This article was downloaded by: [University of Massachusetts, Amherst]

On: 10 August 2012, At: 09:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Teaching Young Students Strategies for Planning and Drafting

Stories: The Impact of Self-Regulated Strategy Development
a a b
Brenda Tracy , Robert Reid & Steve Graham
a
University of Nebraska
b
Vanderbilt University

Version of record first published: 07 Aug 2010

To cite this article: Brenda Tracy, Robert Reid & Steve Graham (2009): Teaching Young Students Strategies for Planning and Drafting
Stories: The Impact of Self-Regulated Strategy Development, The Journal of Educational Research, 102:5, 323-332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.5.323-332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the
use of this material.
 Teaching Young Students Strategies
for Planning and Drafting Stories:
The Impact of Self-Regulated
Strategy Development
BRENDA TRACY
ROBERT REID
University of Nebraska
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
ABSTRACT. In the present study, participants were 127
3rd-grade students, to 64 of whom (33 boys, 31 girls) the
authors taught a general strategy and a genre-specific strategy
for planning and writing stories; procedures for regulating the
use of these strategies, the writing process, and their writing
behaviors; and knowledge about the basic purpose and char-
acteristics of good stories. The other 63 3rd-grade students
(30 boys, 33 girls) formed the comparison group and received
traditional-skills writing instruction (mostly on spelling,
grammar, and so forth). Strategy-instructed students wrote
stories that were longer, schematically stronger, and qualita-
tively better. Strategy-instructed students maintained over a
short period of time the gains that they had made from pretest
to posttest. In addition, the impact of story-writing strategy
instruction transferred to writing a similar but untaught genre,
that of a narrative about a personal experience. Strategy-
instructed students wrote longer, schematically stronger, and
qualitatively better personal narratives than did children in
the control condition.
Keywords: composition, strategy instruction, writing
C
urrently, there is considerable concern about the
writing capabilities of students in the United
States. For example, the National Commission on
Writing (NCW; 2003), an organization representing more
than 4,300 colleges, claimed that the writing of school-
aged children “is not what it should be” (p. 7). Concerns
such as these are fueled by actual assessments of children’s
writing as well as estimates of how well students write. For
instance, findings from the most recent National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Persky, Daane, &
Jin, 2003) showed that two thirds or more of students in
Grades 4, 8, and 12 demonstrated only partial mastery of
the writing skills needed at their respective grade levels.
The results from the previous NAEP evaluation yielded
similar findings (Greenwald, Persky, Ambell, & Mazzeo,
1999). Likewise, college teachers estimated that 50% of
high school graduates are not prepared for college-level
writing demands (Achieve, Inc., 2005).
It is unfortunate that so many children do not develop
stronger writing skills. Students who do not learn to write
323
STEVE GRAHAM
Vanderbilt University
well are at a considerable disadvantage. Their grades are
likely to suffer, particularly in classes where writing (e.g.,
through tests, reports) is the primary means for assessing stu-
dents’ knowledge (Graham, 2006a). They are less likely than
their more skilled classmates to use writing to support and
extend learning (see Graham & Perin, 2007a). They are also
less likely to attend college, as writing is now commonly used
to evaluate applicants’ qualifications. Beyond school, writ-
ing has increasingly become a gateway for employment and
promotion, particularly in salaried positions (see reports by
the NCW, 2004, 2005), because it is expected that workers
can create clearly written documents, memoranda, technical
reports, and electronic messages. Moreover, participation in
civic life and the community at large is influenced by writ-
ing, especially because the use of e-mail and text messaging
has become so widespread.
Although it is important that the writing needs of
students at all grade levels be addressed, it is especially
important to address them in the primary grades. There
is a growing consensus that waiting until higher grades to
address literacy difficulties that begin in early elementary
school is not particularly successful (Slavin, Madden, &
Karweit, 1989). Providing effective writing instruction
to young children should reduce the number of students
who fail to develop the writing skills needed to fully meet
classroom demands in higher grades.
One promising approach to enhancing the writing skills
of students is to directly teach them strategies for carrying
out basic writing processes such as planning, drafting, and
revising. In Graham and Perin’s (2007a, 2007b) recent
meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature with
students in Grades 4–12, explicit and systematic strategy
instruction had a strong impact on improving the overall
quality of students’ papers. Students’ writing quality was
enhanced in each of the 20 writing-strategy studies included
in the meta-analysis, yielding an average weighted effect
Address correspondence to Steve Graham, Vanderbilt University,
P.O. Box 228, Nashville, TN 37023, USA. (E-mail: steve
.graham@vanderbilt.edu)
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
 324
size of 0.82. Such instruction enhanced the writing of strug-
gling writers (average weighted effect size = 1.02) as well
as the writing of students in typical classrooms (average
weighted effect size = 0.70). In 8 of the 20 studies, writing
strategies were taught using a specific model, Self-Regulated
Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996).
These SRSD studies were especially effective, yielding an
average weighted effect size of 1.14 (compared with 0.62
for the other 12 studies combined). This approach was also
highly effective in improving the writing performance of
students in Grades 2–11 in a meta-analysis of 27 single-
subject-design SRSD studies (Rogers & Graham, 2008).
With SRSD, students are explicitly taught writing strate-
gies for accomplishing specific writing tasks, such as com-
posing a story or persuasive essay (Harris & Graham, 1996,
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
1999). The strategies typically focus on planning, drafting,
revising, editing, or some combination of those processes.
Students are further taught any skills or knowledge (e.g., the
attributes and elements of a good story) needed to apply the
inculcated strategies effectively. Students also learn to use
one or more self-regulation procedures (e.g., self-instruction,
goal setting, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement) to enhance
motivation and regulate their use of the target strategies, the
writing task, and their behavior during writing. The focus of
this instruction is on students’ independent, effective, and
flexible use of the target strategies. Consequently, procedures
for promoting maintenance and generalization are embed-
ded throughout the instructional regime. This approach is
consistent with theories on how competence and expertise
develop in subject-matter domains (see Alexander, 1992;
Graham, 2006a; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). These con-
ceptualizations emphasize that learning depends, in large
part, on changes that occur in strategic knowledge, domain-
specific knowledge, and motivation.
Although there are over 40 studies (experimental and
single-subject-design investigations) examining the effec-
tiveness of SRSD, its effectiveness with students in typical
primary-grade classrooms has not been assessed. However,
7 of the 27 single-subject-design SRSD studies investigated
the effectiveness of teaching planning and drafting strategies
for either story or persuasive writing to struggling writers in
Grades 2 or 3 (Rogers & Graham, 2008). The writing of each
student participating in these studies improved. In addition,
two experimental studies have examined the effectiveness of
SRSD with struggling writers in Grades 2 (Harris, Graham,
& Mason, 2006) and 3 (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005).
SRSD students made considerably greater progress than did
control students (who received process-writing instruction),
as effect sizes for schematic structure, quality, and length of
compositions were all above 0.80 following instruction.
In the present study, we examined the effectiveness of
SRSD instruction in improving the story writing of students
in regular third-grade classrooms. Students were taught a
general strategy that emphasized planning. This strategy
reminded them to carry out three basic processes: select a
topic to write about, organize possible ideas into a writing
The Journal of Educational Research
plan, and use and upgrade a plan when writing. To help
them organize possible ideas into a writing plan, they were
also taught story-specific planning strategies. This involved
asking themselves a series of questions, with each question
focusing on a particular element commonly found in stories
(Stein & Glenn, 1979), such as “Who are the main charac-
ters?” and “What do they want to do?” Students addition-
ally learned about the characteristics and basic parts of a
story, which provided them with knowledge essential to
using the aforementioned strategies. Students were further
taught self-regulator procedures, including how to use self-
talk to facilitate performance, set goals to write complete
papers (i.e., ones that included all of the basic elements of a
story), monitor and graph their personal success in achiev-
ing these goals, compare their preinstructional performance
with their performance during instruction, and credit their
success to effort and the use of the target strategies. Teach-
ers further emphasized the importance of mastering these
strategies and applying them independently. Mastery goals,
evaluation of personal growth, self-reflection, development
of autonomy, and attributional practices such as these are
thought to enhance students’ effort and motivation (Ames,
1992; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Urdan, 1997).
On the basis of previous experimental research with
older typically developing students (see Graham & Perin,
2007a, 2007b) as well as single-subject-design studies (see
Rogers & Graham, 2008) and two previous experimental
studies (Graham et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2006) with strug-
gling second- and third-grade students, we anticipated that
SRSD story-writing instruction would enhance the sche-
matic structure, quality, and length of students’ composi-
tions. Such effects have been consistently found in previous
research. Further, we expected that writing gains would be
maintained over time for SRSD-instructed students, because
the effects of such instruction have been found to be durable
over time (see Graham, 2006b). Last, we hypothesized that
teaching students strategies for planning and drafting stories
would generalize to a similar genre, personal narratives (a
story about one’s friends or one’s self). Such transfer has
occurred in prior SRSD studies with young struggling writers
(Graham et al.; Harris et al.). However, it is important to
note that we did not expect the effect sizes for the students
in this study to be as large as those obtained with struggling
primary-grade writers in studies by Graham et al. and Har-
ris et al. Although Graham and Perin (2007a, 2007b) have
found that strategy instruction benefited struggling writers
and classrooms composed of typical writers, it yielded larger
effects for the former.
Method
Setting
The present study was conducted during the spring semes-
ter of 2006 in a rural elementary school in the Midwestern
United States. The demographics of the school follow: 96%
 May/June 2009 [Vol. 102(No. 5)] 325

of students were Caucasian, 1% as African American, 2%
were Hispanic, and 1% as Asian. A total of 8% of the stu-
dents received free or reduced-price lunch. All instruction
took place in the general education classroom.
Participants
In the present study, participants were 127 children
from six third-grade classrooms. All of these students had
completed both the story writing pre- and posttests. The
7 children who had not completed the posttest were not
included in the analyses (3 students from the treatment
group and 4 students from the control group). They did
not differ in any meaningful way at the start of the study
(writing, reading, or cognitive performance) from the other
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
(r = .89). In the present study, students’ writing perfor-
mance on the test was in the normal range (see Table 1),
and there was no statistically significant difference between
SRSD and control students (p = .51).
We also obtained scores from students’ files for a reading
test and cognitive test administered by the school to groups
of students. The reading measure was from the Terra Nova
California Achievement Test (2nd ed.; CTB/McGraw-
Hill, 2008). The cognitive measure was taken from InView
(CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2006), a test that measures verbal,
nonverbal, and quantitative reasoning. The Cognitive
Skills Index, a score derived from this test, provided a
measure of academic aptitude. As a group, students scored
in the normal range on each of these tests (see Table 1).
Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differ-

participants. Three classrooms were randomly assigned to
the SRSD treatment condition (n = 64), and the other
three classrooms served as controls (n = 63). Table 1 pres-
ents participant characteristics. As can be seen, there was
almost an equal number of boys and girls in each condition,
and few students received special education services or a
free or reduced-price lunch.
To establish participating students’ initial writing level,
we administered all students the Story Construction Sub-
test from the Test of Written Language (3rd ed.; TOWL-3;
Hammill & Larsen, 1996). This subtest measures students’
ability to write a complete and interesting story by examin-
ing if specific thematic elements are included in the com-
position. Students are provided with a picture and given
15 min to write a story to go with it. Evidence summarized
in the test manual supports that this test reliably differ-
entiates between students with strong and weak writing
skills, is moderately correlated to other measures of writing
performance, and is reliable with primary-grade students
ences between SRSD (treatment) and control students
on these two tests, nor was there a statistically significant
difference between groups in terms of chronological age
(all ps > .58).
Assessments and Measures
Writing prompts. Immediately before (pretest) and after
(posttest) SRSD instruction, all students completed a story
and personal narrative writing probe. The personal narrative
writing assignments provided a near transfer measure, as
SRSD students were not taught to apply the targeted strate-
gies to this genre, but the assignment was similar to story
writing and involved writing about a real event that the
child experienced. At 2 weeks following the end of instruc-
tion, students in the SRSD (treatment) condition were
administered another story-writing prompt (maintenance).
We did not administer the maintenance writing assignment
to students in the control condition because the school had

TABLE 1. Participant Characteristics

SRSD group (n = 64) Control group (n = 62)

Variable n M SD n M SD

Age 9.10 0.24 9.92 0.10

Gender
Female 31 33
Male 33 30
Free or reduced lunch
Yes 6 5
No 58 58
Students with disabilities 4 6
TOWL-3 Story Construction
standard score 9.67 2.53 10.00 2.35
Terra Nova Reading 58.64 14.12 58.58 11.80
In View Cognitive Skills Index 106.56 12.52 106.35 11.97

Note. SRSD = self-required strategy development; TOWL-3 = Test of Written Language–Third Edition
(S. Hammill & D. Larsen, 1996; M = 10, SD = 3); Terra Nova Reading (M = 50, SD = 21.06); InView
Cognitive Science Index (M = 100, SD = 15). For age, units of M and SD are years.
 326
asked that students in the control condition receive the
SRSD intervention once posttest measures were collected.
The story-writing prompts were line-drawn pictures (i.e.,
a boy swinging through the jungle on a vine, a girl looking
at a giant egg that is cracking open, and two people look-
ing out the window of their house at a tiny flying saucer
that has landed on their lawn). The two narrative prompts
asked students to write a paper about a time when they
were younger or a time when they had fun. Earlier investi-
gations have shown that these story-writing and narrative
prompts are equivalent in terms of how much and how well
primary-grade students write (Graham et al., 2005; Harris et
al., 2006). Furthermore, we judged each of the prompts used
in this study as suitable for use with third-grade students by
teachers and children at this grade level (Graham et al.).
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
The three story prompts were randomly assigned to pre-
test, posttest, and maintenance, whereas the two narrative
prompts were randomly assigned to pretest and posttest.
Identical procedures were used to administer the story-
writing and narrative prompts at each assessment point
(pretest, posttest, and maintenance). Students were given
as much time as they needed to complete a story, encour-
aged to plan in advance of writing, and told that they could
only ask for help to spell a word. The prompts for the per-
sonal narrative writing assignments were read to students.
Writing measures. We scored each composition for number
of story parts (schematic structure), number of words, and
overall writing quality. We scored personal narratives for
story parts, as the writing assignment asked students to tell
a story from their life. Prior to scoring, we typed each paper
and saved it as a Word document. We removed identifying
information and corrected spelling, capitalization, and punc-
tuation in each paper to minimize any bias that may occur
when examiners scored papers. The appearance of text- or
surface-level features, such as spelling miscues, can influence
judgments about writing quality (see Graham, 1999).
We scored the number of words for each paper, using
the statistics properties in Word. In contrast, two human
raters, who were previously elementary school teachers
and unfamiliar with the design and purpose of the study,
scored papers using a scale devised by Graham and Har-
ris (1989). Each paper was examined to determine if it
contained eight basic story elements (Stein & Glenn,
1979): (a) main character(s), (b) time, (c) locale, (d)
precipitating event that caused character(s) to act, (e)
what the main character(s) wants (want) to do (goals),
(f) action to achieve goal(s), (g) consequence of actions,
and (h) characters’ reactions. We assigned a score of 0 if
a part was not present. If a part was present, we assigned
a score of 1 or 2 depending on how well the writer devel-
oped the specific element. The only exceptions involved
scores for three parts: goals (an extra point was added if
there were multiple goals that were clearly articulated),
action (an extra point was added if there was more than
one episode or if students were ingenious in describing the
action of characters), and ending (an additional point was
The Journal of Educational Research
awarded if the ending was unique). The total number of
possible points for this scale was 20. Both raters received
extensive training in using the scale (interrater scoring
reliability during training was .86). One rater scored
all compositions, and another scored a random sample
of 25% of all papers to establish reliability. Interrater
reliability between the two scorers was .80.
We assessed overall quality using a holistic measure (the
most common procedure for scoring writing quality; see
Graham & Perin, 2007b). We scored stories and personal
narratives separately. With the holistic scoring method,
raters read each paper attentively, but not laboriously, to
obtain a general impression of overall writing quality. They
were told that ideation, organization, sentence structure,
aptness of word choice, and grammar should all be taken
into account when forming a judgment about the writing
quality, but no single factor should receive undue weight.
Papers were scored using a 7-point scale, with higher scores
(e.g., 7) representing higher quality writing and lower scores
(e.g., 1) representing poorer quality. For each genre (stories
and personal narratives), we provided raters with a repre-
sentative paper (or anchor point) for each score of 2, 4, and
6. They used these anchor points to help them score papers.
We developed the anchor points in prior investigations (see
Graham et al., 2005), and they capture the range of writing
performance in third-grade classes. Writing quality for each
genre was scored by two former primary school teachers who
were unfamiliar with the design and intent of the study. The
raters received extensive training in how to accurately and
reliably use the holistic scoring system (interrater reliability
during training was .88 for stories and .87 for personal narra-
tives). Each rater independently scored all papers produced
by students, and interrater reliability was .73 for stories and
.80 for personal narratives. The average score of the two
raters was used when analyzing data.
Treatment fidelity. To ensure that SRSD conditions were
delivered as planned, we implemented the following steps.
The teacher had a lesson plan that contained step-by-step
procedures for each lesson. Intensive instruction on how to
deliver the SRSD program was provided before the start of
the study. As each step was completed during instruction,
the teacher was asked to check off that step on the plan.
Examinations of all lesson plans showed that 98% of steps in
all lessons were completed. In addition, 20% of the instruc-
tional sessions were also observed by a graduate student who
had extensive experience in implementing the SRSD story-
writing intervention. The observer used a checklist identical
to the one the teacher had and checked off steps as they were
completed. This independent analysis showed that 99% of
the steps in the lessons were implemented. Thus, the experi-
mental condition was implemented as intended.
Instructional Procedures
SRSD condition. With SRSD (Harris & Graham, 1996,
1999), students are directly and systematically taught how
 May/June 2009 [Vol. 102(No. 5)]
to use specific strategies to accomplish particular academic
tasks (in this case, planning and drafting a story). This
includes teaching students the knowledge needed to apply
the targeted strategies (in the present study, this involved
knowledge about the characteristics and parts of a good
story) as well as self-regulatory procedures (in this case,
goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-speech) that help
them regulate the use of the strategies, the writing process,
and their behaviors. Motivation is advanced through a
variety of procedures, including emphasizing the role of
effort in learning, making the positive effects of instruction
concrete and visible (through self-monitoring and graph-
ing), and promoting an “I can do” attitude.
SRSD instruction emphasizes that the primary goal of
instruction is students’ independent use of the strategies and
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
accompanying self-regulation procedures (Graham, Harris,
& Reid, 1992). Students learn when, where, and how to
apply the strategies, and instruction is scaffolded so that
teachers initially take the lead in helping students apply
the strategies, but the responsibility is gradually shifted
to students as quickly as possible. Students are viewed as
active and contributing participants in the learning pro-
cess, and instruction is criterion based rather than time
based. Students move through each instructional stage
at their own pace and do not move to the next stage of
instruction until they have demonstrated adequate mastery.
Students receive instruction until they can use what they
have been taught to independently write a story with all of
the basic parts.
Students in the SRSD condition were first taught a
general planning strategy represented by the mnemonic
device POW: Pick my idea (i.e., decide what to write about),
Organize my notes (i.e., organize possible writing ideas into
a writing plan), and Write and say more (i.e., make changes
and increase the amount that is written). To help them
carry out the second step of POW (organize my notes), they
were also taught a genre-specific strategy that prompted
them to generate ideas for each of the basic parts of a story.
In using this strategy, students ask themselves the follow-
ing questions before writing (represented by the mnemonic
device WWW; 2 What and 2 How questions): Who are the
main characters? When does the story take place? Where
does the story take place? What do the main characters
do or want to do? What happens next? How do the main
characters feel? How does that story end? For each ques-
tion, they generate notes on possible ideas that they may
use in their story. We detail the procedures for teaching
these strategies below, emphasizing each stage of the SRSD
model (Harris & Graham, 1996, 1999).
In the first stage of instruction, develop background knowl-
edge, students acquired the knowledge and skills needed to
apply the planning and writing strategies. First, POW and
its steps were introduced, and the teacher and students dis-
cussed what it stood for and why each step was important.
Before moving to the next activity, students explained the
three steps and the importance of each step. Students were
327
then asked the question, “What is a good story?” In discuss-
ing what makes a good story, the teacher emphasized that
a good story has many characteristics, and students should
remember that a good story (a) makes sense, (b) is fun to
write and read, (c) uses interesting vocabulary or “million
dollar” words, and (d) includes all seven story parts. To help
students remember these seven parts, a mnemonic device
(WWW; 2 What and 2 How questions) was introduced as
a trick for remembering them. Students then listened as the
teacher read a story, with the children helping the teacher
identify each of the seven parts. As students identified and
described each part, the teacher wrote it in the appropriate
section of a chart with the story part reminder. This contin-
ued with additional stories until students could identify all
parts accurately. Last, the term transfer was introduced to
explain how a strategy could be used in other places or situ-
ations. Students were asked to identify where they could
use these types of strategies and set a goal to use what had
been learned before the next session. A few minutes during
each succeeding lesson were spent rehearsing POW and the
story part mnemonic device, as well as what they stood for,
until students memorized them.
In the second stage of instruction, discuss it, students
further considered the rationale for using the strategy.
Self-monitoring procedures were introduced as well. Each
child analyzed their baseline story to determine how many
of the seven story parts were included in the story (i.e.,
self-monitoring). Students then graphed the number of
parts in their story by coloring the corresponding number
of segments on a rocket ship with seven segments. Next,
teacher and students discussed which parts were or were
not included. The teacher established that the students’
goal was to include all seven parts when writing a story and
emphasized that even if a story part was included, it could
be improved (e.g., adding additional detail). Most impor-
tantly, the teacher and students discussed how using POW
and the WWW mnemonic devices could improve story
writing. At the end of the session, the teacher asked the
students to identify how they had used some aspect of what
they had learned since the previous session. The responses
were discussed and written on a chart. The students then
set a new goal to use what they had learned outside of the
instructional setting. This process of identifying instances
of transfer, discussion, and goal setting continued in all
subsequent sessions.
In the third stage of instruction, model it, the teacher
showed students how to apply the strategies and introduced
the concept of self-instruction. Before writing a story, the
teacher discussed with students that the goal of writing a
story is to have it make sense, use “million dollar” words,
make it fun to write, and include all seven parts. The teach-
er then modeled, speaking out loud, how to plan and write
a story using POW and the story parts reminder (WWW).
The students helped the teacher by generating ideas for
the parts of the story as well as additional ideas while writ-
ing it. They recorded their notes for the story on a graphic
 328
organizer that included a prompt for each part of the WWW
mnemonic device. While modeling, the teacher used a
variety of self-statements to assist with problem definition
(e.g., What do I have to do here?), planning (e.g., What
comes next?), self-evaluation (e.g., Does that make sense?),
self-reinforcement (e.g., I really like that part!), and coping
(e.g., I’m almost finished!). Once the story was completed,
the importance of what one says to oneself was discussed,
and the types of self-statements used by the teacher were
identified. Students identified at least three self-statements
that they would use while writing and recorded them on a
small chart. The teacher and students also verified that all
seven elements were included in the story, highlighting each
element and graphing the results. The teacher and students
further discussed why it was important to write papers that
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
contained enough detail, and they counted and graphed the
number of words in the story. The teacher praised students
for their hard work and effort; such praise was delivered
where appropriate in all preceding lessons.
The next stage, support it, started with a collaborative
writing experience. First, the teacher and students set a goal
to include all seven parts in the story. Second, they planned
the story together using POW, the story parts reminder, the
graphic organizer, and students’ self-statements. However,
this time students directed the process, and the teacher only
provided support as needed. Third, using the collaboratively
generated notes, students wrote their own story. Fourth,
after the story was completed, the student identified each
story part by highlighting it. Then each student determined
if he or she had met the goal and graphed the results. They
also graphed the number of words written. Last, the teacher
and students discussed how the strategies helped to write a
better story.
In subsequent sessions, students were gradually weaned
from relying on the planning graphic organizer. The teacher
explained that the graphic organizer was helpful but would
not always be readily accessible when the child wanted to
write a story. Students were taught to write the story part
reminder at the top of the page to assist them in planning
and writing a complete story. Students continued to set a
goal of including all seven parts and graphed their success
in doing so as well as the number of words written. For all
of the papers written during this stage, the teacher provided
support and encouragement as needed, but the level of
assistance was less.
The final stage, independent performance, was reached
when students could successfully write a story with all
seven story elements independently without assistance
from the teacher. They continued to set a goal to include
all seven parts of the story and increase the amount of
words that were written in their stories, and they graphed
their progress.
Control condition. The three teachers in the control con-
dition primarily used a traditional basic-skills approach
to instruction. This was determined through observation
and information that they completed about their writing
The Journal of Educational Research
program (taken from a form developed by Agate & Graham
[2007] assessing commonly recommended writing practices
at the primary-grade level). The most common activities
during writing time involved teaching basic writing skills;
control teachers taught spelling, grammar, punctuation,
and capitalization several times per week, with sentence-
constructions skills being taught at least weekly. Much less
emphasis was placed on teaching writing processes because
teachers only taught planning, text organization, and revis-
ing strategies ranging from several times a month to several
times a year (none of the teachers taught the strategies or
self-regulation procedures that we used with students in the
SRSD condition). Having students plan and revise compo-
sitions was infrequent, with this occurring monthly or less
with two of the teachers and several times a month with
the other teacher. Teachers rarely (several times a year) con-
ferred with students about their writing; had students share
their writing with others, read their own writing to students,
help each other with writing (except for one teacher, who
did this weekly); monitored students’ progress; or established
connections with the home concerning students’ writing.
Results
We analyzed data for stories and personal narratives
separately. For each genre, we computed a separate two-
way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for each measure
(quality, story parts, and length). The independent variable
was treatment condition (SRSD vs. control), the depen-
dent variable was students’ posttest performance, and the
covariate was students’ pretest performance. To determine
if SRSD students’ story performance differed from their
pre- and posttest performances, we computed a one-way
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each
measure. The repeated measure was SRSD students’ per-
formance at pretest, posttest, and maintenance. Table 2
contains means and standard deviations by condition for
quality, parts, and length of stories and narratives.
Stories
After controlling for initial pretest performance, SRSD-
instructed students wrote stories at posttest that were
qualitatively better, F(1, 124) = 20.60, MSE = 1.522, p =
.037; received higher scores on the story parts scale, F(1,
124) = 17.19, MSE = 3.95, p < .001; and were longer than
those written by children in the control condition, F(1,
124) = 10.15, MSE = 49,368.02, p = .002. The obtained
differences for story parts and number of words written
were moderate in magnitude (Cohen’s d effect sizes were
0.71 and 0.55, respectively), whereas the impact of SRSD
on the quality of students’ story writing was smaller (effect
size = 0.35).
To determine if SRSD-instructed students maintained
the gains they made following treatment, we first ran an
omnibus test to determine if these students’ pretest, posttest,
 May/June 2009 [Vol. 102(No. 5)] 329

and maintenance scores were statistically different. This

was the case for quality, F(1, 60) = 4.89, MSE = 2.23, p

M adj.

165.40 124.60 53.80 125.90

99.70
= .031; parts, F(1, 60) = 31.31, MSE = 5.16, p < .001;
and length, F(1, 60) = 11.89, MSE = 10,623.23, p = .001.
Control

117.60 55.17

84.60 43.70
95.50 67.00
Post hoc analyses revealed that there was no statistically
SD significant difference between posttest and maintenance
performances for any of the three measures and that
posttest and maintenance performances exceeded pretest
M
Length

performance for quality (both ps < .03), parts (both ps <

138.60
.001), and length (both ps < .002). Thus, 2 weeks follow-
M adj.

ing the end of instruction, SRSD students maintained the

TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Adjusted Means for Story and Personal Narrative Quality, Parts, and Length, by Treatment Condition

improvements they had made in their story writing.

SRSD

124.90 57.70
166.70 86.50
174.60 99.30

101.70 54.20
142.80 79.70
SD

Personal Narratives
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012

To determine if the impact of SRSD story-writing

M

instruction generalized to a similar but uninstructed writ-

M adj.

ing genre, we had students write a personal narrative before

8.34

7.90

and after instruction. After controlling for initial pretest

performance, SRSD-instructed students wrote personal
Control

narratives that were qualitatively better, F(1, 114) = 9.00,

2.34
2.40

2.66
2.34
SD

MSE = 0.74, p = .003; received higher scores in terms of

story parts, F(1, 114) = 15.53, MSE = 4.42, p < .001; and
7.92
8.27

7.66
7.91
M

were longer than those written by children in the control

Parts

condition, F(1, 114) = 8.58, MSE = 4,880.06, p = .004.

M adj.

The obtained differences for quality, story parts, and num-

9.81

9.45
Personal narrative

ber of words written were moderate in magnitude (effect

sizes were 0.53, 0.73, and 0.53, respectively). Thus, the
Stories
SRSD

2.26
1.71
1.87

2.47
1.91

impact of SRSD story-writing instruction generalized to

SD

the writing of personal narratives.

8.37
9.88
10.26

7.45
9.43
M

Discussion
M adj.

There is considerable evidence that students’ writing can

3.82

3.06

be improved by directly teaching the students strategies

Note. SRSD = self-regulated strategy development; M adj. = adjusted mean.

for planning, drafting, revising, and editing (Graham &

Control

1.46
1.42

1.13
1.13
SD

Perin, 2007a, 2007b; Rogers & Graham, 2007). However,

an important limitation of this evidence is that it mostly
applies to students in Grades 4 and higher. Strategy instruc-
3.62
3.79

3.04
3.04
M

tional studies conducted with students in the primary

Quality

grades have strictly involved students who were experi-

M adj.

encing difficulty in learning to write. We addressed this

4.29

3.55

limitation in the present study by examining the effec-

tiveness of such instruction with primary-grade students
SRSD

1.18
1.23
1.32

0.87
0.68
SD

in general. Specifically, third-grade students were taught

a previously validated strategy for planning and writing
stories (Graham et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2006; Sad-
3.79
4.31
4.26

3.17
3.57
M

dler, Moran, Graham, & Harris, 2004) using the SRSD

approach to strategy instruction (Harris & Graham, 1996,
1999). There is considerable evidence that this model of
strategy instruction is effective in teaching academic strat-
Maintenance

egies to a wide range of school-age children (see Graham,

Condition

2006b; Graham & Harris, 2003).

Posttest

Posttest
Pretest

Pretest

Third-grade students receiving SRSD instruction in this

study were taught a general strategy and a genre-specific
strategy for planning and writing stories; procedures for
 330
regulating the use of these strategies, the writing process,
and their writing behaviors (self-monitoring, goal setting,
and self-instruction); and knowledge about the basic pur-
pose and characteristics of good stories. In comparison with
students who received a traditional-skills-oriented writing
program, SRSD-instructed students’ stories were longer,
schematically stronger (in terms of inclusion and quality
of story parts), and qualitatively better. Furthermore, the
story-writing gains that SRSD students made from pretest
to posttest were maintained over a short period of time
(i.e., 2 weeks). Just as importantly, SRSD students gener-
alized what they learned to a similar but untaught genre.
When asked to write a personal narrative about a real-life
experience, SRSD-instructed students wrote longer, sche-
matically stronger, and qualitatively better compositions
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
than did children in the control condition.
These findings provide the first empirical support
for directly teaching writing strategies to primary-grade
students. This is consistent with evidence from over 40
studies (experimental and single subject design) showing
that such instruction can enhance the writing of older
(Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2007b) and primary-grade chil-
dren who experience difficulty with writing (Graham,
2006b; Rogers & Graham, 2007). Of course, the findings
from the present study need replication, and the impact of
such instruction over a longer period of time needs to be
examined. In addition, it may be fruitful to study if writ-
ing strategy instruction works with even younger, typically
developing writers, as it has been effective with second-
grade children who find writing challenging (Graham et
al., 2005; Harris et al., 2006; Saddler et al., 2004).
It is important to note that the effect sizes for SRSD
instruction in the present study were not as large as those
typically obtained in past research. On the story-writing
posttest, the effect size for schematic structure and length
of stories was moderate (effect sizes were 0.71 and 0.55,
respectively), whereas the effect size for writing quality
was small (0.35). In studies with struggling writers in the
primary grades, effect sizes for these measures immediately
after instruction exceeded 0.80 (Graham et al., 2005; Har-
ris et al., 2006). The two most likely explanations for this
difference involve how instruction was administered and
who was taught. First, one important difference between
this investigation and the prior SRSD group studies, in
which the same strategies were taught using identical
lesson plans (Graham et al.; Harris et al.), is that the former
involved whole-class instruction and the latter involved
teaching two students at a time. Teaching two students at
a time likely provided additional opportunities for each
student to receive more individual assistance and atten-
tion. As Hogan and Pressley (1997) noted, this can have a
positive impact on learning. Second, a recent meta-analysis
of writing-strategy instructional studies with older students
(Grades 4 and greater) indicated that larger gains are made
for struggling writers (average weighted effect size = 1.02)
than for more typical writers (average weighted effect size
The Journal of Educational Research
= 0.70). Thus, the smaller effect sizes obtained in the pres-
ent study (compared with those done with young struggling
writers) may in part reflect the differential effectiveness of
this approach with different types of students.
Although effect sizes for story quality, parts, and length
may have been smaller in this study versus SRSD writing
investigations with young struggling writers, this was not
the case for the near-generalization writing measure. In the
present study and in prior studies with struggling writers in
the primary grades (Graham et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2006),
the effect sizes were of similar magnitude for these measures,
with one exception, which involved the schematic structure
measure for story parts. In the studies with struggling writ-
ers, the effect sizes for this measure exceeded 1.0 (the effect
size in this study was 0.73). One possible explanation for
this difference is that the scales used to measure schematic
structure in this and the prior studies differed. In the current
investigation, we examined both the inclusion and quality
of elements, whereas in the studies with young struggling
writers, just the inclusion of elements as examined. Another
possible explanation involves the capabilities of the writers
in the present and prior studies. Struggling writers in the
previous investigations included only two or three story parts
in their pretest stories, whereas the students in the present
study wrote pretest stories that were more complete (i.e.,
contained more parts). Thus, struggling writers in previous
investigations had more room for improvement than did the
students in the present study.
In summary, the present study showed that the writing
performance of young writers can be improved by teaching
them strategies for planning and writing in conjunction
with the knowledge and self-regulatory procedures needed
to use these strategies effectively. Additional research
is needed to verify this finding, using a larger sample of
classrooms, and comparing the effects of this instruction to
those of other types of writing programs that place greater
emphasis on writing and the writing process (such as the
process writing approach).
REFERENCES
Achieve, Inc. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates pre-
pared for college and work? Washington, DC: Author.
Agate, L., & Graham, S. (2007). Primary grade writing instruction: A
national survey. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Alexander, P. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving issues and emerging
concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27, 33–51.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2006). InView. Monterey, CA: Author.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2008). Terranova (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Author.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with
learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78–98.
Graham, S. (2006a). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Hand-
book of educational psychology (pp. 457–477). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S. (2006b). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In
C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive
strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
 May/June 2009 [Vol. 102(No. 5)] 331

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities
and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H. L.
Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning dis-
abilities (pp. 383–402). New York: Guilford.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing per-
formance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: The
effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30, 207–241.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Reid, R. (1992). Developing self-regulated
learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(6), 1–16.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). Writing next: Effective strategies to
improve writing of adolescent middle and high school. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction
for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
Greenwald, E., Persky, H., Ambell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). National
assessment of educational progress: 1998 report card for the nation and the
states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1996). Test of Written Language (TOWL-3).
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012
www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
National Commission on Writing (NCW). (2004, September). Writ-
ing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders.
Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://www.writingcommission
.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf
National Commission on Writing (NCW). (2005, July). Writing: A powerful
message from state government. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://
www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/powerful-
message-from-state.pdf
Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card:
Writing 2002 (NCES 2003–529). (U.S. Department of Education, Insti-
tute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.)
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writ-
ing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing
writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the

Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strate-
gies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research:
Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing,
knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of
Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and without peer support.
American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1997). Scaffolding student instruction.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
National Commission on Writing (NCW). (2003, April). The neglected R:
The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved December 28, 2008, from http://
writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 3–17.
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teach-
ing to self-reflective practices. New York: Guilford.
Slavin, R., Madden, N., & Karweit, N. (1989). Effective programs for
students at risk: Conclusions for practice and policy. In R. Slavin, N.
Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp.
21–54). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in
elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse
processes: Vol. 2. New directions in discourse processing (53–120). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future direc-
tions. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (pp. 99–142). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

� � � � � � � �� � ������ ����
� �� � � �� � � ������ �������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������

�������������������������
����������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������

������ ������� � ������

��� � ��� ������ �����������������
� �� ��������� ��� ����������
��� ������������� � � ��� ������������
�������������� ����������������
��������������������
��������������� ������������������������������������������������
 ����������������
�����������
���������������
Downloaded by [University of Massachusetts, Amherst] at 09:12 10 August 2012

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������
����������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������

�������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������

� ��� � � �� ����� � � ������

��� � ��� ������
� � � ������ � �� �� � ������ ����
��� ���� ���� ����� �� ��� ���� ��������
���� ��� � �� ��� � ��� ����� �� ������
�� ����� ����� ���