Researcher's Experience
In my practice as an English teacher at the high school and college levels, I grew
aware over time of the need for students to gain greater understanding of their own
cognitive processes and those strategies that would complement and scaffold their own
learning. I became more concerned with the process my students used than the product
they produced. My understanding of the importance of cognitive processes increased when
I attended the Buzzard’s Bay Writing Project. I began to use some of the associated
elements of SRSD model without being fully aware of it. For example, for years I have been
asking my students to reflect on their writing process in a cover letter required with each
final paper I collected. I also discussed for years the importance of interacting actively
with text, using marginal notes as a strategy for remaining dialogic and engaged. However,
this present study was my first time implementing all of the elements of the SRSD model
(Graham & Harris, 1993).
Steve Graham and Karen Harris (1993) were the pioneers of SRSD and have done
numerous studies that illuminate the effectiveness of strategy instruction.. However, since
its conception in the 1980s, others such as MacArthur and Lembo, (2008) have picked up
the proverbial ball and continued to explore strategy instruction as it can be applied to
writing instruction across writing genres, in a variety of settings, and with different ages of
students.
For example, in a 2008 study, MacArthur and Lembo (2008) studied cognitive
strategy instruction and the persuasive essay genre with three African-American adults
who were enrolled in an adult education program in order to help them pass the General
Equivalency Degree (GED). In this study, the authors wanted to investigate the effectiveness
of cognitive strategy instruction with adult literacy learners. Students wrote three essays
at the beginning of the study and three essays at the end. In each phase of the study,
students wrote persuasive essays in response to prompts. Essays were scored for
structure, quality, and length. Instruction emphasized strategies for planning, evaluating,
and revising essays.
First, students brainstormed two opposing positions, reasons, and evidence, using a
graphic organizer in the form of two-column notes (MacArthur & Lembo, 2008). Next,
students were instructed in organizing their information for inclusion in an essay. Then
they wrote the paper, including an introduction, reason, rebuttal, and conclusion (IRRC).
Next, they evaluated their own composition on a scoring guide based on the IRRC
mnemonic.
Four lessons guided student learning. Lesson one was an introduction to persuasive
writing and included a model essay in which the instructor and students labeled and
discussed elements of the composition. Lesson two included a review of the persuasive
essay, and the instructor modeled the planning and writing of an essay using think-aloud
methodology (MacArthur & Lembo, 2008). Lesson three emphasized evaluation and
revision. Students and the teacher discussed the scoring rubric, the essay written in lesson
two was analyzed, and goals were set for revision of that essay. Then the essay was
revised and graded again based upon the rubric. In lesson four, students were assessed on
their recall of the parts of a persuasive essay and the strategy steps. They then were asked
to write an essay based on a prompt. Lesson five required students to evaluate, revise,
and score the essay written in lesson four. Results for the study show that two of the three
students made large improvements on baseline scores (MacArthur & Lembo, 2008, p.
1028). All three students improved in overall quality of their writing as well as in text
structure, while length of writing showed no increase. All three students also showed
increased strategy use in planning their essays.
In another study by Helsel and Greenberg (2007), Helsel worked with one struggling
sixth-grade student to teach summary writing. They met for five sessions for forty-five
minutes at a time outside of regular language arts time. The goal was to develop the
student’s ability to write a summary. In the first session, they built background knowledge
by discussing the elements of a good summary. They then discussed the trouble the
student had writing summaries and some the reasons for those difficulties such as loss of
focus and inability to select details. They discussed the strategy and reviewed a planning
sheet. Then the author modeled the summarizing process, using a think-aloud.
In the second session, they reviewed the ideas from the first session and moved to the
“Support It” portion of the model. “Support It” is the phase of strategy instruction during
which the teacher works with a student or students as they practice the strategy
themselves. In the case of Helsel, she and her student read an article aloud and then
moved together through the strategy steps (Helsel & Greenberg, 2007). As they worked
they developed personalized self-regulatory instruction cards such as “stay focused” and
“think longer.”
In session three, the teacher and student worked on another article and summary,
with the student moving more fluidly and independently through the process. By session
four, the author states that her student had begun to synthesize the strategies (Helsel &
Greenberg, 2007), p. 758). She had made instruction cards to post above her desk at
home and moved more quickly through the steps during their meeting. In the fifth and
final session, the student moved through the process independently and with confidence.
