special education & direct writing instruction 1 running ... variables - direct writing...
TRANSCRIPT
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 1
Running Head: Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction
CAN EIGHT WEEKS OF DIRECT WRITING INSTRUCTION TO SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDY SKILLS CLASS MOVE 50% OF THOSE WRITING SCORES UP TO THE NEXT LEVEL ON A
PREDETERMINED WRITING RUBRIC?
By
CRYSTAL BOSCH
Submitted to:
The Educational Leadership Faculty
Northwest Missouri State University Missouri
Department of Educational Leadership
College of Education and Human Services
Maryville, MO 64468
Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for:
61-683 Research Paper
Spring 2011
April 26, 2012
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of 8 weeks of direct writing
instruction, with differentiation, in a special education Study Skills classroom. The study
included information regarding the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various
forms of direct writing instructional strategies, and strategies specifically designed for
students with learning disabilities in written expression. The study was conducted in four
special education Study Skills classrooms and data was collected using Google docs. The
groups in the study included students in the high school setting ranging from grades 9-12
who were enrolled in a Special Education Study Skills course. All participating students
had an Individual Education Plan (IEP), although their disabilities varied. Microsoft
Excel and A Statistical Program (ASP) were used to organize the raw data and calculate a
t-test. Findings indicated that direct writing instruction in a special education Study
Skills classroom does move 50% of writing scores up to the next level. A significant
difference was found between the p-value of 1.25154E-7, and the alpha level of 0.10.
Any p-value below 0.10 indicates a significant difference. Further research concerning
written expression and Common Core Standards would be beneficial for future
consideration, as the implementation of Common Core Standards becomes a reality.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 3
Introduction
Background, Issues and Concerns
Written Expression was selected as a result of the foreshadowed Common Core
Curriculum Standards. With these standards and in anticipation of assessments, which are
performance based, writing skills will be essential for students’ future academic
successes. Study Skills classes were selected with the expectation that if significant
changes within a group of students were to happen within a few months, it would be
these students simply because most of them have placement in the regular education
setting more than the students in any other special education class.
Under Common Core Standards Writing #2 (Grades 9-10), students will be
expected to write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas,
concepts and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection,
organization and analysis of content (Common, 2012).
Introduce a topic: organize complex ideas, concepts, and information to make
important connections and distinctions; include formatting (e.g. headings)
graphics (e.g. figures, tables, and multimedia when useful to aiding
comprehension.
Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant, and sufficient facts, extended
definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples
appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic.
Use appropriate and varied transitions to link the major sections of the text, create
cohesion, and clarify the relationships among complex ideas and concepts.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 4
Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the
informative or explanation presented (e.g. articulating implications or the
significance of the topic) (Common, 2012).
By the 2014 school year, Benton High School will be teaching solely to the Common
Core Standards Curriculum. Students’ writing expectations in all core classes will be
aligned with those standards. In order to better prepare students for that transition, writing
was chosen for an area of improvement.
Practice under Investigation
Students were given writing pre-assessments to establish a baseline and then they
went through 8 weeks of direct writing instruction in their Study Skills class. After the
first 4 weeks of instruction, students were grouped according to their level of mastery and
expectation. Students were then re-taught the specific concepts they were struggling with.
After the 8 weeks, students were given a writing post-assessment to determine their
progress.
School Policy to be Informed by Study
Benton High School is currently implementing data teams across all department
areas. The purpose of data teams is to implement an action research project of sorts to
determine what “moves kids” to the next level. The study of writing instruction in Study
Skills was a great indicator that moving students to the next level is possible. The results
of this study were shared with all members of the Special Education Department as well
as all members of the Benton High School Administration. The final outcome showed
that writing instruction should be added to the Study Skills curriculum because it did
show improvement on student achievement in regards to writing skills.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 5
Conceptual Underpinning
Traditionally, Study Skills classes cover organization and strategies that cover
note taking, test taking, and studying. At Benton High School, the Study Skills class is
the only common special education course taught by four of the five special education
content area teachers. This study was put into action by all four of the Study Skills
teachers and data was collected using a common media.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended to “close the achievement
gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (United
States Department of Education, 2012). The NCLB Act includes special education
students in establishing high standards and measurable goals with intent to close the
achievement gap (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students
have the right to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (United States Department of
Education, 2012). Students who have specific learning disabilities are placed in regular
education environments with accommodations. However, those students are still expected
to take and pass district, state, and national standards-based tests, many of which assess
through writing.
In accordance with federal and state legislation, it is imperative to improve
student-writing scores. Improved writing scores will benefit students in all content areas
and improve their performance on all forms of assessment in those areas. Special
Education students receive writing instruction in their Communication Arts class, the
additional direct writing instruction provided by the implementation of this study will
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 6
allow them additional time to focus on the writing skills they have not mastered which
are required for standards based testing.
Statement of the Problem
Prior to the study, the average student writing score was considered below basic.
Many content area teachers complained they were not able to grade the content of student
responses because of poor writing skills. Students seemed to struggle conveying their
answer/message not because they didn’t know the information but instead because of
their inability to write properly.
Special education students who were enrolled in Study Skills class made up a
large majority of these students who were struggling with the basics of writing. After
conferencing with other Study Skills teachers, we came to the conclusion that these
students were behind in the basics of writing, which was indeed hindering their
performance in all other subject areas. Student responses would regularly be submitted as
one large paragraph using elementary level vocabulary, poor usage of mechanics, lack of
transition statements, and little to no organization at all. We, as a Special Education
Department, determined that writing would be an area that could be drastically improved
and that it would best benefit our students to make writing a focus.
Purpose of the Study
The study will determine whether or not direct instruction in special education
Study Skills class will improve writing scores. If writing scores are improved, writing
mini lessons will be permanently implemented into the Study Skills curriculum to
improve writing for the anticipated Common Core Standards Curriculum.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 7
Independent Variables - Direct writing instruction through mini-lessons in a special
education Study Skills classroom.
Dependent Variables - Student writing scores on a pre-determined rubric.
Other Variables to Consider - Student disability, consistency in mini-lesson instruction
(taught by four different teachers), student absences, student effort, and socioeconomic
status.
Research Question(s)
Is there a significant difference in student writing scores when 8 weeks of direct writing
instruction is implemented into a special education Study Skills class, using ability
grouping?
Null Hypothesis(es)
There is no significant difference in student writing scores when 8 weeks of direct
writing instruction is implemented into a special education Study Skills class, when
compared with student writing scores prior to receiving the 8 weeks of direct writing
instruction.
Anticipated Benefits of the Study
Improved writing scores will be beneficial for students when considering all
academic areas. This study compliments all state and federal legislation and the push
towards creating consistent standards and measurable goals for NCLB, IDEA, and
Common Core Standards.
The information gained from this study will be dispersed to all members of the
Special Education Department to improve the framework and structure of the Study
Skills class. Also, by improving writing scores, students will be better prepared for the
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 8
foreshadowed implementation of Common Core Standards Curriculum, which are
performance based, and will further develop essential writing skills for future academic
successes.
Definition of Terms
(Definitions taken for the U.S. Department of Education website)
Common Core Standards - Consistent and clear grade and content level standards of what
students are expected to learn for success in college and careers.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) - Part of IDEA stating that school districts are
required to educate students with disabilities in regular classrooms with their nondisabled
peers, in the school they would attend if not disabled, to the maximum extent appropriate.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - An Act to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - A law ensuring children with
disabilities services throughout the nation. The law governs how public agencies provide
special education services.
Standards Based Testing - Assessment that measures individual content standards that
students should know to reach given levels in the subject area (usually “basic”,
“proficient”, or “advanced”.)
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 9
Summary
Benton High School is a Midwestern High School with a 12% special education
population and a 65% free-and-reduced lunch population. Students at Benton High
School are currently performing below state standards in several academic core areas.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of 8 weeks of direct writing
instruction, with differentiation, in a special education Study Skills classroom. The
research includes information regarding the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation,
various forms of direct writing instruction strategies, and strategies specifically guided
for learning disabilities in written expression. The study was conducted in four special
education Study Skills classrooms amongst students ranging from grades 9-12 who were
enrolled in a Special Education Study Skills course. All participating students had an
Individual Education Plan (IEP), although their disabilities varied.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 10
Review of Literature
Writing is an essential skill included in the recent adoption of Common Core
Standards (Common, 2012). The research presents a reliable view of the importance of
direct writing instruction for children with special needs. In addition, the research also
suggests that ability grouping is successful way to better advance student scores with
varying levels of performers. The review of literature includes information regarding the
effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various forms of direct writing instruction
strategies, and strategies specifically designed for students with learning disabilities in
written expression.
Most simply put, differentiated instruction is a process in which teachers enhance
learning by associating individual student characteristics to instruction and assessment
(Johnston, 2006). Differentiated instruction was previously considered a technique used
for special education, but it is now a common practice in all classrooms across the U.S.,
offering each student an education on a more individual basis.
Lenz & Conklin suggest that “differentiation encompasses what is taught, how it
is taught, and the products students create to show what they have learned (2004).”
Teachers can differentiate content, process, and/or product for students (Johnston, 2006).
Differentiating content refers giving the students different content to cover (Lenz &
Conklin, 2004). Differentiation of process requires several instructional techniques and
materials to better accommodate all styles of learners (Lenz & Conklin, 2004).
Differentiation of products occurs when students are allowed to demonstrate their
learning through different formats of assessment (Lenz & Conklin, 2004).
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 11
Differentiation is a way to implement a variety of effective instructional skills, a
few of those skills/strategies include: tiered assignments, questioning, multiple
intelligences, inquiry-based learning, choices, self-paced strategies, compacting, interest
centers/groups, flexible grouping, learning contracts, choice boards, etc. (Lenz &
Conklin, 2004). In order to effectively implement these strategies, one must use
diagnostic assessments to determine student readiness, determine student’s interests, and
identify student learning styles and environmental preferences (Johnston, 2006).
One common form of differentiation strategy applied during this study was ability
grouping. Ability grouping allows for instruction and placement of students with similar
academic ability levels, rather than placing them solely by age and grade level (Logsdon,
2012). Though ability grouping, students are assigned to groups based on a review of
performance data. This initial placement is by no means permanent, but instead it is an
initial starting point from which to base instruction. From this initial placement students
can move into higher-level groups if their skills increase, they may also move into lower
skill levels groups if their performance indicates the need to remedial instruction
(Logsdon, 2012). Unlike educational triage, ability grouping does not rule out potential
progress for the remedial group, but instead it offers them more intensive individual
instruction (Byrnes, 2011). Remedial groups receive the same content as their peers, but
also receive more individual attention, instruction at a slower pace, more extensive
analysis of errors, and oftentimes fewer assignments with a more specific focus
(Logsdon, 2004). Ability grouping should be accompanied by constant feedback and
assessment data through standardized testing, classroom work samples, observations, and
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 12
progress data to continuously reevaluate which ability level each child should be placed
(Hopkins, 2006).
Diversity is undeniably prevalent when considering public classrooms across
America. Diversity in classrooms spans over many learning styles, ability levels,
interests, languages, family traditions, socioeconomic status, years of formal schooling,
background experiences, and special needs (Lenz & Conklin, 2004). Differentiation
allows for ability grouping to better specialize cater to individual student needs, which in
turn improves individual levels of mastery. (Binder, 1998). Applying differentiation
strategies prevents a “one size fits all” curriculum and better accommodates the diverse
needs of students populating our schools (Lenz & Conklin, 2004). In the study presented,
differentiation and ability grouping allowed for more impactful writing instruction
through the individual presentation of mini-lessons.
There is no argument on the diminished performance in America’s youth when it
comes to writing. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is a test
administered every four years in grades 4, 8, and 12 (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, &
Reynolds, 2007). In 1998, the test reported two-thirds of 4th graders; half of the 8th
graders and 12th graders were below the proficient level for writing (Pressley, Billman,
Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007). Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, and Reynolds note,
There are many factors to which we can attribute these
alarming statistics, we must acknowledge that there is often
less than optimal writing instruction in classrooms...
Even teacher self-report data from the 1998 NAEP suggest
this is the case: nearly 7 out of 10 teachers indicated they
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 13
employ process oriented instruction to teach composing, yet
no more than a third of those same teachers said they spend
90 minutes or more per week teaching writing (Pressley,
Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007, pg. 3).
This study performed by Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, and Reynolds discovered
slightly more than half of educators at the primary level reported making adaptations
during writing units. Teachers also responded that when adaptations were made, they
were often counterproductive leading to unmotivated students who began to pull away
from the willingness to write (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007).
Teachers noted that when struggles emerged from the students, the educator had
difficulties in planning and revising lessons to accommodate the individual needs of
every student, so often times, they just plowed through the material emphasizing process
(Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, & Reynolds, 2007). The researchers noted that when
these issues arose in regular education classrooms, and classrooms with co-teachers, the
results of the students and their gains greatly slowed (Pressley, Billman, Perry, Refitt, &
Reynolds, 2007).
Teaching writing can be a daunting task given the amount information a student
needs to be able to write an organized, fluent, focused paper or response requiring length
and multiple organized paragraphs. An instructional strategy that has been used in the
past, and is still used today, is the implementation of mini-lessons.
A mini-lesson is a short focused delivery of explicit instruction.
It can be one lesson or a series of lessons that focuses on
one skill or strategy. The mini-lesson takes place at the
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 14
beginning of (any lesson) after careful planning by the
teacher. It includes a statement of purpose, a connection to
previous learning, followed by demonstration, modeling or
student involvement...(mini-lessons) are much more successful
when taught in a series of short lessons rather than one longer
lesson (Hoover & Lutz, 2009, pg. 3).
Mini-lessons were implemented into the Study Skills classrooms and were used to teach
organization, vocabulary enrichment, opening and closing paragraphs, and transitions
between paragraphs. Hoover and Lutz discuss how one of the key points necessary for
successful mini-lessons are the pre-assessments given to the students. Hoover and Lutz
also discuss that throughout the mini-lesson process, pre-assessments, formative
assessments, student conferencing, and observations of student works are integral parts of
feedback and modeling necessary for student success (Hoover & Lutz, 2009). As the
study progressed throughout the year, there were several occasions where students were
formatively assessed and re-evaluated for progress.
With older students, one key to teaching writing is breaking down the process into
manageable steps that can be scaffolded in a variety of ways, which is exactly what the
mini-lesson allows you to do. “It’s a combination of excellent instruction and age-
appropriate practice - and tons of it (Feldman, 2009, pg. 1).” Feldman discusses how it is
the manageable pieces that must be monitored by the instructor. The students’
weaknesses first need to be identified through pre-assessment, and then when the
weaknesses are broken down into mini-lessons lots of practice must be implemented and
feedback must be given to the student for this to be a successful instructional method
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 15
(Feldman, 2009). For the mini-lesson to be most effective, there are two parts that are
critical; modeling and monitoring (Feldman, 2009). Without the modeling, the
demonstrations, the practice, and the feedback to the student, the mini-lessons become
less effective and become just another round of assignments for students.
Mini-lessons have been found to be successful both in the regular education
classroom and in special education classrooms as well. Dowls and Schloss performed a
mini-lesson study on writing skills implemented during whole-group instruction and
found that,
Mini-lessons during the writing process in general classroom
instruction can be employed to teach skills to students
with learning disabilities. The results from the treatment
and the maintenance phase support the use of mini-lessons
to increase learning of skills for students with learning
disabilities” (Dowls & Schloss, 1992, p. 1).
Dowls and Schloss found consistently higher performance on scoring when analyzing the
achievement particularly in the category of spelling. Also interesting in this study, not
only was the mini-lesson’s effectiveness measured in the special education classroom, but
it was also measured in the general education classroom as well (Dowls & Schloss,
1992). This form of instruction, which focuses on predominantly modeling, and a lot of
practice, showed consistent gains made by students in both classroom settings (Dowls &
Schloss, 1992). Another similar study was performed by Marston and Deno, where they
measured gains in written expression (total words written, mature words, words spelled
correctly, and letters in sequence) after the implementation of the mini-lesson. The results
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 16
of their study concluded that, “Results revealed the reliability coefficients for total words,
words spelled correctly, and letters in sequence were consistently superior” (in the post
test) (Marston & Deno, 1981, p. 1). Consistently, not only were there several studies
which discussed the benefits of mini-lessons, but the study performed this year also
demonstrated that students did in fact move a performance level due to this instructional
strategy.
Blair & Crump define written expression as, “a complex process which involves
keeping in mind one’s idea(s), ordering ideas in some logical sequence and relationship,
and planning and designing the correct placement of word or idea on paper” (1984, p.
19). From that definition alone, it is apparent that written expression a multi-step process
which requires many skills. Written expression is a difficult process for regular education
students, and its challenges are even more difficult when considering students with
special needs.
The Center for Exceptional Children describes a learning disability as average or
above average intelligence, accompanied by underachievement in regards to the same
academic level as peers (Learning, 2012). This weaker academic achievement is most
commonly seen in the areas of reading, written language, and math (Learning, 2012).
This is later elaborated on in further detail by describing a learning disability in written
language as problems in handwriting, spelling, sentence structure, vocabulary usage,
volume of information produced, and organization or written ideas (Learning, 2012). It is
overwhelmingly common for students with a learning disability in reading to also have
difficulties in writing, since both areas are language based (Learning, 2012).
A disorder of written expression is a specific learning disability which, according
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 17
to McCaskill & McCaskill,
Involves significant, neurologically-based difficulties with the
mastery of writing skills and the production of written output,
relative to typical expectations based on age, intellectual capability,
and grade level. A specific learning disability reflects specific
difficulties with the fluent, consistent learning and application
of specific types of mental skills; however, this is a separate
issue from general intelligence (2012, p. 2).
Disorders of written expression are also referred to as “dysgraphia” (Kay, 2007).
Dysgraphia can be classified as specific, which results from spelling disabilities, motor
coordination problems, and language disabilities such as aphasia (Kay, 2007). Non-
specific dysgraphia is another classification that many times is a result from an
intellectual deficit, psychosocial deprivation, or poor school attendance (Kay, 2007).
With a common understanding of the general term of written expression, learning
disabilities, and disorders of written expression (dysgraphia), it is imperative to establish
significance in interest and motivation towards writing. It goes without saying that one of
the most difficult challenges in working with students who struggle with writing is
increasing their interest or motivation. If a student has developed a positive attitude
toward writing, it is more likely that student will use writing in other classrooms as well
as outside of the classroom to continue to develop their skills (Graham & MacArthur,
2007). It is imperative to engage students in writing that is meaningful to them, in
addition to direct individual and group instruction in the skills and strategies they either
struggle with or need to develop (Graham & MacArthur, 2007).
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 18
A major concern is the impact of struggles in written expression on student
performance in all academic areas. Many content area teachers of both regular and
special education students regularly complain about the lack of writing skills and its
impact on student ability to express their thoughts/information. Although little is known
about how students with learning disabilities in written expression go about composing
their written pieces, it is apparent that very little planning goes into their responses and
they are instead more of a choppy response with little thought or planning behind it
(Graham & Harris, 1989). A study on disorders of written expression out of Canada
suggests that difficulties in written expression have an “adverse impact” on schools and
student performance in all classrooms (Kay, 2007). This impact shows the detrimental
need for development of writing skills not only for all students, but especially those with
disabilities that affect written expression.
Due to extensive research, there are numerous studies, which have produced an
overwhelming numbers of strategies to use with students who have disorders of written
expression. Below you will find a select few of those strategies that were applied to the
individuals, ability groups, and classes in which this study was implemented:
LD Online suggests six principles designed to assist in mastery of the writing process for
individuals with learning disabilities (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001):
o Provide effective writing instruction
o Tailor writing instruction to meet the individual needs of children with LD
o Intervene early, providing a coherent and sustained effort to improve the writing
skills of children with LD
o Expect that each child will learn to write
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 19
o Identify and address academic and nonacademic roadblocks to writing and school
success
o Employ technological tools that improve writing performance
Other suggestions include regular teacher/student conferences concerning writing,
a predictable writing routine where students are encouraged to think, reflect, draft, and
revise, modeling of the writing process by the teacher, and cooperative grouping of
students (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001).
A plethora of strategies for students with written expression disabilities are
offered by McCaskill & McCaskill. Those strategies include scaffolding and mentoring,
concept mapping or webbing, use of graphic organizers, maintain an emphasis on main
ideas, minimal volume of writing, tape recorded lectures/lessons, minimize multi-tasking
demands, allow extended time on written tasks, teach abbreviated note taking, allow
alternative forms of presentation, teach keyboarding skills, allow use of a word processor,
use of computer programs for teaching skills, use oral dictation software, occupational
therapy services, teach and allow annotation, provide structure (2012). Kay summarized
strategies for disorders of written expression in her summary, “Written language is the
ultimate, most complex method of expression. A combination of accurate diagnosis,
remediation using direct instruction techniques, and the use of bypass strategies and
assistive technology can be useful in supporting the needs of the learner with written
language deficits” (2007, p. 4).
The intention of direct writing instruction using ability grouping was to improve
writing skills of students with disabilities. Through this research, the unique needs and
skills of individual students were studied, skills on how to develop flexible groupings
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 20
were learned, and skills on how to assess students with writing difficulties for progress
and placement were gained. Overall, it is apparent that through research, one can learn
many options for the effectiveness of grouping and differentiation, various forms of
direct writing instruction strategies, and strategies specifically designed for students with
learning disabilities in written expression.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 21
Research Methods
Research Design
A pre-experimental, post one group study research design was used to collect data
to this project. The matched t-test was used to determine significance at the 0.10 Alpha
level to challenge the null hypothesis. This study will compare one student group of pre
and post test scores related to writing. The dependent variable in this study was student
writing scores on a pre-determined rubric. The independent variable in this study was
direct writing instruction through mini-lessons in a special education Study Skills class.
Study Group Description
Data were collected from special education Study Skills classes at the high school
level, during the 2011-2012 school year. Four Study Skills classes participated in the
study. The pre assessment had 54 participants; due to dropouts, absences, transfers, and
pre-assessment proficiency, only 40 of those scores were measurable for the study. The
disabilities of the final 40 participants are as follows:
o Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - 29 total students
-69% have multiple SLD’s
-15 include Written Expression disabilities
o Other Health Impaired - 7
o Autism - 1
o Emotional Disorder - 1
o Visual Impairment – 1
o Language Impairment - 1
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 22
Students were given a pre-assessment writing prompt through a program called
“MyAccess”. MyAccess is an online writing assessment program that provides
immediate scoring once the writing sample is submitted. The program does not identify
misspelled words or grammatical errors as the student is typing. The writing prompt was
the same for all students. Due to the differences in the online scoring versus the
expectations in the Study Skills rubric, the online score was disregarded. Alternatively,
each submission was reviewed by two Study Skills teachers and hand-scored. After eight
weeks of writing instruction from the Study Skills teachers, students were given another
writing prompt for the final assessment. Again, MyAccess was used as the submission
method, but the responses were hand-scored by the same set of teachers that scored the
pre-assessment, using the same rubric.
Statistical Analysis Methods
A Statistical Package (ASP) software was used to complete the statistical
calculations in this study. A frequency plot was created from the raw data charts and a
matched t-test was calculated. In addition, Microsoft Excel and Google Docs were both
used to collect data and calculate some totals used in the study.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 23
Findings
To determine the effectiveness of direct writing instruction in a special education
Study Skills classroom using ability grouping, students were given a pre assessment,
received the instruction through mini-lessons, then participated in a post assessment. The
raw data was collected in a Google doc and placed on an excel spreadsheet to be
transferred into the ASP program. Initially, there were 54 students who participated in the
pre assessment, due to varying factors, only 40 of their scores were deemed eligible for
the study. Table 1 shows the Microsoft Excel document of the original 54 students who
were assessed. Column B shows pre assessment scores, column C lists which ability
group they were placed in for instructional purposes, column D lists post assessment
scores, column E is for a simple Y or N in regards to whether or not the student
progressed one level on the scoring rubric, column F lists student disabilities, and the
final column G is for additional comments for those 14 students whose scores were
determined not applicable for various reasons (attendance, dropout, refusal, proficient,
transfer).
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 24
Table 1:
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 25
Due to varying reasons, 14 of the 54 student scores were determined ineligible for
the study and dropped from the original raw data. Table 2 shows the raw data chart after
those ineligible scores were removed. Column B shows student pre assessment scores,
column D shows student post assessment scores, column E contains either a Y or N for
whether or not the student progressed one level on the scoring rubric, and column F lists
each individual student's disability.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 26
Table 2:
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 27
After all scores were recorded and transferred into the ASP program, a frequency
plot was generated to summarize the distributional information of the writing instruction
variable. The frequency plot shown in Table 3 displays the distribution of student scores
on both the pre and post assessments. This frequency plot makes very evident, the overall
increase in student scores. Worth noting were the 17 students who received scores of 1 on
the pre assessment, which translated into only 3 scores of 1 on the post assessment. Also
noteworthy are the 11 student scores that moved up to 4 (proficient) on the post
assessment. The frequency chart shows an overall shift towards proficiency in student
scores, and the overall movement of increased scores after direct writing instruction using
ability grouping was implemented into the special education Study Skills classroom. The
pre and post writing assessments were scored on a 4 point scale; a score of 1 was for
students who were not likely to reach proficient, a score of 2 was students who were far
from proficient, a score of 3 was students who were close to proficient, and a score of 4
meant the student had reached proficient or higher.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 28
Table 3:
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 29
Tables 4 & 5 were generated using the ASP program output. Table 4 is the output
from the matched t-Test that was run to compare pre assessment and post assessment
scores. Those numbers were then placed into a t-Test analysis table for further review.
As shown in the following Tables 4 & 5, a significant difference (t-Test = -
6.44; p-value = 1.25154E-7, Mean D = -0.95) in mean scores was found between pre and
post assessments. The null hypothesis was rejected. Students (Pre Mean = 1.86 on a 4
point scale) did record a significantly higher mean score on the post assessment, after the
writing instruction was implemented in their Study Skills class (Post Mean = 2.62 on a 4
point scale), when the alpha value is 0.10, compared to the criterion p-value of 1.25154E-
7. These findings suggest that direct writing instruction did move 70% of writing scores
up to the next level of proficiency, and the value was considered significant when
compared to the alpha level of 0.10.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 30
Table 4:
Table 5:
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 31
Rejection of the null hypothesis supports the data that 28 of the 40 students (70%)
moved up at least one level of proficiency, while only 12 of the 40 students (30%) did not
move up to the next level of proficiency. These findings translate into successful
implementation of direct writing instruction, and are great indicators that direct writing
instruction with ability grouping should be a permanent fixture in special education Study
Skills classes. It cannot be denied that the writing instruction had an impact, considering
the average score increased from 1.86 to 2.62 from the pre assessment to the post
assessment. This shows a 0.76-point increase on a 4-point scale, which means progress
was clearly made. The t-Test was used to determine whether or not “significant” progress
was made to either accept or reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was rejected
on the grounds that the 0.10 alpha level was equal to or greater than the p-value of
1.25154E-7. This shows that “significant” progress was made given the set parameters.
Variance takes into consideration how accurate a study is. This means that each
participant of a study group has the same ability and background. The smaller the
variance among participants, the less likely a difference will occur due to sampling
errors. In hindsight, there were several factors that increased variance in regards to this
study:
o Consistency - Mini-lessons were taught by 4 different instructors with different
teaching styles (one who refused to teach several of the mini-lessons)
o Disabilities - Students enrolled in Study Skills ranged in regards to their
disabilities. Worth noting was the 15 students who have specific learning
disabilities in written expression and 10 others who had disabilities which could
have impacted their performance on the pre or post assessment.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 32
o Socioeconomic Status- Due to the Title I classification, there are oftentimes many
outside factors which impede student performance. These outside factors may
have played a role in student effort in both mini-lessons and on the assessments.
Scores Not Applicable (removed from data prior to analysis):
There were 14 students who participated in the pre assessment and for various reasons
were determined not applicable for the post assessment and/or study:
o Attendance - Three students were determined not applicable due to attendance
issues. Each of these students were absent an average of 70% of the days mini-
lessons were presented in their Study Skills class, as well as the post assessment
day.
o Transfers - Three students transferred to an alternative school or treatment
program prior to the post assessment.
o Refusal - One student refused to participate in over 80% of the mini-lessons
presented in class, including the post assessment. Due to the nature of his
disability, this was not an uncommon practice.
o Drop Out - Five students were dropped from enrollment for various reasons in
between taking the pre and post assessment.
o Proficient - Two students scored proficient on the pre assessment and it was
determined they would no longer participate in the study.
The variance for this study was high. It is definitely worth taking into consideration not
only for the determination of accuracy on this study, but also to eliminate those factors in
future studies.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 33
Overall, the study was a success. Seventy percent of writing scores improved by
at least one proficiency level due to the writing instruction presented in Study Skills
classes. In addition, based on the 4-point scale, the p-value was less than the alpha level,
it was therefore considered “significant” and the null hypothesis was rejected.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 34
Conclusions and Recommendations
The null hypothesis stated that there is no significant difference in student writing
scores when 8 weeks of direct writing instruction is implemented in a special education
Study Skills class, when compared with student scores prior to receiving the 8 weeks of
direct writing instruction. The results of this study indicate that the null hypothesis should
be rejected because there was a significant difference in student pre and post assessment
scores after writing instruction was implemented. After 40 student pre and post
assessment scores were deemed eligible for the study, they were graded on a 4-point
scale using a predetermined grading rubric (Appendix D).
The nature of each student’s disability plays a huge role in his or her ability and
performance. As mentioned above, student disabilities were across the board and showed
no consistency in regards to variance. More precise and accurate results would have come
out of a study in which all students were diagnosed with the same or similar disabilities,
and had they been functioning closely to the same grade levels.
When analyzing the pre assessment and post assessment means, 0.76 is a
significant increase when considering the population of those who participated in the
study. As shown in Table 5, the pre assessment mean was 1.86, and the overall average
increase was 2.62. This indicated that students did indeed progress, and it was slightly
shy of a progression of 1 point on a 4-point scale. The null hypothesis was rejected
because the “significant” parameter was met.
It is somewhat unreasonable to expect “significant” progress from students with
disabilities in written expression or other areas that may affect written expression.
Especially considering the short 8-week period of time, which was allotted for the
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 35
instruction and improvement. Therefore the rejection of the null hypothesis was not
actually unexpected. The improvement in student writing scores was much higher than
originally predicted.
After much reflection, there are several recommendations to take into
consideration on future studies of this nature. Each student's disability is perhaps the most
influential factor in determining room for progress on pre and post assessment scores.
These disabilities can play a large role in a student’s performance, and even their ability
to improve within the set parameters.
Another important consideration was the inconsistency of the direct writing
instruction. All of the four teachers collaborated in regards to the lessons and what would
be presented in their class. Each of them did indeed have the same material, format and
method of delivery for the material. One major concern was the willingness to participate
by all teachers. One of the teachers was extremely resistant to the study and presented
very few of the actual mini-lessons. Because of this, his students showed far less
progress, which could in turn result in yet another study/analysis. For future studies, it
would be more beneficial to have one teacher delivering the instruction for all
participants to establish consistency. Another option would be to compare the scores and
progress of students in each class, who were taught by different instructors. A statistical
analysis of that data, would be worthy of another study and likely returns some very
valuable information in regards to teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
As with any study, there are also several unpredicted and uncontrollable factors to
take into account. Student attendance played a role in student performance. The data of
students who missed a considerable amount of the mini-lessons and/or the post
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 36
assessment were removed from the study. Unfortunately, there were a large number of
additional students who missed a few of the mini-lessons, which likely could have
impacted their post assessment score. There are also socioeconomic, behavioral, and
various other factors that on any day could influence a student's willingness to
participate, effort, or performance on an assessment.
Overall, this study shed an abundance of insight on the impact of direct writing
instruction. I personally believe that through this additional writing instruction and ability
grouping, we were able to improve writing scores a satisfactory amount when taking all
outside variables into consideration. That being said, there has also been an incredible
amount of knowledge gained on how to conduct studies of this nature in the future, and
the importance of each and every factor that could impact student scores. The null
hypothesis was rejected and there was a significant amount of progress made; therefore it
is safe to say an adequate amount of progress was shown given the extenuating
circumstances (disabilities, timeline, and inconsistency of instruction, etc.).
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 37
References
Binder, C. (1998). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic
achievement. Education. Retrieved from EBSOChost.
Blair, T., & Crump, D. (1984). Effects of discourse mode on the syntactic complexity of
learning disabled students’ written expression. Learning Disability Quarterly
7(1), 19-29. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Byrnes, M.A. (Ed.) (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in
special education. 5th Edition. Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-Hill.
Chapman, C., & King, R. (2009). Differentiated instructional strategies for writing in the
content areas, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Corwin.
Common (2012). Common Core Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
Dowls, C., & Schloss, P. (1992). The impact of mini-lessons on writing skills. Remedial
and Special Education 13 (5), 34-42. Retrieved from ERIC.
Feldman, K. (2009). How older kids can improve their writing skills. Retrieved from
http://www.ncld.org/es/ld-basics/ld-aamp-language/writing/how-older-kids-can-
improve-their-writing-skills
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at
composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children 56
(3), 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Exceptional-
Children/8909537.html
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 38
Graham, S., Harris, K, & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing
difficulties for students with learning disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6213/
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction: Effective
writing instruction for students with learning problems. New York, NY: Guilford
Hoover, K. & Lutz, C. (2009). It’s always the “write” time for mini-lessons in
writing workshop. National Reading Recovery and K-6 Classroom Literacy
Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0.
Hopkins, G. (2006). Is ability grouping the way to go -- or should it go away? Education
World. Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin009.shtml
Isaacson, S. (1996). Simple ways to assess the writing skills of students with learning
disabilities. LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/6208/
Johnston, D. (2006). Differentiated instruction for writing. The Access Center for
Improving Outcomes for All Students. Retrieved from
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/index.php/category/differentiated-instruction/
Kay, M. (2007). Disorders of written expression. NLD Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.nldontario.org/articles/WrittenExpression.html
Learning (2012). Learning Disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Learning_Disabilities&Tem
plate=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=37&ContentID=5629
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 39
Lenz, K. & Conklin, W. (2004). Applying differentiation strategies: Teacher’s handbook
for secondary. Huntington Beach, CA: McREL.
Logsdon, A. (2012). What is ability grouping: Is ability grouping right for your child?
Retrieved from http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/ac/a/ability_groups.htm
Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1981). The reliability of simple, direct measures of written
expression. Minnesota University, Minneapolis for Research on Learning
Disabilities. Retrieved from ERIC.
McCaskill, J., & McCaskill, P. (2012). Disorder of written expression: An interview with
Dr. John and Pamela McCaskill. Retrieved from
http://voices.yahoo.com/disorder-written-expression-interview-6120410.html
Pressley, M., Billman, A., Perry, K., Refitt, K., & Reynolds, J.M. (Eds.), (2007). Shaping
literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need. New York:
Guilford Press.
Special Needs Education (2012). Direct instruction and special needs. University of
Michigan, Department of Psychology. Retrieved from
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/delicata.356/direct_instruction_and_special_needs
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67 (1), 99-114.
Retrieved from ERIC.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 40
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A Timeline:
The table in Appendix A shows the timeline followed for pre-assessment, mini-lesson
instruction, and post-assessment. The first four weeks of the timeline were taught as
whole-group instruction. The last four weeks were taught in ability groups, which was
determined by mastery of skills.
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 41
APPENDIX B Student Groups for Mastery:
Appendix B is the rubric used to determine mastery for student groups. Once students
fulfilled the performance strength criteria for the group in which they were placed, they
were advanced to the next student group level.
APPENDIX C
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 42
Instructional Strategies:
Appendix C displays the specific needs of the student groups as well as the strategies
used for instruction and topics for mini-lessons. This chart does not include the fourth
group of “Students Not Likely” in writing instruction because, although they received the
writing instruction, it was determined ahead of time that they were not likely to progress
because of their disability or due to outside factors. Their main focus was on improving
their grades in all other classes.
APPENDIX D
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 43
Scoring Rubric: Appendix D is the predetermined scoring rubric used on the pre and post assessment. Writing submissions for both assessments were hand-scored by the Study Skills teachers. Two teachers reviewed each submission and determined a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4.
4 3 2 1
Special Education & Direct Writing Instruction 44
ORGANIZATION Title, 4+ Paragraphs, Logical Organization of Thoughts, Paragraphing
No Title, 4+ Paragraphs, Logical Organization of Thoughts and Paragraphing
Missing Title, 2-3 Paragraphs, Missing Organizational Features to Organize Ideas, No Paragraphing Structure
Missing Title, 1-2 Paragraphs, Missing Organization Features, No Paragraphing Structure
VOCABULARY Specific Vocabulary, 30% Multi-syllable Words
General Vocabulary, 10% Multi-Syllable Words
General Vocabulary, Mo Multi-syllable Words, Many misspellings
General Vocabulary, Misspellings interfere with comprehension of text
OPENING/ CLOSING
Opening and Closing Paragraphs explain the main idea of the essay
Opening OR Closing Paragraphs explain the main idea of the essay
Missing Opening and Closing Paragraphs, but has a Opening and/or Closing statement
Missing Opening and Closing Paragraph, no Opening/ Closing statements
TRANSITIONS Transitions aid in the flow from paragraph to paragraph
Transitions do not aid in the flow from paragraph to paragraph OR transitions are “then, next, so, etc”
No Transitions No Transitions