lessons learned: an action research project in self...
Post on 10-Mar-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 10
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
LESSONSLEARNED:ANACTIONRESEARCHPROJECTINSELF-REGULATEDSTRATEGYDEVELOPMENTWRITINGINSTRUCTIONFORSECONDARYSTUDENTSWITHEMOTIONALANDBEHAVIORALDISORDERSMandyE.Lusk
ClaytonStateUniversity
CalliLewisChiu
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton
DonnaSayman
WichitaStateUniversity
Abstract:Secondarystudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders(EBD)oftenstruggleinvarious
academicareas,specificallyinwrittenexpression.Researchershavefoundthatwhenculturallydiverse
learnerswithEBDlearneffectivewritingstrategies,studentscaneffectivelyexpressthemselves.Self-regulated
strategydevelopment(SRSD)isasystematicinstructionalmodeldesignedtoaddressmanydifficulties
associatedwithwriting,includingmotivation,attitudes,andbeliefsaboutthewritingprocess(Harris,Graham,
Friedlander,&Laud,2013).ThepresentstudyinvestigatedtheeffectofanSRSDinterventiononthe
persuasivewritingskillsofculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBD.Resultsofthestudysupportthat
theSRSDinterventioncontributedtovariedincreasesintotalwordswrittenandinessayquality.The
researchersencounteredmanychallengesduringtheactionresearchproject.Thismanuscriptdocumentsthe
challengesandreflectsonpossiblesolutionsforthereaderstoconsiderwhenengaginginactionresearch.
Keywords:actionresearch,SRSD,emotionalandbehavioraldisorders,secondary,specialeducation,writing
Introduction
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 11
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Studentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders(EBD)oftenstruggleinvariousacademic
areas(Ennis,Jolivette,&Boden,2013;Graham&Perin,2007;Mason,Kubina,Kostewicz,
Cramer,&Datchuk,2013).Thesestudentsoftenhaveaverageintelligence;however,their
internalizingandexternalizingchallengingbehaviorsprohibitthemfrombeingsuccessfulin
academicskillsincludingwrittenexpression(Losinski,Cuenca-Carlino,Zablocki,&
Teagarden,2014).TheIndividualswithDisabilitiesImprovementAct(IDEIA;2004)usesthe
termemotionaldisturbance,alsoknownasEBD,anddefinesitas:
Aconditionexhibitingoneormoreofthefollowingcharacteristicsoveralongperiodof
timeandtoamarkeddegreethatadverselyaffectsachild’seducationalperformance:
(a) Aninabilitytolearnthatcannotbeexplainedbyintellectual,sensory,orhealthfactors.
(b) Aninabilitytobuildormaintainsatisfactoryinterpersonalrelationshipswith
peersandteachers.
(c) Inappropriatetypesofbehaviororfeelingsundernormalcircumstances.
(d) Ageneralpervasivemoodofunhappinessordepression.
(e) Atendencytodevelopphysicalsymptomsorfearsassociatedwithpersonalor
schoolproblems((§300.8(c)(4)(i)).
Emotionaldisturbanceincludesschizophrenia.Thetermdoesnotapplytochildrenwhoare
sociallymaladjusted,unlessitisdeterminedthattheyhaveanemotionaldisturbance
(§300.8(c)(4)(ii)).
Specificallyrelatedtowriting,studentswithEBDoftenlackknowledgeofstrategicelements
neededtoproduceacohesive,qualitywritingsample(Losinskietal.,2014).Researchers
havefoundthatwhenstudentswithEBDlearneffectivewritingstrategies,theycan
effectivelyexpressthemselvesand,consequently,receivefavorablefeedbackfromtheir
peers,families,educationalprofessionals,andotherindividualsintheircommunities(Tindal
&Crawford,2002).
LiteratureReview
Actionresearchtoimproveteachingpractice.ThispresentstudywasinitiatedwhenthedirectorofaneducationalprogramforstudentswithEBDapproachedthefirstauthor,who
alsoservesasresearchpartnerwiththiseducationalprogram,regardingresearch-based
writinginterventionsspecificallydesignedforstudentswithchallengingbehaviors.He
expressedadireneedforwritinginterventionsamongthisstudentpopulation.Thedirector
statedthatthestudentswithEBDwithinthiseducationalprogramoftenfailedthewriting
sectionoftheirstateassessments.Knowingthatthatself-regulatedstrategydevelopment
(SRSD)isaresearch-basedstrategyforteachingwritingtostudentswithchallenging
behaviors(Ennis&Jolivette,2014;Lane,Harris,Graham,Weisenbach,Brindle,&Morphy,
2008;Mason,Snyder,Sukhram,&Kedam,2006),theauthorsdecidedtoconductanaction
researchprojectusingSRSD.Throughengaginginactionresearch,theauthorshopedto
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 12
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
bridgetheubiquitous“researchtopracticegap”.Teachersoftenciteconcernsthateducationalresearchisnotadequatetomeetthedailychallengesofteachingandthatresearchfindingsarenotpresentedintermsthatareeasytounderstand(Mills,2014).Theresearchersdevelopedaplanforanactionresearchprojectdesignedtoimprovestudents’abilitiestowritepersuasiveessays.Thepurposeofthisarticleistwofold.Theauthorspresentinformationaboutthewritinginterventionandtheresultsoftheintervention.TheresearchersalsodiscusschallengesandlessonslearnedthroughouttheactionresearchprocessintheResultsandFutureDirectionssections.
Self-regulatedstrategydevelopment.Developedin1982,SRSDisasystematicinstructionalmodeldesignedtoaddressmanydifficultiesassociatedwithwriting,includingmotivation,attitudes,andbeliefsaboutthewritingprocess(Ennis&Jolivette,2014).Themodelincorporatestechniquesforsettinggoals,self-monitoring,self-instruction,andself-reinforcement.Whentaughttomastery,thestrategiesmaybegeneralizedacrosssettingsandretainedovertime(Harris,Graham,Mason,&Friedlander,2008).
SRSDiscomprisedofsixstages:(a)developbackgroundknowledge,(b)discussit,(c)modelit,(d)memorizeit,(e)supportit,and(f)independentperformance(Harrisetal.,2013).Duringthefirststage,developbackgroundknowledge,theteacherandstudentsworktogethertodevelopskillsrelatedtowritinginstruction(Ennis&Jolivette,2014).Activitiesforthisstageincludereadingwritingsamplesofthegenretobetaught(e.g.,persuasive,narrative,expository)andteachingrelevantvocabulary.Studentsalsolearnaboutsettinggoalsandself-monitoring.Duringstagetwo,discussit,theteacherandstudentsdiscusstheimportanceofwritingandthestudentslearntheimportanceofusingstrategieswhentheywrite.Studentsmayevaluatetheircurrentwritingperformanceusingrubricsandgraphs.Lastly,thestudentsareintroducedtoastrategy,oftenamnemonic,tohelpguidetheirwriting.Stagethree,modelit,involvestheteachermodelingtheuseofthestrategy;explicitinstructionisprovidedregardinghowtousethestrategy.Additionally,studentsaretaughthowtouseself-talkastheymovethroughthewritingprocess.Inthefourthstage,memorizeit,studentsmemorizethestrategytheylearnedduringthediscussitstage.Duringthisstage,thestudentsaretaughtstrategiestohelptheminternalizetheimportanceofthestrategy.Instagefive,supportit,teachersmonitorstudents’useofthestrategiesintheirwriting.Supportitistypicallythelongeststage,andteachersshouldprovideampleamountsofsupportandreminderssothatstudentsaresuccessfulinutilizingthestrategy.Agradualincreaseofindividualcriterionlevelsshouldbeincorporatedinthisstage,andopportunitiesforgeneralizationshouldbeprovided.Duringthefinalstage,independentperformance,studentsimplementthestrategyindependentlyandself-regulatetheirownwriting.Opportunitiesforgeneralizationoftheskillslearnedshouldcontinuetobeprovided(Harrisetal.,2013).
SRSDandsecondarystudents.Chalk,Hagan-Burke,andBurke(2005)usedasix-stepSRSDmodelamonghighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilitiestodetermineiflengthandqualityofessayswouldimprove.Thestepsoftheinterventionwereasfollows(a)stepone:
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 13
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
developbackgroundknowledge,(b)steptwo:initialconferenceanddiscussionofstrategy
goals,(c)stepthree:modelthestrategy,(d)stepfour:memorizethestrategy,(e)stepfive:
collaborativepractice,and(f)stepsix:independentpractice.Resultsofthestudyindicated
thatbothlengthofessaysandqualityofessaysimprovedovertime.
AnotherstudyexaminingSRSDamonghighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities
producedsimilarresults.AstudybyHoover,Kubina,andMason(2012)utilizedtheSRSD
strategyknownasPOW+TREE(Pickmyidea,Organizemynotes,Writeandsaymore,Topic
sentence,Reasons–threeormore,Examine,Ending)toteachpersuasivequickwrites.Four
highschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilitiesparticipatedintheresearchandresults
demonstratedincreasesinthenumberofwordswrittenandinthenumberofresponse
partswritten.
SRSDandyouthwithEBD.SRSDisshowntobeeffectiveinteachingwritingtostudentswithchallengingbehaviors(Ennis&Jolivette,2014;Masonetal.,2006;Laneetal.,2008).A
studyfoundsignificantgainsinthepersuasivewritingofsecondarystudentswithEBDwhen
anSRSDinterventionwasimplementedtwiceperweek(Ennis,Jolivette,Terry,Frederick,&
Alberto,2015).Additionally,aSRSDinterventionusedtoteachstorywritingtosecondgrade
studentsatriskforEBDwasfoundtoproducelong-termimprovementsinareasincluding
storycompleteness,length,andquality(Laneetal.,2008).Additionally,SRSDinstruction
hasbeenfoundtopositivelyimpactparticipants’abilitytotransferthestrategiesfromstory
writingtopersonalnarratives(Adkins&Gavins,2012).Withempiricalstudiessupporting
SRSDasaneffectiveinterventionforbothsecondarystudentswithdisabilitiesandstudents
withEBD,theresearchersfeltconfidentmovingforwardwithanSRSDinterventionforthe
purposesofthisactionresearchproject.
Methodology
Researchquestions.Forthepurposethecurrentstudy,theauthorschosetofocusontwoprimaryareasofconcerninwrittenexpression:fluencyandquality.Theresearchquestions
areasfollows:
1. WhenculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBDaretaughthowtowritea
persuasiveessayusingSRSDinEnglishLanguageArts(ELA),doesthetotalwords
written(TWW)increase?
2. WhenculturallydiversesecondarystudentswithEBDaretaughthowtowritea
persuasiveessayusingSRSDinELA,doesessayqualityimprove?
Settingandparticipants.ThestudywasconductedintwohighschoolclassesandonemiddleschoolclassinschoolsforstudentswithEBDinthesoutheasternUnitedStates.
Therewereapproximatelyfivetoeightstudentsperclassroom.Tobeeligibleforthestudy,
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 14
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
participantshadtodemonstratedifficultywithwrittenexpressionandscoreintheaveragerangeofintelligence.Eligibilitycriteriaweredeterminedfor12participants,andinformedconsentandassentwereobtained.Theparticipantsrangedgradelevelsfrom6thgradethrough11thgrade.AllparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesasAfricanAmerican,andallparticipantswereoflowsocio-economicstatus(i.e.,theywereeligibletoreceivefreelunch).Thirteenofthefourteenparticipantsweremale.Pseudonymsareusedinlieuoftheparticipants’truenames.ParticipantinformationispresentedinTable1.
Table 1: Participant Information
Participants’ Pseudonyms Gender Race Grade
Ms. Oak’s Students
Devon Male African American 10th
Jasmine Female African American 10th
Trevor Male African American 10th
Ms. Christopher’s Students
Casey Male African American 7th
Paul Male African American 7th
Justin Male African American 7th
Deandre Male African American 7th
Jermaine Male African American 7th
Steven Male African American 7th
Ms. Gaines’s Students
Calvin Male African American 11th
Chris Male African American 10th
Allen Male African American 11th
ThedirectorrecruitedthreeEnglishLanguageArts(ELA)teacherparticipantsforthestudy.Theteacherparticipantsexhibitedvariedlevelsofteachingexperiences(e.g.,beginningspecialeducationteachers,teachersofstudentsfromvariousdisabilitycategories,teachersofstudentsfromvariousagelevels).Forexample,oneteacherparticipantwasaformergeneraleducationliteracyteacher.Anotherteacherparticipantwasathird-yearteacherofstudentswithEBDwithlimitedknowledgeofteachingwritingstrategiestostudentswith
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 15
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
disabilities.Teacherparticipantsgaveconsenttoparticipateinthestudyand,aswiththe
studentparticipants,pseudonymsareusedfortheparticipatingteachers.
Intervention.TheELAteacherparticipantsreceivedtrainingcomprisedofsixscriptedSRSD
lessonplanstobepresentedoversixweeks.Theresearchersinformedtheteachersofthe
datathatwouldbecollected,andteachersweregivenspecificinstructionsabouttheir
involvementregardingdatacollection.Theresearchersgavetheteachersbinderswithall
materialsneededfortheintervention:(a)teachertrainingpresentation;(b)SRSD
interventiontimeline;(c)lessonplans;(d)SRSDresourcesincludinggraphicorganizers,
rubrics,writingprompts,andtransitionwordcharts;(e)TREEflashcards;(f)POW+TREE
mnemoniccharts,and(g)self-talkstatements.Studentparticipantsreceivedfolders
containingPOWgraphicorganizers,mnemoniccharts,self-talkstatements,TREEflashcards,
andgraphingsheets.Afterbaselinedatacollection,theteachersimplementedthe
interventionbyteachingoneSRSDlessonperweekforsixconsecutiveweeks.The
researcherssentweeklyemailstotheteacherswithdetailsofthestudyexpectationsforthe
week.Theresearchersalsomaintainedcontinuouscontact,viaemailandinperson,withthe
teacherstoencourageanopendialogueaboutthestatusoftheinterventionanddata
collection.
SRSDandculturallyresponsiveteaching.Culturallyresponsiveteachingisdefinedas“usingtheculturalknowledge,priorexperiences,framesofreference,andperformancestylesof
ethnicallydiversestudentstomakelearningencountersmorerelevanttoandeffectivefor
them”(Gay,2010,p.31).Understandingthesignificanceofculturallyresponsiveteaching,
theresearchersintegratedculturallyresponsivepracticesthroughouttheintervention.For
example,writinginstructionforstudentsfromculturallydiversebackgroundsshouldbe
accompaniedbythewritingsofauthorsthatreflectdiversity(Callins,2006;Fox,1992;Gay,
2010).Therefore,intheintroductorylesson,studentparticipantswereaskedtobrainstorm
anddiscussexamplesofindividualsfromtheircultureusingpersuasivespeechorwritingin
socialmedia.Theexercisepresentedstudentparticipantswithanopportunitytoreflecton
thewritingsandspeechofindividualsfromtheirownbackgroundsandculture.
Anothertenantofculturallyresponsivewritinginstructionsupportsthatallowingstudents
tochoosetheirowntopicsanddemonstratinghowwritingcanbeusedtoaffectchangecan
beparticularlymotivatingforstudentsfromdiversebackgrounds(Callins,2006;Hornick,
1986).Also,studentsbenefitwhenteachersintegratestudents’socialcontextsintowriting
instruction(Callins,2006).Foreachwritinglessonintheintervention,participantswere
supportedingeneratingtopicsforwritingthatwereofpersonalsignificance.Thiswas
accomplishedasteachersassistedtheparticipantsinbrainstormingcurrenteventsabout
whichtheywereinterested.Doingsoensuredthatthesubjectmatterofthewriting
resonatedauthenticallywithparticipants.Lastly,culturallyresponsiveclassroomsencourage
cooperativelearningtosupportindividuallearningwithinagroupcontext(Cartledge&
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 16
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Kourea,2008;Ladson-Billings,1994).Therefore,alessonfortheinterventionwasdeveloped
inwhichstudentsworkedinsmallgroupstocomposeanessay.Theactivityallowedthe
studentstopracticewritinginagroupsettingbeforewritinganessayindependently.
Datacollectionanddataanalysis.Baselineandinterventiondataconsistedofparticipants’scoresonpersuasivewritingprobes.Foreachprobe,theresearchersencouragedthe
teacherparticipantstoworkwiththestudentparticipantsindevelopingculturallyrelevant
prompts.Researchersalsogavetheteacherparticipantstheoptionofusingapreviously
generatedprompt(e.g.,Shouldthedrivingagebeincreasedto21yearsold?).Foreach
writingprompt,participantshad30minutestorespondinwritingtotheprompt.Each
writingproberequiredparticipantstocomposeapositiononatopicandwritereasons
supportingtheirposition.Theresearchersevaluatedtheprobesusingtwomeasured:essay
qualityandlengthofwritingresponseindicatedbyTWW.Essayqualitywasdetermined
usingarubricranginginscoresfromonetoeight(AppendixA;Mills,2012).Therubric
encompassedaspectsofwritingincluding(a)numberofessaycomponentsperwriting
sample,(b)presenceofintroductionsentences,(c)presenceofconcludingsentences,and
(d)whetherexplanationswereprovidedforthereasons.Thehighestscoreofeightincluded
thefollowingcriteria,
• “Persuasiveessayincludestopicsentence,morethanthreereasonswithatleast
threeexplanations,andanendingsentence.Essayiswritteninalogicalsequence
thatstrengthensthewriter’sargument.Thewriterusesmorethanonecounter
argument/pointintheessay.”
• Alowerscoreoffivewasassignedtopersuasiveessaysthatincludedatopic
sentence,threereasonssupportingtheargument,andanendingsentence,butwas
lackingotherelementslistedinthecriteriaforascoreofeight.Eachresearcherscoredeachprobeindividually.Ininstanceswhereadiscrepancybetweenscores
wasevidenced,theessaywasassignedanaveragescoreofthetwo.
Inter-raterreliability.Priortoscoringparticipantessays,theresearchersindependentlyscoredtwosampleessaysusingthecodingrubric(Mills,2012).Thentheresearchersmetto
comparehowtheyscoredeachoftheessaysanddiscrepancieswerediscussed.Athird
sampleessaywasscoredbyeachoftheresearchers,andfullinter-rateragreementwas
achieved.
ResultsandDiscussion
Theresearchersanticipatedandexperiencedhighratesofmissingdatainthepresentstudy
basedonthecategoryofdisabilityoftheparticipants.StudentswithEBDoftendemonstrate
highratesofabsenteeismduetolivinginsituationswheremultipleriskfactorsarepresent
includingmultiplechildrenwithdisabilitiesandmaternaldepression(Ennis,Harris,Lane,&
Mason,2014).Additionally,becauseoftheseverityoftheirdisability,studentswho
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 17
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
demonstratesignificantchallengingbehaviorsarefrequentlysuspendedandexpelledfrom
schoolsettings.Theelevatedratesofmissingdatainthepresentstudyhadmultiple
repercussionsfortheresearchers.First,theinterventionmayhavehadmarginalefficacyfor
participantswhowerenotpresentforeachlessonoftheintervention.Thesecond
consequenceofthemissingdatarelatestothedataanalysis.Oftheninewritingprobes,or
datacollectionpoints,onlytwoofthe12participantswerepresentoneachdayofdata
collection.Theresearchersengagedindialogueregardinghowtonavigatetheissueof
missingdatainfutureprojects.Asthecurrentstudywasnineweekslong,withdata
collectedonceperweek,theresearchersdiscussedthepossibilityofdeveloping
interventionsdesignedtobeimplementedoverashorterperiod,withdatacollection
occurringmultipletimesperweek.
ThegoalsoftheSRSDinterventionweretoimprovestudents’essayqualityandincrease
students’TWW.Resultssuggestthattherewereincreasesinthestudents’TWWforthe
participantswhoreceivedintervention,butverylittleincreaseinthequalityoftheessays.
Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention.Eventhoughherstudentsdidnot
receivetheintervention,twoofthreestudentsshowedsomeimprovementinessayquality.
ForTWW,theparticipants’averagesdecreasedovertime.Calvinbeganwithanaverageof
34TWWandendedwithanaverageof32.75TWW,adifferenceof-1.25words.Chrisbegan
withanaverageof139TWWandendedwithanaverageof82.75TWW,adifferenceof-
56.25words.Allenstartedwithanaverageof307TWWandendedwithanaverageof50.50
words,adifferenceof-256.50words.
Ms.OakandMs.Christopherimplementedtheintervention.Intheseclasses,many
participantsdemonstratedincreasesinessayqualityandTWW.InMs.Oak’sclass,Trevor
wastheonlyparticipantwhoshowedanincreasefrombaselinedatatointerventiondata
regardingessayquality.Devondemonstratedadecreaseinessayqualityovertime.
Jasmine’sbaselinedatawasazeroandinterventiondatawasatwo.InMs.Christopher’s
class,PaulandJustinweretheonlytwostudentstoshowanincreasefromthebaselinedata
andinterventiondataforessayquality.JermaineandStevendidnothaveabaselinedata
andtheyhadmissingdata.Themissingdatamadeitdifficulttodetermineifthe
interventionhelpedthemincreaseessayquality.Caseydidnotshowanincreasefromthe
baselinedatatotheinterventiondata.
TheinterventionappearstohavebeenmoreeffectiveinincreasinginTWW.InMs.Oak’s
class,Jasmine’sbaselinedatawasanaverageof0.33TWWandincreasedby42.17words
afterreceivingtheintervention.Trevor’sTWWincreasedbyanaverageof29.53wordsfrom
hisbaselinedata.DevondemonstratedadecreaseinTWW.InMs.Christopher’sclass,Paul
increasedhisTWWbyanaverageof50words,JustinincreasedhisTWWbyanaverageof
148words,andDeandreincreasedhisTWWwrittenbyanaverageof95words.Casey
showedadecreaseof16.67TWW.ProgressregardingJermaineandSteven’sTWWwas
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 18
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
difficulttodetermineduetoalargeamountofmissingdata.Changesovertimein
participants’essayqualityscoresandTWWaregraphedinFigures1through6,and
numericaldatadetailingthechangesarepresentedinTables2and3.
Figure1.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Oak’sHighSchoolClassroom
Figure2.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Oak’sHighSchoolClassroom
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 19
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Figure3.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Christopher’sMiddleSchoolClassroom
Figure4.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Christopher’sMiddleSchoolClassroom
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 20
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Figure5.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom
Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.
Figure5.EssayScoresforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom
Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 21
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Figure6.TotalWordsWrittenforParticipantsinMs.Gaines’sHighSchoolClassroom
Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’totalwordswrittenforherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup.
InMs.Oak’sclass,Trevordemonstratedthegreatestgainregardingessayquality.Duringbaselinedatacollection,Trevoraveraged1.67andaftertheintervention,heaveraged3.80inessayquality.Ms.OakreportedthatTrevorenjoyedtheSRSDlessonsandstatedhefeltsuccessfulwithhiswritingforthefirsttimeinhisschoolcareer.Ms.OakmotivatedTrevorwithverbalpraiseandtangiblereinforcementsalsocalledpositivebehaviorinterventionsandsupportwhenhecompletedhiswritingprompts.Trevor’sTWWalsoincreasedfrompre-interventiontopostintervention,fromanaverageof94.67wordswrittentoanaverageof124.20words.
Inadditiontopromotingacademicsuccess,practitionersareusingpositivebehaviorinterventionsandsupports(PBIS)asaframeworktoencouragebehavioralsuccessofstudentsinschools.PBISisusefulforeducatorsseekingpreventionandinterventionstrategiesforstudents’problematicbehaviors(Bradshaw,Koth,Bevans,Ialongo,&Leaf,2008).Furthermore,itisbasedonaproblem-solvingmodelpreventinginappropriatebehaviorthroughteachingandreinforcingappropriateconduct(OfficeofSpecialEducationProgramsTechnicalAssistanceCenteronPBIS,2012).PBISemphasizeseducatingat-riskstudentsintheleastrestrictiveenvironmentutilizingappropriateeducationalsupports(Lewis,Jones,Horner,&Sugai,2010).
AsevidencedinTables2and3,Jasminedemonstratedthemostpositivegainsfromtheintervention.Thismayhavebeentheresultofactionstakenbyherteacherparticipant,Ms.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 22
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Oak,whotookanunconventionalapproachtoJasmine’semotionalissuesandheracademic
work.Jasminedemonstratedwritingskillsapproximatelyfourgradelevelsbelowheractual
gradelevel.Inadditiontothesignificantacademicdeficit,significanttraumathatJasmine
experiencedseveralyearspriorresultedinJasmineexhibitingselectivemutism.However,
Jasminewouldoftenspeakifthesubjectmatterwasrelatedtoclasswork.Becauseofher
limitedwritingskills,JasminestruggledwiththeSRSDlessons.Ms.Oaksoughtwaysto
accommodatethelessonsforJasmine,andfoundthatwhenJasminedictatedherSRSD
responses,insteadofwritingherownresponses,Jasmine’sanxietyseemedtolessenand
herproductivityincreased.Theresearchersmetanddiscussedthisunconventional
situation.Althoughthegoaloftheinterventionwasforstudentstoconstructessays
independently,theresearchersfeltitwasnecessarytoreporttheprogressJasminehad
madeanddisclosetothereaderthatMs.OaktranscribedJasmine’sresponses.
Table2:AveragesforEssayQualityandAmountChanged
Participants AverageEssayQuality
Pre-Intervention
(Probes1-3)
PostIntervention
(Probes4-9)
Difference
(After-Before)
Ms.Oak’sClass
Devon 1.67 1.33 -0.33
Jasmine 0.00 2.00 2.00
Trevor 1.67 3.80 2.13
Ms.Christopher'sClass
Paul 2.33 3.00 0.67
Justin 3.67 4.67 1.00
Deandre 4.67 4.50 -0.17
Jermaine N/A 4.00 N/A
Steven N/A 2.00 N/A
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 23
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Ms.Gaines’sClass
Calvin 1.00 2.00 1.00
Chris 3.67 4.00 0.33
Allen 7.00 1.50 -5.50
Table3:AveragesforTotalWordsWrittenandAmountChanged
Participants AverageTotalWordsWritten
Pre-Intervention
(Probes1-3)
PostIntervention
(Probes4-9)
Difference
(After-Before)
Ms.Oak'sClass
Devon 41.33 15.50 -25.83
Jasmine 0.33 42.50 42.17
Trevor 94.67 124.20 29.53
Ms.Christopher'sClass
Casey 62.00 45.33 -16.67
Paul 37.00 87.00 50.00
Justin 49.00 197.00 148.00
Deandre 97.00 192.50 95.50
Jermaine N/A 188.00 N/A
Steven N/A 121.00 N/A
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 24
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Ms.Gaines'sClass
Calvin 34.00 32.75 -1.25
Chris 139.00 82.75 -56.25
Allen 307.00 50.50 -256.50
Note.Ms.GainesdidnotimplementtheSRSDintervention;therefore,theparticipants’essayscoresinherclassroomfunctionasthecontrolgroup
DifficultiesRelatedtotheStudy
DifficultiesinimplementationofSRSDafterapilotstudy.Uponanalyzingdatafromthecurrentstudyandfindingerraticscoresandmarginaleffectivenessoftheintervention,theresearchersengagedindialoguetogenerateideasabouthowtheinterventionmightbeimprovedupon.Approximatelyoneyearearlier,theauthorshadconductedapilotstudyoftheSRSDinterventionamongsecondarystudentswithEBDatadifferentsite.Theresearchersagreedthatatremendousamounthadbeenlearnedfromthepreliminarystudy.Likewise,theresearchersconcurredthatasignificantamountoftroubleshootinghadbeenresolvedsincethepreliminarystudyandthatthepresentstudyhadbeencarriedoutinamuchmoreefficientmanner.Forexample,theresearchersimplementedlessonswithgreaterfidelitythanhadtakenplaceinthepreliminarystudyandthedatacollectionprocedureshadbeenimprovedupon.Theresearchersweresurprisedthatdespiteimprovementsmadetofidelityanddatacollectionprocedures,dataanalysisofthecurrentstudyshowedinconsistenteffectsinpersuasivewritingqualityandTWWfortheparticipants.
DifficultiesrelatedtospecificlessonsandimplementationofSRSD.Theresearcherscontinuedparticipatingindialogueregardingthepossiblereasonsforthelackofefficacyoftheintervention.Theresearchersreviewedthewritingsamplesagain.Theresearchers,whoallhaveexperienceteachingwrittenexpressiontochildrenandyouthwithavarietyofdisabilities,determinedthataplausiblereasonfortheineffectivenessoftheinterventionisthatitsimplywasnota“goodfit”basedontheparticipants’currentwrittenexpressionskills.Forexample,manyparticipantsdemonstratedsignificantdifficultywritingacompletesentence,yetthegoaloftheinterventionwasforparticipantstousemnemonicstoproduceentirepersuasiveessays.TheresearcherscontemplatedtheirpreviousexperiencesteachingwritingtostudentswithEBD,andconcludedthat,perhapstheinterventiongoalsexceededtheparticipants’currentabilities.Itwasdiscussedthatmanyoftheparticipantswouldlikelyhavebenefittedmorefromexplicitinstructioninbasicwritingskills(e.g.sentencestructure,
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 25
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
grammar,punctuation),thanfromaninterventionthataimedtoteachparticipantshowto
draftessays.Theinvestigatorslearnedavaluablelessonininterventionresearch:ensure
thattheinterventionmatchestheparticipants’abilitylevels.Firstassessingtheabilitiesoftheparticipants,andthenselectinganinterventionforempiricalstudycanaccomplishthis.
DifficultiesrelatedtoteacherparticipantsandimplementationofSRSD.Anothersetofchallengesinvolvedateacherparticipant.Ms.Gainesoriginallyagreedtoparticipateinthe
studybyimplementingtheintervention.However,duringtheweekofthefourthSRSD
lesson,sheinformedtheresearchersthatshenolongerwishedtoparticipate.Ms.Gaines
statedthatherstudents’behaviorsweretoounpredictableforhertofollowthroughwith
weeklylessons.Ms.Gaineslatertoldtheresearchersthatsheonlygaveherstudentsthe
independentwritingprompts,andthatshehadnottaughtanyoftheSRSDlessons.The
researcherslearnedfromthissituationthatrelationshipswithpartnersinactionresearchcanbetenuous,andthatgreatcareshouldbetakeninsupportingthepartners.
DifficultiesrelatedtodatacollectionandimplementationofSRSD.Theleadauthorconductedweeklyfidelitychecksthroughoutthecourseoftheintervention.Datacollection
beganthefirstweekofOctoberofthefallsemester.Threeweeksofbaselinedatawere
collected,followedbysixweeksofSRSDinterventiondata.Duetotheacademicschoolyear
schedule,theSRSDinterventionwasimplementedasthewinterholidayseason
approached.Researchhasshownthatstudents’inappropriatebehaviorsoftenescalate
beforeandduringthewinterholidayseason(Lastrapes,2014);therefore,itwasnosurprise
thattheteacherparticipantsreportedthattheirstudents’behaviorswereunusually
challengingduringthemid-NovemberandDecembermonths.Infact,theleadresearcher
observedfivephysicalaltercationsatonehighschoolontheFridaybeforetheThanksgiving
holidays.AllthreeoftheclassroomteacherschosenottoworkontheSRSDinterventionthe
weekbeforetheThanksgivingholidaybasedontheirstudents’challengingbehaviors.The
researchersconcludedthatcarefulattentionmustbegiventotheschedulingofthe
intervention.Whendevelopingtimelinesforactionresearchinschoolsettings,researchers
shouldtakeintoaccounthowextraneousfactorsmayimpedetheperformanceofnotonlythestudentparticipants,buttheteacherparticipantsaswell.
DifficultiesrelatedtoteachingexpectationsandimplementationofSRSD.Anotherchallengeencounteredbytheresearcherswasthedifficultyofensuringthateachlesson
wastaughtwithfidelity.Thedirectorwhorecruitedtheteacherparticipantsforthis
researchstudyandtheteacherparticipantsexhibitedvariedlevelsofteachingexperiences.
Forexample,oneteacherparticipantwasaformergeneraleducationliteracyteacher.
Anotherteacherparticipantwasathird-yearteacherofstudentswithEBD,buthadlimited
knowledgeofteachingwritingstrategiestostudentswithdisabilities.Itwasimpossiblefor
theresearcherstoobserveandprovidefeedbackforeachlessonthateachteacher
participanttaught;however,theresearcherscollectedinformationontreatmentintegrity
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 26
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
forthreerandomlessonsduringtheinterventionaswellasfieldnoteswhilevisitingthe
classroomseachweek.Thelessonsmayhavebeendeliveredwithgreaterfidelityifthe
researchdesignincludedaplanforprovidingtheteacherparticipantswithsignificantly
moresupportinlessondelivery,includingmodelingandcoaching.
FutureImplications
Theinconsistentresultsofcurrentstudyshouldbeinterpretedinlightofseverallimitations.
Aspreviouslymentioned,theparticipants’attendanceandchallengingbehaviorsmayhave
impactedtheirresponsivenesstotheintervention.Somestudentsmissedclassdueto
consequencesofproblematicbehaviors.Theresearchersalsowanttobringattentiontothe
factthatwhencodingthesewritingpassages,thecodingissubjective.Thescorers
calibratedtheircodingamongeachother;however,itisimpossibletoremoveallbiases
whencoding.Furthermore,asmentionedpreviously,theresearcherswereunableto
observeandprovidecriticalfeedbackforeverywritinglesson.However,theresearchers
collectedinformationontreatmentintegrityandrecordedfieldnotesduringdatacollection.
Whiletheresultsofthisstudyarepromising,additionalresearchinacademicinterventions
forstudentswithEBDisessential.Researchinintensive,individualizedwritinginterventions
designedforculturallydiverselearnerswithchallengingbehaviorsiswarranted.Itisalso
recommendedthatresearchcontinuetoreplicateandextendthebodyofliteratureon
SRSDinstructionforstudentswithEBDacrossgradelevels.Finally,theresearchers
encouragemoreresearchtobeconductedwithteachersasinterventionagentsin
classroomsettings.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 27
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
AbouttheAuthors
MandyE.Lusk,Ph.D.hasbeenalife-longspecialeducatorwhocurrentlyservesastheprogramchairandassistantprofessoratClaytonStateUniversityinspecialeducation.Asa
practitionerinspecialeducationfornumerousyears,Dr.Luskpredominantlytaught
studentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.Inaddition,sheearnedherPh.D.from
theUniversityofNorthTexasinstudentswithbehaviordisorders.Dr.Lusk’sresearch
agendaincludespreparingteacherstopositivelyeducateculturallyandlinguisticallydiverse
learnerswithchallengingbehaviors.Email:mandylusk@clayton.edu
CalliLewisChiu,Ph.D.isProgramDirectorandAssistantProfessorofSpecialEducationat
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Bakersfield.PriortoearningherPh.D.,shetaughtstudentswith
moderatetoseveredisabilitiesinavarietyofsettingsfor10years.Herresearchinterests
includeculturallyresponsiveeducationalpracticesandteacherpreparation.Email:
calliglewis@gmail.com
DonnaM.Sayman,Ph.D.isanassociateprofessorofspecialeducationatWichitaState
University.Dr.SaymancompletedherPh.D.atOklahomaStateUniversity.Herresearch
interestfocusesonhowoccupationsbecomegendered,socialjusticewithinspecial
education,andteacherpreparationfordiversepopulations.Shehascollaboratedactively
withotherresearchersintheareasoffamilyparticipationinspecialeducationserves,and
culturallyandlinguisticallydiversepedagogies.Email:donna.sayman@wichita.edu
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 28
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
References
Adkins,M.H.,&Gavins,M.V.(2012).Self-regulatedstrategydevelopmentandgeneralizationseffectsonstory writingandpersonalnarrativesamongstudentswithsevereemotionalandbehavioraldisorders. Exceptionality,20(4),235-249.Bradshaw,C.P.,Koth,C.W.,Bevans,K.B.,Ialongo,N.,&Leaf,P.J.(2008).Theimpactofschool-widepositive behavioralinterventionsandsupports(PBIS)ontheorganizationalhealthofelementaryschools. SchoolPsychologyQuarterly,23(4),462-473.Callins,T.(2006).Culturallyresponsiveliteracyinstruction.Tempe,AZ:CenterforCulturallyResponsive EducationalSystems.Cartledge,G.,&Kourea,L.(2008).Culturallyresponsiveclassroomsforculturallydiversestudentswithandat riskfordisabilities.ExceptionalChildren,74(3),351-371.Chalk,J.C.,Hagan-Burke,S.,&Burke,M.(2005).Theeffectsofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentonthe writingprocessforhighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly28(1), 75-88.Ennis,R.P.&Jolivette,K.(2014).Existingresearchandfuturedirectionsforself-regulatedstrategy developmentwithstudentswithandatriskforemotionalandbehavioraldisorders.TheJournalof SpecialEducation,48(1),32-45.Ennis,R.P.,Jolivette,K.,&Boden,L.J.(2013).STOPandDARE:Self-regulatedstrategydevelopmentfor persuasivewritingwithelementarystudentswithE/BDinaresidentialfacility.Educationand TreatmentofChildren,36(3),81-99.Ennis,R.P.,Jolivette,K.,Terry,N.P.,Frederick,L.D.,&Alberto,P.A.(2015).Classwideteacher implementationofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentforwritingwithstudentswithE/BDina residentialfacility.JournalofBehavioralEducation,24(1),88-111.Ennis,R.P.,Harris,K.R.,Lane,K.L.,&Mason,L.H.(2014).Lessonslearnedfromimplementingself-regulated strategydevelopmentwithstudentswithemotionalandbehavioraldisordersinalternative educationalsettings.BehavioralDisorders,40(1),68-77.Fox,T.(1992).Repositioningtheprofession:TeachingwritingtoAfricanAmericanstudents.Journalof AdvancedComposition,12(2),291-303.Gay,G.(2010).Culturallyresponsiveteaching:Theory,research,andpractice(2nded.).NewYork,NY: TeachersCollege.Graham,S.,&Perin,D.(2007).Ameta-analysisofwritinginstructionforadolescentstudents.Journalof EducationalPsychology,99,445-476.Harris,K.R.,Graham,S.,Mason,L.H.,&Friedlander,B.(2008).Powerfulwritingstrategiesforallstudents. Baltimore,MD:Brooks.Hoover,T.M.,Kubina,R.M.,&Mason,L.H.(2012).Effectsofself-regulatedstrategydevelopmentfor POW+TREEonhighschoolstudentswithlearningdisabilities.Exceptionality,20(1),20-38.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 29
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Hornick,K.(1986).Teachingwritingtodiversestudents.ERICClearinghouseonUrbanEducationDigest,32,1- 3.
IndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct,PublicLaw,108-446,108thCongress,(2004).
Ladson-Billings,G.(1994).Thedreamkeepers:SuccessfulteachersofAfricanAmericanchildren.SanFrancisco:
Josey-Bass.
Lane,K.L.,Graham,S.,Harris,K.R.,&Weisenbach,J.L.(2006).Teachingwritingstrategiestoyoungstudents
strugglingwithwritingandatriskforbehavioraldisorders:Self-regulatedstrategydevelopment.
TEACHINGExceptionalChildren,39(1),60-64.
Lane,K.L.,Harris,K.R.,Graham,S.,Weisenbach,J.L.,Brindle,M.,&Morphy,P.(2008).Theeffectsofself-
regulatedstrategydevelopmentonthewritingperformanceofsecond-gradestudentswith
behavioralandwritingdifficulties.JournalofSpecialEducation,41(4),234–253.
Lastrapes,R.(2014).Usingthegoodbehaviorgameinaninclusiveclassroom.InterventioninSchooland Clinic,49(2),225-229.
Lewis,T.,Jones,S.,Horner,R.,&Sugai,G.(2010).Schoolwidepositivebehaviorandsupportandstudents
withemotionalandbehavioraldisorders:Implicationsforprevention,identification,andintervention.
Exceptionality,18,82-93.
Losinski,M.,Cuenca-Carlino,Y.,Zablocki,M.,&Teagarden,J.(2014).Examiningtheefficacyofself-regulated
strategydevelopmentforstudentswithemotionalorbehavioraldisorders:Ameta-analysis.
BehavioralDisorders,40(1),52-67.
Mason,L.H.,KubinaJr.,R.M.,Kostewicz,D.E.,Cramer,A.M.,&Datchuk,S.(2013).Improvingquickwriting
performanceofmiddle-schoolstrugglinglearners.ContemporaryEducationalPyschology,38,236- 246.
Mason,L.H.,Snyder,K.H.,Sukhram,D.P.,&Kedem,Y.(2006).TWA+PLANSstrategiesforexpositoryreading
andwriting:Effectsforninefourth-gradestudents.ExceptionalChildren,73(1),69–89.
Mills,G.(2014).Actionresearch:Aguidefortheteacherresearcher.Boston,MA:Pearson.
Mills,S.J.(2012).Theeffectsofinstructioninpeer-revisiononthepersuasivewritingofstudentswith
emotionalandbehavioraldisabilities(Doctoraldissertation).Retrievedfrom
http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1920/8083/Mills_gmu_0883E_10201.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y
OSEPTechnicalAssistanceCenteronPositiveBehavioralInterventions&Supports.(2012).School-widePBIS. Retrievedfromhttp://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.html
Tindal,G.,&Crawford,L.(2002).Teachingwritingtostudentswithbehaviordisorders.InK.L.Lane,F.M.
Gresham,&T.E.O’Shaughnessy(Eds.),Interventionsforchildrenwithoratriskforemotionaland behavioraldisorders(pp.104-124).Boston,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 30
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume4,Issue2,2018,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Appendix A: Scoring Rubric
Score of 10. Persuasive essay includes: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 3 explanations, (d) more than 1 counter argument/point in the essay, and (e) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.
Score of 9. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 3 explanations, (d) 1 counter argument/point in the essay, and (e) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.
Score of 8. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) more than 3 reasons, (c) at least 2 explanations, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.
Score of 7. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) three reasons, (c) at least 2 explanations, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay is written in a logical sequence that strengthens the writer’s argument.
Score of 6. Persuasive essay includes (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) 3 reasons, (c) least 1 explanation, and (d) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic. Essay’s sequence is weak, therefore limiting the writer’s argument.
Score of 5. Persuasive essay includes (a) topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) 3 reasons, and (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.
Score of 4. Persuasive essay includes 4 of the following parts: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) reasons, or (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.
Score of 3. Persuasive essay includes 3 of the following parts: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) reasons, or (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.
Score of 2. Persuasive essay includes 2 of the following parts: (a) a topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, (b) reasons, or (c) an ending sentence that is a complete sentence that relates to the writer's position on the topic.
Score of 1. Persuasive essay includes one of the following parts: topic sentence that is a complete sentence that addresses the topic, reason(s), or an ending sentence that relates to the writer’s position on the topic.
Score of 0. No essay parts.
top related