# Presentation: 468076

## Improving Story Writing Skills of Students with Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors with Poor Writing Skills: Preliminary Findings of Project WRITE

- Kathleen Lynne Lane, Karen Harris, and Steve Graham
- Vanderbilt University

- Funded by IES, Project WRITE, The Effects of Strategy and Self-Regulation Instruction on Students’ Writing Performance and Behavior: A Preventative Approach

## Students with EBD

- The prevalence estimates of students with EBD vary between 2-20% of the school population, with most realistic estimates of 3-6% (Kauffman, 2005)
- Behavioral, social, and academic deficits typical of this population become less amenable to intervention efforts over time, particularly after age 8 (Bullis & Walker, 1994; Kazdin, 1987)
- Some treatment outcome studies conducted with students at-risk for EBD revealed that increased early literacy skills were associated with decreases in disruptive behavior in the classroom (Lane et al., 2001; Lane et al., 2003)

## Academic Characteristics

- Moderate to severe, broad academic deficits (Greenbaum et al., 1996; Mattison et al., 1998).
- At best, the academic deficits characteristic of this population remain stable over time (Mattison et al., 2002); at worst, they deteriorate (Nelson et al., 2004).
- “... students with EBD probably experience less school success than any other subgroup of students with or without disabilities.” (Landrum et al., 2003, p. 148).

**Notes:**
During this time, teacher preparation programs focused predominantly on social and behavioral competencies by addressing topics such as classroom management, social skills instruction, conflict resolution, and anger management. While these competencies are essential, instruction in strategies for teaching core academic skills (e.g., reading, writing, and mathematics) is important as well. Yet, academic competencies were tangential in most programs as evidenced by the scope and sequence of most university level text books. With the exception of the Wallace and Kauffman’s (1986) text, Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems (3rd ed.), university level texts devoted to preparing teachers to work with students with EBD dedicated little attention to academic instruction. 
This lack of focus on academics may be due to a number of factors such as (a) the misconception that students must learn to behave appropriately before instruction can occur (Lane, Gresham, & O’Shaughnessy, 2002), (b) the misconception that behavior and instruction are separate entities (Kauffman, Mostert, Trent, & Hallahan, 2002), and/or (c) the debate as to potential causal relationships between academic underachievement and externalizing behavior patterns (Hinshaw, 1992; ADD PETRAS). Yet, regardless of the explanation, it is essential that attention be devoted to identifying the most effective, efficient methods of providing instruction to students with or at risk for EBD. Fortunately, attention has recently shifted to meeting the academic needs of students with EBD.

Teacher preparation programs that focus predominately on social and behavioral characteristics.

Negative teacher-student interactions in self-contained classrooms for students with ED.

Misconception that students must “behave” before they can be taught.

Focus on the relationship between academic underachievement and externalizing behavior patterns.

## Academic Interventions to Date

- Promising outcomes, yet limited by
- Inadequate attention given to middle and high school students
- Heavy emphasis on basic skills
- Absence of core components: treatment integrity; social validity; and generalization and maintenance
- Incomplete intervention descriptions
- Few replications
- 		(Lane, 2004)

## Interventions to Date

- Only a few studies have been conducted to explore how to best improve the writing skills of young students with EBD (Glomb & West, 1990; Mason & Shriner, in press; Rumsey & Ballard, 1985)
- Like reading, writing is critical to school success as it provides students with a vehicle for gathering, organizing, and sharing information as well as refining one’s thoughts (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 200; Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004; Graham, 2005)

## Self-Regulated Strategies Development

- Addresses three major goals:
- Students learn to carry out specific composing process
- Students develop the knowledge and self-regulatory procedures needed to apply the writing strategies and regulate their behavior during writing
- Enhance specific aspects of motivation, including self-efficacy and effort

## Academic Support Is Essential 

- The needs of students with EBD are many and the consequences of not adequately meeting these needs are deleterious.
- Thus, it is necessary to identify the most effective, efficient methods for supporting students who demonstrate clear behavioral and academic deficits that impede their educational progress.

**Notes:**
As stated by Kauffman (2004), these concerns are alarming for society as a whole on two fronts.
Thus, we cannot afford to overlook these youngster’s educational needs. Fortunately, the field of EBD has made substantial progress on how to address their social and behavioral needs. Now, it is... (time to focus our attention...)
(area of reading...)... given that reading is a seminal skill that allows a student to access all other learning

IMPROVE ...

## Positive Behavior Support

- 	For students with behavioral challenges, PBS provides graduated support as needed to (a) prevent the development of behavioral problems that may lead to EBD and (b) support students with EBD via more intensive supports.

**Primary Prevention**
**Response: 80% of Students**** **

**Secondary Prevention**
**Response:           10-15% of Students**

**Tertiary Prevention**
**Response:           1-5% of Students**

## Concerns

- Many models are incomplete or underdeveloped
- Little attention to:
- systematically identifying students who require more focused prevention efforts
- conducting scientifically rigorous investigations at the secondary level to meet the academic needs of students with or at risk for EBD (Cheney et al., 2004; Lane et al., 2003; Lane et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2005).

## SSBD Screening Process

## Student Risk Screening Scale

- The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior.
- Teachers evaluate each student on the following items
- - Steals			- Low Achievement
- - Lies, Cheats, Sneaks	- Negative Attitude
- - Behavior Problems 	- Aggressive Behavior
- - Peer Rejection
- Student Risk is divided into 3 categories
- Low		0 – 3
- Moderate	4 – 8
- High		9 – 21
- The SRSS is validated for use at the elementary school level.
*(SRSS; Drummond, 1994**)*

## 	Student Risk Screening Scale

## Purpose

- This study examined the effectiveness of teaching second grade students at risk for EBD how to write stories using the SRSD model.
- Extends the literature by:
- examining the effectiveness of a secondary writing intervention in the context of an established PBS model.
- applying the early intervention SRSD research to a new population – students who are at risk for EBD and have co-occurring difficulties with writing

## Elementary School: Primary Plans

- Mission & School-wide Expectations
- Procedures for Teaching
- Eagle Pledge
- Posters
- Procedures for Reinforcing
- Tickets
- Classroom Drawings and School-wide Quarterly Assemblies
- Procedures for Monitoring
- Student Outcomes
- Treatment Integrity & Social Validity

## Slide 15

|  | Setting |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Classroom | Hallway | Playground | Cubbies | Cafeteria | Restrooms |
| Respect | -Eyes on speaker
-Listen
-Follow directions
-Space & materials | -Walk
-Quiet
-Hands off walls
-Hands to self | -Follow game rules
-Respond when called
-Share/include everyone | -Use your own stuff
-Wait your turn 
-4 people at a time | -Hands to self
-Low voice
-Eat your own food
-Clean up | -Clean up
-Allow privacy by only knocking on door once |
| Best Effort | -Quality of work is accurate, neat, and complete | -Watch the person in front of you
-Zone Zero
-Walk on 3rd square | -Pick up trash
-Report unsafe objects or behavior | -Help keep area safe and clean | -Eat, then talk
-Stay in seat
-Keep floor clean | -Appropriate use of facilities |
| Responsibility | -Follow Eagle Expectations
-Be on time
-Be prepared
-Observe rules of tattling vs. telling | - Be Aware of personal space
-Report visitors without stickers
-Remind others to be quiet | -Be Aware of personal space
-Follow playground rules
-Play approved games | -Put materials and clothes where they belong
-Unpack all materials | -Know what to order
-Bring lunch/ lunch money
-Get all items
-Raise hand   | -Wash hands
-clean up after self and others
-Report messes  |
| Care of Property | -Respect all materials
-Pick up trash | -Hands off walls and signs
-Pick up trash | -Respect nature 
-Use equipment appropriately | -Clean space
-Belongings in proper places
-Pick up trash | -Keep your area clean
-Pick up trash | -Wipe seat
-Keep walls  & floor clean
-Flush |

## Elementary Assessment Schedule 

| Measure | Quarter 1 | Quarter 2 | Quarter 3 | Quarter 4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Attendance | X | X | X | X |
| SWIS (ODR) | X | X | X | X |
| GEIT & SPED  | X | X | X | X |
| IAI Reading & Math | X |  |  | X |
| STARS Reading | X |  |  | X |
| TOWL (Writing) | X |  |  |  |
| TCAP |  |  |  | X |
| Tickets | X | X | X | X |
| SRSS & SSBD | X | X |  | X |
| Treatment Integrity  | X | X | X | X |
| EBS Survey | X |  |  | X |
| Social Validity | X |  |  | X |

## Project WRITE Overview

- Students exceeding criteria on behavioral screeners

- Students exceeding criteria on writing screeners

- Screening:  2nd grade student

- SRSD Instruction for each consenting student with both writing and behavioral deficits

## Participants

- Participants were 13 second-grade students (8 boys, 5 girls) attending four inclusive, rural elementary schools in middle Tennessee.
- Students were identified using systematic screening procedures as having either internalizing (*n* = 6) or externalizing (*n* = 7) behavioral concerns in addition to poor writing skills.
- All students were Caucasian, ranging in age from 7.03 to 9.01 years.
- Three students, Kate, Eva, and Chuck, had below average intellectual functioning and one student, Hector, had above average intellectual functioning as measured by a short form of the *Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition *(WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003)

## Students with Internalizing Behaviors

| Variable |  | Student (leg of study) |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Ella(1) | Chuck(1) | Barry(2) | Mandy(2) | Brian(3) | Amos(3) |
| Demographics | Age in years | 8.06 | 7.04 | 7.04 | 8.00 | 7.10 | 8.03 |
|  | Gender | Female | Male | Male | Female | Male | Male |
|  | Ethnicity | C | C | C | C | C | C |
|  | IQ | 68 | 83 | 112 | 94 | 86 | 88 |
| Screening | TOWL-3 | 5 | 9 | 25 | 16 | 9 | 9 |
| SSRS-T | SS (SS) | 77 | 107 | 89 | 83 | 93 | 91 |
|  | PB (SS) | 112 | 104 | 102 | 121 | 106 | 115 |
|  | AC(SS) | 71 | 99 | 85 | 92 | 72 | 86 |
| SSRS-P | SS (SS) | 98 | 95 | 104 | 90 | 76 | 87 |
|  | PB (SS) | 105 | 120 | 110 | 105 | 137 | 131 |
| SARS | Schools Attended | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
|  | Days absent | 3 | 9 | * | 3 | 11 | 6 |
|  | Special Education | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Note. SS=Standard Score; TOWL-3=Test of Written Language; *=information not available; C=Caucasian; IQ=intelligence quotient; SSRS-T=Social Skills Rating System–Teacher version; SSRS-P= Social Skills Rating System–Parent version; SARS=School Archival Record Search |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Students with Externalizing Behaviors

| Variable |  | Student (leg of study) |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Nick
(1) | Dina
(1) | Kay
(2) | Harry
(2) | Amy 
(3) | Ron
(3) | Ben
(3) |
| Demographics | Age in years | 7.09 | 7.08 | 9.01 | 8.02 | 7.03 | 7.10 | 7.07 |
|  | Gender | Male | Female | Female | Male | Female | Male | Male |
|  | Ethnicity | C | C | C | C | C | C | C |
|  | IQ | 97 | 94 | 68 | 112 | 120 | 112 | 103 |
| Screening | TOWL-3 | 25 | 25 | 9 | 9 | 16 | 16 | 9 |
| SSRS-T
 | SS (SS) | 85 | 85 | 73 | 89 | 87 | 86 | 82 |
|  | PB (SS) | 127 | 116 | 130 | 112 | 127 | 113 | 113 |
|  | AC (SS) | 97 | 101 | 77 | 82 | 98 | 70 | 86 |
| SSRS-P
 | SS (SS) | 76 | 84 | 69 | 116 | 86 | 120 | 98 |
|  | PB (SS) | 133 | 112 | 143 | 92 | * | 100 | 110 |
| SARS | Schools Attended | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
|  | Days absent | 7 | 11 | 17 | 14 | 2 | 10 | 3 |
|  | Special education | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Note. SS=Standard Score; TOWL-3=Test of Written Language; *=parent did not return form; C=Caucasian; IQ=intelligence quotient; SSRS-T=Social Skills Rating System–Teacher version; SSRS-P= Social Skills Rating System–Parent version; SARS=School Archival Record Search; NBC=negative behavioral comments |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Identifying Nonresponsive Students with Behavior & Writing Concerns

- Behavior Concern
- Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders(SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992)
- Exceeding norms: Internalizing or Externalizing
- Writing Difficulties
- Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996):
- At or below 25th percentile
- Consenting
- Obtained teacher consent (100%)
- Obtained parent consent (87%)
- Obtained student assent (100%)

## Intervention Description

- Self-Regulated Strategy Development(SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996)
- Behavioral Component
- 3 days a week; 30-min sessions delivered 1:1 by a research assistant
- Fidelity collected on 35.77% of sessions

## SRSD Stages & Modifications

- Stages
- Develop Background Knowledge
- Discuss It
- Model It
- Memorize It
- Support It
- Independent Performance

- Modifications:
- Increased time and opportunities to master the first two stages
- Instructional sequence: student self-evaluation and graphing of a pre-instruction story moved from Discuss It to Support It
- Verbal reinforcement & opportunities to respond
- PBS Tickets
- Practice test

## Two Mnemonic Strategies for Story Writing

- 1. **POW** for planning
**P**ick my idea
**O**rganize my notes
**W**rite and say more

- 2. **WWW, What=2, How=2**
**W**ho?
**W**hen?
**W**here?
**What** does main character do?
**What** happens then?
**How** does the story end?
**How** does the main character feel?

## Assessment

- Writing probes
- Story elements (0-7)
- Length
- Quality
- Social validity
- Treatment integrity
- Descriptive measures

**Notes:**
main character(s), 
locale, 
time, 
what the main character(s) wants to do (goals), 
action to achieve goal(s), 
consequence of actions, and 
characters’ reactions

## Experimental Design & Statistical Analysis

- Multiple baseline across participants design with multiple probes during baseline (Kennedy, 2005)
- Data analyzed via visual inspection to examine stability, level, and trend, as well as mean changes by phase and percentage of non-overlapping data points.
- Phase changes were based on number of story elements.

## Story Elements Overtime: Students with Internalizing Behaviors

- Story Elements Overtime: Students with Internalizing Behaviors

## Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 1

## Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 2

## Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 3

## Story Elements Overtime: Students with Externalizing Behaviors

- Story Elements Overtime: Students with Externalizing Behaviors

## Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 1

## Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 2

## Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 3

## Results

- 	In addition to changes in the number of story elements present, there were also changes in the story length and, to a lesser extent, quality.

## Pre Intervention Probe: Sample from Internalizing Group Brian

- 	My big dog is so heavy that I can’t pull the wagon. I can’t even pick up my dog.

## Post Intervention Probe:Sample from Internalizing Group Brian

- 	This happened many years ago. There was a little dog and a big dog on an island. The little dog jumped out to sea. He wanted to get to the island. He swam to the island. He felt sad because the little dog jumped in the sea.

## Maintenance Probe:Sample from Internalizing Group Brian 

- 	Years ago, the birds were in a tree. They wanted to eat the dragonfly. They started fighting because the other birds wanted to eat the dragonfly. They stopped fighting. They were happy because they stopped fighting.

## Pre Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay

- 	The Casper High was making a play Alex was a star Jim was the sun and Tim was the cloud.

## Post Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay

- 	Tiger was having a birthday party. Joey, Lennie, Oscar, and Fritz were going to have a surprise party. They set up all the decorations. Oscar made a cake. Joey blew up the balloons. Lennie got the activities. Fritz did the final thing, he got Tiger to come over. When he got in the party started. Tiger said it was the best party he ever had.

## Maintenance Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay

- 	Jordan went to Fisher Lake and caught the biggest fish in the lake. She brought the fish home. When she got home Jordan showed it to her dad. Jordan’s dad was scared when he saw the fish. Jordan had an idea. They had a big lake. Jordan threw the fish into the lake and the fish swam away.

## Students with Internalizing Behaviors

|  |  | Social
Validity |  | Treatment
Fidelity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (Days of instruction) | Intervention Phase  | IRP-15 | CIRP | % (SD) |
| Ella (14) | Baseline | 90 | 30 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 95.83 (8.33) |
|  | Post | 90 | 31 |  |
| Chuck (10) | Baseline | 85 | 32 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 89 | 42 |  |
| Barry (11) | Baseline | 87 | 37 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 97.22 (5.56) |
|  | Post | 76 | 40 |  |
| Mandy (11) | Baseline | 76 | 31 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 96.43 (7.14) |
|  | Post | 90 | 35 |  |
| Brian (9) | Baseline | 75 | 32 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 96.67 (5.77) |
|  | Post | * | 37 |  |
| Amos (9) | Baseline | 58 | 37 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 74 | 33 |  |

## Students with Externalizing Behavior

|  |  | Social Validity |  | Tx Fidelity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (Days) | Phase | IRP-15 | CIRP | % (SD) |
| Nick (13) | Baseline | 88 | 34 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 90.83 (10.17) |
|  | Post | 79 | 37 |  |
| Dina (11) | Baseline | 89 | 42 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post  | 82 | 42 |  |
| Kay (9) | Baseline | 88 | 37 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 79 | 42 |  |
| Harry (10) | Baseline | 77 | 31 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 94.44 (9.62) |
|  | Post | 78 | 32 |  |
| Amy  (7) | Baseline | 84 | 39 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 88 | 39 |  |
| Ron (8) | Baseline | 85 | 42 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 88 | 37 |  |
| Ben (10) | Baseline | 75 | 32 |  |
|  | Intervention |  |  | 100.00 (0.00) |
|  | Post | 75 | 42 |  |

## Discussions/Conclusions

- SRSD instruction for story writing effective in improving the number of essential elements included and the length of stories produced by students with and at-risk for EBD and limited writing skills within a PBS model
- Most pronounced improvements in story elements
- Improvements in quality to a lesser extent

## Discussions/Conclusions

- Collateral effects of SRSD instruction on behavior was measured but not established
- Expands utility of SRSD for writing to students with internalizing behavior patterns
- Extends Lane et al. (in press) on the utility of proving academic supports within the context of a PBS model

## Project WRITE: Next Steps

- Question 1: Does SRSD instruction in planning improve the writing performance of students at high-risk for EBD who have poor writing skills?
**Question 2: Is both individualized SRSD instruction effective in improving the writing skills and behavior of students at high risk for EBD who have poor writing skills? **
- Question 3: Are there differences in how students with externalizing and internalizing behaviors and poor writing skills respond to SRSD instruction?