Improving Story Writing Skills of Students with Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors: Preliminary Findings of Proje

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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).

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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.

8. Positive Behavior Support Primary Prevention Response: 80% of Students Secondary Prevention Response: 10-15% of Students Tertiary Prevention Response: 1-5% of Students 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.

9. 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).

10. SSBD Screening Process Pool of Regular Classroom Students TEACHER SCREENING on Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral Dimensions 3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria PASS GATE 1 TACHER RATING on Critical Events Index and Combined Frequency Index Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI PASS GATE 2 DIRECT OBSERVATION of Process Selected Pupils in Classroom and on Playground Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB PASS GATE 3 Pre-referral Intervention(s) Child may be referred to Child Study Team

11. 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)

12. Student Risk Screening Scale

13. 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

14. 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

16. Elementary Assessment Schedule

17. Project WRITE Overview Screening: 2nd grade student Students exceeding criteria on writing screeners Students exceeding criteria on behavioral screeners SRSD Instruction for each consenting student with both writing and behavioral deficits

18. 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)

19. Students with Internalizing Behaviors

20. Students with Externalizing Behaviors

21. 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%)

22. 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

23. 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 SRSD Stages & Modifications

24. Two Mnemonic Strategies for Story Writing 1. POW for planning Pick my idea Organize my notes Write and say more 2. WWW, What=2, How=2 Who? When? Where? What does main character do? What happens then? How does the story end? How does the main character feel?

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

26. 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.

27. Story Elements Overtime: Students with Internalizing Behaviors

28. Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 1

29. Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 2

30. Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 3

31. 7 6 5 4 Nick Dina 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 6 7 5 6 Number of Story Elements 4 Kay 5 Harry 3 4 Amy Ron 2 3 Ben 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Probes Story Elements Overtime: Students with Externalizing Behaviors

32. Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 1

33. Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 2

34. Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 3

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. Students with Internalizing Behaviors

43. Students with Externalizing Behavior

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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?