A Proposed Tiered Model of Assessment in Writing ... · gest a model for tiered support in writing drawing from reading structures. Analogies are drawn between the two; limitations

149

Insights into Learning Disabilities is published by Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW). For further information about learning disabilities, LDW’s many other publications and membership, please visit our website: www.ldworldwide.org.

Insights into Learning Disabilities 15(2), 149-173, 2018 Copyright @ by LDW 2018

A Proposed Tiered Model of Assessment in Writing Instruction: Supporting All Student-Writers

Zoi A. Traga Philippakos University of Tennessee

Erin FitzPatrickUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte

Writing is an essential skill and outcome for academic and professional success, but the call for evidence-based practices and instructional di�er-entiation to support all student-writers’ needs has yet to be su�ciently ad-dressed. �e Common Core State Standards’ Initiative resurfaced a focus on writing instruction and brought attention to reading and writing con-nections. Despite the e�orts of policy, writing is still reported by teachers to be an instructional challenge. Further, even though there are models of Response to Intervention (RTI) for reading and mathematics, tiered sup-port for writing instruction is not present in classrooms or it may not be systematic, sustainable, and replicable. �e purpose of this paper is to sug-gest a model for tiered support in writing drawing from reading structures. Analogies are drawn between the two; limitations and research implica-tions are discussed.

Keywords: Writing, writing instruction, tiers of writ-ing support, assessment, screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring

INTRODUCTION

Writing as a literacy outcome is valued in business, academic, and social contexts. The National Commission on Writing (NCOW, 2004; 2005) reported findings from a nationwide survey indicating that human resource directors in both public and private sectors rated writing skills as a critical factor in hiring and ongoing promotion prospects for professional and administrative workers. Unfortunately, it is estimated that annually more than three billion dollars are spent on remediation of writing skills in the private sector (NCOW, 2004) and an additional quarter of a billion are spent in the public sector (NCOW, 2005).

Contrary to previous policy efforts, the 2010 Common Core State Stan-dards Initiative (CCSSI, 2010) emphasized writing instruction in its guidelines with a specific focus on writing across the curriculum for learners to understand content and demonstrate knowledge. Until then, writing was neglected from public policy (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, [IDEA], 2004),

Insights into Learning Disabilities 15(2), 149-173, 2018

150

and it had faded away from classroom instruction as reported in national surveys (e.g., Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). This neglect was evi-dent by students’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Prog-ress (NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics, [NCES], 2012; 2013) as few participants achieved proficiency in writing across the testing grades. Spe-cifically, the 2011 NAEP assessment (NCES, 2012) showed that only 24% of both 8th and 12th graders scored at a proficient level and only 3% scored at an advanced level. Not surprisingly, this pattern of underperformance prevails at college entry with approximately one third of high school graduates being required to complete remedial classes as a result of their failure to meet mini-mum writing requirements necessary to attend entry-level composition courses (ACT, 2007).

Writing, though, should be highly valued in classroom settings to de-velop writers who are academically competent, citizens who are critical thinkers, and professionals who are successful in their careers. In classrooms, writing could serve both as a means for acquiring new and demonstrating attained knowledge; thus, it could be used as a learning device and as an evaluative outcome. With such broad applications, writing allows students to note connections within and across content area learning, grapple with newly attained knowledge toward deep understanding, and create new work that is a synthesis of information they acquired through reading. Writing in response to newly learned content increas-es both knowledge acquisition and information retention (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2010). Further, writing could aid teachers with instructional design as they reflect on students’ understandings and application of imparted knowledge.

According to the expectations set by the authors of the standards (CC-SSI, 2010), student-writers should be able to write for clear purposes (to in-form, persuade, and entertain), and should be able to navigate through the steps of the writing process to plan, draft, revise, and edit their work. Additionally, they are expected to engage with complex, content-rich text; acquire and use academic language; and procure confirmation from a variety of source texts to support thematic understandings presented in written products. They should also engage in a process of rhetorical task analysis (Philippakos, 2018) so that the development and organization of their written work relates to the task, audi-ence, and writing purpose. Finally, students should develop skills and inquiry capabilities that would allow them to conduct research and engage in both brief and extended writing activities.

Even though the standards set outcome expectations, they do not ad-dress the methodologies and pedagogies to be used to support students in achiev-ing those goals. It is also not clear whether changes in instructional practice have taken place as a result of these policy expectations (Philippakos, 2017b). Most


151

importantly, it is not clear how writing should address the needs of all learners and how to best differentiate instruction at the classroom level. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to (a) suggest a tiered model of support in writing by drawing on structures in place for reading instruction, and (b) further discuss both limitations and needs for future research. In the following section we first comment on the Response to Intervention (RTI) model for reading and on a suggested model for tiers of writing instruction for the elementary school. We caution the reader that this is a suggested model and further research is needed for its validation. Response to Intervention: The Reading Experience

RTI, derived from the IDEA, was built in accordance with the division of labor continuum (Byrnes, 2005), and promoted differentiation by offering multiple levels of progressively more intensive instruction in response to student performance. In accord with the reauthorization of IDEA, Congress changed the criteria for the identification of students with Learning Disabilities (LD). Consequently, the traditional discrepancy model between achievement and in-tellectual ability (IQ-achievement) lost favor as the method for identifying stu-dents and for providing services.

Rightfully, the discrepancy model received a number of criticisms. First, it has been characterized as a “wait to fail” approach. A student might have struggled across multiple grades without receiving any additional support as s/he might not have qualified due to a lack of discrepancy between IQ and achieve-ment. By the time the student qualified for support, valuable time had been lost making remediation a more challenging task (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Second, identifying a student as having a LD might not have truly reflected the student’s cognitive ability and intellectual capability, but instead could have reflected poor or inadequate teaching (Kucan & Palinscar, 2011; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Vel-lutino, Scanlon, & Small, 2006). Finally, the discrepancy model ignored stu-dents who were consistently low performers, but never qualified for intervention as they failed to meet the required differential for a discrepancy (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). These students were underserved and inappropriately supported within the school system as they simply managed to “get by.”

While at its genesis RTI was primarily a preventative model of instruc-tion that attempted to reduce the need for the most intensive services, it also promoted early identification of students with LD. According to RTI, all stu-dents within a classroom receive high quality scientifically-based instruction, and assessment is used to support early identification and intervention. Tiered instruction does not rely on an IQ discrepancy model; therefore, RTI shifts at-tention to the general education classroom and accountability therein becomes a central aspect of tiered instruction. The consequence of this is that interventions first begin at the classroom level with the instructor providing differentiated,


152

evidence-based instruction and using assessments to guide instruction for the whole group (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Thus, in Tier 1 instruction, students in the general education setting receive high quality research-based instruction (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Mel-lard, Byrd, Johnson, Tolleffson, & Boesche, 2004). Students who are assessed and identified as performing at lower rates and who have not made adequate progress in the core program, are provided with targeted instruction in Tier 2. Tier 2 instruction may be inside or outside the general education classroom and is characterized by small flexible groupings of 3 to 6 students. Its main characteristic, though, is that it must be more targeted and explicit than Tier 1. If based on the results of ongoing progress monitoring, students do not attain adequate progress with Tier 2 instruction, they are offered Tier 3 instruction – a more intensive, individualized intervention provided to learners who continue to perform at lower rates, those not realizing the full benefits of the provided in-struction. Tier 3 instruction usually requires additional testing and the support of special education services.

This multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) approach provides preven-tion and intervention by using ongoing assessment and instructional support that range in intensity and strive to support students with reading difficulties (Jimerson, Burns, & VanDerHeyden, 2016). The National Center on Response to Intervention (2010a, b http://www.rti4success.org/) provides a clear explana-tion of the procedures used to assure that all students receive instruction aligned with their academic needs. Screening of all students is the first stage of the RTI model (Vaughn, 2003). Early universal screening allows for the identification of students in need. Progress monitoring is then used to assure that all students are progressing appropriately based on their grade and standard norms. Progress monitoring is used, also, to examine how effective an instructional interven-tion is for a specific student or group of students (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Students’ academic performance and progress is monitored using data that have the potential to inform instruction. Therefore, the entire pro-cess of RTI is data driven and the use of tiers of instruction strives to support students as learners, acknowledging their needs (Vaughn, Wanzek, & Fletcher, 2007; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; 2011). This multi-tiered model of instruction can accelerate student learning by providing instruction responsive to students’ demonstrated needs based on ongoing assessment data (Heck, 2009); this dif-ferentiation is the core of RTI.

Concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness of RTI on im-proving students’ reading performance overall and on providing students the needed tools to achieve their full potential instead of falling behind (Balu et al., 2015). A report that evaluated the MTSS model for elementary students across 13 states found unfavorable results for first graders who were identified as in-


153

need of differentiated support and presumably received it. This was surprising as the role of RTI is to indeed support its learners. Fuchs and Fuchs (2017), in a response to the findings, challenged the design and selection process. Most importantly, though, they stressed the importance of differentiated instruction and the importance of considering simpler models that could serve schools at the organizational level as well as students’ needs. Tiered Writing Support

Writing instruction is consistently found lacking in the nation’s schools, so much so that the NCOW (2003) was compelled to release a report entitled “The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution,” which called on teachers and school districts to place a more intense focus on the instruction of writing. The writing practice guide released by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which was established by the Institute of Educational Sciences (2002), has called for a minimum of one hour of writing instruction daily (Graham, Bolinger, et al., 2012). In a national survey conducted with third and fourth grade teachers, Brindle and colleagues (2016) found that teachers reported spending an aver-age of only 15 minutes daily on writing instruction, a finding consistent with previous studies of upper elementary students (Gilbert & Graham, 2010), but less than half the time reported by early elementary teachers (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham, Harris, Fink-Chorzempa, & MacArthur, 2003). This issue is further exacerbated by the reported lack of PD in the area of writing instruction (Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Kennedy, 2018; McCarthey & Geoghegan, 2016; Philippakos & Moore, 2017; Troia & Graham, 2016) which hinders teachers’ proficiency to carry out the often demanding and complex evidence-based prac-tices (EBPs) effectively (Cook & Odom, 2013; Klingner, Ahwee, & Pilonieta, 2003; McCarthey & Geoghegan, 2016). The sum of these challenges is compro-mised fidelity and overall implementation when EBPs are scaled up (Groskreutz & Higbee, 2011).

While reading instruction has benefitted from the introduction of RTI and the focus on tailored support for students not meeting progress objectives, in writing there is not such a model of instruction (Troia, 2015). This lack of differentiation may be due to the general paucity of writing instruction occur-ring in schools or to limitations of the assessment measures that could provide valid information for screening, diagnosis, and progress monitoring. Both in-structional and assessment limitations are situated in the challenging context of the complex nature of writing that utilizes cognitive and metacognitive skills and processes that may be unique to a writer. The timing for feedback on writing is also something that makes assessment challenging. Feedback alone is demand-ing on the assessor (teacher) and challenging to apply for the assessed (student-writer). Even though teacher feedback had been thought not to be as effective (Hillocks, 1986), a recent review on writing evaluation found positive effects


154

of feedback both from teachers and from students (Graham, Hebert, & Harris, 2015). Feedback, though can be time consuming (for a review see MacArthur, 2016) though advances are being made in using technology to support teachers in efficiently simulating individualized writing conferences (McKeown, FitzPat-rick, & Potter, 2018; McKeown, Kimball, & Ledford, 2015). Even though sev-eral assessments exist, they have constraints in their application and usage (see Troia, 2015 for a review). Instructional differentiation must address students’ needs and valid assessments must identify students for intensive writing support early. Thus, it may be useful to consider assessments that would support such differentiation. We provide a basic framework for this work, which we identify for its limitations and for a need to be further investigated for it to be considered valid. The process/model we suggest follows the process shown in Figure 1 and is explained in the next section. Herein, we do not comment on instructional recommendations within each tier of instruction as this would be beyond the scope of this paper.

AMODELFORTIEREDSUPPORTINWRITING

Figure 1

Suggested process of assessment for tiered instruction

ProgressMonitoring

CurriculumBasedMeasures

Genre-SpecificRubrics

AutomatedEssayScoring

StandardizedMeasures

DiagnosHcs

Genre-specificRubrics StandardizedMeasures

Screening

AutomatedEssayScoring Stand-aloneWriHngTopics ReadingandWriHngTasks

Figure 1. Suggested process of assessment for tiered instruction

AssessmentMuch like the assessment process implemented with regard to read-

ing instruction, we propose an assessment cycle that screens all students at the beginning, middle, and end of the year and new students upon entry. Screening measures are used to identify students progressing as anticipated, those in need of further support, as well as serve as a gauge of the overall effectiveness of school or grade-level instruction. Progress monitoring measures can be used monthly to evaluate students who are presently meeting objectives at the anticipated rate and more often for students who are receiving more focused intervention at Tier


155

2. Following a minimum of two evidence-based interventions, if students in Tier 2 are not progressing at the anticipated rate, they may be referred for fur-ther diagnostic assessments to support teachers in customizing an individualized education plan for that student’s writing instruction. Following here, the full details of the assessment cycle are outlined.

Screening Measures. Screening measures are meant to be brief and quick in their application in order to identify students who may be at risk. Automated Essay Scoring (AES) measures can be easy to administer as they can be completed on a computer and scored, as the word implies, automati-cally (McNamara, Graesser, McCarthy, & Cai, 2014). AES usually addresses de-velopment, organization, style, grammar, usage, mechanics, and overall quality (Kellogg, Whiteford, & Quinlan, 2010). Though AES has received criticism in terms of validity (MacArthur, 2016), it does show promise (Deane, 2013), and additional research is underway examining the affordances of AES as screeners (Wilson, 2018; Wilson, Olinghouse, McCoach, Santangelo, & Andrada, 2016). A school or a district could administer a screening measure for writing scored by AES at the beginning of the year to determine whether students perform as expected for their grade-level placement and for the grade level standards’ expectations.

Further, at the start of the year, the school-level team and grade-level team may administer a writing measure or a reading and writing measure (per-haps one that involves summarizing and responding for older students or use of a given source to develop and support a claim) or request the completion of responses to several writing topics that address different genres and reflect the purposes included in the grade-level standards. Students’ written products could be analyzed based on quality rubrics affording teachers the opportunity to prac-tice evaluation in grade-level groups to assure agreement and common criteria (some form of interrater reliability) at the start of the year. That is, an alternative measure could be used to validate findings by AES with the potential added benefit of increasing teacher buy-in related to both the process and the AES in-strument. This approach could also support communication among and across grade-level teams on expected writing and literacy milestones. As a process, it can help all teachers, independent of their years of experience and expertise, to develop common goals for students and promote the use of a common language.

Two such examples of rubrics are holistic and analytic rubrics. Holistic rubrics provide a single score on written performance considering and analytic rubrics examine writing across several dimensions/criteria and include a rating for each criterion (e.g., organization, development, word choice, sentence struc-ture, and tone or style (Diederich, 1974). Growth in students’ writing scores measured with holistic quality rubrics is generally indicative of more cohesive, well-sequenced, and comprehensive written products. Holistic rubrics are used


156

to quantify the overall writing performance, not favoring any one area (e.g., organization, grammar) more than others. In the research literature, holistic scoring is the most common way of scoring writing (Graham & Perin, 2007a; 2007b). Holistic rubrics can be easy for teachers to use and allow them to score a number of papers. One drawback to holistic scoring is that it is not particularly responsive to small changes in student performance that might indicate growth in response to instruction (e.g., Graham et al., 2015; McKeown, et al., 2016). Further, holistic rubrics do not provide targeted feedback to students and can be challenging for them to interpret their scores and set goals for improvement (Graham et al., 2015). Therefore, we suggest that such rubrics are used with caution and with the purpose of further examining and confirming the findings of AES while they support the presence of a common language among teachers.

For students who perform below benchmarks on these universal screen-ing measures, focused intervention employing EBPs in smaller groups could be implemented for Tier 2 instructional support. For students who perform ac-cording to grade level-expectations on the screening measures, teachers may cre-ate differentiated support for enrichment purposes within their Tier 1 settings.

Diagnostic measures. For students who did not meet grade-level ex-pectations on the screening assessment, use of a diagnostic measure could sup-port identification of the causes of the student’s difficulty. By providing writing prompts across genres featured in the standards and using genre-based rubrics to grade student writing, teachers may identify the specific genre needs at both group and individual levels to later use in instructional planning (e.g., for infor-mational – appropriately aligning supporting details with main points; for nar-rative – targeting the use of dialogue or the inclusion of adjectives). For instance, if a group of students lacks knowledge on the use and representation of dialogue, their classroom teacher may address this need in a small group. Papers could then be graded by classroom teachers using genre-specific evaluation criteria (Philippakos, 2017a; Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016a; Philippakos & MacAr-thur, 2016b; see Figure 2).

Student Name_______________________________ Date ___________________

0 - Not there1 - So-So2 - Amazing!

Score Comments

Beg

inni

ng Topic: What is the topic and why should the reader care about it?

Opinion: Is the writer’s opinion clear?


157

Mid

dle

Reason 1: Is the 1st reason connected to the opinion and is it clear and con-vincing to the reader?Evidence: Is there enough evidence to support the reason? Is the evidence explained?Reason 2: Is the 2nd reason connected to the opinion and is it clear and con-vincing to the reader?Evidence: Is there enough evidence to support the reason? Is the evidence explained?Reason 3: Is the 3rd reason connected to the opinion and is it clear and con-vincing to the reader?Evidence: Is there enough evidence to support the reason? Is the evidence explained?

End

Restate Opinion: Did the writer restate the opinion?Think: Did the writer leave the reader with a message to think about the topic?

Oth

er!

Is there a title that clearly refers to the information of the paper?Is the paper’s tone appropriate for the audience? Was the writer respectful to the reader?Are there clear and appropriate transi-tion words used throughout the paper?

REVIEWER/ WRITER AS A READER• Was the paper convincing overall? Why?• What revisions should be made? GOALS• What should be the writer’s current and future goals?

Note. Developing strategic writers through genre instruction: Resources for Grades 3 to 5, Philippakos, Z. A., MacArthur, C. A., & Coker, D. (2015). Guilford Press. Modified and reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press.

Figure 2. Sample Persuasive Rubric for Evaluation


158

Standardized measures could be administered for students who do not achieve the anticipated results following at least two implementations of EBPs at a small group level. For example, the Test of Written Language (TOWL-4; Hammill, & Larsen, 2009) or the Test of Early Written Language (TEWL; Hresko, Herron, Peak, & Hicks, 2012) could be used. The ability of these tests to provide differential entry points and provide information on skills and writ-ing competence can help instructors and faculty as a team make informed deci-sions on students’ needs. Further, the tests’ affordance for the story-writing tasks to be completed in larger formats than on-on-one conditions allow for timely assessments and comparisons.

Also, students’ portfolios as they are carried over within the school system could be used to support teachers’ identification of potential challenges for students who are in the same school. Even though the primary usage of portfolios would be for student self-reflection and goal setting (Boerum, 2000), teachers through horizontal and vertical reviews and meetings can reflect on students’ performance and engage students in such a reflection process. Those portfolios could provide a sample of students’ work from the previous year and could be used by a teacher to better understand the writing profile of a student who is entering his grade. Portfolios are not considered to function as screening measures since they do not account for summer loss; further, portfolios have raised concerns on validity of given scores (Herman, Gearhart & Baker, 1993; Nystrand, Cohen & Dowling, 1993). However, a teacher could use them to identify a student’s strengths and weaknesses and even compare students’ perfor-mance in a specific type of genre from the end of the previous year to the start of the new academic year.

In addition, the use of journals at the beginning of the year could pro-vide valuable information regarding a student’s strengths and weaknesses. Jour-nals encourage students to provide in a narrative their experiences with writ-ing and their overall attitude and feelings toward it. Students could engage in self-evaluation and goalsetting, both practices found to enhance writing perfor-mance, to further explain what strengths they see in their writing, what weak-nesses, and define their overall goals. For example, they may be asked to share in response to a prompt such as, “Describe a time you were proud about your writing,” or “Draw a picture to describe how you feel about writing and explain your picture” (Philippakos & MacArthur, in press). For younger writers this pro-cess may involve the use of dictation especially for Kindergarten students who have yet not “broken the code” and learned the alphabetic principle. Orthogra-phy and phonology are usually the primary foci of early elementary students in their reading acquisition. However, it is important that these foundational skills are addressed in addition to meaningful writing as they can affect later written


159

production. Ideation and organization can be negatively impacted by the de-mands on the cognitive load presented by a student’s inability to identify sounds in words, connect them with letters, form the letters, and appropriately space words at a fluent rate (Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997).

Based on the recommendations from Fuchs & Fuchs (2017) for models of tiered support that reflect the needs of diverse settings, we consider and pro-pose a two-tiered model for writing instruction. In this model, all students will receive high-quality, evidenced-based writing instruction at the classroom level with the inclusion of small-group instruction to address process and task-related challenges. Based on assessment results, students identified as having challenges with writing performance will receive a second tier of differentiated instruction using evidence-based methodologies to support them in developing competence in foundational skills, genres, and application of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Progress Monitoring. As explained in the previous section, the use of genre-specific writing measures could be used as a progress monitor. In order to make this suggestion clearer to readers, we draw from work with elementary schools (Philippakos & MacArthur, 2017). In collaboration with a district and its schools, several genres were identified –story writing, persuasion, report, and compare-contrast for Grades 3 to 5; story writing, procedural, responses to read-ing, opinion writing, and report for Grades K to 2 (Philippakos, under review; Philippakos & MacArthur, under review; Traga Philippakos, MacArthur, & Munsel, in press; Traga Philippakos, Munsell, & Robinson, 2018; Traga Philip-pakos, Overly, Ritches, Grace, & Jones, in press; Traga Philippakos, Robinson & Munsell, in press). Three writing prompts that represented three different genres were administered at the beginning of the year and across the year in a repeated measures format. A genre-specific rubric was used to evaluate the papers, and teachers identified students in need of specific lessons for the genre that would be taught. Carefully, assessments were conducted after the introduction to the genre to assure that students’ performance (or lack thereof ) was not due to con-fusion or misunderstanding about the genre or lack of background knowledge. This model allowed the identification and remediation of specific instructional needs as well as the ongoing monitoring of students’ performance across the academic year (See Figure 3).


160

AMODELFORTIEREDSUPPORTINWRITING

Student Name_______________________________ Date ________________________

REVIEWER/ WRITER AS A READER • Was the paper convincing overall? Why? • What revisions should be made? GOALS • What should be the writer’s current and future goals? Note. Developing strategic writers through genre instruction: Resources for Grades 3 to 5, Philippakos, Z. A., MacArthur, C. A., & Coker, D. (2015). Guilford Press. Modified and reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press. Figure 3 Sample plan for assessment and instruction across the academic year

Assessment

Story/NarraHve-Opinion/Argument-Inform/Compare-

Contrast

InstrucHononOpinion/Argument

Assessment

Story/NarraHve-Opinion/Argument

InformaHve/Compare-Contrast

InstrucHononStory/NarraHve

Assessment

Story/NarraHve-Opinion/Argument

InformaHve/Compare-Contrast

InstrucHononInformaHve/Compare-Contrast

Begin here

Figure 3. Sample plan for assessment and instruction across the academic year

Further, Curriculum Based Measures for writing (CBM-W; McMaster & Espin, 2007) are quick to administer (within 3 to 5 minutes) and provide in-formation on total words written (TWW), words correctly spelled (WCS), and correct word sequences (CWS). Teachers could administer CBM-W to examine students’ progress toward specific goals that relate to spelling and sentence con-struction. For instance, McMaster and colleagues (2017) found that both CWS and CWS minus incorrect word sequences were sensitive to students’ growth in writing performance in a relatively short period of time, three to five weeks, which would allow teachers to adjust their instruction to be responsive to stu-dent performance. In terms of technical adequacy, CBM-W have been found to have acceptable alternate forms reliability as well as criterion-related correlation coefficients between the CBM-W and a state-level standardized assessment at Grade 8 and below (Weissenburger & Espin, 2005). Again, Weissenburger and Espin (2005) found CWS minus incorrect word sequence to be the strongest predictor of performance and CWS as second strongest.

This section concludes the proposed model for assessment. In the next section, we address factors that can strengthen an assessment-based system at the school level. Primarily we stress the importance of Professional Develop-


161

ment (PD) on writing, which is necessary for sustainable instructional quality. We acknowledge that additional research is needed for the evaluation of effective models of PD on writing (Kennedy, 2018; McCarthey & Geoghegan, 2016). Implications for Effective Application: Factors to Consider

RTI is dependent on several factors, which include the professional development (PD) of teachers, engagement of administrators, support of dis-trict-level personnel, adequate time allotted to teachers for understanding the purposes and components of RTI, willingness of staff to redefine their roles to support the initiative, and, finally, the origin of decisions, which should derive from the practitioners “at the grassroots level” (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131). Similarly, Barnes and Harlacher (2008) identified five principles which underlie RTI. The principles include: 1) an approach to education that works in a proac-tive and preventative manner, 2) the creation of an instructional match between skills, curriculum and instruction, 3) an orientation based on problem solving and data-driven decision-making, 4) use of effective practices, and, finally, 5) application of RTI at a school level as a system and not to individuals or isolated classrooms.

Even though these principles may be used to guide the application of RTI, there are several additional considerations regarding the design of RTI ini-tiatives and their formats (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). First, lessons learned from previous reform efforts suggest that teachers, as an implementation force of policy initiatives, do not always respond positively to policy demands and sug-gestions. In a review of research studies that examined teachers’ responsiveness to policy decisions, Coburn, Pearson, and Woulfin (2011) reported that teachers often do not apply policies that refer to reading instruction. Teachers’ dissent about instructional policies could be based on their previous beliefs, knowledge, and practices; ambiguity of policies could also lead to confusion (Coburn et al., 2011; Tabak, 2006). Desimone (2009; 2011), Guskey and Huberman (1995), McKeown, FitzPatrick, and Sandmel (2014) and several other colleagues sug-gest professional development focus on strengthening instructor-level content knowledge and also including informed leadership in strengthening teacher buy-in (Tallerico, 2014). Additionally, Desimone (2009; 2011) suggests that for comprehensive school reform to be successful, it needs to be effective and imple-mented uniformly without changes that lack a rational grounding.

School settings are multi-dimensional and many factors, dynamics, and principles should be considered, such as teachers, administrators, and instruc-tional approaches. Hughes and Dexter (2008) identified factors that supported the implementation of RTI programs to include administrative support, PD, teacher buy-in, collaboration, and allocation of time for collaboration. In high performing schools, literacy tends to be the focus of all school members with a strong collaboration between teachers, administration, and parents (Taylor,


162

Pearson, Clark & Walpole, 2000). In the study by Taylor and colleagues (2000), change and student-support were the goals of all individuals working with stu-dents, and their close collaboration led to an increase of literacy performance. Further, PD was ongoing, and successful schools had established a collaborative system within their structure to take advantage of knowledgeable others within their school community. This study suggests that school related factors should be considered when implementing a new initiative. These school related fac-tors refer to an examination of ways to support administrators in becoming instructional leaders instead of school managers, ways to promote effective col-laboration among school members, and ways to provide ongoing professional development as relates to school implementation practices.

Professional development. PD is essential in developing an under-standing among participants of the implications of an initiative and the specifics of its implementation (Hughes & Dexter, 2008; Taylor, Raphael, & Au, 2011). This should be especially considered with writing PD since teachers report not receiving sufficient PD on writing instruction (Philippakos & Moore, 2017; Troia & Graham, 2016). On-site PD, which addresses instructional implica-tions, can support teachers’ instructional effectiveness and self-efficacy (Ken-nedy, 2018; Kennedy & Shiel, 2010). Third, for the RTI initiative to be effec-tive, the use of data to determine the framework of differentiation is important; however, considerations should be made when examining the effectiveness of interventions regarding their quality and duration.

Research on successful schools and reform efforts provides guidelines regarding the level of organization within a school that promotes student learn-ing and teacher commitment. PD can be considered the common ground of successful schools (Taylor et al., 2000). Taylor and colleagues (2005) asserted that when teachers are provided with PD, they provide high-quality instruction aligned to the policy. The purpose of the study was to examine variables that ac-counted for students’ academic growth (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005) . The authors included a total of 13 schools across two years of study and examined 92 teachers and 733 students from Grades 2 to 5. The students were assessed in fluency, comprehension, and writing. Teachers were interviewed three times per year and were also observed. The results indicated that PD which was supported by study groups, collaboration among participants, sharing of effective practices, and coaching, led teachers to change their practices. This model is consistent with both theoretical and empirical foundations of PD.

Collective participation leverages the communal skills while lessening the isolation so common in educational settings (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Brownell, Adams, & Sindelar, 2006; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Desimone, 2011; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Collective


163

participation is one of several dispositions considered pillars of quality PD. Oth-ers include inquiry, reflection, professional judgment, critique, and creation of a safe environment for risk-taking (Ball & Cohen, 1999).

Another area of focus in preparing teachers to effectively implement MTSS of writing instruction is differentiation. By situating the learning in the real setting of the teacher’s classroom and allowing participants to reflect on the knowledge, skills and characteristics of their students, facilitators have an op-portunity to actively problem solve in creating opportunities for implementing the plan (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Brownell et al., 2006; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Hochberg, 2010; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Schumm, Vaughn & Haager, 1994; Schumm et al., 1995; Smith & Desimone, 2003). Considering that teacher buy-in is a driver of implementation, highlighting op-portunities for differentiation in order to meet the needs of the students current-ly in the classrooms maximizes the value of the training for the teachers thereby increasing buy-in. PD leaders may fully capitalize on instructional capacity by focusing on practices that serve diverse learners most appropriately (Hochberg, 2010; Schumm et al., 1994). High-quality PD should always be derivative from contextualized work with students (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Smith & Desimone, 2003).

Teacher learning outcomes are increased when PD is content-specific, so in this case, related to writing and specifically connected to genre knowledge (e.g., structure, academic vocabulary, key characteristics; Ball & Cohen, 1999; Ball & Forzani, 2009; Birman et al., 2000; Desimone, 2009; 2011; Smith & Desimone, 2003). Foci should be the gaps between current instruction and the demands of the curriculum (Hochberg, 2010). It is the responsibility of PD implementers to invest in content knowledge that may need to be addressed (McKeown, et al., 2014) as teachers rating themselves higher in content knowl-edge and self-efficacy also report increased use of EBP (Brindle et al., 2016).

Explicit modeling is as important during PD as it is during the teachers’ instructional implementation with students as it supports teachers in acquiring the new content and pedagogical knowledge in the context that it will be applied (Ball & Forzani, 2009). Explicit modeling meets the threshold of active learning as it engages participants in active instruction, observation, and offering critical feedback – all with the aim of advancing the skills of teacher participants (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Desimone, 2009; 2011). As teachers become increasingly comfortable with an intervention, they are more likely to properly differentiate for all learners (Gra-ham & Harris, 1993; Schumm et al., 1994; 1995); explicit modeling during PD allows an opportunity for teachers to become more comfortable with sophisti-cated interventions prior to offering instruction in front of a class of learners where it matters most.


164

Another characteristic of effective PD that would be necessary to suc-cessfully implement this model of writing instruction is the creation of a cul-ture of evidence within school settings (Cochran-Smith & the Boston College Evidence team, 2009). Klingner (2016) offered that the creation of a culture of evidence be considered the foundational centerpiece of effective PD. Fostering an environment of objectivity, with specific regard to choosing the instructional strategies paired to students’ academic needs, supports effective decision mak-ing.

The study conducted by Taylor and colleagues (2005) examined wheth-er the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) framework had an impact on students’ growth (Taylor et al., 2005). The CIERA school change project included a framework to support school-wide reform ef-forts as schools worked toward change on reading outcomes. The results sug-gested that the inclusion of more instructional elements from the framework led to higher achievement. However, change in instructional practices and schools happened across two years of study, not in a short period of time. This may also have implications when considering RTI as a school-wide change effort and the effects of the application of multi-tiered instruction. RTI may require time to show its effects, and change across sites may take a long time.

Time is a factor that should be considered in any systemic change. Time for instruction, time for teachers’ planning, and time projected for future change. We argue that systemic change requires projected planning. Thus, PD and efforts to establish a system of differentiation or a system of data-driven instruction require the development of micro and macrogoals with projected and expected changes. This process can support accountability and also examine feasibility of efforts and scale-up procedures before they collapse.

Change that will be sustainable and significant will require a system’s change in which all school partners and colleagues coordinate efforts. By part-ners and colleagues, we refer to administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, and even volunteers, who engage with children and apply instructional approaches. Thus, administration and teachers need to collaboratively review data and set goals for instruction and for students’ achievement. Paraprofessionals, who from our experience, tend to be excluded from faculty meetings or grade level Pro-fessional Learning Communities (PLCs) need to be present in order to have a clear understanding on the ways that their instruction and implementation helps move the needle on a child’s learning goals. Common goals and a common understanding on the use of data support the development of a common lan-guage and the implementation of a model that serves students’ needs instead of a model that is in place for policy compliance. In this process, university-school partnerships can further support implementation of EBP (Holmes Group, 1990; Zeichner, Payne & Brayko, 2015). Such partnerships when planned and


165

are long-term, with attention to feasibility, and sustainability (Traga Philippa-kos, Overly, Riches, Grace & Jones, in press) can support and promote change on teachers’ pedagogy and lead significant changes in students’ performance. Philippakos and colleagues (under review) engaged in a long-term partnership with a school district using systematic assessment procedures and instruction of writing (Philippakos, MacArthur & Coker, 2015). Through a planned scale-up process, significant changes in students’ writing performance emerged (Philip-pakos & MacArthur, 2017) and as reported by district officials, teachers began to request PD on writing instead of those being planned by the district. How-ever, in this process, efforts were coordinated between the researcher, district, principals, teachers, parents, and students. And the process took time and care-ful long-term planning. Limitations

In this paper we present a model for tiered-writing support drawing guidelines and information from the work on multi-tiered support that have been conducted in reading. In this process we commented on caveats and on challenges that should be addressed and considered prior to engaging in such a process. We acknowledge that the model we suggest needs to be examined and investigated in the field. Further, instructional approaches for each of the model’s sections should be carefully considered. Thus, we suggest that research methods to examine the effects of the model in iterative cycles with ongoing re-visions be considered (Reinking & Bradley, 2008). Design research is emerging in the field and has been recognized for its value in educational practices (e.g., Collins, 1999; Howell, Philippakos, Voggt & Undegraft, 2018; Ivey & Broad-dus, 2007; Reinking & Bradley, 2008; Reinking & Pickle, 1993; Snow, 2015). Further, design research is a necessity for the identification of EBP that would and should guide instruction across tiers. No assessment and tiered model can lead to success for student-writers and their teachers unless instruction is system-atic, and based on evidence; thus, results are replicable.

FINAL THOUGHTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Writing is a neglected aspect of literacy (NCOW, 2003) but a crucial one for students’ academic and professional success. It is unfortunate that in the midst of attention focused on fluent reading and decoding, policies have ne-glected to consider that writing promotes critical thinking and that the process of reading to evaluate, synthesize, and summarize information support compre-hension (Graham & Hebert, 2010).

Unfortunately, research on writing interventions is still developing, too. As Graham, McKeown, and colleagues (2012) reported, the quality of research in the area of writing intervention is both weak and lacking. In their meta-analysis, only 36% of the studies were true experiments, only 29% reported


166

acceptable treatment fidelity, and only 37% controlled for teacher effects (Gra-ham, McKeown, et al., 2012). In a meta-analysis specifically addressing writing interventions for students with LD, Gillespie and Graham (2014) noted similar concerns about the quality of the research as only 44% of the studies were true experiments, few studies reported treatment fidelity, controlled for teacher ef-fects, or featured more than one instructor in the intervention.

Change is not an easy process. At the initial steps of RTI in reading, concerns were stated on the factors that would lead to its success. After 14 years, it is evident that for an initiative to be successful, organizational change should be in place, as well as attention to individual change (Taylor et al., 2011). Mastropieri & Scruggs (2005) had pointed out that for RTI to be successfully implemented within a school setting, the roles of teachers and diagnosticians would need to change. Also, the role of para-professionals would have to be more clearly defined--and their training addressed--if they were to play a role in the implementation of instruction (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). Efficacy studies were to be conducted (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). RTI has been shown to be supportive of student outcomes (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005). Efforts for tiered support should be made in writing (Troia, 2015) and a consideration of the implementation challenges that have occurred in tiered reading instruc-tion might be taken into account as RTI for writing is applied. The development of support teams within school settings and in collaboration with universities could be a way to support instructors with fidelity of implementation (Berkeley, Bender, Gregg, & Saunders, 2009). Hollenbeck (2007) concluded that a “re-view of literature reveals there is currently more unknown than known about the construct” (p. 144). There is more to learn about writing instruction than we currently know and research is needed on interventions, assessments, and on scale-up processes that can evaluate programs long-term.

REFERENCES

Abbott R. D., & Berninger V.W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among development skills and writing skills in primary-and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85, 478–508. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478

ACT. (2007). Aligning postsecondary expectations and high school practice: The gap defined. Policy implications of the ACT national curriculum survey results 2005-2006. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as a learning profession: Handbook for policy and practice (pp. 3-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher educa-tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 389-407. doi: 10.1177/0022487109348479

Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.


167

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001029

Barnes, A., & Harlacher, J. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-Intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 417–431. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0000

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Gregg, P. L., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of Response to Intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 1, 85-95. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326214

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C. & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.

Boerum, L. J. (2000). Developing portfolios with learning disabled students. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 16(3), 211-238. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/10.1080/105735600406724Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R. Hebert. (2016) Third and fourth grade teacher’s classroom practices in writing: A na-tional survey. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 929-954. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x

Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R. Hebert. (2016) Third and fourth grade teacher’s class-room practices in writing : A national survey. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 929-954. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x

Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., & Sindelar, P. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185. doi: 10.1177/001440290607200203

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Jour-nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394. doi: 10.1177/073428290502300406

Byrnes, B., (2005). Theories of learning to read. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Sci-ence of reading: A handbook. (pp. 104-119). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., Woulfin, S. L. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability. In Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.), Handbook of read-ing research (Vol. 4, pp. 629–653). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Boston College Evidence Team. (2009). Re-culturing teacher educa-tion: Inquiry, evidence, and action. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 458-468. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347206

Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E.C. Lagemann & L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp.289-298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.corestandards.org/as-sets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in spe-cial education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135. doi; 10.1177/001440291307900201

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. doi: 10.1037/a0012656

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies that support professional develop-ment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.

Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7-24. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2012.10.002Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: To-

ward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 181-200. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140


168

Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71. doi: 10.1177/003172171109200616

Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention

(and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2017). Critique of the National Evaluation of Response to Inter-vention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268. doi:10.1177/0014402917693580

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., and Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18: 157-171. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00072

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking Special Educa-tion for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.1.5

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A na-tional survey. The Elementary School Journal, 4, 494. doi: 10.1086/651193

Gillespie, A. S. & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learn-ing disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 454-473. doi: 10.1177/0014402914527238

Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R.D., Abbott, S.P., Whitaker, D. (1997) Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170

Graham, S., Bolinger, A., Olson, C., D’Aoust, C. MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D. & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A Practice Guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=17.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 169-181. doi: 10.1086/461758

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary grade teach-ers’ instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 95, 279-292. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.279

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to reading: Evidence for how writing can improve read-ing. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.

Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. (2015). Formative assessment and writing. A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 523-547. doi: 10.1086/681947

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing in-struction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879-896.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445-476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). What we know, what we need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 313-335. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530664

Groskreutz, M. P., & Higbee, T. S. (2011). Effects of varied levels of treatment integrity on appro-priate toy manipulation in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1385- 1369. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.lOl6/j.rasd .2011.01.018


169

Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New para-digms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hammill, D. D. & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of Written Language, 4th edition). PsychCorp. Heck, R. H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel

crossclassified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 227–249. doi: 10.1108/09578230910941066

Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Baker, E. L. (1993). Assessing writing portfolios: Issues in the va-lidity and meaning of scores. Educational Assessment, 1(3), 201-224. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/10.1207/s15326977ea0103_2

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. New York, N.Y.: National Conference on Research in English.

Hochberg, E. M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Build-ing capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89-106. doi: 10.1080/00461521003703052

Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and fu-ture Responsiveness-to-Intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 137-146. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00238.x

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. Lansing, MI: Holmes Group. Howell, E., Philippakos, Z. A., Voggt, A. & Updegraff, A. (Dec. 2018). Literacy and Design:

Reclaiming Research for Practice. Paper to be presented at the Literacy Research As-sociation at Indian Wells, CA.

Hresko, W. P., Herron., S. R. Peak. P. K. & Hicks. D. L (2012). Test of Early Written Language, (3rd edition). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed

Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. D. (2008). Field studies of RtI programs, revised. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from the RtI Action Network website: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/field-studies-rti-programs

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).Ivey, G. & Broaddus, K. (2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy engagement among

adolescent Latina/o students just beginning to read, write, and speak English. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 512 – 545. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.4.4

Jimerson, S., Burns, M., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2016). Handbook of Response to Intervention: The science and practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, (2nd Ed., pp. 1–740). New York: Springer.

Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Does automated feedback help stu-dents learn to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 173-196. doi: 10.2190/EC.42.2.c

Kennedy, M. (2018). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educa-tional Research, 86(4), 945–980. doi:10.3102/0034654315626800

Kennedy, E., & Shiel, G. (2010). Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional development in an urban disadvantaged school. Reading Teacher, 63(5), 372–383. doi:10.1598/RT.63.5.3

Klingner, J. K. (2016). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(3), 248-255. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370031001

Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., & Pilonieta, P. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411-429. doi: 10.1177/001440290306900402

Kucan, L, & Palinscar, A. S. (2011). Locating struggling readers in a reconfigured landscape: A conceptual review. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Hand-book of reading research (Vol. 4) (341-358). London: Routledge.


170

MacArthur, C. A. (2016). Instruction in evaluation and revision. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research, 2nd Ed. (272-287). New York: Guilford press.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to interven-tion: examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 6. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380060801

McCarthey, S. J., & Geoghegan, C.M. (2016). The role of professional development for enhanc-ing writing instruction. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds), Hand-book of Writing Research, 2nd Edition (pp. 330-348). New York: Guilford Press.

McKeown, D., Brindle, M., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Collins, A. A., & Brown, M. (2016). Illuminating growth and struggles using mixed methods: Practice-based professional development and coaching for differentiating SRSD instruction in writing. Reading and Writing, 29(6), 1105-1140. doi:http://dx.doi.org.librarylink.uncc.edu/10.1007/s11145-016-9627-y

McKeown, D., FitzPatrick, E., & Potter, A. (2018). Effects of asynchronous feedback on student writ-ing outcomes in inclusive elementary classrooms. Manuscript submitted.

McKeown, D., FitzPatrick, E., & Sandmel, K. (2014). SRSD in practice: Creating a professional development experience for teachers to meet the writing needs of students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 40(1), 15-25. doi: 10.17988/0198-7429-40.1.15

McKeown, D., Kimball, K., & Ledford, J. (2015). Effects of asynchronous audio feedback on the story revision practices of students with Emotional/ Behavioral Disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(4), 541–564. doi:10.1353/etc.2015.0020

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools: Reflections on effective practice. Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172. doi:10.1080/08878730209555291

McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based assessment in writing: A literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020301

McMaster, K., Shin, J., Espin, C., Jung, P., Wayman, M., & Deno, S. (2017). Monitoring el-ementary students’ writing progress using Curriculum-Based Measures: Grade and gen-der differences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(9), 2069–2091. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9766-9

McNamara, D.S., Graesser, A.C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mellard, D., Byrd, S., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J., & Boesche, J. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model Responsiveness to Intervention sites. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 27, 1-14. doi: 10.2307/1593676

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Washington, DC: NCES, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). 2011-12 National postsecondary student aid study (NPSAS:12). Washington, DC: NCES, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2010a). What is Response to Intervention (RTI). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Pro-grams, National Center on Response to Intervention.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010b). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rti4 success.org/sites/default/files/rtiessential components_042710.pdf


171

National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected ‘‘R’’: The need for a writing revolution. Washington DC: College Board.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2004) Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out. New York: College Board.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2005) A powerful message from state government. New York: College Board.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Of-ficers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC.

Nystrand, M., Cohen, A. S., & Dowling, N. M. (1993). Addressing reliability problems in the portfolio assessment of college writing. Educational Assessment, 1(1), 53-70. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/10.1207/s15326977ea0101_4

Philippakos, Z. A. (under review). Effects of strategy instruction on the quality of first graders’ procedural writing.

Philippakos, Z. (2018). Using a Task Analysis Process for Reading and Writing Assignments. Read-ing Teacher, 72(1), 107–114. doi:10.1002/trtr.1690

Philippakos, Z. A. (2017a). Giving Feedback: Preparing Students for Peer Review and Self-Evalu-ation. The Reading Teacher, 71, 1, 13-22.

Philippakos, Z. A., (2017b). Teachers’ writing practices after the Common Core State Standards: Is Writing “In?” American Reading Forum Conference Proceedings, (37), 1- 32.

Philippakos, Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (under review). Integrating collaborative reasoning and strategy instruction to improve second graders’ opinion writing.

Philippakos. Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (in press). Developing strategic writers through genre in-struction: Resources for grades K-2. New York: Guilford Press.

Philippakos, Z. A. & MacArthur, C. A. (Dec. 2017). Results of a Year-long Writing Professional Development Model. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Conference, Tampa, FL.

Philippakos, Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (2016a). The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth- and fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 4. doi: 10.1002/rrq.149

Philippakos, Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (2016b). The use of genre-specific evaluation criteria for revision. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 2, 41-52.

Philippakos. Z. A., MacArthur, C. A. & Coker, D. L. (2015). Developing strategic writers through genre instruction: Resources for Grades 3-5. New York: Guilford Press.

Traga Philippakos, Z. A. & MacArthur, C. A., Munsell, S. (in press). Collaborative reasoning with strategy instruction for opinion writing in primary grades: Two cycles of design research.

Philippakos, Z. A., & Moore, N. (2017). Teachers’ writing practices after the Common Core State Standards: Is Writing “In?” American Reading Forum Conference Proceedings, (37), 1- 32.

Philippakos, Z. A. & Robinson, L. (2017, Nov.). Developing Strategic Writers in Grades K-2: Story Writing. Paper presented at the New York State Reading Association. Saratoga Springs, NY.

Philippakos, Z. A. Robinson, L., & Munsell, S. (Dec. 2017). Strategy Instruction on Story Writing for Grades K-2: Results from Cycle 1 of Design. Paper presented at the American Reading Forum Conference., FL.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. (2008). On formative and design experiments. New York: Teachers College Press.

Reinking, D., & Pickle, J. M. (1993). Using a formative experiment to study how computers affect reading and writing in classrooms. In National Reading Conference Yearbook. Na-tional Reading Conference.


172

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Haager. D. S. (1994). Literacy instruction for mainstreamed stu-dents: What suggestions are provided in basal reading series?. Remedial & Special Educa-tion, 15, 14-20. doi: 10.1177/074193259401500104

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61(4), 335. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gsu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/docview/201101195?accountid=11226

Smith, T. M., & Desimone, L. M. (2003). Do changes in patterns of participation in teachers’ professional development reflect the goals of standards-based reform? Educational Hori-zons, 81(3), 119-129. doi: 152.15.47.133

Snow, C. E. (2015). 2014 Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture--Rigor and realism: Do-ing educational science in the real world. Educational Researcher, 44, 9, 460-466. doi: 10.3102/0013189X15619166

Tabak, I. (2006). Prospects for change at the nexus of policy and design. Educational Researcher, 35, 24-30. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035002024

Tallerico, M., (2014). District issues: Administrators at all levels involved in teachers’ profes-sional development. In Martin, L. E., Kragler, S. Quatroche, D. J., & Bauserman, K. L. (Eds.). Handbook of Professional Development in Education (pp. 125-144). NY: The Guilford Press.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income chools. El-ementary School Journal, 101( 2), 121-165. doi: 10.1086/499662

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA School change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40-69. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.1.3

Taylor, B. M., Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2011). Reading and school reform. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4) (594-628). London: Routledge.

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Munsel., S. & Robinson, L. (2018). Supporting primary students’ story writing by including retellings, talk, and drama with strategy instruction. The Language and Literacy Spectrum (28) 1, 1-22.

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Overly, M. Riches, C., Grace, L. & Jones, W. (in press). Supporting Professional Development on Writing Strategy Instruction: Listening to the Voices of Collaborators as Carriers of Change. School-University Partnerships.

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., Robinson, L., & Munsel., S. (in press). Self-regulated strategy instruc-tion in grades K to 2: Results from cycle 1 of design research.

Troia, G. (2015). Writing instruction within a response to intervention framework: Prospects and challenges for elementary and secondary classrooms. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction, (2nd ed., pp. 403-428). New York, NY: Guilford.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2016). Common Core writing and language standards and aligned state assessments: A national survey of teacher beliefs and attitudes. Reading and Writ-ing: Am Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(9), 1719-1743. doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9650-z

Vaughn, S. (2003). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable pre-vention outcomes. Presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.


173

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-tice, 18(3), 137-146.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2007). Multiple tiers of intervention: A framework for prevention and identification of students with reading/learning disabilities. In B. M. Taylor & J. E. Ysseldyke (Eds.), Effective instruction for struggling readers, K-6 (pp 173-195). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Small, S. (2006). Response to Intervention as a vehicle for distin-guishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169. doi: 10.1177/00222194060390020401

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with re-duced placement in Special Education? Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 167–175. doi:10.1177/0741932510361267

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading inter-ventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541-561.

Weissenburger, J., & Espin, C. (2005). Curriculum-Based Measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 153–169. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.03.002

Wilson, J. (2018). Universal screening with automated essay scoring: Evaluating classification ac-curacy in grades 3 and 4. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 19-37.

Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N., Mccoach, B., Santangelo, T., & Andrada, G. (2016). Comparing the accuracy of different scoring methods for identifying sixth graders at risk of failing a state writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 27(1), 11-23.

Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2015). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122-135. doi: 10.1177/0022487114560908

AUTHORS’ NOTE

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Zoi A. Traga Philippakos, University of Tennessee; Email: [email protected].

Documents

A Proposed Tiered Model of Assessment in Writing ... · gest a model for tiered support in writing drawing from reading structures. Analogies are drawn between the two; limitations