1. Synthesis
The research provides substantial proof that SRSD is an effective evidence-based
writing practice for primary and secondary students of different writing abilities. Most of
the studies examined in this review reveal strong internal validity based on the results of
the impact of the intervention discussed in the literature above. Furthermore, SRSD
proves to have moderately strong external validity because of participant variance. The
students studied cover a large range of characteristics from demographics, geography,
age, and cognitive ability. The first study focused on elementary students who struggled
in writing and the students improved in persuasive and story writing with large effect
sizes ranging from .87 and greater (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006). In three of the
studies, the researchers focused on students in the general education setting and showed
that SRSD positively impacted the whole groups writing performance (De La Paz, 1999;
Glaser & Brunstein, 2007; Harris et al., 2012).
All the studies reviewed achieved a good degree of fidelity. The studies using
graduate assistants to implement the intervention used training, checklists, and tape
recordings to assure fidelity, with the exception of Glaser & Brunstein’s study that did
not use tape recordings (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006; Glaser & Brunstein, 2007).
The four studies using the classroom teachers showed fidelity through teacher
professional development. The teachers in the yearlong study by Kim et al. (2011)
participated in on-going professional development. Additionally, the researchers in
Harris, et al. (2006) used a survey to collect data about teachers writing instruction and
research assistants observed 25% of the lessons.

2. Given the wide range of students studied, the population of ELL students
examined in the SRSD studies was not significant enough to make generalizations about
the effects of SRSD on this population. Although the last study examined the effects of a
writing strategy with ELL students, the intervention did not discuss the incorporation of a
self-regulation process, which is a critical part of the SRSD model. One way to make the
SRSD model an even more global intervention is for future research to focus on the
effects of SRSD with ELL students.
Extending the Research
The next part of my research paper examines the rationale, implementation, and
results of STOP & DARE (a SRSD persuasive strategy) I taught to six, fifth grade
students. The students selected for the intervention were based on teacher
recommendation and met my criteria of ELL or struggling writer. One of the ELL
students also received special education services with an IEP. All of the SRSD studies I
reviewed show these strategies improve writing for students of all ability levels,
especially struggling writers (Harris, et al., 2012, Glaser & Brunstein, 2007; De La Paz,
1999; Barry & Moore, 2004). However, the effects of SRSD on ELL students are not as
clear. Only one study reported a small percentage of ELL students as part of their sample
population (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006), however the results for that subgroup were
unknown.
I decided to focus on persuasive writing because the classroom teacher recently
finished a unit on this genre of writing and their fourth quarter writing benchmark was a
persuasive writing prompt. The classroom teacher shared with me the materials she used
to teach persuasive writing and examples of the student’s graphic organizers, rough

3. drafts, and final papers. The writing pieces showed a large degree of teacher revisions
and the teacher expressed a desire to learn better ways to teach struggling writers.
STOP & DARE Intervention
The lesson plans and most of the materials used for instruction were borrowed
from the book, “Powerful Writing Strategies for all Students.” Most of the materials used
for the intervention can be found in the appendices. I met with students two times a week
for 30-45 minutes in the teacher’s classroom for four weeks. The six stages of SRSD
were followed throughout the intervention and the steps of STOP & DARE were
explicitly modeled and taught.
Keeping consistent with SRSD procedures, I administered a writing probe on the
first day in order to collect baseline data. (Two students left early for a band lesson.
Hilario finished his pretest afterward but Arturo was unable, so I was not able to collect
baseline data for him). One of the studies I reviewed allowed students to choose from
two different persuasive writing prompts to increase motivation (Harris, Graham, &
Mason, 2006), so I incorporated this motivation element into my study. Students were
able to choose from four different prompts. Two of the prompts were school-related and
two of the prompts were out-of-school related (appendix A).
Instructional Procedures
On the first day of instruction, Day 2, the students were asked why students write
persuasive essays and brainstormed the parts of a good essay (appendix B). A star was
written next to the student’s responses that were specific to the persuasive genre
(supporting details, main ideas, reasons, conclusion, catchy lead/attention getter,
introduction). The teacher added the terms million-dollar words or transition words,

4. reject the other side, and 4-5 paragraphs to the list. After the student’s background
knowledge was developed, the students were given a handout that explained the
mnemonic STOP & DARE (appendix C). The students were told that good writers plan
essays before writing and the strategy STOP & DARE will help them learn how to plan
and write better persuasive essays.
During the discuss it stage, the students learned the steps and rationale of STOP.
The four steps of STOP were covered by a post-it note and uncovered sequentially as the
steps were discussed. Step 1, Suspend Judgment. The teacher compared this step to a
spider analogy used by De La Paz (2001). Students were told to wait like a spider
dangling from their web before making up their mind about an idea. The word judgment
was also compared to the job of a judge. The teacher explained that before a judge makes
up his/her mind they have to hear all the evidence (De La Paz, 2001). Step 2, Take a
Side. After brainstorming, the students decide which argument they believe is the
strongest by writing a plus sign (+) next to the For or Against side. Step 3, Organize
Ideas. The teacher compared this step to a road map (De La Paz, 2001). During this
stage the students star and number the arguments they want to use, including opposing
arguments. The teacher emphasized this step explaining that it’s often skipped, but one
of the most important. Step 4, Plan More as You Write. The last step reminds students to
use DARE to help them write a good essay. Lastly, the students learned the mnemonic
DARE: Develop topic sentence, Add supporting details, Reject the other side, and End
with a conclusion. The teacher explained that good essays have all the parts of STOP &
DARE and told students to practice memorizing the steps.

5. On Day 3, the students took turns reading aloud a student example, Should
Children Have to Go to School? (Appendix D). The students were asked to identify the
persuasive elements in the example. The students underlined and labeled the topic,
reasons, reject the other side, and conclusion. This example did not have supporting
details, so the students decided that in order to make this example better the writer should
have added supporting details. The teacher and students collaboratively identified
common missing parts of essays on large poster paper. Lastly, “Essay Rocket Graphs for
Older Students,” were distributed and the teacher showed the students how to fill in the
graph using the student example (Appendix E).
Next the student’s essays from the previous lesson were passed out and the
students charted their level of performance on their rockets. The students also wrote
down goals to improve their writing. Many of the students wrote down goals about using
transition words and rejecting the other side. As students reread their essays, the teacher
met with each student to check their goals. (Prior to this lesson, I read their essays to
make sure I knew appropriate goals). The teacher reminded the students to practice
memorizing the steps for STOP & DARE.
With Day 4, the teacher quizzed the students on their knowledge of STOP &
DARE. The teacher told the students it was not a graded quiz, but wanted to see which
steps they remembered. Next, the teacher modeled how to use the brainstorming chart
(appendix F) for the essay prompt Should parents give their children money for getting
good grades on their report card? The teacher used STOP & DARE cue cards
(appendix G) to model the steps and gave each student a set of cards. (Prior to this
lesson, I spent a significant amount of time planning and practicing the procedures of

6. STOP & DARE for the prompt. I filled in a brainstorming sheet and then wrote an essay
using the brainstorming sheet). The teacher also introduced students to transition words
(appendix H) and prompts to use to reject the other side of the argument (appendix I).
After the teacher demonstrated how to model the steps of STOP, the students and
teachers collaboratively wrote a good introduction using the steps of DARE.
During Day 5, the teacher modeled how to use the STOP & DARE checklist
(appendix J) and continued to model how to write an essay thinking out loud. The
teacher demonstrated writing two paragraphs following the steps of DARE by typing the
essay on the Smartboard (appendix K). The students identified the persuasive elements
and transition words in the essay and the teacher underlined and circled them on the
Smartboard. After the teacher modeling, the teacher passed out a well-written essay,
Keeping Your Hands Clean and Dry (appendix L), and asked the students to underline
and label the persuasive elements and circle the transition words. The teacher and
students did the introduction paragraph together and then each student examined a
different paragraph and reported their findings to the group. The students then graphed
the essay on their rocket graphs.
The teacher quizzed the students again on STOP & DARE on Day 6. The
students wrote down the steps on a piece of paper. After the quiz, the students practiced
writing an essay independently with some teacher support. The essay prompt was Should
kids be able to eat whatever they want? All the students used their cue cards. The
teacher and students discussed different reasons and each student filled in their own
brainstorming sheet. The students completed the first 3 steps of STOP before the end of

7. the lesson. Some of the students needed some support organizing their ideas. The
students finished the last step of STOP on Day 7.
On the last day, Day 8, the students completed the posttest writing prompt. The
posttest was the same as the pretest, except they were required to choose a different
writing prompt from the pretest.
Results
This intervention examined the impact of STOP & DARE, a self-regulated
strategy, on three ELL students and three at-risk students. The following measurements
were analyzed: persuasive elements, essay quality, and STOP & DARE knowledge. I
choose the following variables because most of the published studies I reviewed analyzed
these elements (De La Paz, 1999; Glaser & Brunstein, 2007; Harris, Mason, & Graham,
2006, & Harris et al., 2012). The results of the pretest and posttest persuasive elements
are displayed in Table 1. I scored the persuasive elements similar to the method
described in the study published by Harris et al., 2012. Students were given 1 point for a
topic sentence, 1 point for reasons (up to a total of 3 points), 1 point for supporting details
(each separate detail was not counted individually- only 1 point was awarded for this
element), 1 point for rejecting argument, 1 point for each transition word or million dollar
word used, and 1 point for a conclusion. Students that did not have these elements earned
a 0 for that element. Table 2 shows the outcomes of essay quality (the average of two
scores is reported for essay quality). The STOP & DARE knowledge results are recorded
in Table 3.

8. The average number of persuasive elements increased significantly from the
pretest to the posttest writing prompt. On the pretest students used an average of 4.8
elements compared to an average of 10.5 elements on the posttest. The most significant
difference in elements is the use of a rejecting argument, transition words, and conclusion
the students used in their posttest essays. Specifically, five of the six students included a
rejecting argument and conclusion on the posttest, whereas none of the students used a
rejecting argument or conclusion on the pretest. In addition, students used an average of
four transition words on posttest compared to only one students using one transition word
on the pretest. Everyone included a topic and three reasons on the pretest and most of the
students included these elements on the posttest, with the exception of Nicole. Although
Nicole only included two reasons on the posttest, she included two rejecting reasons.
Most of the students also included supporting details on the pretest, and everyone
included them on the posttest.
In order to determine the essay quality of writing, I used the writing rubric used
by the local district. The rubric assessed the following five areas of writing: focus,
content, organization, style, and conventions. Students were rated on a scale of 1 to 4 in
each section. A score of 1 represents below basic; 2 represents basic; 3 represents
proficient; and 4 represents advanced. All the scores were combined to determine a total
score out of a possible 20 points. A graduate student and I scored the pretest and posttest
essays using the school districts rubric. Table 2 shows the average of the student’s two
scores. On the pretest, the average quality score was 13.3 compared to an average score
of 15.2 on the posttest. Overall, the quality of writing improved moderately.

9. Alexis, Jenna (appendix N), and Hilario (appendx O) showed the most significant
gains of persuasive quality on their posttests. The increase in their scores ranged from
2.5 points to as high as 5 points. Two students, Nicole and Gensis actually scored lower
on their posttest; however, they both only dropped 1 point.