Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Writing Persuasively From Text at Fifth and Sixth Grade: A Randomized Controlled Trial

• In Event: Moscone Center North Roundtable Session 7
  In Roundtable Session: Reading-Writing Relations: Theory, Evidence, Identification, and Intervention

Abstract

Objectives and Perspective:
Incorporating facts and ideas from informational text while writing persuasive essays is particularly difficult for struggling writers. According to CCSS (Common Core State Standards), fifth and sixth grade students are to support persuasive claims with pertinent facts from credible, informational source texts (NGAC & CCSSO, 2010). Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is an instructional model based on theoretical integration: powerful aspects of instruction across and within multiple theoretical perceptions on learning and instruction are integrated into a cohesive approach. Although persuasive writing studies have shown the effectiveness of SRSD, no published studies address the new mandates of the CCSS for opinion writing after reading informational source text in the elementary grades.

Methods and Data Sources:
This RCT included 30 randomly assigned fifth and sixth-grade students in five Title I elementary schools. These students scored in the bottom 25th percentile on the Test of Written Language; produced a low number of persuasive elements on an opinion essay prompt after reading source text, and were identified by their teachers as struggling writers.

In this study, SRSD was used to teach students a new set of strategies for close reading and writing to persuade. Instruction included text structure knowledge in reading, genre knowledge for writing, and self-regulation strategies for managing the writing process. Self-efficacy for writing, motivation, and adaptive attributions were supported throughout instruction. SRSD is a recursive, interactive approach that scaffolds students' learning through ongoing discourse, teacher modeling, collaboration, and differentiation until students work independently after gradual release of control.

Fourteen treatment participants received Tier 2 instruction consisting of 27 to 39 sessions
ranging in length from 30-50 minutes over the course of approximately 13 weeks. Four different instructors, research assistants trained to criterion, at five different elementary schools provided SRSD instruction. Sixteen control participants received regular resource room writing instruction. Pre, mid, and post-instruction measures of writing quality, number of persuasive elements, and planning were collected. Pre and post-instruction measures were administered for genre knowledge (an open-ended question), attitude and self-efficacy toward writing (five question and ten question surveys, respectively), and reading comprehension (a Cloze test). We analyzed data using analysis of covariance with pretest as the covariate. In addition to the quantitative measures and results, teacher and student interview responses were examined.

Results:
Review of the data indicates students receiving SRSD instruction showed meaningful
improvements as compared to control students across measures. Four outcomes were
statistically significant and meaningful: writing quality (η2=1.71), planning (η2=1.84), genre knowledge (η2=0.76), and reading comprehension (η2=0.67). Additionally, student and teacher interviews indicated high social validity for SRSD instruction and outcomes.

Conclusions and Significance:
In approximately 20 hours of instructional time, these diverse 10-12 year old struggling writers made remarkable growth on writing persuasively after reading informational text. These students have a strong foundation upon which they and their teachers can build as they learn to revise, set new writing goals. Suggestions for future research will be noted.

Authors

• Karen R. Harris, Arizona State University

• Amber Chambers, Arizona State University

• Ashley Barkel, Arizona State University

• Angelique Aitken, University of Nebraska - Lincoln

• Julia Houston, Arizona State University

• Steve Graham, Arizona State University, Editor Journal of Educational Psychology