Online PBPD and Coaching for Teaching SRSD Argumentative Writing in Middle School Classrooms

Abstract

Teachers report a need for professional development in order to feel more confident and be more effective in providing writing instruction and intensive intervention to support middle school students. This study investigates the impacts of online practice-based professional development (PBPD) and coaching for self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) argumentative writing instruction on teachers’ implementation of the instruction. Using a pre-test–post-test design, the study also examined the effects of the SRSD instruction on students’ argumentative writing from source texts. Five middle school teachers from three regions across the United States participated in the PBPD and implemented SRSD with 55 middle school students with high-incidence disabilities or below-proficient writing skills. Following PBPD, teachers implemented the SRSD argumentative writing instruction with high adherence to dosage, fidelity of implementation, and quality. Student writing was scored for argumentative genre elements, holistic quality, total words written, and transition words. Results demonstrate that students improved on all measures. In addition, students reported feeling confident in their argumentative writing abilities. Teachers and students reported high social validity for the intervention. The benefits found in this research study provide a strong foundation supporting the application of comprehensive online PBPD with follow-up coaching to support teacher implementation of SRSD.

Implementing effective, evidence-based writing instruction can be challenging for teachers who are not adequately prepared to teach writing to middle school students. There are many reasons that contribute to the challenges special education teachers express related to teaching evidence-based writing instruction, varying from their previous teacher preparation programs to lack of access to professional development in writing instruction [1,2,3]. Specifically, many teacher education programs do not provide sufficient training or coursework in writing instruction. The paucity of coursework dedicated to effective writing instruction and learning ways to support students who have significant challenges in writing results in an increase in special education services for writing challenges [4]. The deficiency of resources for teaching writing in teacher preparation programs can leave new teachers feeling unprepared to teach and assess writing effectively.

After completing teacher preparation programs, other challenges that can arise include teachers having to adhere to writing standards and implement new interventions or competency requirements without adequate professional development [5]. Additionally, teachers may not always be up-to-date on the latest research and approaches to teaching writing. Furthermore, state standards can vary across states, creating confusion for teachers who have worked in multiple states. Another issue is reduced time in writing instruction due to teachers prioritizing new standards in other subject areas over writing instruction [6] Finally, a barrier reported by teachers is limited experience with writing themselves and a lack of professional development to enhance their own writing skills and pedagogy [7,8]. When teachers feel less confident in their own writing abilities and teaching, it can limit the amount of feedback related to revision and writing skills they feel comfortable providing to support student writing [9].

1. Professional Development and Instructional Coaching

With the challenges that teachers report regarding their ability to teach writing, providing professional development on writing instruction is an important next step to solve this gap in teacher training. According to the evidence base, there are five key features of effective professional development [7,10]. First, professional development must have a content focus. For example, in professional development on teaching writing, teachers need to be engaged in activities that are focused on writing and how students learn to write. Second, professional development should incorporate active learning. Teachers need opportunities to observe high-quality instructors and teachers, receive feedback on their own teaching, and examine and discuss student work samples. Third, coherence is essential for effective professional development. The components of professional development need to be consistent with the school curriculum or student learning goals. For example, special education teachers’ professional development must include strategies to address intensive student learning needs. Fourth, it is critical that professional development be ongoing throughout the school year. Fifth, professional development should include collaboration, where teachers interact with one another and participate in professional development activities together [10,11].

Another way to support teachers’ development and enhance their skills is by providing instructional coaching. Instructional coaching is when an educational leader partners with teachers to support their learning and provide feedback as teachers implement research-based practices [12]. Not only does instructional coaching advance teachers’ practices, but it also results in improved student outcomes by providing just-in-time learning for teachers related to an identified professional development need [5]. Through this personalized learning, coaches provide teachers with individualized, tailored recommendations that can help teachers better understand how to meet the diverse writing and learning needs of their students [13]. Coaches also direct teachers to resources that can assist with the implementation of new strategies and ways to differentiate instruction. Coaching enhances teacher confidence by helping develop the skills and knowledge necessary to work with students with disabilities, which can lead to increased confidence in teachers’ abilities to teach writing effectively [14]. This support through the coaching model can result in teachers feeling more motivated to try new strategies and approaches to help their students succeed [5]. Coaching, if implemented correctly, can also increase teacher instructional fidelity [13].

Although coaching research demonstrates effectiveness for in-service teachers, there are challenges to implementing effective coaching. A consideration for school districts and professional development providers is allowing adequate time for both the coach and the teacher [15]. There may be increased time constraints for special education teachers as they often have a heavy workload and may have limited time to engage in coaching sessions or implement new strategies in their classrooms [16]. Furthermore, some teachers may be resistant to change or may feel uncomfortable trying new teaching strategies. Two factors that have been found to be particularly challenging are if teachers have been teaching for many years and when professional development is offered in an online learning environment [17]. To overcome these challenges, coaches need to build trust and embed coaching recommendations with practice-based applications to enhance learning and increase implementation, harnessing technology tools to support these efforts wherever possible [18]. Finally, limited resources and a lack of training for coaches can play a role in implementing coaching models, and this may be especially true for teachers working in under-resourced schools or districts [16].

2. Practice-Based Professional Development

One model of professional development that has been effective in supporting teachers to learn and implement evidenced-based writing instruction is practice-based professional development (PBPD) [19]. PBPD is an approach to professional learning that is centered around applying new skills and knowledge in real-world classroom settings [20]. This approach is often used in fields such as education, healthcare, and social work, where practitioners need to apply new skills and knowledge to improve their practice. PBPD supports teachers’ development of knowledge and skills by including practice-based learning, collaboration, opportunities to reflect on practice, learning through problem-solving, ongoing support, and evaluation and continuous improvement feedback [21].

Additionally, PBPD is well aligned with adult learning theory [22]. Teachers who are adult learners are most successful when their professional learning has clear goals and objectives, is tied to their current classroom, and uses relevant and engaging development materials [22,23]. Adult learners benefit from learning experiences that recognize and build upon their comprehensive background knowledge related to teaching and learning in order to create new connections to the skills being taught [23]. Finally, teachers must have timely feedback in a supportive learning environment [24] that, ideally, builds upon their individualized learning needs and those of their K-12 students [25].

3. Online PBPD and Instructional Coaching

A recent review of the literature on professional development for strategy-focused writing instruction [19] found two studies that incorporated PBPD with coaching [13,26]. While previous scholarship has demonstrated that in-person PBPD with coaching can lead to teachers effectively implementing evidence-based writing instruction, we contend that the combination of PBPD and ongoing coaching can be effective when provided through online platforms. Online professional development can solve critical roadblocks related to professional development, such as time and cost [27]. The combined benefits of providing accessible online professional development with ongoing coaching connected to online learning are predicted to benefit teachers; however, research studies examining this phenomenon are limited [11,23]. Research supports the benefits of ongoing coaching to support professional learning [28] versus one-time professional development opportunities. Utilizing technology tools, online professional development and coaching can be delivered through multiple modes of learning, such as video conferences, webinars, online courses, and forums. These multiple means increase the ease and accessibility of teachers utilizing online learning resources. By using multiple modes of learning, teachers, like students, can engage with content in a way that works best for them [29]. Another potential benefit is that online professional development and coaching can be further personalized to meet the individual needs of each teacher in greater ways than are possible when instructing in a face-to-face setting. By leveraging online tools such as learning analytics, coaches can track and monitor teacher progress and adjust the coaching approach to meet their specific needs [29].

The present study combines best practices for comprehensive PBPD, instructional coaching, and online learning to support teachers’ learning over an extended amount of time (see Figure 1). Online learning is not without challenges, and it is critical that these challenges be accounted for in the online professional development design. Kara et al.’s [30] comprehensive literature review of best practices in online learning found that challenges for adult learners were typically divided into these three categories: internal, external, and program-related challenges. Highly occurring internal challenges can include time management and insufficient computing skills. External and program factors are often not enough time to access materials, limited interaction with other learners, and other technology challenges. In the present study, we used both synchronous and asynchronous online learning with components of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) [29] embedded in the course design. We also provided an extended amount of time to engage with PBPD materials to help mitigate internal, external, and program challenges. Overlapping best practices in UDL, online and adult learning, PBPD, and coaching creates a layered and highly accessible approach to professional learning for teachers. This approach can dramatically impact the effectiveness of PBPD in supporting writing practices such as self-regulated strategy development (SRSD).

4. Self-Regulated Strategy Development

SRSD is an evidence-based practice for teaching writing that includes six stages of instruction, general writing strategies, genre-specific strategies, and self-regulation strategies. The six stages of instruction include the following: develop and activate background knowledge, discuss the strategy, model the strategy, memorize the strategy, support the strategy, and independent performance. The general writing strategies help students remember the steps of the writing process, and the genre-specific writing strategy provides students with an approach for planning their essays within that genre. In this study, teachers taught the general writing strategy POW (Pull apart the prompt, Organize my notes, Write and say more) and argumentative writing strategy HIT SONGS3 (Hook, Introduce topic, Thesis, State perspective, Outlook on perspective, Need decision, Give your opinion, S3: Support your thesis, State relationships, Summary) [31,32,33]. In addition to the genre-specific writing strategy, self-regulation strategies, i.e., self-statements, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, and goal setting, are infused throughout the six stages to build gradual release and independence for students [34]. Generalization of the writing and self-regulation strategies are also discussed throughout all the stages.

In the first stage of SRSD instruction, develop and activate background knowledge, students discuss the argumentative genre, important vocabulary associated with the genre, and strategies to help them identify the essential parts to include in an essay. A mnemonic is introduced to help students remember the argumentative elements. Students examine their attitudes toward writing and are introduced to self-regulation strategies, such as goal-setting [34]. In the second stage, discuss the strategy, the teacher models how to examine the genre elements included in strong and poor essay examples. A graphic organizer is presented, and the teacher models taking short notes. Students graph the number of elements in their pre-tests, and the class sets group and individual writing goals [34].

In stage three, model it, teachers model reading source texts, planning the essay, turning planning notes into the argumentative essay, and editing and revising the essay. Teachers model self-statements, and students create their own self-statements to reference when writing (e.g., What is it I have to do? I have to write an argumentative essay using HIT SONGS3). While practice of the mnemonic has been occurring in the previous stages, by stage four, memorize it, teachers ensure students have the strategies and their meanings memorized. In stage five, support it, the class collaboratively writes an argumentative essay with the teacher. Then, students work collaboratively in small groups or with partners to write an argumentative essay on a new topic. Students also practice creating their own graphic organizer that includes all necessary genre elements represented by the mnemonic. Teacher support slowly fades in order to increase student independence. In stage six, students demonstrate independence using the strategies with minimal to no teacher support. SRSD provides a comprehensive roadmap to support strategic writing instruction in which teachers must have a deep understanding of the six stages to implement it effectively with students. A critical component of this deep learning is the need for ongoing coaching and support so that teachers continue to reflect, refine, and strengthen their learning and implementation [5,23].

SRSD is an effective method for teaching writing to middle school students with high-incidence disabilities across various genres [35], including argumentative writing [33,36,37,38,39,40]. Notably, three studies have been conducted implementing the SRSD lessons and argumentative strategy (i.e., HIT SONGS3) within this study [31,32,33]. The first two studies implemented the instruction with high school students with high-incidence disabilities [31,32]. and all students made statistically significant gains in their writing. The authors then conducted a pilot study with teachers implementing the instruction with middle school students with disabilities [33]. In this study, teachers received PBPD and implemented the SRSD instruction with 10 middle school students. Teachers implemented the instruction with high fidelity and quality, and students made gains in the number of argumentative elements, quality, number of transitions, and length of their argumentative writing from the source text. Students also reported an increase in their confidence in their writing abilities.

5. Purpose and Research Questions

Currently, there is limited research to connect the benefits of online professional development using PBPD and ongoing coaching to support teacher growth. This study built a multifaceted approach to providing online asynchronous professional development, synchronous PBPD, and ongoing coaching during the implementation of SRSD writing instruction. This study expands on the known benefits of PBPD [19], coaching [14,26], and online professional development [17] by providing teachers with the opportunity to engage in multiple ways and demonstrate their understanding of SRSD writing instruction.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether, after participating in online PBPD on SRSD and receiving ongoing coaching, middle school teachers were able to implement SRSD writing instruction with fidelity and quality. The secondary purpose was to measure if middle schoolers with high-incidence disabilities and/or below proficient writing skills made gains after receiving SRSD instruction for argumentative writing.

• Does PBPD and ongoing online coaching result in teachers delivering SRSD for argumentative writing with prescribed dosage and high fidelity and quality?
• Does SRSD instruction for argumentative writing from source texts for middle school students with high-incidence disabilities improve students’ writing skills?
• How do middle school students with high-incidence disabilities report their self-efficacy for writing argumentative essays after receiving SRSD instruction?
• Do teachers and students find the SRSD for argumentative writing instruction to have acceptable social validity?

6. Method

6.1. Participants and Setting

This study is the scaling up of an earlier pilot study [33]. After the implementation of the pilot study, more PBPD modules were added, revisions were made to the lessons and materials, and the original number of instructional lessons was decreased. Additionally, an online coaching feedback form was designed. The current study consisted of five middle school teachers (see

Table 1. Teacher Demographic Information.

Teacher	State	Grade Taught	Ethnicity	Gender	Education	Years Teaching	Teaching Role	Quality of Preparation
Teacher 1	Kentucky	6	Caucasian	Female	Master’s Degree	8	General Education ELA	Very Good
Teacher 2	Kentucky	7	Caucasian	Female	Master’s Degree	13	General Education ELA	Very Good
Teacher 3	Washington	7	Caucasian	Female	Bachelor’s Degree	14	Special Education	Poor
Teacher 4	Washington	7	Caucasian	Female	Master’s Degree	30	Special Education	Inadequate
Teacher 5	New York	8	Caucasian	Female	Doctorate Degree	23	Special Education	Very Good

Note. Quality of Preparation is in reference to teaching writing as reported by the teachers.

for demographic information) and 55 middle school student participants. SRSD instruction using technology tools was provided in person by teachers in the states of Washington, Kentucky, and New York. To be included in the study, students had to be identified as having a high-incidence disability with writing goals and/or below proficient writing skills as determined by their English language arts teacher. Additionally, approval from the Institutional Review Board was received, and parental consent and student assent were gained.

6.2. Online PBPD for SRSD

Teachers participated in online PBPD on SRSD for argumentative writing (see Figure 2 for the online PBPD and coaching sequence). The PBPD was designed and implemented over the course of six months by the first two authors of this study, who are both experts in SRSD writing instruction. The online PBPD utilized Canvas, a learning management system, and consisted of 14 asynchronous modules and 2 synchronous sessions. Teachers also had homework assignments to prepare materials for the SRSD intervention. The 14 asynchronous modules included videos with closed captioning, created by the first two authors and covered the following topics: (a) overview of PBPD, SRSD, and Common Core State Standards for argumentative writing in middle school; (b) SRSD stages, argumentative writing strategies, and self-regulation strategies; (c) fidelity of instruction and overview of lessons; (d) lessons 1–3; (e) lesson 4; (f) lesson 5; (g) lesson 6; (h) lesson 7; (i) lessons 8–11; (j) lessons 12–16; (k) lessons 17–20; (l) technology tools; (m) differentiating with technology SRSD writing instruction, scaffolding, and individualized student writing goals; and (n) assessment protocol and modeling proctoring assessments. The modules that were focused on specific lessons included an overview of the lesson and materials and then a video of one of the PBPD leaders teaching the lesson. Lessons that teachers in the pilot study [35] found to be the most difficult were selected to have their own module. All modules were available to the teachers for the duration of the study. This made it possible for teachers to go back and rewatch lessons being modeled before teaching the lesson to their students.

The online synchronous PBPD sessions lasted for five hours on two Saturdays. During PBPD, teachers practiced using the same materials that they then used during implementation in their respective classrooms. The PBPD leaders circulated throughout the break-out rooms to provide encouragement, give immediate feedback, and answer questions. This feedback helped support teachers as they were learning and before they implemented SRSD instruction with their students. One break-out room included a doctoral student to work with one of the teachers due to the uneven number of teachers. Prior to the first synchronous session, teachers had the homework assignment of reviewing lessons 1–6 and being prepared to teach lessons 2, 3, 5, and 6. The first synchronous session included a review of SRSD and technology tools and a discussion of lessons 1–6; teachers then worked in pairs in break-out rooms to practice teaching each other lessons 2, 3, 5, and 6. Teachers were then asked to review lessons 7–20, be prepared to teach lessons 7 and 12, create notes, and write the entire essay for lessons 8–11 as homework.

The second synchronous session began with a discussion about implementation fidelity, presenting the coaching process, and modeling and answering questions about technology tools. Then, teachers practiced lessons 7 and 12, discussed and shared with a partner the notes and essay they wrote for homework for lessons 8–11, and discussed with a partner lessons 13–16 and how to support their students during the gradual release of responsibility of writing. Next, teachers discussed with a partner lessons 17–20 and how to differentiate and provide additional support as needed when students begin independent work. Finally, teachers finished preparing materials for implementing instructions as homework, such as creating classroom posters, developing PowerPoints, creating student folders, and developing a system to collect students’ writing, e.g., Google Classroom.

6.3. SRSD Instruction and Coaching

The teachers implemented the argumentative writing instruction using the SRSD instructional model, the writing strategies POW and HIT SONGS3, and self-regulation strategies (see Authors for instruction details). The instruction also integrated the use of ubiquitous technology, e.g., writing an essay on Google Documents and Texthelp’s WriQ with an embedded rubric for teacher evaluation and feedback. The argumentative writing instruction with integrated technology included 20 lessons (see Figure 3).

Prior to starting SRSD implementation, each teacher met online with one of the PBPD leaders for a one-on-one coaching meeting. This meeting included a follow-up about consent and assent, procedures for pre-test administration, reminders about instructional procedures, a review of fidelity of instruction checklists on Canvas, a discussion about coaching emails and meetings, and answering any additional teacher’s questions.

During SRSD implementation, teachers completed an online fidelity checklist after each lesson. Coaching feedback was provided via email by the research team for one-third of the lessons. The coaching feedback covered strengths, suggested areas of improvement, and fidelity feedback (adapted from [2]). The format of this feedback was one page long with bullet points. In addition, two meetings during SRSD implementation were conducted to provide online one-on-one coaching. These were approximately one hour in length each and covered feedback on the fidelity of implementation, discussion of differentiation to meet students’ needs, overview of upcoming SRSD lessons and pacing, and answering teachers’ questions.

6.4. Teacher Measures

All assessment and SRSD instructional sessions were observed virtually via Zoom and assessed for fidelity by adherence, dosage, and quality. Additionally, one-third of the lessons were assessed by a second observer. Teachers also completed a reflection on their current writing practices survey prior to PBPD and a teacher social validity survey after implementing SRSD instruction.

6.4.1. Dosage

The amount of the program delivered was measured by the observer recording the length of each observed session in the number of minutes. Dosage was also measured by teachers self-reporting the number of lessons taught.

6.4.2. Adherence

Teachers’ adherence to implementing the SRSD writing instruction as intended was measured by fidelity component observation checklists completed by an observer and fidelity component self-report checklists completed by teachers after they completed each lesson. There was a specific fidelity component checklist for each lesson that listed each essential component of that lesson. After the completion of a lesson, the observer and teacher separately completed the checklist for that lesson by checking the steps that were implemented. The percentage of fidelity component completion was then calculated by dividing the number of steps completed by the total number of steps possible for that lesson and then multiplying the number by 100. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the two observers was 0.86.

6.4.3. Quality

The quality of SRSD instruction was measured by the observer completing a quality of implementation form after each observation. The quality form included 10 statements that the observer evaluated on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 representing not evident and 5 representing strongly evident. The statements considered the qualitative aspects of the SRSD instruction delivery, including preparedness, thoughtfulness, progress, addressing behavior problems, motivation, supporting students with writing difficulties, spending adequate time, not rushing lessons, teacher buy-in, and student engagement. The quality of implementation was then calculated by adding the score for each of the 10 questions, dividing it by 50 (the total number of points possible), and then multiplying the number by 100. The ICC was 0.70.

6.4.4. Current Writing Practices Survey

Prior to starting PBPD, the teachers completed a survey reflecting on their current writing practices. This survey asked questions about their preparation to teach writing within their teacher certification program, approach to writing instruction, number of minutes their students spend writing, number of minutes they spend teaching various aspects of writing, listing any commercial programs they use to teach writing, listing the types of writing activities their students complete during the year, and how often they teach various aspects of writing.

6.4.5. Teacher Social Validity Survey

After completing the PBPD and teaching the SRSD writing instruction, teachers completed a social validity survey. The survey consisted of 17 statements about the acceptability of the components of the intervention and their overall rating of the intervention. Teachers rated each statement on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 represented strongly disagree and 6 represented strongly agree. There were then four open-ended questions, including (a) What do you feel was most beneficial about this writing intervention? What was least beneficial?; (b) What specific elements of SRSD instruction did you find most effective and important for your students (e.g., writing strategies, self-regulation strategies, graphic organizers, prompts and supports, modeling, scaffolding)?; (c) What would you change about this writing intervention (components, design, implementation, etc.) to make it more student-friendly and teacher-friendly?; and (d) What other information would you like to contribute about this writing intervention?

6.5. Student Measures

Students completed pre-tests, participated in the SRSD writing intervention, and then completed post-tests. Student data were collected from the following measures: argumentative essay, student self-efficacy for writing, and student social validity.

6.5.1. Argumentative Essay Writing

The argumentative essay writing assessment was completed online using Google Documents. Students were given an argumentative prompt and two informational source texts related to the topic. The directions were to write a multi-paragraph argumentative essay in which you take a stance on the topic. The directions also reminded students to make sure to establish an argumentative claim, address potential counterarguments, and support their claim from the sources. They also were directed to develop their ideas clearly and use their own words, except when quoting directly from the sources. There was then a space to plan their essay and a space to write their essay. There were two prompt topics: (a) Write an argumentative essay about whether or not putting known characters on cereal would increase sales instead of using the regular boxes for an upcoming meeting with your teacher, and (b) Write an argumentative essay about whether or not people should own smart speakers for an upcoming meeting with your teacher. The prompt topics were counterbalanced by the teacher.

Each argumentative essay was scored for planning, total word count, overall quality, argumentative elements, and transitions. All essays were scored by a trained graduate student, and 78% of essays were scored by an additional graduate student. Interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated using Pearson’s product–moment correlation.

Planning. Essays were scored for planning on a scale of 0 to 5. Students earned a score of zero when no plan was present, a score of one was earned when students did not use a strategy but created a plan and copied their plan on their essay page, and a score of two was earned when students did not use a strategy when making a plan and made changes between their plan and essay. Students earned a score of three when they wrote information on the planning page related to using a strategy. Students earned a score of four if they used a strategy to plan and then copied their plan for their essay and earned a score of five if they used a strategy to plan and made changes between their plan and essay. The IRR was 0.89.

Total Word Count. The number of words was scored using the Microsoft Word Count feature.

Quality. The quality of essays was scored by the evaluator reading the essay to obtain a general impression of the essay’s quality and rating the essay on a scale of 0 to 7. A score of 0 represented an essay where no words were written. A score of 1 represented the lowest quality of writing, a score of 4 represented a middle range of writing quality, and a score of 7 represented the highest quality of writing. Writing quality scores took into account capitalization, punctuation, word choice, grammar, organization, detail, sentence structure, and imagination. All factors were equally taken into account to form a single rating of the writing quality. The IRR was 0.81.

Argumentative Elements. The argumentative elements were scored by students, earning one point for each argumentative element included in their essay. The argumentative essay elements were a hook, introduction of the topic, thesis, stating a perspective related to the thesis, the strengths and weaknesses of the perspective, discussing reasons and examples to support the perspective, an agreement or disagreement of the perspective, restatement of the thesis, rationale for the thesis, relationships between the perspectives in the body paragraphs, a summary of key ideas from the essay, and leaving the reader thinking. The points were then added up for the total number of argumentative elements included in the essay. The IRR was 0.80.

Transitions. The first words of each sentence, except for the first sentence of the essay, were read to see if a transition was utilized. The first words of the sentence were looked at to identify the most intentional usage of transitions. The first words were counted as a transition if they were on the list of acceptable transitions from the WIAT-IV [41]. Each transition word or phrase received one point. Students were not penalized for misspelling or errors in mechanics. The IRR was 0.94.

6.5.2. Self-Efficacy for Writing

The self-efficacy for writing assessment was a 13-question survey about writing tasks where students responded on a Likert scale of 1 to 10, where 1 represented having little certainty, 5 represented having certainty, and 10 represented absolute certainty in being able to complete the task. The first eight tasks that students were asked to rate their certainty about being able to complete the tasks included writing an argumentative essay, writing a hook, writing a strong introduction, writing a thesis, clearly organizing their ideas, providing strong support for their thesis, providing strong examples, and writing a conclusion paragraph. They were also asked about their certainty of being able to get started writing and keep writing when it is difficult for them. The last three statements asked them to rate their certainty on whether they can learn new things, change intelligence, and have a certain amount of intelligence.

6.5.3. Student Social Validity

After completing post-testing, students completed a nine-question social validity survey providing feedback on the instruction. Students rated statements on a 1 to 4 scale, with 1 representing strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, and 4 strongly agree. The first four statements asked the students to rate whether the instruction was easy to understand, useful, interesting, and helpful. The two next statements asked students to rate if they learned something and if they would recommend the instruction to other students. The last three statements asked students to rate the relevance of the instruction, essay examples, and writing prompts/topics to middle school students.

6.6. Design

A quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design was utilized to examine the effects of the SRSD argumentative writing instruction. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean scores from the essay pre-test and post-test on planning, total word count, overall quality, argumentative elements, and transitions. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge’s g due to the small sample size.

7. Results

7.1. Teacher Implementation: Dosage, Fidelity, and Quality

Teachers reported completing all 20 lessons with the exception of one teacher who elected not to complete four of the lessons. Teachers adhered to the instructional procedures with an observed average of 86% on fidelity implementation checklists. Teachers self-reported an average fidelity of implementation rate of 99%. For dosage, the instructional time for each lesson was an average of 47 min. Teachers also implemented instruction with high quality with an observed average of 96% on the quality implementation scale.

7.2. Teacher Social Validity

Given social validity scales and open-ended responses, teachers agreed that the intervention had acceptable social validity. Given a 6-point scale with 6 representing strongly agree, teachers reported that the intervention was beneficial (M = 6.00), reasonable (M = 5.50), and appropriate to meet students’ needs (M = 5.75), as well as useful with a variety of students (M = 5.75). Teachers reported that the intervention was acceptable for middle school students (M = 6.00) and effective in improving argumentative writing skills (M = 5.75). For instance, one teacher wrote, “The HITSONGS3 acronym was very helpful to my students, and they even told me how much it helped them, and they are using it in other classes. To see that application is huge”.

Teachers also felt more prepared (M = 5.50) and knowledgeable to teach argumentative writing (M = 5.75), to teach students to organize notes (M = 5.75), and to read source texts (M = 6.00). Teachers liked the procedures (M = 5.00) and felt progress monitoring procedures (e.g., Texthelp’s WriQ rubric and students’ graphs) were not only manageable (M = 5.50) but the procedures also gave necessary information to evaluate students’ growth (M = 5.75). Teachers reported feeling well-prepared to give useful feedback (M = 6.00) and reported that they would use the intervention again (M = 6.00) and suggest it to other teachers (M = 5.75). For instance, one teacher said, “I have recommended that our ELA department use this for argument compositions”.

7.3. Student Argumentative Essay Writing

Students demonstrated significant effects in planning their essays, including argumentative genre elements, overall essay quality, and length, by increasing their total written words. There were no significant gains in including transitions in their essays. See

Table 2. Mean Values, Standard Deviation, and Effect Size of Writing Outcome Measures.

Measure	Pre-Test	Post-Test	g Post
Planning	1.04 (1.72)	3.33 (2.10)	0.96 *
TWW	185.20 (123.59)	247.10 (156.20)	0.32 *
Quality	2.50 (1.53)	2.98 (1.92)	0.25 *
Elements	7.60 (5.03)	9.94 (6.80)	0.31 *
Transitions	2.00 (2.40)	2.33 (2.50)	0.11

Note. Standard deviation in parentheses. TWW = Total words written. * p < 0.05.

for descriptive statistics of writing outcome measures.

7.3.1. Planning

Students demonstrated significant effects in planning their essay (p < 0.001), g = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.63, 1.28]. Given student pre-tests, slightly over a third of students had a plan, which typically did not use a strategy and copied their plan word for word on their essay page. On post-tests, approximately 70% of students used a plan prior to writing their essay. Typically, they included a strategy on their plan page and incorporated changes into their essays.

7.3.2. Total Word Count

There were significant effects in total written words (p = 0.01), g = 0.32, 95% CI [0.05, 0.60]. Students’ pre-tests typically had a few paragraphs with brief conclusions. Post-tests had four to five clearly defined paragraphs and included introductions, bodies, and longer concluding paragraphs.

7.3.3. Quality

There were significant effects in overall essay quality (p < 0.04), g = 0.25, 95% CI [0.02, 0.53]. From pre- to post-tests, students demonstrated improvements in including details, better organization of their essay formats incorporating body paragraphs, and stronger voice.

7.3.4. Argumentative Elements

There were significant effects in argumentative genre elements (p < 0.01), g = 0.31, 95% CI [0.03, 0.59] used in essays. On the pre-test, students averaged 7.6 elements. On the post-test, students averaged 10 elements. Students’ pre-tests typically included elements such as stating their perspective but only included 1–2 reasons that were not typically reinforced by the sources. Students’ post-tests included elements such as hooks in the introduction, and multiple examples and quotations supported by the sources that reinforced their perspectives.

7.3.5. Transitions

There were no significant gains in transitions used. While not statistically significant, some students showed improvements in including transitions to signify a new paragraph on their post-tests.

7.4. Student Self-Efficacy for Writing

Given a post-intervention student self-efficacy writing scale with 10 representing absolute certainty, students reported confidence in their overall writing self-efficacy score (M = 7.85). Students reported they could write an argumentative essay that would receive a high grade (M = 8.05) that includes a hook (M = 8.50), has a strong introduction (M = 8.10), and clearly states a thesis (M = 7.84). Students reported they can write an argument that clearly organizes their ideas (M = 7.89) and provides strong support for their thesis (M = 7.98) with strong examples (M = 7.70) and a strong concluding paragraph (M = 7.84). Students reported they could easily start writing an argument (M = 7.70) and keep writing when writing is difficult (M = 6.91).

7.5. Student Social Validity

Given a social validity survey post-intervention on a 4-point scale, with 4 being strongly agree, students reported the intervention had an overall strong social validity (M = 3.74). Students found the instruction easy to understand (M = 3.95), useful (M = 3.95), interesting (M = 3.23), and helpful (M = 3.90). Students reported they learned something from the writing instruction (M = 3.85), found the instruction relevant (M = 3.75), and would recommend the instruction to other students (M = 3.73). Students reported that the essays were relevant for middle school students (M = 3.60) as well as the prompts/topics (M = 3.70).

8. Discussion

It is important for middle school teachers to be adequately prepared to teach writing and be able to support the various instructional needs of their students. SRSD is an evidence-based practice for teaching argumentative writing to students. Identifying effective professional development approaches to prepare and support teachers in successfully implementing SRSD writing instruction is imperative, as instructional programs that are taught with fidelity yield greater effect sizes [42].

8.1. Teacher Implementation of SRSD Argumentative Writing Instruction

The middle school teachers in this study received online PBPD and coaching throughout the duration of their implementation of the SRSD writing instruction. This approach resulted in teachers implementing the instruction with high fidelity and quality. This expands upon previous studies that found benefits in isolated components of online learning, such as teachers learning only asynchronously or teachers reflecting on their video teaching observations [17,18]. Furthermore, the teachers reported high levels of social validity for the instruction and described the intervention as helpful for their students.

8.2. Enhancing Middle School Students’ Argumentative Writing Performance

After the SRSD instruction incorporating the strategies of POW + HIT SONGS3 for argumentative writing from a source text, 55 middle school students with high-incidence disabilities demonstrated statistically significant gains from pre-test to post-test in their planning (p < 0.001), total word count (p = 0.01), overall essay quality (p < 0.04), and argumentative genre elements (p < 0.01). However, there were no significant gains in transitions, suggesting that additional instructional lessons on the purposes of transitions may be beneficial.

In addition to gains on writing assessments, students reported an overall increase in their self-efficacy in writing (M = 7.85). Both students and teachers also found the intervention to be socially valid. As one teacher stated, “I feel that students could remember the acronym HIT SONGS3 easily in case of writer’s block. It was reported that one of my students was singing the HIT SONGS3 to organize his notes for the essay on the state assessment!” suggesting that students were able to generalize the instruction to other settings.

8.3. Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of this study is that there was not a control group. Future research should include a control group to help determine the impact of the professional development and if changes in the students’ writing abilities were not due to some other variable. Another limitation is that not all teachers implemented all 20 SRSD writing lessons. Thus, future research should incorporate more time in professional development to deepen teachers’ understanding of the purposes of the SRSD stages of instruction and the importance of gradual release of responsibility for students’ writing development. An additional limitation is the small sample size and grouping of students. Students in this study were not randomly assigned by group, and there were unequal numbers of students in each class. Future research should try to have equal numbers of students in each class. Furthermore, due to time constraints within the schools, students were not able to take a standardized assessment. In the future, research should include having students take a standardized assessment to provide a measure of generalizability.

8.4. Implications for Practice

Crafting compelling written work can be arduous, particularly for middle school students with high-incidence disabilities or those with below-proficient writing skills. However, research has illuminated a promising path forward. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence demonstrating that SRSD instruction implemented by classroom teachers can significantly enhance middle school students’ argumentative writing capabilities. Through carefully scaffolded stages of instruction, SRSD empowers students to navigate the complexities of crafting multi-paragraph essays that integrate source texts. By providing essential support and fostering independence, SRSD equips students with the tools they need to tackle the formidable task of effective written expression.

While SRSD is an effective method for teaching writing, many teachers are not prepared to teach writing or implement the SRSD instructional model. This study provides a model for a multifaced approach to online PBPD with ongoing coaching that had a positive impact on teachers’ writing instruction and confidence in implementing SRSD instruction. The PBPD approach and ongoing coaching were layered across six months, which created an opportunity for teachers to thoroughly learn and implement the SRSD writing instruction with high fidelity and quality. The study also incorporated UDL components into the online learning opportunities, benefiting learner outcomes, such as teachers creating goals for their professional learning and having multiple ways to engage, demonstrate, and represent the PBPD concepts. PBPD utilized online meeting tools and break-out rooms, which provided accessible ways for teachers to practice lessons before delivering the lessons in their middle school classrooms. Finally, personalized coaching was implemented with middle school student learning needs and SRSD instructional components as the focal points for coaching guidance.

The benefits of PBPD and ongoing coaching cannot be overstated. Research has shown that coaching provides an opportunity for ongoing professional development, which positively impacts both student achievement and teacher satisfaction [6]. Teachers feel more confident and valued when successfully implementing new strategies that target student learning needs. When combining the accessibility and increased availability of online coaching, professional development providers can target and individualize their instruction to support learning goals for a wider audience of teachers [23]. Online coaching also provides an opportunity for communities of practice where coaches and teachers can work together, build stronger relationships, and develop enhanced teaching practices across various geographic locations [5,17]. There continues to be a proliferation of opportunities and tools available to support deep professional learning in an online format that can positively benefit teachers and their students.