The Self-Regulated Strategy Development POW+TREE and PLAN WRITE to Teach the Writing Process

Terri Buchanan

Wichita State University, CI 837

May , 2013

Abstract

Students need to learn sufficient writing skills so that they may share and express their ideas in a meaningful manner

not only in middle and high school, but so that in the future they are able to competently write well enough for their

employer. It is a skill that will be highly valued by potential employers. Writing has not been a primary focus in many

classrooms due to the high stakes mandated state testing of math and reading. The goal of this study was to find out

if the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) POW TREE and PLAN WRITE method integrated with the

regular classroom writing strategy would improve the overall quality of writing in a sixth grade classroom. Students

took a pre and two posttest persuasive writing assessments and a rubric was applied to all three writing

assessments. Between pre and posttest 1 the students were given instruction on SRSD POW TREE. Next, students

were instructed on the SRSD PLAN WRITE strategy followed by posttest 2. Findings from this study indicate that the

practice of SRSD using the combination of strategies, POW TREE and PLAN WRITE, improved the writing skills as

determined by an analysis of before and after writing for these sixth grade students. Scores improved by 74 %

pretest to posttest 1 and 76% pretest to posttest 2.

Keywords: writing process, SRSD, self-regulated strategy development

The Self-Regulated Strategy Development POW+TREE and PLAN WRITE to Teach the Writing Process

Having the capability to write well gives one the ability to share and influence their ideas, opinions, and

thoughts with others, but many middle and high school students are not yet competent enough to do so. It is a skill

that will be highly valued by potential employers in the students’ future. Writing has not been a focus in many

classrooms due to the state testing of math and reading and time became a factor in the classroom. Often students

have been taking two math and reading classes so that the school will meet Quality Performance Accreditation

(QPA) set by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The neglect of writing in the classroom can leave students with

undeveloped writing abilities.

Most students are not prepared well enough for the workforce or college once they graduate high school.

Employers emphasize that individuals are not ready or have the skills now or in the coming years for the

challenging workforce needed in the global economy (Jones, n.d.). Once entering college, immediately 28% take

remedial English or math classes and during their tenure transcripts show 53% take a remedial English or math

class, costing them time and money. (The American Diploma Project, 2004, p. 3).Too many high school students are

not taking college preparatory courses and nearly a third does not graduate from high school on time (Hunt, Tierney,

& Carruthers, 2006, p. 9). “We are, in effect, creating the opportunity for our economic competitors to catch up with

us and surpass us educationally (p. 10). The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) may

change the tide, and teachers will once again restore writing back into their curriculum. Employers express concern

that employees straight from high school lack basic skills to complete necessary tasks and remedial training is

required at an estimated cost to one state’s employers at nearly $40 million a year (Hunt, Tierney, & Carruthers,

2006, p. 3)

The writing process and teaching it is also moving into the digital age. For the first time, students engaged in

the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) computer-based writing assessment. The results show a

gender gap at both the eighth and twelfth grade level; the female students outscored the male students by 19 and 14

points respectively. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, p. 12). Both female and male students must be

able to communicate effectively for our future global economy to be successful. “The ability to use written language

and communicate with others and the need for effective writing instruction and assessment is more relevant than

ever before” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, infographic).

In numerous classrooms, students are missing the basic grade-level writing skills that are essential for

quality writing needed for academic success and future workplaces. It is imperative that teachers teach writing to all

students in all subject areas so that students learn to write for various purposes and audiences with many

experiences. The following literature review seeks to find strategies effective to use in the language arts classroom or

content curriculum area classroom in the new digital age.

Literature Review

Writing Proficiency

Proficient writing skills are a necessity for students to be successful in the classroom and later in the global

workforce. Embarking on and producing meaningful writing is often extremely difficult and an overwhelming

assignment for many students to accomplish in school. This task becomes even more of a hardship if the student has

any learning disabilities. Students with learning disabilities may need additional support and guidance from their

teachers and peers to learn to produce quality compositions and stories (Marchison & Alber, p. 154). It is essential

that writing is taught and not simply assigned to the students. It is a step-by-step process that students must learn

and be modeled to them. They must approach writing as a process to meet their writing challenges to be successful.

Our changing world is dictating the importance of writing for all students and its necessity is more relevant than ever.

The results from the 2011 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) writing assessment show

54% of eighth graders and 52% of twelfth-graders performed at the Basic level in writing. Twenty-four percent of the

students in both eighth and twelfth grade performed at the Proficient level, only 3 % scored above in the Advance

level, which is a superior level, all other students performed Below Basic level. The assessment tasks reflected

writing situations common to both academic and workplace settings and asked students to write for several purposes

and communicate to different audiences. The results of the 2011 writing assessment offer a new opportunity to

understand the ability of eighth- and twelfth-grade students to make effective choices in their writing (National Center

for Education Statistics, 2012). Literacy is a part of our youth’s everyday world; they pass notes, read a driver’s

manual and video reviews, post blogs, and discuss movies (Irvin, & Dukes, (2007). Educators need to find a way to

transfer that motivation to the classroom so that learning is relevant to the students.

The Inclusive Classroom

Students with special needs are mainstreamed into the regular classroom and expected to accomplish the

same assignments as the regular education students with some modifications or accommodations. These students

can often fall behind their peers academically and writing can be especially difficult for them. It is feasible that regular

education teachers will soon be the only instructors for students with learning disabilities due to budget cuts. The

26th Annual Report to Congress on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reported that approximately

96% of general education teachers have students that have been identified special needs and are currently labeled

inclusion students in their classrooms (Scarborough, 2011). Teachers must develop writing strategies that ensure all

students are successful and productive in the classroom. Students with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional

behavior disorders (EBD) often benefit from prewriting accommodations that organize writing in a systematic fashion

such as graphic organizers. Prewriting is essential to produce quality writing pieces. Self-Regulated Strategy

Development (SRSD) instruction is designed to promote writing independence by teaching students cognitive and

self-regulation strategies for regulating the writing process (Mason, Kubina & Valasa 2010). Students go through the

following stages: background knowledge development, discussion, modeled, memorized, supported, and performed

individually. SRSD is designed to help master independent and higher level thinking skills while being guided during

instruction.

Mastropieri et al. (2009) findings indicated that the SRSD strategies for writing, with appropriate

instructional support, can be extremely effective for improving writing performance of students with EBD (p. 39). In

the same study, not only did students respond positively academically, but they were also more emotionally and

socially stable. “Several students appeared to feel more confident and attentive during the sessions” (p. 37). One of

the benefits of the SRSD model is it provides students, especially struggling writers, with specific concrete strategies.

It can be highly stressful for a student with learning disabilities to respond to abstract terms that are often referred to

during writing assignments such as brainstorm, plan, and draft. Explicit and strategy are two more methods of

teaching writing in the classroom; both instructional strategies assist students with their cognitive process of writing.

Cihak and Castle (2011) found these instructional strategies to improve the expository text writing of middle school

students in an inclusive classroom, with and without learning disabilities

Computers and Writing

Schools are responsible for educating students for the demands of the digital and professional world that

awaits them. Throughout the country more computers are filling the classrooms and pencils and paper are being

replaced for laptops and iPads. For the first time 24,100 eighth graders and 28,100 twelfth graders participated in the

NAEP computer-based assessment for writing in 2011. Although the results were not encouraging, it did show the

trend toward the digital age. Only about one quarter of the students were performing at the Proficient level (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2012). These assessments are noteworthy because previously students had been

instructed to write on computers, but they were being assessed with paper and pencils. Another significant point, this

writing assessment focused on timely and relevant material. Students were asked to reflect on situations that were

common to both academic and workplace settings and to write for several different purposes. If writing becomes

meaningful and purposeful to students they will be engaged and respond in a positive manner. “Creative challenging

and rewarding learning activities at the middle school level means placing computers in a social context, emphasizing

the meaningful integration of text and graphic, and encouraging writing projects aimed at authentic purposes” (Martin,

2008, p. 13).

Computers can be beneficial in the writing process. In a multi-site study Warschauer (2008) found students’

writing became more purposeful, authentic and diverse in genre. Students did the prewriting on the computer and

found this to be preferable and cause less fatigue than handwritten essays. Students with learning disabilities can

benefit using computers during the writing process. They make fewer spelling mistakes, used more organization and

structure, and made fewer reading errors when reading their own written product (Hetzroni & Shrieber, 2004).

Technology can aid in the diverse needs of the students in our classrooms too. MacArthur (1996) found that

computers assisted and enhanced LD students with their writing. They support a reluctant writer, especially in the

area of spelling and grammar so they may publish their writing and share with their peers. All students can benefit

using digital writing devices. After the implementation of one-to-one middle school laptop initiative in the state of

Maine in 2002, students’ scores on state writing test increased significantly. Students that reported not using laptops

scored the lowest. The study indicated that students had become better writers in general (Silvernail & Gritter, n.d.).

Self-Regulated Strategy Development

Writing skills are important for all students and even more so with the implementation of the Common Core

State Standards. Writing has been neglected in many classrooms in my own district since the inception of No Child

Left Behind, in place of classrooms of memorization and drill and practice to raise students’ test scores for math and

reading. Both teachers and students need to learn and practice the steps of the recursive writing process: prewriting,

drafting, revising, proofreading, and publishing. “An important goal in writing instruction is to help students develop

the self-regulation skills needed to successfully manage the intricacies of the writing process” (Saddler & Andrade,

Section 2, para. 1). A writing strategy that has been validated and successful, especially addressing students with

special needs is Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction. Students go through recursive stages:

background knowledge development, discussion, modeled, memorized, supported, and performed. It is designed to

encourage students to write independently by teaching them cognitive and self-regulation strategies for regulating the

writing process (Mason, Kubina, Valasa & Cramer, 2010). In the same study, students using the SRSD POW + TREE

persuasive quick writes improved and quality of response improved. “Students specifically noted that the strategy

helped with organization, thinking things through, writing more, generating better ideas, and writing neatly” (Mason et

al., 2010, p. 153).

Hoover, Kubina, and Mason (2012), found similar results in that high school students with learning

disabilities using SRSD POW + TREE increased number of response parts and number of words written in quick

writes. Participants also exhibited a desire to improve their writing skills. “Participants felt that it help know what to

write and how to write better” (p. 35). In a study by Mastropieri et al. (2009), students with severe emotional behavior

disabilities practiced the SRSD POW + TREE model to write persuasive essays. “Several students appeared to feel

more confident and attentive during the 10-minute sessions.” (Mastropieri, 2009, p. 37). Positive results were also

found when second graders utilized SRSD POW + TREE to write persuasive essays; the length and the quality of

their persuasive essays improved. The participants also employed the SRSD POW+TREE mode out of the

classroom to persuade their teacher for longer recess time and at home to have a later bedtime (Little et al., 2010).

The SRSD model provides students with defined, concrete strategies. The explicit, systematic, instruction can

improve and enhance students’ writing (Harris, Graham & Mason, 2006). Students felt the strategy was extremely

beneficial and helped them plan and organize their thoughts. They also expressed that they were utilizing the

strategy in other curriculum content areas (Mastropieri et al., 2009). In addition, Mason, Kubina & Hoover (2011)

found the SRSD POW + TREE instruction strategy to be effective for persuasive quick writes with Emotional

Disturbed (ED) high school students. The students showed improvement in areas of quality of writing, response

parts, and their word count. “Students reported that they were better organized in their thoughts prior to writing and

described feeling more confident” (p. 11). Harris et al (2006) found similar results with second grade students in a

study using SRSD instruction. They wrote longer, more complete, better quality, and spent more time on the planning

of their persuasive papers than the comparative group.

Planning is a critical part of the writing process. Many skilled and experienced writers spend a vast amount

of time on the planning piece of the writing process. De La Paz and Graham (2002) successfully taught middle school

students using the strategy SRSD with the mnemonic PLAN WRITE. In comparison to their peers, their essays were

longer, had more developed language and vocabulary, and the overall quality was preferred. “A key element of the

writing program was a planning strategy that helped students analyze the demands of the writing assignment and

generate and organize possible writing content” (p. 696).

Writing must be explicitly taught in the systematic step-by-step process. Reynolds & Perin (2009) compared

two techniques for instructing middle schools students create from expository sources writing pieces to a traditional

method control group. One technique used text structure instruction (TSI), focusing on text characteristics using

graphic organizers. The mnemonic for STRUCTURING is Scan the passage; Think of structure and the big main

idea; Read the paragraphs; Underline the important point of each paragraph; Choose one interesting detail; Take

notes using frame; U-Turn (Repeat second passage); Review organization of notes; Introduce with topic sentence;

Next point; and Go back and edit. The other used SRSD PLAN WRITE for Summarization, Pay attention to the

prompt, List main ideas to develop your essay, Add supporting details, Number major points, Work from plan,

Remember your goal, Include transition words, Used different types of sentences, Exciting interesting, sophisticated

vocabulary. Both of the systematic treatments had better performance on all outcomes that were measured at all

testing points compared to the traditional instruction of the control group. The study was not designed to test subject

matter, but subject matter scores in the content area did also increase pretest to posttest. “Gains for the control group

paled in comparison to the gains found for the two treatment groups, suggesting that writing-to-learn activities may

best support subject-matter learning when combined with explicit instruction in writing strategies (p. 293).

The need to teach writing to meet the needs of a diverse range of students in middle school is imperative in

our digital age. In this research project, the regular classroom writing instruction was combined with Self-Regulated

Strategy Development (SRSD) POW TREE and Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) PLAN WRITE to

determine if the writing process would improve with each of these methods therefore the overall quality of writing

would improve.

Methodology

Participants

The population of the suburban middle school in the Midwest where this study took place was 716 with 376

males and 340 female students (see Table 1). The student body was predominantly Caucasian, with approximately

18% Hispanic or Asian. Approximately 25% of the student body participated in the free and reduced lunch program.

Table 1

School Demographics

The participants in the study were 43 sixth graders from this suburban middle school (see Table 2).

Table 2

Demographics of Study Participants

Classes Gender New

Students

Race Test Scores IEP

Male Female New to

District

Caucasian Minority Predominant

Minority

Race

NWEA

Reading

Score

NWEA Math

Score

# on IEPs

Class 1 10 12 3 77% 23% Hispanic 223 227 0

Class 2 9 12 2 88% 14% Hispanic 221 212 2

Included in the study group, were 19 male and 24 female students in two sixth grade English classes. Class

1 included 22 students with 10 male and 12 female; three of those students were new to the school district this year.

Seventy-seven percent of these students were Caucasian and 23% were minority, mostly being Hispanic. The

average Fall 2012 reading NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) score of this class was 223 and math was 227.

Class 2 included nine male and 12 female; two of those students were new to the school district this year, and two of

the students were on an Individual Education Plans (IEP) for Learning Disabilities, one a male and one a female.

Students on IEPs were given verbal cues and organizational support by a paraprofessional. Eighty-six percent of the

students were Caucasian and 14% were minority, all being Hispanic. The average Fall 2012 reading NWEA score of

this class was 221 and math was 212.

Procedures

A persuasive paragraph pretest essay, with the prompt, Should Our School Have School Uniforms, was

administered to the participants on the first day of the writing unit before any of the students had been introduced to

SRSD strategy. The students were not familiar with this form of writing as we had not written persuasive papers in

class previously. A discussion about the goal of a persuasive essay focused on its purpose being to persuade the

reader to agree with them about a specific issue. Although students had not written this type of writing, they had

written a great deal of expository, and compare and contrast, writing previously in this class as well as the social

studies class that all of the students are enrolled in. Also, a class discussion about topics that could be considered

controversial had been done, and the class argued points for each side of these topics. The importance of seeing

both sides of the issue and counter arguing was discussed.

Next, the use of effective transitions in writing was reviewed from a previous writing lesson, and the students

were reminded to use transitions and the use of the transitions list from that lesson (see Appendix A). The following

guidelines were reviewed with the students: a topic or thesis sentence that clearly grabs the reader’s attention, three

topic sentences with supporting details and a concluding sentence that references the topic sentence and brings the

paragraph to a strong close. Students were shown and explained the persuasive writing rubric that would be used to

grade their essay (see Appendix B). Students wrote ideas and a rough draft out on paper, but then proceeded to

type their final draft on the computer.

Next, the students were taught the SRSD instruction for the POW TREE method. The students were

reminded that it is important to persuade the reader of their idea and it is always important to capture and maintain

their reader’s attention as they write their persuasive essay. Students were explained the benefits of using the SRSD

POW TREE strategy and how it will help improve their writing skills. Next, students were introduced the mnemonic

POW TREE chart (see Appendix C) and it was discussed as a whole group what each letter means and why, P-pick

my idea, O-organize my notes, W-write and say more, T-topic sentence, Tell what you believe!, R-reasons, 3 or

more, E-explain reasons, say more about each reason, E-ending, wrap it up right! The importance of planning and

prewriting was emphasized to the students which included a class discussion on the benefits of good prewriting

strategies and practices. During each step the class discussed and elaborated in detail how the mnemonic would

help the students plan while writing an essay. Students were instructed on using the mnemonic tool as a strategy to

help them organize their thoughts and ideas when writing a persuasive essay. After describing, practicing, and

memorizing the mnemonic POW TREE, using the practice prompts, Should Students have to go Outside and Is It

Better to Live in the City or Country, the class reviewed and modeled an example persuasive paragraph essays.

The class began a collaborative paragraph that moved from teacher directed toward student-led and finished with the

students working in pairs; the teacher provided guidance as needed to the students so that they could reach their

goals. In peer groups and whole group the mnemonic POW TREE was reviewed again. Finally, students were

assigned the topic, Should Schools be Allowed to Serve Junk Food to complete individually. Students were

encouraged to their transitions list from an earlier writing assignment. Some students chose to have peers edit their

work; others had the teacher read the rough draft.

Next, students were introduced the SRSD PLAN WRITE chart mnemonic (see Appendices D & E). First the

whole group was introduced the PLAN WRITE graphic mnemonic organizer chart. It was explained that it was a

strategy similar to POW TREE; students were explained that the teacher wanted to find out which strategy the

students liked best and helped them write better. P-Pay attention to the prompt, L-List main ideas to develop your

essay, A-Add supporting ideas, N-Number major points W-Work from a plan, R-Remember your goals, I-Include

transitions words, T-use different Types of sentences, E-Exciting , interesting, sophisticated vocabulary. Once again

the benefits of good prewriting strategies and practices were emphasized to the students. During each step the class

discussed and elaborated in detail how the mnemonic would help the students plan while writing an essay. After

describing the mnemonic PLAN WRITE, using the practice prompt, Should the School Have Locker Searches, the

class began planning an essay together. The teacher modeled the PLAN WRITE method and continually reviewed

what the letter in the mnemonic represented. The students finished working on the practice essay in pairs. Finally,

the students were given the posttest paragraph essay prompt, Should Schools Have Coed Sports Teams, Some

students chose to have peers edit their work, and others had the teacher read the rough draft.

Assessment

An identical persuasive writing rubric was utilized for pretest and posttest essays (see Appendix A). All

students were shown and an explanation from the instructor of a rubric prior to writing their persuasive paragraphs

essays. Students’ levels of performance were assessed from 1-5 in the rubric on the following areas: topic

sentences, supporting sentences, details, transitions, and concluding sentences. The students were awarded a point

if the following elements of the paragraph were correct: title, capitalization, punctuation, formatting, spelling. A total of

thirty points were possible in the rubric. Additionally, students were given a student survey at the conclusion of the

study to assess the students’ reflections and opinion of the strategies. Students were asked to provide feedback on

how they felt about persuasive writing in general, if they felt their writing performance had improved since the leaning

of the strategies POW TREE and PLAN WRITE, and which strategy best help them plan to write a persuasive paper.

The student survey also asked students to specifically state how the strategy helped them plan their writing (see

Appendix F).

Analysis of Data

For this study, the main source of data was collected from the evaluation of the essays using the rubric. Students

were assessed on topic sentences to see if it clearly states the topic and grabs the reader’s attention. Also, they

were evaluated on supporting sentences that supported the topic sentences and the detail sentences that explain,

are specific, and give examples to the supporting sentences. Transitions were expected to be utilized between

sentences. To be proficient the concluding sentence needed to reference the topic sentence and bring the paragraph

to a strong close. The focus of this assignment was not conventions; therefore only a small portion of the rubric was

dedicated to conventions. Spelling, formatting, punctuation, capitalization and the title each received one point if it

was correct and zero if not. The gain scores were kept for each student. Overall gain scores were calculated for each

student on each element of the rubric. Gain scores were compared by gender, race, and students on IEPs pretest to

posttest. In addition, students were given a student feedback qualitative analyses survey. In this study, students

implemented Self Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) POW TREE and PLAN WRITE approach during

prewriting with the regular classroom writing instruction to see if one strategy or the combination of strategies would

improve their overall writing abilities and attitude toward writing.

Results

There was an overall improvement in the persuasive writing of the students following the SRSD instruction.

Results include pretest to posttest 1 and posttest 2, both SRSD strategies. Also presented are comparisons between

gender, race, and special education students.

Figure 1 shows the results of the pretest persuasive writing essay for Class 1 and Class 2 in the English

writing class.

Figure 1. Pretest results

for 43 sixth grade students on a persuasive writing essay.

Pretest scores ranged from a 9 to 28 in both Class 1 and 2. Two students scored a 9, each were males, one in Class

1 and one in Class 2. In both classes, 23 students scored below 20 on the pretest and 20 students scored 20 or

above. Eleven of the students scoring below 20 were male and 12 were female, almost evenly split. The mode

score for the pretest was 16 with the mean of 18.93. The pretest median score was 19.

Posttest 1, applying the strategy POW TREE, scores ranged from 9 to 30 in both Class 1 and 2. Figures 2-

3 show the Posttest scores for Class 1 and Class 2 for the persuasive writing.

Figure 2. Posttest scores for 43 students (Class 1&2) persuasive writing using the POW TREE strategy.

F

Figure 3. Posttest scores for 43

students (Class 1&2) persuasive writing using the PLAN WRITE strategy.

Gain scores improved for both Class 1 and 2 following the application of the writing strategy POW TREE. Figures 4-

5 show gain scores for Class 1 and 2.

Figure 4. Gain scores for 22 students

(Class 1) persuasive writing

using the POW TREE strategy.

Figure 5. Gain scores for 22 students (Class 2) persuasive writing using the POW TREE strategy.

In both classes, 11 students scored below 20 on posttest 1. Thirty-two students scored 20 or above on

posttest 1, 17 male and 15 female. Seventeen students in Class 1 showed gain scores from pretest to posttest 1

compared to 15 students in Class 2. Both classes had students show no gains, a male in class 1 and both a male

and female in class 2. Scores dropped on posttest 1 for 4 students in Class 1 and 4 students in Class 2. Gain

scores were shown by 17 students in Class 1 pretest to posttest 2 and 16 students in Class 2. Both classes had one

student show no gains and four students scores drop pretest to posttest 2.

As shown in Figures 4 and 5, students made significant gains pretest to posttest 1 in both Class 1 and Class

2. Eighteen students made gains in Class 1 and four students dropped pretest to posttest. Although two of the

scores that dropped were just by one point. In Class 2, 15 students made gains pretest to posttest, two students

scored the same, and four students’ scores also dropped. Two of those scores were also by only one point.

Figures 6-7 show the gain scores for Class 1 and Class 2 for the persuasive writing pretest to posttest 2

(PLAN WRITE).

Figure 6 shows gain

scores for 22

students using the

PLAN WRITE

strategy.

Figure 7. Gain scores for 21 students (Class 2) persuasive writing using the PLAN WRITE strategy.

Figure 7. Gain

scores for 21 students (Class 2) persuasive writing using the PLAN WRITE strategy.

Students also made gains pretest to posttest 2 after the writing strategy PLAN WRITE was implemented. Class 1

had 17 students with gain scores compared to four students with posttest scores that were lower. Two of the four

students that scored lower on the posttest 2 were students that also scored lower on posttest 1. Sixteen students

made gains in Class 2 after utilizing the PLAN WRITE strategy. One student’s score remained the same, and four

students’ scores dropped in Class 2.

The SRSD PLAN WRITE strategy was utilized for posttest 2. Thirteen students scored below 20, eight were

female and seven were male. Thirty students scored 20 or above, nearly evenly split gender-wise, but same

numbers, eight females and seven males from both Class 1 and 2. Gain scores were similar pretest to posttest 1

(POW TREE) and posttest 2 (PLAN WRITE) in both Class 1 and Class 2. In Class 1 seventeen students made gains

compared to fifteen in Class 2. Both classes had 4 students with scores that went down pretest to posttest 1(POW

TREE). Class 1 had seventeen students with gains on posttest 2 (PLAN WRITE) compared to sixteen students in

Class 2. Both classes had 4 students that had scores go down pre-posttest 2 (PLAN WRITE).

Figure 8 shows the average scores by gender.

Figure 8. Average

gender scores for pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2.

Results based on gender indicated that female students outscored male students on all tests. The average

score of the female students pretest was 19.66 and the male 18. Posttest 1 and 2 females average score was 23.41

and 23.29 compared to the males’ average scores of 22.31 and 22.

The average writing score for the Caucasian students were higher than minority students on all tests:

pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2. Pretest average scores for Caucasian students were 19.54 and minority students’

average score were 16.25. Posttest 1, Caucasian students scored 23.43 to 20.75 for the minority students. The

Posttest 2 scores were 23.23 for Caucasian and 20.5 for minority students.

Figure 9 shows the average score of Caucasian students compared to minority students.

Figure 9. Average

scores of Caucasian and Minority students on pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2.

Non-special education students averaged higher than special education students on all testing points. Non-

special education students scored an average 19.04 on the pretest compared to the special education students’

score of 16.5. On posttest 1 and 2, non-special education students scored an average of 23.17 and 23 to 18 and 17

for students with IEPs respectively.

Figure 10 shows the average scores of special education students compared to non-special education

students on pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2.

Figure 10. Average scores of special education and non-special education students on pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2.

Students completed a survey in order to find out information regarding their learning experience with the

SRSD strategies. In addition, students expressed their strategy preference. Seventy-four percent preferred the

POW TREE strategy, 14% felt the PLAN WRITE helped them improve their writing, and 12% shared that “on my own

prewrite” suited them best (see Appendix G).

Figure 11 shows the percentage of writing strategy preferences from a student survey.

Figure 11. Percentage of students’ preferences of each writing strategy used during the study.

Students noted in a student survey that was conducted at the end of the study many interesting pieces of

information. First, students preferred utilizing the POW TREE strategy to help them organize and plan to write their

persuasive essays by a strong majority of 74% over PLAN WRITE and On My Own. Also, how students felt about

writing persuasive essays after they completed the study was examined.

Figure 12 shows the percentage of students’ responses about how their abilities improved in writing persuasive

essays. Do You Feel you are Better at Writing a Persuasive Paragraph Essay?

Figure 12. Students’

responses about their ability to write persuasive essays.

Seventy percent of participants felt their ability to write a persuasive essay improved following SRSD

instruction of the POW TREE and PLAN WRITE strategies compared to 21% of participants who felt they could write

an essay the same and 9% of the students that responded after instruction they showed no improvement or quality of

work declined (see Appendix G).

Figure 13 Shows students’ responses about their feelings toward writing persuasive essays.

Figure 13 Student responses to How They Feel about Writing Papers.

Students’ responses to a survey see Table 3, How do you feel about writing papers? Indicate that writing

papers is on the higher end of the likeable scale. Sixteen students denoted that “it is OK” to write a paper, 15

students responded they “like” to write a paper, and five students indicated they “love” to write a paper. Only one

student said they “hate” to write a paper and six “do not like” to write a paper (see Appendix G). This suggests that

most students enjoy writing and given a strategy to improve their writing will only enhance their desire to write.

Table 3

Student Responses to Student Reflection Survey

Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine if the use of SRSD would improve student writing. Not only did the

overall writing improve using the SRSD in this study, but students’ writing may improve in other curricular areas.

Comparable results were found in (Mastropieri et al., 2009). In this study, students found they utilized POW TREE in

other content areas with success. This writing strategy easily fit in the parameters of other curricular areas.

Students felt it helped them organize and plan their writing. These types of attitude toward organization

planning were similar to results found in (Mason et al., 2010). In this study, it was reported that students’

organization improved, thus their ideas and overall writing improved. One student remarked in a student reflection

survey results of the current study, “POW TREE helped me have better paragraphs and knowing what I need to add

to make my story better, both strategies did really.” Another student also stated, “POW TREE is simple to

understand and do. It helps students see what planning and organizing is all about. I like using POW TREE and

PLAN WRITE just the same, other students may have other opinions, but I stand by my thoughts with no doubt.” It

helped students organize and guide their thoughts therefore their writing improved (see Appendix G).

Data taken over a course of three persuasive writing essays indicates that students’ performance improved

after Self-Regulated Strategy Development instruction using the POW TREE and PLAN WRITE methods. The

students responded well to the SRSD methods, especially the POW TREE. Eighty-one percent of students felt they

could write a persuasive essay better after the duration of the research, and 74% of the students felt the POW TREE

method helped organize them and their writing to achieve that better. Some students said it was easier to

understand, and one male student said, “It helped me organize and know what I need to write.”

Overall, the students were engaged during all testing. Prompts were selected so that there would not be a

biased toward male or female. Female students’ average score was higher on all tests, pretest, posttest 1, and

posttest 2, but the male students seemed as engaged as the female students, especially on posttest 2, Should

Schools Have Coed Sports Teams. Although prompts were selected so as not to be gender biased, students may

have preferred one prompt to another and that may have been reflected in their planning and therefore overall

writing.

Another limitation, especially to pretest scores and possibly all testing was the timing of the study. This

study was conducted following an unusually long holiday break. It took students a period of time to get back into the

flow of doing school after the long break in all curricular areas.

Recommendations

This study would benefit from only using one SRSD strategy. Although some students did prefer one

strategy over the other, and it was good for them to learn both, the POW TREE and the PLAN WRITE, most students

preferred the POW TREE. The learning of both may not have improved their writing. The success of the PLAN

WRITE strategy may have been affected by learning POW TREE first since most commonly students improve with

practice.

This study was done just over a three week period of time, but could possibly benefit from a longer time

spent teaching the PLAN WRITE portion of the research. The students seemed to grasp and comprehend the PLAN

WRITE quickly because of the previous POW TREE lesson, but the instruction may have not been as thorough as

required for a complete understanding. The implications of students’ writing skills so one can excel throughout high

school, college, and career are vital for students in our competitive global economy.

References

Cihak, D. F., & Castle, K. (2011). Improving expository writing skills with explicit and strategy

instructional methods in inclusive middle school classrooms. International Journal of Special

Education, 26(3), 106-113.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle

school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006, Summer). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of

struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without your peer support.

American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Schrieber, B. (2004, March/April). Word processing as an assistive technology tool for enhancing

academic outcomes of students with writing disabilities in the general classroom. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.

Hoover, T. M., Kubina, R. M., & Mason, L. H. (2012, January). Effects of self-regulated strategy development for

POW + TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal,

20, 20-38. doi:10.1080/09362835.2012.640903

Irvin, J. L., Melzer, J., & Dukes, M. S. (2007). Taking Action on Adolescent Literacy. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jones, R. T. (n.d.). The new American workforce: Challenges and opportunities for higher education. In Education

workforce policy, LLP (par. 4). Retrieved from http://www.educationworkforcepolicy.com/papers.html

Little, M. A., Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Story, M., & Sandmel, K. (2010, February). Self-regulated

strategies development for persuasive writing in tandem with schoolwide positive behavioral support: Effects

for second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 157-179.

MacArthur, C. A. (1996). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities , 29(4), 344-454.

Marchison, M. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001, January). The write way: Tips for teaching the writing process to resistant

writers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 154-162.

Martin, D. (2008, March). The authors gallery: A meaningful integration of technology and writing. Middle School

Journal, 39(4), 13-19.

Mason, L. H., Kubina Jr., R. M., & Hoover, T. (2011). Effects of writing instruction for high school students with

emotional disturbances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1-13. doi:10.1177/

1063426611410429

Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Jr., Valasa, L. L., & Cramer, A. M. (2010, February). Evaluating effective writing

instruction for adolescent students in an emotional and behavior support setting. Behavioral Disorders,

35(2), 140-156.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mills, S., Cerar, N. I., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Allen-Bronaugh, D., . . . Guckert, M.

(2009, November). Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write fluently. Behavioral Disorders,

35(1), 19-40.

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). (2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470).

Institution of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (n.d.). Maine''s Middle School laptop program: Creating better writers (Maine

Education Policy Research Institute, Ed.). Gorham, Maine: University of Southern Maine.

Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009, May). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for

composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30(30), 265-300.

Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004, October). Writing! The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48-52.

Scarborough, K. (2001, August). A quick guide for inclusion teachers of LD students. Middle Ground, 16-17.

The American Diploma Project. (2004). Achieve Inc. Washington, DC: The American Diploma Project.

Warschauer, M. (2008). Laptops and literacy: A multi-site case study. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 52-67.

doi:10.1080/ 15544800701771614

Appendices

Appendix A

Transitions List

Appendix B

Persuasive Writing Rubric

Appendix C

POW+TREE Chart

Appendix D

PLAN WRITE Chart

Appendix E

PLAN WRITE Chart

Appendix F

Student Survey

Appendix G

Student Reflection Survey Results