Running head: QUANTITATIVE METHOS



Running head: QUANTITATIVE METHODS

The Effect of a Peer-Revision Strategy on the Persuasive Writing of Special Education Students in General Education Classrooms

Sara Mills

George Mason University

EDSE 842

May 12, 2009

Abstract

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study is to examine the effects of using a peer-revision strategy in conjunction with SRSD to improve the persuasive writing of students with disabilities educated in the general education classroom. Participants will include 180 sixth grade students in 12 classrooms, 22 of whom receive special education services. Classes will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions – Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), SRSD plus peer-revision, and traditional instruction. Students’ persuasive essays and strategy knowledge will be assessed, as well as student attitudes toward writing. Data will be analyzed using a 2-way ANCOVA, with pretest scores as he covariate. It is anticipated that students in the two treatment conditions will outperform students in traditional instruction.

The Effect of a Peer-Revision Strategy on the Persuasive Writing of Special Education Students in General Education Classrooms

Writing is a difficult task for students with learning disabilities. While there is limited research on effective writing interventions for this population, one well-researched writing intervention is self-regulated strategy development (SRSD). There have been over 25 years of research documenting the effectiveness of SRSD with student with learning disabilities, particularly at the elementary level (Graham & Harris, 2003). SRSD offers strategies for a variety of writing genres such as story writing and persuasive writing.

Little research has been done in the area of revision, however. One revision study by Wong, Butler, Ficzere and Kuperis (1994) looked at the effectiveness of student-teacher and student-student interactive dialogues during the revision process. The researchers found no difference between the writing performance of students who received only teacher-student interactive dialogues and those who received additional student-student dialogues. While this study found little added benefit from peer-conferences, Wong and her colleagues (1996) did another study that also investigated the effects of interactive dialogues for planning, writing, and revising opinion essays, with peer support during the planning and revising phases. The results of this later study found that the intervention was effective in improving the quality of students’ opinion essays.

Indeed, peer mediated learning has been found to be an effective strategy in a number of curricular areas (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2007). Given the limited and contradictory findings of previous studies, more research is needed to determine whether this is a useful instructional approach for teaching revision to students with and without learning disabilities.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to examine the differential effects of SRSD instruction with and without an added peer-revision component. This study seeks to investigate the following research questions.

1) Does instruction in SRSD improve the length, number of parts, and overall quality of students’ persuasive essays, both for students in general education and special education?

2) Are general education and special education students’ essays longer, do they have more parts, and are they of higher quality when peer-revision is used in conjunction with SRSD?

3) Does participation in SRSD instruction improve students’ attitudes toward writing?

4) Does participation in SRSD plus peer–revision improve students’ attitudes toward writing more than standard SRSD instruction alone?

5) Are students’ writing gains maintained over time?

Method

This quasi-experimental study will include three conditions – SRSD, SRSD plus peer-revision, and traditional instruction. Twelve classes will be randomly assigned to conditions, resulting in four classes receiving persuasive writing instruction using SRSD, four classes receiving SRSD plus peer-revision, and four classes receiving traditional instruction. The POW+TREE persuasive writing SRSD strategy will be taught, following the guidelines outlined in POWERFUL Writing Strategies for All Students (Harris, Graham, Mason & Friedlander, 2008). Pre- and post-test essay writing and strategy questioning will be conducted with participants, as well as maintenance testing two months after instruction.

Participants and Setting

Setting. This study will take place in three elementary schools in a suburban school district on the east coast of the United States. The three elementary schools selected for this study serve students in kindergarten through grade 6. In all three schools, sixth grade students are served by teaching teams, with one teacher providing instruction in language arts and social studies, and the other providing instruction in math and science. Two classes of students rotate between the teaching teams for instruction in core courses throughout the school day. Each school has two such teaching teams at the sixth grade level, meaning that there are 2 sixth grade language arts/social studies teachers at each school. Therefore, a total of 12 classes will participate in this study (i.e., 2 classes for each of 2 language arts teachers at 3 different schools). For this study, classes, not teachers, will be randomly assigned to treatment conditions. This means that a teacher may use a different instructional approach for each of her two classes.

Participants. Participants in this study will be approximately 180 sixth grade students. Half of the participants will be male, half will be female. It is anticipated that the demographic make-up of the students will mirror the overall demographics of the school district. In this school district, about 12% of elementary-aged students are in special education, so one would expect about 22 students in this study to receive special education services. Six general education teachers will participate in this study, along with three special education teachers co-teaching in the general education classrooms.

Data Sources

Data sources will include measures of student writing, strategy knowledge and student attitudes toward the writing process. Additionally, data will be collected on the frequency of use of the peer-revision strategy, and on student and teacher attitudes toward instruction.

Student essays. Students will complete pre- and post-test essays. For these essays, students will be given a choice of two prompts and asked to write a good persuasive essay in response to the selected prompt. Three aspects of students’ written essays will be evaluated. First, essay length will be evaluated by counting total number of words. Second, the total number of essay parts will be counted. Parts include a topic sentence, reasons, explanations, and an ending sentence. Each part is given one point, with each reason and explanation receiving a point. For instance, if a student has a complete essay, he would receive 1 point for a topic sentence, 3 points for 3 reasons (1 point for each reason), 3 points for 3 explanations (that is, an explanation for each reason), and 1 point for an ending sentence, for a total of 8 points. An essay may score higher than 8 points on the number of parts measure if it includes more than 3 reasons or more than 3 explanations. Third, essays will be scored according to a 10-point holistic scoring rubric that focuses on content and organization. Writing mechanics are not evaluated as part of the holistic rubric.

The researcher will score student essays according to the above measures. In addition, a second, trained scorer will evaluate 30% of the essays. The two scorers will then compare their results to compute inter-rater reliability. Any discrepancies in scoring will be discussed. If the scorers can come to an agreement on how the essay should be scored, the agreed upon score will be used. If scorers cannot reach agreement on scoring discrepancies, an average of the two scores will be used.

Strategy questioning. Students will be asked to list the parts of a good persuasive essay as a way to assess their knowledge of the POW+TREE persuasive writing strategy. Similarly, students will be asked to identify the steps for revision to assess their knowledge of the peer-revising strategy. For both questions, a point will be assigned for each strategy component listed (e.g., 1 point for “Pick your idea,” 1 point for “Organize your notes”), for a total of 7 possible points for POW+TREE and 3 points for the revision strategy. Like student essays, 30% of the strategy questionnaire responses will be scored by a second scorer and inter-rater reliability will be computed.

Peer-revision tracking sheet. Students in the SRSD plus peer-revision condition will maintain a peer-revision tracking sheet. The sheet will ask students to list the date, start time, end time, and revision partner for all peer-revision conferences. Teachers will be asked to monitor student completion of the peer-revision tracking sheet to ensure it is completed correctly and for all peer conferences.

Student attitude scale. The Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) (Daly & Miller, 1975) assessing students’ feelings about writing in the areas of avoidance, ideas, evaluation, composition, assignments, showing enjoyment, ability, clarity, and self-esteem. The WAT consists of 26 questions, asking students to rate their feelings on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree). Sample questions include: “I avoid writing;” “Discussing my writing with others in an enjoyable experience;” and “My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on my composition.” Internal consistency ratings on the subscales range from .88 to .95.

For students in the two treatment conditions, an additional section focused on the writing strategy itself will be included. On this section, students will be asked open-ended questions to reflect on the usefulness of the writing instruction, what they liked about it, what they did not like about it, and how they have used the writing strategy in other settings. Sample questions include: “What did you find most helpful about using the strategy?” and “How have you used the strategy outside of your language arts class?”

Teacher interviews. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with teachers at the time of post-testing and again at maintenance testing. Post-test interviews will focus on the ease of instruction, student engagement, teacher satisfaction, and the likelihood that the strategy will be used with future classes. Sample post-test interview questions include: “What were some of the challenges with implementing this writing intervention?” and “What are some things you noticed about how students responded to the instruction?” Maintenance interviews will focus on student strategy use and writing quality post-instruction, any “booster sessions” provided by the teacher, and the likelihood that the strategy will be used with future classes. Sample maintenance interview questions include: “How have you noticed students using the writing strategy since you finished the study?” and “Tell me about some ways you have used the writing strategy in your instruction since finishing the study”

Materials

SRSD condition. During the course of SRSD instruction, students will be introduced to several self-regulatory aids to assist them during the writing process. These materials have been adapted from Harris et al. (2008) POWERFUL Writing Strategies for All Students. One aid is a visual mnemonic to help students remember the strategy for opinion essays – POW+TREE. Another visual aid students will use is a graphic organizer for planning their essays. Additionally, students will use a self-monitoring graph to chart their performance on a daily basis.

SRSD plus peer-revision. Students in the SRSD plus peer-revision condition will use the same self-regulatory aids as the students in the SRSD condition. Additionally, students in the peer-revision condition will have a revision checklist outlining the steps of the revision strategy. The checklist will include coaching questions for each step of the process for students to use during peer-conferencing sessions.

Traditional instruction. Students in the traditional instruction condition will use materials provided to teachers by the school district for writing instruction. These materials include a variety of graphic organizers, as well as revision and editing checklists.

Procedures

Before beginning the study, permission will be sought from the university’s Human Subjects Review Board and the school district’s Institutional Review Board. Next, teacher consent, parent consent, and student assent will be obtained. After permissions have been received, pre-testing will be conducted. Pre-testing consists of student essays, the strategy prompt, and the student attitude scale.

Following pre-testing, teachers will be trained in the SRSD persuasive writing strategy POW+TREE and in the peer-revising strategy. Teacher training will include background information about self-regulation and SRSD. Teachers will be given POW+TREE lesson plans and watch video models of all lessons. Likewise, teachers will be given lesson plans for teaching students the peer-revision strategy and watch a video model of teachers training students to use the procedures. Finally, teachers will be trained to complete the fidelity of treatment checklist, and will learn how to aid students in completing the peer-revision tracking sheet.

Instruction will be given over a four-week period. During that time, teachers will implement the writing intervention for a total of two hours each week. Teachers may schedule the two hours to fit their schedule. For example, some teachers may choose to implement the strategy in four 30-minute sessions each week, while others may prefer two one-hour writing blocks. Teachers in the two treatment conditions will complete fidelity of treatment checklists for each lesson. These checklists will ask teachers to record the date, start time, and end time of each lesson, and indicate how much was covered during the class session. The fidelity of treatment checklist will also list the major components of each lesson and ask the teacher to check off the components as they are completed throughout the lesson. Teachers in the control condition will keep a log of date, start time, end time, and lesson outline for writing lessons conducted during the four-week period. Like classes in the treatment conditions, classes in the control condition will participate in two hours of writing instruction each week for four weeks.

To provide reliability for fidelity of treatment measures, each class will be observed by the researcher at least two times during the four weeks of instruction. During these observations, the researcher will complete the same fidelity of treatment checklist as the teachers. Observer and teacher checklists will be compared. Where disagreements exist, the two raters will discuss their differences. If such disagreements can be resolved, the agreed upon rating will be reported. Where disagreements persist, an average score will be used.

At the end of the four weeks of instruction, post-test essays, strategy questionnaires, student attitude surveys, and teacher interviews will be conducted. Two months after post-testing, students will again be given essay prompts and strategy questionnaires, and teachers will be given follow-up interviews.

POW+TREE persuasive writing strategy. Students in this study will learn the POW+TREE SRSD strategy for writing persuasive essays. Instruction will follow five lessons, as outlined by Harris et al. (2008) in POWERFUL Writing Strategies for All Students. During the first lesson, students will be introduced to the POW+TREE mnemonic. POW stands for Pick my idea, Organize my notes, Write and say more. TREE represents the components of an opinion essay: Topic, Reasons, Explanations, and Ending. Next, students will practice finding all of the components of TREE in sample essays and filling in the POW+TREE graphic organizer with that information.

In lesson two, students will continue to practice identifying parts of previously written essays. In addition, students will examine their own, previously written essays to identify essay parts, learn how to graph the number of parts on the student record sheet, and set a goal for the number of parts that will be included in their next essay. Lesson three consists of the teacher modeling how to write a good persuasive essay, guiding students to develop positive self-statements they can use during the writing process, and graphing the number of essay parts on the student self-monitoring sheet.

The next step in the process, lesson four, is for the teacher and students to draft an essay together, combining all of the elements they have used so far. In the final lesson, lesson 5, students will practice writing persuasive essays independently. After completing each essay, students will graph their progress and set goals for the next essay.

Peer-revision strategy. After completing POW+TREE lesson 4, students in the SRSD plus peer revision condition will learn the peer-revision strategy. First, students will be taught the revision strategy checklist: (1) Does this essay have all the parts? (2) What is one thing I really like about this essay? (3) What are three suggestions I have to improve this essay? and (4) Did my partner reach his or her goal for this essay? Next, students will learn the rules for peer-revising, such as the appropriate language for providing feedback and how to fill out the peer-revision tracking sheet. Then, the teacher will model a peer-revising conference with one of the students, going through the peer revising checklist and filling out the tracking sheet. Finally, students will work in teacher-selected pairs for peer-revision conferences, receiving feedback from the teacher as needed. Students will continue to conduct peer-revision conferences whenever they have completed a new persuasive writing essay.

Proposed Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed using a two-group (general education vs. special education) by three-condition (SRSD, SRSD plus peer revision, and traditional instruction) ANCOVAs, with pretest scores as the covariate. An ANCOVA was selected because in-tact classes are being assigned to treatment conditions. Some classes may have more special education students in them or other student grouping arrangements that would make the groups inherently different. Using pretest scores as the covariate will help statistically control for these skill differences.

Anticipated Results

It is anticipated that the students in the treatment conditions will outperform their peers in the traditional instruction condition on measures of essay length, number of essay parts, and essay quality. It is also anticipated that students in the treatment conditions will have higher scores on the strategy questioning, and report more positive attitudes toward the writing process. Based on the earlier work of Wong et al. (1994), it is difficult to predict whether there will be any significant differences between students in the SRSD and SRSD plus peer-support conditions on these measures.

It is expected that teachers will report noticeable improvement in their students’ writing abilities following SRSD instruction in the two treatment conditions. Additionally, it is anticipated that teachers will report that they and their students enjoyed the peer-revision process.

References

Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp.383-402). New York: Guilford.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). POWERFUL Writing Strategies For All Students. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Mastropieri, M A., & Scruggs, T. E.. (2007). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., & Kuperis, S. (1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher vs. student-student interactive dialogues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 78-90.

Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197-212.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download