Teaching Writing for Keeps

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 30, No. 3, 2007

Teaching Writing for Keeps Sheila R. Alber-Morgan The Ohio State University Terri Hessler The Ohio State University, Newark Moira Konrad The Ohio State University Abstract Proficiency with written expression is critical for students' academic success. Unfortunately, writing presents a challenge for both students and teachers. Recent data suggest that many students in U.S. schools fail to meet even the most basic writing standards. And even when students receive effective (i.e., evidence-based) writing instruction, they often struggle with the generalization (i.e., transfer) of skills to other writing tasks, genres, and purposes and with maintaining skills over time. This article provides teachers with strategies for promoting generalization of writing skills in each stage of the writing process: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing.

P

roficient writing is critical for accomplishing many important tasks in and out of school and throughout adulthood. In school, students must use writing skills to achieve success across curricula. For example, in addition to compositions and literary analyses required by English teachers, students are often required to produce science lab reports, biographies of historical figures, essays comparing government systems, and explanatory reports of mathematical answer derivations. Written language demands increase proportional to grade level (Christenson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & McVicar, 1989; Polloway, Patton, & Cohen, 1981), making it critical that younger students master foundation skills and older students build on those skills. Beyond the academic purposes of writing are its benefits as a means of self-expression (Mercer, 1997). Pennebaker (1997) determined that writing about emotional experiences can have a beneficial impact on physical and mental health, including a reduction in the number of physician visits and self-reports of distress and/or depression. In its executive summary, the National Commission on Writing (2005) Correspondence to Sheila R. Alber-Morgan, School of PAES, Special Education Program, 305 W. 17th Ave., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail: [email protected].

Pages 107-128

108

ALBER-MORGAN, HESSLER, and KONRAD

recognized writing not only as a tool for learning but as a skill critical to an individual's—and indeed society's—success. In today's climate of high-stakes accountability (e.g.. No Child Left Behind Act, 2001), it is important to identify interventions that yield the greatest outcomes in critical academic areas, including written expression. Unfortunately, writing is a challenge for both students and teachers. The most recent results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2002) revealed that 14% of 4* graders, 15% of 8* graders, and 26% of 12* graders were not able to write at the Basic level. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the Basic Level "represents partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills...Proficient represents solid academic performance, and Advanced represents superior performance" (Plisko, 2003, p. 1). The majority of students who participated in this assessment did not reach the Proficient level. Clearly, this is an area that needs attention. Fortunately, research in the area of written expression has identified interventions that produce improved results (e.g. Expressive Writing: Englemann & Silbert, 1983; Reasoning and Writing; Englemann & Crossen, 2001; procedural facilitation: Craves, Montague, & Wong, 1990; goal-setting: Craham, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1995; cognitive strategy instruction: Craham & Harris, 1989). Unfortunately, even with "effective" writing instruction, students struggle with the generalization (i.e., transfer) of skills to other writing tasks, genres, and purposes and with maintaining skills over time (Craham & Harris, 1989; Craham, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Page-Voth, 1992; Troia, 2002). Clearly, generalization of writing skills will not happen automafically; teachers must plan and teach for generalized outcomes and must base instructional decisions on the "big ideas" for teaching writing. Big Ideas

Big ideas are "instructional priorities" (Kame'enui & Simmons, 1999, p. 9) that serve as "anchoring concepts through which 'small' ideas ... can be understood ... Big ideas make it possible for students to learn as much as they can and ... as efficiently as possible" (p. 10). Cersten and Baker (2001) reviewed the literature on teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities. Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that writing programs should include (a) explicit teaching of the conventions of a writing genre or text structure, (b) guided feedback (from teachers or peers), and (c) explicit instruction of the critical steps of the writing process. These three instructional features might be considered the "big ideas" for teaching written expression skills to students who struggle with writing. The biggest of those big ideas is teaching the writing process.

TEACHING WRITING FOR KEEPS

109

The Writing Process

Isaacson (1989) describes two roles involved in writing, author and secretary. When in the author role, the student writer is concerned with originating ideas, organizing thoughts, and arranging selected words and phrases appropriately or effectively. When in the secretary role, the student writer is more concerned with the mechanics of wrifing (e.g., using correct spelling, capitalizafion, and punctuation). The writing process approach recognizes the importance of both the author and secretary roles. In this approach, students choose their own topics, write for real audiences and purposes, and assume ownership as the motivation for developing skills needed to eftectively communicate (Craves, 1994). The process approach is manifested in the work Donald H. Craves and exemplified by the writing workshop model popularized by Nancie Atwell (1987). The writing process approach emphasizes writing fluency, including techniques that improve a student's ability to get words down on paper (Craves). It promotes frequent writing in contexts that are meaningful and authentic to the students. This usually translates to students choosing their own topics and genres for their written expression and the provision of authentic audiences, perhaps pen pals or other purposeful lefter-writing. The reader is emphasized as both peers and teachers provide feedback, either in writing or in conferences (Atwell). The process approach encourages the use of the students' own writing as the instructional text for teaching the conventions of print (Atwell). In the process approach, a teacher cannot teach writing in the absence of student writing. The stages of the writing process are prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing (Ray, 2001). Due to the recursive nature of writing, these stages may overlap (Hayes & Flower, 1986). In the prewriting stage students plan and organize for their writing (e.g., brainstorming and creating graphic organizers). During the drafting stage, students create drafts of their writing pieces, perhaps many. In the revising stage, teachers encourage their student writers to make substantial improvements to the piece (i.e., the author role). Peers and others often provide feedback to the author during this stage. The student writer assumes the secretary role during the editing stage, focusing on correcting mechanical errors such as punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. The publishing stage can take many forms, ranging from submission for grading to literal publication. Again, students may progress through the stages linearly or they may return to previous ones (e.g., even after "publishing," a piece could go through revision), alternating between the author and secretary roles fluidly.

110

ALBER-MORCAN, HESSLER, and KONRAD

During each stage of the writing process, teachers can implement instruction that will increase the likelihood of generalized outcomes. For the following generalization strategies, we provide suggestions for erJ-iancing the effectiveness of process writing instruction. Technology of Generalization

According to Baer (1999), "no one learns a generalized lesson unless a generalized lesson is taught" (p. 2). For example, in writing, when students learn to write a friendly lefter, they do not automatically know how to write a business letter—without being taught. Similarly, a student who has mastered narrative writing does not automatically transfer those skills to writing poetry—without instruction. A student who successfully writes an expository essay in October may not maintain that ability through June—without deliberate efforts to provide opportunities for practice with feedback. Stokes and Baer (1977) identified six strategies for promoting generalized outcomes: (a) aim for natural contingencies of reinforcement, (b) teach enough examples, (c) program common stimuli, (d) teach loosely, (e) program indiscriminable contingencies, and (f) teach self-management. This article will provide teachers with specific strategies for teaching generalization of writing skills in each stage of the writing process: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Aim for Natural Contingencies of Reinforcement

Newly acquired behaviors will only be maintained if they contact reinforcement. If new skills are reinforced in a variety of settings and situafions, increased generalization is likely. However, it is very difficult if not impossible to indefinitely reinforce a student in all the settings where the target behavior is desired. For this reason, it is most efficient to target and reinforce behaviors that meet with natural contingencies of reinforcement. Natural contingencies of reinforcement are those that can be relied upon in common settings. For example, in many classrooms, frequent teacher praise is an available reinforcer for academic performance and social competence. Even in classrooms where praise is scarce, research demonstrates that students may access a reliable source of teacher praise by recruiting reinforcement (e.g., Alber, Heward, & Hippler, 1999; Connell, Carta, & Baer, 1993). For example, Clenn is very proud of a sentence he has just written in his journal. He recruits teacher praise by raising his hand, waiting for his teacher, and asking her, "How do you like this sentence?" Clenn's recruiting behavior prompts the teacher to provide him with praise and feedback. Even though providing praise is not really natural, it functions as a natural contingency of reinforcement in many class-

TEACHINC WRITINC FOR KEEPS

111

rooms. Naturally reinforced behaviors are usually functional, age-appropriate, and valued by self and significant others. For some individuals, reinforcement contingencies can become so powerful they seem to operate automatically to promote generalization and maintenance. This is called a behavior trap (Baer & Wolf, 1970). The following example illustrates how a behavior trap operates to promote generalized responding across settings and over time. When Antoine's older brother first taught him how to play a video game, Antoine had some difficulty operating the controls. Even though it was frustrating, Antoine confinued practicing because he liked to play with his older brother (i.e., a natural contingency of reinforcement). He also liked being able to control the screen animation. As Antoine became more proficient, his own success continued to function as a natural reinforcer. Now, one year later, Antoine enjoys video games so much that he plays a new game until he "beats" it. Then he finds another game to master. Antoine is proficient with a wide range of video games at home, at his friends' houses, and at the arcade. If only it were this easy to teach generalized writing skills! Obviously, the natural contingencies of reinforcement for writing are considerably more difficult to access, especially for struggling writers. For this reason, teachers should consider contriving behavior traps that provide sufficient motivation for students to practice and extend their writing skills. For example, if a student is naturally reinforced by X-Men comic books, one activity for using that reinforcer to promote writing skills is to have the student write captions or a dialogue to accompany X-Men pictures. As proficiency increases, the demands of each writing activity should also increase. For suggestions about how to design and implement behavior traps to increase academic success, see Alber and Heward (1996). Each of the following sections describes how teachers can build natural contingencies of reinforcement into writing activities in each stage of the wrifing process. Prewriting. During the prewriting stage, students make decisions about their topic, purpose, and audience. Then they plan and organize what they want to say and how they want to say it. In order to aim for natural contingencies of reinforcement in the prewriting stage, students must be highly motivated by their writing topics. Teachers can increase motivation by encouraging students to select topics that are personally meaningful. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, students can be encouraged to brainstorm ideas about their favorite pop stars, TV shows, or movies. Students may want to write letters to actors, musicians, or athletes; scripts for a TV show; or stories and poems about real or ficfional heroes. Students can also

112

ALBER-MORCAN, HESSLER, and KONRAD

plan a "how to" paper describing the procedures for their favorite acfivity, hobby, or sport. For a favorite book, students may write an altemate ending, an addifional chapter, or a letter to a friend from the point of view of a character in the story. If students are reluctant to talk about their interests, they can be observed during free choice activities to determine possible directions for their written expression. Providing students with high interest story starters (e.g., "It was the craziest day ever!"), visual stimuli (e.g., a famous painting), or personally relevant connections may stimulate more interest in the wrifing task. For example, students who enjoy drawing may be interested in wrifing stories about their art work. In order to aim for natural reinforcement and increase mofivafion, students should be able to choose from a variety of writing topics. Other ways to make prewriting a naturally reinforcing activity is allowing students to use computer technology. For example, Kidspirafion® (www.kidspiration.com) is a software program that provides students with a means to visually organize their planning ideas. To make planning more engaging and fun, Kidspirafion® also enables students to insert pictures, sound bites, and video clips. Research demonstrates the positive eftects of computer assisted instruction for struggling writers (e.g., MacArthur, 1996; MacArthur, 2000). Students can use computer programs to create semantic maps or use the internet to research a particular interest. Addifionally, peers may enjoy collaborafing on ideas, brainstorming, and organizing plarming notes. Drafting. During the drafting stage, students focus on clear expression of their ideas as they translate their planning notes into draft form. The natural contingency of reinforcement may already be present if students are writing about a topic that is of high interest to them. Other motivational acfivities for the drafting stage include allowing students to compose their writing at the computer, use a favorite pen, or co-write with a peer. Revising/editing. Motivating students to revise and edit their work can be a formidable challenge. For many students, working with peers is a natural reinforcement confingency. Additionally, peer editing has produced positive outcomes on the quality of students' written expression, especially for students who struggle with writing (Ammer, 1998; Craham, Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991; Saddler & Craham, 2005; Whittaker & Salend, 1991; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996, 1997). Students may exchange papers with a peer and provide feedback to one another about what they liked and suggestions for improvement. After students are comfortable with working with one peer, they can transition to working with a peer-editing group. Figure 1 illustrates an example of a peer revising/editing feedback form that peer editors can complete after they listen to the

TEACHINC WRITINC FOR KEEPS

Peer Revising/Editing Feedback Form

Writer:

Peer Editor:

What three things did you like most about this piece? (1)

(2).

What one suggestion do you have for the writer that might make this piece better, stronger, or more interesting? Focus on style, ideas, and organization instead of surface-level errors.

What surface-levei errors should be a priority for this writer when he/she edits?

Figure 1. Peer revising/editing feedback form.

113

114


student author read his or her work. Prior to implementing any peerassisted strategy, teachers should use clear directions, modeling, roleplaying, and guided practice to teach students how to appropriately give and receive constructive feedback (e.g.,. Heron, Villareal, Yao, Christianson, & Heron, 2006; Maheady, Mallette, & Harper, 2006). Teach Enough Examples

As a general rule, the more examples of a target skill provided during instruction, the more likely students will generalize to untaught examples. In addition to teaching many examples, it is also necessary to select the right examples. Homer, Williams, and Steveley (1987) use the term "general case strategy" to refer to the selection of teaching examples that represent the full range of situations and response requirements under which the learner must perform the skill. A set of effective teaching examples can be developed after examining all variations of the target skill required in each generalization setting. When making decisions about writing instruction, teachers should consider the full range of audiences and writing tasks students will encounter. Selected teaching examples should be prioritized in order of relevance or usefulness to the student while taking into consideration mastery of prerequisite skills and likelihood of student success. The following are suggestions for teaching enough examples during the writing process. Prewriting. During the prewriting stage, students can be taught to plan and organize their writing using a variety of graphic organizers, such as semantic maps to explore a concept, story maps to plan a fiction piece, or a Venn diagram for compare/contrast compositions. One kinesthetic graphic organizer involves using an 8 Vi" x 11" sheet of lined or unlined paper for organizing prewriting (see Figure 2). The student is taught to fold the paper into four squares, which represent paragraphs. They then unfold the paper and in landscape format, fold down two small strips, one at the top of the page, the other at the bottom. These provide space for an introduction and a conclusion. Students are taught to write two, three, or four topics in the resulting squares and jot down potential supporting details for each in the appropriate square. They then come up with an idea for starting their paper (i.e., the thesis statement) and write it in the top strip and reword it in the bottom strip. Drafting. Using several examples of different graphic organizers, teachers can show students how to translate their planning notes into text. As a whole class activity, teachers can use the chalkboard, chart paper, overhead projector, or "smart board" to guide students in creating a graphic organizer. Then the teacher can demonstrate how to


115

Introduction My favorite pet is gfniffles, my dog. Paragraph 1

Paragraph 2

-had Since a puppy

-eats special dog food

-bought from the animal shelter

-diabetic

Paragraph 3

Paragraph 4

-lives in house -Sleeps in my room

-has a cage

Conclusion

S'niffies is a part of our family. I love g'niffies.

Figure 2. Folding paper graphic organizer.

write sentences and paragraphs from the graphic organizer. Wholeclass planning and drafting can be used to demonstrate a range of writing tasks, topics, and purposes. Hillocks (1984) concluded that using models in writing can have moderate effects. If students know what they are "shooting for" they may be better able to produce the desired product. Given that using only models without other writing instruction produced moderate effects at best, for most favorable outcomes teachers should provide writing models in combination with other empirically validated practices such as explicit instruction (e.g.. Walker, Shippen, Alberto, Houchins, & Cihak, 2005) and self-regulated strategy development

116


(e.g., Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). It may be useful to show models of a correctly paragraphed paper or a paper with exemplary topic sentences and corresponding detail/support sentences. For example, when teaching students to write interesting "hooks" (i.e., story beginnings), choose several compelling first sentences from short stories and/or novels and show them to students. Have students discuss whether they would want to keep reading after reading these first sentences. Revising/editing. Provide brief and frequent direct instruction of mechanics by teaching 5-10 minute mini-lessons (Atwell, 1987). This will help students acquire the range of complex skills required for effective writing. Examine students' writing samples to determine the types of errors they are typically making. Then sequence the error types by how frequently they occur. At the beginning of the writing period, provide direct instruction of the editing skill needed to address those errors. After the mini-lesson, prompt the students to edit for that particular error during writers' workshop. The mini-lesson is an efficient way to teach a wide range of writing skills. In order to determine mastery of a particular editing skill, assess generalization using untaught examples. This means assessing students' use of the skills in other parts of their essays or in subsequent writing. Program Common Stimuli

Generalized responding is more likely to occur in settings and situations that have similar features to the instructional environment. When programming common stimuli to promote generalization, teachers must identify the common features of each setting where the target skill is required. These common features should be incorporated into instruction so that they may function as cues for the target behavior. For example, when van den Pol et al. (1981) taught students with disabilities to make purchases in fast food restaurants, the common features incorporated into instruction included a mock counter, signs with menu items, and photographic slides of actual restaurant scenes. Common features of written expression that can be programmed into writing instruction may include the following: writing left-to-right and top-to-bottom, writing within the lines on the paper, and writing headings in the appropriate place. In fact, teaching students to approach writing as a process (i.e., prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing) is a general case strategy. Teachers can also contrive a common stimulus for students to carry to a variety of settings. For example, a student who has difficulty remembering the algorithm for long division can tape a card to her notebook that lists and illustrates each step. When she works on long division at home or in study hall, she may refer to the card as the


117

common stimulus to prompt generalized computation skills. Teachers can program common stimuli for written expression skills in the following ways. Prewriting. Common stimuli can be programmed in prewriting by teaching students a consistent procedure for planning and organizing their ideas across a range of writing assignments (e.g., brainstorming, selecting and sequencing ideas, determining purpose and audience, etc.). In order to make the common stimuli transportable, students can make a laminated card that illustrates the steps for planning and organizing a writing topic. The card can be taped to a journal or writing notebook that the student carries among classrooms and between home and school. Table 1 shows examples of mnemonic strategies for planning, drafting, and revising/editing for different types of writing tasks. The strategies TREE (Graham & Harris, 1989), STOP (De La Paz & Graham, 1997), and PLAN (De La Paz, 1999) can be used as common stimuli during the prewriting stage. Drafting. When students move to the drafting stage, the following common stimuli may be useful: a dictionary or thesaurus, word banks of commonly misspelled words, and index cards with sample transition words and phrases (De La Paz, 1999). Students can also refer to a list of suggestions for creating a draft (e.g., use action verbs and adjectives, if you get stuck go to another part of the paper, write the introduction last, etc.). WRITE (De La Paz, 1999) and DARE (De La Paz & Graham, 1997) are writing strategies for the drafting stage that can function as common stimuli (see Table 1). Revising/editing. When students revise their work, they can be provided with a check list indicating each type of error they look for when they edit (e.g., capitalization, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, use of commas). The checklist can be laminated and attached to each student's writing folder. Students can use an erasable marker to check off each editing task, and reuse the laminated checklist for any writing assignment. Having a peer buddy help provide feedback can also function as common stimuli. Students can be taught the acronym COPS as a reminder to check for correct capitalization, overall apperaance, punctuation, and spelling). Teach Loosely

• When programming common stimuli, the intention is for critical aspects of the environment to acquire functional control over target behaviors. However, sometimes non-critical stimuli will have the same effect. For example, if a student will not write because he has the wrong kind of paper, his generalization has become limited by an irrelevant stimulus. For this reason, it is necessary to teach loosely. Teaching loosely is systematically varying the non-critical aspects

118

ALBER-MORGAN, HESSLER, and KONRAD Table 1 Mnemonic Strategies Across the Writing Process

Mnemonic Strategy TREE (Graham & Harris, 1989)

Prewriting

Drafting

X

X

X

X

Develop Topic sentence Note Reasons to support premise Examine the soundness of each supporting reason Note an Ending for the paper STOP (De La Paz & Graham, 1997) Suspend judgment Take a side Organize ideas Plan more as you write PLAN (De La Paz, 1999)

X

Pay attention to the prompt List main ideas Add supporting ideas Number your ideas WRITE (De La Paz, 1999)

X

Work from your plan to develop your thesis statement Remember your goals Include transition words for each paragraph Try to use different kinds of sentences Exciting, interesting words DARE (De La Paz & Graham, 1997) Develop your topic sentence Add supporting ideas Reject possible arguments for other side End with a conclusion

X

Revising/ Editing


119

Table 1 (continued)

Mnemonic Strategy COPS (Schumaker, Nolan, & Deschler, 1985)

Prewriting

Drafting

Revising/ Editing X

Capitalization Overall appearance Punctuation Spelling

of the environment during instruction (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Examples of non-critical stimuH that can be varied across each stage of the writing process include noise level, lighting, aromas, color and type of materials, people present during instruction, and the time of day for writing activities. Additionally, the following non-critical stimuli can be varied for each stage. Prewrit'ing. During prewriting, the media for planning writing ideas can be varied. For example, students may record their brainstorming notes and graphic organizers on the chalkboard, chart paper, various kinds of note paper, index cards, and the computer (e.g.. Inspiration® software). Prewriting can also take different forms. For one writing activity, students can create an outline. For another, students may complete a graphic organizer. For yet another, they may complete a web or idea map. The teacher can alternate leading the group in prewriting (e.g., organized brainstorming) or allowing the students to prewrite with partners or in group; and on some occasions, students prewrite alone. Drafting. During the drafting stage, the writing instruments can be varied. Students may use various kinds of pens and pencils, or they may write at different kinds of computers. The location of the room where students write can also be varied. In addition to writing at their own desks, students can write at a table with a group of students, or move to a writing center that is set up in the classroom. Students should also become proficient at writing in different genres. Often times, young students become quite adept at writing narratives because many of their writing opportunities involve writing about their own experiences. Teaching students the different forms writing can take (e.g., letter, expository, compare-contrast, persuasive) allows them to move more fluidly among the different purposes of writing.

120


Revision/editing. Students can work with different students in peer editing groups. After reviewing three studies, Hayes and Flower (1986) determined that writers have difficulty finding errors in their own texts because their familiarity with their own writing prevented them from easily seeing the faults, whereas readers with little or no prior knowledge could more easily spot the problems. The size and members of the groups as well as group leaders should be varied. The type of feedback can be written or verbal. Another variation may be to assign some proficient writers to provide individual assistance at an editing station in the classroom. Program Intermittent and Delayed Reinforcement

Students often fail to generalize because the reinforcement contingencies are different in the teaching and generalization settings. For example, when Rita is in the special education classroom, she gets praise after every sentence she writes and sometimes she gets a sticker. When she's in the regular classroom, the teacher praises her after she writes about five to seven sentences—but Rita often only writes three or four. Rita's mother works in the evening, so when Rita completes her homework (which is about 50% of the time), sometimes her mother praises her the next morning, but sometimes she forgets. In order to prepare students to function in a world of unpredictable reinforcement, teachers can program intermittent and delayed reinforcement into instruction. At first, when acquiring a new skill, students should be reinforced continuously (i.e., after every response). After a predetermined level of mastery is attained, the teacher should gradually begin to deliver reinforcement so that it is intermittent and unpredictable. Programming delayed rewards (e.g., getting a prize for behaviors emitted earlier that day or week) may also promote generalization, as long as the student can make the connection between the behavior and the reward. The following are ways to program unpredictable reinforcement contingencies when teaching written expression. Prewriting. During prewriting, provide students with frequent and intermittent praise or tangible reinforcement (e.g., stickers, tokens) for engaging in and staying on task during planning time. Additionally, intermittent and delayed reinforcement can be provided for completing planning sheets. In order to make the reinforcement unpredictable, teachers can randomly select names out of a hat to determine which planning sheets will be assessed for completion. Then either individual or group rewards can be delivered. When students are working with a partner, they can also be intermittently reinforced for appropriate interactions with peers, making good contributions, and collaborating on ideas.


121

Drafting. Rewards and tickets can also be delivered for on-task behavior during the writing stage. The following procedure can be used to program for intermittent reinforcement. During writing time, play a recording of intermittent tones that sound every few minutes. If students have written a certain number of words each time they hear the tone, they receive a sticker or token. As students become more fluent, gradually extend the time between each tone so that students must persevere in the writing process in order to receive the reward. This is especially useful for students with written expression disabilities who tend to write much less than their typical peers (Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1991). Revising/editing. Unpredictable reinforcement can be used during the editing/revision stage in the following way. Teachers can randomly select one skill to assess for each student's written expression. For example, if a teacher selects "transition sentences," then students who appropriately used transition sentences in their papers will earn a reward. This approach has the added benefit of increased efficiency with teacher feedback. Using selective grading, teachers can provide more writing opportunities without the onerous task of so much grading (Heward, Heron, Gardner, & Prayzer, 1991). Teach Self-Management

Teaching self-management is probably one of the most effective strategies for programming generalized outcomes. Students can learn to select their own goals, self-prompt important behaviors in a variety of settings, and self-regulate their performance. Self-management enables students to function more independently with a range of skills in a variety of situations and over time. One approach to teaching writing that incorporates self-management is the self-regulated strategy development model (SRSD, Harris, Schmidt, & Graham, 1998), which includes six instructional strategies: (a) develop and activate background knowledge, (b) introduce the strategy (see Table 1), (c) model the strategy, (d) have students memorize the strategy, (e) support students' strategy use, and (f) provide opportunities for independent performance. To date, there have been more than 20 studies documenting the effectiveness of SRDS to teach writing strategies (Harris et al.). The following are suggested ways to teach self-management throughout the writing process. Prewriting. Teach students to keep their writing ideas and goals in a binder or file folder. They can organize their ideas by category and sequence them according their interest level in the topic. Higher interest writing assignments can be selected first. For bigger writing projects (e.g., a term paper), students can create a time line that shows

122


the date for when they plan to complete each step (e.g., decide on a topic, research the topic, create an outline, write a first draft, etc.). Drafting. Students can be taught to self-monitor and record the number of words they write during each class writing session (e.g., Moxley & Lutz, 1995). Teach students to record their writing performance on a graph so they can clearly see their own progress. As writing fluency improves, students will see their own improvements and may become more motivated to continue to increase their proficiency. The writing graphs can also provide students with a basis for goal setting. In addition to recording the number of words written per day or week, students can also record the amount of time spent on writing outside of school. Revising/editing. Students can self-monitor their revising and editing by using some of the strategies described above in programming common stimuli, such as keeping a self-evaluation checklist. Students can also use a self questioning strategy to self-assess the quality of the content. For example, students may learn to ask themselves some of the following questions: Have I capitalized the first word of every sentence? Did I remember to use a comma after every item in a series? Publishing

In terms of promoting generalized outcomes, publishing opportunities can be a form of unpredictable reinforcement and can sample a range of venues. Ultimately, however, publication is a natural contingency of reinforcement. Publishing is the culminating experience of the writing process in which students have an opportunity to see the effects of their writing on real audiences. Publication is a celebration of student success. Although it is not necessary for every writing piece to be published, students should learn to produce polished versions of their work. The emphasis in this stage of the writing process should be to improve the appearance, ease of reading, and pride in authorship. Examples of ways to publish student writing include reading the story aloud in an author's chair; constructing books complete with illustrations to display in the classroom; displaying compositions on classroom or hallway bulletin boards; submitting student work to children's magazines or websites; and creating a classroom newspaper, newsletter, or website. Many students, especially those with writing deficits, lack motivation to write. Even students who like to write often have little interest in editing and revising their work. Reluctant writers can be motivated to revise and polish their work by providing them frequent opportunities to be published. Publication is an effective way to give


123

student writing a communicative purpose and can be an excellent tool for motivating students to engage in the writing process (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991). When students with disabilities were assigned meaningful writing tasks which resulted in publication, they made greater gains in their narrative and informative writing (MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz, & Schafer 1995; MacArthur et al., 1991). Many children may not like to write, but, in general, they like to be published. Motivation

Both teaching and leaming writing skills require sustained effort. The strategies described previously, especially under "Aim for Natural Contingencies of Reinforcement," address student motivation. In the context of the big ideas in writing, teaching students the text structures influences their confidence when approaching a given writing task; facilitating collaboration among peers utilizes the already existing contingency of reinforcement available in the classroom; and helping students see writing as a process that culminates in a "published" piece may inspire perseverance to the end product. Add to this voice in topic selection, and teachers have at their command a variety of tools that may effectively motivate students to persist through the writing process. But what about teachers in this process? How do we sustain their efforts? Writing instruction is as complicated a task as writing itself. Further, the guided feedback that is required for effective instruction (Gersten & Baker, 2001) can be time-consuming and tedious. As writing teachers know, grading every aspect of every student's paper would leave little time for the other responsibilities required of a busy classroom teacher. Heward et al. (1991) offer selective grading as a strategy to address both of these issues. Selective grading essentially allows for the assessment of either fewer students' pieces or only parts of all students' papers. For exarnple, if Ms. Saguka is emphasizing topic sentences with her fourth grade language arts class, she may choose to grade and provide feedback on all students' papers but only addressing whether students wrote effective topic sentences. If Mr. Miguel is teaching his first graders how to punctuate sentences, he may randomly select a portion of his class' papers to assess whether they are using end punctuation marks correctly. For an even more efficient process, these two forms of selective grading can be combined, further reducing the aversive nature of grading by saving time and effort. Reducing grading time might encourage teachers to provide more practice opportunities for students to write. Another practical assessment strategy is the use of short, timed writing periods (e.g., 3-5 minutes). This not only helps students de-

124


velop fluency, but it provides the teacher with a snapshot of writing performance (Espin, de La Paz, Scierka, & Roelofs, 2005). Assessing short writing samples is less time-consuming than assessing a product that has gone through the entire process. However, students must also have ample opportunities to progress through the writing process. As such, students may choose from among these short writing samples and use their ideas as a launch into the prewriting stage for a more developed piece. Conclusion Written expression is difficult to teach because it is the most complex form of communication; however, it is critical because it is a common mode of communication. Expressing oneself in writing requires synthesis of a myriad of complex component skills. It is virtually impossible to teach writing for every situation students will encounter; every writing task is a generalization task. Therefore, teachers must deliberately plan and teach for generalized outcomes. Using the six strategies for promoting generalization in combination with the w^riting process, teachers can increase the extent to which students generalize their writing skills. Acknowledgement The title was adapted from a course taught at The Ohio State University by William L. Heward called "Teaching for Keeps." References Alber, S. R., & Heward, W. L. (1996). "Gotcha!" Twenty-five behavior traps guaranteed to extend your students' academic and social skills. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 285-289. Alber, S. R., Heward, W. L., & Hippler, B. J. (1999). Teaching middle school students with leaming disabilities to recruit positive teacher attention. Exceptional Children, 65, 253-270. Ammer, J. (1998). Peer evaluation model for enhancing writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 263-283. Atwell, N (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Baer, D. M. (1999). How to plan for generalization. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1970). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of human behavior (pp. 324-342). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.


125

Christenson, S. L. Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J., & McVicar, J. B. (1989). Written language instruction for students with mild handicaps: Is there enough quantity to ensure quality? Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 219-29.

Connell, M. C, Carta, J. J., & Baer, D. M. (1993). Programming generalization of in class transition skills: Teaching preschoolers with developmental delays to self assess and recruit contingent teacher praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26,

345-352. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. De La Paz, S. (1999). Teaching writing strategics and self-regulation procedures to middle school students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31,1-16.

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with leaming difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63,167-181. Englemann, S. & Grossen, B. (2001). Reasoning and writing. Blacklick, OH: Science Research Associates. Englemann, S. & Silbert, J. (1983). Expressive writing. Blacklick, OH: Science Research Associates. Espin, C. A., de La Paz, S., Scierka, S., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle school students, Journal of Special Education, 38, 208-217. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251-272.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Improving learning disabled students' skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201-214.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction for students with leaming disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241.

126


Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and leaming problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240. Graham, S., MacArthur, C, Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with leamifig disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322-334. Graves, D. H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y. (1990). The effects of procedural facilitation on the story composition of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research 5, 88-93. Harris, K. R., Schmidt, T, & Graham, S. (1998). Every child can write: Strategies for composition and self-regulation in the writing process. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & D. Deshler (Eds.), Advances in teaching and learning. Vol. 2: Teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse schools and classrooms (pp. 131-167). Cambridge: Brookline Books. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41,1106-1113. Heron, T. E., Villareal, D. M., Yao, M., Christianson, R. J., & Heron, K. M. (2006). Peer tutoring systems: Applications in classrooms and specialized environments. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 27-45. Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., Gardner III, R., & Prayzer, R. (1991). Two strategies for improving students' writing skills. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), A school psychologist's intervefitions for regular education (pp. 379-398). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Hillocks, G. (1984) What works in teaching composition: A metaanalysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93,133-70. Homer, R. H., Williams, J. A., & Steveley, J. D. (1987) Acquisition of generalized telephone use by students with moderate and severe mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 229-247. Isaacson, S. (1989). Role of secretary vs. author: Resolving the conflict in writing instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 209217.


127

Kame'enui, E. J. & Simmons, D. C. (1999). Improving the Writing Performance, Knowledge, and Self-Efficacy of Struggling Young Writers: The Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Washington, D. C: ERIC/OSEP. MacArthur, C. A. (1996). New tools for writing: Assitive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 85-100. MacArthur, C. A. (2000). Using technology to enhance the writing processes of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 344-54. MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201-210. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278-291. Maheady, L. Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2006). Four classwide peer tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 65-89. Mercer, C. D. (1997). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Moxley, R.A., & Lutz, P.A. (1995). Self-recorded word counts of freewriting in grades 1-4. Education &• Treatment of Children, 18, 138-158. National Commission on Writing. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. New York: College Board. Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with learning disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980 to 1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578-593. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8,162-166. Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C, & Jin, Y. (2002). The nation's report card: Writing 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 5,2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003529. Plisko, V. W. (2003). The Release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) The Nations' Report Card: Writing 2002.

128


Retrieved November 21, 2006, http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/ commissioner/remarks2003/7_10_2003.asp. Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Cohen, S. A. (1981). Written language for mildly handicapped students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14,1-16. Ray, K. W. (2001). The writing workshop: Working through the hard parts (and they're all hard parts). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Saddler, B. & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentencecombining instruction on writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 43-54. Schumaker, J. B., Nolan, S. N., & Deschler, D. D., (1985). Learning strategies curriculum: The error monitoring strategy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367. Troia, G. A. (2002). Teaching writing strategies to children with disabilities: Setting generalization as the goal. Exceptionality, 10, 249-269. Van den Pol, R. A., Iwata, B. A., Ivancic, M. T, Page, T. J., Neef, N. A., & Whitley, F. P. (1981). Teaching the handicapped to eat in public places: Acquisition, generalization and maintenance of restaurant skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 61-69. Walker, B., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, R, Houchins, D. E., & Cihak, D. F. (2005). Using the "expressive writing" program to improve the writing skills of high school students with leaming disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20,175-183.. Whittaker, C. R., & Salend, S. J. (1991). Collaborative peer writing groups. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7,125-136. Wong, Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with leaming disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197-212. Wong, Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with leaming disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2-15.