This document summarizes a study that tested two versions of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) for persuasive writing instruction with 12 students in Grades 5 to 7 in British Columbia. Both versions resulted in large gains in writing quality, time spent writing, and writing self-efficacy, providing additional evidence that SRSD is effective. However, no differences were found between conditions that varied the emphasis on self-statements, indicating more research is needed on the importance of specific SRSD components.

1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573517739085
Canadian Journal of School Psychology
2019, Vol. 34(1) 38–55
© The Authors 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0829573517739085
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjs
Article
A Preliminary Component
Analysis of Self-Regulated
Strategy Development for
Persuasive Writing in Grades
5 to 7 in British Columbia
Rhonda Geres-Smith1,2, Sterett H. Mercer3,
Catherine Archambault4, and Jamie M. Bartfai5
Abstract
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) has extensive evidence of improving
student writing; however, few studies have investigated the relative importance
of specific self-regulation components in SRSD. Twelve students in Grades 5 to
7 were assigned to one of two, 5-week SRSD conditions for persuasive writing
that differed in instruction on the use of self-statements. No differences in
outcomes were found between SRSD conditions, but large gains in writing quality,
composition duration, and writing self-efficacy were found in both conditions.
Although limited by not including a no-intervention comparison condition, the
observed gains were typical of effect sizes reported in meta-analyses of SRSD and
provide some additional evidence of replication in independent research teams
and in a Canadian context.
Keywords
written expression, writing intervention, strategy instruction, self-regulated
learning
1University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
2Cowichan Valley School District, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
3University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
4McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
5Greater Victoria School District, British Columbia, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Sterett H. Mercer, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6T 1Z4.
Email: sterett.mercer@ubc.ca
739085CJSXXX10.1177/0829573517739085Canadian Journal of School PsychologyGeres-Smith et al.
research-article2017

2. Geres-Smith et al. 39
Skillful writing is important for both academic and employment success (National
Commission on Writing, 2004); yet, many students struggle to reach adequate levels
of writing proficiency. For example, the School Achievement Indicators Program for
Writing (Council of Ministers of Education Canada, 2003) indicated that 40% of
16-year-old Canadian students had not reached expected levels in English writing abil-
ity. Consequently, researchers must investigate writing instructional practices to better
support students.
One well-researched approach is self-regulated strategy development (SRSD;
Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005), with findings demonstrating improved student writ-
ing across genres and grade levels (see Graham, Harris, & McKeown, 2013).Although
the overall model is effective, a clearer understanding of the relative importance of
individual SRSD components would inform educators how to focus instructional time
when implementing the model. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to determine
whether SRSD is more effective when instruction emphasizes the use of self-state-
ments by students.
Writing Task Strategy Instruction
SRSD includes writing task strategy instruction while encouraging self-regulation
during collaborative practice (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008). Writing
task strategy instruction is explicit and includes (a) explaining the type of writing and
strategy to be used, (b) presenting an acronym to help students remember the steps, (c)
ensuring students memorize the strategy, (d) demonstrating strategy use, (e) scaffold-
ing students while they use the strategy, (f) providing feedback about student strategy
use, and (g) encouraging independent strategy use (Harris et al., 2008). Various writ-
ing task strategies can be taught depending on student age and writing genre.
For example, POW is a general strategy used across genres (Harris et al., 2008).
Students Pick an idea, Organize notes, Write and say more. By contrast, the five-Part
TREE strategy is genre specific and used to plan and compose persuasive writing
(Harris et al., 2008). Students develop a Topic sentence that states their opinion on the
subject, provide three Reasons for their opinion, develop an Ending or concluding
sentence, and Examine their writing to ensure they have all the necessary parts.
Compared with writing task strategy instruction in SRSD, self-regulation instruc-
tion is less explicit. Acronyms are not used for the self-regulation strategies, nor are
strategy steps memorized by students. To promote self-regulation, teachers can encour-
age students to engage in goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-instruction through
self-statements (Graham & Harris, 1987; Mason, Harris, & Graham, 2011). Self-
statements may help students to focus attention, define problems, generate ideas,
remember and perform procedural steps, cope with emotion, and reinforce positive
behaviors (Harris et al., 2008; Meichenbaum, 1977; Schunk & Cox, 1986). In addi-
tion, self-statements may encourage students to adopt attributional beliefs that further
encourage student motivation, that is, that they can improve their writing by using
specific strategies and working hard. If students attribute success or failure to factors
over which they have control, such as use of effective strategies and effort, they will

3. 40 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
be more likely to work harder and persist (Schunk, 2008). In SRSD, use of self-state-
ments can be modeled when introducing new writing strategies; also, students can be
encouraged to create and use their own self-statements and verbalize their own self-
instructions (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992). When
SRSD is implemented, however, the breadth and depth of self-regulation instruction
can vary greatly depending on available instructional time, student needs, and teacher
preferences (Harris et al., 2008).
Effectiveness of SRSD
Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews have demonstrated that SRSD is an
effective method of improving students’writing quality, duration of planning and writ-
ing, composition length, and incorporation of functional writing elements (Baker,
Chard, Ketterlin-Geller,Apichatabutra, & Doabler, 2009; Graham et al., 2013). Effects
on writing quality typically are of large magnitude—Graham et al. (2013) reported a
weighted effect size of 1.75 based on 28 studies; and, analysis of outcomes and design
quality across group and single-case experimental studies led Baker et al. (2009) to
characterize SRSD as an evidence-based practice. Although the overall body of evi-
dence for SRSD is impressive, additional research is needed to determine the extent to
which (a) results can be replicated by independent research teams, (b) comparable
results can be obtained in Canadian schools, (c) individual SRSD components contrib-
ute to student outcomes, and (d) SRSD improves writing self-efficacy.
Independent Replications
The majority of studies on SRSD have been conducted by research teams that included
the SRSD authors or close collaborators (Baker et al., 2009). Additional systematic
replications of SRSD by independent research teams are needed—the odds of replicat-
ing research findings in special education are significantly higher when the replicating
research team includes one or more authors from original studies (Cook et al., 2016).
Studies in Canada
Although SRSD has been widely researched, the vast majority of studies have been
conducted in the United States. To our knowledge, only two published randomized
controlled trials (RCTs; Reynolds & Perin, 2009; Wong, Hoskyn, Jai, Ellis, & Watson,
2008), one unpublished thesis using a single-case experimental design (Sinclair, 2014),
and one published case study (Milford & Harrison, 2010) have been conducted in
Canada. In an RCT including 57 Grade 6 students in British Columbia, Wong et al.
(2008) found that instruction on a persuasive writing strategy delivered consistently
with the SRSD model resulted in improvements in writing clarity (posttest d = 0.87,
2-week maintenance d = 0.93), organization (posttest d = 0.54, 2-week maintenance d
= 0.77), and cogency (i.e., persuasiveness of arguments; post-test d = 0.33, 2-week
maintenance d = 0.55). In another RCT of 121 Grade 7 students in British Columbia,

4. Geres-Smith et al. 41
Reynolds and Perin (2009) found that not only SRSD instruction for summarizing
expository text, compared with typical instruction, improved students’ writing quality
(d = 0.26) and inclusion of main ideas in the summaries (d = 0.77) at posttest, but also
explicit text strategy instruction (non-SRSD) that incorporated graphic organizers
yielded greater gains on writing quality (d = 0.96).
The unpublished thesis (Sinclair, 2014) and published case study (Milford & Harrison,
2010) also were conducted in British Columbia and focused on the PLEASE strategy
(Pick the paragraph students want to write, List ideas that might be included, Evaluate
the list for relevant ideas, Activate by choosing a topic sentence, Supply the list of ideas
to generate sentences to support the topic sentence, End with a concluding sentence) for
expository paragraph writing (Welch, 1992). Using a multiple baseline design across
three, 8- to 11-year-old students with epilepsy, Sinclair (2014) found that students
learned to use the specific elements of the strategy in their compositions, composition
length increased, and paragraphs became better organized after seven lessons. Similarly,
Milford and Harrison (2010) described improvements in use of strategy elements, com-
position length, and paragraph quality for an 11-year-old student with a chronic health
condition. Both studies provide rich operational details of SRSD implementation as well
as evidence that SRSD is effective for expository writing in Grades 3 to 5.
In sum, studies in Canada provide evidence that SRSD is effective in Grades 3 to 7
for improving student persuasive and expository writing; however, Wong et al. (2008)
did not evaluate the TREE persuasive writing strategy that has the most extensive
research evidence, and the effect sizes on writing quality in both RCTs are below the
average weighted effect size of d = 1.7 (Graham et al., 2013). Effect sizes for the multi-
ple baseline study (Sinclair, 2014) were strong, for example, percentage of nonoverlap-
ping data (PND) of 90% to 100% for writing organization; however, these effect sizes
are not directly comparable with those from group-design studies that were included in
the Graham et al. (2013) meta-analysis. Notably, the student participants in the two
Canadian RCTs were more linguistically diverse than the U.S. average of 9.4% of stu-
dents considered English language learners (ELLs), with 77% of these students speaking
Spanish at home (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). In Reynolds and
Perin’s (2009), 17% of participants spoke an unspecified language other than English at
home, and 84% of participants in Wong et al.’s (2008) spoke Mandarin, Cantonese,
Punjabi, Polish, Russian, Vietnamese, or Tagalog at home. For these reasons, additional
studies of SRSD in Canada are needed to inform Canadian educational practice.
Component Analyses
Although the overall effectiveness of SRSD has been extensively studied, few compo-
nent analyses have been conducted to determine the most critical components of SRSD
in achieving student outcomes. Component analyses are helpful in evaluating the
causal mechanisms of interventions—by systematically adding or removing key com-
ponents of interventions and determining whether intervention effects change, the
theoretical rationale for specific intervention components, that is, how each compo-
nent leads to outcomes, can be tested (Mercer, Idler, & Bartfai, 2014). Two prior U.S.

5. 42 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
studies found similar student writing outcomes whether or not explicit instruction in
goal setting and self-monitoring was included (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer
et al., 1992); however, two more recent studies in Germany found greater improve-
ments in writing quality when writing task instruction was combined with instruction
in goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Glaser
& Brunstein, 2007). None of these studies, however, directly examined the effect of
teaching students to use self-statements because self-instruction was targeted, to some
extent, in all SRSD intervention conditions.
Effects on Writing Self-Efficacy
Despite the emphasis on self-regulation in SRSD, research has primarily focused on
writing skill outcomes. Theory suggests that as self-regulation improves, student self-
efficacy should increase in tandem with writing skills (Zimmerman & Risemberg,
1997); however, the few studies investigating effects on writing self-efficacy have
yielded mixed findings. Some studies found that student self-efficacy increased pos-
tinstruction (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b), but other
studies have found no changes in writing self-efficacy (García-Sánchez & Fidalgo-
Redondo, 2006; Graham et al., 2005; Sawyer et al., 1992). All but one of these studies
used a 10-item writing self efficacy scale developed by Graham and Harris (1989a),
with a four-item researcher-developed measure used in García-Sánchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006). Although most studies scored the Graham and Harris’ (1989a) mea-
sure as unidimensional, scoring was subsequently revised to two factors (with α = .69
and .73) based on findings that the scale is not unidimensional in Graham et al. (2005);
consequently, measurement concerns may be, in part, contributing to inconsistency of
findings.Ameasure with better evidence of reliability and validity (Pajares & Valiante,
1997; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989) was used in the Sinclair’s (2014) multiple
baseline study; however, because the measure was only administered once preinter-
vention and again postintervention, there were not enough repeated assessments to
establish experimental control in a single-case design study (Horner et al., 2005).
Current Study
The primary purpose of this study is to provide preliminary data on the differential
effects of explicitly teaching students to use self-statements within SRSD. Two
research questions are addressed:
Research Question 1: Does explicit instruction on self-statements improve student
writing beyond regular SRSD instruction?
Research Question 2: Does explicit instruction on self-statements increase student
self-efficacy compared with regular SRSD instruction?
Because the research questions involve comparisons of two SRSD intervention
conditions and there were research site considerations precluding the delay of a likely
effective intervention, we did not include a no-intervention comparison condition.

6. Geres-Smith et al. 43
Despite this limitation, the use of repeated measures of writing skill and self-efficacy
provides some ability to evaluate the extent to which obtained effect sizes are consis-
tent with those reported in the research literature, potentially providing additional evi-
dence of independent replication in a Canadian context.
Method
Participants
Twelve students in Grades 5 to 7 from an independent elementary school in Vancouver,
British Columbia, participated in the study. The school had an enrollment of approxi-
mately 200 students from kindergarten to Grade 7 with 63% of students identified as
ELLs (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2014). All participants spoke and
received instruction in English at school, and all identified that a language other than
English was spoken in their home: Filipino (five students), Vietnamese (five students),
Polish (one student), and Cantonese (one student). Classroom teachers nominated stu-
dents for participation who could write good sentences, but had difficulty with para-
graph-level writing; none of the participating students received special education or
ELL services at the time of the study.
Study inclusion criteria required that participants have scores within 1.5 SD of the
mean for the student’s age group on standardized assessments of sentence writing skill
and cognitive ability. Three screening measures were used to ensure that students had
the cognitive and sentence writing skill needed to benefit from the interventions. These
measures included the Writing Samples Test from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Achievement, Third Edition (WJ-III ACH; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007) and
the Verbal Knowledge and the Matrices subtests of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence
Test, Second Edition (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Student demographics
and selected screening results are presented in Table 1. Presented student names are
pseudonyms.
Materials
To obtain student writing samples for program evaluation, the first author adapted 12
persuasive writing prompts presented in Harris et al. (2008). The prompts were short
statements or questions that encouraged students to convince their audience to agree
with their position on an issue. A sample prompt is “Should students be allowed to eat
snacks in the classroom?” Before the study, prompts were evaluated by teachers of par-
ticipating students for difficulty, appropriateness, and potential interest to students. All
were evaluated as acceptable, so six of the prompts were randomly selected for the study.
Measures
Basic writing elements. For this measure, writing samples were scored for the number
of TREE elements used. One point was given for each element present (i.e., topic
sentence, reason one, reason two, reason three, and ending sentence).

7. 44 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
Written expression curriculum-based measures (WE-CBM). Three WE-CBM metrics
were used: total words written (TWW), correct word sequences (CWS), and percent
correct word sequences (%CWS). TWW is a count of the number of words (i.e., one
or more grouped letters), including incorrectly spelled and nonsense words (Hosp,
Hosp, & Howell, 2016). CWS is a count of the number of adjacent, correctly spelled
words that make sense in context (Hosp et al., 2016), with %CWS scored as CWS
divided by the total number of word sequences.
Analytic writing rubric. Samples were also scored using the Grade 6 British Columbia
Performance Standards for Writing (BCPS-W) Quick Scale Rubric (British Columbia
Ministry of Education, 2009). The rubric is used to evaluate four areas of writing qual-
ity, including (a) ideas and meaning, (b) clarity and style, (c) form and organization,
and (d) mechanics and conventions. Within each area, samples are evaluated as (a) not
yet within expectations, (b) meets expectations (minimal level), (c) fully meets expec-
tations, or (d) exceeds expectations. Values of 1 to 4 were assigned within each area,
yielding a maximum total score of 16.
Writing duration. The time students spent planning and composing their writing sam-
ples was recorded. Timing began when students were told to begin writing and ended
when the students returned the completed writing sample.
Writing self-efficacy. The Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS) for middle school
students (Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, McKim, & Zumbrunn, 2013) contains 16
items, and students are asked to rate how confident they are that they can perform
writing-related skills (e.g., “I can think of many ideas for my writing.”) on a visual
Table 1. Student Demographic Information and Screening Results.
Student
number Grade Age Gender
Verbal
knowledge
KBIT-2
Matrices
KBIT-2
Writing
samples
WJ-III ACH
1 7 12 F 85 93 102
2 7 14 F 80 83 93
3 7 12 F 90 98 110
4 7 12 M 95 85 116
5 6 11 M 95 81 102
6 6 12 M 85 97 85
7 6 12 M 100 105 115
8 6 11 M 110 111 104
9 5 10 M 105 81 105
10 5 10 M 85 98 100
11 5 11 M 85 82 114
12 5 11 M 90 82 104
Note. KBIT-2 = Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition; WJ-III ACH = Woodcock-Johnson Tests
of Achievement, Third Edition. Reported scores have an M = 100 and SD = 15.

8. Geres-Smith et al. 45
analog scale from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (complete confidence). A factor analysis
indicated support for a three-factor solution (ideation, conventions, and self-regula-
tion), with estimates of reliability at or above α = .84 for each factor (Bruning et al.,
2013). Because the factors are moderately to strongly correlated (Bruning et al., 2013),
we used an average of all SEWS items in analyses.
Procedure
Following university ethics review, we obtained parental consent for 12 students. All
students met eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to a within-grade pair, and
each pair was randomly assigned to SRSD– (no explicit instruction on self-statements)
or SRSD+ (explicit instruction on self-statements) conditions. The first author, a grad-
uate student in school psychology at the time of the study and certified teacher, served
as interventionist.
Assessment procedures. At baseline, all students completed the SEWS and a persuasive
writing sample. All writing prompts were presented orally and in writing. Students
were told they had 15 min to handwrite the sample. During intervention, students con-
tinued to complete persuasive writing samples, administered with the same procedures
as baseline, once per week. The interventionist did not assist students during the writing
samples; also, the students did not have access to any SRSD handouts or materials used
in intervention sessions. The order of administered writing prompts across student
groups was counterbalanced. The SEWS was administered again after the final inter-
vention session.
Instructional procedures. Students received 30 min of persuasive writing instruction in
same-condition pairs, two times a week for 5 weeks. Lesson plans were based on the
POW + TREE plans in Harris et al.’s (2008). Participating students’ classroom teach-
ers indicated that there was no direct instruction on paragraph writing beyond the
intervention sessions during the time of the study, and all participating students indi-
cated that they were unfamiliar with the POW + TREE strategy at study outset.
The SRSD + pairs were explicitly taught to use self-statements throughout all
stages of the writing instruction. Self-statements were presented and described to the
SRSD+ pairs as statements we make to ourselves as we write to help us remember
what to do, calm ourselves down, and reinforce ourselves for doing something. The
interventionist modeled self-statements throughout the instructional process and the
students filled out worksheets identifying the self-statements they used, practiced
using self-statements, and collaborated with each other in developing their self-state-
ments. Examples of self-statements modeled by the interventionist are “If I follow the
TREE strategy and work hard, I can write a good paragraph”; “First I need to remem-
ber to read the prompt a few times”; “The last E stands for Examine, so I need to re-
read my work and look for errors”; and “I am getting upset; I need to calm down; just
breathe and ideas will come.” Differences in instruction between the SRSD+ and
SRSD– conditions are highlighted in Table 2.

9. 46 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
Fidelity of implementation. To ensure that the intervention was completed with fidelity,
the interventionist completed a checklist of key features for each condition after each
lesson. Average self-reported fidelity for the SRSD+ and SRSD– conditions was 99%
and 98%, respectively. In addition, each lesson was audio recorded, and an indepen-
dent evaluator checked adherence to lesson plans. Average treatment fidelity for the
conditions was 100% and 98%.
Interscorer agreement. Two raters independently scored all writing samples. The pri-
mary rater did not implement any intervention sessions or know student assignments
to experimental conditions. The first author (interventionist) served as the secondary
rater, whose scores were only used to calculate interscorer agreement. To determine
absolute agreement on continuous measures (i.e., WE-CBM, BCPS-W, and duration),
Lin’s (1989) concordance correlation coefficient (rc) was calculated. All continuous
measures showed good interscorer agreement (rc ≥ .85). For the ordinal basic writing
elements scale, Cohen’s weighted kappa (κw), was calculated. Initial agreement was
acceptable (κw = .74), but lower than desired; thus, the criteria were rediscussed and all
samples were rescored, yielding a final agreement of κw = .95.
Data analysis. Because pairs of students were randomly assigned to experimental con-
ditions and completed intervention sessions in pairs, differences in change on writing
Table 2. Differences Between Instructional Conditions.
Stage of SRSD SRSD+ SRSD–
Background
knowledge
Self-statements were explicitly
explained and encouraged
Self-statement handout provided
Self-statements were not
explained nor encouraged
Self-statement handout was
not provided
Discussing the
strategy
Discussed the self-statements
students used to help them
remember POW + TREE
Self-statements were not
discussed
Modeling Think aloud modeling strategy was
demonstrated
Interventionist modeled self-
statement use, including self-
statements used to aid student
memory, coping, and behavior
reinforcement
Students identified self-statements
used by interventionist
Students created and used their
own self-statements
A descriptive modeling
strategy was
demonstrated
Self-statements were not
modeled
Self-statements were not
identified or created
Collaborative
practice
Students used the self-statements
they created during practice
Students practiced without
using self-statements
Note. SRSD+ = self-regulated strategy development with explicit self-statement instruction; SRSD– = self-
regulated strategy development without explicit self-statement instruction.

10. Geres-Smith et al. 47
measures between SRSD+ and SRSD– conditions were evaluated using three-level
multilevel models (time nested in students nested in pairs) with random intercepts at
the student and pair levels. Multilevel models are often used and perform well in situ-
ations with repeated measures from a small number of students, for example, in single-
case design studies (Ferron, Bell, Hess, Rendina-Gobioff, & Hibbard, 2009; Moeyaert,
Ferron, Beretvas, & Van den Noortgate, 2014). All models included fixed effects for
time (0 = preintervention, 1 = postintervention for SEWS; for writing elements, WE-
CBM, BCPS-W, and writing duration, 0 = baseline, 1 = first week of intervention, 2 =
second week of intervention, etc.), group (0 = SRSD–, 1 = SRSD+), and group × time.
The fixed effect for group × time tested differences in change by SRSD condition,
thereby evaluating the study’s primary research questions. To account for the ordinal
scaling of the writing elements measure, a cumulative logit model was used.
Results
Means and standard deviations across time for all measures by intervention group are
presented in Table 3. Results of models testing differences in change by SRSD condi-
tion are presented in Table 4. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences
in change between the SRSD groups; however, there were statistically significant
improvements (p < .01) on all measures other than TWW that did not differ by SRSD
condition. These gains are described in more detail below. To aid in the interpretation
of gains, standardized mean difference (d) effect sizes are reported for continuous
dependent variables based on the overall model-predicted change during the study
(i.e., b for time multiplied by 5 weeks for weekly measures) divided by the overall raw
baseline SD (Feingold, 2009)
On TREE writing elements, there was statistically significant weekly change (p <
.001), improving from M = 2.50 at baseline to M = 4.92 at study end, indicating that
students could write compositions with nearly all TREE elements. Students’ odds of a
one-element gain increased by 3.97 per week (e1.38 = 3.97). On TWW, scores increased
from M = 83.75 at baseline to M = 90.50 at study end, but the change was not statistically
significant (p = .60) and of small magnitude (d = 0.07). Despite no statistically signifi-
cant change in TWW, there were statistically significant gains in other WE-CBM indica-
tors more reflective of composition quality, CWS (p = .008) and %CWS (p = .001). On
CWS, students’ scores improved from M = 61.50 at baseline to M = 85.42 at study end
(d = 0.66). On %CWS, scores improved from M = 71.40% to M = 88.54% at study end
(d = 0.94). Similar results were found on BCPS-W (p < .001), with scores improving
from M = 6.25 to M = 10.25 (d = 2.82) on the 16-point scale reflecting provincial writing
standards. Students’ duration of composition also increased (p < .001) from M = 7.66 to
M = 13.00 min at study end (d = 3.32). Regarding self-efficacy for writing, students’
SEWS scores increased (p < .001) from M = 60.87 to M = 82.53 at study end (d = 1.52).
Discussion
The current study examined the importance of the self-statement component of SRSD
with two primary objectives. First, we investigated whether explicit instruction on the

11. 48
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations by Instructional Group, Measure, and Week of Intervention.
Measure Group
Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Elements SRSD+ 3.00 (0.89) 4.00 (0.89) 4.83 (0.41) 4.83 (0.41) 4.83 (0.41) 5.00 (0.00)
SRSD– 2.00 (1.26) 3.33 (0.82) 4.67 (0.52) 4.17 (1.17) 4.83 (0.41) 4.83 (0.41)
TWW SRSD+ 83.17 (46.96) 79.83 (30.87) 75.00 (29.83) 76.83 (20.54) 88.67 (26.84) 88.50 (25.97)
SRSD– 84.33 (59.46) 54.67 (47.00) 70.67 (20.18) 66.33 (19.31) 85.17 (10.23) 92.50 (33.28)
CWS SRSD+ 68.00 (39.00) 68.50 (32.40) 69.50 (29.83) 69.83 (16.56) 77.83 (28.17) 83.83 (25.93)
SRSD– 55.00 (33.42) 63.33 (33.00) 62.67 (25.42) 55.33 (17.32) 67.00 (10.71) 87.00 (36.88)
%CWS SRSD+ 76.55 (4.66) 77.44 (16.53) 85.99 (9.56) 86.01 (8.13) 81.46 (11.18) 90.56 (3.74)
SRSD– 66.25 (19.75) 75.20 (21.13) 82.28 (14.61) 79.98 (14.91) 74.36 (4.95) 86.52 (11.48)
BCPS-W SRSD+ 6.67 (1.21) 7.67 (2.58) 8.83 (1.47) 9.00 (0.89) 9.33 (1.51) 10.67 (1.51)
SRSD– 5.83 (1.60) 6.00 (1.26) 8.83 (1.60) 8.33 (1.37) 8.83 (0.98) 9.83 (1.72)
Duration (m) SRSD+ 8.56 (1.62) 8.17 (3.28) 8.81 (2.35) 11.99 (2.94) 10.22 (2.57) 12.77 (3.90)
SRSD– 6.76 (2.00) 8.33 (4.10) 6.43 (1.89) 9.58 (3.13) 11.78 (2.24) 13.24 (5.91)
SEWS SRSD+ 66.49 (12.84) — — — — 84.70 (8.34)
SRSD– 55.25 (18.89) — — — — 80.35 (8.05)
Note. For each group, n = 6. SRSD+ = self-regulated strategy development with explicit self-statement instruction; SRSD– = self-regulated strategy
development without explicit self-statement instruction; Elements = number of TREE strategy writing elements in composition. TWW = total words written;
CWS = correct word sequences; %CWS = percent correct word sequences; BCPS-W = British Columbia Performance Standards for Writing; SEWS = Self-
Efficacy for Writing Scale. —indicates that the measure was not administered in that week.

12. 49
Table 4. Model Results Testing Differential Change by Intervention Condition.
Elements TWW CWS %CWS BCPS-W Duration SEWS
Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE) Estimate (SE)
Fixed effects
Intercept –—a 77.90*** (14.81) 53.37*** (11.75) 70.54*** (4.51) 5.94*** (0.51) 6.07*** (1.24) 55.25*** (5.39)
Group 1.23 (0.96) 0.17 (20.94) 11.87 (16.62) 6.60 (6.38) 0.95 (0.72) 1.84 (1.75) 11.24 (7.63)
Time 1.38*** (0.32) 1.09 (2.08) 4.68** (1.69) 2.76** (0.82) 0.80*** (0.12) 1.31*** (0.25) 25.10*** (4.56)
Group × time 0.09 (0.43) 0.49 (2.95) −1.61 (2.40) −0.41 (1.16) −0.09 (0.16) −0.44 (0.36) −6.90 (6.46)
Random
Intercept (student) 0.73 —c 12.25 9.09 0.85 0.46 6.03
Intercept (pair) 0.20 23.21 16.14 1.07 0.22 1.65 6.15
Residual —b 21.35 17.36 8.42 1.19 2.59 7.91
Note. n = 12. Random effects are presented as standard deviations. Four thresholds (SE) were estimated instead of a model intercept: 1|2 = –1.25 (0.81),
2|3 = 0.21 (0.71), 3|4 = 1.41 (0.73), 4|5 = 3.70 (0.91). Elements = number of TREE strategy writing elements in composition. TWW = total words written;
CWS = correct word sequences; %CWS = percent correct word sequences; BCPS-W = British Columbia Performance Standards for Writing; SEWS =
Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale. Group was coded as 0 = SRSD– or 1 = SRSD+. –a = A cumulative logit model was used to address ordinal response variable.
–b = no residual variance was estimated due to use of cumulative logit model. –c = this variance component was removed from the model because it was
approximately zero.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

13. 50 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
use of self-statements (SRSD+) would result in improved persuasive writing skill
when compared with instruction that did not provide these instructional activities
(SRSD–). Second, we determined whether explicit instruction on self-statements
would differentially affect student self-efficacy for writing.
Overall, both SRSD groups showed medium to large improvements on most out-
comes over time; however, results indicated that there were no statistically significant
differences in improvements between the SRSD+ and SRSD– groups. Because the
length of instructional time for each group was held constant, these results suggest that
explicit instruction on the use of self-statements may not be an essential component of
the SRSD model.
Several possibilities may explain the similar improvements in writing outcomes across
the SRSD conditions. First, prior component analyses examining goal setting and self-
monitoring in SRSD have yielded mixed findings (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Glaser &
Brunstein, 2007; Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992), despite general research
evidence for their effectiveness in improving student writing (e.g.,Alitto, Malecki, Coyle,
& Santuzzi, 2016; Glaser, Palm, & Brunstein, 2012). Thus, it is possible that the writing
task instructional strategies, more so than individual self-regulation instructional compo-
nents such as goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-statement instruction, may be the
main driver of SRSD outcomes. Second, due to finite instructional time in each session,
students in SRSD+ may not have received enough direct instruction in either writing task
strategies or use of self-statements to outperform students who received only direct
instruction in persuasive writing strategies. Third, it is possible that some of the SRSD–
students did use self-statements effectively prior to the intervention. Instruction on the use
of self-statements may be more effective on improving student writing for students who
were not already using self-statements to regulate their behavior.
Limitations
Results of this study should be interpreted considering several limitations. First, the
sample size of the study was small, with six students in each SRSD condition, limiting
both statistical power and the generalizability of results. Second, the lead author was
the interventionist for both groups. Ideally, the interventionist would not have been
aware of the research questions or conditions to reduce potential bias. This concern is
reduced somewhat by independent review of lessons for fidelity and interscorer agree-
ment; however, it is possible that the interventionist behaved differently across groups
based on knowledge of the study.
Research Contributions and Future Directions
The current study is one of few studies that have conducted component analyses of
SRSD. We found that similar outcomes were obtained, regardless of the extent to
which self-statements were emphasized, and these results are similar to some prior
component analyses finding that other self-regulation components do not appear to be
essential components of SRSD (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer et al., 1992).

14. Geres-Smith et al. 51
Considering that other studies have found differential effects when self-regulation
components are included in SRSD (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Glaser & Brunstein,
2007), additional studies are needed before making strong conclusions given the few
component analyses in the 100+ studies on SRSD.
Although examining overall change during intervention across groups is limited by
no comparison condition, and thus, observed changes cannot be conclusively attributed
to SRSD, the observed gains were typical of reported effect sizes for SRSD. Graham
et al. (2013) reported a weighted effect size of 1.75 for writing quality outcomes; in the
current study, we found an effect of d = 2.82 based on the BCPS-W rubric that aligns
with provincial standards; d = 0.94 on %CWS, a WE-CBM metric that reflects writing
accuracy (i.e., percentage of word sequences that are spelled correctly and make sense
in context); and d = 0.66 on CWS, a WE-CBM metric that considers accurate writing
production. Relative to gains in writing quality, gains in writing length are typically
smaller for SRSD (0.47 in Graham et al., 2013). In the current study, we had separate
measures of composition length (TWW) and writing duration; although length did not
increase (d = 0.07), students spent more time on compositions as intervention pro-
gressed (d = 3.32). In sum, these results provide additional evidence of replicated out-
comes in research teams independent of the SRSD developers and in Canada. The
current study is the second study of SRSD to demonstrate gains in quality when evalu-
ated on BCPS-W (see Reynolds & Perin, 2009) and the third study (also see Wong
et al., 2008) demonstrating outcomes for students in Grades 5 to 7 in British Columbia.
Based on these findings, in conjunction with Milford and Harrison’s (2010) and
Sinclair’s (2014) results demonstrating improvements in expository writing for British
Columbia students in Grades 3 to 5, teachers in Canada should be encouraged to utilize
SRSD with students struggling with persuasive and expository writing in their class-
rooms. Some SRSD strategies focus on narrative writing (Harris, Graham, & Adkins,
2015); however, these have yet to be evaluated in Canada.
Although SRSD has been extensively evaluated, few studies have examined
changes in writing self-efficacy. The observed large change in writing self-efficacy
(d = 1.52) is in line with the few SRSD studies reporting self-efficacy gains (Brunstein
& Glaser, 2011; Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b); however, other studies have found
no change in self-efficacy (García-Sánchez & Fidalgo-Redondo, 2006; Graham et al.,
2005; Sawyer et al., 1992). Given the few SRSD studies examining self-efficacy, it is
difficult to determine whether variable findings are true differences in outcome versus
an artifact of differences in sampling or outcome measures; thus, inclusion of self-
efficacy measures in future SRSD is recommended. Determining the specific SRSD
conditions that yield changes in self-efficacy is important given the prominent position
of self-efficacy in self-regulated learning theory (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Conclusion
Although limited, overall results are consistent with prior research demonstrating that
SRSD improves student writing, providing additional evidence of replication in an
independent research team and in Canada. There were no differences found between
the SRSD groups that differed in instruction on self-statements, indicating that this

15. 52 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
feature may not be a critical component. Future component analyses of SRSD are
encouraged, so that practitioners can determine how best to allocate instructional and
intervention time.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported, in part, by a graduate student
research grant from the National Association of School Psychologists to the first author, schol-
arships from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the third and
fourth authors, and a research grant by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada to the second author.
References
Alitto, J., Malecki, C. K., Coyle, S., & Santuzzi, A. (2016). Examining the effects of adult and
peer mediated goal setting and feedback interventions for writing: Two studies. Journal of
School Psychology, 56, 89-109. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.03.002
Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009).
Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy
development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303-318. doi:10.1177/001440290907500303
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2009). BC performance standards: Writing. Retrieved
from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/perf_stands/writing_intro.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2014). Independent school reports: Student sta-
tistics—2013/14. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pdfs/student_
stats/03996145.pdf
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining
dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 25-28.
doi:10.1037/a0029692
Brunstein, J. C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self-
regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A randomized con-
trolled trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 922-938. doi:10.1037/a0024622
Cook, B. G., Therrien, W. J., Coyne, M. D., Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., Freeman, J., & Coyne,
M. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial
and Special Education, 37, 205-212. doi:10.1177/0741932516646083
Council of Ministers of Education Canada. (2003). School achievement indicators program:
Report on writing assessment III. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/
Publications/Attachments/7/saip2002.en.pdf
Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in
the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 43-53. doi:10.1037/
a0014699
Ferron, J. M., Bell, B. A., Hess, M. R., Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Hibbard, S. T. (2009). Making
treatment effect inferences from multiple-baseline data: The utility of multilevel modeling
approaches. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 372-384.
García-Sánchez, J.-N., & Fidalgo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-
regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities in writing

16. Geres-Smith et al. 53
products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 181-211.
doi:10.2307/30035506
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills:
Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 297-310. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297
Glaser, C., Palm, D., & Brunstein, J. C. (2012). Writing strategies instruction for fourth grad-
ers with and without problem behavior: Effects of self-monitoring and operant proce-
dures on compositional achievements and on-task behavior. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische
Psychologie, 26, 19-30. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000057
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1987). Improving composition skills of inefficient learn-
ers with self-instructional strategy training. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 66-77.
doi:10.1097/00011363-198709000-00008
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruc-
tion: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.353
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing
essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201-214.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowl-
edge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy
development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241. doi:10.1016/j.ced-
psych.2004.08.001
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with learning dis-
abilities, meta-analysis of self-regulated strategy development writing intervention studies:
Redux. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabili-
ties (2nd ed., pp. 405-438). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Adkins, M. (2015). Practice-based professional development and
self-regulated strategy development for tier 2, at-risk writers in second grade. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 40, 5-16. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.003
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies
for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of sin-
gle-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 165-179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to
curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test (2nd ed.).
Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics,
45, 255-268. doi:10.2307/2532051
Mason, L. H., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2011). Self-regulated strategy development for
students with writing difficulties. Theory into Practice, 50, 20-27. doi:10.1080/00405841
.2011.534922
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Mercer, S. H., Idler, A. M., & Bartfai, J. M. (2014). Theory-driven evaluation in school psychol-
ogy intervention research: 2007-2012. School Psychology Review, 43, 119-131.
Milford, T., & Harrison, G. L. (2010). Using the PLEASE strategy with a struggling mid-
dle school writer with a disability. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 326-332.
doi:10.1177/1053451209359080

17. 54 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 34(1)
Moeyaert, M., Ferron, J. M., Beretvas, S. N., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2014). From a sin-
gle-level analysis to a multilevel analysis of single-case experimental designs. Journal of
School Psychology, 52, 191-211. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.003
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition of education 2017: English lan-
guage learners in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indica-
tor_cgf.asp
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out. New
York, NY: College Board.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing.
The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360. doi:10.1080/00220671.1997.10544593
Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing
strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30,
265-300. doi:10.1080/02702710802411547
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and
strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-
efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340-
352. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.340
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Attributions as motivators of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk
& B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 245-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback with learn-
ing disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201-209. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.78.3.201
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
91-100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
Sinclair, K. (2014). The effectiveness of an SRSD writing intervention for students with epilepsy
(Master’s thesis, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada). Retrieved from https://
dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/5222/Sinclair_Kristin_MA_2014.pdf
Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASE strategy: A metacognitive learning strategy for improving the
paragraph writing of students with mild learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
15, 119-128. doi:10.2307/1511013
Wong, B. Y. L., Hoskyn, M., Jai, D., Ellis, P., & Watson, K. (2008). The comparative effi-
cacy of two approaches to teaching sixth graders opinion essay writing. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33, 757-784. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.004
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement III,
form B, with normative update. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Nelson Education.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cog-
nitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1997.0919
Author Biographies
Rhonda Geres-Smith, MA, MEd, completed her MEd degree in curriculum development at the
University of Victoria and her MA degree in school psychology at the University of British
Columbia. She is currently a PhD student in curriculum and instruction at University of Victoria
and a school psychologist in the Cowichan Valley School District in Duncan, BC.

18. Geres-Smith et al. 55
Sterett H. Mercer, PhD, is an associate professor in special education and school psychology
at the University of British Columbia. His research interests include methods to improve judg-
ment and decision making using curriculum-based academic measures and academic
intervention.
Catherine Archambault, MA, completed her MA degree in school psychology at the University
of British Columbia. She is currently a PhD student in School/Applied Child Psychology at
McGill University. Her research interests include bilingualism and reading achievement.
Jamie M. Bartfai, MA, completed her MA degree in school psychology at the University of
British Columbia. She is currently a school psychologist for the Greater Victoria School District
in Victoria, BC. Her research interests include examining the educational implications of
embodied cognition through the investigation of multisensory methods in early literacy
programs.