Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Running Head: WRITING INTERVENTIONS

Evidence-Based Writing Interventions


Amy English, Jaime Kerr, Alison Lessard, Christina Majcher
University of Calgary

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

Evidence-Based Writing Interventions


Learning to write is one of the first skills a child develops in their formative years.
Children begin to discover writing as a form of communication as they move through their
primary years. They start with learning how to print letters, proceed to printing their names,
words, sentences and finally combining those sentences to create paragraphs. It can be an
exciting time for children to communicate their thoughts, feelings, beliefs and understanding
with those around them. However, for some children learning to write can be a frustrating and
confusing process.
Writing is a complex task that requires the ability to integrate multiple cognitive,
linguistic and motor skills (Wendling & Mather, 2009). Successful writers not only require
adequate oral language skills and background knowledge, they also require adequate memory
and motor skills (Wendling & Mather, 2009). These cognitive demands can overload a childs
attention and concentration resulting in difficulties transforming his or her thoughts into written
form (Wendling & Mather, 2009).
The way we teach children how to write has changed over the years. In the past, a child
was given a journal and expected to write until the end of that period. Children were not
provided with models to follow; there was no planning or prewriting (Geer, 2011). The piece of
writing was marked and the formative feedback was handed back in order for the child to
produce a good copy. The focus was on spelling, punctuation and grammar, with little to no
consideration of a childs writing style, word choice or voice. A considerable amount of research
has been conducted in the past 30 years leading to our current view that writing should be
considered a process, not a product (Geer, 2011). As Pritchard and Honeycutt (2007) indicate, it
is also imperative that educators remember that the cognitive task of writing is developmental as

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

well as a social act, moving from an egocentric approach to a larger audience. Current theory
states that writing not only involves the low-level transcription skills of handwriting, spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and grammar; rather, it also includes the high-level composition
skills of planning, content, organization, and revision (Pressley, Mohan, Fingeret, Reffitt and
Raphael-Bogaert, 2007; Geer, 2011)
Children with a wide range of disorders, delays and cognitive challenges struggle with
written output. These challenges can involve the aforementioned low- level skills, high-level
skills or a combination of both (Geer, 2011). It is helpful to look at these skills in isolation to
help identify the impact of these individual skills on a students academic performance as well as
to help guide effective instruction.
Handwriting
Handwriting is a skill that can almost be considered a lost art in a world that has come to
rely upon technology. Email, texting and word processing often replace paper and pencil tasks.
However, handwriting continues to be required by students in a variety of learning situations
throughout their day. It is estimated that 30-60% of a childs school day involves fine motor
tasks, with handwriting accounting for the majority of this time (McHale & Cermack, 1992 as
cited by Benson, Salls & Perry, 2010). Handwriting has been defined as a complex coordination
of skills that involves visual-motor coordination, motor planning, cognition, perception,
sustained attention, memory, and sensory awareness of the hands (Hoy, Egan & Feder, 2011).
Poor handwriting may be related to a childs actual handwriting capabilities, biomechanical
difficulties, or environmental factors (Feder & Majnemer, 2007).
Students with writing disorders are at risk for academic difficulties. Automaticity of
letter writing was found to be a predictor of later academic abilities such as reading, writing,

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

math achievement and increased attentional concerns (Feder & Majnemer, 2007). Children with
handwriting difficulties often require more time to complete assignments and may be reluctant to
communicate everything they know (Hoy et al., 2011). Teachers traditionally introduce
handwriting in kindergarten and continue until Grade 3. However, curriculum changes have
resulted in reduced time to focus on handwriting and there is a lack of consensus on how it
should be taught.
There are many resources, suggested teaching methods, writing instruments and specialty
papers available to teachers in order to support the handwriting of their students (Benson et al.,
2010). Teachers are often not aware of evidence-based information about how and what to teach
and there is a limited amount of research surrounding the effectiveness of handwriting
interventions. Hoy et al., (2011) in their review of handwriting found that interventions need to
include consistent practice or they do not result in changes in performance. This study also
revealed that a minimum number of practice sessions (at least twice per week) are required for
handwriting to improve with no less than 20 practice sessions (Hoy et al., 2011). Feder and
Majnemer (2007) also recommend that handwriting intervention should be a collaborative effort
between teachers and occupational therapists.
There are a variety of programs available that are designed to support handwriting.
Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) is a multisensory approach that was designed by an
Occupational Therapist. In a qualitative study Benson et al., (2010) found that teachers reported
HWT easy to administer, engaging for students, time-efficient and most importantly, effective.
Teachers also preferred HWT because it required minimal modifications for special needs
students (Benson et al., 2010). Other multisensory approaches include Loops and Other Groups,
Callirobics, Big Strokes for Little Folks and Sensible Pencil. Unfortunately peer reviews of

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

these resources are limited. However, an important consideration when choosing a handwriting
intervention is whether or not it provides ample practice. Hoy et al., (2011) stated that without
practice, any form of handwriting intervention will be ineffective.
The increased availability of technology in classrooms raises the question whether
students who struggle with handwriting should be exposed to keyboarding as an alternative.
Stevenson and Just (2012) suggested that keyboarding can act as an alternative to handwriting
when there are fluency issues, but there are few guidelines for teaching keyboarding. In order to
be effective, keyboarding needs to be at least as fluent as handwriting. Regardless of the output
method, handwriting and keyboarding both involve motor learning, visual perception and
feedback from sensory systems (Stevenson & Just, 2012). Word prediction software, text to
speech programs and speech recognition software are other supports that are currently available,
however there is limited research related to their effectiveness. A few commonly used
technological supports for written output are Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing (keyboarding), Read
and Write Gold, Co-Writer and WordQ (text to speech with word prediction) and Dragon
Naturally Speaking (speech to text/voice recognition).
Spelling
Spelling is an important part of the process of academic skill development. It is a skill
that grows out of phonological awareness, becomes intricately linked to reading, and is of course
a crucial cog in the wheel of written expression (Santoro, Coyne & Simmons, 2006). According
to Wendling and Mather, spelling is a foundational skill of written expression (2009, p. 121).
That is, without correct spelling or even just phonetically legible spelling thoughts and ideas
are lost on their journey from brain to page.

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

Acquiring spelling skills can be difficult for delayed learners. The process involves
incorporating numerous skills: decoding skills, an understanding of the alphabet and how letters
are formed, the sounds letters make and how they can be grouped to make words (Santoro,
Coyne & Simmons, 2006). According to Santoro, Coyne and Simmons, the physical act of
forming letters and words with a pencil gives a student a better foundation upon which to grow
their spelling and writing skills (2006).
When teaching spelling it is important to consider the developmental level of the student.
Because it involves incorporating so many other skills (phonology, vocabulary, knowledge of
spelling rules and patterns) (Wendling & Mather, 2009), it is crucial to have those areas assessed
in order to better understand what makes a struggling speller. Often struggling spellers are
provided accommodations to make spelling less of a burden; they are given individualized
spelling lists, fewer words, more time, and on assignments meant to measure content or
demonstrate understanding, even the use of a spellchecker (Wendling & Mather, 2009). However
when it comes to acquiring and practicing spelling skills there is one intervention that takes
many tools into account.
The Cover-Copy-Compare method for Spelling (CCC)
This is an inexpensive, easy-to-administer spelling intervention to help students become
better spellers. The only materials it requires is paper and a pencil, and once learned, requires
little or none of the teachers time to administer. The way it works is the student is provided with
a spelling list. One word at a time, the student studies the word, then covers it, and attempts to
write or copy it correctly from memory. After the first attempt, the student compares their
spelling to the provided word to see if they were accurate. If the student was incorrect, the steps

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

are repeated until the word is spelled correctly from memory. When they get the spelling correct
the student then moves on to the next word (Wright, 2011).
This method can be adapted in many ways. For example the list of words can be provided
on a page, and the page folded to cover the words while the student attempts them in a column
down the side of that same page. Another option is to give the words to the student on flashcards
which can be turned over in order to cover them, and the student writes their responses on a
separate page. Alternatively the student could first copy the words from correctly spelled samples
to create their own list rather than have it provided (such as copying from the board as a class, so
long as the teacher checks spellings before the CCC method is employed).
This method has several advantages. One is that it can include an oral dimension where
the student repeats the words aloud as well, helping to create the sound-word-spelling association
(Joseph, Konrad, Cates, Vajcner, Eveleigh & Fishley, 2012). It is also a very quick and easy to
implement intervention, and once learned it is easy for students to do on their own without the
guidance of a teacher (making it an activity that can be done at home as well (Moser, Fishley,
Konrad & Hessler, 2012). It is also very easy to tailor the Cover-Copy-Compare method to a
students particular needs. For example, the word list a student uses can be made up of words
that they particularly struggle with, or aimed at their individual spelling level (Moser, Fishley,
Konrad & Hessler, 2012). In their study, Joseph et al found that this method also facilitates faster
mastery of the spelling words used. When students are given the opportunity to practice the same
words until they master them rather than moving on to new words every week regardless of
success level they actually mastered the words in a shorter time span (Joseph et al, 2012).
Joseph et al also found that following the Cover-Copy-Compare method, students were more
skilled and efficient at generalizing those spelling words into other areas of academics such as

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

sentence formation and reading (2012). Another benefit is that this same method can be used in
areas of mathematics (Joseph et al, 2012).
It has been found that this method is also useful across populations of learners. Moser et
al conducted a study of students with ADHD to examine the effects of using Cover-CopyCompare for spelling acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling words. They found
that students were improved in both Words Spelled Correctly as well as Correct Letter
Sequences. Additionally, students involved reported that they found the activity easy and upon
completion they felt they were better spellers (Moser, Fishley, Konrad & Hessler, 2012).
Students with ADHD often find success with activities that are very structured and where they
understand and can utilize strategies easily. They also benefit from repeated practice, receiving
immediate feedback, and when they are given the opportunity to successfully work
independently, self-monitoring, self-managing, and self-correcting (Moser, Fishley, Konrad &
Hessler, 2012). All of this is offered with the Cover-Copy-Compare method for spelling.
Joseph et al., (2012) also conducted a study finding results to support cross-population
learners benefiting from this method. They examined previously existing articles on the CoverCopy-Compare method and analyzed the findings. Their results evidenced that students with
Specific Learning Disabilities and Mental Retardation find success with this method (2012).
Murphy, Hern, Williams and McLaughlin also determined that students in general benefit from
using this method, as average-achieving students are likely to be boosted to higher achievement
levels by using this method as opposed to traditional spelling teaching methods (1990).
Though this method is useful, like anything, it has its drawbacks. Spelling is not a standalone skill; it is intricately linked with other academic skills and processes including reading,
written expression, and phonological processing. Therefore spelling cannot be taught in isolation.

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

Studies show that the Cover-Copy-Compare method is most successful when implemented in
combination with other interventions for writing and reading. Instruction that focuses on the
rules of spelling and letter and word sounds is also crucial to spelling success (Moser, Fishley,
Konrad & Hessler, 2012)
Written Expression
Written expression reflects a tremendously complex integration of writing mechanics
with high-level compositional processes that demand continual self-regulation and monitoring
(Reid & Lienemann, 2006). Indeed, written expression is a controlled process that involves a
myriad of abilities, including attention, planning, memory, graphomotor abilities, higher order
cognition, language, and visual-spatial abilities (Hooper, Knuth, Yerby, & Anderson, 2009).
Students who struggle with written expression produce papers that differ from proficient writers
in several ways: Their written output is shorter, less organized, contains more irrelevant
information, and has more frequent planning, revising, and transcription errors (Troia & Graham,
2003). Researchers who have examined the neurocognitive underpinnings of the highly selfregulatory process of writing have honed in on the critical role of executive function (e.g.
Altemeier, Abbott, & Berninger, 2008; Altemeier, Jones, Abbott, & Berninger, 2006). Executive
functions are pivotal for written expression as they serve as control processes that guide the
generation of an idea, the development of a plan, execution of the plan, and finally, evaluation
and revision (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Working memory, a component of executive
function, is also important in the writing process as it permits the synchronous activation of
multiple ideas and the retrieval of lexical information from long-term memory (Berninger, 1999).
Indeed, executive functions such as inhibiting irrelevant responses, shifting attention, working
memory, and planning have been found to be less developed in children who struggle with

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

10

written expression compared to controls (Altemeier et al., 2008; Altemeier et al., 2006;
Berninger, 1999). Furthermore, executive functions have been found to be a critical component
of the integration of reading and writing (Altemeier, Jones, Abbott, & Berninger, 2006). The
focus of effective interventions for written expression is therefore primarily upon enhancing the
self-planning and self-regulating abilities of students in the writing process.
In order for children to master the complex task of written expression, it is recommended
that they be provided with daily opportunities to write (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001).
Berringer et al. (2006) found that children who were provided with additional daily writing time
in the form of writing clubs had improved writing quality relative to a control group of children
who did not particulate in the extended day activities. The U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences (2012) recommends that a minimum of one hour per day be
devoted to writing for students from grade 1 on, and that at least 30 minutes each day be devoted
to developing writing skills in kindergarten. The advantages of daily writing assignments are that
students are provided with valuable time to practice what they have learned, develop their
fluency, and build their confidence in the writing process (Graham et al, 2001). A disadvantage is
that it is difficult for teachers to devote an hour per day to writing given the time limitations and
competing curriculum demands in a typical classroom. However, time for writing practice can be
integrated with other content areas. For example, students could write imaginary diary entries of
people from an era they are studying in history or social studies; write a paragraph about what a
graph is conveying in math class; and write before, during, and after reading to document what
they already know, what they want to know, and what they learned from the text (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). In addition, maintaining a daily journal and generating

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

11

personal-experience stories can be another meaningful opportunity to engage in daily writing


(Graham et al., 2001).
However, time alone is not sufficient to develop proficient writers: Students must also be
provided with strategic instruction in order to develop their self-regulation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012). Self-graphing is one self-management technique that has shown to be effective
in increasing both the quantity and quality of written output (Stotz, Itoi, Konrad, & AlberMorgan, 2008). Self-graphing techniques have been shown to improve the fluency, concrete
detail, and organization of written output in elementary students in general education (KasperFerugson & Moxley, 2002). Furthermore, this technique has increased the total number of words
written and number of correct word sequences in children with high incidence disabilities (Stotz
et al., 2008). Self-graphing requires the child to read for a certain period of time, count the total
number of words written, and graph the number daily on graph paper (Stotz et al., 2008). Various
goals can then be created from the graph. The advantages of the self-graphing method are that it
provides the student with a picture of his or her progress and allows performance to be compared
across time (Stotz et al., 2008). In addition, this process builds motivation to write and can
encourage the student to be responsible for monitoring and evaluating his or her progress.
However, further research is needed in this area, as sample sizes have been limited. In addition,
teaching self-graphing has the disadvantage of requiring teacher time to monitor that the graph is
completed daily. A final important consideration is that this method precludes that the child is
able to produce writing independently (Stotz et al., 2008).
Children who struggle with written expression require targeted, explicit instruction that
focuses on the development of specific self-monitoring strategies (Graham & Perin, 2007). Selfregulated strategy development (SRSD) is an instructional approach to writing that focuses on

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

12

enhancing the ability of students to regulate their own writing behavior and develop effective
strategies, knowledge, and motivation through a gradual release of responsibility from instructor
to student (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006). There has been
extensive research support for the effectiveness of SRSD, including comprehensive metaanalysis of writing interventions (Graham & Perin, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
This research indicates that SRSD has had uniformly positive effects on enhancing writing
quality, knowledge, strategy, and self-efficacy in students across a variety of ages, achievement
levels, and in the presence or absence of learning disabilities.
Mnemonics are an integral component of SRSD (Graham et al., 2005). For example, in
an intervention to build narrative genre strategy, Harris et al. (2006) describe that students are
taught a general planning mnemonic of POW: Pick my Ideas (i.e. decide what to write about),
Organize my notes (i.e. organize writing ideas into a writing plan), and Write and say more (i.e.
enhance the plan while writing). In addition, they are taught to ask themselves questions
represented by the mnemonic, WWW, What=2, How=2: Who are the main characters? When
does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What do the main characters want to
do? What happens when the main characters try to do it? How does the story end? How do the
main characters feel? Students generate notes for each question on potential ideas that they may
want to use in their story (Harris et al., 2006). Students are taught these strategies in the
following instructional phases that gradually fade teacher support: (1) developing background
knowledge, where the teacher introduces POW and WWW, What=2, How=2, and discusses
characteristics of a good story; (2) discussion, which includes practicing finding story parts and
writing notes in a graphic organizer as the teacher reads a story out loud; (3) modeling, where the
teacher demonstrates how to apply the strategies and introduces self-talk; (4) collaborative

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

13

writing experiences, where the students build a story as a group; and, finally (5) independent
performance, where the students write the story alone (Graham et al., 2005). The POW and
WWW, What=2, How=2 strategies have also been shown to improve the length, completeness,
and holistic quality of narratives of children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Reid
& Lienemann, 2006). Other mnemonics for persuasive essays include TREE, which reminds
student to Tell what you believe (state your topic sentence), provide three or more Reasons (why
do I believe this?), End it, and Examine (Do I have all my parts?) (Harris et al., 2006).
In addition, students who are challenged with written expression can improve their
writing quality when they receive instruction in self-monitoring their editing processes. The
CDO strategy encourages students to Compare, Diagnose, and Operate as they read through their
completed papers (De La Paz, Swanson, & Graham, 1998). Students are prompted to read
through their paper and Compare what they wrote with what they intended, selecting from cue
cards that provide evaluations such as, That doesnt sound right. Next, students Diagnose or
evaluate what the problem is, choosing between cue cards such as, Too few ideas, or Part of
the essay doesnt belong with the rest. Finally, the student Operates to fix the problem, choosing
cue cards with action steps such as Rewrite, Delete, or Move. This process is repeated
twice, on a global and then specific or local level. De La Paz et al. (1998) found that when
children with learning disabilities used the CDO technique, they revised more often, produced
more meaning-preserving revisions that improved text, and revised larger segments of text more
frequently than with revising under typical conditions.
Thus, the mnemonic strategies described above have the tremendous advantage of solid
empirical support in enhancing the writing quality of students who struggle with written
expression (e.g. Graham & Perin, 2007). While an investment of teacher time is required in order

14

WRITING INTERVENTIONS
to learn these instructional strategies, they are relatively easy to administer and are clearly
effective. One noteworthy caution is provided by Wendling and Mather (2009): Mnemonic
strategies can complicate learning for some students if they are not able to recall what the
mnemonic means. This elucidates that instructors must ensure that cue cards or prompts are
displayed throughout the strategy learning process. Indeed, the SRSD process devotes time
towards ensuring that the student understands the mnemonic cues during the Discuss It phase
(Reid & Lienemann, 2006).
Written expression is an incredibly complex activity that depends upon a multitude of

cognitive abilities, an integration of mechanical and compositional skills, and a continual process
of self-regulation and monitoring. Interventions that focus on building strategies to support
executive functioning and scaffold learning from teacher support to eventual independence
represent extremely promising methods to help children who struggle with this critical skill.

Conclusion
In summary, when researching evidence-based interventions for writing, there are a
limited number of studies related to handwriting and spelling. In contrast, there are many
evidence-based interventions regarding written expression. This may relate to the onset of
technology. While children may be adept at communicating through texts, emails, blogs and
social media, there is not the same emphasis on spelling and handwriting that there has been in
the past. This is an interesting time for supporting literacy in the classroom. A time when
educators will need to keep up to date with best practices for instruction, strategies and
interventions. Teachers play a crucial role in the effective implementation of evidence-based
interventions. They need to be aware of the collective and individual needs of the children in
their classroom as well as the various strategies available for struggling writers. In addition,

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

15

teachers need to be aware of the interventions available and be willing to try multiple methods in
order to find the best fit. The implementation of these diverse strategies is often dependent on
class composition and available resources. In addition, these highly variable factors can lead to
frustration, particularly when teachers have yet to receive the professional development
necessary to support their students. In this regard, school psychologists can help steward the
needs of teacher, student and the 21st century classroom.

16

WRITING INTERVENTIONS
References

Altemeier, L. E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2008). Executive functions for reading and
writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of clinical and experimental
neuropsychology, 30(5), 588606. doi:10.1080/13803390701562818
Altemeier, L., Jones, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Executive Functions in
Becoming Writing Readers and Reading Writers: Note Taking and Report Writing in Third
and Fifth Graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 161173.
doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8
Benson, J. D., Salls, J., & Perry, C. (2011). A pilot study of teachers' perceptions of two
handwriting curricula: Handwriting without tears and the peterson directed handwriting
method. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 3(4), 319-330.
doi: 10.1080/19411243.2010.541741
Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating Transcription and Text Generation in Working Memory
During Composing: Automotic and Constructive Processes. Learning Disability Quarterly,
22(2), 99112.
De La Paz, S., Swanson, P. N., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the
revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(3), 448460. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.90.3.448
Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention.
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4), 312-317. doi: 10.1111/j.14698749.2007.00312.x
Geer, A. (2011). Writing Power: Teaching writing strategies that engage thinking. Markham,
Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

17

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and Intervention of Writing
Difficulties for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16(2), 7484. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00009
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(2), 207241.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and
Motivation of Struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development
With and Without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295340.
Hooper, S. R., Knuth, S. B., Yerby, D. C., & Anderson, K. L. (2009). A review of sciencesupported writing instruction with implementation in mind. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger
(Eds.), Implementing evidence-based academic interventions in school settings (pp. 49-84).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hoy, M. M. P., Egan, M. Y., & Feder, K. P. (2011). A systematic review of interventions to
improve handwriting. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. Revue Canadienne
d'Ergothrapie, 78(1), 13-25. doi: 10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.3
Joseph, L.M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E. & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A metaanalytic review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management
procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 122-136. doi: 10.1002/pits.20622
Kasper-Ferguson, S., & Moxley, A. (2002). Developing a writing package with student graphing
of fluency. Education and treatment of children, 25, 249-267.

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

18

Moser, L.A., Fishley, K.M., Konrad, M. & Hessler, T. (2012). Effects of the cover-copy-compare
strategy on acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words for
elementary students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child & Family Behaviour
Therapy, 34(2), 93-110. doi: 10.1080/07317107.2012.684644
Murphy, J.F., Hern, C.L., Williams, R.L. & McLaughlin, T.F. (1990). The effects of the cover,
copy, compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy with learning disabled students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(4), 378-386. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1016/0361-476X(90)90032-V
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Fingeret, L., Reffitt, K., & Raphael- Bogaert, L. (2007). Writing
Instruction in Engaging and Effective Elementary Settings. In Graham, S., MacArthur, C.
A., & Fitzgerald, J. Editor (Eds.). Best practices in writing instruction, 13-27. New York:
Guilford Press.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. (2007). Best Practices in Implementing a Process Approach to
Teaching Writing. In Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. Editor (Eds.). Best
practices in writing instruction, 28-49. New York: Guilford Press.
Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Written
Expression With Students With Attention Deficit / Hyper activity Disorder, 73(I), 5368.
Santoro, L.E., Coyne, M.D. & Simmons, D.C. (2006). The reading-spelling connection:
Developing and evaluating a beginning spelling intervention for children at risk of reading
disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 122-133. doi: 10.1111/j.15405826.2006.00212.x
Stevenson, N. C., & Just, C. (2012). In early education, why teach handwriting before
keyboarding? Early Childhood Education Journal, doi: 10.1007/s10643-012-0565-2

WRITING INTERVENTIONS

19

Stotz, K. E., Itoi, M., Konrad, M., & Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2008). Effects of Self-graphing on
Written Expression of Fourth Grade Students with High-Incidence Disabilities. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 17(2), 172186. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9055-9
Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2003). Effective Writing Instruction Across the Grades: What Every
Educational Consultant Should Know. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 14(1), 7589.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to
be effective writers. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/
practice_guides/writing_pg_062612.pdf#page=16
Wendling, B. J., & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Wright, Jim (Presenter). (2011). RTI: Academic & Behavioral Evidence-Based Interventions.
www.interventioncentral.org
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a Self-Regulated Writer: A Social
Cognitive Perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73101.

Вам также может понравиться