Professional writers have long lamented the difficulty of their craft. Nathaniel 

Hawthorne said, “Easy reading is damn hard writing” (Quote Garden, 2012). Gene Fowler 

said, “Writing is easy: All you do is sit staring at a blank sheet of paper until drops of 

blood form on your forehead,” and Joseph Heller said, “Every writer I know has trouble 

writing” (Quote Garden, 2012). Many students including those with learning problems,

 struggle with the strategies that skilled writers use such as developing and organizing 

ideas, controlling and regulating the writing process, and monitoring the quality of their 

own writing (Graham & Harris, 1993). In order to address inefficiencies in student writing 

and writing development, Steve Graham and his colleagues (1993) have done extensive 

research in the instruction of writing strategies combined with self-regulation of thinking 

behaviors. Graham’s model entitled Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) explicitly 

teaches students strategies for planning and revising their writing, as well as procedures 

for regulating these strategies. The goal of SRSD is to help students to master higher level

 cognitive composing processes, develop independent use of writing strategies, and create

 positive attitude (Graham & Harris, 1993). Self-regulated strategy instruction emphasizes

 the use of temporary scaffolding of students in their strategy use. The teacher models, 

explains, and assists whenever necessary. Also, students set goals to improve their writing

 and self-monitor changes in their writing performance and behavior. They develop 

internal dialogue for writing and self-instructions. They may even develop self-statements

 for unwanted or wanted behaviors. Discussion promotes knowledge of self, writing, and

 the writing process (Graham & Harris, 1993).

        In their 1993 article, Graham and Harris discuss seven recursive stages as the basic 

components of SRSD:  preskill development, initial student-teacher goals conference, 

strategy instruction, modeling, memorization of strategy, collaborative practice, and 

independent performance (Graham & Harris, 1993). 

      Explicit instruction is the direct instruction of strategies by the teacher. Explicit 

instruction takes place at the beginning of the lesson and then students practice the skill 

or strategy with individualized support. Perhaps most crucial to the whole process is the 

enthusiasm and engagement of the teacher who must help students master the strategy.

       We have consistently found self-regulated strategy development to be an effective   

      and efficient means for teaching writing strategies, including strategies involving 

      brainstorming, semantic webbing, text structure, goal setting, monitoring productivity,

      peer response in revising, and revising for both mechanics and substance. (Graham & 

      Harris, 1993).

       Not only do children and inexperienced writers lack strategic knowledge, but they also have 

       trouble transferring that knowledge or abstracting their strategy use from one task to

       another once they are utilizing strategic processes (Graham & Harris, 1993).

      In a study by Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999), students with learning disabilities were 

instructed in SRSD. The model also was modified to include a focus on helping 

students learn to generalize planning strategies. In the first three lessons, the first author

who was also the teacher, modeled goal setting, brainstorming and organizing for a 

writing task. Then students spent time answering questions designed to help them

abstract the strategies so that they would be able to connect them to other writing tasks. 

The next two lessons scaffolded students as they engaged in a writing task, using the 

mnemonic STOP (stop, think of purpose) and LIST (list ideas, sequence them) to remember

the strategy elements (Troia et al., 1999).

      After writing, students were assessed as to whether or not they had met their goals. At

the end of each of these lessons, students were asked to apply STOP and LIST at home in

some way. In the final two lessons, students planned and wrote independently. When 

students were able to use STOP and LIST without help, and two homework assignments

had been completed successfully, practice stopped. At the end, students were asked to

reflect on the usefulness of goal setting, brainstorming, and sequencing across tasks and 

considered how helpful the strategies were.

      Results indicate a huge change in student planning behavior after strategy instruction.

Where students had not created plans at all in the baseline assessments, they began

allotting as much time for planning as for actual writing. Story structure improved

dramatically, though story quality did not. Essays also increased in length and functional

elements, but quality did not improve much.  These findings show that students with

learning disabilities should receive instruction to help with self-regulatory procedures

during writing. They should be explicitly taught to use the planning strategies employed by

more expert writers (Troia et al., 1999).

     Another study by De La Paz and Graham (2002) examined the effectiveness of a writing 

instruction program for middle school students. The program focus included strategy 

instruction in planning, drafting, and revising, instruction in the characteristics of good 

writing and review of the criteria for evaluating writing as well as the facets of persuasive 

writing (De La Paz & Graham, 2002). Key elements of the program emphasized planning, 

which included analyzing assignment demands, goal setting, and generating and 

organizing material. The program also emphasized planning and revising as necessary 

while writing (De La Paz & Graham, 2002). Explicit instruction in writing strategies and 

procedures for regulation of the strategies were a part of the self-regulated strategy 

development model. The research setting was two suburban middle schools in the 

southeast and included four seventh- and eighth- grade teachers who participated and 

taught experimental and control classes. The selected composition genre was the 

persuasive expository essay.  In the experimental group, students were taught specific plan 

and write strategies combined with self-regulatory procedures to facilitate the use of plan 

and write strategies writing (De La Paz & Graham, 2002).

      Lesson one introduced students to planning and writing and introduced the 

mnemonics PLAN and WRITE to help students remember the steps of the strategy. “P” = 

Pay attention to the prompt, “L” = List main ideas, “A” = Add supporting ideas, and “N” = 

Number your ideas. “W” = Work from your plan to develop your thesis statement, “R” = 

Remember your goals, “I” = Include transitions, “T” = Try to use different kinds of 

sentences, and “E” = Exciting words (De La Paz & Graham, 2002).  Additionally, in 

subsequent sessions, teachers presented model essays and labeled the parts with 

students, introduced the holistic scoring rubric used by the state for testing, and met with 

students individually to set goals. Next, teachers modeled through think-aloud the PLAN 

and WRITE strategies as well as strategies for organizing ideas. The recursiveness of the 

writing process also was emphasized during modeling writing (De La Paz & Graham, 2002). 

     After modeling, students began to compose an essay as a class using the PLAN and 

WRITE strategies. Then students worked in small groups to compose another essay. 

Students then were given time to revise their essays and conference with peers. Again,

instructors modeled this process and introduced a checklist. In the final instructional

period, students composed essays independently, and teachers helped individual students

but reduced scaffolding as students became independent. Students wrote independently

for five days, writing up to four essays for practice.

     Results show that the writing program had a positive effect on writing performance 

(De La Paz & Graham, 2002). Students in the experimental groups wrote essays that

were longer, had more mature vocabulary and were of higher quality. Students in the 

experimental groups also generated plans to a greater degree after receiving instruction in 

the PLAN strategy, and their plans were more complete and of better quality. This study 

supports the explicit instruction of pre-writing and planning strategies as well as self-

regulated strategy development (De La Paz & Graham, 2002).

     Other researchers have also explored SRSD. Another example is a study conducted by 

 MacArthur and Philippakos (2010). They focused on strategy instruction in the 

development of compare-contrast essays with six middle students studying at a school for 

students with learning disabilities Students learned a set of strategies for planning, 

writing, and evaluating compare-contrast essays. Instruction was based on the principles 

of the SRSD. The researchers found that students made gains in text structure and quality 

of their writing. Length changes were variable. Text structure scores were still above 

baseline at one and two month checks, while for two students, quality of writing receded 

to baseline at the one month maintenance check. Students made gains on text structure 

and quality of writing at the end of the study (MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010).

      Effective instruction of writing strategies includes explicit instruction in the 

components of good writing. For example, before students can form a thesis and develop 

support for that thesis, they need to read examples of both strong and weak essays and 

follow along with the teacher’s thought processes as he/she analyzes writing according to 

criteria for good writing. In a recent study by the Institute of Education Sciences, 74 

Oregon schools participated in research to explore the impact of use of the 6 + 1 Writing 

Traits with grade five students (Coe, Hanita, & Smiley, 2011).  Two thousand, two hundred, 

and thirty-five students and one hundred and two  teachers participated in the treatment 

condition. Teachers were trained in using the 6 + 1 Traits in a summer institute. They were 

asked to use a cycle of student instruction that included:

     Using the rubric to plan, teaching the language by rewriting the rubric in student-

     friendly language, scoring papers, justifying the scores by using the rubric, and 

     discussing the scoring process, modeling several trait-based activities or focus lessons, 

     creating a writing prompt, gathering a written product for assessment purposes, and 

    measuring overall student improvement as well as improvement in the specific trait 

    (Coe, Hanita, & Smiley, 2011, p. 27).

Results gathered over the course of one year of implementation indicate that “use of 

the 6+1 Trait Writing model significantly increased student writing scores during the year 

in which it was introduced to schools” (Coe, Hanita, & Smiley, 2011, p. 50). 

      Heidi Goodrich Andrade (2005) has done much research on the use of rubrics to 

enhance writing instruction. Andrade’s research has shown that if used in classroom 

instruction rather than simply as scoring guides, rubrics help students understand and 

focus their writing goals. Furthermore, Andrade says that when students help their teacher 

create the rubric they will be using for a writing task, students become engaged in the 

evaluative process.. Combining this act of co-creation with analysis of good and weak 

writing and rubrics helps students better understand the assignment goals.

      In a study which set out to test claims related to rubric-referenced self-assessment in 

middle school students, Andrade, Du, and Mycek (2010) hypothesized that reading a 

model paper, generating criteria for a rubric, and using a rubric to self-assess first drafts 

would improve writing scores.. The research took place in the northeast of the United 

States and included 162 participants in eleven classes. Eighty-six percent of the students 

were Caucasion, seventy-five percent were girls, and eight percent were designated as 

“children with special needs.”  Five public school classes and six private school classes 

were included in the study. Students wrote persuasive essays. The rubric used in the 

treatment groups was based on the 6+1 Trait Writing Method and included six levels of 

quality instead of four.

     Students engaged in prewriting, received feedback from the teacher on drafts and 

wrote final drafts. Students in the treatment group read and discussed a model essay and 

created a list of the elements of an effective essay. They also received a written rubric and 

used it to self-assess their rough drafts. Students in the control group did not read a 

model essay or receive a rubric. They were still asked to review their rough drafts, 

however. In the treatment group, students self-assessed by underlining key phrases in the 

rubric and then looking for and noting evidence of the standard in their own draft.

      Students also spent class time on each step of the writing process. The treatment 

group writing scores were significantly higher than the control group’s. Researchers also 

reviewed scores by looking at the seven criteria in the rubric and comparing them 

individually. The treatment group’s scores were consistently higher for each criterion. This 

study’s results support the idea that middle school students who use model papers to 

generate criteria and then self-assess according to these criteria will improve the quality 

of their writing (Andrade et al., 2010, p. 207).

     Other research of writing instruction has focused on effective teaching of written 

argument. Results show that effective instruction includes explicit strategy instruction 

that is carefully scaffolded by teachers. Felton and Herko (2004) studied written argument 

taught in a writing workshop format. Thirty-six students from an urban public school 

participated.

     The goal of the instruction was to build on oral debate skills and to strengthen written 

arguments. Structured reading, debate and metacognitive reflection was used. Participants 

were eleventh-grade students taking a humanities course that integrates the study of 

literature with United States history. Cooperating teachers selected the topics of hate 

speech, abortion, and gun control.

     An initial lesson introduced the structure of argument and led students in activities 

focused on deepening comprehension of two-sided argument. Then two 90-minute blocks 

focused on a controversial topic. Students were give background information for varying 

perspectives. Next, students were assigned positions to argue. Using the acronym PREP 

(position, reason, explanation, and proof), students developed their positions on a graphic 

organizer (Felton & Herko, 2004, p. 676). Students then wrote persuasive papers.

      Researchers of writing instruction often include the use of concept maps or graphic 

organizers in their studies. Graphic organizers help scaffold student learning by making 

ideas visible and clarifying relationships and hierarchical order of specific concepts.

In a study by Lee and Tan (2010), the researchers wanted to explore the effectiveness 

of giving feedback to students through the use of graphic organizers. The authors adopted 

a case study approach for the research in order to cope with multiple variables and 

sources of evidence (Lee & Tan, 2010). Participants in the study were 36 engineering 

students in two first-year effective communication courses in an Asian university. In a 

questionnaire given to students prior to the study, students indicated that they did not 

know what graphic organizers were. Ages of students ranged from 17 to 21, and 30 men 

and 6 women participated (Lee & Tan, 2010).

     In the first session, entitled by the authors as Pre-Sessions, students filled out the 

prequestionnaire and were introduced to graphic organizers. Teachers modeled the use of

 the graphic organizers as well as how to give feedback on them (Lee & Tan, 2010). Pre-

sessions lasted for approximately two weeks, and six organizers were introduced. These 

graphic organizers reflected the most common forms of composition organization: main

 idea and sub-ideas, cause-effect, and compare-contrast.