Abstract
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) is an evidence-based practice for writing that is effective in improving the writing performance of elementary students with learning disabilities and the broader student population. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for elementary instructional coaches in facilitating a schoolwide adoption of SRSD for writing instruction. We outline the steps for instructional coaches to conduct practice-based professional development and then discuss ways instructional coaches can support teachers and oversee schoolwide SRSD implementation. Finally, we present ways that instructional coaches can be a valuable resource for teachers in differentiating SRSD instruction to meet students’ needs and to track students’ growth. By fostering a schoolwide implementation, coaches can harness the power of additive knowledge, increase teacher knowledge of evidence-based pedagogical practices, and increase the writing skills of all students, including those with learning disabilities.
When adopting a complex instructional practice schoolwide, school leadership members are often best positioned to oversee implementation of evidence-based practices. A central leadership role, such as instructional coach, is necessary to facilitate implementation across the grade levels and between general and special education settings (Fixsen & Blase, 2008). To this end, instructional coaches need to be knowledgeable about evidence-based practices and provide teachers with the opportunity to learn and receive support in implementing instruction (B. G. Cook & Odom, 2013). While the requirements vary by state and school district, most often instructional coaches are licensed teachers with five or more years teaching experience who have strong pedagogical knowledge. Their role is to work with teachers to integrate best practices for teaching, facilitate the use of research-based instructional strategies, deliver professional development, provide colleagues with constructive feedback, and collaborate with teachers and administrators to ultimately increase student learning (Harris, Camping et al., 2023; McKeown et al., 2016).
Due to instructional coaches’ knowledge of standards, commitment to vertical and horizontal alignment, and daily interactions with teachers and students across grade levels, their expertise often puts them in a strong position to support a consistent rollout (Fixsen & Blase, 2008; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010). Uniquely positioned, coaches can work with teachers across the breadth of implementation by gaining teachers’ interest, delivering professional development and instructional materials, and providing a continuum of ongoing supports during classroom instruction (Collins et al., 2021; Harris, Camping et al., 2023; Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010; Ray et al., 2023).
Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD)
Results from multiple national surveys of general education teachers’ writing instruction and self-efficacy have demonstrated that both quality and quantity of writing instruction are lacking in school settings (Brindle et al., 2016; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham et al., 2014). Teachers also self-report a dearth of preparation to teach writing with nearly 75% of elementary teachers reporting no or minimal writing instruction within their teacher preparation programs (Brindle et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2014). This is particularly problematic for students with LD as they often receive writing instruction without the immediate support of special education professionals as the majority of students with LD are served in the general education classroom over 80% of the day (Brindle et al., 2016; USDOE, 2022). The lack of high-quality writing instruction is evidenced in student performance on national measures of writing as nearly 95% of students with an individualized education program (IEP) and 74% of those without fail to meet proficiency in writing (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Young writers may be at particular risk for not receiving appropriate writing instruction as they are less likely to have been diagnosed with LD due to a variety of challenges such as implementation variability of multitiered systems of support across districts and states, inconsistent access to evidence-based interventions, and a lack of clarity regarding the referral process (Zumeta et al., 2014). For these reasons, a schoolwide approach to writing instruction may best serve the entire learning community to ensure all students receive effective instruction to address or prevent writing challenges.
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) for students with and without LD
One evidence-based practice for writing instruction that would be appropriate for differentiation to meet the needs of elementary learners (e.g., Ray et al., 2023), including those with LD (see Gillespie & Graham, 2014), is SRSD. SRSD is an instructional framework that supports the acquisition of new learning (Harris et al., 2008) and improves the writing performance of students with LD as well as the broader elementary population (e.g., National Center on Intensive Intervention, 2016). In the most recent meta-analyses for writing interventions with elementary students (Graham et al., 2012) and writing interventions for students with LD (Gillespie & Graham, 2014), SRSD had the largest effect size of all evaluated interventions. Recently, SRSD has successfully been implemented school-wide for kindergarten through fifth-grade elementary students and resulted in significant improvements in writing for all students, including those receiving special education services (Ray et al., 2023). Moreover, across multiple studies, teachers have reported high social validity for both the professional development for SRSD as well as its use in the classroom (e.g., FitzPatrick & McKeown, 2020, 2021; Harris et al., 2022). Further, instructional coaching has been effective in positively impacting teachers use of evidence-based practices (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010) and particularly writing instruction using SRSD (Collins et al., 2021; Harris, Camping et al., 2023; Ray et al., 2023).
School-wide implementation of SRSD helps students with LD particularly by providing them with writing instruction that is known to increase students’ writing abilities in the general education curriculum (Baker et al., 2009; B. G. Cook & Odom, 2013). SRSD was originally crafted to meet the writing needs of students with LD (Harris, 1982), and has since been named an evidence-based practice for writing for a variety of populations (e.g., Baker et al., 2009). It is particularly well-suited to meet the needs of students with LD as it provides direct instruction in background and genre knowledge, strategy acquisition and use such as planning and goal-setting, explicit self-regulation, and mnemonics which support memory of required genre components. These elements of SRSD directly address some of the most common challenges that students with LD demonstrate during writing: challenges with organization based on the assigned writing task (e.g., genre knowledge; Graham et al., 2017; Santangelo, 2014; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987); failure to plan (e.g., Bui et al., 2006) or a failure to use the plan that was created (e.g., Graham, 2006); maintaining self-regulation throughout the complex demands of the writing process (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2009); and production of shorter and incomplete drafts that are weak in overall quality (e.g., Graham et al., 2017).
SRSD includes six stages: (a) develop and activate background knowledge, (b) discuss it, (c) model it, (d) memorize it, (e) support it, and (f) independent performance. These stages are recursive and students move through lessons associated with each stage based on mastery. Through these stages, students build a strong foundation of knowledge through modeling, scaffolded instruction, and feedback that allows them to move from the observer to the participant and eventually the independent writer through the gradual release of responsibility.
Informational writing
Informational writing is how writers share knowledge with readers within and beyond their communities. Informational writing carries the work of teaching, reporting, and accounting for details. It is a way to describe the known and explore the unknown. As early as kindergarten, students are expected to use drawing, dictating, and writing to name and supply information about a topic, and by fifth grade, the end of elementary school, they are expected to introduce a topic clearly; provide a general observation and focus; develop the topic with facts, definitions, concrete details, and quotes; and use paragraphs, headings, illustrations, precise, domain-specific vocabulary, and more (Common Core State Standards [CCSS], 2010). To be prepared for college and career success, students are asked to use informational writing “to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content” (CCSS, 2010, p. 18).
For the purposes of this paper, we will situate the writing examples within the frame of informational writing. We do so for these reasons: previous studies of writing instruction have included specific recommendations to include more instruction in and opportunities for expository writing (e.g., Cutler & Graham, 2008) and a breadth of work has addressed SRSD for persuasive writing (e.g., Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022).
Garnering teacher interest
An essential early component to schoolwide implementation of SRSD for informational writing instruction is for coaches to garner buy-in from participating teachers and other stakeholders (McKeown et al., 2019, 2023). There are a variety of ways to approach this. A common practice is to share a basic overview of SRSD along with both the quantitative data that demonstrate what can be expected in terms of gains once students learn to use the strategy (Collins et al., 2021) as well as individual stories from participating teachers or the writing results from individual students (McKeown et al., 2019; McKeown et al., 2023). Teachers should be presented with the effect size data that represent the average improvement that can be expected with SRSD instruction, but also the individual stories. Across multiple sessions of professional development, we have found that the vast majority of teachers find one or two stories of individual students that share characteristics with those in their classroom more persuasive than the large effect sizes that demonstrate the average improvement that can be expected and reflect the writing performance of thousands of students. Figures 1–3 show examples of pre- and posttest data from SRSD instruction in Grades 1, 3, and 5 (Authors) that coaches may wish to share as examples of the type of gains that may be achieved. These data and stories may be shared in grade level, department, data team, or faculty meetings. Teachers may also benefit from a brief (one-page) summary of the effectiveness of SRSD with links to resources. See Figure 4.
First-grade student’s informative writing pretest and posttest.
Third-grade student’s informative writing pretest and posttest.
Fifth-grade student’s informative writing pretest and posttest.
Handout for elementary teachers.
Ideally, coaches will find some interest following the initial pitch and information share. It is often best to begin implementation with these interested and invested teachers prior to trying a more complex and comprehensive rollout (McKeown et al., 2019). The coach may begin with a small group meeting where teachers share their current writing practices, their preparation to teach writing, and levels of self-efficacy for teaching writing (Ray et al., 2023). Many practices that are common in writing instruction fit into the SRSD model (e.g., graphic organizers for planning, collaborative writing), and coaches should be on the lookout for opportunities to celebrate how current writing practices are aligned with the SRSD framework, or alternatively, can be incorporated into the instruction. This makes the transition to SRSD easier as teachers realize this is not an overwhelming and all new practice, but rather a systematic, explicit approach that incorporates many of the skills they already have while adding new tools to their repertoire (Harris & McKeown, 2022). That said, the coach must emphasize that there is power, particularly for students with LD (Gillespie & Graham, 2014), in systematically offering these skills through direct, explicit instruction.
To further foster buy-in, teachers should be presented with information about the power of writing and its impact on students’ life outcomes (e.g., improved learning, Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004; greater resilience to trauma, Glass et al., 2019; tighter social bonds, Barton & Hall, 2000; emotional healing, Pennebaker, 2004; restoration of physical health, Smyth et al., 1999; access to employment, National Association of Colleges and Employer, 2022). For example, as a skill, writing impacts economic mobility. On national surveys, 80% of blue collar and 90% of white-collar workers indicated writing was critical to their job success (National Commission on Writing, 2004). Beyond future economic mobility, current issues of advocacy are also important for students with LD. With high-quality writing instruction, students with LD whose needs are often made known through the voices of others and thus may be inadequately addressed are able to access higher degrees of self-determination and self-advocacy fostering better life outcomes (e.g., Rowe et al., 2015).
Beyond writing, SRSD instruction also supports students in enhancing self-regulatory skills. As students with LD often struggle with memory, focus, following multistep directions, and low self-efficacy with regard to academic performance (Graham et al., 2017), the introduction of self-regulatory strategies to enhance goal-setting, self-monitoring, self-assessment, and self-reinforcement often provide generalizable rewards beyond the area of writing (McKeown et al., 2021).
Practice-based professional development (PBPD)
Once teacher buy-in has been established, teachers need professional development and access to materials and resources for implementing SRSD writing instruction (Collins et al., 2021; Harris, Camping et al., 2023; Ray et al., 2023). PBPD is an effective approach to help teachers learn how to implement SRSD writing instruction with fidelity (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Harris, Camping et al., 2023). An instructional coach knowledgeable and experienced in teaching writing using SRSD can lead the PBPD. There are many SRSD resources to explore when planning PBPD. See Table 1. Instructional coaches can also seek additional support by contacting an SRSD researcher at a university or through online SRSD professional development (e.g., SRSD Online: https://srsdonline.org).
Suggestions for Professional Book Study Readings.
Note. Many peer-reviewed journal articles can be accessed through public libraries.
The instructional coach should develop the PBPD based on the strengths and areas of need of current teachers and students (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Harris, Camping et al., 2023). The first step of the PBPD begins with teachers brainstorming and discussing how their students respond affectively (emotions), behaviorally (what do they do), and cognitively (thoughts) to writing assignments. The coach introduces SRSD as an evidence-based instructional method that can support the affective, behavioral, and cognitive challenges students may encounter when completing a writing activity (Harris & Graham, 2018). The instructional coach then provides an overview of SRSD including the general and genre specific writing strategies (e.g., Pull apart the prompt (POW) and Topic, Important Facts, Definitions and Details, Ending (TIDE)), the six instructional stages of SRSD, and the self-regulation strategies (Ray et al., 2023). Several examples of students’ writing may serve to build teachers’ background knowledge of SRSD and can enhance teacher buy-in. Additionally, it is fitting for PBPD to include a discussion of the challenges specific populations (e.g., students with LD) may face when writing, the genre of focus (e.g., informative writing), state standards for writing, and other topics based on the content and pedagogical knowledge needs of teachers (Harris, Camping et al., 2023).
Next, the majority of the PBPD involves explicit modeling and practicing of the writing lessons that teachers are going to implement with their students (Collins et al., 2021; Harris, Camping et al., 2023; McKeown et al., 2019; Ray et al., 2023). The instructional coach begins by introducing the first writing lesson and discusses the objective of the lesson, the materials needed, and the key instructional procedures. Then using the same materials that will be used when teaching writing using SRSD in the classroom, the instructional coach models teaching the entire lesson to the teachers. The instructional coach needs to carefully review the lessons and examples of what teachers can say when teaching the lessons. Lessons include example language for teaching the lessons, but the instruction is not scripted; that is, teachers are not expected, and are actively discouraged, from reading from these lesson plans during implementation with students (Harris, Kim et al., 2023). Rather, the lesson plans are intended to be a resource and professional learning tool for teachers. When modeling lessons, the instructional coach needs to demonstrate adapting instruction to meet the specific needs and characteristics of students in teachers’ classrooms.
The teachers then work in pairs and practice teaching the lesson to one another (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Harris, Camping et al., 2023). The instructional coach and peer teachers provide constructive feedback on teaching performance while practicing the lesson (Collins et al., 2021). This allows multiple opportunities for the teacher to consider, practice, and refine their understanding of the lesson prior to teaching students.
As an instructional coach, extra preparation can be valuable before modeling and leading teachers in practicing lessons that are part of the model it stage of SRSD (Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022). For many PBPD leaders, it is beneficial to practice completing the graphic organizer and writing the paragraph or essay before modeling the writing process for the teachers. Then, when modeling for the teachers, the instructional coach will write an entirely new essay. It is essential to model the lesson and the writing process for teachers in the same way that they will teach their students. If the person modeling (coach to teachers or teacher to students) simply presents a fully fleshed out essay they had time to prepare in advance or an essay crafted by another person, students do not see the process and challenges of writing, the contemplation and strategy application. They merely witness the finished product. In this case, the teacher is not modeling the skill the student is being asked to do because the student is being asked to complete the task in real time, publicly, on demand.
Additionally, the instructional coach may choose to prepare self-statements ahead of time to use during modeling lessons (Harris et al., 2008; Ray & Fitzpatrick, 2022). Self-statements are thoughts good writers say in their head to help them complete the writing process. Self-statements for focusing attention on the writing task, strategy implementation, coping and self-control, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement need to be modeled by the instructional coach for teachers to see how they are incorporated into the think aloud process. Teachers have indicated that using self-statements is often awkward as they are not accustomed to “coaching” themselves in this way (McKeown et al., 2019); it is different than a simple think aloud of a task, but rather extends to the processing of problems (e.g., Ugh, I’m not sure what to do next. Let me pause and take a breath and consider the prompt clearly.), feelings (e.g., I’m feeling a little frustrated right now because I can’t think of just how to say what I want to say., I’m going to write what I’m trying to say and underline it to remind myself to think about this again when I revise), and considering next steps (e.g., Yes! I just checked off the definition and details for the first important fact. What do I need to do next? Let's look at this plan!).
The coach should be mindful that teachers will need time to prepare before teaching the modeling lessons to a peer (McKeown et al., 2019; Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022). This can be done during the PBPD or as homework to prepare for the next PBPD session. The PBPD leader should ask teachers to carefully read the modeling lessons, practice completing a graphic organizer, and write an essay. Teachers should create their own list of self-statements addressing challenges their students face. Having these components prepared helps teachers when thinking aloud. The lessons in the Model It phase may need to be practiced multiple times. If an individual teacher requires additional support, they might collect video of themselves practicing the presentation, and the instructional coach can offer praise and suggestions prior to implementation with students.
Throughout PBPD, teachers have the opportunity to ask questions and request additional modeling of lessons or parts of lessons from the instructional coach. PBPD can also incorporate videos of high-quality teachers implementing the SRSD instruction with students (Harris, Camping et al., 2023; Ray et al., 2023). Many teachers find that videos of other teachers and classrooms assist them in visualizing what the instruction will look like in their own classrooms.
The process of the instructional coach modeling, teachers practicing, and the instructional coach providing teachers with feedback are repeated for each lesson (Harris, Camping et al., 2023; Ray et al., 2023). This allows the teacher to see an expert model, a peer model, and then practice each lesson themselves in a supportive environment all before the instruction is implemented with students—where it matters most. At first, some teachers may feel self-conscious practicing lessons with peers (McKeown et al., 2019) and need extra encouragement from the instructional coach to truly practice teaching the lessons. Teacher behaviors that indicate this include reverting to sharing what they would do or considering logistics of implementation rather than engaging in practice as if the peer were their student. This step is critical—it is the practice of the PBPD—in order to increase the likelihood of success when teachers implement SRSD in their classrooms (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Harris, Camping et al., 2023). Reassure teachers that learning a new instructional approach like SRSD is challenging and practice helps each of us grow as a teacher in order to improve writing skills of students. Often teachers share that the practicing of the lessons and considering how their peers offered the same lessons resulted in the completeness of their understanding of SRSD. Prior studies have demonstrated that teachers need to be willing to develop new skills, have time to collaborate with colleagues, and feel efficacious about implementing the writing instruction; each of these goals is directly addressed through PBPD (for further insights on implementation and sustainability practices of SRSD see Connor et al., in press).
Preparing materials
During the PBPD teachers are given all the instructional materials and practice using the materials (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Collins et al., 2021; Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022). After completing PBPD for SRSD, teachers need to prepare and adapt materials as needed for implementation with their students. Instructional coaches can meet with teachers to discuss options of materials they may want to use during SRSD implementation. Teachers also may want to create items to be displayed within the classroom. This could be a large poster with the writing strategy or graphic organizer displayed. Another option is creating a bulletin board with a class writing goal and students’ self-statements. Teachers should also create a place to display student writing which helps develop a classroom community of writers (Graham, 2019). Additionally, teachers may want to create items to help students memorize the strategies such as flashcards, foldables, memory games, or online review games. Finally, some teachers like to create presentations or smartboard slides to use when teaching writing lessons.
Supporting teachers during classroom implementation
After completing PBPD and preparing materials, it is time for instruction to begin. There are many ways that instructional coaches can support teachers during SRSD implementation.
Teaching SRSD lessons
Even after completing PBPD, there still may be some lessons that teachers find challenging or are less confident in implementing. Instructional coaches may model effective SRSD instruction by teaching a lesson in the teacher's classroom (Collins et al., 2021). Lessons that include modeling the writing process and using self-regulation may be especially helpful to model.
Prior to teaching a SRSD writing lesson in a teacher's classroom, it is important for instructional coaches to meet with the teacher to discuss what has been taught so far, what has been going well, and anything that may not be going as the teacher had hoped. Then the coach and teacher should collaboratively determine what lesson the instructional coach will teach and what the teacher will do during the lesson. These decisions should be based on particular aspects of instruction that the teacher may find challenging. For example, if the teacher is unsure about the modeling process and how to integrate a think aloud along with self-statements, the instructional coach could teach a lesson modeling how to make notes to plan an essay.
At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher should introduce the instructional coach to the class and share that the instructional coach is going to be teaching a writing lesson. Share that the instructional coach is an excellent writing teacher and that the teacher is excited to see how the coach teaches the class. This also presents an opportunity for the teacher to share how they are a lifelong learner and are always striving to improve their teaching skills. During the lesson, the instructional coach teaches the lesson and the teacher makes notes and writes questions.
After the lesson, the instructional coach and teacher should meet to discuss the lesson as soon as possible. The instructional coach and teacher will review the notes the teacher took during the lesson and discuss any of the teacher's questions. The instructional coach should focus on helping the teacher implement the instruction independently with the class. Then the instructional coach and teacher should discuss upcoming lessons and any needed supports. One way to help support the teacher in implementing the skills in the lesson that was modeled by the instructional coach is coteaching the next lesson(s).
Coteaching SRSD lessons
Instructional coaches can provide assistance through coteaching after modeling teaching a lesson or can begin support with coteaching. The instructional coach and teacher can meet to discuss what lessons would be beneficial to co-teach. This could be the first few lessons to help a teacher get started and feel comfortable with implementing SRSD lessons or a lesson that the teacher finds challenging. For a successful coteaching lesson, the coach and teacher need to meet to coplan the lesson, determine the specific goals of the lesson, and decide the responsibilities each person will have during the cotaught lesson (S. C. Cook & McDuffie-Landrum, 2020).
Coteaching also allows the instructional coach to model differentiated instruction for learners with LD. For example, during the Support It phase of SRSD when students begin writing in small groups or pairs, the instructional coach and teacher can discuss creating intentional student groups. They can also determine if there are any students not yet meeting writing expectations that may benefit from having portions of the writing process remodeled. The instructional coach and teacher may choose to coteach with one person helping the majority of the class and one person working with a small group to provide this additional modeling. This may be especially helpful for teachers implementing the SRSD writing instruction within inclusive general education classrooms that include learners with and without LD.
After coteaching a lesson, it is important to have a follow-up meeting to discuss what went well and what challenges were encountered. The teacher can ask clarifying questions about implementing different components of SRSD. Discussions about strategies to help students with LD and those who need additional support should also occur.
Observe SRSD lessons
Instructional coaches can also support teachers by observing SRSD lessons and providing the teacher with constructive feedback and reflection questions. Examples of SRSD observation tools can be found in articles by Ray & FitzPatrick (2022) and Ray et al. (2023). Prior to observing, the instructional coach should meet with the teacher to determine what has been going well, and specific aspects of instruction the teacher would like feedback or suggestions.
While observing, the instructional coach should make detailed notes and then schedule a time to meet with the teacher (Collins et al., 2021). During the meeting, the instructional coach should start by having the teacher share their thoughts about the lesson to provide an opportunity for self-reflection and encourage discussion. The instructional coach can then share strengths and ideas for improving the lesson as well as brainstorm ideas on how to differentiate instruction to benefit students who need additional help (Collins et al., 2021; Ray et al., 2023). Observations and follow-up meetings with the instructional coach should be a positive experience that affirms the teacher's skills and provides opportunities for growth.
coordinate peer observations of SRSD lessons
A powerful way for teachers to improve their skills is through observing peers teach writing using SRSD, which the instructional coach can help coordinate. Peer observation allows for mutual professional development as the teacher observing can learn new ideas to implement in their own classroom and share suggestions with the peer they observed. Teachers can develop their teaching practice and implementation of SRSD through peer observation and discussion after the observation. The instructional coach can help facilitate the peer observation process by helping with scheduling, providing coverage for the class of the teacher who is observing, and supplying an observation tool and discussion format (for examples, see Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022; Ray et al., 2023).
Facilitate teacher meetings about SRSD
Instructional coaches can help teachers deepen their knowledge and refine SRSD instructional skills by organizing and facilitating teacher meetings about SRSD. These meetings can take the form of a professional learning communities (PLC) or professional book study. PLCs help increase teachers’ ownership of SRSD instruction as they meet to reflect on their implementation and collaborate with their colleagues (Harris et al., 2015). During PLCs teachers can discuss their current students’ strengths and needs and brainstorm innovative ways to support their students’ writing development. Instructional coaches can also implement activities during PLC meetings to address questions or challenges teachers are encountering. Examples of possible activities are watching and discussing a video of a teacher implementing an SRSD lesson, reading and discussing an article about SRSD instruction, or reviewing and practicing an SRSD lesson.
A professional book study (Blanton et al., 2020) provides teachers with the opportunity to expand their knowledge of SRSD through reading and focused discussion. Teachers read the material before the meeting and identify insights, connections to their own experiences, and implications for practice to discuss at the meeting. The role of an instructional coach would be to select a book or series of readings on SRSD (see suggestions of readings in Table 1), schedule meetings, communicate expectations (e.g., pages to read, questions to answer) for each session, and facilitate discussions. Both types of meetings, PLCs and book study, bring teachers together to connect and deepen their understanding of SRSD and abilities to differentiate SRSD instruction to meet the needs of all their students.
Instructional coaches supporting differentiation
Meeting with the teacher to plan how to implement a differentiated lesson is another way the instructional coach can provide assistance (McKeown et al., 2016). The instructional coach can talk with the teacher about how students are doing with the writing instruction and provide ideas on how to support various learners’ needs (McKeown et al., 2016).
Writing strategies differentiation
An essential component of SRSD for writing is teaching students a genre specific strategy to help with the planning and writing process. The same genre strategy can—and should—be used across various grade levels and differentiated to meet the learning goals of students (Ray et al., 2023). For example, when writing informative paragraphs and essays the TIDE strategy can be taught. The mnemonic TIDE has represented various informative writing components during research studies (Ciullo & Mason, 2017; Ray et al., 2023). We have slightly adjusted the phrasing of TIDE to align with the vocabulary of the CCSS to support teachers in explicitly addressing the standards as well as genre expectations. For students in kindergarten and first grade, TIDE can stand for Topic, 3 big IDeas/Important facts, and Ending. Students in second through fifth grade can be taught a more advanced version where TIDE can stand for topic, important facts (at least three), definitions and details (at least three), and Ending. Students in third through fifth grade learn to expand their writing by also adding explanations, examples, and evidence as needed. See Figure 5 for a proposed sample of how TIDE may grow and be implemented across grade levels.
Diagram depicting a proposed transition from early to elaborate informative writing.
The amount and type of content students create can also be differentiated and aligned to grade-level expectations. In kindergarten, students can focus on naming the topic and learning to write a topic sentence and drawing a corresponding picture(s). See Figure 6 for kindergarten examples of informational writing. For instance, in first grade, students learn to write informatively by writing a few sentences that name the topic, include important facts about the topic, and an ending. By fifth-grade students learn to write a structured essay with multiple paragraphs that starts with a topic paragraph; has body paragraphs each with an important fact, definitions, and details; and concludes with an ending paragraph. By overseeing a schoolwide implementation using the same strategy for each genre, a coach solidifies students’ knowledge within the genre and lessens the instructional demands each year as students only need to learn the additional skills being added to the genre per the standards rather than re-learning the entire genre in a way likely to vary teacher by teacher, year by year.
Kindergarten informative writing. Note. CCSS for Kindergarten: Use a combination of drawing, dictating, and writing to compose informative/explanatory texts in which they name what they are writing about and supply some information about the topic.
Self-regulation strategies differentiation
SRSD instruction embeds explicit self-regulation strategies and goal setting into the instruction to support cognitive demands of the writing process (Harris et al., 2008). One hallmark element of SRSD is modeling the use of self-statements and having students develop personalized self-statements. Instructional coaches can support teachers by brainstorming ideas for self-statements that teachers can model that target the challenges students in the classroom are encountering (McKeown et al., 2016). These should be tailored to the personal affective, behavioral, or cognitive needs in each classroom (Harris & Graham, 2018). For instance, students who struggle with staying focused and persisting with the writing task may need self-statements such as “I can do this. I need to stay focused on my topic.” or “I need to concentrate on planning my essay.” Instructional coaches can provide teachers with opportunities to practice teaching using self-statements or offer a lesson in the teacher's classroom where students develop their own self-statements (McKeown et al. 2016).
Goal setting
Instructional coaches can work with teachers to review students’ writing and brainstorm individualized goals for all students. These goals should be based on students’ current writing performance and focused on a specific skill to help them develop as a writer (McKeown et al., 2019). When focusing on writing in a specific genre area (e.g., informative), personalized goals can focus on other writing standards or language, speaking, listening, or reading standards. Individualized student goals that target language standards could be about writing conventions, knowledge of language, or vocabulary use (CCSS, 2010). For example, a first-grade student could have an individualized goal of capitalizing the first word in every sentence or to use ending punctuation for sentences, or a third-grade student could have an individualized goal that focuses on choosing words for effect within an essay. If the teacher is working with a whole class or a larger group of students, a few individualized goals can be created and used for several students. Then, the teacher can implement mini-lessons with small groups of students who have the same individualized goals. The instructional coach can assist with the conceptualizing and development of mini-lessons to help further students’ writing skills, support decisions for which students should populate groups depending on their demonstrated needs, and align instruction to instructional standards (Torres & Ray, 2022).
To illustrate, a teacher implementing SRSD informational writing instruction with a group of 24 s graders would teach students to write informatively using the TIDE strategy and the SRSD instructional stages. The class writing goal would be, “I can write an informative paragraph that includes all the parts of TIDE (Topic, Important facts, Definitions and Details, and Ending).” Then after reviewing students’ pretests, the teacher could group students based on a common skill that they need to develop. This teacher could have four groups of six students and each group would have an individualized goal. These goals could be Group 1: I can write a compound sentence within my informative paragraph. Group 2: I can write a sentence that contains a contraction with the correct use of an apostrophe within my informative paragraph., Group 3: I can use two adjectives within my informative paragraph., and Group 4: I can use a collective noun within my informative paragraph. Beyond the whole class instruction of SRSD, the teacher would rotate instruction with each small group and teach mini-lessons targeted at the skill those students are working on. This can help students grow as writers through having instruction focused on a specific area where they can improve their writing and is manageable for the teacher.
Differentiation through classroom grouping
An additional way to differentiate instruction is by using random and intentional grouping (Harris & Graham, 2018; McKeown et al., 2016). Writing is, at its core, communication between parties—a social practice; thus, during SRSD instruction, there are many opportunities for students to interact with one another. During the Memorize It stage of SRSD instruction, students work on memorizing what the genre specific strategy (e.g., TIDE) stands for, what it means, and why it is important. When students practice memorizing the genre specific strategy, teachers may randomly assign students into pairs or small groups.
When students are collaboratively writing or doing peer review, intentional grouping may be a good option. Intentional grouping is when the teacher groups students based on the goal of the learning activity and the students’ ability levels and dispositions. For example, when working with a class of students, the teacher may notice that a few students are not yet confident in their understanding of how to apply the TIDE strategy when writing an informative essay. Instruction can be differentiated by having the teacher work with small groups of students during the support it stage of instruction. The instructional coach might suggest that the teacher do a few lessons where the majority of the class is working in pairs to collaboratively write an essay and the teacher works with the small group to lead the collaborative writing of another informative essay. Another intentional grouping approach during collaborative writing would be putting students into pairs or small groups of students with mixed abilities. This can be helpful as students who have a stronger understanding and ability to write informatively can guide a student who is not yet able to apply the TIDE strategy. Overall, instructional coaches can help teachers think through how to differentiate instruction by aligning the activity and grouping strategy to best support students.
Assessment: Tracking student growth
An instructional coach can be an appreciated resource when it comes to tracking student growth related to SRSD writing instruction. Prior to instruction, the coach and teachers may come together to consider appropriate prompts to be used to evaluate student performance. The group may consider a prompt that could broadly relate to all students across grade levels (e.g., Explain how the weather affects your life). Prompts could be on a common theme but varied in complexity across grade levels (e.g., Describe why sharing is important. Describe why volunteering in your community is important). Alternatively, different prompts might be selected for each grade level (e.g., Describe a service provided by the local government. Choose one animal. Describe how that animal's characteristics are suited to its environment). Then a minimum of two prompts should be created to be administered prior to and following classroom implementation (Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022). Additional prompts might be created for maintenance measures. Furthermore, these writing assessments can be used to gather data for IEP goals.
Pre- and postassessments
An essential component to tracking growth effectively is collecting pre- and postassessments for all students. Preassessments provide a baseline measure of performance, but additionally, when evaluated for class-level commonalities, the preassessments may indicate specific skills the teacher will be sure to model, or to model incorrectly and then revise. Toward this aim, the coach may use these data to inform their own model during PBPD. Likewise, a postassessment will be administered following classroom implementation of SRSD writing instruction to capture the gains in student performance and offer instructional implications. For additional information about creating comparable prompts (see Ray & FitzPatrick, 2022).
The coach may train and support teachers in using flexible checklists for each grade level (See Figure 7 for these checklists; all elementary grade-level checklists are provided in supplemental materials) to evaluate the students’ pre-assessments, and eventually postassessments. These flexible checklists serve as an analytic rubric as they evaluate specific indicators—in this case, aligned with CCSS standards and the provided instruction—to determine the students’ progress across the course of instruction. These flexible checklists allow teachers to quickly identify key components of the informational genre. If desired, an additional column or note can be added to further differentiate the scores by assessing the quality of each included item (e.g., 0 = no definition included, 1 = definition that provided a broad category – cat is an animal—is included, 2 = a clear definition that includes a broad category and additional details to differentiate the example from the broad category—cat is a four legged mammal with whiskers that purrs).
Flexible checklists for informational writing across elementary grade levels.
Student checklists have also been provided to correspond with the teacher's checklist. While the teacher can see the prior year's standards as well as the coming year's standards, student checklists only include the standards up to their current grade level to make expectations clear and minimize stress. These are fashioned for students to check their own work and work with a peer to evaluate their writing performance prior to submitting the work to the teacher.
Measuring progress before the writing begins during SRSD instruction
In SRSD instruction, there are six unique stages. Students are purposely not asked to write until Stage 5: Support It. Students learn about the genre, get comfortable discussing and identifying parts of the genre, see their teacher explicitly model all aspects of responding to a prompt within the genre, and then participate in a collaborative model in response to yet another prompt in the genre all before working with a peer or small group to attempt the feat on their own. SRSD is intentionally structured this way to set students up for success by actively preventing failure. That means, several weeks of instruction might pass prior to students engaging with the tools to successfully write a response to a prompt. It is important that coaches recognize that the earliest stages of SRSD rely on teacher-directed instruction and make space for teachers to devote that time to the knowledge that predates the actual student writing. That said, there are ways to measure progress during that time as well. For instance, coaches might support teachers in evaluating genre knowledge by oral or written response to the parts of the TIDE strategy or an explanation of the qualities of good writing. Students may be evaluated on their ability to identify genre components within an exemplar essay.
Maintenance measures across content areas
As standards address all three common genres—informational, persuasive, and narrative—throughout elementary school, after successful implementation, administrators and instructional coaches should be mindful to expect ongoing review and assessment of these skills. To this aim, instructional coaches may plan to capture maintenance measures for each genre throughout the school year. These are often easily implemented across content areas (e.g., Social Studies: Describe rights and responsibilities we each have as a citizen of the nation; Science: Explain the processes that are part of the water cycle.) and in that way, may be paired intentionally to capture other standards relevant to the grade level.
Student growth and IEP goals
Coaches may share results of pretests, postassessments, and ongoing maintenance performance for all students in data team meetings. By using the flexible checklists, teachers can evaluate specific skills that are easily mastered and identify areas for improvement. If grade-level standards are generally met, the coach may consider what standards from coming grade levels are most relevant to add as a stretch goal for specific classrooms, groups, or students.
As there is a legal necessity to provide data for IEP meetings and to assure students with disabilities achieve annual goals, these measures can also be used to create and track progress toward students’ IEP goals. Here are three examples of IEP goals that could be used across the elementary grades: (a)
Conclusion
Elementary school settings provide a unique opportunity for instructional coaches to oversee schoolwide implementation of an evidence-based practice for writing, such as SRSD. By facilitating PBPD and streamlining implementation across the grade levels, the instructional coach can harness the power of additive knowledge across the years. Moreover, students and teachers benefit from the consistent expectations. By providing this leadership, instructional coaches increase teacher knowledge of evidence-based pedagogical practices; support the uptake, implementation, and maintenance of SRSD instruction; and thereby, increase student writing outcomes.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.