A multiprobe multiple baseline design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of strategy instruction in persuasive quick writing with 5 seventh-and eighth-grade students who attended a county alternative placement school for students with severe emotional and behavioral disabilities. Students were taught to plan and write a 1D-minute persuasive response using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development instructional model. Instruction was conducted over five 3D-minute sessions plus three 1D-minute sessions. Positive effects were noted for all students on the primary measure, quality of written responses. The effect of the intervention was maintained over time. All students reported that the instruction benefited performance.

No abstract

A workshop with virtual consultation practice-based professional development model for self-regulated strategy development persuasive writing instruction was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Nineteen general education teachers and 564 Grade 5 and 6 students in 16 low-wealth rural schools participated. Following training, teachers provided instruction in their inclusive classrooms. Results indicated that students receiving instruction improved in the number of persuasive elements and words written when compared with students in the control group. Differences in element type were evaluated with largest effects noted for reasons and explanations. Student group differences were noted with nonstruggling students having greater gains than struggling students.

A multiple baseline alternating treatment (A-B-C-D) design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a writing and peer revision intervention. Eight middle school students enrolled in an alternative program for students with emotional and behavioral disorders received Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) for 10-minute quick writing and revision during planning. Assessment occurred across baseline, writing, and revision phases, and the last phase alternated between individual and peer revision. Measures included quality; number of traits and words; the ability of participants to identify, evaluate, and make revisions during planning; and the degree to which participants incorporated revision recommendations. Positive effects for writing and promise for peer revision were indicated. Implications for future research practice are discussed.