Exceptionality

A Special Education Journal

ISSN: 0936-2835 (Print) 1532-7035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20

Strategic Persuasive Writing Instruction for

Students with Emotional and Behavioral
Disabilities

Margo A. Mastropieri, Thomas E. Scruggs, Nancy Irby Cerar, Mary Guckert,

Catherine Thompson, Danette Allen Bronaugh, Jill Jakulski, Latif Abdulalim,
Sara Mills, Anya Evmenova, Kelley Regan & Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino

To cite this article: Margo A. Mastropieri, Thomas E. Scruggs, Nancy Irby Cerar, Mary Guckert,
Catherine Thompson, Danette Allen Bronaugh, Jill Jakulski, Latif Abdulalim, Sara Mills, Anya
Evmenova, Kelley Regan & Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino (2015) Strategic Persuasive Writing
Instruction for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities, Exceptionality, 23:3, 147-169,
DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2014.986605

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.986605

Published online: 30 Jul 2015. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 497 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hexc20
Exceptionality, 23:147–169, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0936-2835 print/1532-7035 online
DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2014.986605

Strategic Persuasive Writing Instruction

for Students with Emotional and
Behavioral Disabilities
Margo A. Mastropieri, Thomas E. Scruggs, Nancy Irby Cerar,
Mary Guckert, and Catherine Thompson
George Mason University

Danette Allen Bronaugh

James Madison University

Jill Jakulski and Latif Abdulalim

Fairfax County Public Schools

Sara Mills, Anya Evmenova, and Kelley Regan

George Mason University

Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino
Illinois State University

Expressive writing is important for school and life success, but remains challenging for many
students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Emerging evidence reveals promise for teaching
students with learning and behavioral issues to improve written expression with self-regulated
strategy development instruction. In that research, students are taught to criterion performance
(e.g., demonstrating mastery performance for each lesson) for instructional periods sometimes as
long as 50 days (see Mastropieri et al., 2009). What is unknown, however, is given the more limited
time constraints within a school setting, whether students with emotional disabilities, many with
comorbidity, can successfully improve within a school’s allocated time for teaching persuasive
essays. The current study used a waitlist comparison condition and randomly assigned 32 eighth
graders to either an immediate intervention or a waitlist delayed intervention condition during
which an organizational and planning strategy for writing persuasive essays was taught. Findings
revealed students were able to successfully learn and apply the strategy within a reduced time

Correspondence should be addressed to Margo A. Mastropieri, Special Education, College of Education and Human
Development, MSN 1F2, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA. E-mail: mmastrop@gmu.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hexc.

147
148 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

period as evidenced by statistically significant higher quality essays that contained more essay
elements, words, sentences, and transition words. Student interviews revealed positive attitudes
toward instruction and strategy use. Two months following posttesting, surprise maintenance mea-
sures were administered that yielded equivocal results suggesting periodic review sessions may be
appropriate. Implications for the classroom practice are discussed.

Teachers face challenges in meeting all the needs of students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities (EBD), because these students frequently require assistance with academic, social-
emotional, and behavioral goals. It is widely acknowledged that such students frequently
experience challenges in getting along in school with peers and their teachers (e.g., Kauffman
& Landrum, 2008), but less widely acknowledged is that many of these students also encounter
difficulties learning academic content, including mastering the basic skills of reading, writing,
and arithmetic (e.g., Lane, 2004). Many students with EBD fail to meet academic standards
(e.g., Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004), have secondary disabilities such a learning
disabilities or attention deficits, and have failed high-stakes testing. Forty-six percent of eighth
grade students with disabilities compared with 9% of students without disabilities performed
below the basic level on the National Assessments of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing
assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Disappointingly, fewer than 7% scored at
the proficient level indicating preparedness to perform grade level work successfully.
As students progress to the middle school and secondary levels, these academic difficulties
become increasingly complex. Students with EBD who experience such failures drop out
of school more often than other students with disabilities; reported dropout rates have been
as high as 52% for students with EBD compared with 32% for other disability areas (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011; Wagner et al., 2005). Students with EBD are less likely to
pursue postsecondary education resulting in large unemployment rates compared with other
disability areas (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008).
One approach to change this downward trend is to increase success in school for students
with EBD. Communicating using written language is a valuable tool that when mastered can
enhance lifelong success for all students. However, 30% of eighth graders reported spending
only up to 15 minutes writing a day and 3% reported not writing at all (Nations Report
Card: Writing 2011). Unfortunately, these data did not reveal breakdowns by students with and
without disabilities. However, it might be assumed that students with disabilities are highly
represented in the lower figures for time spent writing in English classes. A simple solution
is to increase instruction and time spent writing during school. NAEP (2011) provided writing
prompts in persuading, explaining, and conveying information to eighth and eleventh graders.
The Common Core Standards on the middle school level include argumentative writing, a skill
similar to persuasive writing (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a, 2010b). Therefore these areas need to be taught
in schools. Expressive writing requires the ability to articulate thoughts in writing. Persuasive
writing shares features found in argumentative essays and is intended to convince readers to
agree with the writer’s viewpoint. For example, writers state a position and offer supporting
evidence. Persuading others has been seen to be a more serious weakness for many students
with EBD. Until recently, writing has been relatively absent from the EBD intervention research
literature (e.g., Mason & Shriner, 2006). Since these students often struggle to articulate their
ideas coherently, writing instruction may prove beneficial for assisting students to express their
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 149

ideas more thoughtfully in an organized fashion. With persuasive writing, students use words to
convince readers to agree with their position. Good persuasive essays provide supporting facts
and details for taking a side on a particular argument and frequently offer counterarguments that
are refuted within the essay to further strengthen the support (Caine, 2008). Finally, persuasive
writing skills may be very useful for students with EBD, in learning use of persuasion as an
alternative to less socially desirable strategies such as aggression (Mastropieri et al., 2010).
Several meta-analyses of writing intervention research have identified the major approaches
to writing instruction as (a) the process approach; (b) direct explicit instruction of strategies or
skills; (c) scaffolding instruction, and (d) technologically based approaches (see, e.g., Gersten
& Baker, 2001; Gillespie & Graham, in press; Graham & Perin, 2007). Findings indicate overall
that writing instruction that produced the highest effect sizes included explicit instruction in
writing steps and structures for different writing genres, and feedback during planning, editing,
and revising steps.
Graham, Harris, and their colleagues have provided a wealth of high quality evidence-based
practices using self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) to improve students’ expressive
writing across numerous genres (e.g., Graham & Perrin, 2007; Harris, Graham, Mason, &
Friedlander, 2008; Rogers & Graham, 2008). SRSD provides instruction in writing strategies
with embedded self-regulation instruction. This combination systematically instructs students
to use new written expression strategies while providing goal setting, self-instruction, self-
monitoring, and self-evaluation strategies to facilitate long-term strategy usage. SRSD includes
the following six stages of instruction: (a) developing and activating background knowledge;
(b) discussing; (c) modeling; (d) learning strategies; (e) supporting students’ learning, and
(f ) independent practice (see Harris et al., 2008).
Although numerous studies exist in SRSD expressive writing with students with learning
disabilities and students considered at risk for academic failure, far fewer studies have been
conducted with students with EBD. This is unfortunate, because SRSD instruction may be
particularly helpful for this population due to the embedded self-regulation strategies throughout
the academic planning and organizing strategies.
Outside of investigations based on SRSD instruction of students with EBD, research is
limited, with few replications. For example Anderson and Keel (2002) investigated a direction
instruction writing curriculum with students with learning and behavioral disorders; and Regan,
Mastropieri, and Scruggs (2005) studied the use of dialogue journals to promote expressive
writing. However, a recent series of studies using SRSD procedures have provided some positive
preliminary evidence suggesting students with EBD not only benefit from writing instruction
but also have reported enjoying and appreciating the benefits of instruction. For example,
Adkins (2005) successfully taught three second and third graders with EBD to improve their
story writing skills using a multiple baseline design to teach a planning strategy (POW D
Plan, Organize, Write) and a genre specific-writing strategy for stories WWW W D 2 and
H D 2 (what, where, who, what happens, what do the characters do and how do the characters
feel, and how does the story end). After 19 to 25 instructional sessions students improved on
most writing measures. Lane and colleagues (2008) replicated those findings with six second
graders at risk for behavior difficulties who were taught individually the SRSD story-writing
strategy combined with Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS). Performance gains
were observed in improved story quality, length, and elements. Little and colleagues (2010)
replicated and extended the Lane and coauthors study with second graders with behavior and
150 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

writing difficulties. Mason and Shriner (2008) reported similar positive findings when six
elementary students at risk or with EBD were taught strategies for writing persuasive essays
using an SRSD model. After eleven 30-minute sessions it was reported that 4 of 6 students
improved in overall essay writing on immediate measures, but that maintenance follow-up data
were mixed.
Although these elementary studies appear promising, it is important to determine whether
similar evidence also exists with older students with EBD. Fortunately, more recent studies
have been conducted at the middle school level with students with EBD who are taught in self-
contained and separate setting schools. This type of student typically experiences a comorbidity
of issues and requires more complex interventions combining social-emotional, behavioral, and
academic strategies. In a series of studies, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and their colleagues have taught
such students to write persuasive essays using the SRSD model, and reported very positive
outcomes on quality of essays, number of words written, and number of essay elements included
(Mastropieri et al., 2009, 2010). Twelve eighth graders with EBD participated in a multiple
baseline design study in which they were taught the SRSD model of instruction using the
strategy POW C TREE, with POW representing the planning and organizing strategy of plan,
organize, and write (Mastropieri et al., 2009). TREE was the persuasive essay genre-specific
strategy with T D topic sentence, R D reasons, E D ending, and E D examine. Students were
taught to mastery performance, followed by testing and a fluency phase. Fluency instruction
required students to use the same planning and organizing strategies, but to prepare a simpler
one paragraph response during a shorter 10-minute period. Instruction occurred an average
of 50C days during 30-minute, four-days-per-week remediation classes. Findings revealed
that all students not only mastered the strategy but were able to apply their skills to both
untimed and fluency conditions. In addition, students were successful at maintenance and
generalization measures that were administered three months post treatment (Mastropieri et al.,
2009). A follow-up design study involving 10 students with EBD who were taught using similar
procedures over 55 days of instruction replicated these findings (Mastropieri et al., 2010). In all
cases, these students were taught performance criteria that, in these studies, meant writing two
essays containing all elements without using the graphic organizer or strategy sheets. Students
who had difficulties meeting criteria were provided with additional instruction.
These separate setting school findings were replicated and extended with students with EBD
in inclusive schools. The students exhibited less severe emotional and behavioral disabilities and
performed higher academically than in the previous investigations. In the first study, 12 seventh
and eighth graders were taught similar instructional procedures using SRSD procedures and the
POW C TREE strategy, but were also taught to include the use of counterarguments in their
essays in the first instructional phase (Mastropieri et al., 2012). In a second instructional phase,
students were taught to write more fluently using a ten-minute period to plan and write. Findings
revealed all students improved dramatically from baseline to both postintervention phases on
measures of essay quality, length, and components. In addition, students successfully included
counterarguments, applied those skills to the fluency phase, and reported seeing the value of
and enjoying the new writing strategy.
In a multiple baseline design study, Mason, Kubina, Valasa, and Cramer (2010) taught five
seventh and eighth graders with EBD a quick write SRSD strategy for planning and writing
short persuasive responses within 10 minutes. Students were instructed individually for 30-
minute sessions over five days and three ten-minute sessions over a couple of weeks. All
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 151

students improved on immediate essay measures following instruction, but findings were less
robust on maintenance assessments. In a more recent study Hauth, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and
Regan (2013) taught eight eighth graders to improve their persuasive essay writing. Students
were first taught the POW-TREE strategy using similar SRSD procedures as in the previous
studies. However, in a second phase students were taught to apply that strategy to writing
persuasive essays using civics content. Findings demonstrated improved performance across
all students in all writing areas of quality, length, and essay components for both the regular
and civics content persuasive essays. Hauth and colleagues also reported that students’ planning
and writing time increased significantly from baseline to postintervention.
These findings provide important preliminary information about what is possible when teach-
ing middle school students with EBD when given unlimited instructional time. Unfortunately,
however, teachers are currently under more stringent teaching schedules. In some cases, the
amount of time allocated to persuasive essay instruction is limited to two weeks. In order
to assess whether the procedures used in previous studies could be taught using the school’s
curriculum guidelines, the following study was conducted. Specifically, we were interested in
determining whether we could implement these procedures within a middle school’s existing
structure and achieve similar findings. It was also important to address the school’s wishes for us
to teach all eighth graders the intervention. Since a research design using a one group only pre-
posttest has limited quality and internal validity, we decided a better design to accommodate the
school’s wishes in involving all students was to use randomized assignment involving a waitlist
condition. Students in the waitlist condition would receive the intervention following completion
of the first condition’s intervention (e.g., Goodwin, 2009). Thus, the true effectiveness of the
intervention should be determined through a randomized experiment, while no students in
eighth grade would be denied access to the SRSD writing strategy. The following research
questions were addressed.

1. Does SRSD instruction in POW C TREE improve persuasive writing as measured on

quality and quantity indicators for students in a self-contained school for adolescents
with EBD in an abbreviated instructional timeframe?
a. On immediate posttesting measures?
b. On maintenance posttesting measures?
2. Will students value the strategy, and be able to report how the strategy helped their
writing?
3. Does SRSD instruction in POW C TREE improve students’ self-concept in writing?

METHOD

Design
Due to the school’s concerns that all eighth graders with EBD receive this writing intervention,
and to enhance the quality and internal validity of a one group pre-posttest study, random as-
signment to a waitlist control condition was used. Waitlist control condition experimental design
permits experimental-control comparisons, while at the same time providing the opportunity
for the participants in the waitlist control condition to receive the intervention following the
152 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

experimental condition (see, e.g., Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2012; McNeil, Capage, Bahl, & Blanc,
1999). The design offers an alternative to a no-treatment control condition, and may also be
useful in an applied setting (Goodwin, 2009). In order to control writing ability across treatment
conditions, students were stratified into two groups—lower-ability and medium-ability writers,
based on a schoolwide writing assessment for all eighth-grade students administered during
the first month of the school year—and then randomly assigned to intervention start dates.
A three-step process was used to classify students into medium- or lower-level writers. First,
writing performance on a schoolwide writing assessment was used to rank order students by
performance levels. Second, that rank-ordered list was reviewed with school personnel who
made recommendations to maintain or move individual students’ rankings. Finally, the entire list
was divided into higher- and lower-performing groups. This allowed stratification by ability
grouping to help control for writing ability prior to random assignment. Following random
assignment, the treatment first condition included 16 students, with nine lower-level writers and
seven medium-level writers. The waitlist condition included 16 students, with eight lower-level
writers and eight medium-level writers. The treatment first condition received the intervention,
followed by posttesting, after which the waitlist condition received the identical intervention
and testing procedures. Interventions took place during a 30-minute period over two weeks
for each condition, while instructional time across both conditions was held constant. When
students were not involved in this writing intervention, they received remedial math instruction
and no writing instruction.

Setting
The setting for this study was a middle school for students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities. The school is located within a large metropolitan school district on the east coast
of the United States, with more than 150,000 students. All the students in this school are taught
by special education teachers as well as paraprofessionals. A schoolwide positive behavior
support system was implemented in which students have tailor-made vouchers containing
student-specific targeted behaviors (Alberto & Troutmen, 2008). Points were awarded for good
behaviors, including class preparedness, respect of others, class participation, and maintaining
appropriate class behaviors. School counselors and crisis teachers were available to provide
counseling services to students as needed.
Core academic classes were offered daily in math, science, English, and history. Elective
classes and physical education were also offered. The adopted textbook for English emphasized
more literature than writing (Beers, 2005). At the time of the study, 98 seventh- and eighth-grade
students, of whom 83% were male, were enrolled in the school. The student body was racially
and ethnically diverse, with 37.8% Caucasian, 25.5% African American, 23.5% Hispanic, 7.1%
from other racial/ethnic groups, and 6.1% Asian. Fifty-three percent of the students received
free and reduced lunch, while 22% of the school’s students were characterized as limited
English proficient.

Participants
Students were selected by the school administrators to participate in the investigation. The
32 eighth graders who were all classified as having emotional and behavioral disabilities
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 153

TABLE 1
Behavioral and Academic Individualized Education Program Goals

Behavioral Goals Academic Goals

Social Problem Solving Written Language and Written Expression

Social Awareness, Self-Advocacy Reading Comprehension
Accepting Responsibilities Reading Decoding
Peer Interactions Math Computation
Self-Regulation, Coping Skills, and Control Math Problem Solving
Emotional Reactions
Reducing Anxieties
Stress Reduction Strategies
Following Directions
On Task

as primary disabilities participated. All had been placed by their respective individualized
education plan (IEP) teams into this separate setting school for students with EBD, after
having been unsuccessful in more inclusive environments. Some were also classified as having
learning disabilities and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (N D 6; 3 per condition).
The 25 boys and 7 girls were an average age of 14.3 years of age (SD D 0.52) with a
range of 12.35 to 15.38 years. Participants were racially and ethnically diverse, including
13 African Americans, 12 Caucasians, and 7 Hispanic students. Students had a mean Full
Scale IQ score of 96.31 (SD D 11.33), with a range from 70 to 125 on the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed., WISC IV; Wechsler, 2003), and mean scores on
the Broad Writing of 75.96 (SD D 10.05) that has a standardized test mean of 100 (Woodcock
Johnson III Test of Achievement) (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Social emotional
behavioral goals that were identified on students’ IEPs included: social problem solving, social
awareness, accepting responsibilities and self-advocacy (all students); self-regulation, coping
skills, controlling emotional reactions (90% of students); reducing anxieties, stress reduction
strategies (75% of students); and following directions and improving on task behaviors (94% of
students). Although 31% of the students did not have academic IEP goals, school staff indicated
all students needed assistance with basic skills of reading, writing, and math based on direct
observations of performance in school. Specific academic IEP goals identified included written
language and written expression (69%), reading comprehension (45%), reading decoding (30%),
math computation (50%), and math problem solving (75%). Table 1 presents behavioral goals
of the sample.

Project Staff
The project staff included a research team from a local university. Two faculty (one female and
one male, both Caucasian) and advanced graduate students, all female (four Caucasians, two
Hispanic) who had an average of 10 years of teaching experience working with individuals
with disabilities and were an average of 37 years of age. Project staff delivered the instruction
throughout the intervention. In addition, two female Caucasians were observers and recorded
fidelity of treatment. All staff had participated in teaching writing instruction using SRSD
154 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

training and had at least two years’ experience teaching students with EBD written expression
using the SRSD procedures.

Materials
All training materials were based on previous SRSD materials used to teach students persuasive
essays using the POW C TREE strategy (see Mastropieri et al., 2009 for a description). POW
is the organizing strategy to plan, organize, and write. TREE represents the genre-specific
persuasive essay strategy, with letters representing topic sentence, reasons, explanations, and
examine. The SRSD lessons were adapted to be delivered in a more rapid timeframe to fit
within the school’s curriculum model for teaching persuasive essays. In addition, multiple
self-regulation procedures were embedded within the instruction.
Researchers (project staff ) and students had folders with all required materials. Charts
containing the POW C TREE strategy were included, depicting POW stands for: P D Pick
your idea, O D Organize your notes, W D Write and say more; TREE stands for: T D Topic,
R D Reasons (3 or more), E D Explanations (say more about each reason), E D Ending and
Examine (check paper again). The chart included a picture of a tree along with an explanation
of what the letters in POW C TREE represented. Graphic organizers listing POW C TREE
across the top with spaces by each strategy step for students to write notes when planning
essays were also included (see Figures 1 and 2 for examples). Sample transition words, self-
statements, and self-monitoring record sheets were also included. Transition word lists included
“starter words” such as first, second, and third, but included blank spaces for students to insert
their own transition words (e.g., “All things considered, : : : ”). Self-statement sheets contained
sample statements to help students remain on task (e.g., “I try to keep my mind clear”), but
included blank spaces for students’ own self-statements (e.g., “I try to think of good ideas”).
Finally, the self-monitoring recording sheet listed the strategy steps to be checked off when
the task was completed, and students rated their daily performance as excellent, good, fair, or
poor.
Lesson plans were included for researchers, which contained all materials for teaching
the writing strategy using the SRSD instructional procedures including developing background
knowledge, discussing, modeling, learning the strategy, supporting student use, and independent
practice. Lesson plans were printed and placed in three-ring notebooks but also were made
available electronically for all researchers. Student contracts, large laminated posters of the
strategies and graphic organizer, and sample essays were also included for presentations. The
procedure section provides additional implementation details lesson by lesson.

Data Sources, Administration, and Scoring Procedures

Standardized test. The Fluency subtest of the Woodcock Johnson Writing Test (Wood-
cock et al., 2001) was administered to all students at the beginning of the study to ensure
equivalency of conditions. This is a timed seven-minute test that requires students to write
sentences in response to pictures using three provided words. The test provides an indicator of
ability to formulate complete coherent sentences within a limited amount of time.
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 155

FIGURE 1 Pictorial representation for persuasive writing strategy POW C TREE.

Writing prompts and essay elements. Writing prompts were used at pretesting, posttest-
ing immediately following each condition’s instruction, and at maintenance approximately two
months following posttesting, to measure students’ persuasive essay writing. Two prompts were
provided to students, who were asked to select one and write a persuasive essay using paper
and pencil. No graphic organizers or other writing assistance devices were provided during
testing. The writing prompts were selected from a pool of prompts used by Mastropieri and
colleagues (2009, 2010, 2012) with similar student populations.
156 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Graphic organizer.

 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 157

Essay scoring. In order to compare these findings with previously conducted research,
the essay scoring procedures employed were identical to earlier studies (e.g., Mastropieri et al.,
2012). These scoring procedures examined the individual essay components, such as essay
length, number of sentences, and transition words, but also assessed whether essays adhered to
the specific genre, in this case persuasive essays, by evaluating the essay elements or parts of
persuasive essays included in student responses. Finally, an essay quality scoring procedure was
used to assess the overall degree of excellence, including the logic of reasoning and explanations
included in essays. All essays were scored multiple times to calculate the total number of words,
sentences, paragraphs, transition words, and elements of the essay; and essay quality based on
a scoring rubric. Essay elements scoring included, for example, counting the topic sentence,
reasons, corresponding explanations, and ending. Standard model essays were used as scoring
guides and points from 1 to 10 could be awarded for essay quality. To obtain high-quality
ratings, essays had to contain topic sentence, more than three reasons with corresponding
explanations, ending sentence, a logical sequence, and coherence. Low scores were awarded
when essays contained fewer elements (e.g., missing topic sentence, reasons, corresponding
explanations, or ending sentence) and the essay’s sequence appeared weak, limiting the overall
persuasiveness. Raters were trained to score sample essays using the standard essays as a guide
as well as essays from previous research studies prior to scoring the essays for the present
study. Raters underlined and tallied components on the essays during scoring. In addition,
when questions arose, raters would consult with other project researchers. This method was
found to be highly reliable and employed in previous research (see Mastropieri et al., 2009,
for additional procedures and examples). Reliability of scoring was completed by having two
scorers rate each essay. When discrepancies existed, scorers met to resolve discrepancies, which
resulted in a final inter-rater agreement of 100%.

Interview and social validity data. Following all instruction, students were interviewed
to determine their knowledge and attitudes toward instruction. Items included, for example,
“Name the strategy you were taught,” “How did the strategy help you?”, and “Would you use the
strategy in other situations?” Interview data were scored by two independent scorers. Scoring
rubrics were developed and open-ended responses were classified into discrete categories.
First all responses were read. After reading responses to each item, general categories were
developed. For example, when asked how the strategy helped, findings were categorized
into responses indicating the strategy had (a) helped them organize their writing; (b) helped
them pick ideas for their writing; (c) helped them learn persuasive essay elements to be
included; (d) made writing essays easier; and (e) helped them slow down and think about what
they were writing. Responses were reviewed and scored using those categories. In addition,
raters indicated if new response categories were required. When new categories were added,
interviews were reviewed and scored again for all response categories. This procedure was
followed for scoring all interview data. When disagreements occurred scorers met to resolve
discrepancies. This resulted in a final scoring percent agreement of 98%.

Writing self-concept. A 12-item writing self-concept scale was administered to both

conditions before and after the intervention. The measure, containing both attitude and self-
efficacy items, was developed by Graham and colleagues and used for the purposes of this
study (see Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). The
158 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

scale required students to select from four choices: (1) very different from me, (2) different
from me, (3) like me, (4) or a lot like me, to items that were both positively and negatively
worded with respect to attitudes toward writing. The scale contained practice items that were
read aloud to students. One sample item for each wording direction included: “I do not like to
write” and “When I write, it is easy for me to get ideas for my paper.” The direction of the
negatively scored items was reversed during scoring to represent a positive score. All items
were then computed together to form one self-concept toward writing score. Reliability of the
pretest measure was given at alpha D 0.993, suggesting a single construct was being measured.

Fidelity of treatment, class observations, and reflections. Throughout instruction

trained observers were present to record treatment fidelity and to write anecdotal observational
notes. Project staff used both “live” observations of project staff role-playing instruction and
video recordings to train observers to use the fidelity of treatment measures. Once observers
had mastered 100% criteria on coding, they were considered qualified observers. Fidelity
checklists that corresponded to the lesson plans were used as guides during observations to
ensure instruction was implemented well and as intended. Each major lesson component was
placed on the sheet with a space for indicating whether that component was implemented and
how well the component was implemented. At least one observer was present at all times,
while two observers were present 35% of the time. Percent of agreement across observers was
high and yielded a 96% agreement.

Procedures
First, consent or assent was obtained from the school district, parents, children, and school
personnel; and Human Subjects Review Board approval was obtained from the university.
All students were then administered the Woodcock Johnson Writing Fluency subtest and
the self-concept measure. Second, stratification into higher- and lower-performing groups was
completed based on student writing levels and school personnel reports. This was completed to
help ensure equivalency across treatment first and waitlist conditions. Next, random assignment
using the stratified ability groups took place such that half were assigned to the treatment first
condition and half to the waitlist condition. Then, students in both groups were assigned
by ability into small instructional groupings of three to four students per group. Students in
the treatment first condition received the intervention, while students in the waitlist condition
received remedial math instruction. Trained researchers who were all experienced in delivering
SRSD instruction were assigned to teach each of the four small groups of students in the
treatment first condition. Following completion of the intervention, posttesting was administered
to the treatment first condition. Posttesting consisted of administering two writing prompts
with directions to select one prompt and write an essay. Students were also interviewed
regarding their strategy usage and administered the self-concept toward writing measure.
Then, the identical instructional procedures took place with students in the waitlist condition
who were also taught in four small groups while remedial math instruction was delivered
to the treatment first condition. Following intervention for the waitlist condition posttesting,
strategy interviews and self-concept toward writing measures were administered to those
students. Approximately two months after instruction and posttesting, surprise maintenance
essay measures were administered to students in both conditions.
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 159

Intervention condition. All students were tested using the same procedures during which
they received two essay prompts, and were asked to write persuasive essays during pretesting,
posttesting, and maintenance testing. Following the pretest, instruction occurred during a 30-
minute schoolwide remediation period, and was conducted over a two-week time period.
Instruction proceeded using the SRSD model. Since student performance and progress was
monitored daily, decisions using those data were made to review and spend additional time on
lesson components with which students experienced difficulties. For example, some students
required more time learning the required essay components, and that instructional time was
inserted into the next day’s lesson.
Lesson 1 included developing and activating background knowledge. This lesson specifically
included: (a) students signing contracts; (b) describing and discussing what makes a good
persuasive essay; (c) introducing the TREE chart and discussing what each letter represents;
and (d) introducing the TREE graphic organizer and examining an essay. Students identified
the parts of an essay with teacher assistance while the teacher wrote the parts on note format in
the graphic organizer (GO). Typically, the GO is introduced in Lesson 3, but it was introduced
here due to the reduced two-week intervention period. Finally, students practiced learning the
strategy steps verbally, practiced the TREE reminder, and then wrote what each letter of the
strategy (POW C TREE) represented.
During Lesson 2, the emphasis was on self-monitoring, self-regulation, and discussing the
purpose of writing persuasive essays and how the strategy would assist in planning, organizing,
and writing essays. Review of the POW C TREE components and strategy was provided. The
transition word chart was introduced. Students were then required to locate parts of persuasive
essays independently. A discussion on how to improve the essays took place, with an emphasis
on inserting additional reasons, explanations, and elaborations. The student record sheet was
introduced and teachers guided students on how to complete the record sheet with the essay
sample examined. Following this, discussion was held on the importance of establishing goals
for writing persuasive essays.
During Lesson 3, modeling was emphasized. However, pending student performance from
the previous lesson, some instructional groups revisited locating the parts of an essay first.
Student performance guided decisions to include additional review. For example, when stu-
dents responded consistently accurately, instruction moved forward. Conversely, when students
responded inconsistently, additional review was included. Researchers modeled writing and
self-regulation strategies through a think-aloud format. Students observed teachers use POW C
TREE, the graphic organizer to organize ideas prior to writing, transition words, self-statements,
and observed the teacher transfer the notes into writing. Researchers also explained how to
organize the essay into five paragraphs. Researchers then introduced the self-statement chart
and asked students to identify statements used while she was writing the essays. Then, students
were asked to write some things they could say to themselves on their individual self-statement
sheets, using the class chart as a reference.
During Lesson 4—Support it, researchers reviewed POW C TREE verbally as a class, with
student partners, and with students writing responses. Then collaborative writing took place. All
students used the same essay prompt, but were encouraged to produce their own planning ideas
and to write their own essays using their planning notes. Students were provided assistance as
needed. By the end of these lessons, students had completed the whole process of writing an
essay using all the supportive materials and graphed their performance.
160 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

During Lesson 5, students worked more independently. Although instruction began with a
review of POW C TREE, all supportive materials including the graphic organizer and transition
word charts were removed. Teachers modeled how to write down a reminder mnemonic, POW
TREE, at the top of the page. Students were encouraged to construct graphic organizers and
compare with earlier used organizers. Class discussion focused on which parts were included
and which parts were missing. Brainstorming as many transition words as possible in two or
three minutes was completed, and comparisons were made with previously employed transition
word charts. Students were given two practice prompts and were asked to select one to respond
to. They then wrote notes and reminders on the paper, planned their essays, and wrote essays
independently. This independent practice with teacher feedback continued for the remainder of
the two-week instructional period. When students encountered difficulties with specific essay
components, remedial instruction was provided on required areas.
Following two weeks of instruction students in the treatment first condition, essay prompts
were administered postinstruction in the same fashion as the pretest and asked to write a
persuasive essay. Following the posttesting, the treatment first condition received remedial math
instruction and instruction immediately began for students in the waitlist condition, following
identical procedures.

Waitlist condition. Students in the waitlist condition received remedial math instruction
while the treatment first condition received the intervention in SRSD writing. The math instruc-
tion was delivered by their assigned teachers. This remedial math period was assigned to all
students during the academic quarter the study occurred. No writing instruction was provided.
Once the immediate treatment condition concluded with their instruction and posttesting, the
waitlist condition began the identical instructional sequence described previously.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Treatment Fidelity
Treatment fidelity was analyzed and yielded high fidelity with scores ranging from 95%–99%
with a mean of 98%, indicating that the intervention was implemented in the way it was
intended faithfully.

Standardized Test Prior to Intervention

Students in both conditions were administered the Woodcock Johnson Writing Fluency subtest
prior to intervention. Students who received the intervention first condition obtained a mean
scaled score of 76.69 (SD D 10.14) with a range of 50 to 92, while waitlist students received
a mean scaled score of 75.25 (SD D 10.24) with a range of 61 to 96. These data were entered
into a t-test for independent samples and yielded a nonsignificant difference, t (30) D 0.40,
p > 0.05, which indicated that the conditions were not statistically different prior to starting
the intervention. In addition, the generally lower overall scores validated a need for a writing
intervention with this sample of students.
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 161

Essays
Descriptive data by test and type of essay component are in Table 2 and a sample representative
pre and post student essay are in Table 3. Data were analyzed in several ways. First, the pretests
across the two conditions were compared to determine whether any statistical differences existed
prior to intervention for either condition. Then tests were conducted to assess the effect of
training using posttests and maintenance tests on immediate intervention condition with the
pretests of the waitlist condition (comparison A). Finally, after intervention had been delivered
to the waitlist condition, those posttest and maintenance scores were compared with the pretest
of the immediate treatment condition (comparison B).

Pretest comparison results. Pretest performance of students in the immediate inter-

vention condition was compared with pretest performance of those in the waitlist control
condition using independent sample t-tests. T-tests across all essay scoring procedures were
not significant, all ts  1.34, all ps > 0.05. The t-test for number of words written was t (30) D
0.34, p D 0.37, for number of sentences written; t (30) D 1.11, p D 0.20, for paragraphs written
t (30) D 0.99, p D 0.22, for number of transition words written t (30) D 1.34, p D 0.072, for
number of essay elements t (30) D 0.22, p D 0.81, for overall essay quality t (30) D 0.29,
p D 0.95. These findings indicate that the two conditions were not statistically different on the
pretest essay writing measures.

TABLE 2
Mean Essay Scores by Condition (SD)

Test Immediate Treatment Waitlist Treatment

Pretest (N D 16) (N D 16)

Words 56.31 (41.12) 61.69 (48.45)
Sentences 3.56 (3.22) 5.28 (5.29)
Transition Words .94 (1.24) 1.56 (1.83)
Paragraphs .44 (0.63) .69 (0.79)
Essay Elements 3.88 (2.70) 4.00 (3.01)
Quality of Essay 2.75 (1.81) 2.94 (1.81)
Posttest (N D 16) (N D 16)
Words 133.25 (55.54)* 130.69 (86.98)*
Sentences 11.06 (4.73)* 10.88 (7.62)*
Transition Words 4.81 (3.45)* 3.63 (3.01)*
Paragraphs 2.81 (1.87)* 2.62 (1.93)*
Essay Elements 7.00 (2.01)* 6.31 (2.01)*
Quality of Essay 5.38 (2.03)* 5.00 (1.51)*
Maintenance (N D 13) (N D 11)
Words 71.62 (45.22) 89.09 (61.34)
Sentences 5.38 (4.61)* 6.09 (3.91)
Transition Words 1.92 (2.72)* 1.36 (1.50)
Paragraphs .92 (1.32)* 1.09 (0.70)
Essay Elements 5.23 (1.88)* 5.27 (2.10)
Quality of Essay 4.08 (1.80)* 3.82 (1.54)

*p < 0.05.
162 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

TABLE 3
A Representative Sample Pre- and Post Essay

Pretest Essay Posttest Essay

Is it better to live in the city
or the country?
It Better to live in the city
Both are good cuz ya
They Both have great aspects.
Would you rather receive a $30 gift card as a gift or receive a sweater as a
present?
Thirty dollar gift card is better than a sweater. First you can buy anything
thirty dollar and under with a thirty dollar gift card. Second you can always
buy a sweater with the gift card. Third you could grow out of the sweater,
but you can’t grow out of the gift card. also you can get a receipt if you buy
something with the gift card.
There are many reasons why a thirty dollar gift card is better than a sweater.
First, you can buy anything thirty dollars and under with a thirty dollar gift
card. You dont have to buy a certain thing with a gift card. Second, you can
always buy a sweater with the gift card. because if you dont want anything
else why not buy a sweater. Third, you could grow out of your sweater, but
you can’t grow out of the gift card. The sweater might not fit, but you can
always use the gift card. Also you can get a receipt if you buy something
with the gift card. If you get a receipt for something and don’t open it you
can return it.
In conclusion, I’t is better to have a thirty dollar gift card than a sweater.

Immediate results. Posttest essay scores of students in the immediate intervention con-
dition were compared with the pretest scores of students in the waitlist condition using
independent sample t-tests (comparison A). The tests for all methods of scoring essays were
statistically significant favoring students who had received the treatment condition immediately
compared with students in the waitlist condition pretests, all ts  3.24, all ps  0.003. The
t-test for number of words written was t (30) D 3.88, p D 0.001, for number of sentences
written t (30) D 3.26, p D 0.003, for paragraphs written t (30) D 4.19, p D 0.000, for number
of transition words written t (30) D 3.33, p D 0.002, for number of essay elements t (30) D
3.24, p D 0.003, for overall essay quality t (30) D 3.59, p D 0.001. All these effects resulted
in large effect sizes including for number of words ES D 1.38, for sentences ES D 1.15, for
transition words ES D 1.23, for paragraphs ES D 0.80, for essay elements included ES D 1.20,
and for overall essay quality ES D 1.27.
Performance of students in the waitlist control condition after receiving the intervention
was compared with students in the immediate treatment condition at pretest (comparison B)
in order to determine whether the waitlist condition improved significantly even though they
experienced a delayed period. Scores for all essays were compared using independent sample
t-tests, which yielded all statistically significant differences, all ts  2.85, all ps  0.008. The
t-test for number of words written was t (30) D 3.01, p D 0.004, for number of sentences
written t (30) D 3.53, p D 0.001, for paragraphs written t (30) D 4.32, p D 0.000, for number
of transition words written t (30) D 3.31, p D 0.002, for number of essay elements t (30) D
2.85, p D 0.008, for overall essay quality t (30) D 3.58, p D 0.001. All these significant effects
resulted in large effect sizes, including for number of words ES D 1.16, for sentences ES D
1.35, for transition words ES D 1.26, for paragraphs ES D 1.71, for essay elements included
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 163

ES D 1.03, and for overall essay quality ES D 1.28. This indicates the treatment was similarly
effective for students in the waitlist and immediate intervention conditions.

Maintenance results. Maintenance essays were administered two months following in-
tervention (see Table 1). Three students from the treatment first condition and five students
from the waitlist condition were unavailable for testing due to moving, transferring, or school
expulsion. Maintenance scores were compared with preintervention scores. Students in the
treatment first condition performed significantly higher on the number of sentences, transition
words, paragraphs, essay elements, and overall essay quality (ps < 0.05) from preintervention
to maintenance. Their scores on essay length did not reach statistical significance although
were descriptively higher (56.31 vs. 71.61 words preintervention to maintenance, respectively).
Conversely, none of the performance differences for students in the waitlist condition were
statistically significantly different from preintervention to maintenance (all ps > 0.05). Again,
however, as can be seen in Table 2, all maintenance scores for essay length, sentences, transition
words, paragraphs, elements, and overall quality were descriptively higher than preintervention
levels (e.g., 61.69 vs. 89.09 for words between preintervention and maintenance).

Interview, Social Validity, and Strategy Data

Students were interviewed following the training and testing to determine whether the strategy
had been learned, how well they liked the strategy, and if they would use it again themselves.
Twenty-nine students were available for the interviews. When asked to name the strategy, 27
out of 29 students correctly recalled the POW C TREE strategy. When asked whether the
strategy helped, 12 responded with improved essay organization, other students responded that
the strategy helped them select and express better ideas (N D 4), assisted with knowledge
of critical essay components (N D 5), made writing paragraphs and essays easier (N D 4),
and assisted with writing mechanics including writing better transitions (N D 1). Students
overwhelmingly reported (N D 22) that use of the graphic organizer was the most helpful
aspect of instruction because it facilitated essay organization, kept them on topic, and made it
easier to write more and better organized essays. Fewer students offered any suggestions for
changing the instruction. However, those who did mention making the sample essays shorter,
having more essay prompts to choose from, and having edible reinforcers. When asked if they
had used the strategy in other classes, 13 students indicated that they had used it in English,
at home and on the state wide high-stakes testing. Finally, when students were asked how
this strategy might help other students, 19 students offered replies including that the strategy
would help with knowledge of essay components, organizing essays, providing better steps for
writing, and making writing generally easier. Table 4 contains comments students made about
the essay writing strategy.

Self-Concept toward Writing Data

A self-concept toward writing measure was administered prior to and following instruction.
Findings were mixed. Students who received treatment first had significantly higher self-concept
toward writing scores compared with those students in the waitlist condition. Students in the
164 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

TABLE 4
Student Strategy Reports

 “I think POW C TREE was the best thing. Teach kids in fourth or third grade so they have it through now.”
 Student suggestion—“Add a letter for proofreading—to remind [us] at the end of the acronym.”
 One student used POW C TREE for pre-essay writing. He got an A on the paper (in English)—a better grade
than he normally gets. This student also reported he made a “draft” before writing in English and got 9/10.
 “Usually I just write instead of picking what I want to talk about, [with] no summary or draft, and the strategy has
help me break down the steps.”
 This strategy “Helped me organize and write more because I use it instead of just going from my head.”
 “POW C TREE made my ideas more understandable and I have been better able to express my ideas.”
 “It [the strategy] gave me time to plot and think instead of just going ahead, gave me space to think of other ideas
and get a foundation for what to write.”

treatment first condition were compared with the pretest scores of students in the waitlist
condition using independent sample t-tests (comparison A). The self-concept toward writing
scores were statistically significant, favoring students who had received the treatment first,
compared with students in the waitlist condition pretest, t (30) D 2.16, p D 0.003.Comparison
B, of the waitlist self-concept toward writing posttest with the treatment first pretest, was not
significant, t (30) D 1.73, p D 0.09.

DISCUSSION

Findings from the present classroom application revealed that all students whether instructed
immediately or following a waitlist condition performed significantly higher compared to their
peers on postintervention essays. Results were mixed on a surprise two-month maintenance test,
indicating that although initial performance was high, many students’ performance declined,
indicating a need for periodic review sessions to help reinforce the strategy instruction over
time. Student strategy reports indicated that the overwhelming majority of students not only
recalled the persuasive writing strategy but also saw the importance of prewriting planning
with a graphic organizer. Most important, these positive findings were observed after only two
weeks of instruction during the typical allocated time for learning persuasive essays. Self-
concept toward writing findings were mixed, in that students who received treatment first
obtained significantly higher self-concept toward writing scores. Surprisingly, those treatment
first condition students also performed significantly better on the maintenance test indicating
that perhaps the heightened self-concepts toward writing may have assisted in not only elevating
their immediate writing performance but also maintaining it over the two-month interval.
This study took place within the regularly allocated teaching time for persuasive essays
of approximately two weeks. Waitlist conditions were utilized in order to ensure all students
enrolled would have an opportunity to participate in the instruction but also to maintain some
experimental rigor. During the waitlist time, students received remedial math instruction and
no writing instruction. These findings revealed significant immediate and mixed two-month
maintenance effects with a substantially shorter intervention period than in the previously
reported studies employing similar students with EBD (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2009, 2010). On
initial posttests, all students in both the immediate and waitlist treatment conditions improved
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 165

significantly in essay quality, essay elements, length, sentences, paragraphs, and transition
words. There are several potential explanations for the findings with the decreased instructional
time. First, the previous studies taught SRSD instruction to criterion performance, or ensured
that each student mastered all lesson components before advancing to subsequent lessons (see
Mastropieri et al., 2012). Because the present study was limited in time, the total number
of instructional sessions was reduced. In the present case, the sessions were adapted to fit
within the two-week period (e.g., the graphic organizer was introduced during the first lesson
and reviewed daily, rather than waiting until Lesson 3). Other studies that covered all lessons
in a shorter time period appeared to have higher-functioning samples (see also Lane et al.,
2008; Mason, Kubina, & Taft, 2011). It may be the current sample represented students who
were functioning higher academically and/or were less severely affected with emotional and
behavioral disabilities, even though they attended a self-contained school for students with
EBD. Although the students with EBD were enrolled in a similar separate setting school as
in the present study, these students were all performing substantially higher academically than
the samples in the two earlier studies (see Mastropieri et al., 2009, 2010). The higher academic
functioning coupled with an ability to attend to task better may have enabled the instruction to
proceed at a more rapid pace (see also Hauth et al., 2013). Additionally, although students still
were diagnosed with EBD, there were fewer comorbidity issues in the present sample, which
also might have facilitated students’ abilities to attend and learn in a truncated time period.
Students’ performance was somewhat lower during the maintenance testing following a
two-month delay interval. Students in the treatment first condition performed significantly
higher on essay quality, essay parts, sentences, paragraphs, and transition words, but not on
overall essay length. However, the waitlist comparison condition performed only descriptively
higher, but not significantly higher on all measures. Although this finding was observed in
earlier studies, the level of decline for some students was substantially more in the case of
the students in the waitlist condition. Several potential explanations exist for this decline.
First, the study lost several students to attrition following a two-month delayed testing period.
Unfortunately, many students with EBD experience transitions, such a relocating with families,
and suspension and expulsion, during an academic year. However, such a loss of participants
also weakened statistical power. SRSD writing instruction research has documented consistent
declines on maintenance measures (e.g., Mason & Shriner, 2008; Mastropieri et al., 2009,
2012). Previous researchers have indicated a need for periodic review sessions during which
writing strategies are reviewed and practiced. This type of review and supplemental practice
may be particularly critical for students with disabilities who experience more challenges in
learning and behavior. Nevertheless, the manipulations specific to this investigation including
accelerated pace of instruction may have facilitated more rapid learning, but less longer-term
retention than was observed in some previous lengthier studies (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2012)
or with higher-functioning students (e.g., Hauth et al., 2013). In addition, some students in
this study also had comorbidity with learning or attention difficulties. Although all students
performed significantly higher on immediate tests, these additional learning challenges may
have hindered their longer-term retention. More recently, research has found that students with
EBD in inclusive middle schools successfully learned and applied this type of writing strategy
in an average of only 9.5 sessions, which is encouraging because of the substantial reduction
in required instructional time (Hauth et al., 2013). However, in that study, students were taught
to write using single paragraph responses rather than multiple paragraph essays. In addition, in
166 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

the present study, students in the treatment first condition demonstrated significant increases in
self-concept toward writing, while the waitlist treatment condition demonstrated no significant
improvement on the writing self-concept measure. It may be that the improvement in self-
concept toward writing contributed to a more improved maintenance effect. Future research
could examine more closely the relationship between writing self-concept and maintenance
writing measures.
Persuasive writing may be an extremely important area to teach students with EBD. If
students learn to think clearly and express their positions coherently, they may be more able
to avoid personal confrontations that often accelerate into unpleasant situations. The fact that
the students in the present study all appeared to recognize the value of the planning and
organization prior to writing might be helpful as an initial step in guiding students to think
and plan prior to acting without planning or thinking. Persuasive writing, as employed in this
investigation, shares many features with argumentative writing, described by the Common Core
State Standards as written arguments to support claims using clearly stated reasons and relevant
evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010a, 2010b). Argumentative writing is also commonly thought to include use
of counterarguments, and replies to these arguments (Purdue Online Writing Lab, 2013). It may
be that future writing research should address argumentative writing. Although available time
and preskills of this sample precluded teaching all relevant elements of argumentative writing
in this investigation, students nevertheless learned many of the important components, and
made significant progress on their way to becoming competent writers. Since schools struggle
with teaching writing to all students, and the task is even more challenging for students with
emotional and behavioral disabilities, it may be particularly valuable to include more writing
instructional time for such students (see Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2014).

Limitations
Limitations of this research include that this particular intervention covered only one aspect
of writing, that of persuasive essays. Many aspects of writing need to be taught, including
narrative, descriptive, argumentative, and expository. Additionally, the mechanics of writing
were not addressed in this study, even though this is also an important issue for many students
with EBD. Recent studies have begun to address lengthier writing revision phases to improve
overall writing quality (see Mills & Mastropieri, 2012). This study also did not address a
specific revision instructional phase. More recent research investigating the use of computer-
assisted graphic organizers to facilitate writing has also yielded some promising findings (see
Evmenova, & Regan, 2012). However, technology was not used in the present study. It is
clear that the students in the present study could also benefit from extended writing instruction
covering all of these areas (see also Gersten & Baker, 2001; Gillespie & Graham, in press).
Finally, the inclusion of specially designed review sessions administered periodically throughout
the academic year may prove beneficial for maintaining learning gains.

Educational Implications
There also appear to be some educational implications from this growing body of research for
classroom practitioners. Teachers can implement this specific strategy training including the
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 167

use of the planning and graphic organizers with their students. When teachers monitor not only
their instructional procedures but also student performance, they may observe improvements
in planning, organizing, and writing simple persuasive essays (see also Harris et al., 2008).
Since maintenance findings were mixed in this study, it is strongly recommended that teachers
include periodic review sessions after teaching a writing strategy to help ensure long-term
retention and use. Future research is needed to examine how writing instruction such as the
present can be included within the Common Core Curriculum. Future research is also needed
to determine whether these findings can be replicated with respect to overall instructional time,
and improvements in writing quality, self-concept in writing, maintenance performance, as well
as performance on high-stakes and standardized tests.

FUNDING

Partial support for this research was provided by grants Grant No. R324A070199-07 from the
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences awarded to Pennsylvania State
University with a subcontract to George Mason University, and Grant Nos. H325D070008 and
H325D120036 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Content reported in no way reflects an endorsement from the funding agencies.

REFERENCES

Adkins, M. H. (2005). Self-regulated strategy development and generalization instruction: Effects of story writing
among second and third grade students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International.
(UMI 3202407).
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2008). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Anderson, D. M., & Keel, M. C. (2002). Using “reasoning and writing” to teach writing skills to students with learning
disabilities and behavioral disorders. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(1), 49–55.
Beers, G. K. (2005). Holt elements of literature. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bradley, R., Doolittle, J., & Bartolotta, R. (2008). Building on the data and adding to the discussion: The experiences and
outcomes of students with emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 4–23. doi:10.1007/s10864-
007-9058-6.
Caine, K. (2008). Writing to persuade. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Evmenova, A., & Regan, K. (2012). WeGotiT. Funded by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis.
The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272. doi:10.1086/499668.
Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (In press). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children.
Goodwin, J. C. (2009). Research in psychology: Methods and design (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 445–476.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward
writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26,
237–249.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of
struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
30, 207–241.
168 MASTROPIERI ET AL.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students.
Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Hauth, C., Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Regan, K. (2013). Can students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities improve on planning and writing in the content areas of civics and mathematics? Behavioral Disorders,
38, 154–170.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and
youth (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lane, K. L. (2004). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders:
1990 to present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, and. S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional
and behavioral disorders (pp. 462–486). New York: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J. L., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-
regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing
difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 41, 234–253.
Little, M. A., Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Story, M., & Sandemel, K. (2010). Self-regulated strategies
development for persuasive writing in tandem with schoolwide positive behavioral supports: Effects for second-grade
students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 157–179.
Mason, L., Kubina, R., & Taft, R. (2011). Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities.
Journal of Special Education, 44, 205–220.
Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Valasa, L. L., & Cramer, A. M. (2010). Evaluating effective writing instruction for
adolescent students in an emotional and behavior support setting. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 140–156.
Mason, L., & 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.
doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9065-y.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2014). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Cerar, N. I., Allen-Bronaugh, D., Thompson, C., Guckert, M., : : : & Cuenca-
Sanchez, Y. (2012). Fluent persuasive writing with counterarguments for students with emotional disturbance. Journal
of Special Education. Online version. doi:10.1177/0022466912440456.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Irby, N., Mills, S., Mason, L., & Kubina, R. (2010). Persuading
students with emotional disabilities to write: A design study. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Literacy
and learning: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 23; pp. 237–268). Oxford, U.K.: Emerald.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mills, S., Irby, N., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Bronaugh, D. A., et al. (2009). Teaching
students with emotional disabilities to write fluently. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 19–40.
McNeil, C. B., Capage, L. C., Bahl, A., & Blanc, H. (1999). Importance of early intervention for disruptive behavior
problems: Comparison of treatment and waitlist-control groups. Early Education and Development, 10, 445–454.
doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1004_2.
Mills, S., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2012, April). The effects of instruction in peer-revision on the persuasive writing and
self-efficacy of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common
Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common
Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, DC: Authors.
The Nations Report Card: Writing 2011. (2011). Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
National Assessment of Educational Progress in Writing (2011). Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/writing/
Nelson, J., Benner, G., Lane, K., & Smith, B. (2004). Academic achievement of k-12 students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 59–73.
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2013). Argumentative essays. West Lafayette, IN: Author. Retrieved January 22, 2014,
from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/685/05/
Regan, K. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Promoting expressive writing among students with emotional
and behavioral disturbance via dialogue journals. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 31–50.
 STRATEGIC PERSUASIVE WRITING 169

Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2012). Beginning behavioral research: A conceptual primer (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Thirteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A., Epstein, M., & Sumi, W. (2005). The children and youth we serve: A
national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional disturbances receiving special education. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 79–96. doi:10.1177/10634266050130020201.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corpo-
ration.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.