693367

research-article2017
ISCXXX10.1177/1053451217693367Intervention in School and ClinicLeins et al.

Feature Article
Intervention in School and Clinic 2017, Vol. 53(2) 81–87
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053451217693367
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693367
isc.sagepub.com

The Flexibility of Self Regulated Strategy Development

for Teaching Argumentative Text

Patricia A. Leins, PhD1, Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino, PhD2,

Sharlene A. Kiuhara, PhD3, and Laura Thompson Jacobson, PhD4

Abstract
An increasing challenge for many secondary special education teachers is preparing students for the writing demands
in postsecondary settings. The self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model of writing instruction, considered an
evidence-based practice, is an effective strategy for enhancing the writing skills of students with disabilities, such as learning
disabilities or behavioral disorders, at the secondary level. This article discusses the flexibility and practicality of the SRSD
model by describing ways in which secondary teachers can effectively use this strategy to enhance the argumentative
writing skills of their students in English language arts, science, history, and mathematics and to teach students how to self-
advocate through writing. Information about supports, materials, and other resources for teachers to utilize are included.

Keywords
self-regulated strategy development, writing instruction, high school students with disabilities

Writing proficiently provides students with a ticket to par-
ticipate in the global and technological society in which
writing is becoming a preferred mode of communication in
both professional and social media contexts (Lenhart,
Arafeh, Smith, & Macgill, 2008; National Commission on
Writing [NCOW], 2004). Yet, writing achievement out-
comes for high school students remain at alarmingly low
levels. The majority of high school seniors with and without
disabilities are failing to meet even minimum writing profi-
ciency levels, and the outcomes are far-reaching. According
to recent national writing achievement outcomes, 95% of
students with disabilities continue to perform at or below
basic levels of proficiency. They are unable to persuade,
explain, and convey personal experiences or compose
coherent and well-structured texts with logically developed
and clear ideas (National Center for Education Statistics,
2012). In college settings, 75% of entering freshmen at
2-year colleges are unable to analyze arguments or synthe-
size information and are required to enroll in noncredited,
remedial college-level writing courses (National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education, 2010). In the business
sector, more than 40% of businesses (e.g., from mining and
construction to finance and real estate) spend as much as
$3.1 billion annually to provide additional writing develop-
ment for employees who are required to write technical or
formal reports or craft written correspondence to colleagues
and managers (NCOW, 2004). In addition to poor writing
achievement outcomes, several studies surveying high
school teachers across the country have reported that teach-
ers receive inadequate in-service or preservice training to
teach writing, infrequently assign writing assignments that
ask students to analyze or synthesize information, and lack
knowledge about implementing evidenced-based writing
practices, particularly in secondary classrooms (Applebee
& Langer, 2011; Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert,
2014; Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009).
1
2
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
3
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
4
Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Patricia A. Leins, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Department of Special
Education, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax,
VA 22030, USA.
Email: Pleins1@gmu.edu
82
Argumentative Writing and the
Common Core
To better prepare K–12 students with academic skills
needed for postsecondary settings, many states have
adopted the College and Career Readiness Standards
(Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSS]; National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The CCSS for
English language arts and literacy, in which writing and lan-
guage are integrated in history, social studies, science, and
technical areas, specifies argumentative writing as one of
three text types and purposes for writing (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Writing argumenta-
tive text places more linguistic and cognitive demands on
the writer than other text types (Nippold, Ward-Londergan,
& Fanning, 2005). Students must learn how to justify a
position on a controversial topic, use logical and supported
reasons, and understand the rules for considering in advance
what the reader’s position might be (Ferretti & Lewis,
2013). While the CCSS argumentative writing standards
provide a road map of where students need to be by the time
they complete 12th grade, the standards do not provide
teachers with instructional practices for teaching students
how to write (Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2015).
Challenges for High School Special
Education Teachers
According to the CCSS benchmarks for argumentative text
and language, secondary teachers are expected to address
the following standards: (a) help students identify and use
strategies to improve written expression, (b) choose lan-
guage that expresses ideas precisely and concisely, (c) use
valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence, (d)
develop claims and counterclaims, (e) clarify relationships
among claims, reasons, evidence, and counterclaims, and
(f) convey or establish credibility to the reader. The teacher
must also find ways to engage students in the process of
writing. This includes taking time to plan and organize
thoughts or ideas, choose appropriate words and sentence
structures, and transcribe and produce text, all orchestrated
in a manner that allows the writer to switch attention seam-
lessly between these tasks during the writing process
(Alevriadou & Giaouri, 2015). In order to follow through
with a writing task from beginning to its completion, the
high school writer with disabilities must be able to focus
attention and thoughts during the writing process, plan and
organize text according to a purpose, self-regulate and
remain engaged in the writing process (Casas & Ferrer,
2012), and spend time in class devoted to developing and
Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)
honing these specific skills. Yet, the high school writer with
disabilities exhibits great difficulty with generating ideas,
receives limited guidance or support to overcome writing
difficulties, and believes his or her attempts at writing
assignments are futile and consequently often unsuccessful
(Garcia & de Caso, 2008).
The value of explicitly teaching students writing strate-
gies cannot be overlooked for high school students receiv-
ing specialized instruction in pull-out settings or in the
general education classroom. From recent research recom-
mendations for teaching writing, multicomponent strategy
instruction has surfaced as an effective writing instruction
approach for students with disabilities (Graham, Harris
et al., 2015).
Writing Strategies Instruction
The self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) frame-
work for writing instruction is well validated, widely used,
practical, and readily accepted by many classroom teachers.
It involves explicit and systematic instruction designed to
teach students to use the SRSD strategies independently
through the use of mnemonic devices, graphic organizers,
and self-regulation (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander,
2008). The SRSD helps students control their own behav-
iors, actions, or thoughts during the writing process, and it
has been found to be a highly effective approach for improv-
ing students’ genre knowledge, essay structure, and writing
quality (Graham, Herbert, Harris et al., 2015; Graham,
McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Graham & Perrin,
2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008).
Within the SRSD instructional framework, students are
viewed as active collaborators who work with the teacher
and their peers during instruction (Harris et al., 2008).
Students learn to manage the processes involved in writing,
such as developing their writing knowledge and establish-
ing a purpose for writing, analyzing their audience, organiz-
ing and elaborating on their ideas within specific genres,
and editing and revising their writing. The SRSD also
increases their self-efficacy, self-awareness, and motivation
to write (Harris et al., 2008). The six stages include develop
background knowledge, discuss it, model it, memorize it,
support it, and independent performance. Throughout each
SRSD stage, teachers individualize feedback and scaffold
support, and students move at their own pace until they
have met criteria for moving on to the next lesson. The six
stages of SRSD are recursive as well as flexible. That is,
teachers may need to reteach or quickly move through
instructional components based on individual learning
needs. When teachers follow the instructional procedures
with fidelity, SRSD has shown to improve the quality of
students’ composition (Graham et al., 2012).
Leins et al. 83

Table 1. Stage 1: Activate and Develop Background Knowledge.

Content Area/Topic How to Apply Argumentative Writing to Topic

English/language arts
Science and history
Mathematics
Self-determination/
self-advocacy
•• Discuss the concept of discourse community as it would pertain to high school students. How is their
discourse community at school different from others they might be members of?
•• How can we use argumentative writing to discuss literary topics of pieces we have read in class?
•• Discuss situations or conflicts in U.S. history where one side would argue its beliefs to others, e.g.,
Civil War, right to vote, equal rights
•• Discuss how to use argumentative writing for scientific argumentation. How can we use scientific
evidence to support and justify claims?
•• How can writing help explain our math work and justify our answers?
•• Discuss examples of how real-life data can help support an argument or how to use reasons and
explanations to support solving a problem
•• Discuss the relationship between argumentative writing and self-advocacy. How can you use
argumentative writing to advocate for your needs and wants? How is argumentative writing similar to
self-advocacy? How is self-determination similar to the writing process?
•• Discuss importance of identifying own areas of needs and wants

STOP
POW +TREE STOP & DARE
AIMS & DARE

P = Pick my idea S = Suspend judgment S = Suspend judgment

O = Organize my notes
W = Write and say more
T = Topic sentence (state what you believe)
R = Reasons and Counter reasons
E = Explanations and refute
E = Ending
T = Take a side T = Take a side
O = Organize ideas O = Organize ideas
P = Plan more as you write P = Plan more as you write
D = Develop a position statement A = Attract the reader’s attention
A = Add supporting details I = Identify the problem
R = Report & refute Counterarguments M = Map the context
E = End with a strong conclusion S = State my thesis

D = Develop my topic sentence

A = Add supporting ideas
R = Refute the other position
E = End with a conclusion & recommendations

Figure 1. Examples of mnemonic strategies.

Activate and Develop Background Knowledge
During this stage, teachers collect preassessment data and
discuss key general writing and genre concepts (i.e., What
is argumentative writing? What are the components of a
good argumentative essay? When can we use argumentative
writing?). For instance, the teacher might show example
essays for introduction, body, and concluding parts as well
as vocabulary describing argumentative elements and tran-
sition words and phrases that glue the paragraphs together.
What do you notice the writer does? What stood out or
caught your attention? It is in this stage that the teacher
might introduce self-regulation as an important skill in the
writing process. It is important to note that the SRSD frame-
work is flexible; thus the teacher can focus the discussion
on the application of argumentative writing as it relates to
the content area targeted. Table 1 illustrates the first stage of
SRSD instruction across different content areas (Cuenca-
Carlino, Mustian, & Allen, 2017; Hauth, Mastropieri,
Scruggs, & Regan, 2013; Kiuhara, O’Neill, Hawken &
Graham, 2012; Leins, 2014).
Discuss It
During this stage, teachers discuss with students their cur-
rent attitudes toward writing, the role and benefits of learn-
ing strategies and when to use them, and good examples of
writing. Teachers also discuss the amount of effort and
commitment it takes to become good writers and how to
overcome challenges and to celebrate milestones no matter
how big or small. Teachers also have the flexibility to select
the type of strategy they prefer to use during instruction
depending on their students’ needs and their teaching objec-
tives. Figure 1 presents three SRSD mnemonics for plan-
ning and composing argumentative text. The strategies
presented have been used to teach argumentative writing to
high school students with disabilities. The decision as to
which strategy is appropriate is the teacher’s and is based on
84 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)

Table 2. Sample Prompts.

Content Area Sample Prompt

English language arts •• In the book Night, Elie Wiesel experiences a great deal of emotional and physical abuse as a result
of the inhumane treatment of the Nazis in the concentration camps. Write an argumentative essay
discussing whether you think physical pain is more severe than emotional pain.
•• A well-known football coach once said, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” Write an essay in
which you state your position.
Science and history •• Identify with a candidate from a recent election (either local, state, or federal) and write an
argumentative essay to defend your choice.
•• As a concerned and responsible scientist, persuade your community to adopt conservation efforts for
a local watershed.
Math •• Pythagoras and Euclid were two famous Greek mathematicians in geometry. Select one of these
famous men and persuade the other about your theory.
•• Persuade one of your classmates that using a scientific calculator is a much better way to solve
quadratic equations.
Self-determination/ •• You have been doing really well in school this year and want to add more mainstream classes to your
self-advocacy schedule for next year. Write a persuasive essay explaining why you think it might be good for you to
take more general education classes next year.
•• After high school, you want to join the army. Write an argumentative essay explaining why the army
might be a good fit for you.

his or her teaching objectives or student need. All three
mnemonics encourage students to plan and write notes
using a graphic organizer before composing their essays.
The primary difference between POW+TREE and
STOP+DARE is that in STOP+DARE, students are encour-
aged to first brainstorm arguments for each side and use
their notes to select their position (i.e., S = suspend judg-
ment; T = take a side) in STOP before organizing their notes
and planning what they want to say by using DARE. In
POW+TREE, students are encouraged to select a position
from the beginning (i.e., P = pick my idea) in POW and
organize their ideas with TREE by brainstorming reasons
and explanations to support their position, as well as con-
sidering counterarguments and refutations to include in
their compositions. In STOP+AIMS+DARE, an additional
strategy is included. The purpose of AIMS is to help stu-
dents plan and write an introductory paragraph for a mul-
tiparagraph essay.
It is also in this stage that the teacher might introduce
transition words (e.g., first, in addition, furthermore, how-
ever, in conclusion) and encourage students to add their
own to the list. Introducing graphic organizers is also part of
instruction during this stage to help students generate and
organize ideas prior to writing. Further, counterarguments
are emphasized as an important component of argumenta-
tive writing. For instance, in history, the teacher might dis-
cuss possible history examples and discuss the purpose of
using counterarguments with explanations and rebuttals. If
teaching self-advocacy skills, the teacher might emphasize
the importance of considering others points of view when
advocating for needs and wants. When teaching math, the
teacher might emphasize the importance of utilizing writing
to justify answers to word problems. Once students under-
stand the components of argumentative writing, the teacher
might provide multiple examples/models of essays for stu-
dents to examine.
Model It
Teachers model how to use the self-regulation and writing
strategies using think-alouds and explicitly using self-talk
statements before, during, and after planning and compos-
ing. During this stage, the teacher can use modeling in a
variety of ways, ranging from formal modeling of the strat-
egies to cooperative modeling with student input. It is
important to note that as the teacher releases responsibility
to the students, he or she provides guidance and prompts
when needed. Collaborative writing partnerships can also
form between teacher and student and between student and
student. During this stage, the teacher also introduces the
concepts of self-monitoring, goal setting, and graphing
progress, and models these behaviors for students while
working through the strategies. Table 2 provides examples
of essay prompts that can be used to discuss and model
argumentative writing across different areas (Cuenca-
Carlino et al., 2017; Hauth et al., 2013; Kiuhara et al., 2012;
Leins, 2014).
Memorize It
This stage is incorporated into daily review of the writing
and self-regulation strategies. Students take time to learn
and understand each step of the strategies and when to apply
each step. Strategies for memorization may vary across
Leins et al.
content or mnemonic and may be individualized for stu-
dents. Frequently, memorization activities are incorporated
at the beginning and at the end of each lesson and include a
combination of visual practice, oral rehearsal, and written
production. Once the student is able to independently recall
each step and when it is applied, guided practice is faded.
Support It
During this stage, the teacher gradually releases responsi-
bility of learning to students as students begin using the
self-regulation strategies to plan, write, and revise their
compositions. Teachers may organize students into pairs or
small groups to develop a plan, moving forward to compose
their individual essays, or the teacher might organize the
class into larger cooperative learning groups, with students
taking roles for planning and composing a group essay. The
teacher prompts students and gives valuable feedback about
the quality of student plans and essays. The teacher may
administer weekly writing to monitor students’ progress,
with students using these probes to graph their performance
and setting new writing and self-regulation goals.
Independent Practice
For the independent stage of instruction, students transition
to use the strategy without assistance, shifting responsibil-
ity for strategy use across settings directly to the student.
Teachers can gradually reduce time allowed for essay writ-
ing, remove procedural supports (e.g., graphic organizers,
transition word chart, checklists, cue cards), and encourage
students to draw their own graphic organizer, add transition
words from memory, and use only a checklist to monitor
their writing process. Since students are monitoring prog-
ress for their essays, the teacher should encourage goal set-
ting for students to support their independence. The
transition between stages occurs at the teacher’s discretion
over a series of classes until students are independently
composing essays following the strategy steps.
Flexibility of SRSD in the Classroom
and for the Teacher
The six SRSD stages can be modified, reordered, or repeated
if necessary because the focus is on students mastering the
use of the strategy independently (Harris et al., 2008). For
example, teachers can select or modify the graphic organiz-
ers for learning the strategy, charting progress, making self-
statements, and goal setting. Teachers bring their own
expertise to the lessons and can adapt or further differenti-
ate the writing activities and feedback provided to students
(Harris et al., 2008). The SRSD lessons provide sufficient
detail for novice to expert teachers to follow and adapt to
85
meet the learning needs of individual students. Additionally,
instruction can be provided individually, in small or large
groups, and often two, three, or four times a week for 30- to
45-min sessions. Although SRSD is a strategy involving mul-
tiple components, one of the many benefits it provides teach-
ers is that the instructional framework is flexible and can be
used to teach in a variety of contexts. As we described above,
the teacher can select the argumentative strategy that best fits
his or her students (see Figure 1). These strategies can be
used to teach argumentative writing in a variety of content
areas, such as language arts classes (Jacobson & Reid, 2010;
Kiuhara et al., 2012), science, social studies (Leins, 2014),
civics and mathematics (Hauth et al., 2013), and to under-
stand the magnitude of fractions (Kiuhara, Witzel, Dai, &
Rouse, 2017). Additionally, argumentative writing can be
used to teach students to self-advocate for needs and wants
(Cuenca-Carlino et al., 2017; Cuenca-Carlino, Mustian,
Allen, & Gilbert, 2015).
Selecting Formative Feedback Strategies
A hallmark of SRSD instruction is the amount of feedback
students receive on their writing from the teacher, their
peers, and themselves. The three types of feedback included
in SRSD have also shown to have high effect sizes (ES) for
improving students’ writing quality (Graham, Hebert, &
Harris, 2015):
•• Teacher feedback (ES = .87). During SRSD instruc-
tion, the teacher provides students with individual-
ized feedback on their writing and assists students in
setting goals for writing and self-monitoring their
writing processes.
•• Peer feedback (ES = .58). Peer feedback is consistent
throughout the SRSD lessons. Students provide
feedback to each other by collaborative peer writing
and “author’s chair,” where students take turns ana-
lyzing and discussing what the student did well and
what he or she could work on next.
•• Students’ self-assessment (ES = .62). Finally, stu-
dents self-assess their writing by assessing and chart-
ing their writing performance on a graphic organizer
and setting new goals for the next time they write.
Other formative assessment tools available for teachers
to use are holistic or analytic rubrics to assess the quality of
students’ argumentative texts. For example, Figure 2 pro-
vides an example of an argumentative scoring rubric teach-
ers can use to assess students’ argumentative text. The rubric
provides descriptive benchmarks with regard to (a) the qual-
ity of the writer’s stated claims, (b) the amount of evidence
the writer uses to support those claims, (c) how well the
writer anticipated the audience’s concerns or position, and
86 Intervention in School and Clinic 53(2)

3 = Proficient 2 = Developing 1 = Inadequate

The text introduces a claim that is The text contains an unclear or emerging The text contains an unidentifiable
arguable and takes a position. The claim that suggests a vague position. The claim or vague position. The text has
Claim text has a structure and organization text attempts a structure and organization limited structure and organization.
that is aligned with the claim. to support the position.

The text provides sufficient data and
evidence to back up the claim and
addresses counterclaims. The conclu-
Development
sion ties to the claim and evidence.
The text provides data and evidence
that attempts to back up the claim and
unclearly addresses counterclaims or
lacks counterclaims. The conclusion
merely restates the position.
The text contains limited data and evi-
dence related to the claim and counter-
claims or lacks counterclaims. The text
may fail to conclude the argument or
position.

The text considers the audience’s The text illustrates an inconsistent The text lacks an awareness of the
knowledge level and concerns about awareness of the audience’s knowledge audience’s knowledge level and
Audience the claim. The text addresses the level and needs. needs.
needs of the audience.

The text uses words, phrases, and
clauses to link the major sections of
the text. The text connects the claim
Cohesion
and reasons. The text links the coun-
terclaims to the claim.
The text contains limited words, phrases, The text contains few, if any, words,
and clauses to link the major sections of phrases and clauses to link the major
the text. The text attempts to connect the sections of the text. The text does not
claim and reasons. connect the claims and reasons.

Figure 2. Example of argumentative scoring rubric.

(d) how well the writer uses cohesive devices to link major Table 3. Resources for SRSD Implementation.
sections of the text and to provide a clear relationship
The IRIS Center •• Interactive modules
between the claim, counterclaim, and evidence and reasons. http://iris.peabody. •• Interviews with experts
vanderbilt.edu/ •• Case studies
•• Information briefs
Implementation Resources
thinkSRSD •• Lesson and unit plans
While SRSD may be new to many, there are a number of www.thinksrsd.com •• Graphic organizers
resources available that can serve to support teachers as •• Model think-alouds
they work to include SRSD in their instruction. Table 3 pro- •• Links to relevant research
•• Videos of SRSD being used in
vides a list of resources on SRSD, offering illustrations of
the field
how SRSD works. These resources include professional ProjectWRITE •• Focused on writing in Grades
development options, individual and classwide lesson plans http://kc.vanderbilt. 1 to 3
with supporting materials, literacy community, connecting edu/projectwrite/ •• Individual and classwide lesson
experts, researchers, and teachers in the field. plans and supporting materials
UNL Cognitive •• Lesson plans
Strategy Instruction •• Practical considerations for
Final Thoughts http://cehs.unl.edu/ teachers
csi/ •• Sample think-aloud scripts
Special education teachers at the secondary level can improve •• Overviews of a wide variety of
the argumentative writing skills of their students who strug- writing strategies
gle with the writing process. Equipping these teachers with SRSD Online •• Links to relevant research
evidenced-based writing strategies is both timely and rele- SRSDonline.org •• Interviews with experts and
vant, especially with the recent adoption by several states of literacy community
the CCSS (National Governors Association for Best Practices •• Books and online SRSD
& Council of Chief State School Officers 2010) and the resources
•• Links to teacher SRSD websites
importance of embedding written language not only in lan-
guage arts classrooms but also in other content areas. Further, Note: SRSD = self-regulated strategy development.
secondary teachers can teach students to use writing as a
vehicle for expressing needs and wants, hence enhancing stu- skills also needed for college and the workforce (Cuenca-
dent’s self-determination and self-advocacy abilities, two Carlino et al., 2015, 2017).
Leins et al.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Alevriadou, A., & Giaouri, S. (2015). The impact of executive
functions in the written language process: some evidence from
children with writing disabilities. Journal of Psychologists
and Counsellors in Schools, 25, 24–37.
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruc-
tion in middle and high schools. English Journal, 100, 14–27.
Casas, M., & Ferrer, M. L. (2012). Written composition perfor-
mance of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disor-
der. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34 , 443–460.
Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Mustian, A. L., & Allen, R. (2017). Writing
for my future! High school students addressing needs and
wants through persuasive writing. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Cuenca-Carlino, Y., Mustian, A. L., Allen, R. D., & Gilbert, J.
(2015). I have a voice and can speak up for myself through
writing! Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 1–9.
Ferretti, R. P., & Lewis, W. F. (2013). Best practices in teaching
argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd
ed. pp. 113–140). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Garcia, J. N., & de Caso, A. M. (2008). Changes in writing self-
efficacy and writing products and processes through specific
training in the self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal,
4 (2), 1–27.
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High
school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning:
A national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 27(6), 1043–1072.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based
writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and
meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 498–522.
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. (2015). Formative assess-
ment and writing: A meta-analysis. Elementary School
Journal, 115, 523–547.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S. A., & Harris, K. R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the
elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 ,
879–896.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies
to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools
(A Carnegie Corporation report). Washington, DC: Alliance
for Excellent Education.
87
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008).
Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Hauth, C., Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Regan, K. (2013).
Can students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities
improve on planning and writing in the content areas of civics
and mathematics? Behavioral Disorders, 38 , 154–170.
Jacobson, L. T., & Reid, R. (2010). Improving the persuasive essay
writing of high school students with ADHD. Exceptional
Children, 76 , 156–174.
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writ-
ing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.
Kiuhara, S. A., O’Neill, R., Hawken, L. S., & Graham, S. (2012).
The effectiveness of teaching10th grade students with a dis-
ability STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning/drafting per-
suasive text. Exceptional Children, 78 , 335–355.
Kiuhara, S. A., Witzel, B., Dai, T., & Rouse, A. G. (2017).
Developing math reasoning and understanding of fractions
via writing-to-learn arguments within the SRSD instructional
framework. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Leins, P. (2014). The effects of self-regulated strategy develop-
ment on the planning and written language performance of
high school students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation).
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008).
Writing, technology and teens. Washington, DC: Pew
Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://
www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/prof/community/
PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s
report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Washington,
DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2010).
Beyond the rhetoric: Improving college readiness through
coherent state policy. Retrieved from http://www.higheredu-
cation.org/reports/collegereadiness/gap.shtml
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to
work . . . or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders. New
York, NY: College Entrance Examinations Board. Retrieved
from:http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/
writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf
National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State
Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005).
Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A
study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development.
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36 ,
125–138.
Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single
subject design writing intervention research. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879–906.