Skip to main content
Log in

A written language intervention for at-risk second grade students: a randomized controlled trial of the process assessment of the learner lesson plans in a tier 2 response-to-intervention (RtI) model

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a randomized controlled trial, 205 students were followed from grades 1 to 3 with a focus on changes in their writing trajectories following an evidence-based intervention during the spring of second grade. Students were identified as being at-risk (n = 138), and then randomized into treatment (n = 68) versus business-as-usual conditions (n = 70). A typical group also was included (n = 67). The writing intervention comprised Lesson Sets 4 and 7 from the Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL), and was conducted via small groups (three to six students) twice a week for 12 weeks in accordance with a response-to-intervention Tier 2 model. The primary outcome was the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II Written Expression Scale. Results indicated modest support for the PAL lesson plans, with an accelerated rate of growth in writing skills following treatment. There were no significant moderator effects, although there was evidence that the most globally impaired students demonstrated a more rapid rate of growth following treatment. These findings suggest the need for ongoing examination of evidence-based treatments in writing for young elementary students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2003). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Columbus: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development in language by hand and its connections to language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, S. P. (2003). Process assessment of the learner (PAL) research-based reading and writing lessons. San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level skills and high-level skills in treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Rogan, L., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting fluency problems in beginning writing: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Reed, E., et al. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching spelling units of varying size within a multiple connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Begay, K., Curtin, G., et al. (2000). Language-based spelling instruction: Teaching children to make multiple connections between spoken and written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley-Johnson, S., & Lesiak, J. L. (1989). Problems in written expression: Assessment and remediation. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, K. (1999). Key components of sound writing instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 152–174). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortiella, C. (2009). The state of learning disabilities. New York: The National Center for Learning Disabilities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S. (1990). Unraveling the mysteries of writing through strategy instruction. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 186–223). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Okolo, C. M., Shankland, R. K., Moxley, K. D., Courtad, C. A., et al. (2009). The learning-to-learn strategies of adolescent students with disability. Highlighting, note taking, planning, and writing expository texts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities. From identification to intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. M., & Isaacson, S. (2001). Using the new basals to teach the writing process: Modifications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it all with The Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. Teaching and Learning Writing British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 113–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing (pp. 6–44). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. R., Costa, L.-J., McBee, M., Anderson, K. L., Yerby, D. C., Knuth, S. B., et al. (2011). Concurrent and longitudinal neuropsychological contributors to written language expression in first and second grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 221–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. R., Knuth, S. B., Yerby, D. C., & Anderson, K. L. (2009). A review of science supported writing instruction with implementation in mind. In V. W. Berninger & S. Rosenfield (Eds.), Translating science-supported instruction into evidence-based practice (pp. 49–83). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. R., Roberts, J. E., Nelson, L., Zeisel, S., & Kasambira Fannin, D. (2010). Preschool predictors of narrative writing skills in elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C., Montgomery, J., Reed, M. S., Brown, T., Wasileski, T., et al. (1993). Prevalence of writing problems across three middle school samples. School Psychology Review, 22, 608–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., de Kruif, R., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., Wakely, M., de Kruif, R., & Swartz, C. (2006). Aptitude-treatment interactions revisited: Effect of metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written expression in elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, S. (1995). Written language. In P. J. Schloss, M. A. Smith, & C. N. Schloss (Eds.), Instructional methods for adolescents with learning and behavioral problems (2nd ed., pp. 200–234). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Weaver, A. L., & Barbaresi, W. J. (2009). The forgotten learning disability: epidemiology of written-language disorder in a population-based birth cohort (1976–1982), Rochester, Minnesota. Pediatrics, 123, 1306–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulberg, J. M. (1993). What school psychologists need to know about writing disabilities. School Psychology Review, 22, 685–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesiak, J. (1992). The remediation of written expression problems: “Best” practices for teaching composition skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998 and 2002 Writing Assessments. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 and 2006 Writing Assessments. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Writing Project (2009, October 21). The National Writing Project. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2846.

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, A. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch them fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, A. D., Watson, T. E., Footo, M., Levine, M. D., Coleman, W. L., & Hooper, S. R. (1992). Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W. J., Hughes, C., Kapelski, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2009). Effectiveness of a test-taking strategy on achievement in essay tests for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. A. (2002). Teaching writing strategies to children with disabilities: Setting generalization as the goal. Exceptionality, 10, 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2004). Students who are exceptional and writing disabilities: Prevention, practice, intervention, and assessment. Exceptionality, 12, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakely, M. B., Swartz, C. W., de Kruif, R. E. L., Hooper, S. R., & Montgomery, J. W. (2006). Subtypes of written expression: Studies of internal and external validity of an outcome-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 125–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., & Jensen, J. B. (1991). Write, P.L.E.A.S.E: A video-assisted strategic intervention to improve written expression of inefficient learners. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 12, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L., & Berninger, V. W. (2009). Instructional principles for composition in elementary, middle, and high school: Merging process writing instruction with cognitive processes of the writer and teacher. In B. S. Schulman, K. Apel, B. Ehren, E. R. Silliman, & A. Stone (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This project was completed with grant support from the Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences (R305H06042), Maternal Child Health Bureau (#MCJ379154A), and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (#90DD043003). The authors wish to extend their appreciation to the Orange County School System in Hillsborough, North Carolina for their cooperation with this project, and to the parents and children who participated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen R. Hooper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hooper, S.R., Costa, LJ.C., McBee, M. et al. A written language intervention for at-risk second grade students: a randomized controlled trial of the process assessment of the learner lesson plans in a tier 2 response-to-intervention (RtI) model. Ann. of Dyslexia 63, 44–64 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0056-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0056-y

Keywords

Navigation