Advertisement

An Evaluation of an Instructional and Motivational Treatment Package on Writing Revisions

  • Jill W. Holtz
  • Edward J. DalyIIIEmail author
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Learning to revise one’s writing is a critical part of learning how to write. However, critical feedback and demands to make revisions can make writing aversive for some students, particularly students with poor writing skills. Allowing students to escape further writing tasks contingent on making revisions to written drafts (differential negative reinforcement of appropriate behavior, DNRA) may increase revisions in students’ writing samples. The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of adding DNRA to an instructional package on the writing revisions of six high school students. The results indicate that adding DNRA to the instructional package increased attempted revisions, correct revisions, and unique revisions relative to a baseline condition that included only the instructional package. The results are discussed in terms of how reinforcement contingencies appear to interact with antecedent instructional strategies to affect students’ progress in revising their written compositions.

Keywords

Differential negative reinforcement of appropriate behavior Revision Stimulus control Verbal behavior Writing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Cassandra Dietrich and Nathan Speer for their help with this study.

References

  1. Achieve, Inc. (2014). Rising to the challenge: are high school graduates prepared for college and work? Retrieved from http://www. Achieve. Org/rising-challenge.Google Scholar
  2. ACT. (2014). The condition of college & career readiness 2014. Iowa City: Author. Retrieved from www. Act. Org.
  3. Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process and structure of written discourse (pp. 345–363). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  5. Bijou, D. W., Birnbrauer, J. S., Kidder, J. D., & Tague, C. (1966). Programmed instruction as an approach to teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic to retarded children. Psychological Record, 16, 505–522.Google Scholar
  6. Bording, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Williams, R. L. (1984). Effects of free time on grammar skills of adolescent handicapped students. The Journal of Educational Research, 77, 312–318.Google Scholar
  7. Brigham, T. A., Burt, D., & Edwards, R. (1976). An application of operant principles to instruction. Educational Technology, 16, 45–48.Google Scholar
  8. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 239–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464075.Google Scholar
  9. Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning (interim edition). In Cornwall-on-Hudson. NY: Sloan Publishing Co..Google Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0231055.Google Scholar
  11. De La Paz, S., Swanson, P. N., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448–460.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.448.Google Scholar
  12. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College and Communication, 32, 400–414.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.223.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200202.Google Scholar
  15. Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Cedpsych.2004.08.001.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: the benefits of formative assessment. In A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  18. Hacker, D. J., Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Quathamer, D., & Heineken, E. (1994). Text revision: detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.65.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanqouy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. II. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 176–240) New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heward, W. L., & Eachus, H. T. (1979). Acquisition of adjectives and adverbs in sentences written by hearing impaired and aphasic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 391–400.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-391.Google Scholar
  24. Hopman, M., & Glynn, T. (1988). Behavioural approaches to improving written expression. Educational Psychology, 8, 81–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341880080108.Google Scholar
  25. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097.Google Scholar
  27. MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Evaluation and revision. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 461–483). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. MacArthur, C. A. (2016). Instruction in evaluation and revision. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 272–287). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur, C. A. (2018). Evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 287–308). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698702100304.Google Scholar
  31. MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 201–210.Google Scholar
  32. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Insights from instructional research on revision was struggling writers. In L. Allal, L. Chanqouy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 125–137). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Maloney, K. B., & Hopkins, B. L. (1973). The modification of sentence structure and its relationship to subjective judgments of creativity in writing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 425–433.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-425.Google Scholar
  34. Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1995). Effects of differential negative reinforcement on disruption and compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 229–230.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-229.Google Scholar
  35. Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191–198.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.16.2.191.Google Scholar
  36. McCurdy, M., Holtz, J., & Roehling, J. V. (2017). Evidence-based interventions for written- language disorders in children and adolescents. In L. A. Theodore (Ed.), Handbook of evidence-based interventions for children and adolescents (pp. 111–118). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  37. National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
  38. National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R.”. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  39. National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: a ticket to work…or a ticket out. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
  40. National Commission on Writing. (2005). Writing: a powerful message from the state government. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
  41. NCS Pearson, Inc. (2015). Aimseb. Retrieved September 15, 2015 from http://AIMSweb. Edformation. Com/layout/Home. Cfm?inc=../datamgmt/downloads. cfm&n=1&NewSideTab=ProgMonitor.
  42. Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treating fading in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569–572.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-569.Google Scholar
  43. Powell-Smith, K. A., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). Administration and scoring of written expression curriculum-based measurement (WE-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie: Edformation, Inc..Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, M. L., Mace, F. C., & Daggett, J. A. (1995). Preliminary comparison of two negative reinforcement schedules to reduce self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 579–580.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-579.Google Scholar
  45. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of a value which of, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: development and educational perspectives (pp. 67–95). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2009). Adolescents with learning disabilities as writers: are we selling them short? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 69–80.Google Scholar
  47. Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warner, M. M., Clark, F. L., & Nolan, S. (1982). Error monitoring: a learning strategy for improving adolescent academic performance. In W. M. Cruickshank & J. W. Lerner (Eds.), Coming of age: Vol. 3 The best of ACLD (pp. 170–183). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Scriven, J., & Glynn, T. (1983). Performance feedback on written tasks for low-achieving secondary students. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 18, 134–145.Google Scholar
  49. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. East Norwalk: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  50. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
  51. Van Houten, R., & McKillop, C. (1977). An extension of the effects of the performance feedback system with secondary school students. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 480–484.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197710)14:4<480:AID-PITS2310140420>3.0CO;2-B.Google Scholar
  52. Van Houten, R., Hill, S., & Parsons, M. (1975). An analysis of a performance feedback system: the effects of timing and feedback, public posting, and praise upon academic performance and peer interaction1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 449–457.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-449.Google Scholar
  53. Vargas, J. S. (1978). A behavioral approach to the teaching of composition. The Behavior Analyst, 1-2, 16–24.Google Scholar
  54. Vargas, J. S. (2013). Behavior analysis for effective teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Vaz, P. C. M., Volkert, V. M., & Piazza, C. C. (2011). Using negative reinforcement to increase self-feeding in a child with food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 915–920.Google Scholar
  56. Von Brock, M. B., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131–144.Google Scholar
  57. Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshman. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 54–66.Google Scholar
  58. Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J. R., Hatch, J. A., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. M. (1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 682–688.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.682.Google Scholar
  59. Wilcox, K. C., Yagelski, R., & Yu, F. (2014). The nature of error in adolescent student writing. Reading and Writing, 27, 1073–1094.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9492-x.Google Scholar
  60. Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp. 251–288). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology DepartmentUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations