Empowering Young Writers: Enhancing Perspective-Taking and Persuasive Writing Through STOP DARE+ in Social Studies

Abstract

Writing proficiency is important for academic and professional success, yet only one-third of US students write at proficient levels. While Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) has shown effectiveness across different populations, few studies have examined its application in elementary social studies contexts. This study investigated the implementation of STOP DARE+, an SRSD-based writing intervention incorporating reading from social studies source texts and perspective-taking, in a fourth-grade social studies classroom studying the Underground Railroad. The intervention was delivered across 11 sessions to 12 students with diverse learning needs. Writing quality was assessed using the newly developed Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality scoring tool, alongside genre elements and text production measures. Social validity was evaluated through the Teacher-Informed Perspectives Snapshot (TIPS), a new repeated-measures tool, combined with interviews and student focus groups. Results showed significant improvements in all writing measures with large effect sizes. Students and teachers reported strong positive perceptions of the intervention’s effectiveness and meaningfulness, with students particularly emphasizing the importance of perspective-taking for both academic and social development. The findings suggest that integrating SRSD-based writing instruction with social studies content can enhance both writing skills and critical thinking while fostering deeper engagement with historical events and social justice themes.

1. Introduction

Writing proficiency serves as a cornerstone of academic, professional, and social success, enabling students to organize thoughts, demonstrate knowledge, and engage meaningfully with their communities. Despite its critical importance, only about one-third of students in the United States write at the proficient level (National Center for Educational Statistics et al., 2009). This persistent challenge is further amplified by limited opportunities for students to practice writing across the curriculum (Gilbert & Graham, 2010), a concerning trend considering that research consistently demonstrates that additional writing practice leads to improved outcomes (Graham et al., 2012, 2020).

1.1. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

A promising solution to address this need is the implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), an evidence-based framework validated in over 100 studies (Graham et al., 2013) that provides a structured approach to writing instruction aligned with Universal Design for Learning principles (UDL; Hashey et al., 2020). The framework integrates explicit strategy instruction with self-regulation procedures through a gradual release of responsibility model that can be tailored to individual student needs. This approach has demonstrated effectiveness across diverse student populations, including those with learning disabilities, and can be implemented across multiple genres of writing (Harris et al., 2012).

SRSD progresses through six systematic stages: (1) Develop Background Knowledge, (2) Discuss It, (3) Model It, (4) Memorize It, (5) Support It, and (6) Independent Performance. Throughout these stages, teachers explicitly model self-regulation processes including goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement (Graham et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2008). This dual focus on writing strategies and self-regulation helps students develop both technical skills and metacognitive abilities needed for effective writing.

The present study was guided by three empirically tested SRSD strategies: TWA, TREE, and STOP DARE. TWA is a close reading strategy that guides students in analyzing text with persuasive writing goals in mind (Mason, 2017; Mason et al., 2012). The strategy teaches students to Think before reading (considering author’s purpose and generating ideas), While reading (adjusting reading speed and marking relevant information), and After reading (identifying persuasive elements and making notes). Throughout this process, students learn to avoid plagiarism by expressing ideas in their own words.

For persuasive writing instruction, TREE serves as an entry-level strategy teaching basic essay components (Topic sentence, Reasons, Explain each reason, Ending) (Harris et al., 2002), while STOP DARE represents a more advanced approach incorporating counterarguments (De La Paz & Graham, 1997). STOP DARE guides students through planning (Suspend judgment, Take a side, Organize ideas, Plan more as you write) and composition (Develop your topic sentence, Add supporting ideas, Reject arguments for the other side, End with a conclusion). Harris and colleagues (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of combining TWA with TREE for teaching persuasive writing to 4th and 5th-grade special education students.

1.2. Writing and Social Studies

Beyond addressing the need for evidence-based writing instruction, our society faces growing divisions along racial, cultural, gender, political, and religious lines (McCoy & Somer, 2019; Svolik, 2019), with educators reporting increased instances of discriminatory behavior and bullying in schools (Costello, 2016; Rogers et al., 2017). Elementary social studies education serves as an excellent platform for tackling both challenges, as it seeks to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed to comprehend, engage with, and make thoughtful decisions about the world around them. When combined with inclusive approaches that encourage critical engagement with diverse perspectives and historical narratives (Rodriguez & Swalwell, 2021), social studies instruction creates powerful opportunities for students to examine multiple perspectives through writing.

Teaching social studies through writing enhances critical thinking and civic decision-making skills that support democratic participation, ultimately helping students become engaged members of society (Holdinga et al., 2023; Sunal & Haas, 2011). Research has shown that elementary students with learning disabilities can demonstrate significant gains in historical knowledge and reasoning when provided with explicit strategy instruction (Ferretti et al., 2001; Ferretti & Lewis, 2013). These parallel challenges, insufficient writing instruction and societal division, highlight the need for innovative educational approaches. Such strategies can address both issues simultaneously, particularly in elementary social studies classes where students start developing their understanding of civic life and analytical writing skills.

SRSD’s emphasis on explicit strategy instruction, self-regulation, and metacognitive development positions it as a particularly valuable approach for teaching disciplinary writing in content areas like social studies, where students must learn to analyze complex sources and construct evidence-based arguments (De La Paz, 2005). This systematic approach aligns with teaching students the sophisticated cognitive processes that historians use, such as evaluating source credibility, corroborating information across documents, and considering historical context (Wineburg, 1991). Writing arguments helps students develop more sophisticated historical reasoning about controversial topics, leading to deeper conceptual understanding and integration of multiple sources compared to descriptive writing tasks (Stahl et al., 1996; van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018; Wiley & Voss, 1999). This integration of SRSD with persuasive writing instruction in social studies creates a particularly powerful approach because it requires students to evaluate evidence, consider multiple perspectives, and construct reasoned arguments about complex historical events; skills that are essential for both academic success and informed civic participation.

1.3. Writing and Perspective-Taking

Perspective-taking, the ability to understand viewpoints beyond one’s own, is a foundational skill that influences both social development and academic achievement, particularly in writing quality (Cho et al., 2021; McTigue et al., 2015). This cognitive skill enables writers to anticipate and address counterarguments by understanding opposing viewpoints, a crucial element in persuasive writing (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013). Additionally, students believe that writing from a different perspective may increase the quality of their writing (Aitken & Graham, 2023). Despite its importance, most students do not effectively incorporate different perspectives in their writing (Ferretti & Fan, 2016).

Recent empirical work has begun examining explicit perspective-taking instruction within writing interventions. Cho et al. (2021) analyzed source-based analytical essays from 195 seventh-grade students, finding that higher levels of perspective-taking, particularly the ability to represent dual perspectives, were associated with better writing quality regardless of demographic factors. Similarly, Crowe and Hodges (2022) implemented a writing intervention with third-grade students to develop perspective-taking abilities through written expression. Their findings emphasized the importance of differentiated writing prompts to maintain student engagement and deepen perspective-taking skills. Furthermore, it could potentially support both cognitive and social development while enhancing students’ ability to engage with source texts (McTigue et al., 2015). The significance of perspective-taking is particularly pronounced in social studies contexts, where students must comprehend and evaluate multiple interpretations of complex historical situations. For instance, when studying events like the Underground Railroad, students must engage with diverse viewpoints to conduct meaningful historical analyses and produce effective written responses.

Special education research on perspective-taking has frequently employed a theory of mind approach, particularly in studies examining interventions for autistic students (Diaz-Borda et al., 2024). However, its benefits extend beyond students with disabilities, who may face challenges with empathy and social interactions (Marton et al., 2009; Reed & Peterson, 1990). Integrating perspective-taking into writing instruction aligns with UDL principles through its attention to emotional capacity (CAST, 2024), supporting both cognitive development and students’ engagement with source texts (McTigue et al., 2015).

1.4. Social Validity

Social validity refers to the perceived significance of an intervention’s goals, procedures, and outcomes as judged by those it affects (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978; Schlosser, 1999). To ensure alignment with the needs and values of those directly and indirectly impacted, it should be assessed throughout the intervention process—from planning through implementation and final evaluation (Kennedy, 2002; Page & Thelwell, 2013). These judgments offer a qualitative, subjective appraisal that can guide research and practice, ensuring that instructional strategies are not only effective but also meaningful to those involved (Storey & Horner, 1991). In line with Schlosser’s (1999) recommendation to adopt a more comprehensive term for those affected by an intervention, we use the term “consumer” to encompass not only participants but also others impacted by the intervention, such as parents and teachers.

The ultimate goal of social validity measurement is to identify the level of significance a particular intervention has in the lives of the consumers. Consumer input on the perceived value and utility of a particular intervention is important. Even if the intervention has a statistically significant effect on the target behavior (e.g., writing quality, production), these changes are less likely to persist if the procedures are impractical or lack value for the participant and other consumers (Schlosser, 1999). The goal of interventions should be to make important changes in the lives of the participants. Social validity is necessary for identifying what participants value and consider important.

Schwartz and Baer (1991) advocated for social validity to be an ongoing process throughout an intervention so that the researchers may adapt goals and procedures based on the consumer feedback. However, this is infrequently performed. Huntington et al. (2024) found that 65.18% of articles in recent behavior literature collected social validity data at only one time point, 94.95% of those measurements occurring after implementation. Conducting social validity assessments only at one time point without adapting any aspect of the goals or procedures of an intervention may fail to serve the purpose of social validity (Snodgrass et al., 2018). Collecting feedback from consumers allows researchers to adapt intervention procedures to effectively support consumer needs, maximizing the potential for meaningful change (Schwartz & Baer, 1991).

Additionally, the recommended ways to collect social validity data vary throughout the literature. Ferguson et al. (2019) found that the most common forms of social validity measurement are: rating scales (21%), questionnaires (17%), intervention choice (6%), other forms of measurement (8%), and the utilization of two or more of the aforementioned methods (48%). Huntington et al. (2024) found that the most commonly used methods of social validity were author-created and author-adapted measures (86.83%). Despite the variability in approaches, researchers consistently emphasize the need to use social validity as an essential quality indicator of intervention research (Cook et al., 2015; Ganz & Ayres, 2018). Measuring social validity links intervention outcomes to their personal significance, allowing researchers to adapt intervention procedures to better address consumer needs and create meaningful improvements (Storey & Horner, 1991).

1.5. Theoretical Framework: Writer(s) Within Community Model of Writing

The Writer(s) Within Community (WWC) Model of Writing provides a holistic framework for understanding the dynamic interplay between individual writers, their cognitive processes, and the sociocultural contexts in which writing occurs (Graham, 2018; Graham & Aitken, 2025). According to this model, writing is shaped both by the writing community, comprising collaborators, readers, teachers, and peers, and the cognitive and emotional resources that individual writers bring to the process. Writing is thus both an individual and a communal act, influenced by the shared goals, norms, and interactions of the writing environment (Graham, 2018). This dual influence positions writing as inherently responsive to the evolving capabilities and contributions of community members, as well as the agency and purposeful actions of individual writers. Some researchers also suggest that the WWC model functions as a motivational framework, highlighting how communal dynamics foster a sense of belonging, purpose, and agency that enhances engagement with writing tasks (Aitken, 2023).

Central to the WWC model is the notion that changes in community dynamics and individual capacities are bidirectional and ongoing (Graham, 2018; Graham & Aitken, 2025). For instance, when a writing interventionist introduces new strategies, frameworks, or norms into a classroom, these inputs can influence not only students’ writing behaviors but also the broader classroom community, reshaping the norms and expectations around writing. In turn, the intervention is shaped by the community’s existing practices, values, and feedback, emphasizing the importance of understanding how interventions align and interact with community beliefs and perceptions (Schlosser, 1999). We suggest that social validity measures, which assess participants’ views on the significance and utility of intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes, are essential for capturing these nuanced shifts in community dynamics and individual growth. They allow researchers to identify which changes are valued and deemed meaningful by students and teachers alike, thus reinforcing the iterative and reciprocal nature of writing development within the WWC framework.

This model also has implications for perspective-taking, a critical skill for effective writing and civic engagement, particularly within social studies contexts. Perspective-taking relies on the writer’s ability to anticipate and address different viewpoints, drawing on both cognitive and emotional capacities to navigate multiple perspectives (Cho et al., 2021; Ferretti & Lewis, 2013; McTigue et al., 2015). We interpret the WWC framework to view perspective-taking as a socially situated skill that is developed and refined through interaction with peers, teachers, and texts. The act of writing from different perspectives invites students to engage with the beliefs, experiences, and emotions of others, fostering deeper connections to the classroom community and encouraging critical reflection on societal issues. In this study, the integration of the STOP DARE+ intervention within the WWC framework not only aimed to enhance students’ cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation skills associated with writing but also to nurture their ability to engage in meaningful perspective-taking. This alignment supports the dual goals of academic proficiency and civic participation, emphasizing the importance of writing as both a personal and community practice.

1.6. The Underground Railroad

The Underground Railroad was a covert and organized network of routes, safe houses, and activists that played a pivotal role in American history by helping enslaved African Americans escape from bondage to free states and Canada. Although enslaved people had been seeking their freedom since the early days of slavery, the Underground Railroad was most active between approximately 1830 and 1860. Self-emancipators faced significant dangers as they navigated hostile territory, relying on coded communication and the courage of allies along their journey. This network was primarily built and maintained by both free and enslaved Black Americans who undertook considerable risk to help others obtain freedom. White abolitionists, including Quakers and other religious groups, also supported the Underground Railroad by providing money, shelter, and transportation (Bordewich, 2005). Although the Underground Railroad often dominates elementary school lessons, it represented just one facet of a broader movement. Many Black and white abolitionists fought through oratory, journalism, legal advocacy, and political activism. As suggested in other historical writing studies (e.g., Holdinga et al., 2023; van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018; Wissinger et al., 2018), engaging students in comparative analysis of these different perspectives and approaches to resistance can promote critical thinking and a deeper understanding of this important chapter in American history.

1.7. The Present Study

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of SRSD across various domains and student populations, relatively few studies have examined its application in social studies contexts (Ciullo et al., 2015; Griffin et al., 1995; Holdinga et al., 2023). Furthermore, no study could be located that has investigated the integration of SRSD writing instruction within elementary social studies that emphasizes perspective-taking and critical thinking.

The present study addresses this gap by examining the implementation of an SRSD-based writing intervention in a fourth-grade social studies classroom. Aligned with the Special Issue’s focus on improving intervention programming and assessment practices, this research demonstrates how evidence-based writing instruction can be provided early and inclusively through a UDL framework. Instead of relying on a wait-to-fail model or high-stakes testing, this instructional method proactively supports all students with explicit strategies and accessible scaffolds. The overarching objective of this study was to adapt the evidence-based practice of STOP DARE into STOP DARE+, enabling students to write from social studies source texts in ways that are instructionally meaningful and socially valid for both the students and the teacher. The research questions guiding this inquiry include:

• How does the implementation of the STOP DARE+ writing intervention impact the holistic writing quality, number of genre elements, and text production among 4th-grade students?
• How do students and teachers perceive the effectiveness, meaningfulness, and motivational aspects of the STOP DARE+ intervention in a 4th-grade social studies classroom?
• What are students’ perceptions of the importance of perspective-taking, and how do they articulate its value in writing and broader social contexts?

2. Materials and Methods

Prior to intervention, IRB approval was sought and provided by the Penn State Office for Research Protections (STUDY00021518). We also obtained informed consent and assent.

2.1. Participants and Setting

This study took place in a small private school (PreK-8, N = 104 students) in the northeastern United States during the 2022–2023 academic year. While the school does not formally classify students under IDEA disability categories, they provide individualized support based on students’ unique learning needs. The intervention was implemented during two weekly 60-min social studies periods over 11 instructional sessions.

Participants included 12 fourth-grade students from one social studies classroom. Based on teacher reports and confirmed by researcher notes and observations, the sample represented diverse learning needs: two students required attention-related accommodations, two needed emotional/behavioral support, and one student reading at approximately a first-grade level who used assistive technology (text-to-speech software) for writing tasks. The remaining students demonstrated grade-level (n = 7) academic performance in reading and writing. Prior to the study, students had experience with narrative writing, book summaries, and informative writing tasks but had not received formal instruction in persuasive writing.

The classroom teacher had 10 years of teaching experience at the study site and held certifications in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and Special Education, with prior experience as a school psychologist. While experienced with writing workshop instruction, she had no prior experience teaching persuasive writing or implementing SRSD instruction. A student teacher also supported classroom instruction during the study period.

2.2. STOP DARE+ Writing from Source Text Intervention in Social Studies

The first author implemented the STOP DARE+ writing intervention in three sequential stages over 11 instructional sessions held in consecutive weeks. A graduate research assistant (GRA) was present to assist and take field notes. This design aimed to build students’ persuasive writing skills progressively, moving from basic persuasive writing without source texts to more complex source-based argumentative writing. Phase One (Sessions 1–5) focused on foundational persuasive essay elements. Phase Two (Sessions 6–8) introduced the close reading of two source texts on a general topic. The final phase, Phase Three (Sessions 9–11), concentrated on the close reading of source texts directly related to the social studies content.

Following a similar approach to Harris et al. (2019) in teaching writing from source text, their work employed TREE for persuasive writing; however, we opted for STOP DARE due to its inclusion of counterarguments, which TREE lacks. Although inspired by the theoretical underpinnings of the TWA close reading framework (Mason, 2017; Mason et al., 2012), we modified the instructional approach to better suit contemporary learners by emphasizing explicit modeling of close reading procedures rather than the acronym-based strategy. Given that Trans World Airlines (TWA) had been dissolved decades prior, the acronym no longer held relevance for students. This adapted approach, termed STOP DARE+, allowed for greater instructional flexibility. To assess student growth, a pretest involving two source texts about westward expansion (including a modified primary source by Simon Pokogon) was administered a few weeks before the intervention, with the posttest taking place in Session 11.

2.2.1. Phase One, No Source Texts (Sessions 1–5)

In the first phase, following established STOP DARE procedures (De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Harris et al., 2008), students learned the basic structure of persuasive writing through a sequence of scaffolded lessons. These lessons included explicit instruction in the elements of persuasive essays, analyzing model essays to identify persuasive components, and guided practice in essay composition on familiar topics (e.g., convincing family members to get a pet) without source texts. Instruction followed the STOP DARE lesson sequence detailed in Harris et al. (2008). This initial stage allowed students to focus on mastering the fundamental elements of persuasive writing without the additional cognitive demand of synthesizing source material.

2.2.2. Phase Two, Close Reading of Source Texts on a General Topic (Sessions 6–8)

Next, we taught students to close read source text to gain ideas for their persuasive essays in the second phase. Students wrote persuasive essays using two source texts on accessible topics relevant to their daily lives. For example, when writing about whether fourth graders should be allowed to watch YouTube after school, students analyzed informational texts presenting both benefits and potential concerns of children’s YouTube use. This stage introduced students to the skills of identifying and integrating evidence from sources to support their arguments. We followed procedures of Harris et al. (2019) with two exceptions. First, instead of POW TREE, we taught the more advanced SRSD strategy of STOP DARE with close reading of source text. Second, as stated above, we followed the instructional procedures of TWA but did not use the airplane analogy.

2.2.3. Phase Three, Close Reading of Source Texts on a Social Studies Topic (Sessions 9–11)

The final phase of instruction integrated persuasive writing with social studies content. Instruction was aligned with the teacher’s curriculum and a field trip focused on the Underground Railroad. Students composed persuasive essays using primary and secondary sources to form arguments about abolitionists and the Underground Railroad, applying the writing strategies developed in earlier phases to historical content. This phase emphasized the analysis of historical documents while maintaining the established persuasive writing structure. Due to scheduling challenges (e.g., snow days and teacher availability), only one social studies writing topic was taught and used as the posttest. Background knowledge and source analysis occurred in Sessions 9 and 10, and students wrote their essays in Session 11.

To support students’ understanding of the Underground Railroad, the first author collaborated with a social studies education expert to develop two secondary texts embedded with primary sources, each highlighting different abolitionist perspectives. One text (297 words) focused on Joshua Glover and Wisconsin abolitionists, while the other (321 words) featured Frederick Douglass. The writing prompt was, “After reading about different abolitionists’ beliefs, I see that all abolitionists were important and have different perspectives. I think the abolitionist leaders like ______________ were most important.”

2.3. Writing Outcome Measures

Three outcome measures were used to assess students’ persuasive writing performance at pre- and posttest: holistic writing quality, genre elements, and text length. All handwritten essays were typed, and spelling errors were corrected prior to scoring to control for presentation effects (Graham et al., 2011). Before scoring study essays, GRAs were trained until they reached at least 80% agreement. If agreement were to drop below the threshold, retraining would have occurred. Disagreements were discussed and resolved through consensus. If disagreements could not have been solved, another expert writing researcher would have determined the score, however, this did not occur.

2.3.1. Holistic Writing Quality

We analyzed all essays for their holistic writing quality, a procedure for analyzing a written product as an entire unit (White, 1985). This method has been found to be more accurate than dissecting analysis into a series of individual skills (e.g., voice, vocabulary, syntax, organization, ideas; Williamson, 1993). The first author and GRAs employed a mixed methods approach by using voice recordings to reflect on and justify our scoring decisions (qualitative) as we evaluated each essay on a scale of 1 to 6 (quantitative). These recorded reflections supported both consistent quantitative scoring and deeper understanding of essay quality (Aitken & Halkowski, 2024). The primary raters were unaware of participants, study purpose, or conditions. The first author’s scores were used for reliability only. We identified anchor papers and iteratively developed a rubric that included descriptions of paper characteristics at each of the six points. Initially, we used the NAEP descriptions to guide our rubric and modified it to fit the unique characteristics of our fourth-grade writers. The resulting rubric, Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality (“Spectrum”;

Table 1. Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Thesis
Clearly Stated	x	x	x	x	x	x
Stated but Ambiguous	x	x	x	x
Not Stated	x	x
Reasons/examples
Quantity
At least 3 reasons		x	x	x	x	x
1–2 reasons	x	x	x
No reasons	x
Relevance/Persuasiveness
Highly				x	x	x
Moderately		x	x	x	x
Minimally	x	x	x
Counterargument
Highly Effective				x	x	x
Moderately Effective		x	x	x	x
Minimally Effective	x	x	x	x
Not present	x	x	x
Refutation
Directly Refutes			x	x	x	x
Attempts to refute but not on topic	x	x	x	x	x
Not present	x	x	x
Word Choice/Voice
Highly Effective				x	x	x
Moderately Effective		x	x	x	x
Minimally Effective	x	x
Sentence Structure/Grammar
Mostly correct				x	x	x
Some correct, distracting errors		x	x	x	x
Mostly incorrect, gets in the way of understanding	x	x
Source Text
Effective Use				x	x	x
Moderately Effective		x	x	x	x
Not Effective	x	x
Not Present	x	x

), provided a spectrum of multiple likely writing behaviors at each of the anchor points. All raters trained to criterion (80%) and reliability was strong, as indicated by an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.892.

Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality

The Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality (Table 1) was developed as a guiding framework to support the reliable assessment of student writing across multiple dimensions. While holistic scoring traditionally relies on evaluators’ overall impressions of writing quality, this spectrum provides guidance on expected or likely writing behaviors at all six levels, providing scaffolding for novice raters while maintaining the integrative nature of holistic assessment.

The Spectrum encompasses ten key dimensions of writing quality: thesis construction, reasoning/examples, elaboration, counterargument handling, refutation, organizational structure, word choice/voice, sentence structure/grammar, and source text usage. For each dimension, the Spectrum describes characteristic behaviors typically associated with different score levels, creating a multidimensional and flexible yet structured approach to evaluation.

Importantly, the Spectrum should not be interpreted as a rigid rubric but rather as a guiding framework. Writing at any given score level may not exhibit all characteristics associated with that level, and some features may appear across multiple levels with varying degrees of sophistication. The Spectrum serves primarily as a tool to guide a rater’s judgments and enhance inter-rater reliability while preserving the holistic nature of the assessment.

2.3.2. Number of Persuasive Writing Elements

Each essay was assessed for core components of persuasive argumentation, including six functional elements: thesis statement, supporting reasons, elaborations, counterargument statements, counterargument refutations, and conclusion. Each essay could receive one point each for a thesis and conclusion, while multiple points could be earned for other elements (e.g., multiple supporting reasons or elaborations). Elements were counted if they contained unique information relevant to the prompt and were comprehensible, regardless of grammatical accuracy.

2.3.3. Essay Length

The total number of words in each essay was calculated using Microsoft Word’s word count feature after essays were typed and spelling was corrected.

2.4. Social Validity Data Sources

To gain an understanding of participants’ perceptions and experiences with the intervention, multiple sources of social validity data were collected. Social validity measures focused on the intervention’s effectiveness, meaningfulness, and motivational qualities, as perceived by both students and the classroom teacher.

2.4.1. Teacher-Informed Perspectives Snapshot (TIPS)

At the end of each intervention session, the classroom teacher was asked to complete a brief online rating scale administered via Qualtrics. This was to capture social validity data over time and in a way that was quick and convenient for a busy teacher. The TIPS consisted of three Likert-type items, each anchored from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). These items asked the teacher to rate the extent to which the intervention was effective, meaningful, and motivating for students. Additionally, the form allowed space for the teacher to pose questions or make further comments, providing nuanced insights into the daily implementation and reception of the intervention.

2.4.2. Student Focus Groups

Following the conclusion of the intervention, students participated in semi-structured focus groups to provide feedback on their experiences. The first author spoke with groups of one to five students for 20–30 min. We spoke at a conference table in the school lobby near the office and all sessions were audio recorded. In one instance, a focus group with five students had to be paused and resumed the following day in smaller groups due to an unexpected scheduling conflict. One student requested to speak with the first author in a 1:1 setting. The semi-structured protocol centered on the perceived effectiveness, relevance, and motivational aspects of the intervention (

Table 2. Student Focus Group Planned Protocol.

Student Focus Group Questions

Directions: Hello, I am going to ask you some questions about writing and social studies. I am going to record it so please try to use your fake name. Do you have any questions? [Pause for response.] I am going to start recording now. What is something GREAT that you did in your writing? Pretend that you are telling someone in [another teacher’s] class how to write a persuasive essay, what pieces would you tell them that they needed to write it? What do you like about STOP DARE writing? On a scale of 1–10, how confident are you that you persuade somebody to agree with you? How easy or hard was to suspend judgement and understand two perspectives? What did you think was the hardest thing about STOP DARE? On a scale of 1–10, where 1 is very hard and 10 is very easy, how hard or easy was to suspend judgement and understand two perspectives?

). Students were encouraged to share their thoughts openly, with the facilitator asking questions about what aspects of the instruction were most or least helpful. Focus groups were transcribed using Zoom and were checked for accuracy by a GRA.

2.4.3. Teacher Interview

After the intervention concluded, the teacher participated in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately 30 min. This interview explored the same overarching themes—effectiveness, meaningfulness, and motivation—that guided the teacher ratings. The interview protocol included open-ended questions, enabling the teacher to elaborate on her impressions and provide suggestions for improving the intervention. These qualitative data supplemented the quantitative TIPS, offering a richer understanding of how the intervention functioned within the classroom context.

2.4.4. Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale (TIPS)

In response to feedback from social validity focus groups and interviews, we developed the Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale to assess students’ perceptions of how important it is to consider different perspectives. Inspired by student feedback, the scale consists of a 10-point measure, in which students were asked to evaluate a series of reasons for considering multiple perspectives. These reasons were directly derived from quotes and themes identified during the focus groups. For example, students were prompted with: Why is suspending judgment and looking at different perspectives important? On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is learning this writing strategy to look at different perspectives, followed by the reasons they had articulated during the focus groups. See

Table 3. Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale.

Why is suspending judgment and looking at different perspectives important? On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is learning this writing strategy to look at different perspectives…	M	SD
With you and parents, teachers, and other adults?	8.7	1.47
With you and your friends, classmates, and other kids?	8.8	1.44
With people of different cultures?	9.7	1.25
With people of different races?	9.6	0.65
To help reduce or eliminate bullying?	9.7	0.57
To help reduce or eliminate racism in our world?	9.4	0.79
To promote peace and harmony?	9.5	0.90
With connection and having friends?	9.5	1.01

.

2.5. Data Analysis

Writing outcomes (holistic writing quality, genre elements, and word count) were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to examine pre- to posttest changes, given the small sample size (N = 12). Effect sizes were calculated using the formula r = |Z|/√N, where N is the number of observations and Z is the test statistic generated by the Wilcoxon test, indicating the degree of change in scores (Fritz et al., 2012). Following Cohen et al.’s (1988) guidelines, effect sizes of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively.

Data analysis of student focus groups and teacher interviews followed a systematic process of identifying representative quotes that illustrated participants’ experiences with the intervention. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim using Zoom software (Version 5.17), and transcripts were cleaned for accuracy prior to analysis. Following protocols established by Hill et al. (1997, 2005), two researchers engaged in a multistep consensus coding process. Initially, each researcher independently identified quotes based on three criteria: relevance to intervention components, clarity of expression, and representation of diverse student perspectives. This initial review yielded 63 representative quotes agreed upon through consensus conference. Subsequently, each researcher independently selected 15–16 quotes that exemplified either writing improvement or perspective-taking. A second consensus conference determined the final selection of representative quotes for inclusion in this study (see Appendix A).

3. Results

3.1. Writing Outcomes

Significant improvements were observed across all writing measures. Descriptive statistics can be found in

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Writing Outcomes.

	Pretest		Posttest
	M	SD	M	SD
Holistic Writing Quality	1.17	0.389	3.63	1.027
Elements	2.67	2.309	10.00	2.864
Words Written	56.67	41.927	51.18	63.231

. Students demonstrated statistically significant gains in holistic writing quality (Z = −2.989, p = 0.003, r = 0.61), number of genre elements (Z = −2.938, p = 0.003, r = 0.60), and text production (Z = −2.667, p = 0.008, r = 0.54).

3.2. Social Validity Outcomes

3.2.1. Teacher-Informed Perspectives Snapshot (TIPS)

After each instructional session, the teacher completed a TIPS form. Using a 7-point Likert scale, she rated the instructional sessions as effective (M = 5.88, SD = 1.25), meaningful (M = 5.50, SD = 0.93), and motivating (M = 5.75, SD = 1.28) based on her perceptions. All responses fell within the 4 to 7 points range for each item. Overall, ratings increased over time, except for two sessions that encountered a technical issue or an interruption, which were noted in the comments section (e.g., “I hate to have to rate this lesson since you were not able to do what you wanted to do as a result of technology issues”). The teacher provided feedback for eight sessions.

3.2.2. Student Focus Groups and Teacher Interview

The teacher interview and student focus group discussions revealed key findings about students’ perceptions of their writing growth. They believed the writing intervention improved fundamental writing skills, with students demonstrating better sentence construction, ideation, and organization. For students with significant writing challenges, the intervention made writing more accessible and resulted in strong improvements in ideation and coherence with the teacher mentioning Xander’s ability to write and draw from text despite reading at about a first-grade level. Furthermore, the teacher and students believed they developed stronger metacognitive and perspective-taking skills, learning to integrate different viewpoints into their writing and synthesize new ideas from multiple sources (Appendix A.1).

Students articulated how perspective-taking skills could benefit their social interactions and broader understanding of others. They recognized its value in conflict resolution, with Fred noting, “If you get in an argument, you sort of want to hear the other side of the other person’s side of the story, because then you can compare it to yours.” Several students linked perspective-taking to improved social harmony, suggesting it could lead to fewer conflicts and “make the world, maybe, a better place” (Xander). The teacher noted that the two students with emotional/behavioral challenges demonstrated transfer of these skills by applying perspective-taking strategies learned in class to social situations outside of academic contexts. Students also recognized how perspective-taking could foster cultural understanding, with one student observing that “Because if you met those [from a] different culture that [were practicing] their culture, what they did, then it would be easier to understand them” (Seth). Rather than immediately dismissing different viewpoints, students learned to “look a little bit more into their opinions and what they think about it” (Andrew) before making judgments (Appendix A.2).

3.2.3. Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale

Students completed the Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale by providing numerical ratings on paper. Responses on the scale demonstrated a shared valuing of perspective-taking across the class, reinforcing themes that emerged in focus groups, even when initially expressed by only a few students. When analyzing the data, several scoring adjustments were necessary: ranges provided by students were averaged (e.g., 8–9 was recorded as 8.5), non-whole numbers were accepted as given, and responses exceeding the maximum were capped at 10. Several students expressed particularly strong feelings about certain items by providing extremely high values—for instance, scoring “to reduce or eliminate bullying” as 1,000,000 and using exponential numbers like 10⁹⁹⁸ for “to help reduce or eliminate racism in our world” and 10⁴⁵⁸ for “with connection and having friends.” See Table 3.

4. Discussion

In this study, the first author taught fourth-grade students, who had a range of learning support needs, to write persuasively from source texts in a social studies classroom focusing on the Underground Railroad. Following the SRSD and UDL frameworks, students first learned to identify the parts of an essay by examining a previously written sample and then wrote a persuasive essay on a topic for which they had background knowledge (i.e., convincing their family to get a pet). Next, the first author introduced reading and annotating source texts on a topic of common knowledge (i.e., whether students should be allowed to watch YouTube), and students used these ideas to write a persuasive essay. Finally, using adapted primary and secondary sources, students composed a persuasive essay related to the Underground Railroad.

4.1. Interpretation of Findings

4.1.1. Writing Outcomes

The implementation of the STOP DARE+ strategy within the context of the Underground Railroad significantly improved students’ persuasive writing quality, the inclusion of genre elements, and overall words written. This finding suggests that explicit, evidence-based writing instruction within social studies at the upper elementary level can lead to clear and measurable academic gains. While this SRSD strategy was effective, future research should consider developing a new SRSD strategy that is more closely aligned with historical texts and issues and that could incorporate a social justice lens.

4.1.2. Perspective-Taking

While we were not expecting students to report the importance of perspective-taking so emphatically, their strong and universal responses during the social validity focus groups prompted us to compile the reasons they offered into a new measure: the Importance of Perspective-Taking Scale. When asked to rate these reasons, students consistently indicated that understanding multiple viewpoints was very important, both for enhancing interpersonal connections and addressing societal issues. Although they were presented with a 1 to 10 scale, several students exceeded this range. For example, one student rated the importance of perspective-taking for “helping to reduce or eliminate bullying” as 1,000,000, and another rated it for “helping to reduce or eliminate racism in our world” at 10⁹⁹⁸. Such responses highlight students’ belief in the transformative potential of perspective-taking, even at an early age.

Understanding different perspectives is important to effective persuasive writing. By considering alternative viewpoints, writers can strengthen their own arguments and more effectively address counterarguments. Future research should explore additional or adapted strategies for teaching perspective-taking in writing, ensuring that such instruction remains both motivating and socially meaningful for students. Not only can perspective-taking teach students to avoid my-side bias, thereby resulting in higher-quality persuasive essays, but it may also help them more deeply consider a story’s characters, ultimately leading to more compelling and higher-quality narrative compositions (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013; McTigue et al., 2015).

While explicitly teaching perspective-taking is important in writing, these benefits may extend well beyond writing. Future research should consider how perspective-taking may provide benefits in other subjects as well as behavior, social skills, and social–emotional learning. Research already shows benefits of teaching perspective-taking in the form of theory of mind interventions (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2016). Future research could expand upon these practices to support students with and without disabilities to better understand others through a multitiered system of support framework. Perspective-taking may be a viable Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention to improve behavior and/or social skills.

Encouraging students to consider multiple perspectives may promote critical and empathetic thinking across subjects, from social studies and science to literature. Students from this study reported multiple instances of considering different perspectives to help foster social skills with peers, adults, and people from different social groups. They strongly believed that understanding different perspectives was important for understanding people from different cultures and could help end racism. Within a classroom that has students with different cultural backgrounds, SRSD and perspective-taking may be useful skills to better understand classmates and others in their communities. Perspective-taking skills may ultimately help children navigate complex social landscapes, support more meaningful interpersonal connections, and contribute to overall well-being. Given the Surgeon General’s recent designation of loneliness as a public health concern (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023), teaching perspective-taking could serve as a preventative measure, equipping children with the cognitive and emotional tools to connect more fully with others and envision a healthier, more inclusive future. Future research should examine the combined effects of teaching self-regulation with perspective-taking on improvements in writing achievement, social skills, and socioemotional learning.

4.1.3. UDL-Informed Instruction

The positive outcomes observed under the STOP DARE framework align with key principles of UDL (CAST, 2024), illustrating how structured and explicit instructional strategies can benefit all students. In this study, we found significant results for a class of students with a range of learning support needs, including average-achieving students as well as those with attention, reading, and behavior support needs. These findings are consistent with observations of Hashey et al. (2020), providing additional support for SRSD as a practice consistent with the UDL framework. Furthermore, by integrating writing instruction with social studies content, the intervention provided multiple entry points for learner engagement, representation of ideas, and expression of understanding. In doing so, it advanced both academic and socioemotional objectives—improving students’ writing skills while simultaneously fostering deep engagement with historical events, equity concerns, and social justice themes.

4.2. Social Validity

In addition to evaluating the primary writing outcomes, collecting social validity data offered valuable insights into participants’ perceptions of the intervention’s relevance and utility. Using quantitative and qualitative data, we found that all students and the teacher found using STOP DARE+ within social studies to be effective, meaningful, and motivating, indicating strong social validity. An unexpected finding was the degree to which students emphasized the importance of “suspending judgment” and considering multiple perspectives. This suggests that future research should consider how to explicitly incorporate perspective-taking into persuasive writing instruction.

In the initial study design, we had not planned to develop an Importance of Suspending Judgement Scale. Instead, we created this measure in direct response to the formative feedback gathered through the social validity focus groups because students were emphatic about the importance of understanding different viewpoints in their writing. This illustrates the potential of social validity procedures to inspire new measures and additional data collection efforts aimed at better understanding key phenomena and refining intervention strategies. Moving forward, researchers may benefit from proactively planning for responsive assessment tools and methodologies that capture participants’ reasoning about why and how an intervention works and holds value.

In alignment with Ferguson et al. (2019), we found value in gathering multiple forms of social validity data. The Teacher-Informed Perspectives Snapshot (TIPS), in particular, provided repeated measures of real-time impressions of the intervention’s effectiveness. We intentionally limited the scale to three questions to create a quick check-in that could be completed in under a minute. This brief assessment offered timely insights into which intervention sessions and topics needed refinement. For researchers considering similar measures, we recommend limiting questions to three or fewer, with a single optional space for open comments. We found that including multiple spaces for open-ended responses could increase completion time and potentially reduce response rates.

4.3. Mixed Methods Approach to Scoring Writing Quality

This study represents the second implementation of a rating procedure in which raters engaged in verbal reflection while assigning holistic quality scores to student writing (Aitken & Halkowski, 2024). This approach may support scoring reliability by prompting raters to articulate and justify their decisions aloud, which could foster greater consistency across essays. The act of verbalizing reasoning may encourage raters to slow down and reflect more deliberately, potentially minimizing impulsive judgments or bias. Additionally, this method may promote a deeper engagement with the qualitative aspects of student writing, allowing raters to consider nuance that could otherwise be overlooked in a purely numerical rating system. While further investigation is needed, these initial applications suggest that integrating a brief structured reflection into the scoring process may offer both reliability and insight when evaluating complex student work.

4.4. Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality

Finally, another contribution to the writing intervention field is the Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality. It offers a supplemental framework to support holistic writing assessment, bridging the gap between evaluator autonomy and the need for consistent, reliable scoring. By articulating expected behaviors across ten key dimensions and six performance levels, the Spectrum enhances inter-rater reliability while preserving the integrative nature of holistic assessment. This approach acknowledges the complexity of writing, allowing evaluators to account for varied characteristics within and across score levels without imposing rigid criteria.

Future research should explore the Spectrum’s application across diverse contexts, including different grade levels, genres, and writing tasks, to assess its generalizability. Additionally, studies could examine how it supports scorer training and calibration, particularly for novice raters. By fostering nuanced and equitable writing assessment practices, the Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality represents a meaningful step forward in evaluating and supporting writing research.

4.5. Applying Theoretical Frameworks in Intervention Research

The findings of this study underscore the critical role of the Writers Within Community (WWC) framework in guiding intervention research and advancing writing instruction. By positioning writing as a dynamic interplay between individual agency and community influence, the WWC model emphasizes the need for interventions to be responsive to both cognitive and sociocultural dimensions of writing development (McTigue et al., 2015). This study’s integration of perspective-taking into writing instruction not only enhanced students’ academic skills but also fostered meaningful engagement with broader social and emotional learning goals. These outcomes highlight the potential of embedding perspective-taking as a core component of writing interventions, suggesting that it is not merely a writing skill but may be an important tool for cultivating empathy, critical thinking, and community.

Furthermore, the use of social validity measures to iteratively refine and evaluate the intervention underscores the value of grounding such processes in theoretical models like the WWC. We suggest that, when new strategies or norms are introduced, they not only shape students’ writing practices but also influence the broader dynamics of the classroom writing community, altering collective expectations and values around writing. At the same time, these interventions are inherently shaped by the existing practices and beliefs of the community and the individuals of the community. In this study, social validity measures served not only as evaluative tools but as mechanisms for capturing the reciprocal and evolving nature of writing development. They provided insight into which changes were experienced as meaningful by both students and the teacher, illustrating how writing instruction can be responsive to, and shaped by, the lived experiences of the classroom community—an essential tenet of the framework. Future research should continue to build on this approach, leveraging the WWC or other frameworks to design interventions that are both theoretically grounded and practically meaningful. Proactively incorporating social validity assessments within the theoretical constructs of the WWC or other theoretical models can provide deeper insights into how and why interventions resonate with participants, enabling researchers to create more effective and impactful educational practices.

4.6. Delimitations and Limitations

This study was intentionally delimited to a single fourth-grade classroom in a small private school in the northeastern United States to integrate quantitative and qualitative data for a richer understanding while developing a writing from source text intervention. Working with the classroom teacher, we developed instructional materials related to the Underground Railroad because of a planned field trip later in the semester. To ensure alignment with students’ reading levels and curriculum content, the research team designed or adapted the source texts used during the intervention to improve accessibility for all readers. This enabled the inclusion of both primary and secondary sources that were accessible and contextually relevant, especially in the final phase focused on abolitionists and the Underground Railroad. We chose to collect social validity data from student participants and the classroom teacher, who were directly involved in the intervention. Broader perspectives (e.g., caregivers, school leaders) were not included, as we sought insight into the instructional process and its immediate classroom impact.

This study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the small sample size (N = 12) limits the generalizability of the findings. While the intervention demonstrated significant improvements in writing outcomes, larger and more diverse samples are needed to confirm its effectiveness across different contexts and populations.

Second, the study’s focus on a single classroom within a private school setting may not reflect the challenges and opportunities present in public schools or other educational environments. Variability in resources, teacher expertise, and student demographics could influence the outcomes of similar interventions.

Third, while the Multidimensional Spectrum of Holistic Writing Quality provided valuable scaffolding for evaluators, its practical application was limited to this specific study. Future research should explore its adaptability to other grade levels, writing genres, and rater training contexts.

Fourth, while the study incorporated student focus groups and teacher interviews to gather qualitative insights, a more in-depth qualitative analysis could further illuminate the mechanisms driving observed changes in writing quality and student perceptions. Detailed analyses of student interactions, written reflections, and classroom dynamics could provide richer insights into how the intervention fosters perspective-taking, critical thinking, and writing improvement. Future research should prioritize mixed method approaches to capture both the measurable outcomes and the lived experiences of participants.

Finally, logistical challenges, including snow days and scheduling conflicts, reduced the amount of instructional time available for the final phase. These disruptions may have constrained the extent to which students could fully integrate perspective-taking into their writing. Additional studies with uninterrupted intervention schedules are needed to evaluate the full potential of the STOP DARE+ strategy.

5. Implications for Educators

Effective, evidence-based practices like STOP DARE+ offer educators a structured, accessible approach to improving students’ writing abilities. By grounding writing instruction in social studies content, teachers can simultaneously enhance academic literacy skills and deepen content knowledge, encouraging students to engage more critically and thoughtfully with complex historical and cultural issues. This integration moves beyond surface-level writing tasks, fostering more authentic and equity-oriented learning environments that allow students to grapple with challenging topics in meaningful ways. The positive reception by students and teachers indicates that such approaches are both feasible and acceptable, promoting more equitable and meaningful learning experiences.