An SRSD Intervention Study for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities to Improve Narrative Writing and High Cognitive Skills

Abstract

Developing written expression is a challenging task for students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). The current study describes a 28-hour novel writing intervention program for Greek 5th and 6th graders with SLD that focuses on cognitive and metacognitive written expression strategies. The resource room teachers used the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instructional approach. Participants were divided into two groups: experimental (N = 36) and control (N = 44). The study was designed as a pre-while-post-follow-up experimental study. All students were assessed on written expression and cognitive and metacognitive strategy knowledge. The ANOVA results showed that the experimental group improved statistically significantly in writing and metacognitive skills compared to the control group, providing tangible evidence that writing can be taught effectively to SLD students. The educational implications of the related findings are also discussed.

1. Introduction

The acquisition of written expression is undeniably critical for all students’ educational success. Students who improve their writing abilities gain a valuable tool for learning, communication, and self-expression [1]. Nonetheless, according to a number of studies [2, 3], nearly 75% of children and adolescents are unable to write texts that meet grade-level expectations. Similarly, one-third of high school graduates are not prepared to write at the college level. In total, 60% of students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) did not meet the proficiency criteria for basic writing. For them, written expression is a complex process marked by repeated failure and slow progress [4].

Students with SLD have significant writing difficulties due to a variety of deficits that affect their writing abilities. First, they devote less time to planning and organizing a text. This has an impact on their writing process because they produce short texts that lack coherence, clarity, and purpose. Furthermore, many students struggle with transcription skills, which affect their writing fluency and ability to create content [5]. They may have fine motor problems, a limited vocabulary, and an incomplete syntactic structure, and they make spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors [6, 7, 8]. Furthermore, because they have weakened memory as well as limited executive functioning and cognitive monitoring skills, they fail to recall cognitive and metacognitive strategies needed for the process of revision and evaluation of their manuscripts [4]. As a result, they frequently develop negative or self-depreciative thoughts, as well as low self-efficacy and motivation to write [4, 9, 10, 11, 12].

Thus, various teaching models and practices have been developed over the last few years to help improve the writing expression of students with SLD, and have been shown to be effective in improving students’ literacy abilities in special education.

1.1 Effective writing approaches for struggling writers

Because writing is so important, SLD students’ text production should be encouraged through well-designed writing programs based on various practices. However, they are not all equally effective. Several researchers [1, 13] discovered that transcription and grammar instruction appear to be ineffective in improving writing expression, whereas prewriting activities appear to be ineffective in improving writing quality [14]. Interventions based on strategy instruction for planning, editing, revising, summarization, sentence combining, peer assistance, and scaffolding, on the other hand, improve struggling writers’ writing skills [13, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Setting writing product goals is another highly recommended practice that has been shown to be very effective for students with SLD’s written expression [19].

More specifically, it has been reported that the above practices are effective when used in conjunction with a specific instructional approach. Direct/explicit instruction, for example, is based on step-by-step procedures that guide students through intensive practice with reinforcement [20], modeling [21], and remedial feedback [22]. As a result, several significant findings from meta-analyses and experimental studies confirmed that programs based on direct/explicit instruction were effective for improving writing not only for struggling writers but also for beginning writers [1, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. Teachers’ modeling [26], mnemonics to aid in memorizing strategy steps [27], practice opportunities and feedback [27], and students’ independent strategy use are all examples of direct/explicit instruction [30]. Scaffolding through well-structured tasks is critical for releasing guidance and allowing students to work independently [25].

In addition to strategy knowledge, the ability to regulate one’s own learning is essential for writing. As a result, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is another promising instructional approach for teaching writing among students with SLD or at risk for learning disabilities (LDs), as well as those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [24, 31, 32, 33, 34]. In a recent meta-analysis, Kokkali and Antoniou (in press) discovered that adding self-regulation to strategy instruction was the most effective treatment to support written expression for students at risk for or with LD. They found that designing multicomponent programs of different practices, such as direct/explicit instruction of self-instruction and self-monitoring strategies, feedback, goal setting, and peer tutoring, are highly effective for increasing writing.

1.2 Writing and self-regulation

When students adapt their own writing strategies to a specific writing situation, they achieve self-regulation. Students with self-regulation skills can think about a task before beginning it and then self-monitor their progress, eventually completing the task [35]. SRSD is a method of teaching that combines direct instruction in an academic strategy with self-regulation skills. This approach is designed to teach the elements of the writing process in six instructional steps: (a) activation of prior knowledge, (b) discussion of the strategy, (c) modeling the writing process, memorization of the strategy, (d) supporting students in using the strategy, and (e) prompting independent work [36]. It has, even, been supported that students internalize and self-regulate strategies when self-instructional techniques are the main frame of strategy instruction [37].

1.3 Purpose of the present study and research questions

Much research has been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of SRSD instruction. However, little SRSD research has been conducted on students who have or are at risk of having SLD. It should be noted at this point that corresponding research in the Greek language is also limited. Importantly, the international literature review emphasizes the need to test its implementation when teacher-led instruction is intergraded into comprehensive writing programs across resource rooms. In order to understand why, how, and for whom SRSD works, it is also necessary to investigate its long-term cost-effectiveness in comparison to traditional instruction [38]. As a result, the proposed study can help to expand knowledge in this field by demonstrating that SRSD can be a valuable technique for instructing students with SLD.

The current study’s specific goal was to implement a novel comprehensive writing intervention that includes explicit writing instruction enriched with self-regulation written expression strategies. The program was expected to have a positive impact on students’ writing expression and metacognitive knowledge. The following were the study’s research questions:

1. Does an SRSD-based comprehensive writing intervention program contribute to improve writing expression of students with SLD?

2. Does an SRSD-based comprehensive writing intervention program contribute to improve writing strategy knowledge of students with SLD?

3. Does an SRSD-based comprehensive writing intervention program have lasting effects on students with SLD?

2. Method

2.1 Research design and procedures

2.1.1 Research design

The design of the present study followed a pretest, while-test, post-test, and follow-up test scheme, including control group. This design is effective for the evaluation of literacy programs and is significantly strengthened by the existence of a control group [39]. For this reason, the sample was divided into two groups: (i) Experimental Group (EG) and (ii) Control Group (CG). Tables, according to Cohen [39], were used to assess the sample size. Based on the formula: δ = γ$\frac{\sqrt{{\rm N}}}{\sqrt{2}},$ the sample size was evaluated as a function of a factor δ and it was found that a sample of the order of 25 individuals is sufficient in order to detect large differences (i.e., of the order of γ = 80 by Cohen), where γ is a size in standard deviations [40].

More specifically, the study was structured in accordance with the data presented in Table 1. All the related measures are described in full detail in section measures.

Stages	Time	Assessment
Pre-test	Time 1-T1, before the beginning of the intervention in the 3rd week of January and lasted 2 weeks	Non-verbal intelligence, fluency, written expression, and metacognitive strategy knowledge
Writing intervention	1–4 Weeks (Four teaching hours per week for 7 weeks; each teaching hour lasted 45–60 min).
While-test	Time 2-T2, in the middle of the intervention (5th week)	Written expression and metacognitive strategy knowledge
Writing intervention	5–7 Weeks (Four teaching hours per week for 7 weeks; each teaching hour lasted 45–60 min).
Post-test	Time 3-T3, after the intervention is completed at the end of March	Written expression and metacognitive strategy knowledge
Follow-up test	Time 4-T4, 6 weeks after the end of the intervention	Written expression and metacognitive strategy knowledge

Table 1.

Temporal structure of the study.

2.1.2 Procedures

The research process was initiated with the obtainment of permission from the Ministry of Education to implement the intervention program. Informed consent for student’s participation in the study was granted by their parents. The participation of all involved members was voluntary and students could withdraw at any time during the study. Then, school principals and special education teachers in the resource rooms were informed about the study and they were invited to take part.

The students were assessed (IQ and reading fluency), initially, individually by the first author or by graduate students, who had undergone rigorous training, including one-on-one evaluation of testing skills. If students met the inclusion criteria for the sample selection, then they were assessed as a group on the remaining skills (writing quality and writing-strategy knowledge). The specially trained graduate students did not participate in the design of the intervention program; thus, they were not aware of the potential effects and research questions. All tests took place in quiet classrooms during regular school hours and did not exceed an hour and a half. On the fifth week (while-test- T2) of the intervention, the students of the EG and CG were assessed for written expression and metacognitive strategy knowledge in order to observe their progress. Following the completion of the intervention, that is, within up to 7 days after the last session, both groups were assessed (post-test-T3) by the research team. Finally, students were reassessed, 6 weeks after the end of the intervention (follow up-T4). Due to the withdrawal of two students from the EG during the intervention, the amount of data finally gathered, pertained to 80 students.

2.2 Participants

Out of the 162 students assessed at first, eighty 5th and 6th grade students with SLD enrolled in 23 resource rooms throughout the province of Attica met all inclusion criteria and participated in the study. The following criteria were used to determine inclusion: (i) achievement of an 85 or above intelligence quotient using Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices, and (ii) performance under the 10th percentile in the reading fluency via the standardized reading test. Students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurological impairments, as well as emotional, behavioral, or sensory difficulties were preliminarily excluded from the study. The participants came from various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Thirty-six students were randomly assigned to the experimental group (EG) (Ν_girls = 16, Ν_boys = 20) and 44 to the control group (CG) (Ν_girls = 25, Ν_boys = 19) without considering any blocking factors, such as grade or bilingualism. The selection of bilingual students based on the aforementioned criteria was permitted on the condition that they had attended Greek schools from kindergarten age. Sixty students spoke Greek only and the remaining 20 spoke Greek and another language at home (e.g., Albania, French, Indian, Arabian, Romanian, Polonian, Italian, and German). Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of participating students.

Group	Age	Gender		Language		Grade
		Male	Female	Greek	Greek and other	5th	6th
Experimental Ν = 36	11.02 (0.59)	20	16	28	8	19	17
Control Ν = 44	11.15 (0.56)	19	25	32	12	19	25
Total N = 80	11.09 (0.57)	39	41	60	20	38	42

Table 2.

Demographic characteristics.

Before the intervention, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of chronological age, IQ , reading fluency, writing quality, or knowledge of metacognitive strategies (see Table 3). Chi-square analyses, also, revealed no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of grade (38 students in 5th grade and 42 students in 6th grade, x² = .39), or in bilingualism (8 bilinguals in experimental and 12 in control, x² = .604).

Group	Age Μ (SD)	IQ Μ (SD)	Reading fluency M (SD)	Writing quality M (SD)	Writing-strategy knowledge M (SD)
Experimental Ν = 36	11.02 (0.59)	102.36 (11.740)	65.94 (15.800)	1.22 (0.381)	0.374 (0.268)
Control Ν = 44	11.15 (0.561)	98.18 (11.467)	67.59 (17.890)	1.31 (0.398)	0.378 (0.216)
	t (1) = 1.000 p > 0.10	t (1) = 1.921 p > 0.10	t (1) = 0.186 p > 0.10	t (1) = 0.96 p > 0.10	t (1) =0.004 p > 0.10
	Greek speakers/non-Greek: x^2 = 0.604, p > 0.10; 5th/6th Graders: x^2 = 0.393, p > 0.10

Table 3.

Characteristics of participants at the onset of the study.

Note. Age = age in years.

2.3 Teachers’ characteristics and training

The intervention was implemented by nine teachers of the resource rooms for 28 teaching hours. To avoid potential teachers’ effects, each was asked to provide information about their educational level, years of teaching experience, and previous participation in other intervention programs. The x² analysis performed on the collected data revealed no statistically significant differences in the aforementioned variables between the experimental and control groups of teachers. During a special meeting, the educational materials (teacher’s book and student’s workbook) for the proposed writing intervention program were delivered and explained to the EG teachers. The authors conducted a 2-hour training session for the EG teachers, which included theoretical guidelines about SRSD and detailed information about the instructional material. Teachers received no additional training because it is believed that the brief training is sufficient to affect their daily practice [41]. Furthermore, the intervention program was fully scripted, so they were given the exact wording they needed to use.

2.4 Measures

2.4.1 Non-verbal intelligence

The Greek standardization of Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices [42] was used for the estimation of non-verbal intelligence. The final score was calculated based on the sum of correct answers (Cronbach’s a = .69, mean time of testing-m.t.t.: 10–15 min).

2.4.2 Reading fluency

The reading fluency was assessed via subtest four of the reading test [43]. Reading test was standardized in the Greek student population, aiming at the early detection of reading difficulties by providing weighted means for each grade of compulsory education, and determining percentiles that allow the evaluation of the severity of reading difficulty. Students were asked to read individually and out loud an unknown pragmatic passage of 279 words for 1 minute. Their final score is equal to the total number of the correct words they were able to read at this time.

2.4.3 Writing expression

In order to assess writing expression, four pictures were given to the students, and asked to write the story on a piece of paper.

Story grammar. To assess the schematic structure of stories, we adapted the Harris and Graham’s story grammar scale [44] scoring the inclusion and quality of the parts of a story (main character, locale, time, starter event, action, ending, and reaction). Following Harris and Graham’s scoring convention, a score of zero was assigned if the respective element was not present, and a score of one was assigned if it was present. Scores on the resulting seven-item scale could range from zero to seven points. The interrater reliability (Pearson’s coefficient) was greater than .92.

Organization. This scale referred to the organization (introduction, main body paragraph, and ending) and coherence (linking words) of stories. For the first, a score of zero was assigned if the respective element was not present and a score of one if it was present. Scores on the scale could range from one to three points. Regarding the coherence, we counted the number of linking words that existed in every story. Interscorer reliability was greater than 0.94.

Content. This scale referred to vocabulary. More specifically, this included active verbs and emotional words. We counted the number of them in each story. Interscorer reliability was greater than 0.90.

Theme writing. Theme writing was assessed scoring one if the story was on topic and zero if it was not. The interrater reliability was .99.

Writing quality. In order to assess the writing quality of students’ compositions, a holistic rating scale was used based on previous elements. The rating scale assesses topics such as (i) story grammar, (ii) organization (introduction, main body paragraph, ending, coherence), (iii) content (active verbs, feelings-vocabulary), and (iv) theme writing.

Story length. To obtain a measure of story length, two members of the research team counted the number of words in each story regardless of spelling. Their interrater reliability was .99.

2.4.4 Writing-strategy knowledge

In order to assess students’ writing metacognitive skills, they were introduced to a writing-strategy knowledge test that was based on the metacognition questionnaire of Schlagmueller and Schneider [45] and Antoniou and Souvignier [46], and further modified by the first two authors. The inventory included three short passages presenting a problematic situation regarding writing. For example, the text presented a student whose goal was to write a text entitled “How I spent Christmas” but did not know what to do. Students, pretending to be teachers, were asked which were the best of six suggested strategies to accomplish the task (a. He/She has to think about ideas that are relevant to the topic; b. He/She has to correct spelling mistakes before giving them to his/her teacher; c. He/She has to analyze ideas and combine them with words that show feelings; d. He/She has to check the text for errors in content; e. He/She has to write something about Easter if he/she does not know about this title; f. He/She has to write a few sentences as they come to mind). A score of −1 was assigned if the selected strategy was wrong and a score of one was assigned if it was correct. Next, students were asked to write by themselves which strategies they would use under three specific circumstances (a. before writing a story; b. during writing; c. after finishing the story). Every correct strategy was scored with one (Cronbach’s a = .45, m.t.t.: 15–20 min).

2.5 Description of SRSD intervention

2.5.1 Material and instructional principles

The intervention was implemented with a mixed-age class of 10–11-year-olds. Students received a workbook with activities and worksheets to guide students’ independent work. Participating teachers received a detailed handbook on how to apply the program and implement the explicitly cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies, and self-regulation techniques. It included clear and precise information as well as elaborate examples for the lesson’s sequence and guidance for the function of every strategy. Last, a check box is placed next to each step-strategy to mark its completion in order to help teachers to orient themselves while working with their students.

The program lasted 7 weeks, scheduled 4 days per week. Each session lasted one school hour and did not include more than four students. The program was based on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). The model was designed to teach the three phases of the writing process (planning, editing, and revising) as well as writing quality (organization of the paragraph, genre, content, and vocabulary) in six stages of instruction to help students develop writing composition that is clear and cohesive. These stages included activating students’ background knowledge by discussing how to write successfully, discussing the strategy to be learned (i.e., mnemonic targeting story-genre), modeling the strategy, memorizing the strategy, and writing compositions through guided and independent practice. It, also, included after the completion of a task, a self-regulation strategy in the form of a writing plan accompanied by a checklist. Each session followed the SRSD stages with scaffolding. Apparently, teachers’ guidance was progressively decreasing and finally discontinued in favor of students’ autonomous work. Table 4 shows an overview of SRSD lessons.

Units–Weeks	Hours	Strategy
Unit 1–Week 1	4	Story grammar and self-regulation	“A story consists of some elements. How can we remember them? ”.
Unit 2–Week 2	4	Organization and self-regulation	“ A paragraph consists of a topic sentence, conclusion, and linking words. ”
Unit 3–Week 3	4	Content and self-regulation	“Let us go now to write a story of our own. I look the notes of Explorer SME. I will ask myself out loud: What do I do at first?”
Unit 4–Week 4	4	Vocabulary and self-regulation	“Let us remember what we said. To be a story interesting, we should use words of feelings”
Unit 5–Week 5	4	Stages of the writing process and self-regulation	“Now that we have written our story, we have to check our text in order to make sure that we take care of everything. Do it, so I can see you.”
Unit 6–Week 6	4	Stages of the writing process and self-regulation
Unit 7–Week 7	4	Stages of the writing process and self-regulation

Table 4.

Overview of SRSD lessons.

2.5.2 Intervention program

The writing program was organized into 7 units according to the stages of a storyline, which was entitled “The Myth of Lost Atlantis.” The students pretended that they were explorers assigned to unravel a mystery by collecting clues and narrating stories from every place they visited. In that way, students realized how essential it was to proceed with a systematic and planned method to write a text. The purpose of this background story at the beginning of the program was to familiarize the students with the specifics of the procedure. Students had, as cognitive organizers and mnemonics in their workbook, explanatory and auxiliary symbols, which helped categorize the strategies and other important aspects of the program.

The first unit (week 1) focused on story grammar. Students were first taught to write stories with proper structure. Observing pictures that formed a story, students asked themselves the following questions represented by the mnemonic 7 W, 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? What happens in the end? What feelings do the main characters have? For each question, students generated notes and then, they used them in order to write the story. After completing each story, the students completed the checklist of the writing plan about the basic elements of the story (structure).

By second unit (week 2), organization of a paragraph, teachers had taught the students to construct correctly a paragraph. Here students had to look at a picture and write shortly a paragraph, including the 7 W and appropriate linking words. In each lesson, there was a bubble full of linking words, which over the sessions faded away. Every paragraph should have thematic sentence, details, and conclusion. At the end of each paragraph, the students monitored their script by a checklist and controlled if the basic elements and linking words were included in the text.

The third unit (week 3) incorporated content. This unit combined units 1 and 2; and a new element, the teaching of action verbs. This was the main difference between the first-second and third units. More specifically, during the third unit, students observed first the pictures of a story and were tested to determine whether they remembered what the story part reminder mnemonic (7 W) stood for and why they were important. They again practiced finding story parts and taking notes of them as they looked at the pictures, but this time they used a graphic organizer wherein they made notes for each part of the story by putting them in the correct paragraph using a new mnemonic SME (Start, Main body, and End). The teacher and students, further, discussed similar stories to the pictures the students have experienced and the last ones take notes using SME and action verbs. After that, students wrote their own stories using all the elements (7 W, SME, linking words, and action verbs) they had been taught. Last, using the metacognitive strategy of self-regulation, students checked their stories and determined whether they had met their goal.

The fourth unit (week 4) was based on vocabulary. The characteristics of a good story were discussed, including those stories, in order to be fun to read and write, and need to use exciting words. Students spent a few minutes looking at a picture and realizing how the main character feels. Τhen, they took notes of related words of feeling with the help of bubble words, which they had previously discussed with their teachers. Next, students write a paragraph using these words of feeling and following the steps that had been taught in the second unit.

The fifth, sixth, and seventh units (weeks 5–7) included the three phases of the writing process. In these units, the previous instructional stages are revisited and combined as necessary. The general planning strategy, taught to students, included three steps: first think, then write, and at the end check; by using a graphic organizer in the form of a map. Using this strategy, students acted like explorers by finding the most important elements of the story pictures and making notes.

During the first stage of instruction, developing background knowledge, students acquired the knowledge and skills needed to apply the three phases of the writing process. Its corresponding steps were introduced, and the teacher and students discussed why each step was important. Then, the characteristics of a good story were discussed, including that stories are fun when include exciting words. The teacher introduced, again, the mnemonic 7 W and SME, providing examples. During the second stage of instruction, discuss it, students were first tested to determine whether they remembered what 7 W and SME meant and why they were important. They again practiced making notes for the story parts, looking at the pictures, and putting them in the correct paragraph (start, main body, and end). They, also, made notes of feelings-words that make the story more interesting. They, then, discussed with their teachers which parts they have included and which they have not. During the third stage of instruction, model it, the teacher showed students how to apply 7 W and SME and introduced the use of self-instructions (i.e., self-talk) as well. The teacher began by setting a goal to include all of the parts of a story and model, while “talking out loud,” how to plan and write a story using these mnemonics. Students helped the teacher by generating ideas for the story. The next stage, support it, started with a collaborative writing experience. The teacher and students planned and wrote the story together using 7 W, SME, exciting, and linking words. This time, students directed the process, and the teacher provided support when needed. After a story was completed, students checked their script and controlled if every important piece of information was included in the text by fulfilling an evaluation sheet. This process took place at every session until students moved into the final stage, independent performance when each of them could use all these strategies on their own.

2.6 Control group

At the same time, the students of the control group received typical instruction from the remaining 14 resource room teachers. Diary entry and questionnaire conducted during the instructional period reveal that teachers adhered to a relatively traditional writing curriculum. This included teacher-directed guidance in generating writing ideas; exercises in prewriting and redrafting stories; instruction in grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. They instructed their students primarily in minilessons and in groups.

2.7 Treatment fidelity

Several practices were implemented to ensure the intervention’s accuracy and consistency. First, the authors conducted a brief training session for EG teachers. Second, all EG teachers were given a teaching manual that included the script for each lesson and instructions for implementing all of the program’s activities. Third, in terms of activity structure, they complete a step-diary every day based on the SRSD model’s six stages (Develop Background Knowledge, Discuss, Model, Memorize, Support, and Independent Practice), with a check box next to each step to mark its completion. Instructors had completed 99.9% of the steps following the intervention. Following that, two trained members of the research team who were aware of the study’s objectives observed each teacher’s instruction twice during the intervention’s implementation and completed questionaries about the steps of SRSD according to the teaching manual in order to evaluate teachers’ adherence to the program. Because the observers were required to work independently, they were not permitted to interact during the observation of teachers’ instruction. The treatment fidelity was 91.5%. Level of agreement between the two examiners was indicated by the pairwise correlation coefficient that was r = .86, p < .001. All the participating teachers were encouraged to communicate with the coordinator of the study for clarifications or to discuss possible difficulties. As for the reliability of data, all tests collected during the four different times of assessment were firstly scored by the examiner and, subsequently, rescored by the primary investigator not knowing to which group the participants belonged.

3. Results

Using SPSS 25.0 for Windows, at pretest, t-test showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups for writing quality and writing-strategy knowledge (see Table 3). Means and standard deviations for each writing variable are presented in Table 5. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were deployed for the investigation of the effectiveness of the writing intervention program. The interaction between time (T1, T2, T3, and T4) and groups was examined in terms of the extent of the differentiation in the improvement between students of the experimental and the control group from T1 to T4. Based on a 2 × 4 factorial design, time served as a within-subjects factor and group as a between-subjects factor. The analysis was performed for writing quality, writing length, and strategy knowledge. Extra analyses concerning the elements of writing quality (structure, organization, content, and theme writing) are also described. The main and interaction effects determined via the analyses are shown in Figures 1–7.

		EG (N = 35)	CG (N = 44)
Writing quality	Pre-	M (SD)	M (SD)
	While-	1.2 (.48)	0.90 (.33)
	Post-	1.45 (.34)	0.91 (.32)
	Follow up-	1.61 (.40)	1.05 (.39)
Structure	Pre-	0.65 (.16)	0.73 (.18)
	While-	0.71 (.26)	0.62 (.19)
	Post-	0.94 (.07)	0.57 (.21)
	Follow up-	0.95 (.09)	0.65 (.22)
Organization	Pre-	0.81 (.42)	0.89 (.39)
	While-	0.89 (.49)	0.71 (.40)
	Post-	1.12 (.51)	0.59 (.42)
	Follow up-	1.27 (.57)	0.76 (.48)
Content	Pre-	7.17 (3.30)	7.50 (3.51)
	While-	6.20 (3.64)	3.93 (2.47)
	Post-	6.85 (2.86)	4.54 (2.24)
	Follow up-	8.17 (3.42)	5.18 (2.59)
Theme writing	Pre-	0.88 (.32)	0.90 (.29)
	While-	0.80 (.40)	0.65 (.47)
	Post-	0.88 (.32)	0.90 (.47)
	Follow up-	0.97 (.16)	0.88 (.32)
Length	Pre-	64.37 (32.56)	67.68 (29.28)
	While-	54.17 (20.04)	50.43 (22.39)
	Post-	58.28 (17.60)	50.90 (16.23)
	Follow up-	64.11 (24.88)	51.59 (21.89)
Writing-strategy knowledge	Pre-	0.38 (.25)	0.37 (.21)
	While-	0.47 (.25)	0.40 (.22)
	Post-	0.81 (.23)	0.41 (.22)
	Follow up-	0.86 (.19)	0.37 (022)

Table 5.

Means (and standard deviations in parentheses) of EG and CG across variables.

Figure 1.

Writing quality.

Figure 2.

Structure.

Figure 3.

Organization.

Figure 4.

Content.

Figure 5.

Theme writing.

Figure 6.

Length.

Figure 7.

Writing-strategy knowledge.

Regarding overall writing quality, interaction contrasts suggested that the EG improved in significantly higher means compared to the CG from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 11.06, p = .001, η_p² = .12, T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 36.28, p = .00, η_p² = .32, and from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 41.82, p = .00, and η_p² = .35, pointing high maintenance over the time of the gains for the EG compared to the CG. Since statistically significant interactions were observed, the main effect of time was not considered [47], as there was no statistically significant main effect for time of testing from T1 to T3 and from T1 to T4. Figure 1 illustrates the improvement of students’ performance from pre to follow-up for writing quality.

3.1 Elements

For the basic elements included in story texts, there were also statistically significant effects of their interaction (see Figures 2–5). Interaction contrasts were run yielding the following results: students in EG demonstrated greater improvement in structure of a story than the CG from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 7.58, p = .007, η_p² = .09, T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 62.99, p = .00, and η_p² = .45, and from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 48.60, p = .00, η_p² = .38. There were also statistically significant effects of time for testing only from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 16.91, p = .00, η_p² = .18.

Regarding organization, the two groups performed differences from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 5.28, p = .02, and η_p² = .06 and from T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 25.13, p = .00, and η_p² = .24, with the EG excelling. Also, between T1 and T4, the EG showed considerably higher maintenance compared to the CG F_(1,77) = 28.66, p = .00, η_p² = .27. There were, also, statistically significant effects of time for testing only from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 9.33, p = .00, η_p² = .10.

For content, interaction contrast suggested that the EG improved in significantly higher means compared to the CG from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 8.00, p = .00, η_p² = .09, T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 9.43, p = .00, η_p² = .10, and from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 14.84, p = .00, and η_p² = .16, pointing maintenance for the EG. There was, also, a statistically significant main effect of time of testing from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 24.47, p = .00, and η_p² = .24, and from T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 14.45, p = .00, and η_p² = .15.

In terms of theme writing, there was, however, no statistically significant difference between EG and CG at any time point (T1,2,3,4).

3.2 Length

For the number of words included in narrative papers, although a decrease was observed from T1 to T2, SRSD approach improved the length of students’ stories. Interestingly, the difference between groups on the change from T1 to T2 F_(1,77) = 1.30, p = .25, and η_p² = .01, and from T1 to T3 was not significant using the standard criteria F_(1,77) = 2.80, p = .09, and η_p² = .03. Nevertheless, the change from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 5.53, p < .05, η_p² = .06 was significant (see Figure 6). Additional analyses regarding the four times of the intervention (T1, T2, T3, and T4) yield statistically significant results.

3.3 Writing-strategy knowledge

As illustrated in Figure 7, SLD students in EG showed a significant improvement in strategy knowledge compared to students in CG. Specifically, from T1 to T2 the difference between groups was not significant F_(1,77) = 0.91, p = .34, η_p² = .01. However, the difference between groups on the change from T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 42.61, p = .00, and η_p² = .35, and from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 64.39, p = .00, and η_p² = .45 was significant both in short and long term, proving that the effectiveness of the program on the strategic knowledge of the students was stable over time. There were, also, statistically significant effects of time for testing from T1 to T3 F_(1,77) = 63.42, p = .00, and η_p² = .0.45, and from T1 to T4 F_(1,77) = 63.81, p = .00, and η_p² = .0.45.

4. Discussion

This study sought to enhance the written expression and metacognitive writing abilities of SLD children in grades five and six through a novel writing SRSD interventional program. The results revealed that the direct/explicit instruction intervention combined with self-regulation techniques was beneficial for students with SLD. Although both groups performed similarly in T1 (pre-test), the experimental group showed a slight degree of improvement than the control group in T2 (in the middle of the intervention) on a variety of skills such as structure, organization, and writing-strategy knowledge. Additionally, the experimental group improved significantly more than the control group in both writing and metacognitive strategy knowledge in T3 (post-test) and T4 (follow-up). Because the effect sizes for all variables were large, it was concluded that the intervention had a significant long-term effect on the students with SLD and that they were able to generalize the strategies to new academic situations.

Α study conducted by Graham and Harris [34] found that teaching students with SLD-specific writing strategies, such as prewriting, planning, revising, and editing, resulted in significant improvements in their written expression. The study also found that when students were taught to use self-regulation strategies, such as setting goals and monitoring their progress, they were able to apply these strategies to other writing assignments and academic situations. Other studies [48, 49, 50] examined the effectiveness of a Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) approach to writing instruction for students with SLD. These studies found that students who received SRSD instruction showed significant improvement in their written expression, as well as in their ability to apply these strategies to new writing tasks. Patrick and McKeown [50] conducted a study that showcased the positive impact of the SRSD approach on students receiving special education. Their findings revealed that these students experienced enhanced linguistic proficiency as they exhibited a greater utilization of academic vocabulary, an increased written word count, and a heightened frequency in employing cognitive strategies. Teaching self-regulation techniques can assist students with SLD to become more independent learners and boost their academic performance, claim Berninger and his colleagues [51]. The authors suggest that self-controlled students are better able to control and alter their motivation, conduct, and emotions to meet the demands of academic responsibilities. These results generally agree with earlier studies on the effectiveness of similar interventions [19]. For students with SLD, explicit teaching in the stages of the writing process, goal setting, and guided feedback throughout the writing process have all been found to be effective strategies. For example, a study by Datchuk and his colleagues [24] found that these practices improved the writing skills of students with SLD. Similarly, Gestern and Baker [52] found that teaching students the writing process and providing regular feedback resulted in improved writing outcomes. Other studies [38, 53] have also found that these practices are effective in improving writing skills in students with SLD.

Students in the experimental group showed significant improvement in text writing quality and dimension (structure, organization, and content) after the program’s implementation and 6 weeks later than students in the control group. This finding replicates the findings of previous meta-analyses [4, 52, 53], which demonstrated that students with SLD are more likely to improve their written expression through the use of writing and self-regulation strategies, and are able to generalize these strategies to new academic situations. The nonsignificant short-term results during the intervention (T2) could be attributed to the fact that students with SLD require more time to practice what they have learned in order to implement the strategies [54]. Students with SLD typically require more practice and time to implement the skills they have successfully mastered. This is because SLD students usually struggle to digest information and remember new ideas. They might require more time and practice to fully comprehend and implement new techniques into their learning process. Students with SLD who got SRSD writing interventions took longer to respond to the interventions than their peers who were typically developing [48]. The SLD students need more targeted attention and support in order to completely comprehend and use the writing strategies they learned during the intervention. Kim et al. [55] discovered that students with SLD who received writing interventions needed additional time and support to put the new methods into practice. Participating students needed more individualized feedback and instruction, as well as more practice using the strategies. It seems that students with SLD need more time to react to writing interventions because they have trouble planning and organizing their thoughts and might need additional in-depth instruction and practice in these subjects [35].

In terms of metacognitive writing skills, students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group in all assessments (T2, T3, and T4). This finding confirmed that students with SLD can broaden their knowledge of writing strategies and use these higher-order skills to improve their writing [56, 57]. They are more likely to acquire cognitive and metacognitive writing skills and apply them over time or to new subjects, according to the significant long-term findings [58]. According to Graham and Harris [59], training SLD students’ metacognitive skills can aid in their growth as writers and increase their awareness of their own writing processes. Englert et al. [60] conducted a review of the literature and discovered that teaching metacognitive strategies like planning and revising improved the writing abilities of students with SLD across a range of age groups and writing genres. The study also revealed that students who were taught metacognitive strategies were better able to apply these abilities to brand-new writing tasks and to settings in general education contexts. Similarly, in a study by Harris and Graham [61], college students with SLD who received a writing intervention that included instruction in metacognitive strategies showed significant improvements in their writing performance that were maintained up to 1 year later. The study also revealed that these students were more likely to use the strategies they had learned in various academic contexts, indicating that the benefits of metacognitive strategy instruction can transfer to new situations. Teaching metacognitive strategies to students with SLD can also help them become more independent learners and better equipped to succeed in the future. Training SLD students’ metacognitive strategies can aid in their development of self-management skills and increase awareness of their own learning processes [59]. Students with SLD may find these abilities helpful as they manage academic and professional environments in the future.

5. Implications for practice

The findings from this study provide several important implications for practice. The current study found that the successful implementation of a highly structured writing intervention program requires two components: a specific instructional approach and detailed organization of each lesson in script format [61]. Both elements could easily be scaled up to assist other educators in incorporating the proposed activities, or the entire program, into their daily classrooms. Furthermore, the proposed program introduced effective practices for writing instruction through self-regulated learning and competence, as discovered in previous research and meta-analyses [16, 53, 62, 63, 64]. Teaching metacognitive strategies to students with SLD requires explicit instruction and modeling, along with opportunities for guided practice and feedback. Students need to be taught how to monitor their own writing processes and how to use metacognitive strategies to revise and edit their work. These strategies can help students with SLD become more independent writers and more successful learners with positive gains in motivation [65]. As a result, SLD students can benefit from intensive writing intervention. Combining different techniques that appear one inside the other (for example, teaching vocabulary – words of emotions – will be required at the editing stage to make the story more interesting) can help them integrate the new strategies more effectively. Overall, the study not only demonstrates how the difficult writing skill should be taught to students with SLD but it also lays the groundwork for future research in related interventions.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to provide an informed view of an SRSD-based comprehensive writing intervention program for the inclusive classroom. The findings provide evidence that the explicit teaching of cognitive and metacognitive strategies was effective in improving the narrative writing expression of students with SLD. The active participation of students during SRSD instruction can amplify their feeling of responsibility toward the strategy and enable them to comprehend the advantages of using it. At the same time, incorporating self-regulation methods into teaching helps students recognize the impact of their attitudes and efforts on the learning process. Additionally, teachers, who demonstrate enthusiasm, instill a positive “I can do this…” attitude, and provide regular praise promote students’ confidence in their ability to progress.

To achieve favorable outcomes using SRSD, it is essential for educators to invest their time and effort in comprehending the model and executing it diligently. If teachers provide frequent, consistent, and continuous opportunities for writing practice, it can lead to successful teaching. As a result, they should instruct students with SLD in small steps, provide feedback, and encourage them to analyze both the process and content being taught.

Given these findings, a large number of students with SLD can benefit from high-quality teaching that explicitly teaches the techniques utilized by exceptionally proficient writers. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is an evidence-based approach that has been demonstrated to effectively accomplish that goal.

Funding

The research work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the 3rd Call for HFRI PhD Fellowships (Fellowship Number: 5192).