special education & direct writing instruction 1 running ... variables - direct writing...

Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 1

Running Head: Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction

CAN EIGHT WEEKS OF DIRECT WRITING INSTRUCTION TO SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDY SKILLS CLASS MOVE 50% OF THOSE WRITING SCORES UP TO THE NEXT LEVEL ON A

PREDETERMINED WRITING RUBRIC?

By

CRYSTAL BOSCH

Submitted to:

The Educational Leadership Faculty

Northwest Missouri State University Missouri

Department of Educational Leadership

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, MO 64468

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for:

61-683 Research Paper

Spring 2011

April 26, 2012


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of 8 weeks of direct writing

instruction, with differentiation, in a special education Study Skills classroom. The study

included information regarding the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various

forms of direct writing instructional strategies, and strategies specifically designed for

students with learning disabilities in written expression. The study was conducted in four

special education Study Skills classrooms and data was collected using Google docs. The

groups in the study included students in the high school setting ranging from grades 9-12

who were enrolled in a Special Education Study Skills course. All participating students

had an Individual Education Plan (IEP), although their disabilities varied. Microsoft

Excel and A Statistical Program (ASP) were used to organize the raw data and calculate a

t-test. Findings indicated that direct writing instruction in a special education Study

Skills classroom does move 50% of writing scores up to the next level. A significant

difference was found between the p-value of 1.25154E-7, and the alpha level of 0.10.

Any p-value below 0.10 indicates a significant difference. Further research concerning

written expression and Common Core Standards would be beneficial for future

consideration, as the implementation of Common Core Standards becomes a reality.


Introduction

Background, Issues and Concerns

Written Expression was selected as a result of the foreshadowed Common Core

Curriculum Standards. With these standards and in anticipation of assessments, which are

performance based, writing skills will be essential for students’ future academic

successes. Study Skills classes were selected with the expectation that if significant

changes within a group of students were to happen within a few months, it would be

these students simply because most of them have placement in the regular education

setting more than the students in any other special education class.

Under Common Core Standards Writing #2 (Grades 9-10), students will be

expected to write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas,

concepts and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection,

organization and analysis of content (Common, 2012).

Introduce a topic: organize complex ideas, concepts, and information to make

important connections and distinctions; include formatting (e.g. headings)

graphics (e.g. figures, tables, and multimedia when useful to aiding

comprehension.

Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended

definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples

appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.

Use appropriate and varied transitions to link the major sections of the text, create

cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and concepts.


Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the

informative or explanation presented (e.g. articulating implications or the

significance of the topic) (Common, 2012).

By the 2014 school year, Benton High School will be teaching solely to the Common

Core Standards Curriculum. Students’ writing expectations in all core classes will be

aligned with those standards. In order to better prepare students for that transition, writing

was chosen for an area of improvement.

Practice under Investigation

Students were given writing pre-assessments to establish a baseline and then they

went through 8 weeks of direct writing instruction in their Study Skills class. After the

first 4 weeks of instruction, students were grouped according to their level of mastery and

expectation. Students were then re-taught the specific concepts they were struggling with.

After the 8 weeks, students were given a writing post-assessment to determine their

progress.

School Policy to be Informed by Study

Benton High School is currently implementing data teams across all department

areas. The purpose of data teams is to implement an action research project of sorts to

determine what “moves kids” to the next level. The study of writing instruction in Study

Skills was a great indicator that moving students to the next level is possible. The results

of this study were shared with all members of the Special Education Department as well

as all members of the Benton High School Administration. The final outcome showed

that writing instruction should be added to the Study Skills curriculum because it did

show improvement on student achievement in regards to writing skills.


Conceptual Underpinning

Traditionally, Study Skills classes cover organization and strategies that cover

note taking, test taking, and studying. At Benton High School, the Study Skills class is

the only common special education course taught by four of the five special education

content area teachers. This study was put into action by all four of the Study Skills

teachers and data was collected using a common media.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended to “close the achievement

gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (United

States Department of Education, 2012). The NCLB Act includes special education

students in establishing high standards and measurable goals with intent to close the

achievement gap (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students

have the right to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (United States Department of

Education, 2012). Students who have specific learning disabilities are placed in regular

education environments with accommodations. However, those students are still expected

to take and pass district, state, and national standards-based tests, many of which assess

through writing.

In accordance with federal and state legislation, it is imperative to improve

student-writing scores. Improved writing scores will benefit students in all content areas

and improve their performance on all forms of assessment in those areas. Special

Education students receive writing instruction in their Communication Arts class, the

additional direct writing instruction provided by the implementation of this study will


allow them additional time to focus on the writing skills they have not mastered which

are required for standards based testing.

Statement of the Problem

Prior to the study, the average student writing score was considered below basic.

Many content area teachers complained they were not able to grade the content of student

responses because of poor writing skills. Students seemed to struggle conveying their

answer/message not because they didn’t know the information but instead because of

their inability to write properly.

Special education students who were enrolled in Study Skills class made up a

large majority of these students who were struggling with the basics of writing. After

conferencing with other Study Skills teachers, we came to the conclusion that these

students were behind in the basics of writing, which was indeed hindering their

performance in all other subject areas. Student responses would regularly be submitted as

one large paragraph using elementary level vocabulary, poor usage of mechanics, lack of

transition statements, and little to no organization at all. We, as a Special Education

Department, determined that writing would be an area that could be drastically improved

and that it would best benefit our students to make writing a focus.

Purpose of the Study

The study will determine whether or not direct instruction in special education

Study Skills class will improve writing scores. If writing scores are improved, writing

mini lessons will be permanently implemented into the Study Skills curriculum to

improve writing for the anticipated Common Core Standards Curriculum.


Independent Variables - Direct writing instruction through mini-lessons in a special

education Study Skills classroom.

Dependent Variables - Student writing scores on a pre-determined rubric.

Other Variables to Consider - Student disability, consistency in mini-lesson instruction

(taught by four different teachers), student absences, student effort, and socioeconomic

status.

Research Question(s)

Is there a significant difference in student writing scores when 8 weeks of direct writing

instruction is implemented into a special education Study Skills class, using ability

grouping?

Null Hypothesis(es)

There is no significant difference in student writing scores when 8 weeks of direct

writing instruction is implemented into a special education Study Skills class, when

compared with student writing scores prior to receiving the 8 weeks of direct writing

instruction.

Anticipated Benefits of the Study

Improved writing scores will be beneficial for students when considering all

academic areas. This study compliments all state and federal legislation and the push

towards creating consistent standards and measurable goals for NCLB, IDEA, and

Common Core Standards.

The information gained from this study will be dispersed to all members of the

Special Education Department to improve the framework and structure of the Study

Skills class. Also, by improving writing scores, students will be better prepared for the


foreshadowed implementation of Common Core Standards Curriculum, which are

performance based, and will further develop essential writing skills for future academic

successes.

Definition of Terms

(Definitions taken for the U.S. Department of Education website)

Common Core Standards - Consistent and clear grade and content level standards of what

students are expected to learn for success in college and careers.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) - Part of IDEA stating that school districts are

required to educate students with disabilities in regular classrooms with their nondisabled

peers, in the school they would attend if not disabled, to the maximum extent appropriate.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - An Act to close the achievement gap with

accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - A law ensuring children with

disabilities services throughout the nation. The law governs how public agencies provide

special education services.

Standards Based Testing - Assessment that measures individual content standards that

students should know to reach given levels in the subject area (usually “basic”,

“proficient”, or “advanced”.)


Summary

Benton High School is a Midwestern High School with a 12% special education

population and a 65% free-and-reduced lunch population. Students at Benton High

School are currently performing below state standards in several academic core areas.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of 8 weeks of direct writing

instruction, with differentiation, in a special education Study Skills classroom. The

research includes information regarding the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation,

various forms of direct writing instruction strategies, and strategies specifically guided

for learning disabilities in written expression. The study was conducted in four special

education Study Skills classrooms amongst students ranging from grades 9-12 who were

enrolled in a Special Education Study Skills course. All participating students had an

Individual Education Plan (IEP), although their disabilities varied.


Review of Literature

Writing is an essential skill included in the recent adoption of Common Core

Standards (Common, 2012). The research presents a reliable view of the importance of

direct writing instruction for children with special needs. In addition, the research also

suggests that ability grouping is successful way to better advance student scores with

varying levels of performers. The review of literature includes information regarding the

effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various forms of direct writing instruction

strategies, and strategies specifically designed for students with learning disabilities in

written expression.

Most simply put, differentiated instruction is a process in which teachers enhance

learning by associating individual student characteristics to instruction and assessment

(Johnston, 2006). Differentiated instruction was previously considered a technique used

for special education, but it is now a common practice in all classrooms across the U.S.,

offering each student an education on a more individual basis.

Lenz & Conklin suggest that “differentiation encompasses what is taught, how it

is taught, and the products students create to show what they have learned (2004).”

Teachers can differentiate content, process, and/or product for students (Johnston, 2006).

Differentiating content refers giving the students different content to cover (Lenz &

Conklin, 2004). Differentiation of process requires several instructional techniques and

materials to better accommodate all styles of learners (Lenz & Conklin, 2004).

Differentiation of products occurs when students are allowed to demonstrate their

learning through different formats of assessment (Lenz & Conklin, 2004).


Differentiation is a way to implement a variety of effective instructional skills, a

few of those skills/strategies include: tiered assignments, questioning, multiple

intelligences, inquiry-based learning, choices, self-paced strategies, compacting, interest

centers/groups, flexible grouping, learning contracts, choice boards, etc. (Lenz &

Conklin, 2004). In order to effectively implement these strategies, one must use

diagnostic assessments to determine student readiness, determine student’s interests, and

identify student learning styles and environmental preferences (Johnston, 2006).

One common form of differentiation strategy applied during this study was ability

grouping. Ability grouping allows for instruction and placement of students with similar

academic ability levels, rather than placing them solely by age and grade level (Logsdon,

2012). Though ability grouping, students are assigned to groups based on a review of

performance data. This initial placement is by no means permanent, but instead it is an

initial starting point from which to base instruction. From this initial placement students

can move into higher-level groups if their skills increase, they may also move into lower

skill levels groups if their performance indicates the need to remedial instruction

(Logsdon, 2012). Unlike educational triage, ability grouping does not rule out potential

progress for the remedial group, but instead it offers them more intensive individual

instruction (Byrnes, 2011). Remedial groups receive the same content as their peers, but

also receive more individual attention, instruction at a slower pace, more extensive

analysis of errors, and oftentimes fewer assignments with a more specific focus

(Logsdon, 2004). Ability grouping should be accompanied by constant feedback and

assessment data through standardized testing, classroom work samples, observations, and


progress data to continuously reevaluate which ability level each child should be placed

(Hopkins, 2006).

Diversity is undeniably prevalent when considering public classrooms across

America. Diversity in classrooms spans over many learning styles, ability levels,

interests, languages, family traditions, socioeconomic status, years of formal schooling,

background experiences, and special needs (Lenz & Conklin, 2004). Differentiation

allows for ability grouping to better specialize cater to individual student needs, which in

turn improves individual levels of mastery. (Binder, 1998). Applying differentiation

strategies prevents a “one size fits all” curriculum and better accommodates the diverse

needs of students populating our schools (Lenz & Conklin, 2004). In the study presented,

differentiation and ability grouping allowed for more impactful writing instruction

through the individual presentation of mini-lessons.

There is no argument on the diminished performance in America’s youth when it

comes to writing. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is a test

administered every four years in grades 4, 8, and 12 (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, &

Reynolds, 2007). In 1998, the test reported two-thirds of 4th graders; half of the 8th

graders and 12th graders were below the proficient level for writing (Pressley, Billman,

Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007). Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, and Reynolds note,

There are many factors to which we can attribute these

alarming statistics, we must acknowledge that there is often

less than optimal writing instruction in classrooms...

Even teacher self-report data from the 1998 NAEP suggest

this is the case: nearly 7 out of 10 teachers indicated they


employ process oriented instruction to teach composing, yet

no more than a third of those same teachers said they spend

90 minutes or more per week teaching writing (Pressley,

Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007, pg. 3).

This study performed by Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, and Reynolds discovered

slightly more than half of educators at the primary level reported making adaptations

during writing units. Teachers also responded that when adaptations were made, they

were often counterproductive leading to unmotivated students who began to pull away

from the willingness to write (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007).

Teachers noted that when struggles emerged from the students, the educator had

difficulties in planning and revising lessons to accommodate the individual needs of

every student, so often times, they just plowed through the material emphasizing process

(Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007). The researchers noted that when

these issues arose in regular education classrooms, and classrooms with co-teachers, the

results of the students and their gains greatly slowed (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, &

Reynolds, 2007).

Teaching writing can be a daunting task given the amount information a student

needs to be able to write an organized, fluent, focused paper or response requiring length

and multiple organized paragraphs. An instructional strategy that has been used in the

past, and is still used today, is the implementation of mini-lessons.

A mini-lesson is a short focused delivery of explicit instruction.

It can be one lesson or a series of lessons that focuses on

one skill or strategy. The mini-lesson takes place at the


beginning of (any lesson) after careful planning by the

teacher. It includes a statement of purpose, a connection to

previous learning, followed by demonstration, modeling or

student involvement...(mini-lessons) are much more successful

when taught in a series of short lessons rather than one longer

lesson (Hoover & Lutz, 2009, pg. 3).

Mini-lessons were implemented into the Study Skills classrooms and were used to teach

organization, vocabulary enrichment, opening and closing paragraphs, and transitions

between paragraphs. Hoover and Lutz discuss how one of the key points necessary for

successful mini-lessons are the pre-assessments given to the students. Hoover and Lutz

also discuss that throughout the mini-lesson process, pre-assessments, formative

assessments, student conferencing, and observations of student works are integral parts of

feedback and modeling necessary for student success (Hoover & Lutz, 2009). As the

study progressed throughout the year, there were several occasions where students were

formatively assessed and re-evaluated for progress.

With older students, one key to teaching writing is breaking down the process into

manageable steps that can be scaffolded in a variety of ways, which is exactly what the

mini-lesson allows you to do. “It’s a combination of excellent instruction and age-

appropriate practice - and tons of it (Feldman, 2009, pg. 1).” Feldman discusses how it is

the manageable pieces that must be monitored by the instructor. The students’

weaknesses first need to be identified through pre-assessment, and then when the

weaknesses are broken down into mini-lessons lots of practice must be implemented and

feedback must be given to the student for this to be a successful instructional method


(Feldman, 2009). For the mini-lesson to be most effective, there are two parts that are

critical; modeling and monitoring (Feldman, 2009). Without the modeling, the

demonstrations, the practice, and the feedback to the student, the mini-lessons become

less effective and become just another round of assignments for students.

Mini-lessons have been found to be successful both in the regular education

classroom and in special education classrooms as well. Dowls and Schloss performed a

mini-lesson study on writing skills implemented during whole-group instruction and

found that,

Mini-lessons during the writing process in general classroom

instruction can be employed to teach skills to students

with learning disabilities. The results from the treatment

and the maintenance phase support the use of mini-lessons

to increase learning of skills for students with learning

disabilities” (Dowls & Schloss, 1992, p. 1).

Dowls and Schloss found consistently higher performance on scoring when analyzing the

achievement particularly in the category of spelling. Also interesting in this study, not

only was the mini-lesson’s effectiveness measured in the special education classroom, but

it was also measured in the general education classroom as well (Dowls & Schloss,

1992). This form of instruction, which focuses on predominantly modeling, and a lot of

practice, showed consistent gains made by students in both classroom settings (Dowls &

Schloss, 1992). Another similar study was performed by Marston and Deno, where they

measured gains in written expression (total words written, mature words, words spelled

correctly, and letters in sequence) after the implementation of the mini-lesson. The results


of their study concluded that, “Results revealed the reliability coefficients for total words,

words spelled correctly, and letters in sequence were consistently superior” (in the post

test) (Marston & Deno, 1981, p. 1). Consistently, not only were there several studies

which discussed the benefits of mini-lessons, but the study performed this year also

demonstrated that students did in fact move a performance level due to this instructional

strategy.

Blair & Crump define written expression as, “a complex process which involves

keeping in mind one’s idea(s), ordering ideas in some logical sequence and relationship,

and planning and designing the correct placement of word or idea on paper” (1984, p.

19). From that definition alone, it is apparent that written expression a multi-step process

which requires many skills. Written expression is a difficult process for regular education

students, and its challenges are even more difficult when considering students with

special needs.

The Center for Exceptional Children describes a learning disability as average or

above average intelligence, accompanied by underachievement in regards to the same

academic level as peers (Learning, 2012). This weaker academic achievement is most

commonly seen in the areas of reading, written language, and math (Learning, 2012).

This is later elaborated on in further detail by describing a learning disability in written

language as problems in handwriting, spelling, sentence structure, vocabulary usage,

volume of information produced, and organization or written ideas (Learning, 2012). It is

overwhelmingly common for students with a learning disability in reading to also have

difficulties in writing, since both areas are language based (Learning, 2012).

A disorder of written expression is a specific learning disability which, according


to McCaskill & McCaskill,

Involves significant, neurologically-based difficulties with the

mastery of writing skills and the production of written output,

relative to typical expectations based on age, intellectual capability,

and grade level. A specific learning disability reflects specific

difficulties with the fluent, consistent learning and application

of specific types of mental skills; however, this is a separate

issue from general intelligence (2012, p. 2).

Disorders of written expression are also referred to as “dysgraphia” (Kay, 2007).

Dysgraphia can be classified as specific, which results from spelling disabilities, motor

coordination problems, and language disabilities such as aphasia (Kay, 2007). Non-

specific dysgraphia is another classification that many times is a result from an

intellectual deficit, psychosocial deprivation, or poor school attendance (Kay, 2007).

With a common understanding of the general term of written expression, learning

disabilities, and disorders of written expression (dysgraphia), it is imperative to establish

significance in interest and motivation towards writing. It goes without saying that one of

the most difficult challenges in working with students who struggle with writing is

increasing their interest or motivation. If a student has developed a positive attitude

toward writing, it is more likely that student will use writing in other classrooms as well

as outside of the classroom to continue to develop their skills (Graham & MacArthur,

2007). It is imperative to engage students in writing that is meaningful to them, in

addition to direct individual and group instruction in the skills and strategies they either

struggle with or need to develop (Graham & MacArthur, 2007).


A major concern is the impact of struggles in written expression on student

performance in all academic areas. Many content area teachers of both regular and

special education students regularly complain about the lack of writing skills and its

impact on student ability to express their thoughts/information. Although little is known

about how students with learning disabilities in written expression go about composing

their written pieces, it is apparent that very little planning goes into their responses and

they are instead more of a choppy response with little thought or planning behind it

(Graham & Harris, 1989). A study on disorders of written expression out of Canada

suggests that difficulties in written expression have an “adverse impact” on schools and

student performance in all classrooms (Kay, 2007). This impact shows the detrimental

need for development of writing skills not only for all students, but especially those with

disabilities that affect written expression.

Due to extensive research, there are numerous studies, which have produced an

overwhelming numbers of strategies to use with students who have disorders of written

expression. Below you will find a select few of those strategies that were applied to the

individuals, ability groups, and classes in which this study was implemented:

LD Online suggests six principles designed to assist in mastery of the writing process for

individuals with learning disabilities (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001):

o Provide effective writing instruction

o Tailor writing instruction to meet the individual needs of children with LD

o Intervene early, providing a coherent and sustained effort to improve the writing

skills of children with LD

o Expect that each child will learn to write


o Identify and address academic and nonacademic roadblocks to writing and school

success

o Employ technological tools that improve writing performance

Other suggestions include regular teacher/student conferences concerning writing,

a predictable writing routine where students are encouraged to think, reflect, draft, and

revise, modeling of the writing process by the teacher, and cooperative grouping of

students (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001).

A plethora of strategies for students with written expression disabilities are

offered by McCaskill & McCaskill. Those strategies include scaffolding and mentoring,

concept mapping or webbing, use of graphic organizers, maintain an emphasis on main

ideas, minimal volume of writing, tape recorded lectures/lessons, minimize multi-tasking

demands, allow extended time on written tasks, teach abbreviated note taking, allow

alternative forms of presentation, teach keyboarding skills, allow use of a word processor,

use of computer programs for teaching skills, use oral dictation software, occupational

therapy services, teach and allow annotation, provide structure (2012). Kay summarized

strategies for disorders of written expression in her summary, “Written language is the

ultimate, most complex method of expression. A combination of accurate diagnosis,

remediation using direct instruction techniques, and the use of bypass strategies and

assistive technology can be useful in supporting the needs of the learner with written

language deficits” (2007, p. 4).

The intention of direct writing instruction using ability grouping was to improve

writing skills of students with disabilities. Through this research, the unique needs and

skills of individual students were studied, skills on how to develop flexible groupings


were learned, and skills on how to assess students with writing difficulties for progress

and placement were gained. Overall, it is apparent that through research, one can learn

many options for the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various forms of

direct writing instruction strategies, and strategies specifically designed for students with

learning disabilities in written expression.


Research Methods

Research Design

A pre-experimental, post one group study research design was used to collect data

to this project. The matched t-test was used to determine significance at the 0.10 Alpha

level to challenge the null hypothesis. This study will compare one student group of pre

and post test scores related to writing. The dependent variable in this study was student

writing scores on a pre-determined rubric. The independent variable in this study was

direct writing instruction through mini-lessons in a special education Study Skills class.

Study Group Description

Data were collected from special education Study Skills classes at the high school

level, during the 2011-2012 school year. Four Study Skills classes participated in the

study. The pre assessment had 54 participants; due to dropouts, absences, transfers, and

pre-assessment proficiency, only 40 of those scores were measurable for the study. The

disabilities of the final 40 participants are as follows:

o Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - 29 total students

-69% have multiple SLD’s

-15 include Written Expression disabilities

o Other Health Impaired - 7

o Autism - 1

o Emotional Disorder - 1

o Visual Impairment – 1

o Language Impairment - 1

Data Collection and Instrumentation


Students were given a pre-assessment writing prompt through a program called

“MyAccess”. MyAccess is an online writing assessment program that provides

immediate scoring once the writing sample is submitted. The program does not identify

misspelled words or grammatical errors as the student is typing. The writing prompt was

the same for all students. Due to the differences in the online scoring versus the

expectations in the Study Skills rubric, the online score was disregarded. Alternatively,

each submission was reviewed by two Study Skills teachers and hand-scored. After eight

weeks of writing instruction from the Study Skills teachers, students were given another

writing prompt for the final assessment. Again, MyAccess was used as the submission

method, but the responses were hand-scored by the same set of teachers that scored the

pre-assessment, using the same rubric.

Statistical Analysis Methods

A Statistical Package (ASP) software was used to complete the statistical

calculations in this study. A frequency plot was created from the raw data charts and a

matched t-test was calculated. In addition, Microsoft Excel and Google Docs were both

used to collect data and calculate some totals used in the study.


Findings

To determine the effectiveness of direct writing instruction in a special education

Study Skills classroom using ability grouping, students were given a pre assessment,

received the instruction through mini-lessons, then participated in a post assessment. The

raw data was collected in a Google doc and placed on an excel spreadsheet to be

transferred into the ASP program. Initially, there were 54 students who participated in the

pre assessment, due to varying factors, only 40 of their scores were deemed eligible for

the study. Table 1 shows the Microsoft Excel document of the original 54 students who

were assessed. Column B shows pre assessment scores, column C lists which ability

group they were placed in for instructional purposes, column D lists post assessment

scores, column E is for a simple Y or N in regards to whether or not the student

progressed one level on the scoring rubric, column F lists student disabilities, and the

final column G is for additional comments for those 14 students whose scores were

determined not applicable for various reasons (attendance, dropout, refusal, proficient,

transfer).


Table 1:


Due to varying reasons, 14 of the 54 student scores were determined ineligible for

the study and dropped from the original raw data. Table 2 shows the raw data chart after

those ineligible scores were removed. Column B shows student pre assessment scores,

column D shows student post assessment scores, column E contains either a Y or N for

whether or not the student progressed one level on the scoring rubric, and column F lists

each individual student's disability.


Table 2:


After all scores were recorded and transferred into the ASP program, a frequency

plot was generated to summarize the distributional information of the writing instruction

variable. The frequency plot shown in Table 3 displays the distribution of student scores

on both the pre and post assessments. This frequency plot makes very evident, the overall

increase in student scores. Worth noting were the 17 students who received scores of 1 on

the pre assessment, which translated into only 3 scores of 1 on the post assessment. Also

noteworthy are the 11 student scores that moved up to 4 (proficient) on the post

assessment. The frequency chart shows an overall shift towards proficiency in student

scores, and the overall movement of increased scores after direct writing instruction using

ability grouping was implemented into the special education Study Skills classroom. The

pre and post writing assessments were scored on a 4 point scale; a score of 1 was for

students who were not likely to reach proficient, a score of 2 was students who were far

from proficient, a score of 3 was students who were close to proficient, and a score of 4

meant the student had reached proficient or higher.


Table 3:


Tables 4 & 5 were generated using the ASP program output. Table 4 is the output

from the matched t-Test that was run to compare pre assessment and post assessment

scores. Those numbers were then placed into a t-Test analysis table for further review.

As shown in the following Tables 4 & 5, a significant difference (t-Test = -

6.44; p-value = 1.25154E-7, Mean D = -0.95) in mean scores was found between pre and

post assessments. The null hypothesis was rejected. Students (Pre Mean = 1.86 on a 4

point scale) did record a significantly higher mean score on the post assessment, after the

writing instruction was implemented in their Study Skills class (Post Mean = 2.62 on a 4

point scale), when the alpha value is 0.10, compared to the criterion p-value of 1.25154E-

7. These findings suggest that direct writing instruction did move 70% of writing scores

up to the next level of proficiency, and the value was considered significant when

compared to the alpha level of 0.10.


Table 4:

Table 5:


Rejection of the null hypothesis supports the data that 28 of the 40 students (70%)

moved up at least one level of proficiency, while only 12 of the 40 students (30%) did not

move up to the next level of proficiency. These findings translate into successful

implementation of direct writing instruction, and are great indicators that direct writing

instruction with ability grouping should be a permanent fixture in special education Study

Skills classes. It cannot be denied that the writing instruction had an impact, considering

the average score increased from 1.86 to 2.62 from the pre assessment to the post

assessment. This shows a 0.76-point increase on a 4-point scale, which means progress

was clearly made. The t-Test was used to determine whether or not “significant” progress

was made to either accept or reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was rejected

on the grounds that the 0.10 alpha level was equal to or greater than the p-value of

1.25154E-7. This shows that “significant” progress was made given the set parameters.

Variance takes into consideration how accurate a study is. This means that each

participant of a study group has the same ability and background. The smaller the

variance among participants, the less likely a difference will occur due to sampling

errors. In hindsight, there were several factors that increased variance in regards to this

study:

o Consistency - Mini-lessons were taught by 4 different instructors with different

teaching styles (one who refused to teach several of the mini-lessons)

o Disabilities - Students enrolled in Study Skills ranged in regards to their

disabilities. Worth noting was the 15 students who have specific learning

disabilities in written expression and 10 others who had disabilities which could

have impacted their performance on the pre or post assessment.


o Socioeconomic Status- Due to the Title I classification, there are oftentimes many

outside factors which impede student performance. These outside factors may

have played a role in student effort in both mini-lessons and on the assessments.

Scores Not Applicable (removed from data prior to analysis):

There were 14 students who participated in the pre assessment and for various reasons

were determined not applicable for the post assessment and/or study:

o Attendance - Three students were determined not applicable due to attendance

issues. Each of these students were absent an average of 70% of the days mini-

lessons were presented in their Study Skills class, as well as the post assessment

day.

o Transfers - Three students transferred to an alternative school or treatment

program prior to the post assessment.

o Refusal - One student refused to participate in over 80% of the mini-lessons

presented in class, including the post assessment. Due to the nature of his

disability, this was not an uncommon practice.

o Drop Out - Five students were dropped from enrollment for various reasons in

between taking the pre and post assessment.

o Proficient - Two students scored proficient on the pre assessment and it was

determined they would no longer participate in the study.

The variance for this study was high. It is definitely worth taking into consideration not

only for the determination of accuracy on this study, but also to eliminate those factors in

future studies.


Overall, the study was a success. Seventy percent of writing scores improved by

at least one proficiency level due to the writing instruction presented in Study Skills

classes. In addition, based on the 4-point scale, the p-value was less than the alpha level,

it was therefore considered “significant” and the null hypothesis was rejected.


Conclusions and Recommendations

The null hypothesis stated that there is no significant difference in student writing

scores when 8 weeks of direct writing instruction is implemented in a special education

Study Skills class, when compared with student scores prior to receiving the 8 weeks of

direct writing instruction. The results of this study indicate that the null hypothesis should

be rejected because there was a significant difference in student pre and post assessment

scores after writing instruction was implemented. After 40 student pre and post

assessment scores were deemed eligible for the study, they were graded on a 4-point

scale using a predetermined grading rubric (Appendix D).

The nature of each student’s disability plays a huge role in his or her ability and

performance. As mentioned above, student disabilities were across the board and showed

no consistency in regards to variance. More precise and accurate results would have come

out of a study in which all students were diagnosed with the same or similar disabilities,

and had they been functioning closely to the same grade levels.

When analyzing the pre assessment and post assessment means, 0.76 is a

significant increase when considering the population of those who participated in the

study. As shown in Table 5, the pre assessment mean was 1.86, and the overall average

increase was 2.62. This indicated that students did indeed progress, and it was slightly

shy of a progression of 1 point on a 4-point scale. The null hypothesis was rejected

because the “significant” parameter was met.

It is somewhat unreasonable to expect “significant” progress from students with

disabilities in written expression or other areas that may affect written expression.

Especially considering the short 8-week period of time, which was allotted for the


instruction and improvement. Therefore the rejection of the null hypothesis was not

actually unexpected. The improvement in student writing scores was much higher than

originally predicted.

After much reflection, there are several recommendations to take into

consideration on future studies of this nature. Each student's disability is perhaps the most

influential factor in determining room for progress on pre and post assessment scores.

These disabilities can play a large role in a student’s performance, and even their ability

to improve within the set parameters.

Another important consideration was the inconsistency of the direct writing

instruction. All of the four teachers collaborated in regards to the lessons and what would

be presented in their class. Each of them did indeed have the same material, format and

method of delivery for the material. One major concern was the willingness to participate

by all teachers. One of the teachers was extremely resistant to the study and presented

very few of the actual mini-lessons. Because of this, his students showed far less

progress, which could in turn result in yet another study/analysis. For future studies, it

would be more beneficial to have one teacher delivering the instruction for all

participants to establish consistency. Another option would be to compare the scores and

progress of students in each class, who were taught by different instructors. A statistical

analysis of that data, would be worthy of another study and likely returns some very

valuable information in regards to teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

As with any study, there are also several unpredicted and uncontrollable factors to

take into account. Student attendance played a role in student performance. The data of

students who missed a considerable amount of the mini-lessons and/or the post


assessment were removed from the study. Unfortunately, there were a large number of

additional students who missed a few of the mini-lessons, which likely could have

impacted their post assessment score. There are also socioeconomic, behavioral, and

various other factors that on any day could influence a student's willingness to

participate, effort, or performance on an assessment.

Overall, this study shed an abundance of insight on the impact of direct writing

instruction. I personally believe that through this additional writing instruction and ability

grouping, we were able to improve writing scores a satisfactory amount when taking all

outside variables into consideration. That being said, there has also been an incredible

amount of knowledge gained on how to conduct studies of this nature in the future, and

the importance of each and every factor that could impact student scores. The null

hypothesis was rejected and there was a significant amount of progress made; therefore it

is safe to say an adequate amount of progress was shown given the extenuating

circumstances (disabilities, timeline, and inconsistency of instruction, etc.).


References

Binder, C. (1998). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic

achievement. Education. Retrieved from EBSOChost.

Blair, T., & Crump, D. (1984). Effects of discourse mode on the syntactic complexity of

learning disabled students’ written expression. Learning Disability Quarterly

7(1), 19-29. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Byrnes, M.A. (Ed.) (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in

special education. 5th Edition. Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-Hill.

Chapman, C., & King, R. (2009). Differentiated instructional strategies for writing in the

content areas, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Corwin.

Common (2012). Common Core Standards. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

Dowls, C., & Schloss, P. (1992). The impact of mini-lessons on writing skills. Remedial

and Special Education 13 (5), 34-42. Retrieved from ERIC.

Feldman, K. (2009). How older kids can improve their writing skills. Retrieved from

http://www.ncld.org/es/ld-basics/ld-aamp-language/writing/how-older-kids-can-

improve-their-writing-skills

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at

composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children 56

(3), 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Exceptional-

Children/8909537.html


Graham, S., Harris, K, & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing

difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www.ldonline.org/article/6213/

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction: Effective

writing instruction for students with learning problems. New York, NY: Guilford

Hoover, K. & Lutz, C. (2009). It’s always the “write” time for mini-lessons in

writing workshop. National Reading Recovery and K-6 Classroom Literacy

Conference. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0.

Hopkins, G. (2006). Is ability grouping the way to go -- or should it go away? Education

World. Retrieved from

http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin009.shtml

Isaacson, S. (1996). Simple ways to assess the writing skills of students with learning

disabilities. LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6208/

Johnston, D. (2006). Differentiated instruction for writing. The Access Center for

Improving Outcomes for All Students. Retrieved from

http://www.k8accesscenter.org/index.php/category/differentiated-instruction/

Kay, M. (2007). Disorders of written expression. NLD Ontario. Retrieved from

http://www.nldontario.org/articles/WrittenExpression.html

Learning (2012). Learning Disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from

http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Learning_Disabilities&Tem

plate=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=37&ContentID=5629


Lenz, K. & Conklin, W. (2004). Applying differentiation strategies: Teacher’s handbook

for secondary. Huntington Beach, CA: McREL.

Logsdon, A. (2012). What is ability grouping: Is ability grouping right for your child?

Retrieved from http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/ac/a/ability_groups.htm

Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written

expression. Minnesota University, Minneapolis for Research on Learning

Disabilities. Retrieved from ERIC.

McCaskill, J., & McCaskill, P. (2012). Disorder of written expression: An interview with

Dr. John and Pamela McCaskill. Retrieved from

http://voices.yahoo.com/disorder-written-expression-interview-6120410.html

Pressley, M., Billman, A., Perry, K., Refitt, K., & Reynolds, J.M. (Eds.), (2007). Shaping

literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need. New York:

Guilford Press.

Special Needs Education (2012). Direct instruction and special needs. University of

Michigan, Department of Psychology. Retrieved from

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/delicata.356/direct_instruction_and_special_needs

U.S. Department of Education (2012). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention

research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67 (1), 99-114.

Retrieved from ERIC.


APPENDIX

APPENDIX A Timeline:

The table in Appendix A shows the timeline followed for pre-assessment, mini-lesson

instruction, and post-assessment. The first four weeks of the timeline were taught as

whole-group instruction. The last four weeks were taught in ability groups, which was

determined by mastery of skills.


APPENDIX B Student Groups for Mastery:

Appendix B is the rubric used to determine mastery for student groups. Once students

fulfilled the performance strength criteria for the group in which they were placed, they

were advanced to the next student group level.

APPENDIX C


Instructional Strategies:

Appendix C displays the specific needs of the student groups as well as the strategies

used for instruction and topics for mini-lessons. This chart does not include the fourth

group of “Students Not Likely” in writing instruction because, although they received the

writing instruction, it was determined ahead of time that they were not likely to progress

because of their disability or due to outside factors. Their main focus was on improving

their grades in all other classes.

APPENDIX D


Scoring Rubric: Appendix D is the predetermined scoring rubric used on the pre and post assessment. Writing submissions for both assessments were hand-scored by the Study Skills teachers. Two teachers reviewed each submission and determined a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4.

4 3 2 1


ORGANIZATION Title, 4+ Paragraphs, Logical Organization of Thoughts, Paragraphing

No Title, 4+ Paragraphs, Logical Organization of Thoughts and Paragraphing

Missing Title, 2-3 Paragraphs, Missing Organizational Features to Organize Ideas, No Paragraphing Structure

Missing Title, 1-2 Paragraphs, Missing Organization Features, No Paragraphing Structure

VOCABULARY Specific Vocabulary, 30% Multi-syllable Words

General Vocabulary, 10% Multi-Syllable Words

General Vocabulary, Mo Multi-syllable Words, Many misspellings

General Vocabulary, Misspellings interfere with comprehension of text

OPENING/ CLOSING

Opening and Closing Paragraphs explain the main idea of the essay

Opening OR Closing Paragraphs explain the main idea of the essay

Missing Opening and Closing Paragraphs, but has a Opening and/or Closing statement

Missing Opening and Closing Paragraph, no Opening/ Closing statements

TRANSITIONS Transitions aid in the flow from paragraph to paragraph

Transitions do not aid in the flow from paragraph to paragraph OR transitions are “then, next, so, etc”

No Transitions No Transitions

special education & direct writing instruction 1 running ... variables - direct writing...

Documents