An RCT of PD and Expert Support for Classwide SRSD Instruction on Timed Narrative Writing at 4th Grade: Critical Implications
Saved in:
| Title: | An RCT of PD and Expert Support for Classwide SRSD Instruction on Timed Narrative Writing at 4th Grade: Critical Implications |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Sharlene A. Kiuhara (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(2):1-34. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 34 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Grade 4 Intermediate Grades |
| Descriptors: | Grade 4, Writing Instruction, Writing Strategies, Writing Skills, Teacher Effectiveness, Stakeholders, State Curriculum Guides, Alignment (Education), Expectation, Faculty Development, Self Management, Language Arts, Story Telling, Narration, Time Management, Elementary School Teachers |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11145-023-10507-2 |
| ISSN: | 0922-4777 1573-0905 |
| Abstract: | Composing narrative text is complex, requiring development of knowledge of genre specific and general writing knowledge, and the ability to sequence and convey real or imagined experiences, reactions, and an effective ending. Teachers, however, typically do not receive adequate professional learning needed for effective instruction in narrative writing. We collaborated with district-level stakeholders to address the specific writing needs of their 4th grade students and developed two narrative writing strategies aligned with state curriculum and expectations. We also developed two days of practice-based professional development (PBPD) for teachers who implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction. The PBPD included the genre-based and general writing knowledge needed to use these new strategies. SRSD instruction also included learning to write in a timed condition, as required in the state writing test. Expert support was provided during SRSD instruction. Instruction took place during the teachers' English language arts block a minimum of 3 times per week. This randomized controlled trial involved 16 teachers and their 4th grade classrooms randomly assigned to the SRSD instruction or control conditions. PBPD resulted in high instructional fidelity for 14 features of SRSD instruction and high social validity for SRSD instruction. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that student outcomes were moderate to large for narrative elements (g = 0.51) and story quality (g = 0.48), and small for total words written (g = 0.35). This study adds to research on PBPD for SRSD and challenges experienced, and to effective instruction in narrative writing. We discuss issues and future research that can make a difference to teachers, students, and schools. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1461750 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGyBHvViXIyv7waam7_HmMfAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBZQ_mI88nh8V23MVQIBEICBmzyKe2EQQt23VOrDOn91JMEIKvkpRV47g0GZ8f0qd5Oja5USGJPimogbZJ09Qxp172fgrpEb7b-9ycoFRX7SvIA1x7Kla0hsi7-XVhZBPK4qRnHe-7SM_jtzO6ZEBwm0hyv9QxgRyAw1sJ-ck7SWCccdSXuCKoIB6VAY7UgvkJrOIxe3DFW51mXDjVsMQejihHnSp3WDu8HD8Sst Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183535469;2ap01feb.25;2025Mar11.02:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183535469-1">An RCT of PD and expert support for classwide SRSD instruction on timed narrative writing at 4th grade: critical implications </title> <p>Composing narrative text is complex, requiring development of knowledge of genre specific and general writing knowledge, and the ability to sequence and convey real or imagined experiences, reactions, and an effective ending. Teachers, however, typically do not receive adequate professional learning needed for effective instruction in narrative writing. We collaborated with district-level stakeholders to address the specific writing needs of their 4th grade students and developed two narrative writing strategies aligned with state curriculum and expectations. We also developed two days of practice-based professional development (PBPD) for teachers who implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction. The PBPD included the genre-based and general writing knowledge needed to use these new strategies. SRSD instruction also included learning to write in a timed condition, as required in the state writing test. Expert support was provided during SRSD instruction. Instruction took place during the teachers' English language arts block a minimum of 3 times per week. This randomized controlled trial involved 16 teachers and their 4th grade classrooms randomly assigned to the SRSD instruction or control conditions. PBPD resulted in high instructional fidelity for 14 features of SRSD instruction and high social validity for SRSD instruction. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that student outcomes were moderate to large for narrative elements (g = 0.51) and story quality (g = 0.48), and small for total words written (g = 0.35). This study adds to research on PBPD for SRSD and challenges experienced, and to effective instruction in narrative writing. We discuss issues and future research that can make a difference to teachers, students, and schools.</p> <p>Keywords: Narrative writing; Self-regulated strategy development; Practice-based professional development; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Writing is an essential cornerstone on which learning is built. It is also a critical tool for self-expression and self-understanding, reasoning, continuing education, and social and political engagement (Bangert-Drowns et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]). Further, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports that nearly 80% of employers want a candidate with strong written communication skills (National Association of Colleges &amp; Employers, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref6">58</reflink>]). Inadequate writing abilities among K-12 students have become a worldwide issue.</p> <p>The writing performance of many of our students in the U.S. today is unacceptable. Systemic challenges to writing development exist due to numerous factors, including: lack of understanding of why instruction in writing is as important as instruction in reading, science, and math; achievement gaps in writing among our students from the elementary to secondary grades; and limited use of evidence-based practices in writing instruction (Applebee &amp; Langer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref8">42</reflink>]; National Association of Colleges and Employers, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]; National Commission on Writing, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref10">56</reflink>]; Salas et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref11">62</reflink>]). Further, elementary and secondary teachers consistently report that they received little to no preservice or inservice professional development in writing (Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref12">48</reflink>]; Ray et al., 2022), contributing to this systemic failure. Elementary teachers report: (a) inadequate preparation for teaching writing in degree programs and in professional development, (b) low self-efficacy for writing and teaching writing, (c) less time teaching writing than they do other subjects, and (d) little use of evidence-based practices (Brindle et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; Gillespie, et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]; Graham &amp; Bollinger, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>These issues are deeply concerning, as skilled writing is complex, requiring goal-directed problem solving, extensive self-regulation of an intricate and challenging process, and attention to the author's purposes and goals (Boscolo &amp; Mason, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]; Cumming et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref17">63</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref18">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). Writers also face numerous social and emotional challenges across affective (e.g., emotions, attitudes, writing self-efficacy, and motivation), cognitive/metacognitive (e.g., rich knowledge of writing strategies, effective self-regulation), and behavioral (e.g., focus, engagement, perseverance) demands (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Writing performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), however, has remained stagnant for decades (Aud et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]). On the most recent NAEP for writing, 74% of eighth graders and 73% of twelfth graders scored at or below basic; 4th graders were not assessed (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref23">57</reflink>]). As the basic level indicates only partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient writing, this is deeply disturbing. The last NAEP assessment of writing that included 4th graders found that 72% of 4th graders scored at or below basic (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003. At 4th grade, 86%, 83%, and 67% of Black, Hispanic, and White students scored at or below basic, respectively. Further, White students outperformed students who were Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Alaska Native, and students eligible for free/reduced lunch scored lower than students who were not eligible for this service; discrepancies among Black, Brown, and students from lower income homes are of concern (Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref24">46</reflink>]; Terry &amp; Albritton, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref25">63</reflink>]). In terms of narrative writing on the 2002 NAEP assessment, only 18% of 4th grade students received scores of "skillful" on a six-point scale, and only 4% received a score of "excellent" for narrative writing.</p> <p>In the next section we review the literature on narrative writing, the evidence for SRSD instruction in writing, the research base for practice-based professional development (PBPD) for SRSD, and writing under timed conditions. Then, we present the importance of addressing the learning needs of students who are historically underrepresented and underserved in the SRSD evidence base.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-3">Narrative writing</hd> <p>Across the U.S., narrative writing (e.g., story writing and personal narrative) is one of three critical genres targeted for instruction (cf. Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts [CCSS-ELA], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]). Writing a story or personal narrative requires students at early grades to draw on real or imagined experiences or events, provide rich descriptions of settings, characters, actions and reactions, and compose text with a clear beginning, middle, and end (Persky et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref27">60</reflink>]). Narrative writing also helps the writer analyze and understand both their own actions and those of others (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>]). As early as first grade, students begin using personal narrative to convey a meaningful series of events based on their experiences (Boscolo, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Common Core State Standards-ELA, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]; McKeough et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref31">52</reflink>]). Students learn to organize their experiences and knowledge, and to consider and express thoughts and emotions (Boscolo, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Hillocks, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]). In later grades, students also engage in narrative writing when asked to reflect on, clarify, or extend their understanding about concepts learned in science, social studies, or mathematics, serving as a vehicle to negotiate understandings with a teacher or peers (Bangert-Drowns et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]; Juzwik et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref36">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Narrative writing, furthermore, is used across the lifespan to engage in reflective inquiry for self-development and self-awareness on both personal and professional levels. On a personal level, narrative writing allows us to explore and organize complex emotional experiences, which promotes mental and physical well-being (Pennebaker &amp; Seagal, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref37">59</reflink>]). For both students and adults, writing narratives can help develop cultural and political identities (Ball &amp; Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Juzwik et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref39">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite a long-standing emphasis on teaching narrative writing in the elementary grades that predates the CCSS-ELA (Boscolo, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]; McKeough et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref41">52</reflink>]), the NAEP data reviewed indicates that we are not successfully developing narrative writing abilities for most students at any grade level. Hillocks ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref42">43</reflink>]) noted that issues exist in the teaching of narrative writing and in teacher preparation for this genre. He reported that narrative writing is most often taught by reading and discussing examples of narratives, followed by assigning narratives. Further, in our experience, the model examples read are often at students' reading comprehension or oral listening levels, but above their current writing levels (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]). Hillocks suggested an additional focus on teaching strategies for writing narratives to enhance writing development. Therefore, we focused the present study on learning strategies for effective narrative writing, and then during timed writing, using evidence-based SRSD instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-4">The SRSD model of instruction</hd> <p>Since the 1980s, the SRSD model of instruction has been based on theoretical and empirical triangulation, integrating effective, diverse, validated approaches to complex teaching and learning (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref44">32</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]). Single theories prevalent today cannot capture the complex nature of learning, contexts for learning, and diversity among learners, classrooms, schools, and communities (Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>]). Evidence-based instructional practices from differing theories can be integrated to contribute to effective instruction. Further, attributes of effective teachers and characteristics of effective instruction belong to no single theory, but are supported by many (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref48">32</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>SRSD instruction is, therefore, a multicomponent, multi-characteristic approach (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>]). SRSD instruction is not scripted, reflects strong respect for and reliance on teacher judgement and formative assessment, and situates students' writing development within the writing process (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). Strategies have been validated for the recursive process of pre-writing, planning, composing, revising, and editing (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref58">50</reflink>]). The SRSD instructional model for writing has been identified an evidence-based practice for writing instruction across genres at the elementary grades receiving a rating of "strong evidence" (the highest rating; consistent evidence that the recommended practices improve student outcomes for a wide population of students) in the IES What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide: Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers (Graham &amp; Bollinger, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>SRSD instruction involves: (a) interactive, discourse based, scaffolded, explicit learning of knowledge and strategies for genre-specific and general aspects of writing; (b) the academic knowledge (e.g., vocabulary and background knowledge) needed to use these strategies; (c) development of attributions for success to effort, learning, and strategy use; and (d) strategies for self-regulating affect, behavior, and cognition/metacognition throughout the writing process. The teacher facilitates rich discussions and explicit development of knowledge and academic vocabulary, which are essential for students to meet their goals in SRSD. The teacher creates a safe and cooperative environment where writing is valued. Activities embedded in SRSD are student-centered and collaborative. For example, individually and/or together with the teacher or peers, students set goals for their writing, monitor their progress, and evaluate their writing Gillespie Rouse &amp; Kiuhara, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]). Students collaboratively plan and compose and learn to offer positive and constructive feedback to peers and act on feedback they receive.</p> <p>SRSD instruction includes reading, analyzing, and discussing model texts <emph>at students' target writing levels</emph> (as opposed to reading levels, which are generally higher) as well as other classroom texts (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref62">37</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref63">39</reflink>]). Poorly developed texts are also read, evaluated, and collaboratively revised, aiding in building background knowledge and academic vocabulary. Topic, audience, and writer's purpose are discussed throughout instruction. General (e.g. good vocabulary, effective sentences) and genre-based aspects of effective writing are intentionally and explicitly developed. Multiple elements of SRSD instruction help support students in development of motivation, positive attitudes toward writing, regulation of emotions and performance, and belief in themselves as capable writers, thus developing self-efficacy for writing (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]; Graham &amp; Harris, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref67">24</reflink>]). Progression through the six flexible and recursive stages of SRSD instruction (detailed in the Method section) is mastery-based, using gradual release of teacher assistance (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-5">PBPD for SRSD instruction in narrative writing</hd> <p>It is essential to focus on evidence-based practices <emph>and</emph> provide effective professional learning for teachers to address the lack of effective teacher preparation in writing. Multiple studies have found that PBPD for SRSD has resulted in high fidelity of implementation by teachers, meaningful student writing outcomes, and high social validity or perceived usefulness of SRSD (Gillespie Rouse &amp; Kiuhara, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref71">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref73">40</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref74">53</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref75">54</reflink>]). Therefore, PBPD was chosen as the approach for collaborating with teachers in the current study. Next, we describe the fundamental components and aspects of PBPD. Relevant studies of PBPD for SRSD instruction in narrative writing, the focus of this study, are then reviewed.</p> <p>Ball and her colleagues (cf. Ball &amp; Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]) proposed PBPD to develop teacher knowledge, understanding, strategies, and skills related to an effective educational practice; expert support was important once classroom implementation began. Research on effective PD has confirmed the importance of the components of the PBPD model, as researchers have examined effective PD (see Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref77">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref78">40</reflink>], for details). As do researchers today, Ball and Cohen stressed the complex reality of teaching in our schools. Teachers must address students' social, emotional, and cognitive development within schools, classrooms, and communities that have their own complex dynamics (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref79">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The complex reality of teaching is addressed in PBPD by: (a) collaboration among teachers within the same school with similar needs; (b) basing PD around the characteristics, strengths, and needs of current students; (c) attention to content knowledge needs of teachers, including pedagogical content knowledge; (d) opportunities for active learning and practice of the new methods being learned, including opportunities to see and analyze examples of these methods being used; (e) use of materials and other artifacts during PD that are identical to those to be used in the classroom, and (f) feedback on performance while learning, prior to classroom use, so that understandings and skills critical in implementation are developed, and (g) expert support, such as coaching or expert scaffolding, once teaching begins (Ball &amp; Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Also important are alignment with school curriculum, goals, and policies; adaptation to teachers' and students' strengths and needs; detailed lesson content and materials; and sufficient time and support for teacher learning (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]; Desimone &amp; Stuckey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref82">16</reflink>]; Gillespie Rouse &amp; Kiuhara, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref84">53</reflink>]). These factors are all consistent with PBPD and exemplary models of PD (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>]). Studies of PBPD for SRSD, including the current study, have carefully addressed these characteristics.</p> <p>Despite the importance of narrative writing, there are fewer studies of PBPD for SRSD instruction in this genre than in persuasive/argumentative or informative/expository writing (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref86">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]). Only one study was found that involved PBPD for SRSD focused on timed writing of an imaginary/fantasy story with the student as the main character, the focus of this study. McKeown et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref88">53</reflink>]) mixed methods study investigated the effects of PBPD for SRSD followed by teacher coaching across 53 4th-grade students (50% African American, 25% Hispanic/Latinx, 20% White, 5% Asian Pacific Islands) in three 4th grade teachers' classrooms. Qualitative results indicated that with coaching, all three teachers made adaptations to SRSD instruction at the whole class level to personalize instruction to their contexts and address overall student strengths and needs. Flexible small grouping and individualized differentiation to address students' writing strengths and needs were rare, however, without coaching. Two teachers responded strongly, implementing all suggestions for grouping and individual instruction recommended by coaches. Neither of these teachers, however, independently used observation or data to differentiate after coaches stopped making suggestions. One teacher resisted or ignored numerous suggestions and coaching for differentiation on both occasions.</p> <p>Classwide analysis found significant and meaningful growth for inclusion of story elements, but not for holistic story quality (McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref89">53</reflink>]). In terms of story elements, no significant differences were found for gender, English learner (EL) status, or participating in special education. For holistic story quality, girls scored higher than boys; no significant differences were found due to EL status or participation in special education. Further, all three teachers reported they did not have sufficient instructional time to meet mastery-based learning goals for all students, and wanted more instructional time. Insufficient time allowed to complete SRSD instruction has been noted in several studies due to multiple reasons (Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref90">42</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref91">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref92">40</reflink>]), making it impossible to know in these studies whether teacher and student outcomes would have been improved further.</p> <p>In their embedded single-case design study, McKeown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]) provided strong evidence that researchers must look more carefully at individual student data within group data. This concern has been voiced in numerous reports of classwide SRSD based on observation of scores for students experiencing significant difficulty with writing compared to their peers, but where Ns were not large enough to disaggregate data further (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref94">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref95">40</reflink>]). In the single case design study reported by McKeown et al., the authors noted variations in outcomes among and across six students experiencing significant difficulty and six students whose writing was in the average range. Potential reasons for the variations were discussed.</p> <p>The current study also involved 4th grade students and the ability to understand and respond to a writing prompt and compose under timed conditions similar to the state writing test. Similar to McKeown et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref96">53</reflink>]) study, we worked with administrators and teachers to obtain adequate time for SRSD instruction; we also emphasized and supported teachers in looking at individual student performance to allow differentiation.</p> <p>Researchers in one previous study examined PBPD for classwide SRSD instruction for story writing on outcomes among teachers and students (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref97">41</reflink>]). Harris et al. assigned 20 teachers randomly to SRSD for story writing or SRSD for opinion essay writing (each group acted as a comparison group for the other). Student participants included 2nd (<emph>n</emph> = 136) and 3rd graders (<emph>n</emph> = 126). Students, however, did not learn to write in a timed condition. Fidelity of implementation of SRSD instruction was high after PBPD. The students in the story writing groups made statistically significant and meaningful gains in the number and quality of narrative elements (ES = 1.82) as compared to students in the opinion writing condition. Similar to McKeown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref98">53</reflink>]), significant gains in story quality were not found. Like McKeown et al., Harris et al. reported insufficient time for SRSD instruction due to school pacing calendars and testing and did not find significant gains in story quality, an important outcome investigated in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-6">Composing under timed conditions</hd> <p>Surprisingly, given frequent use of high-stakes testing where students are required to write under timed conditions, such as on state or national tests, we found only one empirical study with elementary students examining the effects of SRSD instruction that included both genre-based instruction and then using what was learned in timed writing. Harris et al., ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref100">40</reflink>]) provided SRSD for informative writing based on close reading of source text and then for using the new strategies during timed writing. They found large effect sizes for both elements and quality, (and other outcomes) during timed writing. Mason and her colleagues have examined an intervention called Quick Writes using SRSD in which middle-grades students were given a topic and up to 10 min. to write a response. Studies have shown that students made writing gains in their organizational quality, content knowledge expressed, and length (Benedek-Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>]; Mason et al, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref102">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref103">50</reflink>]). Ray et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref104">61</reflink>]) investigated SRSD instruction for preparing 10th graders with learning disabilities to take the timed ACT writing exam. Students learned to use strategies effective for planning and composing an essay in 40 min. Students' writing showed improvement in overall ACT writing score, number of argumentative elements, total words, and number of transition words.</p> <p>Some scholars argue that writing under timed conditions, such as on high-stakes assessments, neither adequately assesses students' abilities nor promotes generalization of skills or content knowledge (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref105">4</reflink>]; Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref106">42</reflink>]). While acknowledging the limitations of timed testing, we posit that SRSD instruction where students learn genre-based and general strategies to plan and compose, <emph>and</emph> then learn how to use these strategies during timed writing, will transfer what they have learned to a standardized timed writing condition, providing a better indicator of their capabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-7">Impact of SES, race/ethnicity, and special education status on SRSD instruction outcomes</hd> <p>Although reporting on predictors of student performance after SRSD instruction is limited, the importance of these factors is clear in the NAEP data reviewed here. In addition to gender, race/ethnicity, and/or special education status, NAEP data, reviewed earlier, indicate additional predictors of differences in writing achievement (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref108">57</reflink>]). Students scored lower on the NAEP if they: (a) attended public schools rather than private schools, (b) were eligible for the National School Lunch Program, (c) attended schools that were not suburban, and (d) used computers for writing less often than their peers. At grade 12, students whose parents had lower levels of education also scored lower than their peers. Many of these variables are related to poverty/SES and race (Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref109">46</reflink>]; Terry &amp; Albritton, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref110">63</reflink>]). Students of color and/or living in poverty in the U.S. are more likely to face multiple barriers to success in school than their White peers. Although Salas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref111">62</reflink>]) found that SRSD instruction in writing was effective across SES contexts, impacts of SES, race/ethnicity, and special education status have not been well investigated in SRSD research.</p> <p>Only one study was found that looked at enhancing the cultural responsiveness of SRSD (Torres &amp; Black, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref112">64</reflink>]). However, this study was with college students and involved only five students in SRSD instruction and five students in control. Further, of the 20 additional components the authors claimed to add to SRSD, 15 are already central to SRSD instruction (e.g., explicitly teaching vocabulary, creating a welcoming classroom, and collaboration), as can be seen in this article and in more detailed descriptions of SRSD instruction (cf. Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref114">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using a RCT design, Kiuhara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref115">47</reflink>]) investigated the effects of SRSD instruction using argumentative writing to develop fraction knowledge for general and special education students in 4th to 6th grades. After correcting for clustering effects, they examined the differences in individual scores for students who received SRSD instruction (<emph>n</emph> = 28) and students in the control condition (<emph>n</emph> = 31). Overall results favored students who received SRSD instruction on a fraction test (<emph>g</emph> = 0.60), writing quality (<emph>g</emph> = 1.82), argumentative elements (<emph>g</emph> = 3.20) and total words (<emph>g</emph> = 1.92). They further compared the fraction learning outcomes of students who received special education services (57%, <emph>n</emph> = 16) to students who were not receiving special education services (43%, <emph>n</emph> = 12). The special education students demonstrated greater gains in fraction scores compared to their general education peers (<emph>n</emph> = 12, <emph>g</emph> = 1.04). The authors did not examine SES or race/ethnicity as predictor variables in their study.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-8">The present study</hd> <p>We investigated outcomes of SRSD instruction in narrative writing, an area less addressed in SRSD research, across 16 4th grade teachers (randomly assigned to PBPD or business as usual) following PBPD for SRSD instruction and expert support. Students learned two SRSD strategies; one to analyze and notate a narrative writing prompt (COUNT), and one strategy (Plan FAST) for planning and composing effective narrative text, and checking their work. They then learned to use both strategies in a 35-min timed testing condition. The COUNT and Plan FAST strategies are described in detail in the Method. The research questions were:</p> <p> <emph>RQ1</emph> Will professional development and expert support in SRSD for general educators on writing a timed, innovative narrative result in teacher implementation of SRSD instruction with fidelity and will teachers perceive SRSD as socially valid?</p> <p>Based on the findings the treatment fidelity and social validity outcomes from Harris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref116">41</reflink>]) and McKeown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref117">53</reflink>]), we hypothesized that teachers who received PBPD for SRSD with expert support would demonstrate high fidelity with SRSD instruction and perceive the approach as socially valid.</p> <p> <emph>RQ2</emph> Will general education teacher implementation of SRSD instruction result in significant and meaningful improvement in number of story elements, story quality, and/or total words written among 4th grade students?</p> <p>We also predicted that 4th graders who received SRSD instruction would make meaningful gains at post-test for story elements, story quality, and number of total words written compared to students in control classrooms. While the two previous studies reviewed did not find meaningful gains in story quality, moderate to large effect sizes in quality are typically found in SRSD research, although there is less research in narrative writing than other genres (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref118">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref119">40</reflink>]). In addition, we attempted to address sufficient time for SRSD instruction in the current study, which may affect quality outcomes.</p> <p> <emph>RQ3</emph> Would gender, race/ethnicity, and/or special education status be significant predictors of student outcome measures?</p> <p>Finally, a limited number of SRSD studies have examined the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status on student outcomes. Based on the NAEP data reported, we predicted that gender, race/ethnicity, and/or special education status would be significant predictors of student outcome measures. Unfortunately, the studies reviewed here did not have a large enough sample size or did not examine these demographic variables on students' writing outcomes. After teachers implemented SRSD instruction, we assessed outcomes among these teachers and 222 treatment and control students. As typical in SRSD research, if PBPD and SRSD instruction were successful, we offered all PBPD and SRSD instructional materials to the district and offered ongoing support for free.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183535469-10">Setting and participants</hd> <p>This study took place in an urban district located in the southeastern region of the United States. The district served over 78,000 students in 72 elementary schools, 33 middle schools, 21 high schools, three alternative schools, four special schools, and 11 charter schools. Seventy percent of the district's students were eligible to receive free and reduced lunch; 14% were learning to speak English. After obtaining university and district internal review board (IRB) approval, 16 fourth grade teachers from six elementary schools (serving students in kindergarten through fourth grade) volunteered and consented to participate in the study. Five of the schools meet the 40% threshold of low-income families and receive federal funds to provide additional support staff, classroom supplies, and free lunch.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-11">Teachers</hd> <p>Teaching experience ranged from one to 35 years (<emph>M</emph> = 14.35; <emph>SD</emph> = 10.14); all teachers had elementary education certification. One of the 16 participating teachers job shared with another teacher, each teaching half of the school day. Only one of these teachers taught writing and thus was included in the study. One teacher held an endorsement to teach gifted children; another teacher was certified in early childhood education, and a third teacher had National Board Certification. Ten teachers had a master's degree; one teacher had a doctoral degree. Eight of the teachers were Black and eight of the teachers were White; two teachers were men. Of the 16 teachers, 12 indicated they had received prior in-service training to teach writing, but not on SRSD for writing.</p> <p>Our study was a randomized controlled trial using a cluster design in which seven teachers and their students were randomly assigned to SRSD instruction for the narrative genre and nine teachers and their students to a control condition (business as usual). Teachers in the control condition followed the district's English language arts (ELA) curriculum and pacing calendar. We observed each control teacher throughout their writing block two times during the study (near the start and end of the study). The observations checklist focused on activities for teaching writing and types of writing students did (see Cutler &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref120">14</reflink>]). The research assistant also recorded teachers' use of any of the SRSD instructional procedures (e.g., narrative genre, planning, and self-regulation). The teachers in the control condition spent most of their time teaching foundational writing skills, had students select their own topics to write about, and encouraged students to use a planning strategy to write expository paragraphs. We observed only one teacher who provided practice writing under timed conditions, and two teachers who provided emphasis on writing personal narratives. Control teachers did not model or teach the self-regulation procedures in SRSD. Control teachers were offered the same PBPD and all materials after the study.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-12">Students</hd> <p>Each classroom teacher sent parental consent and student assent forms for each student in their class. We obtained signed consent and assent for 227 fourth grade students. The final number of students was 222, as five students moved during the study. Of these 222 students, 59% were Black, followed by White (29%), Latinx (6%), Asian (4%), and Native American (2%) students. Six percent of students received special education services, 4% of students received English language (EL) services. The treatment condition included 99 students, and 123 students were in the control condition. To determine if students in the two conditions were similar in story writing ability at the start of the study, we administered the Story Construction subtest of <emph>The Test of Written Language – Fourth Edition</emph> (<emph>TOWL 4</emph>; Hammill &amp; Larsen, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref121">30</reflink>]; scoring reliability = 0.80). This test measures the structural completeness of students' stories. Treatment and control students' scores on the <emph>TOWL 4</emph> did not differ statistically, <emph>t</emph> (<reflink idref="bib220" id="ref122">220</reflink>) = 0.40, <emph>p</emph> = 0.77. There were also no statistical differences between treatment and control students by gender, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref123">1</reflink>) = 0.95, <emph>p</emph> = 0.48, race/ethnicity, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>) = 5.75, <emph>p</emph> = 0.22, or special education services, <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>) = 0.50, <emph>p</emph> = 0.33. There were, however, more students receiving English Language services in treatment (<emph>n</emph> = 9) than in the control condition (<emph>n</emph> = 2); <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>) = 4.18, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-13">PBPD for SRSD instruction and expert support for teachers</hd> <p>The seven teachers in the SRSD treatment group received 14 h of PBPD over two days. PBPD was delivered by three members of the research team with prior experience using SRSD instruction in classrooms and conducting PBPD for SRSD. PBPD for SRSD was guided by the principles of PBPD described earlier and emphasized high levels of engagement, teacher collaboration, opportunities for teachers to observe, develop, and practice new skills and strategies, and establishment of an infrastructure of support after the two initial PBPD sessions. PBPD is briefly described here, detailed descriptions of PBPD for SRSD are available (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref127">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref128">40</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref129">53</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref130">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>During PBPD, teachers and the PBPD leaders discussed their previous PD and writing instructional experiences. Teachers talked about their students' writing strengths and needs as well as their goals and procedures for teaching writing, including how these were compatible with SRSD. The theoretical base and research on SRSD were examined, as well as examples of students' writing before and after SRSD instruction. The general characteristics of effective writing (e.g. effective vocabulary and sentences, making sense, consider your readers) and the essential elements of an imaginative story with self as main character were explored (see next section). Teachers were provided with a SRSD instructional notebook which included professional learning lesson plans as well as instructional support material (e.g., strategy charts, self-statement records, and rockets for graphing student essays). PBPD leaders emphasized that the lesson plans shared were for professional learning and discussion only, and were not to be used as scripts. Teachers read these professional learning lesson plans, and were asked to use these as a model to help develop their own lesson plans, which needed to address their students and context. The teachers also watched, analyzed, and discussed a video of SRSD instruction.</p> <p>PBPD leaders modeled each lesson, based on the professional learning lesson plans shared but without using them as scripts; the teachers thought of their students and acted as they might. Each lesson was discussed in light of the teachers' students. An individual lesson may take one or more class sessions to complete, depending on lesson content and the students' learning needs. This was explained and relevant lessons pointed out. After each lesson was modeled, teachers developed their own lesson plans and then worked in pairs or groups to practice teaching their own students. All of the teachers successfully practiced each stage of instruction during PBPD. PBPD leaders and teachers offered feedback and assistance. Extra time was devoted to the Model it stage, as this is often the most difficult stage for teachers. Teachers developed plans for modeling the writing and self-regulation strategies for their students (e.g., self-statements to get started or to manage persistence when difficulty occurred; setting new writing goals; and checking writing for word choice). The importance of differentiating instruction was discussed as some students may need more support than others, and the group identified potential ways to accomplish this (e.g., providing peer collaboration; reviewing or repeating a lesson). Teachers were given a copy of the fidelity observation forms, which contained the essential components for each lesson, and these were discussed. Teachers were encouraged to consider these forms when planning and creating their own lessons, to support including essential components across their lesson plans.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-14">SRSD instruction for writing an imaginary story about me</hd> <p>Teachers in the SRSD instruction condition taught relevant writing knowledge (e.g., consider the reader, analyze the prompt, vocabulary) and strategies for planning and composing a timed imaginary story with self as main character (referred to with students as "A story about me."). Students also learned strategies for self- regulating the writing process. Teachers conducted SRSD instruction during their 90 min ELA block. Given the mastery-based learning approach used in SRSD, they were asked to deliver instruction at least three times a week for a minimum of 30 min per session until students completed all lessons. During the remaining ELA time, treatment teachers taught the district's mandated curriculum. Given space constraints and the availability of detailed descriptions of SRSD instruction elsewhere (cf. Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref131">39</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref132">37</reflink>]), we provide a brief description here. In addition, the lesson plans and instructional materials used in this study are available on request from the first author. After describing the SRSD instruction for this writing task, we turn to the PBPD teachers received for this instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-15">SRSD stages of instruction</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183535469-16">Develop background knowledge</hd> <p>This stage of instruction uses discussion as a mean of developing explicit knowledge of academic vocabulary for writing, the genre, and effective writing in general. Discussion included students' understandings of the characteristics and elements of an imaginary story with self as main character, the vocabulary used in such stories (i.e., effective words/phrases that make the story "sparkle" for the reader), and the contexts where students need to write quickly, as when taking a test. Students and the teacher discussed model stories (written at the students' proximal writing level) and why they were fun to read (e.g., the characters were well described, there was a clear beginning, middle and end, the story had a sequence of events that captured the reader's attention, the writer used sparkle words/phrases). Students discussed the characteristics of a good story (e.g., it is fun to read and write, it makes sense, it captures the reader's attention), its basic elements (e.g., beginning, characters, setting, sequence of events, and a good ending) and how writing during a test is different from writing in other situations. They also discussed their feelings and thoughts when asked to write. For example, students offered examples of emotions such as anxiety or unhappiness when they needed to write, and the class discussed how these emotions could affect our effort, motivation, and writing. They also talked about how negative self-statements (e.g., "I hate writing") influence their writing and how positive self-statements (e.g., "I can do this if I take my time.") enhance it. During this stage and the next, they learned about and discussed how setting goals, using self-talk, checking to see if they are meeting their goals, and recognizing when they have done good work (i.e., self-regulating the writing process) are tricks (strategies) good writers use. The teacher explained that student effort in learning and using the strategies would help students become better writers, and this was revisited throughout instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-17">Discuss it</hd> <p>During this stage, students continued (with the teacher and/or peers) to analyze and evaluate strong imaginary stories with self as main character. They also analyzed and evaluated poor stories (e.g., lacking parts, "sparkle words," not making sense). They discussed the features of these stories, what they liked, what worked, and what they would do to improve the stories. Students, with their teacher and/or peers, discussed good note making, made notes for rewriting these stories, and collaboratively rewrote the stories as time allowed. Support making notes continued in the next stages. The teacher and students examined sample prompts for writing an imaginary story with self as main character. Students identified what was difficult or easy to understand in the prompts and determined what they were being asked to write about.</p> <p>The teacher then introduced two strategies referred to as COUNT and Plan FAST, explaining these strategies would help students analyze and understand writing prompts and to write an imaginary story with self as main character that would be fun to read and write. The students further discussed each strategy after learning about them, and how they would help them. The COUNT strategy scaffolded identifying and annotating important parts in a writing prompt. Students: (a) underlined what they had to write about; (b) circled the phrase, "think about" or "think of," (c) underlined each think about/think of; and (d) numbered each think about/think of provided in the prompt. This is an example of an annotated prompt using COUNT:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>The second strategy, Plan FAST, prompted students to make a plan or outline of their story: <emph>F</emph> = <emph>Figure out how your story starts</emph> (how will I grab the reader's attention by making a good start to my story); <emph>A</emph> = <emph>Add a sequence of events that fit the prompt and make a storyline with engaging events and a good ending</emph> (I find a time machine; make sure I include my COUNT (numbers 1, 2, and 3 in the preceding paragraph) in my story; plan a clear sequence of events; plan how my story ends); <emph>S</emph> = <emph>Sparkle words,</emph> note words to use, and think of more as I write (note words that will reach my reader); and <emph>T</emph> = <emph>Take time to check the prompt after writing</emph> (after writing the story, reread the prompt and check off each part included in my story, edit story if anything is missing).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-18">Model it</hd> <p>The teacher modeled the writing process using COUNT and plan FAST, enhancing student engagement by asking students to collaborate throughout (e.g., seeking their help with what to do next, ideas, self-regulation). Throughout this collaborative modeling, the teacher also modeled use of four self-regulation strategies: goal setting, self-statements, self-monitoring/evaluation, and self-reinforcement. First, the teacher collaboratively modeled each step of COUNT, marking up the writing prompt and thinking aloud with student input as each step of COUNT was completed. Students discussed what they observed the teacher doing and the reasons for what the teacher did.</p> <p>The teacher similarly modeled, with student assistance, using each step of Plan FAST, making notes on a graphic organizer that included the parts of FAST. While modeling, the teacher incorporated goal setting (e.g., <emph>I will be sure to include all parts from the prompt using good ideas I come up with</emph>), use of self-talk for managing frustration, difficulty, boredom, as appropriate for the students (e.g., <emph>I'm getting tired but I can make it; this part is hard, but I can do it if I put my mind to it</emph>) self-monitoring (e.g., <emph>Did I include all parts from the prompt? Did I include sparkle words? Is my story fun to read?</emph>), and self-reinforcement (e.g.<emph>, I can check off each underlined part of the prompt now!, "Icy, cold wind" is a great phrase to reach my reader</emph>). Students helped the teacher generate ideas, make notes, and write the story. When the story was completed, how each self-regulation procedure helps us write was discussed. Students then generated their own personal self-statements to use when getting started writing, while writing, and when checking their work.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-19">Memorize it</hd> <p>This began during the first stage of instruction and continued until both strategies, including the meaning and importance of each part, were memorized. Memorization was aided by reviewing the strategies before and while writing; students could also practice explaining each strategy to a partner or in small groups as appropriate. Teachers could make up a chant, rap, or game to support memorization as well.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-20">Support it</hd> <p>This stage provided multiple opportunities for teacher and students, peer partners, or small groups to collaboratively plan and write an imaginary story with self as main character, self-regulating use of COUNT and Plan FAST. Use of the structured graphic organizer was faded as students learned to make notes using that structure on scratch paper. As students became increasingly independent and successful, teachers gradually reduced support until students were ready to write alone. As appropriate, the teacher could also introduce new goals for students to work on.</p> <p>During this stage, students tracked their progress on writing "a story about me." They scored and then graphed their score (using a grade appropriate format) for a paper written before instruction began. They compared this score to graphed scores they obtained on subsequent stories written with the teacher, peers, and alone. The teacher and students discussed how effort to learn and use the strategies led to better writing. Finally, the teacher presented the scoring rubric used by the state to evaluate students' writing when they were asked to write an imaginary story about themselves. The teacher and students discussed what students needed to do on this test, including managing time, and how using COUNT and Plan FAST would help them do their best on the state test. The teacher simulated timed-testing conditions and students practiced writing under a timed condition without instructional support or prompting. Support after practicing timed writing was provided as needed.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-21">Independent performance</hd> <p>Students reached this stage when they were able to use the writing and self-regulation strategies independently while writing two or more imaginary stories with self as main character. Students graphed and evaluated their performance. If aspects of COUNT and/or Plan FAST were missing, teachers provided support or reviewed aspects of previous lessons, as needed.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-22">Duration of SRSD instruction</hd> <p>Five of the seven teachers in the SRSD condition completed SRSD instruction in an average of 19 sessions (16–20 sessions). They spent an average of 40 min per lesson (range 32–47 min). Two teachers did not complete all SRSD stages of instruction because they had to participate in preparing students for upcoming state examinations. One of these teachers completed 10 sessions (averaging 34 min a session), and all stages except independent performance. The other teacher completed 8 sessions (averaging 42 min per session) but did not complete the support it stage, and thus did not reach independent performance.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-23">Expert support after PBPD</hd> <p>We explained to the teachers that an observer, one of the PBPD leaders, would be in their classrooms approximately every other lesson. The purpose of the observations was twofold: to provide teachers with ongoing feedback and support and to collect intervention fidelity data. These frequent observations allowed us not only to differentiate supports across teachers, but to gather rich fidelity data. Observers noted strengths in the instruction and made constructive suggestions for teachers to consider as appropriate. Teachers had the choice to ask questions or discuss the lesson immediately afterwards, or later by phone or email. We stressed that teachers should adapt instruction to their students, but that all major components and steps must be included. We provided teachers with our phone and email contact information, and explained we were available throughout instruction to answer questions, come to their school and meet further if they would like, or help problem solve.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-24">Fidelity development and support</hd> <p>Fidelity of instruction was developed and supported in four ways. First, during PBPD all teachers successfully practiced teaching each stage of SRSD instruction, as noted previously. Second, teachers created their own lesson plans, but had a copy of the checklist for each stage of instruction and the professional learning plans used during PBPD to help guide them. Third, during SRSD instruction, as described previously, teachers were observed approximately every other lesson and were given positive and constructive feedback. Teachers were also able to talk with their observer at any time to problem solve any challenges with materials or pacing, means to individualize instruction, or other questions or issues. Finally, frequent observation and expert support, as occurred during this study, has been shown to increase instructional fidelity (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref133">41</reflink>]; Kiuhara et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref134">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref135">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-25">Writing prompts and administration</hd> <p>Two equivalent writing prompts were developed for this study and were counterbalanced at pre- and post-test times. The format of the writing prompts was similar to the writing prompts used on the State writing test. These prompts were not used nor were they similar in concept to any prompts used during instruction, thus, avoiding over alignment of assessment:</p> <p> <emph>Prompt A</emph>: writing situation: pretend you woke up and it was the year 2150. Directions for writing: Before you begin to write, think about what you would do and what would the world look like. Now write a story about your adventure in the year 2150.</p> <p> <emph>Prompt B</emph>: writing situation: pretend you woke up today and everything was in black and white. Directions for writing: before you begin to write, think about what you would do and what the world would look like. Now write a story about your day in black and white.</p> <p>The writing prompts were administered by trained research assistants. Students wrote their papers individually, without any help. Students were given 35 minutes to plan and write their imaginary story with self as the main character. This was identical to the time provided on the state writing test.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-26">Measures</hd> <p>Students' papers were scored at the end of the study for story elements, story quality, and length. Prior to scoring, each student's paper was typed, and spelling and punctuation errors were corrected to remove biasing effects for these factors (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref136">27</reflink>]). To further remove scoring bias, students' pre- and post-test papers were randomized and reordered so that scorers were blind to participant, condition, and testing time. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was assessed using a two-way mixed, consistency, average-measures intraclass correlation (ICC) for narrative elements and story quality.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-27">Narrative elements</hd> <p>The scoring rubric for narrative story elements followed a protocol designed for this study following the state's scoring guidelines for topic, character, location, referencing time, an established starting event, an action, an emotion, and use of adjectives. If the story was not related to the topic, it received a score of 0. If the story was related to the topic, then the story could receive up to 42 points. In all cases where more than one point could be earned, each element had to make sense and be relevant to the story. Six points were possible for characters (1 point if the student was a character; 1 point if there were other characters; up to 4 points for elaborations about characters). Six points were possible for story location (1 point if the location in the prompt was mentioned; 1 point for a second location; up to 4 points for elaborations about locations). Six points were possible for referencing time (1 point for indicating when the story took place; 1 point for a shift in time; up to 4 points for elaborations about time). Five points were possible for a starting event (1 point for a starting event; up to 4 points for elaborations about the starting events) or ending (1 point for an ending; up to 4 points for elaborations about the ending). Four points were possible for each of the following: (a) actions (more actions equal a higher score), (b) emotions (more references to emotions equal a higher score), and (c) the use of sparkle words (more sparkle words equal a higher score). One trained graduate assistant (GA) scored all stories; 25% of stories randomly selected were independently scored by a second GA. The ICC was 0.89 for narrative elements.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-28">Story quality</hd> <p>All papers were scored independently using a 12-point scale (0 representing the lowest quality and 11 representing the highest quality) by two trained raters for story quality following the holistic scoring guidelines from Aitken et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>]). Using four anchor papers representing a holistic score of 2, 5, 8 and 11, each rater read each student's story attentively but not laboriously to obtain a general impression of story quality then compared the student's paper with the four anchor papers. When forming their overall score, each rater compared the student's paper with the closest anchor paper and used comparative judgement to assess the student's score. For example, if the student's paper was similar to the anchor paper, the student paper received the corresponding score (e.g., score of 5). However, if the student's paper was either higher or lower than the anchor paper but did not compare with a lower or higher anchor paper, the student received either a score of 4 or 6). The raters were instructed to weigh specific aspects of writing holistically (i.e., organization, ideation, vocabulary, and sentence structure). The ICC was 0.85 for story quality.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-29">Length of stories</hd> <p>After a story was typed into a word processor, the number of words was automatically counted using the word count feature. Total words included all written words.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-30">Fidelity of SRSD instruction</hd> <p>Planned observations of teachers were to take place approximately every three instructional days to determine if the SRSD treatment was delivered as intended. Forty-seven percent of teachers' lessons were observed. Throughout PBPD, teachers were encouraged to use their expertise to adapt the instruction for their students and context and use the SRSD stages of instruction recursively as needed, without omitting core components or steps of the intervention. Thus, because SRSD instruction is taught to criterion, a planned change in order, repeating previous aspects of instruction, or choosing to skip optional steps depending on students' learning needs (noted during PBPD and on professional learning lesson plans), were not penalized during observation scoring. Prior to each observation, the teacher informed the observer of the instructional steps and any changes planned for that session. Teachers did not have to complete all of the instruction they hoped to that day, as pace of instruction is determined by the teacher to best suit their students. Observers marked the checklist for where the teacher stopped that day. Lesson fidelity was computed by dividing the number of lesson steps planned and taught for that day by the total number of steps possible for that lesson for each teacher (from where the teacher started to where they stopped), and multiplying the quantity by 100.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-31">Results for teachers and students</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183535469-32">Teacher outcomes</hd> <p>Research question 1 addressed whether or not the intervention in this study, PBPD for SRSD instruction in writing narratives, would result in teacher implementation of SRSD instruction with fidelity and whether teachers would perceive SRSD as socially valid.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-33">Fidelity</hd> <p>As noted, fidelity observations using SRSD lesson components checklists across the six stages were conducted for 47% of the seven teachers' lessons. Five of the seven teachers completed the SRSD lessons. Two of the seven teachers who received PBPB for SRSD, however, required more assistance than their colleagues. Their expert support professional had developed a strong rapport that allowed her to "jump in" and volunteer to assist with or initially conduct aspects of instruction where these two teachers were experiencing difficulty. Further modeling was a core need for both teachers, with more explanation and reinforcement needed. Understanding self-instructions and their purposes, and helping students develop and use them as individually appropriate, was a second area of increased support for these teachers. Of the five teachers who completed the SRSD lessons, treatment fidelity was high (95%) as teachers completed 95% of all lesson steps in these observations: Teacher 1 (100%), Teacher 2 (100%), Teacher 3 (97%), Teacher 4 (86%), Teacher 5 (88%). However, two teachers did not complete the SRSD lessons. Of these two teachers, the first teacher completed five of six lessons with treatment fidelity of 97% (completing 97% of all lesson steps), and the second teacher completed one of six lessons with treatment fidelity of 100% (completing all lesson steps).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-34">Social validity</hd> <p>At the end of the study, teachers in the treatment condition completed a questionnaire to assess the social validity of the SRSD treatment. Teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of 14 features of the treatment Using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree). At the end of the questionnaire was space for teachers to write in additional comments. Overall, the teachers were strongly positive about SRSD instruction for these writing and self-regulation strategies. Each feature is presented here along with their mean and standard deviation: (a) the six stages of SRSD instruction was useful to my students (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00); (b) I enjoyed teaching SRSD (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00); (c) my students enjoyed the SRSD instruction (M = 4.83; SD = 0.41); (d) the COUNT and Plan FAST were useful to my students (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00); (e) my students viewed the writing strategies positively (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00); (f) the self-regulation strategies I taught were useful to my students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.29; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.49); (g) the collaborative writing and think out loud activities engaged students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.86; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.38); (h) my students found using self-statements helpful (<emph>M</emph> = 4.14; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.69); (i) scaffolding support until students reached independent performance was important (<emph>M</emph> = 4.86; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.38); (j) goal setting and graphing procedures were useful to my students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.43; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.53); (k) my students were better prepared for the State writing test (<emph>M</emph> = 4.71; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.49); (l) I will use SRSD in the future (<emph>M</emph> = 5.00; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.00); (m) I will recommend using SRSD to other teachers; and (n) the PBPD for SRSD was adequate (<emph>M</emph> = 4.86; <emph>SD</emph> = 0.38).</p> <p>The teachers also wrote positive statements. As one teacher noted, "I look forward to teaching the intervention again next year." Another common comment was that aspects of the SRSD instruction were used outside of writing. One teacher summed up well what others also stated, noting she "found ways to use goal-setting and self-regulation in other content areas." All of the teachers indicated that the additional support from the PBPD leaders was helpful, one stating, "Working with [the PD leaders] has been a great experience. Their help has been tremendous."</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-35">Student outcomes</hd> <p>Because students were nested in classrooms in the treatment and control conditions, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze the effects of the SRSD treatment on the variables: narrative elements, story quality, and total words written. HLM is a sophisticated multiple regression analysis technique developed for nested research designs in which regression intercepts (means) and slopes (IV-DV relationships) at one level are allowed to vary and are treated as DVs at the next higher level. Independence of errors is not required and is often violated in these designs, and unequal sample sizes and missing data within each level do not restrict the analyses from being performed. We did have unequal sample sizes in the two treatments; however, we had no missing data.</p> <p>For the following three HLM analyses, we used a two-level model with random intercepts and slopes. Student was at level 1 with four predictor variables: gender (coded 0 for male and 1 for female), race/ethnicity (coded 0 for non-White and 1 for White), special education status (coded 0 for non-special education and 1 for special education), and for each analysis, the pre-treatment scores (T<subs>1</subs> variables) on number of narrative elements, story quality, or number of words. Pre-treatment scores were continuous variables and were entered uncentered into the level 1 equations. Teacher was at level 2 with one predictor variable, Treatment (coded 0 for control and 1 for treatment). The outcome variables (T<subs>2</subs> variables) were post-treatment scores on narrative elements, story quality, and number of words.</p> <p>These analyses are in response to research questions 2 and 3. We were primarily interested in whether students in the treatment condition outperformed students in the control condition on each of the three outcome variables. Moreover, we anticipated that gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status would influence the outcome variables. Therefore, in addition to controlling for the influence of pre-treatment scores at level 1 on post-treatment scores, we also controlled for these three demographic variables. To test for these possibilities, we included treatment in the level 2 equations. We used a forward stepping procedure in which we began with the simplest model and added predictors one by one with tests of significance at each step. Means and standard deviations at pre- and posttest for the treatment and control condition are presented in Table 1. This table also provides this information by gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status.</p> <p>Table 1 Means and standard deviations (SD) for measures taken at pre- and post-treatment by condition for overall performance and performance by demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Control (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 123)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Treatment (&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 99)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pre-treatment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Post-treatment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pre-treatment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Post-treatment&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Overall&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.89 (5.75)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.22 (6.04)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.22 (6.34)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.22 (5.65)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.32 (2.17)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.64 (2.34)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.70 (1.96)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.46 (2.28)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;171.01 (79.05)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;171.32 (73.49)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;172.44 (77.03)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;199.68 (73.19)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Gender&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.73 (5.70)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.11 (5.38)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10.37 (5.92)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.59 (5.57)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.73 (2.06)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.08 (1.95)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.28 (1.69)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.91 (2.24)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;140.18 (68.43)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;138.49 (54.88)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;155.76 (76.87)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;184.37 (67.24)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 55&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Female&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.63 (5.20)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.12 (6.42)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.06 (6.67)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16.82 (5.31)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.79 (2.16)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.10 (2.53)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.12 (2.13)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.00 (2.22)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Total Words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;195.94 (78.70)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;197.88 (76.20)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;188.80 (74.35)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;214.68 (76.30)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Sped&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.86 (4.91)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.57 (4.28)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.22 (4.52)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.11 (6.95)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.57 (0.73)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.71 (0.81)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.17 (2.44)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.89 (2.63)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;110.00 (97.71)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;91.43 (72.53)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;154.33 (74.10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;178.78 (79.82)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 7&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 9&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;No&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.31 (5.53)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.62 (5.91)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.12 (6.50)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.23 (5.55)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.48 (2.12)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.82 (2.28)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.66 (1.91)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.52 (2.26)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;174.69 (76.75)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;176.15 (71.01)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;174.26 (77.48)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;201.77 (72.65)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 116&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Ethnic&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;White&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Narrative elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.30 (5.67)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.00 (4.56)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.00 (7.00)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;17.90 (5.05)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.20 (2.13)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.95 (2.17)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.52 (2.10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.74 (2.14)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;161.06 (73.63)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;174.24 (57.32)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;184.58 (82.8)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;216.48 (76.79)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 33&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 31&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Non-white&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Narrative Elements&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.37 (5.72)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.20 (6.21)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10.41 (5.89)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14.00 (5.52)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Quality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.99 (2.10)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.16 (2.22)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.33 (1.78)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.88 (2.12)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt; Total words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;174.66 (81.04)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;170.26 (78.85)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;166.91 (74.19)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;192.01 (70.75)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt; = 68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Analysis of the null models for each of the three posttest outcome variables, using no predictor variables, showed statistically significant random effects, all <emph>p</emph>'s &lt; 0.001. In addition, the values of the intra-class correlations (ICC) ranged from 0.12 to 0.16. Therefore, the statistically significant random effects in the outcome variables by the level 2 groupings and the relatively high ICCs provide sufficient statistical justification for conducting HLM analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-36">Narrative elements</hd> <p>For narrative elements, the forward stepping analysis procedure with robust standard errors yielded the specified model shown in Table 2 (top panel). Of particular note at level 2 is the statistically significant coefficient for treatment, <ephtml> &lt;math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msub&gt;&lt;mover accent="true"&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#947;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mo stretchy="true"&gt;^&lt;/mo&gt;&lt;/mover&gt;&lt;mn&gt;01&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msub&gt;&lt;mspace width="1.69998pt" /&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = 3.02, <emph>p</emph> = 0.007. When controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and pre-treatment narrative elements, students in the treatment condition included more narrative elements in their posttest writing samples than students in the control condition with a moderate Hedges' <emph>g</emph> effect size of 0.51, and a <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> of 0.64, indicating that approximately 64% of the variance in posttest narrative scores was explained by treatment.</p> <p>Table 2 Results of HLM analyses with T<subs>2</subs> narrative elements, T<subs>2</subs> writing quality, and T<subs>2</subs> number of words as outcome variables</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fixed effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Coefficient&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard error&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;t-ratio&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="6"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Narrative elements&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intercept &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;00&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6.94&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.94&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.38&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Treatment &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;01&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.02&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.007&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gender &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.54&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.74&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Race/Ethnicity &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;T&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;Narrative&amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;30&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.07&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Random effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard deviation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#967;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 1 &lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;25.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.02&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 2 &lt;italic&gt;u&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;italic&gt;0&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.46&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;30.19&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.007&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fixed Effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Coefficient&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard Error&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;t-Ratio&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="6"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Story quality&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intercept &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;00&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Treatment &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;01&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.28&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.94&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gender &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.62&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.38&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.018&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Race/Ethnicity &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.26&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.91&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;T&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;Quality&amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;30&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.56&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.05&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.84&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;203&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Random Effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard Deviation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#967;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 1 &lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.75&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 2 &lt;italic&gt;u&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;italic&gt;0&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;.36&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;20.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.109&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fixed effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Coefficient&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard error&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;t-ratio&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="6"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Number of words&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intercept &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;00&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;82.21&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Treatment &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;01&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;25.71&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.04&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.061&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gender &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;28.39&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.59&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.96&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;204&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.003&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;T&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;Words &amp;#947;&lt;sub&gt;20&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.06&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;204&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Random effects&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Standard deviation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;df&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#967;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; value&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 1 &lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3420.84&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;58.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Level 2 &lt;italic&gt;u&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&lt;italic&gt;0&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;491.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;22.16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;43.23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#60; 0.001&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The coefficient at level 1 for special education status was not statistically significant, but the statistically significant positive coefficients for gender and race/ethnicity indicated that posttest narrative elements were higher for females than males and for whites than non-whites (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). The lack of statistically significant coefficients at level 2 for the effects of treatment on the relations between both gender and race/ethnicity and posttest narrative elements indicated that treatment did not significantly influence those relations.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-37">Story quality</hd> <p>For story quality, the forward stepping analysis procedure with robust standard errors yielded the specified model shown in Table 2 (middle panel). At level 2, there was a statistically significant coefficient for treatment, <ephtml> &lt;math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;msub&gt;&lt;mover accent="true"&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#947;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mo stretchy="true"&gt;^&lt;/mo&gt;&lt;/mover&gt;&lt;mn&gt;01&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msub&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> =1.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001. When controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and pretest story quality, students in the treatment condition showed significantly higher story quality scores on their posttest writing samples than students in the control condition with a moderate Hedges' <emph>g</emph> effect size of 0.48, and a <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> of 0.83, indicating that approximately 83% of the variance in the post-treatment narrative score was explained by treatment.</p> <p>As with the prior analyses with narrative elements, the coefficient at level 1 for special education status was not statistically significant for posttest story quality; however, the significant positive coefficients for gender and race/ethnicity indicate that posttest story quality scores were higher for females than males and for whites than students of other races (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Also, the lack of statistically significant coefficients at level 2 for the effects of treatment on the relations between both gender and race/ethnicity and posttest story quality scores indicated that treatment did not significantly influence those relations.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-38">Number of words</hd> <p>For number of words, the forward stepping analysis procedure with robust standard errors yielded the specified model shown in Table 2 (bottom panel). Unlike the prior analyses, Treatment at level 2 just missed significance, <ephtml> &lt;math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;msub&gt;&lt;mover accent="true"&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#947;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mo stretchy="true"&gt;^&lt;/mo&gt;&lt;/mover&gt;&lt;mn&gt;01&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msub&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> =25.71, <emph>p</emph> = 0.061. Both ethnicity and special education status were not statistically significant at level 1. When controlling for gender and pre-test number of words, students in the treatment condition showed a greater number of words on their posttest writing samples than students in the control condition, but the difference was not significant. Hedges' <emph>g</emph> was small 0.35 and <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.25. Therefore, treatment demonstrated a small effect size with only 25% of the variance in posttest number of words explained by treatment.</p> <p>The significant positive coefficients for gender indicate that posttest number of words was higher for females than males (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Again, the lack of statistically significant coefficients at level 2 for the effects of treatment on the relation between gender and posttest number of words indicate that treatment did not significantly influence that relation.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-39">Discussion</hd> <p>We investigated the outcomes of PBPD for SRSD instruction focused on timed narrative writing (writing an imaginary/fantasy story with the student as the main character) among teachers and students. Based on previous research, we predicted that teachers who received PBPD for SRSD with expert support would demonstrate high fidelity for SRSD instruction and would perceive the approach as socially valid. Students learned to analyze a prompt to write an imaginary/fantasy story with themselves as the main character, and strategies for planning, composing, and self-regulating the writing process. They also learned to plan and compose under timed conditions. We predicted that 4th graders who received SRSD instruction would make meaningful gains at post-test for number of story elements, story quality, and total words written compared to students who continued in their current writing instruction. Finally, we examined gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status as predictors of student outcome variables. Results of our findings are discussed next, followed by implications for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-40">Teacher fidelity, social validity, and critical implications</hd> <p>Teacher outcomes were strong for both fidelity and social validity of SRSD instruction. Nearly half of teachers' lessons were observed; teachers completed 96% of all lesson steps. Social validity for both the PBPD and SRSD instruction were also high, with mean scores of 4.86 and 5, respectively, on a 1-to-5 point scale. The writing strategies and self-regulation strategies taught, collaborative writing and think aloud modeling, self-instructions, scaffolding support until students reached independent performance, and goal setting and graphing components of SRSD instruction received mean ratings ranging from 4.14 to 5. Ratings for the SRSD instruction assisting teachers and students prepare for the state writing test, using SRSD in the future, and recommending SRSD to other teachers, ranged from to 4.71 to 5. Teachers commented during instruction that they were using aspects of the instruction, such as the self-regulation strategies, outside of writing instruction and that they found the additional support from the PBPD leaders important and extremely helpful. These data indicate that PBPD and expert support from PD leaders resulted in teacher-led SRSD instruction that made a difference in students' writing. Our study also raises issues and needs for future research that are reported next.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-41">Insufficient time to complete SRSD instruction</hd> <p>In terms of student outcomes, this study illustrates an important issue arising among some studies across the research base in PBPD for SRSD at the whole class level: teachers had insufficient time to complete SRSD instruction (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref138">37</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref139">41</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref140">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref141">54</reflink>]). This is an issue in instructional fidelity, as the full dosage of SRSD instruction was not provided to all students. While the majority of teachers did complete instruction and the significant differences and moderate effect sizes reported here for elements and quality are an important result, two of the seven SRSD teachers were not able to finish all six stages of SRSD instruction. Although we worked to ensure adequate time for SRSD instruction, these two teachers were unable to finish instruction due to school level factors, including preparing for upcoming testing. Both teachers reported they wished they had more time to complete instruction. Dosage is an important aspect of instructional fidelity (Gage et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref142">18</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref143">54</reflink>]). We do not know what outcomes would have been obtained if these two teachers had been able to complete instruction through independent writing as this could not be tested in this study; future research is needed here.</p> <p>Despite SRSD's commitment to mastery-based rather than time-based instruction, teachers often cannot control some aspects of time for instruction in their classrooms (Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref144">42</reflink>]). Barriers for teachers implementing instructional practices after PD include school pacing calendars, amount of time devoted to reading instruction, and other contextual issues (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref145">15</reflink>]; Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref146">42</reflink>]). If teachers are to implement evidence-based practices and meet national and state standards, rethinking priorities and adjusting time available for teaching and learning is needed, and learning to write must be viewed as equally important as learning to read and other educational goals. Further, integrating small group, or Tier 2, SRSD instruction for students who need more assistance, or pre-teaching aspects of writing prior to SRSD instruction, should be researched to enhance learning among students who need more support (Barkel, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref147">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-42">Student writing outcomes: story elements, story quality, and total words written</hd> <p>As hypothesized, SRSD instruction resulted in significant improvements in both number of narrative elements and quality of students' imaginary/fantasy stories with themselves as main character. Moderate effects sizes of 0.51 and 0.48 were found for both elements and quality, respectively. For elements, 64% of the variance in posttest scores was explained by treatment. For quality, 83% of the variance in posttest scores was explained by treatment. While some studies of story writing have not found meaningful changes in quality, others have (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref148">26</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref149">54</reflink>]). Further research is needed to determine how to better develop story writing and narrative writing over time among all students. Contrary to our hypothesis, SRSD instruction did not result in a significantly higher number of words written at posttest. As noted, however, a small effect size of 0.35 was found; only 25% of the variance in posttest number of words was explained by treatment. Although Graham et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref150">27</reflink>])reported an average weighted effect size for length of 0.47 in their meta-analysis, length at posttest has varied across individual studies at elementary grades. Elementary students in some studies write better stories or essays and include less irrelevant text (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref151">41</reflink>]). Future research should investigate how revising and enhancing stories increases length and quality.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-43">Gender, race/ethnicity, and special education status as predictors of student outcomes</hd> <p>We explored whether gender, race/ethnicity, and/or special education status would predict student outcomes for elements, quality, and number of words written. In this study, 59% of students were Black, followed by White (29%), Latinx (6%), Asian (4%), and Native American (2%) students. Six percent of students received special education services, 4% of students received EL services. For both elements and quality, female students had higher scores than male students, and White students had higher scores than students of other races/ethnicities. The majority of the students were Black, with the numbers of Latinx, Asian, and Native American students too low to disaggregate the data further. Only number of words written at pretest and gender predicted total number of words written in the present study. Special education status did not predict elements, quality, or number of words written, but the number of students receiving services was relatively small.</p> <p>Findings from two other studies contrast with the findings here. McKeown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref152">53</reflink>]), found no significant differences for gender, EL status, or participating in special education for story elements. For holistic story quality, girls scored higher than boys; no significant differences were found due to EL status or participation in special education. Garwood and Brunsting ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref153">19</reflink>]) reviewed 18 studies of SRSD for writing among students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). Special education status was a significant predictor in their review; students who were not receiving special education services had significantly greater outcomes than students receiving such services. Gender did not predict SRSD outcomes, suggesting male and female students with or at risk for EBD benefitted equally from SRSD instruction. Race was not a significant predictor; neither African American nor Caucasian status predicted outcomes. Number of students was too low for students of other racial/ethnic groups to allow analyses. Thus, further research is needed to better understand the impact of these and other variables on outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-44">Poverty, SES, and race/ethnicity</hd> <p>The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to direct resources to the lowest performing schools and to use evidence-based interventions with students to help close the achievement gap. Thus, it is imperative that researchers in SRSD and PBPD for SRSD investigates predictors of student success after SRSD instruction in order to better understand both what is working among subgroups of students and investigate adaptations to SRSD instruction that may result in stronger effects. Many aspects of SRSD were designed to be responsive to cultural and other differences among students, and SRSD requires teachers to adapt instruction to the strengths, needs, and characteristics of their students. While many studies of SRSD instruction have focused on traditionally marginalized students in low income schools (cf. Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref154">25</reflink>]), we need to determine if more can be done to make SRSD instruction and PBPD for SRSD more culturally informed and more strongly relate SRSD instruction in narrative writing to exploring experiences, emotions, and cultural identity (Ball &amp; Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref155">5</reflink>]; Juzwik et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref156">44</reflink>]; Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref157">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although Salas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref158">62</reflink>]) found that SRSD instruction in writing was effective across SES contexts, SES and other factors have not been comprehensively investigated in SRSD research. Future research should consider: collaboratively identifying students' cultural expectations of writing, fostering effort and motivation through support for identity, explicit grammar instruction (for younger students, this extends to many more of the basic writing skills), use of technology for writing, and use of culturally relevant topics. Other modifications should be identified and studied (Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref159">46</reflink>]). Given the scope of SRSD instruction in writing, some students may profit, for example, from instruction that focuses on vocabulary and use of components of SRSD, such as learning about a genre, or learning to make notes to compose their story, before SRSD instruction. This would reduce the amount of new learning during SRSD instruction and could avoid cognitive overload for some students. Little SRSD research has been reported involving students learning to speak English, but early studies indicate SRSD instruction can be successfully modified for these students (Barkel, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref160">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-45">Limitations</hd> <p>Limitations of the current study are noted in the Discussion, and lead to the next section on implications for future research. In addition, the current study is limited by the relatively small number of teachers and students involved and the lack of sufficient representation of critically important racial/ethnic groups, students learning to speak English, and students with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-46">Implications for future research</hd> <p>As is common in instructional research, this study provides initial answers to the research questions asked, yet raises at least as many, if not more, issues that need to be addressed in future research. These issues include implications and directions for future research in the areas of intervention fidelity, the role and nature of support after PBPD, meaningful variation in teachers' needs for expert support versus coaching, and the lack of teacher outcome measures with strong reliability and validity to further investigate teacher learning and other outcomes. Further, future research should address the processes of change for both teachers and students, possibly using a complexity science approach (Kaplan &amp; Garner, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref161">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-47">Fidelity observations and embedded expert support</hd> <p>Standards for sufficient fidelity observation vary widely in the literature and among funding sources (Gage et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref162">18</reflink>]). Too few observations can result in highly inflated fidelity levels, especially when teachers know they will be observed. An approach frequently used in SRSD for PBPD research combines fidelity observation with expert follow-up support, with observations typically occurring for 33% of instruction. Inter-rater reliability is typically high. In larger scaling up studies, such a combination would likely be efficient and effective, and could involve school-level expert support or coaching personnel rather than researchers. Too few observations can also be problematic, and we believe play a role in the failure of scaling up studies across interventional research. While teachers may use new approaches when being observed, when observation is infrequent they may fail to implement these approaches due to factors such as resistance to new approaches, school level issues, time pressures, difficulty using complex new approaches well (Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref163">42</reflink>]). If new, evidence-based approaches are supported at the school level with high fidelity and sufficient time for instruction is allowed, teachers are likely to continue these practices and make them their own.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-48">Variation in teacher needs for expert support versus coaching</hd> <p>In this study, teachers' needs for expert support varied. Five teachers received expert support, while two teachers required more intense coaching to reach independent, high-fidelity SRSD instruction (cf. Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref164">15</reflink>]). Future studies need to explore differing levels of support needed for teachers, considering multiple teacher characteristics, student characteristics, and contextual factors. Differentiated models of support may be needed to respond to teachers' strengths and needs. Varying definitions of coaching and expert support exist in the literature; these must be operationalized in studies to assist future researchers.</p> <p>None of the teachers in the current study were resistant to the PBPD or learning to use SRSD instruction, although two teachers were unable to complete instruction due to time issues. In some studies, teachers have shown varying levels of resistance to PBPD for SRSD instruction (cf. Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref165">37</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref166">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref167">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref168">40</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref169">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref170">54</reflink>]). Reasons for this resistance and barriers to scaling up, such as volunteering versus being required to attend PD, are multifold across research in PD (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref171">15</reflink>]; Desimone &amp; Stuckey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref172">16</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref173">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref174">40</reflink>]; Harris &amp; McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref175">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, across several studies, teachers have reported that more time in PBPD and more classroom support would have enhanced their ability to implement and differentiate SRSD among their students (Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref176">37</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref177">41</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref178">53</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref179">54</reflink>]). This might also impact buy in, motivation, and resistance among teachers. Future research should investigate approaches successful in other areas, where longer term PBPD and supports for complex teacher and student learning meaningfully impacted multiple teacher and student outcomes (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref180">15</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Graham, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref181">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-49">Constrained evidence for teacher outcomes</hd> <p>Finally, research is needed on additional teacher outcomes during and after PBPD for SRSD writing instruction, as in PD research in general (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref182">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref183">40</reflink>]; Kaplan &amp; Garner, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref184">45</reflink>]; McKeown et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref185">54</reflink>]). Iwai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref186">62</reflink>]) reported on initial development of a reliable and valid measure that addresses teachers' content and pedagogical knowledge, and their perceptions about quality writing, quality writing instruction, and SRSD for writing. The study involved general educators and specialists (Title 1 teachers, teachers of students learning to speak English, and special education teachers) and offers insights and promise for future research. Teachers' characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, years teaching, years teaching at current grade level, and degrees), knowledge about writing (or close reading for writing), attitudes, beliefs, identities, practices, self-efficacy, effective use of formative assessment (used throughout SRSD), and more need to be studied. How changes in or across such variables are related to teacher, and therefore student, outcomes will require sophisticated analyses and multiple large-scale studies. Such studies are not yet frequently funded in writing. Reliable and valid measures of many of these teacher outcomes are not yet available in the area of writing, requiring investment here as well.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-50">Considering new approaches to generalize outcomes of PBPD for SRSD</hd> <p>Across our experiences with PBPD for SRSD, we have anticipated that teachers would feel capable of moving on to SRSD instruction in other genres and/or reading to learn and then write (see Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref187">33</reflink>], 2023) where validated strategies already exist. This has frequently proven not to be the case, as explored by McKeown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref188">54</reflink>]). Future research should explore sustained and embedded PBPD for scaling SRSD instruction across genres and reading/writing expectations, utilizing approaches such as summer institutes, enhancing teacher and administrative buy-in and commitment, and SRSD followed by supports over more time and tasks (Darling-Hammond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref189">15</reflink>]). This would allow schools to address expectations in state and national standards, careers, and citizenship. Such studies may require a "complexity science" approach to address near-intractable problems in PD and school change, given numerous variables related to contexts, teachers, and students (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref190">32</reflink>]; Kaplan &amp; Garner, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref191">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-51">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study draws attention to the importance of narrative writing and effective instruction in this genre. The new set of strategies investigated, taught using SRSD instruction, adds to the relatively small body of research on SRSD instruction in this area (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref192">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref193">40</reflink>]). Students achieved meaningful outcomes across all measures. Further, students were successful in using what they learned under timed conditions. Few studies have addressed timed writing, despite how common timed writing demands are in school, state, and national assessments. Further, this study adds to a small but growing and promising research based on PBPD for SRSD, and provides further support for the theoretical foundation of SRSD instruction—integration of proven methods for improving teaching and learning across multiple theories. Finally, results of this study highlight the work yet to be done that can make a difference to teachers, students, and school.</p> <hd id="AN0183535469-52">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0183535469-53"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aitken AA, Graham S, McNeish D. The effect of choice versus preference on writing and the mediating role of perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2022; 114: 1844-1865. 10.1037/edu0000765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Applebee, A. &amp; Langer. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America's schools: What existing data tell us. Center on English Learning and Achievement. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED494608</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aud, S, Hussar, W, Johnson, F, Kena, G, Roth, E, Manning, E, Wang, X, &amp; Zhang, J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref105" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ball A, Christensen L, Fleischer C, Haswell R, Ketter J, Yagelski R, Yancey K. The impact of the SAT and ACT time writing tests: Report from the NCTE task force on SAT and ACT writing tests. 2005; National Council of Teachers of English</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ball AF, Ellis PBazerman C. Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual. 2008; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 499-513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref76" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball DL, Cohen DKSykes G, Darling-Hammond L. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based professional education. Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. 1999; Jossey Bass: 2-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bangert-Drowns RL, Hurley MM, Wilkinson B. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74: 29-58. 10.3102/00346543074001029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref147" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barkel, A.A. (2018). Self-regulated strategy development writing instruction with elementary-aged students learning English. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref101" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek-Wood E, Mason LH, Wood PH, Hoffman KE, McGuire A. An experimental examination of quick writing in the middle school science classroom. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. 2014; 12; 1: 69-92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boscolo PBazerman C. Writing in primary school. Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual. 2008; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 293-309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boscolo P, Mason LHTynjala P, Mason L, Lonka L. Writing to learn, writing to transfer. Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. 2001; Kluwer Publishers: 83-104. 10.1007/978-94-010-0740-5_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brindle M, Graham S, Harris KR, Hebert M. Third and fourth grade teacher's classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing. 2016; 29: 929-954. 10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. (2011). https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ADA-Compliant-ELA-Standards.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cutler L, Graham S. Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100: 907-919. 10.1037/a0012656</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L, Hyler, M. E, Gardner, M. (2020). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desimone, L.M, &amp; Stuckey, D. (2014). Sustaining teacher professional development. In Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FitzPatrick, E. R. (2017). Practice-based professional development for self-regulated strategy development: Teaching students with learning disabilities and other struggling writers to pen informational essays citing text-based evidence in an inclusive setting." [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/epse_diss/112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage, N, MacSuga-Gage, A, &amp; Detrich, R. (2020). Fidelity of Implementation in Educational Research and Practice. Oakland: The Wing Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.winginstitute.org/systemsprogram-fidelity">www.winginstitute.org/systemsprogram-fidelity</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garwood JD, Brunsting NC. Does self-regulated strategy development work for all students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders? A meta-review. Special Education Research, Policy, and Practice. 2019; 3; 1: 162-181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie A, Graham S, Kiuhara SA, Hebert M. High school teachers use of writing to support students' learning: A national survey. Reading &amp; Writing. 2014; 27: 1043-1072. 10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillespie Rouse A, Kiuhara SA. SRSD in writing and professional development for teachers: Practice and promise for elementary and middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 2017; 32; 3: 180-188. 10.1111/ldrp.12140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S, Bollinger, A, et al. (2018). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KRFidalgo R, Harris KR, Braaksma M. Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses. Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles. 2017; Brill Editions: 13-37. 10.1163/9789004270480_003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S, &amp; Harris, K. R. (2018). An examination of the design principles underlying a Self-Regulated Strategy Development study based on the Writers in Community Model. Journal of Writing Research,10, 139–187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S, Harris, K.R, &amp; Beard, K. (2019). Teaching young African American male students to write using evidence-based practices. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly,35, 19–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, McKeown DSwanson L, Harris KR, Graham S. The writing of students with LD, meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies, and future directions: Redux. Handbook of Learning Disabilities. 20142; Guilford: 405-438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Hebert M, Harris KR. Throw 'em out or make' em better? State and district high-stakes writing assessments. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2011; 44: 1-12. 10.17161/foec.v44i1.6913</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Kiuhara SA, MacKay M. The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2020; 90; 2: 179-226. 10.3102/0034654320914744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, McKeown D, Kiuhara SA, Harris KR. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104: 879-896. 10.1037/a0029185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill DD, Larsen SC. Test of written language. 20094; Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, K.R, &amp; Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: No. 6. Teaching and Learning Writing (pp. 113–135). British Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X422542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR. Educational psychology: A future retrospective. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110; 2: 163-173. 10.1037/edu0000267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, K. R, Ray, A. Graham, S, &amp; Houston, J. (2019). Answering the challenge: SRSD instruction for close reading of text to write to persuade with 4th and 5th grade students experiencing writing difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,32, 1345–1357. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-018-9910-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Camping A, McKeown DDeSmedt F, Bouwer R, Limpo T, Graham S. A review of research on professional development for multicomponent strategy-focused writing instruction: Knowledge gained and challenges remaining. Conceptualizing, designing, implementing, and evaluating writing interventions. 2023; Brill Publishing: 101-136. 10.1163/9789004546240_007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham S. Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. 19962; Brookline Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham S. Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016; 3; 1: 77-84. 10.1177/2372732215624216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham SFidalgo R, Harris KR, Braaksma M. Self-regulated strategy development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles. 2017; Brill: 119-151. 10.1163/9789004270480_007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham S, Adkins M. Practice-based professional development and self-regulated strategy development for Tier 2, at risk writers in second grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2015; 40: 5-16. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham S, Mason LH, Friedlander B. Powerful writing strategies for all students. 2008; Brooks Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Kim Y-S, Yim S, Camping A, Graham S. Yes, they can: Developing transcription skills and oral language in tandem with SRSD instruction on close reading of science text to write informative essays at grades 1 and 2. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2023; 73: 1-14. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Lane KL, Graham S, Driscoll SA, Sandmel K, Brindle M, Schatschneider C. Practice-based professional development for self-regulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education. 2012; 63: 103-119. 10.1177/0022487111429005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, McKeown D. Overcoming barriers and paradigm wars: Powerful evidence-based writing instruction. Theory into Practice. 2022; 61; 4: 429-442. 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillocks G. Research in writing, secondary school: 1984–2003. Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 2006; 6; 2: 27-51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juzwik MM, Whitney A, Baker Bell A, Smith A. Re-thinking personal narrative in the pedagogy of writing teacher preparation. Teaching/writing: the Journal of Writing Teacher Education. 2014; 3; 1: 27-35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan A, Garner JKSchutz P, Cross Francis D, Hong J. Teacher identity and motivation: The dynamic systems model of role identity. Research in teacher identity: Mapping challenges and innovations. 2018; Springer: 71-82. 10.1007/978-3-319-93836-3_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly LB, Wakefield W, Caires-Hurley J, Kganetso LW, Moses L, Baca E. What is culturally informed literacy instruction? A review of research in P-5 contexts. Journal of Literacy Research. 2021; 53; 1: 75-99. 10.1177/1086296X20986602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuhara SA, Gillespie Rouse A, Dai T, Witzel B, Morphy P, Unker B. Constructing written arguments to develop fraction knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 112; 3: 584-607. 10.1037/edu0000391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuhara SA, Graham S, Hawken LS. Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101; 1: 136-160. 10.1027/a0013097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuhara SA, Levin JR, Tolbert M, O'Keeffe BV, O'Neill RE, Jameson MJ. Teaching argument writing in math class: Challenges and solutions to improve the performance of 4th and 5th graders with disabilities. Special issue on teaching writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2023. 10.1007/s11145-023-10459-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason LH, Kubina RM, Taft R. Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education. 2011; 44: 205-220. 10.1177/0022466909350780</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason LH, Kubina RM, Valasa LL, Cramer AM. Evaluating effective writing instruction for adolescent students in an emotional and behavior support setting. Behavioral Disorders. 2010; 35: 140-156. 10.1177/019874291003500205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeough A, Palmer J, Jarvey M, Bird SGraham S, MacArthur CA, Fitzgerald J. Best narrative practices when teaching from a developmental framework. Best practices in writing instruction. 2007; Guilford Press: 50-73</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown D, Brindle M, Harris KR, Graham S, Collins A, Brown M. Illuminating growth and struggles using mixed methods: Practice-based professional development and coaching for differentiating SRSD instruction in writing. Reading and Writing. 2016; 29: 1105-1140. 10.1007/s11145-016-9627-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown D, FitzPatrick E, Grown M, Brindle M, Owens J, Hendrick R. Urban teachers' implementation of SRSD for persuasive writing following practice-based professional development: Positive effects mediated by compromised fidelity. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 6: 1483-1506. 10.1007/s11145-018-9864-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (2003). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2002. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003529.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Commission on Writing (2005). Writing: A ticket to work or a ticket out. College Entrance Examination Board. https://archive.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21479/writing-a-ticket-to-work-or-a-ticket-out.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2018). Job Outlook 2019. https://ww1.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offices/cmc/docs/nace/2019-nace-job-outlook-survey.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennebaker J, Seagal JD. Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1999; 55; 10: 1243-1254. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199910)55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Persky, M. C. Daane, &amp; Y. Jin. (2003) U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2002, NCES 2003–529. Washington, DC. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003529.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray A, Graham S, Liu X. Effects of SRSD college entrance essay exam instruction for high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 6: 1507-1529. 10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas N, Birello M, Ribas T. Effectiveness of an SRSD writing intervention for low- and high-SES children. Reading and Writing. 2021; 34: 1653-1680. 10.1007/s11145-020-10103-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terry NP, Albritton K. If not you, then who: Equity, social justice, and the role of school psychologists in ensuring reading success for all learners. School Psychology. 2023; 38; 1: 44-47. 10.1037/spq0000525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres, C, &amp; Black, R. S. (2018). Culturally responsive Self-Regulated Strategy Development in writing for college students with disabilities. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners,18(1), 42–59.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sharlene A. Kiuhara; Karen R. Harris; Steve Graham; Douglas J. Hacker; Mary E. Story and Debra McKeown</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib220" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref187"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1461750 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An RCT of PD and Expert Support for Classwide SRSD Instruction on Timed Narrative Writing at 4th Grade: Critical Implications – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sharlene+A%2E+Kiuhara%22">Sharlene A. Kiuhara</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3541-5495">0000-0003-3541-5495</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karen+R%2E+Harris%22">Karen R. Harris</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steve+Graham%22">Steve Graham</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6702-5865">0000-0002-6702-5865</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Douglas+J%2E+Hacker%22">Douglas J. Hacker</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mary+E%2E+Story%22">Mary E. Story</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Debra+McKeown%22">Debra McKeown</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3686-6925">0000-0003-3686-6925</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(2):1-34. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 34 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Strategies%22">Writing Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stakeholders%22">Stakeholders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Curriculum+Guides%22">State Curriculum Guides</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alignment+%28Education%29%22">Alignment (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Management%22">Self Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Arts%22">Language Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Narration%22">Narration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11145-023-10507-2 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Composing narrative text is complex, requiring development of knowledge of genre specific and general writing knowledge, and the ability to sequence and convey real or imagined experiences, reactions, and an effective ending. Teachers, however, typically do not receive adequate professional learning needed for effective instruction in narrative writing. We collaborated with district-level stakeholders to address the specific writing needs of their 4th grade students and developed two narrative writing strategies aligned with state curriculum and expectations. We also developed two days of practice-based professional development (PBPD) for teachers who implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction. The PBPD included the genre-based and general writing knowledge needed to use these new strategies. SRSD instruction also included learning to write in a timed condition, as required in the state writing test. Expert support was provided during SRSD instruction. Instruction took place during the teachers' English language arts block a minimum of 3 times per week. This randomized controlled trial involved 16 teachers and their 4th grade classrooms randomly assigned to the SRSD instruction or control conditions. PBPD resulted in high instructional fidelity for 14 features of SRSD instruction and high social validity for SRSD instruction. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that student outcomes were moderate to large for narrative elements (g = 0.51) and story quality (g = 0.48), and small for total words written (g = 0.35). This study adds to research on PBPD for SRSD and challenges experienced, and to effective instruction in narrative writing. We discuss issues and future research that can make a difference to teachers, students, and schools. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1461750 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461750 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11145-023-10507-2 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 34 StartPage: 1 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Grade 4 Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness Type: general – SubjectFull: Stakeholders Type: general – SubjectFull: State Curriculum Guides Type: general – SubjectFull: Alignment (Education) Type: general – SubjectFull: Expectation Type: general – SubjectFull: Faculty Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Self Management Type: general – SubjectFull: Language Arts Type: general – SubjectFull: Story Telling Type: general – SubjectFull: Narration Type: general – SubjectFull: Time Management Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An RCT of PD and Expert Support for Classwide SRSD Instruction on Timed Narrative Writing at 4th Grade: Critical Implications Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sharlene A. Kiuhara – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Karen R. Harris – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Steve Graham – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Douglas J. Hacker – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mary E. Story – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Debra McKeown IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 02 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0922-4777 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-0905 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 38 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
