AbstractThis paper presents the findings from two years of research conducted in a public day school for students with serious emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD). All students were eighth graders who participated in extensive instruction designed using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model to teach persuasive essay writing. Throughout the research, university project staff worked closely with students and school personnel, including teachers, administrators, and support staff. Lessons learned by all are presented to show not only student learning gains, but also what supports were required to make the learning successful for these students with EBD.

Background LiteratureSelf-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) for writing is an empirically validated model for teaching students to write (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008). During six stages of instruction, students develop relevant cognitive and self-regulation skills, including goal setting, self-instruction, and self-monitoring. Students are taught self-regulation, planning, organizing, and writing strategies. For example, to teach students to write persuasive essays, the acronym POW + TREE is used. POW represents the general planning and organizing component, such that P = Plan, O = Organize, and W = Write and say more. TREE represents the genre-specific strategy for persuasive essays: T = Topic sentence, R = Reasons, three or more, E = Explanations, and E = Ending.

Although extensive research exists using SRSD to teach writing across a variety of genres and age level students, especially students with learning disabilities (see, for example, Graham & Perin, 2007), very little research exists documenting the efficacy of the approach with students with EBD. Four applications were identified that applied the SRSD model with 16 students who were at risk for EBD or identified as having EBD. Mason, Harris, and Graham (2002) described one successful application of the SRSD model with one elementary-aged student with learning, attention, and behavioral disabilities. Adkins (2005) successfully taught three 2nd and 3rd graders POW-WWW to write stories. Lane et al. (2008) replicated the Adkins work with six elementary-aged students at risk for EBD. More recently, Mason and Shriner (2008) successfully taught six, 2nd through 5th graders with EBD and at risk for EBD, to use the POW + TREE strategy to write persuasive essays. This project extended that work by working with middle school students who were not only all identified as having EBD, but also were served in a public day school for middle school students with EBD.

Year 1: Study 1: Design Experiment

Sample and DesignTen 8th graders with EBD, of whom 9 were male, participated. The sample was ethnically diverse. One student was expelled and dropped from the study. Another student participated in some post testing but was transferred back to his home school before study completion. All students exhibited serious challenges with behavior and emotional issues and were performing academically from a 2nd to 11th grade level on writing pretests. A design experiment was implemented to determine the supports and modifications required to successfully teach students attending a public day school for middle school students with EBD to write.

Materials and ProceduresAll materials were developed based on Mason and Shriner’s (2008) study. The SRSD model was used to teach students to use POW + TREE embedded within materials. The strategy was implemented by the classroom teachers and a team of three from the university. Group instructional sessions were held approximately four days a week for 30 minutes from October through February.

Results Year 1 Persuasive Essay Results & Effect Sizes (pooled SD)

Year 2: Study 2: Multiple Baseline DesignSample and DesignFifteen 8th graders with EBD, 14 of whom were male were participants. Two students were expelled and another student was dropped from the study due to excessive in-school suspensions which resulted in a total sample of 12. All students exhibited serious challenges with behavior and emotional issues, were racially and ethnically diverse, and performed well below grade level academically and on writing tasks. Students ranged from a beginning 2nd to 6th grade level on writing pretests.

Materials and ProceduresAll materials and procedures paralleled those developed during Year 1, with several notable exceptions. First, teachers and administrators identified the lowest performing writers in the 8th grade. Those students were then placed into 4 instructional groups based on writing ability level. Groups (group size N = 3-4) were then randomly assigned to intervention starting dates to conform with randomization tests procedures. This resulted in 4 legs of replication of the study by each of the four groups. During baseline each student received a minimum of 5 essay prompts. Interspersed throughout the intervention phase, each student received 5 essay parts prompts. Following the intervention phase students were administered 5 essay prompts. Next, the fluency phase was implemented. Students were taught to use all skills previously learned to complete essay planning, organizing and writing within 10 minutes. Following the fluency phase students were again administered 5 essay prompts and provided only 10 minutes to complete the task.

ResultsYear 2 Persuasive Essay Results & Effect Sizes (pooled SD)

Year 2 Persuasive Essay Results & Effect Sizes (p

DiscussionBoth studies yielded positive gains for student performance. In Study 2, PNDs were 100% and all randomization tests were significant. All students improved on writing persuasive essays, as measured by length, quality and number of essay parts and transition words. Obtained effect sizes were large in all cases. Significant gains were also observed on the fluency phases implemented during Year 2. Taken together these findings offer some preliminary positive findings for teaching students with EBD how to write persuasive essays. Specific instructional procedures were required for this student success. This instruction was INTENSIVE, RECURSIVE, and RELENTLESS. The amount of time required to teach these students at a public day school was significantly longer than other times reported in the research literature. Instruction was provided over 50 days from October through February during Year 1, and 58 days from September through January during Year 2. Such intensity of instruction was accompanied with the following instructional and behavioral adaptations.

Instructional Adaptations and Social Emotional SupportsPositive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)PBIS system included 3 school-wide rules: Safety, Respect, and Learn. Students earned points on how well they followed the rules .“Wow” tickets for going above and beyond expectations. Tickets were entered in a weekly drawing for prizes and students were recognized at the end of the quarter. Consequences outlined for infractions.

Administrative and Team SupportsAdministrators consciously strove to develop and maintain a nurturing and secure school environment. 30-minute remediation class period 4 days a week for basic skills. Each grade level team included a social worker and psychologist. Counselors, a mediation specialist, and three crisis resource professionals were part of the school staff.Crisis Response Center (CRC) .

Building Positive, Trusting Relationships with Students Establishing rapport with students. For example:

Tom closed his laptop pc every time teachers wanted to examine his writing. After a month of positive relationship building, he shared his work.

Flexibility with Instructional and Behavioral Needs Modifications to increase time on task. Excessive absences required instructional adaptations. For example:

Osman struggled with severe depression and challenges with attention. Teacher statements like: “There are 12 minutes left of class. Give me 12 good minutes of writing time. I bet you can finish your essay.” helped refocus his attention to task.

Students used 5-minute self-time outs to regain composure.

Positive Reinforcement for Academic and Social Behaviors Positive verbal praise for behaviors and academic performance.

• “I like the way you came in, got your writing folder out right away, and got started on your work,”

• “Way to go! You remembered to put your topic sentence and listed your reasons in your first paragraph.” Tangible rewards were provided on some occasions to students .Daily vouchers and on occasion awarding “WOW” tickets.

Teacher Behaviors Enthusiastic about writing tasks and students’ writing abilities. Perseverance in redirecting students to writing tasks after outbursts. Learning to provide students with personal space and “back off time” to minimize potentially volatile situations. Acknowledging student misbehavior was not personal; Starting positive every day. Reflecting daily on instruction; Monitoring student progress continuously; Making instructional decisions based on performance monitoring data.

Summary SRSD using POW+TREE is an effective strategy for improving writing of students with EBD who attend a public day school.Students increased in number of words written, overall essay quality, and types of essay elements.Instruction required significantly more time than previously reported research.Instruction was intensive, recursive, and relentless.Significant instructional and behavioral adaptations and supports were required.

ReferencesAdkins, M. (2005). Self-regulated strategy development and generalization instruction: Effects on story writing among second and third grade students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476.Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L.H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Wisenbach, J.L. Brindel, M., Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 234-252.Mason, L., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-regulated strategy development for story writing. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 496-506.Mason, L.H. & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for writing an opinion essay: Effects for six students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 71-93.Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Irby, N., Mills, S., Mason, L., & Kubina, R. (2008). Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write: Findings from a design experiment. Unpublished manuscript.*This project was supported in part from grants: Grant No. R324!070199-07 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, and Grant NO. H325D070008 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Program.

Contact Margo A. Mastropieri mmastrop@gmu.edu for additional information on this paper presentation.

Lessons Learned from Conducting Intervention Research In a Public Day School*Margo A. Mastropieri, Yojanna Cuenca-Sanchez, Nancy Irby, Sara Mills, Dannette Allen Bronaugh, Catherine Creighton,

Mary Guckert, Kelley Regan, and Thomas E. Scruggs, George Mason UniversityJill Jakulski and Latif Abdulalim, Fairfax County Public Schools

Linda Mason and Rick Kubina, Pennsylvania State University

82.8

, 230.8

174.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

Test

PretestPost testMaintenance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

# of Parts # Paragraphs # Transition words Holistic

PretestPost testMaintenance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

# of Parts # Paragraphs # Transition words Quality

Baseline Post test Fluency

Pretest Mean (SD) (N=10)

Post test Mean (SD) (N=9)

Maintenance Mean (SD) (N=6)

Number of Words 82.80 (67.75) 230.78 (115.78)ES = 1.61

174.17 (83.25)ES = 1.21

Number of Parts 3.90 (1.52) 7.61 (2.52)ES = 1.84

6.50 (1.23)ES = 1.89

Number of Paragraphs

1.160 (.95) 4.78 (1.47)ES = 2.99

3.42 (1.39)ES = 1.93

Number of Transition Words

1.50 (1.51) 10.33 (5.00)ES = 2.71

3.50 (3.02)ES = .88

Quality Scoring 3.2 (1.40) 5.44 (1.67)ES = 1.46

4.67 (1.86)ES = .90

Baseline Mean (SD) (N=12)

Post test Mean (SD) (N=12)

Fluency Mean (SD) (N=12)

Number of Words 21.92 (10.78) 108.37 (50.39)ES = 2.83

93.47 (32.28)ES = 3.32

Number of Parts 1.87 (.66) 5.57(2.13)ES = 2.65

5.77 (1.58)ES = 3.48

Number of Paragraphs

.17 (.28) 1.43 (1.45)ES = 1.46

.95 (.51)ES = 1.97

Number of Transition Words

.73 (.36) 4.2 (2.17)ES = 2.74

4.55 (1.55)ES = 4.00

Quality Scoring 1.71 (.59) 4.33 (1.76)ES = 2.23

4.48 (1.25)ES = 3.01