185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Perin D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99: 445-476. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Retrieved from Carnegie Corporation of New York website: https://<ulink href="http://www.carnegie.org/media/filer%5fpublic/3c/f5/3cf58727-34f4-4140-a014-723a00ac56f7/ccny%5freport%5f2007%5fwriting.pdf">www.carnegie.org/media/filer%5fpublic/3c/f5/3cf58727-34f4-4140-a014-723a00ac56f7/ccny%5freport%5f2007%5fwriting.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover TM, Kubina RM, Mason LH. Effects of self-regulated strategy development for POW +TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal. 2012; 20: 20-38. 10.1080/09362835.2012.640903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobson LT, Reid R. Improving the persuasive essay writing of high school students with ADHD. Exceptional Children. 2010; 76: 157-174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobson LT, Reid R. Improving the writing performance of high school students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and writing difficulties. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal. 2012; 20: 218-234. 10.1080/09362835.2012.724624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellogg RT Levy CM, Ransdell S. A model of working memory in writing. The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. 1996: Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum: 57-71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuhara SA, O'Neile R, Hawken L, Graham S. The effectiveness of teaching 10th grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text. Exceptional Children. 2012; 78: 335-355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane KL, Robertson EJ, Mofield E, Wehby JH, Parks RJ. Preparing students for college entrance exams: Findings of a secondary intervention conducted within a three-tiered model of support. Remedial and Special Education. 2009; 30: 3-18. 10.1177/0741932507314022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis WE, Ferretti RP. Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students' analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2011; 36: 334-354. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason LH, Kubina R, Hoover T. Effects of quick writing instruction for high school students with emotional disturbances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2013; 21: 163-175. 10.1177/1063426611410429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2015). Academic intervention. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools">http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> . WIAT III: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. 2009: San Antonio, TX; Psychological Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers LA, Graham S. A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100: 879-906. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scardamalia M, Bereiter C Rosenberg S. Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In advances in applied psycholinguistics. 1987: New York, NY; Cambridge University Press: 142-175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). College enrollment and work activity of 2015 high school graduates. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm">www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers (NCEE 2012-4058). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides/writing%5fpg%5f062612.pdf">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides/writing%5fpg%5f062612.pdf</ulink>. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016-014), Chapter 2. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171. Accessed 19 Aug 2018.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Amber B. Ray; Steve Graham and Xinghua Liu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1216230
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of SRSD College Entrance Essay Exam Instruction for High School Students with Disabilities or At-Risk for Writing Difficulties
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ray%2C+Amber+B%2E%22">Ray, Amber B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graham%2C+Steve%22">Graham, Steve</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liu%2C+Xinghua%22">Liu, Xinghua</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. Jun 2019 32(6):1507-1529.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+10%22">Grade 10</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Strategies%22">Writing Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Improvement%22">Writing Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Difficulties%22">Writing Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+10%22">Grade 10</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cues%22">Cues</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Essays%22">Essays</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Entrance+Examinations%22">College Entrance Examinations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Tests%22">Writing Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Preparation%22">Test Preparation</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22ACT+Assessment%22">ACT Assessment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Strategies instruction has improved the writing of high school struggling writers in previous studies, including students with disabilities. This study examined the effectiveness of argumentative writing instruction for the ACT writing exam using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model with high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Using a multiple baseline across participants design, four 10th grade students (three males, one female) were taught to analyze ACT prompts, plan, and write an argumentative essay using the SRSD model. Following instruction, students increased quality of their plans, number of argumentative elements, overall ACT essay score, number of words, and number of transition words in their ACT essays. Students were positive about the strategy, learning process, and its effects.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1216230
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1216230
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 1507
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Writing Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 10
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cues
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Essays
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Entrance Examinations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Preparation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: ACT Assessment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of SRSD College Entrance Essay Exam Instruction for High School Students with Disabilities or At-Risk for Writing Difficulties
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ray, Amber B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Graham, Steve
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liu, Xinghua
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1