Sabbatical Report - Oranga School Website

Sabbatical Report 2009
Writing Strategies and the
Teaching of Writing
Contents:
1.0 Purpose
2.0 Background
3.0 How does the ‘selection’ of literature establish the explicit
teaching of writing strategies as important?
4.0 How is the practice of explicit writing strategy instruction
defined and operationalised?
5.0 Benefits: How has the explicit teaching of writing
strategies shown to be effective?
6.0 Implications: How effective is teacher practice in
impacting on students’ learning?
7.0 Conclusions
8.0 References
9.0 Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1: Rubric
9.2 Appendix 2: Activities Undertaken
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
1.0 Purpose:
Will using the research around effective strategies for teaching students with
learning difficulties by Steve Graham and Karen Hayes be effective in
increasing the levels of writing achievement of Pasifika students at Oranga
Primary?
2.0 Background:
This report has stemmed from a ten week sabbatical granted to me by the
Ministry of Education in 2010. The idea for the topic originated from an
Auckland University paper that I participated in called the “Psychology of
Writing” in 2009. It was while studying during 2009 that I came across the
work of Steve Graham and Karen Harris, and in particular their book entitled
“Writing Better: effective strategies for teaching students with learning
difficulties” (2005). This introduced me to the explicit teaching of writing
strategies using the self regulated development model (SRSD). I will explain
this in more depth later.
The task that I carried out for this sabbatical has included the teaching of
small groups and then the teaching of the same writing strategies to an entire
class (see appendix 2 for the writing strategies taught). Due to the relatively
transient nature of the student population I have found that a large number of
the original children have either left during the small group phase of this
project or have left prior to the final assessment task at the end of Term 3 of
this year (i.e., from the 39 children taught these strategies I have end of the
year data for 21).
Firstly the report looks at some literature around the explicit teaching of writing
strategies. Secondly the report investigates how the explicit teaching of writing
strategies has shown to be effective. Thirdly the report addresses how
teacher practice can influence student achievement in writing and lastly some
concluding comments including the outcomes from the group and class
teaching of the writing strategies.
3.0 How does the ‘selection’ of literature establish the explicit
teaching of writing strategies as important?
The pedagogical practice of explicitly teaching writing strategies is important
because “writing is a difficult and demanding task, requiring extensive selfregulation
and attention and control…This view is acknowledged, either
explicitly or implicitly in most current models of composing” (Graham, Harris,
& Troia, 1998).
Writing includes co-ordinating topic knowledge, planning, writing text,
reviewing, revising and monitoring, all of which place multiple demands on
writers (Albertson & Billingsley, 1997). De La Paz et al. (2002) situate writing
as a very demanding task that places a high demand on cognitive resources
and this requires the writer to acquire strategies to regulate the writing
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
process (e.g. strategies for planning, monitoring, evaluating and revising),
skills for producing text (e.g., handwriting, spelling, sentence construction)
and knowledge about genre and the conventions of writing. The use of a selfregulation
procedure like planning and revising can transform and hugely
enhance writing.
When the Graham et al. (1998) study went to print there had been 20 studies
using the Self Regulated Strategy Development model 1 (SRSD) to teach
writing strategies for planning and revising. These have included
brainstorming, self monitoring of productivity, reading for information, goal
setting, revision using peer feedback, and mechanics and substance revision.
The SRSD model of strategy teaching has led to quality, knowledge, approach
and self-efficacy improvements in students’ writing (Graham et al., 1998).
Albertson et al. (1997), De La Paz et al. (2002), and Graham et al. (1998)
have shown the explicit teaching of planning strategies to be important
because planning is a critical element in skilled writing and high levels of
planning are particularly evident in the writing behaviour of expert writers. The
studies also show the practice of strategy instruction to be important as a
means of addressing students’ academic weaknesses.
4.0 How is the practice of explicit writing strategy instruction
defined and operationalised?
The practice of explicitly teaching writing strategies is defined in studies as the
explicit teaching by an adult of strategies aimed at increasing the overall
quality of the students writing once the intervention has come to its
completion.
Albertson et al. (1997) define the practice as explicit teaching of strategies
related to planning and reviewing behaviours of writers. They studied whether
teaching planning and reviewing strategies would have an effect on story
writing processes and outcomes in a variety of ways. The study aimed to
answer a number of questions, including “Does strategy instruction increase
the amount of time gifted participants planned, produced text, reviewed,
edited and revised? Does strategy instruction have an affect on the frequency
of words written during story time? Does strategy instruction have an affect on
the number of story elements included in stories written prior to instruction
and after instruction? Are stories written after instruction of a higher overall
writing quality when compared to the baseline stories?” (Albertson &
Billingsley, 1997).
The strategy instruction was operationalised through the teaching of the story
grammar C-SPACE mnemonic described in an earlier study by MacArthur,
Schwartz and Graham (1991). First the verbal instruction was given to where
students were asked to think about their audience and the type of story they
1 SRSD is about helping students to master the ‘higher-level’ cognitive processes involved in
composing and is supported through various forms of support (e.g., strategies that provide structure,
helping children acquire self-regulation skills) (Graham et al., 1998).
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
would like to write. Following this the C-SPACE mnemonic was taught
(C=Character, S=Setting, P=Problem or purpose for story, A=Action,
C=Conclusion and E=Emotion). The reviewing strategy taught participants
how expert writers reread, review, edit and revise their texts with emphasis
being placed on making meaningful changes and spelling and mechanical
fixes were mentioned as editing. Teaching occurred at the beginning of each
session and a written reviewing prompt was given at the end of each initial
writing session (Albertson & Billingsley, 1997). The study was carried out with
two highly capable 12-year-old, sixth-grade students.
Graham et al. (1998) in their study looked at the use of the SRSD model
through two case studies (i.e., Case 1: 6 mainstreamed fifth and sixth-grade
learning disabled students; Case 2: 3 individually taught fifth-grade learning
disabled students) where the practice was defined as the explicit teaching of
planning and revising strategies.
The Graham et al. (1998) study was operationalised through the explicit
teaching of mnemonics (i.e., TREE 2 and STOP & LIST 3 ). The mnemonics
were taught using the SRSD model of teaching a strategy and this
involves six instructional stages which include developing background
knowledge, discussing, modelling, memorising, support and
independent performance. SRSD is characterised by interactive
learning, targeted instruction to the individual child, criterion based
instruction and a developmental process.
A further study into the explicit teaching of writing strategies by De La Paz and
Graham (2002) defined the practice of explicit strategy instruction as
“teaching students strategies for planning, drafting, and revising text, the
knowledge and skills needed to support these processes were also
emphasised” (De La Paz & Graham, 2002). The 2002 study extended the
work of Graham et al. (1998) by taking the teaching to non learning disabled
students, the students’ own teachers doing the teaching and larger class
sizes. This was unlike the previous study that had focussed on learning
disabled students and either one on one or small group teaching. De La Paz
et al. (2002) operationalised the study through the use of a mnemonic as the
key element of the strategy. This was similar to that of the 1998 study. The
mnemonic organised and directed the processes for planning and writing an
essay. This strategy also prompted the students to use their plan while writing.
As with Albertson et al. (1997) the plan provides an external memory where
novice writers can store ideas without losing them and may further reduce the
need to plan while writing, freeing up resources to engage in other writing
processes (e.g. translating ideas into words, transcribing words into text
reviewing, revising).
2 THINK, PLAN, WRITE: Think who will read this, and why I am writing it? Plan what to say using
TREE: Topic sentence, Reasons, Examine, Ending. Write and say more.
3 STOP & LIST: Stop Think Of Purpose & List Ideas Sequence Them
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
The SRSD model was used to teach the writing strategies. “Self Regulated
Strategy Development model shares important features of other types of
instruction in which strategies and supporting skills and knowledge are
taught…in that teachers provide think-aloud demonstrations followed by
verbal scaffolding as a vehicle for helping students gain independence in
using the target strategies” (De La Paz & Graham, 2002).
The 30 seventh and eighth grade students (n.b.. 30 students were in the
experimental group while 28 students were in a control group) involved in the
intervention were involved in a pre-instruction session about the basic
attributes of expository writing prior to starting the 6 weeks of instructional
lessons. The first lesson involved an overview about the purpose and a
description of the first part of the planning and writing strategy (describe it).
The children were then introduced to the mnemonics PLAN 4 and WRITE 5
which were to aid the students in the writing process by helping them to
remember the strategy steps. The students were then given a model essay
and asked to labelled the introduction, body and concluding paragraphs. They
also looked at whether the essay included the other features of WRITE.
The next stage was for instruction in using PLAN and WRITE. This happened
over three days as the teacher modelled it. Modelling was followed by
several sessions of guided instruction where students used the PLAN and
WRITE strategy to plan and write a class essay. Students worked in small
groups to plan and compose a second essay (support it). The teacher met
with individuals and also held group conferences. The final stage of the
instruction involved students using the PLAN and WRITE strategy to write
essays (independent performance) while teacher support was reduced, thus
shifting responsibility to the student to manage the strategy. The students
verbally rehearsed the mnemonic during the 6 week period (memorise it).
Unlike the Albertson et al. (1997) study this study took place in a school
environment with control groups that were not taught the PLAN and WRITE
mnemonic, or taught using the SRSD model.
5.0 Benefits: How has the explicit teaching of writing
strategies shown to be effective?
The research has shown that the explicit teaching of writing strategies is
effective through research methods that include experimental and control
groups, baseline data and follow up probes.
The dependent variable measures used in the Albertson et al. (1997) study
indicated that both participants wrote more, increased their writing time,
4 PLAN: Pay attention to the prompt (consider the topic), List all the main ideas, Add supporting ideas,
Number your ideas (in the order you plan to use them)
5 WRITE: Work from your plan, Remember your goals, Include transition words fort each paragraph,
Try to use different kinds of sentences, Exciting, interesting $100,000 words.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
added more story elements to, and improved their overall writing quality of
their stories after instruction. It was also found that they spent more time
planning and reviewing during the intervention compared with the baseline
phase. The researchers state that this is “largely consistent with those that
have been observed when strategy instruction is applied to students with
learning disabilities (e.g., Harris and Graham, 1996)” (Albertson & Billingsley,
1997) and important as it indicates that relatively competent writers can also
make substantial gains when provided with direct strategy instruction. The
validity of the Alberton et al. (1997) and De La Paz et al. (2002) studies is
shown through the use of independent observers and interrator agreement
scores of between 81% and 94% for any given criteria.
De La Paz et al. (2002) used a 5 point scale (1 being no planning to 5 being
advanced), which included evaluation of elaboration and accuracy to evaluate
planning. Using ANOVA 6 statistics it was established that eighty percent of
students in the pre-test did no advanced planning, while after the intervention
through post-test and maintenance measures it was established the majority
of students in both the groups pre-planned, but the plans of the experimental
group were better developed. Ninety percent of these students compared with
only 30% and 65% of the control students’ scored 4 or 5 at the post-test and
maintenance. After instruction and 1 month later, students in the experimental
group wrote papers significantly longer than those students in the control
group. Students’ in the experimental group wrote papers with a greater
number of different words that were seven letters or longer compared with the
control students. This was maintained 1 month afterwards. It was shown that
after instruction and one month afterwards the students in the experimental
group were judged to write essays of higher overall quality than the control
group.
The studies have shown that the teaching of strategies to the participants has
been effective. The studies started with the collection of baseline data from
participants and the following instruction interventions included teaching both
planning and reviewing strategies. This included teacher instruction through to
handouts and discussion with the instructor. Formal evaluations indicated that
instruction modified both what and how students’ wrote. Prior to the start of
the interventions, the participating students did not plan in advance of their
writing. Following instruction, however they consistently used the strategies
taught through the intervention (i.e., STOP & LIST, TREE, C-SPACE).
The studies showed that their stories became longer, of higher quality and
more complete. In the Graham et al. (1998) study this even generalised to a
second genre and the effects of the intervention were maintained at the
writing probe administered almost one month after the instruction had
finished. De La Paz et al. (2002) showed also that the effect on instruction
was still positively maintained at one month after instruction had finished.
6 ANOVA: analysis-of-variance
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
The De La Paz et al. (2002) article makes the strongest case in my opinion
because the investigation was carried out with 58 students of which 30 were
in the experimental class and 28 were in the control class. Neither of the other
two studies involved numbers of this size or a control group running at the
same time to provide for greater comparison of data with respect to children
who had had the intervention compared with children who had not. The other
studies only used pre and post-test data from the children who had
participated in the intervention.
The study extended previous SRSD research by examining its effectiveness
with normally (average or greater than average based on a national test given
every spring) achieving writers and used a more traditional large group
design. The other studies were carried out with either highly capable students
or learning disabled students.
The study saw the participating students’ regular teachers delivering the
instruction in a traditional classroom setting while the other two studies used
researchers to teach the intervention. The use of the students’ own teachers,
the number of students and the starting academic ability all provide evidence
on the viability of this approach in a traditional classroom.
6.0 Implications: How effective is teacher practice in
impacting on students’ learning?
To find out how effective the teacher practice of explicitly teaching writing
strategies is in impacting on students’ learning we must evaluate the practice
of strategy instruction that the teachers’ are implementing. Evaluation can
provide confirmation that the strategy worked. It is also important for three
other reasons. Firstly, teachers who evaluate what they are doing closely are
better placed to make modifications to their teaching practice when needed.
Secondly, ongoing evaluation provides teachers/schools with a lot of insight
into what students/teachers are doing and what the needs of both participants
are. Thirdly, evaluation is important for student growth, as if teachers/schools
are unaware that the current practices are not working then they cannot make
the appropriate changes needed for student and teacher growth (Graham &
Harris, 2005).
When new methods or procedures are being used it is essential that time be
devoted to the evaluation of the practice so that it can be validated as either
effective or needing change (Graham & Harris, 2005). As the current
professional development is new there will need to be an evaluation
programme put in place to measure its effectiveness. The evaluation would
include teacher observations using an Observation Guide rubric (see
Appendix 1), discussions with teachers re the SRSD model, observation of
students at work, discussions with students’ and evaluation of student work
(both teacher and self evaluation).
If I were to look at this practice teachers would be observed using an
Observation Guide (see Appendix 1). The observation guide is based around
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
the SRSD model of Graham and Harris (1998, 2005) and includes the six
instructional stages of Discuss it, Model it, Memorise it, Support it and
Independent performance. Each of these is discussed below with reference to
an observation made of a teacher in practice.
1) Discuss It (the teacher and student/s discuss writing performance and
strategy/ies). In this case the observation made of the teacher showed that
the teacher discussed the performance of the students/class (e.g., they were
advised of their ability to collect action words) and discussed the next strategy
that they were going to learn (i.e., identifying “action words” and incorporating
them into their written work). The class are observed discussing action word
vocabulary with teacher involvement. This teacher has also shown that they
are able to provide opportunities for generalisation and maintenance:
“You have become more skilled in identifying action words…” “…So when we
are putting them into our work we don’t have to rewrite, we have to put them
in the right place…”
This provided the students with teacher feedback regarding how the teaching
of the previous strategy has enhanced their writing and prompting them to
continue to use the strategy as they move on to a new strategy for the
inclusion of action word vocabulary into their writing. Both are important steps
for promoting generalisation and maintenance.
2) Model it (the teacher models aloud how to use the strategy through self talk
and self instruction). The teacher in this case models by speaking aloud
about a picture being used as a motivator for writing, and self talks around
questions to ask yourself while working:
“What other good action words can I think of for this picture? What would be a
good story idea for my words?”
The teacher in this case also models sentences that include and do not
include action word vocabulary so that children can see what success looks
like.
Memorise it (memorising the steps of the strategy, mnemonic, students
personalised self statements). The teacher provided the students with some
time to memorise the steps of the process. The discussion around the
process has occurred in ‘Discuss it’ and further evidence of opportunities to
learn the strategy will be evidenced in the next stage ‘Support it’.
Support it (students practice the strategy, self statements with teacher and or
peers). In this observation the teacher provides children with time to work
with buddies as they brainstorm action words using pictures given to them by
the teacher. The teacher continues to support the process by modelling a
means of collecting action words through the use of a word-hoard (a collection
of action words on a single piece of paper or on a page in an exercise book).
The teacher praises the students for appropriate participation.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
Independent performance (students’ use the strategy independently). The
teacher in this case has students at different levels of achieving competence
with the strategy and some children are working independently around the
room on the collection of action words and the inclusion of them into their
writing, while the teacher is still supporting others (i.e., a group on the mat
collecting action words using a given picture for stimulus and then thinking of
story ideas using these words).
Some areas of using the SRSD model are not exemplified by the transcript,
such as providing sufficient time within this lesson to memorise the steps of
the strategy. This may have been because it was the first of a series of
lessons. This teacher also did not show high levels of integration of
‘generalisation and maintenance’ steps within this lesson. This could have
been seen if there had of been evidence around discussion of students’
setting goals to use the strategy, the teacher explaining how to modify the
strategy for other situations and reflecting on the use of the strategy (this was
seen in teacher comment only around a previous strategy. Children did not
contribute to the discussion).
It should be noted that further observations would need to be made to confirm
whether or not all of the steps to the teaching of the strategy are being
implemented as per the professional development offered to this teacher.
Graham et al. (2005) suggests that students can be directly involved in the
evaluation process. This can occur through self evaluation, and it is important
for this to happen so that the students see evidence of the strategy at work
and increase their ownership over the strategy. Students could evaluate
whether they could write down, or recite the mnemonic/process and discuss
what each part means. They would also be able to evaluate whether they
have used the strategy by observing whether it was present when they had
finished a piece of written work. Students might also reflect in journal entries
(that the teacher sees) how well they deem the strategy to be working. This
would enable the teacher to provide further support or provide for more
independence.
Once independence has been gained, evaluating the effectiveness of the
strategy could be achieved through asking the students questions around
what they think about the strategy (e.g. “What did you like about the strategy
that you learned? What did you not like about this strategy? Did the strategy
help you write better? Why or why not? … What did you like about the
procedures used to learn the strategy?” (Graham & Harris, 2005)). It should
be noted that student evaluations are not always accurate.
Students’ work would also be evaluated for changes that would be in line with
the strategy taught. This should be seen in the amount of time devoted by the
student to ‘pre planning’ and could be measured by timing the students as
they put the planning strategy into use and also by observing the ‘plan’ after
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
they have written. Graham et al. (2005) note that some change though will not
be seen immediately and this includes the change in a student’s attitude.
Students will move through the self regulated development model (SRSD)
based on criteria and not time. This can be measured by observing student’s
work and conferencing with students. Decisions may need to be made about
changes to the instructional programme if students’ are not making progress
in a timely manner. Measuring effectiveness over time could occur by asking
them to explain the strategy (what is for) and to recite its basic steps. Graham
et al. (2005) says that if they cannot do this then they are unlikely to be using
the strategy effectively.
The proposed rubric as attached in Appendix 1 and suggestions for student
involvement above can be used for the evaluation of the teaching of any
writing strategy, as it has been shown by Graham and Harris (2005), De La
Paz et al. (2002), Graham et al. (1998) that the use of the SRSD model of
strategy instruction is effective, and if followed can have a positive long lasting
impact on the quality of writing the student produces. Albertson et al. (1997)
showed also that the explicit teaching of writing strategies is effective, though
they did not use the SRSD model.
7.0 Conclusion:
The writing strategies taught included the ‘Vocabulary Enrichment: Action
Word Strategy (see appendix 2) and the POW strategy (see appendix 2). The
explicit teaching of these strategies has left me with more questions than
answers because there have been differing results between the small group
teaching and the whole class teaching (to different students) that followed.
The children who have had exposure to the teaching of the strategies that
has involved some maintenance/practice of the strategies over a longer
period of time have generally performed better (when compared to the
baseline data (i.e., writing samples marked and moderated in term one)
compared with those that were in the initial small group lessons and that have
had no explicit follow up to the strategies taught in the small group lessons.
From the students that were involved in the small group teaching, all at the
end of the intervention had an increased volume of action words in their
stories and all were able to recite the mnemonics and actively engage with
them when writing. Every student was brainstorming action words before they
wrote and using the POW WWW What=2 How=2 strategy to form their stories
(though some were still needing prompting to use the strategy). In particular
their writing showed an improvement in structure and inclusion of the parts of
a good story. Their writing also contained more action words.
Further analysis of their current writing practices would need to be carried out
to see if their writing practices still include the taught strategies (i.e., have the
students been able to maintain the use of the strategies without the explicit
reinforcement of them by their current teachers?) and whether the strategies
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
have been transferred into other writing types beyond that of personal recount
writing.
The same strategies were taught to a whole class during the latter part of this
year and analysis of their writing samples has shown the same results (i.e.,
increased use of action words and a greater level of structure to their stories).
These students have had longer and more regular exposure to the strategies
and on analysis their writing practices continue to include the strategies.
These children can also recite the strategies and the research suggests that
this is an important part in being able to continue to use the strategies. The
children in this class have a teacher who continues to reinforce the strategies
through modelling, an important factor that differs from those students in the
small group teaching.
From this cohort ten students made progress of two to three sub-levels and
four made progress of one sub-level. No child in this group (with base-line
data i.e., students who have been at our school all year) made no progress.
The sub-levels mentioned above are in relation to our school-wide “Poetic
Writing - Personal Experience Progress Indicators”. The children have shown
most improvement in the indicators related to the content of the strategies
taught.
Further work around the teaching of writing strategies is going to occur in
2010 for all teachers at Oranga Primary. Small group teaching with follow up
lessons (i.e. maintenance) will also continue for some students.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
8.0 References:
Albertson, L., & Billingsley, F. (1997). Improving Young Writer's Planning and
Reviewing Skills While Story-Writing (Paper). Chicago: University of
Washington.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly Teaching Strategies, Skills,
and Knowledge: Writing Instruction in Middle School Classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing Better: Effective Strategies for
Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H
Brookes.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Troia, G. (1998). Writing and Self-Regulation: Cases
from the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model. In D. Schunk & B.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-
Reflective Practice.
Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L., Friedlander, B. (2008). POWERFUL
Writing Strategies for all Students. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H Brookes
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
9.0 Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1: Rubric
OBSERVATION GUIDE:
Teacher: Observer: Date:
Criteria Examples… Comment / Evidence NO NE SE
Discuss it
• teacher & student/s discuss writing
performance and strategy/ies.
• how and when to use strategy is
discussed.
generalization & maintenance (1)
• how & when to use it.
• may include monitoring.
• teacher talk.
• class / group discussion.
Model it
•teacher models aloud how to use the
strategy through self talk & self
instruction
generalization & maintenance (1)
• modelling to make explicit what
success looks like.
• may include goal setting.
• self instruction e.g., problem
definition, planning, strategy use,
error correction, reflection
Memorize it
• The steps of the strategy,
accompanying mnemonic, students
personalised self statements
• Sufficient time dedicated to the
practice of memorising the strategy
e.g., mnemonic.
•
Appendix 1
This rubric is based on the Self regulated strategy development (SRSD) model of Graham and Harris
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing Better: Effective Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities: Paula Brookes Publishing Co.
OBSERVATION GUIDE:
generalization & maintenance (1)
Support it
(NB slowly withdrawn over time)
• students’ practice writing strategy,
self statements with teacher/peers
or both
• may include strategy reminder
charts, self statements, check lists,
exemplars, teacher modelling, praise,
corrective feedback..
NO NE SE
generalization & maintenance (1)
Independent performance
• students’ use writing strategy
independently
• sufficient time is given for
students to use the strategy.
•
generalization & maintenance (1)
NO = not observed NE = notable evidence SE = strong evidence
(1) Steps for promoting generalization and maintenance of the strategy should be integrated throughout the above steps.
These include: setting goals to use the strategy, explaining how to modify the strategy for other situations, reflecting on the use of the strategy, prompting
the use of the strategy, teacher commenting on how the strategy improved the students’ writing (Graham & Harris, 2005).
This rubric is based on the Self regulated strategy development (SRSD) model of Graham and Harris
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing Better: Effective Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities: Paula Brookes Publishing Co.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
9.2 Appendix 2: Activities undertaken
The below are a precis of the strategies used. They are taken from “Harris, K.,
Graham, S., Mason, L., Friedlander, B. (2008). POWERFUL Writing
Strategies for all Students. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H Brookes”.
For full detail about how to use these strategies and for the blackline masters
(e.g., strategy steps, graph template to use for graphing action words...) see
the Harris et.al., text mentioned above. The book provides teachers with step
by step instructions about how a lesson/s would progress. The book also
provides a script about what to say and when to say it.
The steps can be lessons or a number of lessons depending on how long it
takes the students to master the step.
Strategy One:
Vocabulary Enrichment: Action Words
Objectives: to provide students with a strategy that will allow them to write
better stories by incorporating more action words in their writing.
Process:
Step 1: Introducing action words
Students are told that ʻgoodʼ stories use lots of action words. Students are
asked “What is an action word”? Students are then told what action words are
and given examples. Students are also asked to give further examples.
I used the Newspapers in Education “sports people” picture set to encourage
children to make relevant lists of action words.
Students are then asked to use these words in sentences that are meaningful.
The teacher demonstrates that more than one action word can be used in a
sentence.
Step 2: Reviewing the students current writing practices
Students use a previous story they have written and review their writing and
count the number of action words. This will require support in different levels
depending on the ability of the student.
The children graph the results and the teacher states that good stories use
many action words and that the goal is to have a better story next time (i.e.,
use more action words).
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
Step 3: Introduce the ʻAction Wordʼ strategy
The teacher uses the same picture/s as before to introduce the strategy. The
students read the strategy together:
1) Look at the picture and write down good action words.
2) Think of a good story idea for my words
3) Write my story. Make sense and use good action words.
4) Read my story and ask myself, “Did I write a good story? Did I use good
action words?”
5) Fix my story. Can I use more good action words.
Step 4: Modeling
Using the same picture model the entire process. Use the five steps, self
evaluate as you model.
Step 5: Rehearse
Students must be able to recite/remember the five steps from memory.
Students can paraphrase the strategy.
Step 6: Practice
Students practice the strategy and set goals for the number of action words to
appear in their next story.
Strategy Two:
A strategy for story writing:
Objectives: to provide students with a strategy that will allow them to write
better stories by having a framework to plan their stories around.
Process:
Step 1: Introduce POW
Display the POW and emphasize that this is a trick that good writers use to
write.
P = pick my idea
O = Organise my notes
W = Write and say more.
Students are told that this gives you POWER when writing. Students practice
and learn this part of the mnemonic off by heart. Emphasize that good stories
are fun to read and write, make sense and have several parts.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland

Sabbatical Report 2009
Step 2: Introduce WWW, What=2, How=2
Discuss the parts ( Who, When, Where, What does the main character to do?
What happens then? How does the story end? How does the main character
feel?) and ask for or give examples to clarify what each part of the mnemonic
means.
This part of the process is supported by a graphic organizer that contains
WWW What=2 How=2 and spaces for students write beside each component
part. This is used in the next step.
Step 3: Finding parts of a story
Students are given examples of stories and asked to go through them finding
the component parts from the mnemonic and record this onto the graphic
organizer.
Students also practice memorising the mnemonic
Step 4: Finding more parts of a story
Students are given more examples and asked to find the parts of the story
using the mnemonic.
This process is built on over a number of weeks and is built upon by using
further examples, teacher modeling (both using the graphic organizer and
writing original stories), collaborative writing, analyzing their own writing and
practicing the writing process with teacher support.
There are further black-line masters to support the teaching of this mnemonic
and they are contained within “POWERFUL Writing Strategies for all
Students”.
Jonathan Ramsay
Oranga Primary - One Tree Hill - Auckland