Literature Review
|
To be a successful writer, one must understand the structure of writing and the key components of a quality writing piece. No good writer would exclude actions or locations from their story, just as no student would enjoy or find meaning in pure structure instruction and analysis. My goal of using Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) in teaching writing strategies is to unlock a fundamental grasp of writing structure for students in a way that is meaningful and easily translated across situations and contexts.
To fully understand why SRSD is so effective, one must first understand the underlying structure that facilitates thorough, comprehensible teaching and student autonomy (Santangelo et. al. 2008). SRSD outlines 6 stages, which are intended for teachers to use as framework for instruction, reordering, modifying, combining, and repeating based on students’ needs (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Some of these steps may strike educators as incredibly obvious, while other steps reflect practices that are not often commonplace in writing instruction today.
To fully understand why SRSD is so effective, one must first understand the underlying structure that facilitates thorough, comprehensible teaching and student autonomy (Santangelo et. al. 2008). SRSD outlines 6 stages, which are intended for teachers to use as framework for instruction, reordering, modifying, combining, and repeating based on students’ needs (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Some of these steps may strike educators as incredibly obvious, while other steps reflect practices that are not often commonplace in writing instruction today.
Stage 1: Develop Background Knowledge
This stage begins exactly as the name would suggest, including an aspect of assessment in which the teacher must ensure that students have, understand, and can apply the background knowledge necessary to fulfill the prerequisite skills necessary to learn the new strategy (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Reteaching, modification, and accommodation can be used to remedy deficit skills while still allowing students to learn the new strategy with their peers (Santangelo et. al. 2008). This can be commonly seen in classrooms through the “Know” section of “KWL: Know, Want to Know, Learned” charts, though SRSD emphasizes teachers identifying prerequisite skills, assessing each student in relation to these skills, and accommodating and reteaching appropriately, while KWL can be a more general whole class conversation (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Stage 2: Discuss It
This stage focuses on inspiring drive and motivation in students (Santangelo et. al. 2008). They explain that examining current writing pieces, discussing perceptions of writing, and having students set individual goals is a common approach to cultivating student drive and motivation (Santangelo et. al. 2008). This is the time in which baseline data is collected for measuring progress throughout (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Stage 3: Model It
Teachers begin by modeling the strategy to students, placing particular emphasis on thinking aloud, highlighting how and why each strategy step should be used, and saying positive self-statements like “This is tough, but I can do it if I try” (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Their attention to student attitude and self efficacy is evident and provides window into how student-centered this approach is (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Modeling, it is noted, often needs to be repeated, and should be assessed based on student needs (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Stage 4: Memorize It
This stage aims for students to achieve automaticity when it comes to the strategy taught (Santangelo et. al. 2008). This stage takes time, patience, and innovative approaches to memorization (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Prompts, pictures, and other guides can assist students in this process (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Stage 5: Support It
Students gradually become more independent and responsible for the strategy. Scaffolded instruction, using peer groups, constructive feedback, and positive reinforcement all aid in this process (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Student attainment of independence varies, but peer experiences increase the rate of achievement rapidly (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Stage 6: Independent Performance
The ultimate goal of SRSD is that students can use a strategy over time, in multiple settings, and with a variety of tasks (Santangelo et. al. 2008). By generalizing and maintaining the skill, students can achieve success across subjects (Santangelo et. al. 2008). Independent performance and skill transfer is improved when students recognize the improvements in their writing (Santangelo et. al. 2008).
Following these comprehensive, yet free-flowing and easily altered steps, provides teachers with a thorough outline of how to effectively introduce writing strategies to students (Santangelo et. al. 2008). I will be using these six steps and adapting them as I assess to be appropriate for my student population when learning the 5 W’s, which can be seen in my Action Plan. Several studies, detailed below, further document SRSD’s efficacy and transfer mentioned above.
Linda Mason (2013), an educational researcher, has found striking results with SRSD, initially using the direct approach to useful educational practices to improve reading comprehension. Her findings indicated that SRSD was a highly effective model for increasing reading comprehension, but they also indicated something much more significant - with this explicit, clear model of instruction, students were able to generalize their new knowledge and improve in many other areas, including language, oral and written summarization, oral and written retelling, and informative essay writing. This finding shows great promise for the generalization that is possible once key information is internalized with purpose.
SRSD began as a strategy for students with special needs, and was soon seen by teachers employing backwards design into their methodology to be a method of curriculum delivery in a highly accessible format. Graham and Harris‘ 1993 study proved the efficacy of SRSD for students with special needs, which has been further studied within specific need categories, as in a 2010 study of students with Autisim and their gains with SRSD writing interventions (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010). The later study by Mason, Harris, and Graham (2011) evidences both SRSD’s ability to dramatically improve student performance across writing genres as well as it’s powerful effects for students with special needs.
Of the studies centering around SRSD, the strongest case for its efficacy was presented in Tracy, Reid, and Graham’s (2009) study of a control group receiving traditional-skills writing instruction (spelling, grammar, etc.) and a SRSD group, studying a general and genre-specific strategy for planning and writing stories. The vast improvement showed SRSD to be the more effective strategy in short term and long term gains, and further evidenced Mason’s findings of improvement of transfer.
This study was also one of the more clinically conducted, adding to its’ weight and defacing arguments that could be made through more singular studies, like Harris’ 2012 tier 1 study, where it could be argued that the teacher or the strategy taught was more valuable than SRSD in the effect values. SRSD can be difficult to teach, as evidenced by Santangelo, Harris, and Graham’s finding in 2007, but with knowledge and training to navigate these pitfalls, teachers can access this evidence-based teaching method.
Linda Mason (2013), an educational researcher, has found striking results with SRSD, initially using the direct approach to useful educational practices to improve reading comprehension. Her findings indicated that SRSD was a highly effective model for increasing reading comprehension, but they also indicated something much more significant - with this explicit, clear model of instruction, students were able to generalize their new knowledge and improve in many other areas, including language, oral and written summarization, oral and written retelling, and informative essay writing. This finding shows great promise for the generalization that is possible once key information is internalized with purpose.
SRSD began as a strategy for students with special needs, and was soon seen by teachers employing backwards design into their methodology to be a method of curriculum delivery in a highly accessible format. Graham and Harris‘ 1993 study proved the efficacy of SRSD for students with special needs, which has been further studied within specific need categories, as in a 2010 study of students with Autisim and their gains with SRSD writing interventions (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010). The later study by Mason, Harris, and Graham (2011) evidences both SRSD’s ability to dramatically improve student performance across writing genres as well as it’s powerful effects for students with special needs.
Of the studies centering around SRSD, the strongest case for its efficacy was presented in Tracy, Reid, and Graham’s (2009) study of a control group receiving traditional-skills writing instruction (spelling, grammar, etc.) and a SRSD group, studying a general and genre-specific strategy for planning and writing stories. The vast improvement showed SRSD to be the more effective strategy in short term and long term gains, and further evidenced Mason’s findings of improvement of transfer.
This study was also one of the more clinically conducted, adding to its’ weight and defacing arguments that could be made through more singular studies, like Harris’ 2012 tier 1 study, where it could be argued that the teacher or the strategy taught was more valuable than SRSD in the effect values. SRSD can be difficult to teach, as evidenced by Santangelo, Harris, and Graham’s finding in 2007, but with knowledge and training to navigate these pitfalls, teachers can access this evidence-based teaching method.
Possibly the most convincing study, as a classroom teacher contemplating implementing this method, is Harris, Graham, Friendlander, and Laud’s (2013) research on the long term effects of poor writing performance, reaching far beyond elementary years to present the long term effects in secondary education, collegiate education, and in their performance in the career world. To be able to see the direct effects of a writing intervention and it’s documented, critical effects in students’ lives is an incredibly powerful motivator for teachers at all levels to at least consider or try out SRSD in their classroom writing education.
The many studies of SRSD, in a myriad of different context and student body compositions, lends great weight to its method. After reading about the concrete, life-altering effects of writing performance, as well as the positive long term effects of SRSD, educators everywhere should at least look with an open mind to this strategy, and see how it can impact students in their classroom.
The many studies of SRSD, in a myriad of different context and student body compositions, lends great weight to its method. After reading about the concrete, life-altering effects of writing performance, as well as the positive long term effects of SRSD, educators everywhere should at least look with an open mind to this strategy, and see how it can impact students in their classroom.
Resources
Asaro-Saddler, Kristie; Saddler, Bruce. (2010). Planning Instruction and Self-Regualtion Training. Effects on Writers with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Exceptional Children. Fall 2010, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p107-124. 18p.
Graham, Steve; Harris, Karen R. (2013). Improving the Writing of Students with Learning Problems: Self-Regulated Strategy Development. School Psychology Review. 1993, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p656
Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve; Friedlander, Barbara; Laud, Leslie; Dougherty, Katherine A. (2013). Bring Powerful Writing Strategies Into Your Classroom! Why and How. Reading Teacher. Apr 2013, Vol. 66, Issue 7, p 538-542.
Harris, Karen; Lane, Kathleen; Driscoll, Steven; Graham, Steve; Wilson, Kristen; Sandmel, Karin; Brindle, Mary; Schatschneider, Chris. (2012). Tier 1, Teacher Implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students with and without Behavioral Challenges. Elementary School Journal. Dec 2012. Vol 113, Issue 2, p 160-191.
Mason, Linda H; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2011). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students with Writing Difficulties. Theory into Practice. Vol. 50, Issue 1, p 20-27.
Mason, Linda H. (2013). Teaching Students Who Struggle With Learning to Think Before, While, and After Reading: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly. Apr-Jun 2013, Vol. 29, Issue 2, p124-144.
Tracy, Brenda; Reid, Robert; Graham, Steve. (2009). Teaching Young Students Strategies for Planning and Drafting Stories: The Impact of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Journal of Educational Research. May-June 2009, Vol. 102, Issue 5, p 323-332.
Santangelo, Tanya; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2007). Learning Disabilities - A Contemporary Journal. Mar 2007, Vol. 5, Issue 1, p 1-20.
Santangelo, Tanya; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2008). Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to Support Students Who Have “Trubol Giting Thangs Into Werds”. Mar 2008, Vol. 29, Number 2.
Asaro-Saddler, Kristie; Saddler, Bruce. (2010). Planning Instruction and Self-Regualtion Training. Effects on Writers with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Exceptional Children. Fall 2010, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p107-124. 18p.
Graham, Steve; Harris, Karen R. (2013). Improving the Writing of Students with Learning Problems: Self-Regulated Strategy Development. School Psychology Review. 1993, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p656
Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve; Friedlander, Barbara; Laud, Leslie; Dougherty, Katherine A. (2013). Bring Powerful Writing Strategies Into Your Classroom! Why and How. Reading Teacher. Apr 2013, Vol. 66, Issue 7, p 538-542.
Harris, Karen; Lane, Kathleen; Driscoll, Steven; Graham, Steve; Wilson, Kristen; Sandmel, Karin; Brindle, Mary; Schatschneider, Chris. (2012). Tier 1, Teacher Implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students with and without Behavioral Challenges. Elementary School Journal. Dec 2012. Vol 113, Issue 2, p 160-191.
Mason, Linda H; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2011). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students with Writing Difficulties. Theory into Practice. Vol. 50, Issue 1, p 20-27.
Mason, Linda H. (2013). Teaching Students Who Struggle With Learning to Think Before, While, and After Reading: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly. Apr-Jun 2013, Vol. 29, Issue 2, p124-144.
Tracy, Brenda; Reid, Robert; Graham, Steve. (2009). Teaching Young Students Strategies for Planning and Drafting Stories: The Impact of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Journal of Educational Research. May-June 2009, Vol. 102, Issue 5, p 323-332.
Santangelo, Tanya; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2007). Learning Disabilities - A Contemporary Journal. Mar 2007, Vol. 5, Issue 1, p 1-20.
Santangelo, Tanya; Harris, Karen R; Graham, Steve. (2008). Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to Support Students Who Have “Trubol Giting Thangs Into Werds”. Mar 2008, Vol. 29, Number 2.