the effects of mastery of editing peers’ writing on the

The Effects of Mastery of Editing Peers’ Writing on the Functional Writing and Self-Editing

Repertoires of Third Graders

Haley Elizabeth Pellegren

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee

of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2015

ABSTRACT

The Effects of the Mastery of Editing Peers’ Writing on the Functional Writing and Self-Editing

Repertoires of Third Graders

Haley Elizabeth Pellegren

I used a multiple-probe design across two groups of 4 participants to test the effects of the

mastery of editing peer writing on participant’s writing and self-editing skills. Participants

included 8 third grade students who did not have functional writing skills in 4 subject areas of

technical writing. These participants also lacked self-editing skills. The primary dependent

measure was the number of rewrites to criterion for writing assignments as measured by the

number of accurate functional writing components. Participants had to write to fulfill a set of

functional writing requirements, defined in a checklist, and then had to observe the effects of his

or her writing on the behavior of a naive reader. The criterion for the rewrites to criterion

measure was writing at 100% functional accuracy and 90% structural accuracy in 1 rewrite

attempt. The second dependent measure was accurate self-editing skills across functional and

structural writing components. Participants were required to edit the functional and structural

components in their own writing assignments using an algorithm provided in a checklist. The

criterion for self-editing was set at 90% functional accuracy and 90% structural accuracy for

each assignment. Structural writing included 6 grammatical components; complete sentences,

spelling, subject-verb agreement, punctuation, capitalization and word usage. The independent

variable was the mastery of a peer-editing intervention procedure. Participants were taught how

to edit peer’s functional and structural writing through written feedback provided by the

experimenters on his or her editing. Experimenters did not communicate with the peer writers

throughout the intervention and participants never served as writers during the intervention. Peer

writers wrote in response to the participant’s feedback until the participant met criterion on

editing for functional and structural accuracy. Criterion for the intervention was met when the

peer writer wrote at 100% functional and 90% structural accuracy on the first attempt across two

consecutive writing pieces. This meant that the participant mastered the editing intervention for

both functional and structural editing. Results of the study showed that all participants decreased

their number of rewrites to criterion in post-intervention probe measures which was a measure of

functional writing. Results also showed that all participants increased their functional and

structural editing skills while editing their own writing. Results are discussed in terms

significance to the research of behavior analysis and research in education. Limitations and

suggestions for future research are be discussed, followed by a conclusion and the educational

impact of the results from this experiment.

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………..……iv

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………….…v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………….……vii

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………..…ix

CHAPTER I: Introduction and Review of the Literature

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1

Origins of Writing…………………………………………………….……………….7

Students as Struggling Writers……………………………………………………..….9

Educational Approaches to Measure Writing: How Handwriting and Transcription Affect

Student’s Writing Skills……………………………………………………………….11

Educational Approaches to Measure Writing and Editing…………………………….15

Verbal Behavior: A Functional Approach to Language……………………………….23

Research in Verbal Behavior and Verbal Behavior Development…………………….27

Verbal Behavior Developmental Trajectory……………………………….………….30

Verbal Developmental Sequence………………………………….……….………….33

Verbally Governed and Verbally Governing Behavior…………………….………….34

Educational Research in Peer Tutoring…………………………………….………….35

Behavioral Research in Peer Tutoring………………………………..…….………….38

The Learn Unit and the Importance of Feedback…………….…………….………….41

Behavioral Research in Writing and Editing…………….…………….……………….44

Rationale and Educational Significance…………….…………….………..………….52

i

Research Questions…………….…………………………………………..………….55

CHAPTER II: Experiment

Method…………….………………………………………………………..………….56

Participants…………….…………….……………………………..…….…….56

Setting…………….…………….……………………………..………….……62

Materials…………….…………….……………………………..……….……62

Design and Experimental Sequence….………….………..……………..……….……68

Pre- and Post-Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables……….…..……….……71

Independent Variable and Data Collection……….…..…………………………..……80

Post-intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables….…………………………..……84

Interscorer Agreement….……………………………………………….………..……85

Interobserver Agreement….…………………………………………….………..……90

Results….…………………………………………….…………………………..……93

CHAPTER III: Discussion

Major Findings….……………………………………………………………………115

Limitations….……………………………………………………………………..…125

Future Research….…………………………………………………………………..127

Conclusions and Educational Significance…………………………………………..128

REFERENCES….…………………………………………………….……………………..130

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Definition of Terms……………………………………..……………..151

ii

Appendix B: Data Collection Form…………………………………..……………..161

Appendix C: Tables…………………………………..……………………………..162

Appendix D: Examples of Writing Assignments and Corresponding Checklists…..164

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. AIL standard procedures chart.

Table 2. Demographic and verbal development information for participants.

Table 3. Functional writing components that were included in each version of the

checklist.

Table 4. Structural writing components that were included in each version of the checklist.

Table 5. Role of participants and peers during each phase of the experiment.

Table 6. Writing topics per group for dependent variable 1.

Table 7. Writing topics per group for dependent variable 2.

Table 8. Example of learn unit sequence and the operant components during intervention

session.

Table 9. Operational definitions for each functional writing component used for interscorer

agreement.

Table 10. Operational definitions for each structural writing component used for interscorer

agreement.

Table 11. Mean interscorer agreement (ISA) and the range calculated for each participant.

Table 12. Side-by-side comparison of the number of correct functional components on the

first attempt of the first dependent measure during the pre-intervention probe

measure compared to the number of intervention sessions needed to meet criterion

compared to the number of correct functional components on the first attempt of

the first dependent measure during the post-intervention probe measure.

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Experimental sequence

Figure 2. The number of rewrites to criterion for the technical writing assignments for pre-

and post-intervention probe sessions for each participant

Figure 3. The number of correct functional components during the pre- and post-

intervention probe sessions for the initial writing and each subsequent rewrite.

Figure 4. The number of correct self-edits for functional writing Participant’s 1 and 5 made

during the pre- and post-intervention probe sessions.







Figure 8. The cumulative number of learn units per writing assignment Participants 1 and 2

provided to peer writers during the intervention.







v

Figure 12. The intervention graphs for all participants.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I want to thank the children that I have had the opportunity to work with throughout

this experience. Their enthusiasm for learning and all they do inspire me to continue to learn and

be a better educator. “Fools,” you are the reason for all of this. My wish is that you do not ever

lose that love for learning and for life, for this is what you taught me. In the words of Skinner,

the student really does know best.

Mom and “Pops,” thank you for your strength and support. Thank you for not only

encouraging me throughout this journey, but for knowing long before I did, what I was capable

of accomplishing. Your belief and unconditional love ever since that day on the beach when you

told me I would one day be “a doctor,” made this possible. Cory, my best friend, words cannot

express how much I love and care for you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to live

vicariously through you when I was glued to my computer, and for letting me share your life

with you without necessarily being in the same space as you. Helen, thank you for always

supporting me, my work, and my accomplishments. I am so grateful to have another “Mom” who

is so strong and accomplished. Brian, there is no way to measure or quantify my love for you.

Your thoughtful critique, unconditional devotion, and exceptional technology skills make you my

favorite research partner. Your unquestionable love, loyalty, and humor make you my best friend

and partner. I would not be here without you, and I would not have wanted to go through this

experience with anybody but you. I love you so much it hurts.

To my friends and colleagues in my CABAS® family and my AH family, thank you for

getting me started on this journey and for being there when I finished. Your love and dedication

vii

to teaching and learning cannot be replicated or replaced. You all inspire me and remind me why

we do what we love and love what we do. Thank you also to my wonderful teaching assistants.

We are not successful in our classrooms without you. Katie and Kieva, thank you for

collaborating with me to design this study, and thank you for collaborating with me in life when I

needed a support system. Rebecca and Talar, thank you for giving me the opportunity to run my

study while you tirelessly ran the classroom. I am thankful for your flexibility and positive

outlooks. It has been such an honor working with each of you, and I know that you will be

amazing at which ever path you choose to take. Thank you Dr. Delgado. Your mentorship in the

classroom and out has guided me to where I am now, and I hope I am able to fulfill the same role

for others in the future. Thank you Dr. Dudek for your mentorship, for sharing your brilliance,

and all of your learn units on my grammatical errors. I hope I finally met criterion! To my

dissertation committee: thank you Dr. Peverly, Dr. Brassard, and Dr. Perez-Gonzalez for your

insight, feedback, and time in refining my research.

Finally, thank you, Dr. Greer. Thank you for being the world’s best teacher. Thank you

for believing in me, believing in my research, and for your never ending support. Thank you for

shaping me into the scientist, teacher, and student I was capable of becoming. I know my journey

does not stop here and I thank you for teaching me that important lesson. Thank you for teaching

me how to make the world a better place.

viii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my grandmothers, Esther “Nammie” Pellegren and Janet

“Bama” Zanderigo.

Nam; you were my first mentor. Your extraordinary sense of compassion and advocacy

for all types of people provided me with a role model of who I strive to be every day.

Bama; your perseverance and dedication to your family and your success was an

exceptional model of strength and loyalty. You were my biggest supporter and I am forever

grateful for how you shaped me into believing I could accomplish my dreams.

ix

!1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Writing is a powerful tool for thinking and learning. The ability to organize written

responses and communicate effectively in writing is a skill which continues to be refined and

developed throughout our lives (Haring, Lovitt, Eaton, & Hansen, 1978). Initially, we encourage

and praise beginning writers when any form of writing is accomplished. Later, cues, prompts,

reinforcement, modeling, shaping, rewriting, and self-editing are used to establish and improve

writing skills.

Students who write well are the most successful in schools. The Report of the

Commission of Reading, titled, “Becoming a Nation of Readers” (1985), suggests children

should spend more time writing and have an opportunity to write more than a sentence or two.

Being a good writer promotes being a good reader, while poor writing hinders most professionals

(Vargas, 1978). Readers often spend hours trying to extrapolate meaning from a tangled mass of

written jargon, time which could have otherwise been spent functionally engaging in the writing.

While being a good writer leads to being successful in school, students who cannot write

well present problems that are characterized by some as a “writing crisis” (Hopkins, 1912). In

the very first issue of “The English Journal” (Hopkins, 1912) reported:

...Every year thousands of pupils drift through the schools, half-cared for in

English classes where they should have constant and encouraging personal

attention, and neglected in other classes where their English should be watched

over at least incidentally, to emerge in a more or less damaged linguistic

!2

condition, incapable of meeting satisfactorily the simplest practical demands on

their powers of expression. Much money is spent, valuable teachers are worn out

at an inhumanly rapid rate, and results are inadequate or totally lacking. From any

point of view-that of taxpayer, teacher, or pupil-such a situation is intolerable. (p.

1)

One of the best ways to use time more effectively when teaching writing is to “provide

students with the opportunity to generate whole pieces of meaningful text, i.e. writing that has a

real purpose and audience” (NY State Dept. of Ed., 1992, p. 7). Individuals should not write

merely for going through the process; they should write to have a permanent product. “Writing

should therefore be viewed as an end, that is, something one learns how to do. Writers write to

discover meaning, to clarify thinking, and to communicate ideas” (NY State Dept. of Ed., 1992,

p. 7). Students have to write for diverse purposes with a clear understanding of the impact they

have on their audience. They must ask and answer the questions, “Who am I writing for,” and

“How do I want the reader to react?”

Opportunities for developing writing skills take many forms. The National Council of

Teachers of English (1963) suggest eight kinds of functional writing language experiences that

occur either in school or in adult life:

1. Writing directions, announcement and minutes of meetings;

2. Writing reports about articles or stories;

3. Summarizing data from reading oral and written reports and class discussions;

4. Communicating personal experiences;

5. Writing imaginative compositions;

!3

6. Writing letters for social and business purposes;

7. Writing for a magazine or newspaper;

8. Writing requiring special competencies in the organization and development of

ideas.

There are several approaches to teaching any of these functional writing skills.

Traditionally, writers are asked to write, have the written pieces corrected, and then rewrite again

until the writing meets the reader’s criteria. Other instructional methods utilize the whole

language approach to teach writing where individuals learn to spell words as sight words and not

as phonemes.

There have been many directives emphasizing the teaching of writing. New York State

mandated (1992) that the aim of language instruction was to develop students’ facility in the use

of standard spoken language. These mandates cautioned that written language was not the same

as spoken language. Therefore, educators must teach students to be aware that written language

required the use of certain structural conventions. For example, the teaching of writing should

include correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, as well as handwriting/

transcription speed in order for the written communication to be correct and effective. Once

students recognize that the function of writing is to communicate, writing to affect an audience

becomes the necessary adjunct in making the purpose of the writing clear and effective (NY

State Ed. Dept, p. 7). Writing should have a clear purpose and goal in order to be effective

(Madho, 1997). With that, there are currently no writing curriculums or initiatives that address

students’ functional writing repertoires and how that function affects the behavior of a reader.

!4

Although educational research often lacks a clear measurement of functional writing

skills, research in other disciplines focuses on writing and its effectiveness on the behavior of a

reader. Writing is a form of verbal behavior that is effectively taught through behavioral

techniques (Madho, 1997; Skinner, 1957; Vargas, 1978). Behavior analytic educational research

suggests that the writer should change his or her behavior to affect the behavior of the reader

(Madho, 1997, Vargas, 1978). This is done by using behavioral tactics in instructional settings to

improve the effectiveness of writing (Broto & Greer, 2014, Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007;

Jodlowski, 2000; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-Lawson & Greer, 2006; Vargas, 1978).

Most notably, research in peer tutoring treatments of writing instruction demonstrated

that peer tutoring was equally as effective as teacher-directed instruction when students had the

observational learning capability and learn units were delivered to the tutee (Greenwood,

Dinwiddie, Terry, Wade, Stanley, Thibadeau, & Delquadri, 1984; Harris & Sherman, 1973;

Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986). Peer tutoring studies have shown that the tutor benefits just

as much as the tutee from tutoring instruction (Dineen, Clark, & Risley, 1977; Greer & Polirstok,

1982).

In the present study, I used a multiple-probe design across two groups of four participants

to test the effects of mastery of a peer editing intervention on each participant’s functional

writing and self-editing skills. Based on past research (Jodlowski, 2000), I propose that through

learning how to edit with the use of an algorithm and isolating the feedback between the editor

and the peer writer, each participant’s functional writing, structural writing, and self-editing skills

will increase as a result of the editing intervention procedure.

!5

Jodlowski (2000) found that when a writer functioned as an editor and simultaneously

received feedback on his or her own writing, self-editing skills increased. When given the

opportunity to teach another peer in the editing process, participants acquired self-editing skills

with less instruction than when the experimenter alone taught the participant how to edit. A

limitation in Jodlowski’s (2000) experiment, however, was that the design of the experiments

resulted in the experimenter and peer providing feedback simultaneously while the target

participant was editing another peer’s essay. The multiple variables did not allow for isolation of

the effects of the procedure to determine if self-editing skills increased as a result of the

independent variable. Therefore, this study is different because I sought to control for the

simultaneous feedback by only providing a consequence to the participant during the

intervention. The participant only functioned as an editor during the intervention, but was tested

on his or her own functional writing skills as well as his or her self- editing skills in pre- and

post-intervention probe measures.

When referring to the current study, participants are students who participated in the

intervention procedure. Students who read a participant’s writing during the pre- and post-

intervention probe measures are referred to as naive or peer readers. Students who served as

writers during the intervention phases are referred to as peer writers. The first dependent variable

was the number of rewrites to criterion, which was capped at five rewrites. This was the number

of times a participant rewrote the same technical writing assignment during pre- and post-

intervention probe measures. The probe session was terminated if a participant did not rewrite his

or her writing assignment to criterion. This simulated typical writing instruction in the

classroom. Functional writing components were sentences or phrases in the writing that assisted

!6

the writer in affecting the behavior of the reader. An effective writing assignment controlled the

behavior of the reader, that is, the reader successfully completed the task that was written or the

reader could follow the written directions. Technical writing assignments were scripted from four

subject areas in the Common Core Content Standards: descriptive, mathematics, science, and

how-to. All technical writing assignments included eight functional writing components.

Structural writing components measured in this experiment included complete sentences,

subject-verb agreement, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and word usage. All structural

components were measured per sentence and scored as the number of correct components over

the total possible components, calculated as a percentage for that component. The second

dependent variable, self-editing, occurred when the participant labeled the presence or absence of

a functional or structural writing component on a checklist, made the corresponding edit in his or

her writing, and then provided a written consequence for each component. Self-editing was

measured for both functional and structural writing components.

The independent variable was mastery of an editing intervention. Participants were given

an algorithm for functional and structural writing components in the form of a checklist, specific

to the type of writing assignment. Participants were required to edit a peer writer’s papers until

the peer met 100% functional and 90% structural accuracy on the first attempt across two

consecutive writing assignments. This meant that the peer writer wrote at 100% functional

accuracy and 90% functional accuracy on the first attempt across two consecutive writing

assignments. All feedback from the participant was communicated in writing to the peer, while

the experimenter provided written feedback on a separate copy of the writing and checklist to the

!7

participant. This process served as consequences for the participant for the editing. The

experimenter did not communicate with the peer writer at any point during the intervention.

Review of the Literature

Origins of Writing

“Writing is among the greatest inventions in human history, perhaps the greatest

invention, since it made history possible” (Robinson, 2007). While writing makes history

possible, it is a skill that many take for granted (Robinson, 2007). Few have a clear picture of

how ancient civilizations learned to write and record. In The Story of Writing, Robinson (2007)

states that the ancient civilizations communicated in writing using incomprehensible script.

However, despite how the writing of ancient civilizations was illegible, it is functionally

equivalent to how we write today; we write to affect the behavior of a reader.

Writers do not have to be in the same place or time to affect the behavior of a reader

(Greer & Ross, 2008). Writers affect the behavior of readers through permanent products that

withstand time. A piece of poetry or a story can be passed down hundreds of years. Writing can

also account for business or personal income, production levels, dates, locations, and debts

(Robinson, 2007). For example, markers and seals are used for business and legal documents.

Even gravestones with an individual’s name, date of birth, and death are used to remember the

personal information of those who have passed.

Scholars from different time periods speculated writing originated differently. Scholars

before the Enlightenment of the 18th century believed writing originated from divine

intervention (Robinson, 2007). After the Enlightenment, scholars believed that writing had

!8

pictographic origin. One well known theory was that writing grew out of a counting system of

clay tokens. According to Robinson (2007), the substitution of two-dimensional signs for these

tokens, where the signs resembled the shapes of the tokens, which was a first step toward writing

(Robinson, 2007).

A second theory posits that writing originates from the rebus principle. This is the radical

idea that a pictographic symbol could be used for its phonetic value. For example, a drawing of

an owl in Egyptian hieroglyphics represents a consonantal sound with an inherent “m,” and in

English, a picture of a bee with a picture of a leaf might represent the word belief (Robinson,

2007).

Robinson (2007) stated that, once invented, writing spread quickly from culture to

culture. However, the symbols of a script did not spread widely until 600-700 years after the

symbols were introduced. Multiple cultures borrowed scripts from other cultures once the

topography of writing was established. For example, in Turkey, President Kemal Ataturk

replaced the Arabic script with the Roman script in 1928 (Robinson, 2007).

Individuals within a culture have to be taught to effectively use the writing system. An

individual who is a reader and writer has greater opportunities for fulfillment than one who is

illiterate (Robinson, 2007). In a behavioral sense, he or she can function as a speaker and a

listener within the same skin; and therefore are considered truly verbal (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-

Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000; Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009). Writing is verbal

behavior when it functions to change the behavior of a reader. It is no different than having a

listener present for a speaker during a vocal exchange. The difference with being a writer and

reader, however, is that the reader can still be affected by a writer’s writing, but he or she does

!9

not have to be in the same time and location as the writer. A speaker, or writer, is truly verbal

when he or she functions as a listener or reader within the same skin. This means a writer can

change or edit his or her writing to affect an intended audience. The following review of the

literature describes theories and applied research from the perspectives of educational

researchers and behavior analysis relevant to how individuals establish writing and editing

repertoires as well as how writing affects the behavior of a reader.

Students as Struggling Writers

Research on the teaching of reading has a much longer and richer history compared with

research on teaching writing. Moreover, reading instruction and its outcomes have been accorded

preeminence by policymakers, educators, researchers, and the public. Consequently there has

been a large investment by many stakeholders in reading research and instruction. Likewise,

there is great concern about America’s capacity to prepare a globally competitive workforce for

increasingly technically demanding jobs, especially those which place a premium on math and

science knowledge and skills. Thus, this calls for action and funding opportunities abound in

math and science instructional research. In this context, it is little wonder that writing is the most

neglected of the academic research (National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools &

Colleges, 2003). According to Juzwik et al. (2005), writing research historically has been (a)

comparably underfunded, (b) mostly descriptive rather than experimental in nature, and (c)

typically conducted in post-secondary education settings.

The yield of such diminished status of writing is seen in the poor performance of

America’s children on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Persky, Daane,

& Jin, 2003). The NAEP for writing is administered approximately every four years to a

!10

representative sample of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Each student responds to two 25-minute

narrative, informative, or persuasive prompts accompanied by a brochure with guidelines for

planning and revising the compositions. Each paper is rated on a 6-point rubric, and this score is

converted to a scale score (ranging from 0-300). The scale score corresponds to one of four

levels of performance—below basic, basic (partial mastery of fundamental knowledge and

skills), proficient (solid mastery needed to perform challenging academic tasks), or advanced

(superior mastery). According to published NAEP data, only 28% of 4th graders, 31% of 8th

graders, and 24% of 12th graders achieved at or above a proficient level of writing performance

in 2002. Nevertheless, two-thirds of 4th graders and about one-half of 8th and 12th graders

reported that they like to write and that they believe themselves to be good writers in a 1998

NAEP student survey (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). This suggests many

students are overly optimistic about their composing skills, in line with empirical work in several

domains which has demonstrated that many students, especially males and individuals who are

less competent on a given task, tend to overestimate their ability (e.g., Alvarez & Adelman, 1986;

Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Meece & Courtney, 1992; Stone & May, 2002).

Although there are many factors to which we can attribute these alarming statistics, one

must acknowledge that there is often less than optimal writing instruction in classrooms (cf.

Bridge, Compton-Hall, & Cantrell, 1997; Graham & Harris, 2002; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992;

Troia, 2005; Wray, Medwell, Fox, & Poulson, 2000). Even teacher self-reported data from the

1998 NAEP suggest this is the case: nearly seven out of ten teachers indicated they employ

process- oriented instruction to teach composing, yet no more than a third of those same teachers

said they spend 90 minutes or more per week teaching writing (National Center for Education

!11

Statistics, 1999). For teachers to be able to adeptly use a process approach to teaching writing, 90

minutes per week is a bare minimum (e.g., Graves, 1983), but most teachers who implement

such an approach appear to be devoting less than that to their instruction. Similarly, Graham,

Harris, Fink, & MacArthur (2003) found that only slightly more than half of primary grade

teachers across the nation reported making more than one or two instructional adaptations for

struggling writers, and sometimes the adaptations were counterproductive to promoting the

development of skilled writing and motivation to write. This included limiting the degree to

which students paced their own writing efforts, selecting their own topics, and working with

peers.

One crucial step in elevating the status of writing instruction and the associated research

is to identify what we know and where we need to invest further effort for the field to flourish

and draw the attention it deserves from various stakeholders. To that end, research findings can

be summarized in four areas: characteristics of struggling writers’ products and processes,

essential instructional content and processes, assessment, and teachers’ practices and professional

development. These areas are not mutually exclusive; for example, the attributes of students with

writing problems clearly informs instructional design and teaching practices, just as assessment

determines who are struggling writers and what they should be taught.

Educational Approaches to Measure Writing: How Handwriting and Transcription Affect a

Student’s Writing Skills

Research on writing instruction and best practices in the educational discipline differs in

focus from the research conducted in verbal behavior analysis. In verbal behavior analysis,

researchers focus on how the writer affects the behavior of the reader. In other disciplines,

!12

research focuses on the models used to teach structural writing skills to individuals. For example,

educational research on writing includes a body of literature on handwriting and how

transcription speed affects a student’s writing.

According to cognitive research, transcription is a basic cognitive process in writing that

enables a writer to translate internal language into external written symbols to express ides in

written language (Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009). Skinner (1957) defines transcription as

see/write, or the ability to see text and copy it in a written topography. Transcription ability,

which draws on handwriting and spelling, has been found to uniquely predict composing length

and quality in developing writers, and is thus not a mere mechanical skill. Competence in

handwriting is usually described in terms of speed and legibility (Graham, 1986; Graham &

Miller, 1980). There have been very few studies that have examined children’s mean speed of

handwriting (average number of letters written per minute) at two or more grade levels.

Berninger and Swanson (1994) concluded that transcription may be especially important in

beginning and developing writing in the elementary school years. However, researchers who

study adult writers have subsequently documented that transcription is also an important

cognitive process in skilled writing.

Findings from recent studies show that handwriting plays an important role in learning to

compose. Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker (1997) reported that handwriting

speed accounted for a significant proportion of the variability in participant’s composing. Results

showed that the mechanical skills of writing may exert constraints on the amount and quality of

writing. Likewise, McCutchen (1999) noted that the physical act of transcribing text is

demanding for young students. He suggested developing an approach to writing (i.e., knowledge

!13

telling) that minimizes the use of planning and revising because students already exert such

considerable processing demands. Berninger, Mizokawa, and Bragg (1999) observed that

difficulties in acquiring handwriting skills may lead children to avoid writing and to develop the

mind-set that they cannot write.

Handwriting legibility can also influence perceptions about a child's competence in

composing. When teachers evaluate two or more versions of a paper, differing only in their

legibility, neatly written papers are assigned higher marks for composing quality than are papers

of poorer penmanship (Briggs, 1980; Chase, 1986; Hughes, Keeling, & Tuck, 1983). Difficultly

mastering handwriting may also affect a child’s academic productivity. When proficient hand-

writers and non-proficient hand-writers were asked transcribe a passage, poor hand-writers

needed almost twice as much time to complete the task (Weintraub & Graham, 1998).

Graham, Weintraub, and Berninger (1998) examined the relationship between

handwriting style and handwriting speed and legibility. Three samples of writing (narrative,

expository, and copying) were collected from 600 participants in Grades 4-9. The copying task

provided a measure of handwriting speed, and all 3 writing samples were scored for handwriting

style (manuscript, cursive, mixed-mostly manuscript, and mixed-mostly cursive) and legibility.

Results showed the handwriting of participants who used a mixed style (cursive and manuscript)

was faster than the handwriting of participants who used either manuscript or cursive

exclusively. In addition, papers written with mixed-mostly cursive letters generally received

higher ratings for legibility than papers written with the other three styles did.

Furthermore, Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, and Schafer (1998) examined the

development of handwriting speed and legibility in 900 participants in Grades 1-9. Each

!14

participants completed 3 writing tasks: copying a paragraph, writing a narrative, and writing an

essay. Results showed participants’ speed of handwriting on the copying task typically increased

from one grade-level to the next, but the pace of development was uneven in the intermediate

grades, and plateaued in 9th grade as participants started to approximate the speeds typically

obtained by adults. Overall improvement in handwriting legibility, in contrast, occurred primarily

in the intermediate grades.

Graham, Weintraub, and Berninger (2001) examined manuscript letter writing skills of

300 participants in Grades 1-3. The participating children were asked to write the lowercase

manuscript alphabet from memory. A relatively small number of letters (4-8) accounted for

slightly more than half of all illegibilities at each grade level. Three letter characteristics (i.e., all

parts, correct formation, and no rotations or reversals), grade-level, and alphabet fluency each

made a significant contribution to the prediction of letter legibility after the effects of the other

predictors were controlled. Letter legibility, in turn, made a significant contribution to the

prediction of text legibility after all other predictors were controlled.

Berninger, Vaughan, Abbott, Abbott, Rogan, Brooks, Reed, and Graham (2007) found

that handwriting is not "mechanical" for many young writers. One-hundred forty-four 1st graders

were identified as at risk for handwriting problems. Participants were randomly assigned to one

of six treatment conditions. Treatment was delivered to groups of three that met twice a week in

20-min sessions until 24 lessons were completed. Five of the groups received ten minutes of

different kinds of handwriting instruction, while the control group received ten minutes of

phonological awareness training. All six groups composed and shared their writing for ten

minutes. Results showed that each time participants were faced with writing a letter, they

!15

constructed a new "program" for constructing that letter. Since participants were focused on

letter construction, they had fewer attentional resources to devote to the aspects of composing a

writing assignment. Researchers summarized that frequent, brief, and explicit instruction would

assist young students to learn to automatize letter production and retrieve letter forms rapidly

from memory. Authors suggested that these tactics may increase the probability that students

could become skilled writers who use letters to construct quality written compositions. Research

shows that students who have difficulty with transcription, and who lack handwriting fluency,

have difficulties in acquiring handwriting skills. In turn, this may lead children to avoid writing.

However, a lack of writing instruction and curricula may contribute to a lack of writing skills as

well.

Educational Approaches to Measure Writing and Editing

McCarthey and Ro (2011) surveyed 29 third and fourth-grade teachers from four states to

understand their approaches to writing instruction and what influences their instruction. The

authors identified four approaches to writing instruction: Writer’s Workshop (Calkins, 2006),

traditional skills, genre-based instruction, and hybrid/eclectic instruction through classroom

observations and interviews with teachers. The data collected demonstrated that Writer’s

Workshop was the major curriculum used for writing instruction in schools. However, some

teachers reported that they implemented supplemental instruction on skills not covered in the

curriculum using other textbook programs. Those findings were not surprising, and supported

other studies of primary teachers who reported using process-teaching approaches, skill-teaching

approaches, or a combination of approaches (Cutler & Graham, 2008). Process-teaching involves

creating a permanent product using steps such as pre-writing, drafting, and revising. Skill-

!16

teaching involves scaffolding where the teacher breaks down the tasks into smaller ones (i.e.,

short-term objectives) while still ensuring the child’s “meaningful” participation. Scaffolding and

skill instruction are taught through modeling, demonstrating, questioning or using dialogue that

engages writers in conversations with each other. It also involves the teacher thinking aloud

about planning, organizing, drafting, and editing writing. Joint construction of text with students,

“think sheets,” other worksheets for assisting students with planning and preparation, and

graphic organizers for each genre are also used. These instructional methods are designed to

assist elementary students improve their texts and increase awareness of their composing

processes.

McCarthey and Ro (2011) found that teachers who worked in high-income school

districts implemented a content, or genre-based approach to teaching writing, whereas teachers

who worked in low-income districts implemented a skills-based instruction curriculum

(structural writing repertoires). These teachers tended to use mandated curriculum focused on

skills and writing conventions. The studies also suggested that professional development efforts

as well as state and national standards appear to influence instruction. However, McCarthey and

Ro (2011) did not provide any evidence as to whether or not more professional development to

meet state and national standards would effectively influence instruction.

In McCarthey and Ro’s (2011) study, teachers did not establish a social contingency for

writing (Bromer & Bromer, 2001). This appears to be a key ingredient because just as speaking

and listening are social behaviors, writing and listening are as well. The function of a

participant’s writing did not improve because there was no social contingency; the participants

did not directly observe the effects of their on the reader. McCarthey and Ro (2011) discussed

!17

that the absence of a social contingency may result in the narrowing of the writing curriculum. In

this sense, students would only have the opportunity to write one-draft assignments without

extended opportunities to edit, rewrite, and master the writing assignments based on the feedback

given by a peer reader (Dutro, 2010).

Diab (2011) compared the effects of peer-editing to self-editing. The dependent measure

was the revision of each participant’s essays. The experimental group practiced peer-editing,

while the control group engaged in self-editing. After receiving training for their respective

groups, both groups wrote an argumentative essay in two drafts. A statistically significant

difference in the revised writing favored peer-editing in improving each participant’s revised

writing drafts compared to the self-editing group. A random sample from both groups suggested

that writers who engaged in self-editing revised more errors than writers who received peer-

editing feedback. However, in contrast, a writer who engaged in peer-editing improved his or her

revised drafts more than self-editors. In summary, peer-editors improved the function of their

permanent products while self-editors merely found more errors in his or her writing.

Diab (2011) attributed the difference between the groups to the use of language learning

strategies, peer interactions, and engagement with language. Language learning strategies were

defined as specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques that students used to improve their

progress in developing language skills. Note these are all cosmetic terms that do not describe the

operations themselves. Using a computer metaphor, these strategies facilitated the

internalization, storage, retrieval, or use of new language according to Diab’s (2011) conclusions.

In other words, the experimenter suggested that participants used psychological constructs (i.e.

storage of information) to improve a peer’s writing. Those students who applied language

!18

learning with their peers were at an advantage over the self-editors because they were more

actively engaged in the writing process as a listener and speaker.

In Svalberg’s (2009) article defining engagement with language, he argued that being

engaged with language included focused attention and action knowledge. The dependent

measures were affective features (the willingness to interact with language) and social features

(readiness and willingness to interact with another individual) (p. 247). From Svalberg (2009)

and Diab’s (2011) standpoint, peer-editors focused on the written text as a “need to know” (Greer

& Ross, 2008), while self-editors reviewed their own writing as how much they knew about the

given assignment (Kellogg, 2008). In that respect, self-editing resulted in less time spent revising

the written text that affected the reader (functional components). This was attributed to “less

learning” (Schmidt, 2001). Diab (2011) stated the participants involved in the self-editing

intervention were at a disadvantage compared to the students whose intervention was peer-

editing because the peer-editors focused their attention on improving how they could affect the

behavior of the reader.

The purpose of Lundstrom and Baker’s (2009) study was to determine if giving or

receiving feedback was more effective in improving student writing. The study was conducted at

an intensive English institute with 91 students in nine writing classes at two proficiency levels.

The “editors” reviewed anonymous papers, but received no peer feedback over the course of the

semester. The “receivers” received feedback, but did not review another student’s writing.

Analyses of the gains in writing were measured from writing samples, and were conducted at the

beginning and end of the semester. Results indicated that editors, who focused solely on

reviewing peers’ writing, showed significant improvement in their own writing. The receivers,

!19

who focused solely on how to use peer feedback, did not show as significant results. Results also

indicated that givers at the lower proficiency level made more gains than those at higher

proficiency levels. These findings agreed with the results of Diab’s (2011) study.

Lundstrom and Baker (2009) also found that the writing of participants who were English

Language Learners improved by “transferring abilities they learn[ed] when reviewing peer texts”

(p. 34). Most importantly, the findings from this study showed that those students taught to give

peer feedback improved their own writing abilities more-so than those taught only how to use

peer feedback. These findings supported earlier findings (Sager, 1973; Teo, 2006) on writing

research. Experimenters attributed results to the editors learning to review another student’s

incorrect writing. The editor’s writing improved by learning from similar activities that critically

self-evaluated his or her own writing and made appropriate revisions (Rollinson, 2005). Those

skills may not have been developed if participants were only taught to interpret another student’s

feedback because participants were not actively engaged in editing. Like Diab’s (2011) study

summarized above, Lundstrom and Baker (2009) agreed that one benefit of peer review was the

interaction between the two students. However, in their study, no such interaction occurred to

control for the giving and receiving of feedback. It was not just the added feedback students

received on their writing, nor the extra language interaction experience that helped improve

student writing, but the act of providing feedback that could have improved participant writing. It

was speculated that it may have been the most beneficial aspect of peer review.

Monohan (1984) examined revision strategies used by high-school students when they

wrote for two separate audiences: teachers and peers. The first writing session was devoted to

training in a composing-aloud procedure. Participants were required to vocally state what they

!20

were thinking as they composed the writing assignment. Participants were instructed to "tell [the

experimenter] everything you're thinking, whether you write it or not." Participants who fell

silent for more than ten seconds were reminded to verbalize their thoughts. In the second session,

participants were then asked to write a composition on the topic, "A Needed Change in the

School Cafeteria.” The audience for that writing piece was identified as the teacher. Participants

were told, "This is a regular classroom assignment which will be graded by your English

teacher.” Participants were reminded to use the composing-aloud procedure. At the end of the

session, they explained their revisions by responding to probes from the experimenter. Probes

involved the experimenter asking, "I notice that you changed ___ to ___. Why did you make that

change?” In session three, participants revised or redrafted their compositions. The experimenter

probed to identify if participants wanted to make any changes. At the end of the session, they

were asked again to explain their revisions. Approximately two weeks later, participants repeated

the procedures for sessions two and three, using an equivalent topic, “A Needed Change in T.V.

Programming,” but for a peer audience. Results showed that basic writers made more revisions

for the teacher audience, while competent writers made more revisions for the peer audience.

Results also showed competent writers made a wider range of revisions and revised in extended

episodes in which one revision was cued by, and related to, an earlier revision, while basic

writers made isolated revisions.

Similarly, Frank (1992) examined a writer’s effectiveness at writing for a specific

audience. Participants in a fifth grade classroom wrote two versions of a newspaper

advertisement; one for third graders and one for adults. Readers evaluated a writer’s ability to

affect a reader’s expectations and needs where the goal was to try to convince two distinctly

!21

different audiences to buy something the participants wished to sell. In one version, participants

were directed to write their advertisement to try to sell it to an adult reading the newspaper. In

the second version of the writing, they were directed to write their advertisement to sell the same

item to a third grader reading the children’s section of the local daily paper. Participants became

familiar with the newspaper before they wrote and teachers were randomly assigned the writing

task procedures. The audiences were counterbalanced between the two classrooms. Participants

were guided through the writing activity using the pre-writing, writing, and revising model of the

writing process. A test of significance for proportional differences revealed that participants

successfully revised their texts to address the expectations of both audiences. Results showed

that writers who demonstrated audience awareness successively revised his or her writing to

meet the needs of both audiences. Both Frank (1992) and Monohan (1984) suggested that

students need opportunities, particularly in expository writing, to address a variety of real

audiences outside their own classrooms in order to learn how to communicate effectively through

writing. These studies relate to the current study because they tested the acquisition of functional

and structural writing accuracy and self-editing skills after the mastery of a peer-editing

intervention procedure.

Many children in public schools do not revise extensively, skillfully, or ever despite the

importance of revising and editing to improve writing (Applebee, Langer, & Mullis, 1986;

Fitzgerald, 1987). The revisions are restricted merely to structural writing and word level

changes and not the function of writing (Bridwell, 1980; Faigley & Witte, 1981; Scardamalia &

Bereiter, 1986). It is not surprising then that revisions seem to have little or no impact on the

!22

quality of writing (Bracewell, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 1978; MacArthur & Graham, 1987;

Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986).

Stoddard and MacArthur (1993) investigated the effectiveness of an approach to improve

revising skills that integrated strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing. Seventh

and eighth grade students with learning disabilities were taught a systematic strategy for working

in pairs to help each other revise their writing. A multiple probe design across pairs was used to

assess instruction. Participants made few substantive revisions and did not improve the quality of

their papers by revising them on the pretests. All participants made more substantive revisions

following instruction. The proportion of revisions rated as improvements increased from 47% to

83%, and second drafts were rated as significantly better than first drafts. Furthermore, the

overall quality of final drafts increased substantially from pretests to posttests. The gains were

maintained at one and two-month maintenance testing and generalized to handwritten

compositions.

Students with learning difficulties are even more reluctant to revise their work and view

revising as proofreading structural errors in writing (Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1995).

Graham, Schwartz, and MacArthur (1995) tested the effects of goal setting and procedural

facilitation (teacher prompting and assistance) on the revision and writing of students with

writing and learning problems. The study examined the effects of meeting objectives in order to

increase the revising behavior and writing performance of fifth and sixth grade students with

disabilities. The authors also examined whether procedural assistance in meeting the goal of

adding information would enhance a student’s performance. Participants were encouraged to add

information in order to make their writing more effective when rewriting. Results indicated that

!23

the goal to add information resulted in greater improvement in text quality than the general goal

of revision. The use of the procedural facilitator to accomplish the goal to add information,

however, did not increase a participant’s revisions or the quality of his or her text.

One way of overcoming the formal process of revising is to get the reader to ask specific

questions. This will provide a direct stimulus for the writer to rewrite and revise. In this

exchange of questions and answers between the reader and the writer, where the reader functions

as an equivalent of a listener, a writer’s behaviors may or may not be changed by the reader/

listener. The reader will not be affected if the writing is not revised, changed, or modified.

Therefore, how much is the writer affected by the behavior of the reader, or, alternatively, does a

reader’s behaviors have any effect on a writer’s behaviors?

Verbal Behavior: A Functional Approach to Language

There are many models to explain the use of language and writing, however, the verbal

behavior model accounts for aspects of communicable function, including writing, as behavior

(Skinner, 1957). Language is understood by examining and measuring the consequences of

behaviors. Skinner’s theory on verbal behavior states that, “behavior which is effective only

through the mediation of other persons has so many distinguishing dynamic and topographical

properties that a special treatment is justified, and indeed, demanded" (Skinner, 1957, p. 2).

The theory of verbal behavior is based on the epistemology of behavior selection. Radical

behaviorism is a theoretical perspective that derives from the works of B.F. Skinner and

acknowledges private events as behaviors. Radical behaviorists examine the functional

relationship between the subject and the environment. Therefore, radical behaviorists study all

types of behavior and their variables; the behaviors of private events are considered activities,

!24

rather than as states of mind, and can be experimentally studied (Zuriff, 1988). According to

Catania (1979), learning does not follow from the consequences of responses, but rather, it is the

consequences that are learned. In other words, it is not the stimulus, the response, the

consequence, the subject, or the environment that is examined separately in radical behaviorism,

but rather the unique functional relationship that encompasses all components. Complex events

are examined and defined by the contingencies that surround those events (Day, 1977; Vargas,

1994; Schneider & Morris, 1987).

Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957), explains how and why language functions in the

environment. Skinner uses a three term contingency in order to functionally analyze language

(Moxley, 1996). This contingency involves the antecedent stimulus, the response, and the

consequence for that response. This contingency was identified extensively in laboratory studies

on non-verbal behavior. In Skinner’s theoretical extensions of these laboratory findings, he

identified basic speaker operants, or learned behaviors, that define human verbal behavior. These

operants were the mand, the tact, the intraverbal, the echoic, the textual response, and the

autoclitic (Skinner, 1957). Skinner defined each of these operants in terms of their antecedents,

observable behaviors, and consequences. The immediate function of the behavior and the

controlled future frequency of it can be measured when one of these operants is emitted by the

speaker. Skinner also discussed the control of a few non-observable behaviors such as listening

to oneself as a speaker, thinking, and conditioned seeing in somewhat less detail. These within-

the-skin behaviors occur when an individual functions as a listener to his or her own speaker

behavior.

!25

Although the focus of Verbal Behavior (1957) was specifically on the behavior of the

speaker, Skinner discussed the role of a listener for each operant, as “...provid[ing] the conditions

we have assumed in explaining the behavior of the speaker” (Skinner, 1957, p. 34). It was not

until 1989 that Skinner discussed the truly important role of the listener, stating, “...if listeners

are responsible for the behavior of speakers, we need to look more closely at what they

do” (Skinner in Hayes, 1989, p. 86). As Skinner theorized, and as research continued, it became

more apparent that the role of the listener was a critical component of the verbal behavior model,

especially when studying language development and the role of the listener and speaker within

one’s own skin (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000; Horne & Lowe, 1996; Lodhi

& Greer, 1989).

“The traditional conception of verbal behavior... has generally implied that certain basic

linguistic processes were common to both speaker and listener" (Skinner, 1957, p. 33). “Theories

of meaning are usually applied to both speaker and listener as if the meaning process were the

same for both” (p. 33). For those reasons, in Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) avoided the use of

the common terms expressive and receptive language because of the implication that they were

different manifestations of the same underlying cognitive processes (Greer & Speckman, 2009).

Rather, he used the term “listener” because the behavior of the listener constituted language.

Skinner (1957) stated, “Linguists and psycholinguists are primarily concerned with the behavior

of the listener--with what words mean to those who hear them and with what kind of sentences

are judged grammatical or ungrammatical” (Skinner, 1978, p. 122). Verbal behavior defines the

concept of communication in terms of the transmission of ideas, meanings, or information to an

individual who is a listener. Whereas linguistic accounts of language have focused on the

!26

structural aspects of speech and writing, Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957) attempted to focus on

language and cognition in terms of function, toward the prediction and the control of behavior.

Skinner’s (1957) account, however, did not discount the important role of structure.

Rather, the verbal behavior approach provides a more complete account. In Verbal Behavior

(1957), the term “listener” was restricted, which was later found to be necessary for a verbal

episode (even when the speaker functioned as his own listener). Listeners serve as discriminative

stimuli and motivating operations for audiences as well as mediators of reinforcement for the

speaker (provided consequences). According to Skinner (1957), listeners can emit any of three

actions to speakers: nonverbal behaviors, respondent behaviors, and operant behaviors. Skinner

excluded covert verbal behavior from the term “listener” (where a speaker became a covert

speaker). All verbal operants are possible as a covert speaker. When Skinner stated “linguists and

psycholinguists are primarily concerned with the behavior of the listener” (Skinner, 1978, p.

122), it is covert verbal behavior in which psychologists were interested (e.g., thinking,

understanding, problem solving, processing) (Greer and Longano, 2010). This description of the

“listener” applies to this study because participants functioned as listeners to change a peer’s

writing behavior. Participants also functioned as listeners during pre- and post-intervention probe

measures when they were required to edit their own work. From Skinner’s perspective,

participants functioned as truly verbal individuals.

The behavioral approach to the teaching of language is no longer based primarily on the

descriptive behavior of Skinner (1938, 1953, 1957) and Keller and Schoenfeld (1950). These

works demonstrated the appropriateness of “such an approach for the understanding of verbal

behavior in complex as well as in simple situations” (Salzinger, 1959, p. 375). Skinner’s

!27

functional analysis of language is based on the three-term contingency identified in research,

with a wide range of response classes— the discriminative stimulus, the response, and the

consequence (Spradlin, 1963). Verbal behavior is operant behavior because it satisfies two

criteria. First, it is a behavior which has consequences; and secondly, the contingency affects one

or more dimensions of the subsequent behavior. Skinner specifies the two kinds of contingencies

as follows: (1) nonverbal contingencies, where the behavior is related directly, mechanically,

spatially, temporally, or geometrically, and (2) verbal contingencies, where the behavior is free of

the direct relation with its results found in non-verbal contingencies. The effectiveness of verbal

behavior depends on the verbal community that acts upon it.

Behavior analysts (Greer & Ross, 2008; Skinner, 1957) have long pointed out that all

language is behavior. It is not words, sentences, or patterns spoken, but it is “behavior” that is

shaped and maintained by the verbal community within which the speaker operates. The

distinction between a verbal operant and a word can be compared to the distinction between

“verbal repertoire” and “vocabulary” (Skinner, 1957, p. 22). Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957) is

his theory of how and why language functions in the environment. He expanded on a three-term

contingency in order to functionally analyze language. Skinner summarized that speakers use

their vocal behavior to affect a listener similar to how writers use their written verbal behavior to

affect a reader. However, there was no research to support his theory at the time. Since then,

many studies have been conducted to support, expand, and change Skinner’s theory.

Research in Verbal Behavior and Verbal Behavior Development

A comparison between the verbal behavior model and linguistic communication curricula

shows the verbal behavior model is more effective in teaching students with developmental

!28

delays to acquire and maintain functionally effective vocal speech (Williams & Greer, 1993).

This study compared a verbal-behavior-based curriculum, A Scripted Curriculum for Verbal

Behavior (Greer, 1990), to a more traditional linguistic method that consisted of a series of

individual training steps sequentially designed to develop functional communication skills. Both

curricula were intended to be used to train functional language.

The verbal behavior of the speaker is controlled and maintained by the behavior of the

listener. Several studies suggested the audience controlled the intraverbal responses of an

individual (Donley & Greer, 1993; Spradlin, 1985; Yoder, 1970). Yoder (1970) constructed an

experiment that examined whether or not the audience controlled the speaker. An attractive

woman on a television was used as an audience for male adolescents with mental retardation.

The subject was seated in a chair with a television directly across from the participant. An image

of an attractive female was on the screen and a female voice spoke the subject’s name and briefly

engaged him in conversation. This session established the woman on the television as an

audience. Additional sessions were conducted in which the woman said nothing; she only nodded

and smiled. Two of the four participants had high rates of verbalization in this condition. Other

manipulations in which the television was turned on or off contingent upon a subject’s

verbalizations, established that the woman on the television was a positive reinforcer for all

participants. Yoder’s (1970) research suggested that with some individuals the audience did not

even have to understand what was being said in order for the speaker to access reinforcement.

There was still a clear, functional relationship between the audience and the control of the

behavior of the speaker although it was acknowledged that further research was needed.

!29

Donley and Greer (1993) conducted an experiment to examine setting events controlling

social verbal exchanges between students with severe developmental delays and little verbal

behavior. Setting events address the physical, social, and physiological events that increase the

likelihood that an antecedent event will trigger behaviors to occur. A verbal exchange in this

study was when an individual functioned as both listener and speaker. The frequency of the

verbal exchanges was measured under two conditions. In one condition, the teacher responded

only when spoken to, and in the other condition the teacher was absent. The results of this

experiment showed that rates of social verbal exchanges were higher when the teacher was

absent from the room than when the teacher spoke only when spoken to by a student. This

experiment also showed the audience controlled the behavior of the speaker.

Writing is another form of verbal behavior that controls and maintains the behavior of a

listener. Julie Vargas (1978) was one of the first researchers to suggest how to teach writing from

a behavioral account. She provided an analysis of an anecdotal account where participants

directly saw how their writing (or speaker behavior) affected a reader (or a listener’s) behavior.

Writing exercises were designed where participants could see the effectiveness of their writing

from the nonverbal behavior of a reader. Sixth grade participants were asked to write directions

to something they knew how to do, but their classmates did not. Next, participants had to bring in

any necessary equipment, pair up with a classmate, and test the effectiveness of their directions

on each other. Classmates were asked to read a participant’s directions and follow them while the

participant observed. If the reader did not complete a step correctly during any part of the

directions, the participant would rewrite until the reader could perform the terminal product

using only the written directions.

!30

This pilot study was experimentally replicated using graduate students, who had a more

difficult time with the rewriting process than the sixth graders did, because the graduate students

were continually reminded to give their directions in written form and not “scoff” at the reader

for “reading it incorrectly.” While it was anecdotally reported, results from both studies

suggested that writers learned to control the behavior of the reader through their written

behavior.

Verbal Behavior Developmental Trajectory

When Skinner wrote Verbal Behavior (1957), there were no experiments conducted with

respect to the verbal behavior development of the individual speaker or listener (Greer &

Keohane, 2006; Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009). The Verbal Behavior

Development Trajectory is an extension Skinner’s verbal behavior theory and terms which are

supplemented and supported by empirical research in the field (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &

Roche, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996; Greer, 2008; Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009;

Sidman, 1971; Sidman, 1994).

The Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT) is a verbal behavior theory that

incorporates both naming and relational responding perspectives (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer &

Speckman, 2009). The empirical body of research, which is the foundation of VBDT, suggests

that certain instructional histories, sequences of experiences, and the acquisition of particular

motivating operations as a result of acquired conditioned reinforcers allow for the acquisition of

operants and eventually lead to an individual becoming truly verbal (Greer & Speckman, 2009;

Greer & Du, 2013). According to VBDT, listener and speaker repertoires develop independently,

each with its own instructional history. These listener and speaker repertoires are phylogenically,

!31

and perhaps neurologically, independent, but join as a result of cultural experiences through

experiences associated with the basic principles of behavior and extension to social interactions

(Greer, 2008).

Verbal Behavior Development Theory (VBDT) (Greer & Du, 2015; Greer & Ross, 2008;

Greer & Speckman, 2009) may be the only theory of ontogenic verbal development which

inductively grew out of empirical research conducted on students with and without native

disabilities. Results of multiple experiments suggested sequences of experiences and the

acquisition of operants, or higher order operants, eventually lead to an individual becoming truly

verbal. This was done through successfully inducing behavioral cusps and/or capabilities in

students who were lacking them through verbal behavior protocols. The inductive trajectory in

VBDT is both the foundation of the theory as well as a sequence of developmental interventions.

VBDT provides a trajectory of the cusps and capabilities identified as steps in the progression

through this trajectory, and it also identifies protocols which function to induce cusps when they

are not present in an individual’s repertoire.

The protocols function to induce or establish cusps, and many of these cusps are

prerequisites to the capability of Naming. Naming is defined as joint stimulus control over

listener and speaker responses. For a child to have the Naming capability, he or she must first

hear the name of a stimulus, emit a listener response and then emit an untaught speaker response

of the same stimulus. Protocols like multiple exemplar instruction to induce the Naming

capability provide individuals with the necessary instructional histories for cusps to emerge.

Greer and Du (2015) propose that these protocols condition new reinforcers which create the

relevant motivating operations. Behaviors emerge as a result of newly acquired reinforcers.

!32

VBDT also identifies protocols to induce capabilities. Capabilities allow individuals to learn in

ways they could not before. For example, the joining of various observing and producing

repertoires, followed by the joining of listener and speaker repertoires, such as in Naming, allows

for further verbal, and more advanced academic development.

The induction of verbal developmental cusps is important for students because little or no

progress can be made at the next level of verbal development until the previous cusp is acquired.

Behavioral cusps are operants that create changes that are more than just the operant change

itself. Cusps allow organisms to contact new environments so that they can learn new things and

potentially learn faster (Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1996). Cusps “expose organisms to more relevant

teaching contingencies” (p. 537). Many protocols have demonstrated that by successfully

inducing particular verbal developmental cusps, students: (1) contact new environments

(Keohane, Luke, & Greer, 2008; Pereira-Delgado, Greer, Speckman, & Goswami, 2009); (2)

learn in one topography and emit a response in another, untaught topography (Eby, Greer, Tullo,

Baker, & Pauly, 2010; Greer, Yuan, & Gautreaux, 2005 ); (3) learn faster than prior to the

emergence of the cusp (Greer, Chavez-Brown, Nirgudkar, Stolfi, & Rivera-Valdes, 2005; Tsai &

Greer, 2006); and/or (4) learn in a new way (Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Gilic & Greer, 2011; Greer

Stolfi, & Pistoljevic, 2007; Pereira-Delgado & Greer, 2009; Pereira Delgado, Speckman, &

Greer, 2010). From the VBDT perspective, if a student is not learning through certain

contingencies, or does not acquire an operant despite direct instruction and the use of research-

based tactics, a cusp is missing from the student’s verbal developmental repertoire and a protocol

must be used to induce it. Each of these cusps and capabilities identified by the VBDT are

!33

necessary for a child to fully develop as a functional listener, speaker, reader, writer, and self-

editor.

Verbal Developmental Sequence

The verbal behavior developmental trajectory (VBDT) proposes a verbal developmental

sequence that begins before birth, and progresses to include the role of verbal behavior in

academic functioning (Greer and Ross, 2008; Greer & Speckman, 2009). Conditioned

reinforcement begins in utero as a mother’s voice is paired with nutrients (Decasper & Spence,

1986). This pairing continues after birth when nourishment continues to be paired with a

mother’s voice, and as vision ensues, with a mother’s face (Donahoe & Palmer, 2004).

Simultaneously, production responses of the child are reinforced (movement of arms and legs

and a swimming movement). As reinforcement is paired with a child’s observations of a

mother’s voice and face (which are often imitated) as well as a child’s production responses, the

acquisition of the correspondence between production and observation becomes a conditioned

reinforcer.

Subsequently, a child begins to parrot, imitating his mother, by producing vocal

responses, which first manifest as babbling. The reinforcer is automatic, it is not social and not

verbal. When a child successfully echoes a word, he or she receives reinforcement from a

listener. Parroting leads to the emission of echoics, which is the first speaker operant. Around this

stage, generalized imitation, or see-do correspondence emerges. The correspondence between

seeing and doing, as well as hearing and saying are higher order operants which set the

foundations for the acquisition of many critical cusps and capabilities (Greer & Keohane, 2009).

!34

Listener repertoires continue to develop, such as basic listener literacy, in which children

can hear and do. Simultaneously, but independently, speaker repertoires, such as mands and tacts,

emerge and expand. Listener and speaker functions are independent of each other at this point in

development. The joining of the speaker and listener repertoires begin with say-do

correspondence and self-talk conversational units and is not fully complete until a child acquires

the Naming capability. Once the child acquires Naming, a child’s language repertoire

significantly expands because language is learned incidentally. In addition, children can learn

language, as well as reader and writer repertoires, in a way they could not prior to the integration

of the speaker and listener responses within-the-skin.

The acquisition of Naming sets the foundation for many advanced operants including

reading comprehension, transformation of stimulus function across saying and writing, and

affecting the behavior of another through reading and writing (Greer & Ross, 2008). The verbal

behavior developmental sequence appears to occur naturally and incidentally in typically

developing children but is clearly tied to the contingencies they experience (Greer & Longano,

2010; Tomasello, 2010). However, students who have disabilities do not seem to contact these

cusps and capabilities naturally. Higher-order verbal behavior developmental cusps are necessary

for success in an academic setting. Examples include affecting the behavior of the reader through

writing and self-editing (Greer, 2004).

Verbally-Governed and Verbally Governing Behavior

Behaviors controlled by rules or verbal statements are considered verbally governed

(Greer, 2002; Greer & Ross, 2008, Vargas, 1978). Often, students and teachers use verbally

governed behaviors for problem solving. For example, a teacher may use verbally governed

!35

behavior when he or she applies scientific terms and tactics to guide his or her teaching

(Keohane & Greer, 2006). Teachers emit verbally governed behavior when confronted with a

student’s learning problem in order to analyze the problem and apply a teaching tactic using a

series of verbal statements. Students often emit verbally governed behavior when completing a

math problem. Students will follow verbal or written directions to complete the problem or use

their textbook, notes, or other resources to help them solve the math problem. Due to the reliance

on rules to verbally govern, verbally governed behavior is often referred to as rule-governed

behavior (Hayes, Blackledge, & Barnes-Holmes, 2001).

Humans can verbally govern the behavior of others through verbal functions of speaking

or writing. Verbally governing behavior affects the behavior of someone else (Greer & Ross,

2008, Vargas, 1978). For example, if a parent provides his or her child with a specific detailed

written list of chores, the parent is asking the child to change his/her behavior by following a

written list. Similarly, if a person gives directions to a friend on how to get to his or her house, he

or she is verbally governing his or her friend’s behavior. When comparing verbally governed

behavior and verbally governing behavior, it helps to think of whether someone is being affected

by a behavior or is affecting someone else’s behavior.

Educational Research in Peer Tutoring

Peer tutoring is one procedure comparable to peer editing. In the tutoring process, the

tutor provides feedback to the tutee until mastery. This tactic is a condition that emphasizes the

observation of both the responses and the consequences of responses of others that occur during

the tutoring process. The use of peer tutoring methods is found to be an effective instructional

strategy in classroom settings (Greer & Polirstok, 1982; Greenwood, Dinwiddle, Terry, Wade,

!36

Stanley, & Thibedeau, 1984; Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986). This

instructional method yields many benefits and is found to be one of the most consistently

identified effective procedures (Devin-Sheehan, Feldman & Allen, 1976; Greer, 1994; Polirstok

& Greer; 1986). Research shows that different populations ranging from regular education

students (Arreaga-Mayer, 1998), to children with disabilities (Butler, 1999), to minority students

(Harper, Maheady, Malette, & Karnes, 1999; Dill & Boykin, 2000) have all benefitted from this

instructional tactic.

Some authors reported when peer tutoring was compared to teacher-mediated instruction,

peer tutoring produced higher rates of correct responding (Dupaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey;

1998; Fueyo & Bushell, 1998; Greenwood, Dinwiddie, Bailey, Carta, Dorsey, Kohler, Nelson,

Rotholz, & Schulte, 1987; Greenwood et al., 1984; Madrid, Terry, Greenwood, Whaley, &

Webber, 1998; Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986; Utley, Reddy, & Delquardi, 2001). These

results were inconsistent with more recent research which showed no differences in an increase

of academic skills during both teacher instruction and peer tutoring when the amount of

instruction remained the same (Greer, Keohane, Meincke, Gautreaux, Pereira, Chavez-Brown, &

Yuan, 2004). This study controlled for such findings by delivering equal numbers of instructional

units by both the teacher and tutors. Results showed that both conditions yielded an increase in

academic skills (Greer et al., 2004).

Harris and Sherman (1973) found that when students tutored each other, their accuracy

and their rate of performance was higher than when students worked on similar math problems in

a non-tutoring environment. Consequences for accurate performance seemed to increase

accuracy. When results were compared to the non-tutoring condition, they suggested that

!37

interactions between students were responsible for increased accuracy and rate of performance.

Pigott, Fantuzzo, and Clement (1986) also tested the effects of peer tutoring on math

performance, but implemented a group contingency treatment package. Results from this study

indicated that participants, who prior to treatment were underachievers in math performance,

significantly increased their math skills to the same level as a peer’s following the

implementation of the peer tutoring group contingency package. Results were maintained during

a follow-up probe.

Greenwood et al. (1984) tested the effects of teacher-mediated instruction compared to

peer-mediated instruction. The dependent measures were accuracy on weekly spelling, math, and

vocabulary tests, as well as pre- and post-standardized achievement tests. The same amount of

instruction was not delivered by the teacher as the tutor. Experimenters found that class wide

peer tutoring resulted in higher weekly test scores and more academic responding compared to

when a teacher’s procedures were used. Results generalized across all academic subjects and

tests. In particular, the lowest performing students in the class greatly benefited from the peer

tutoring procedure as they performed as well as the other students in the class. Thus, in

Greenwood et al. (1987), authors found that peer tutoring produced statistically greater gains

relative to a teacher’s procedures for both low and high students on spelling instruction.

However, the number of opportunities for students to respond increased during peer tutoring

versus teacher-instruction. This may explain why authors found peer tutoring as a more effective

means compared to teacher instruction.

Peer tutoring is often used in classrooms to master math facts and spelling words. It is

also used to teach writing. Strategy instruction in a broad set of revision behaviors (including

!38

evaluation criteria for written compositions, specific revision strategies, and an overall strategy

for regulating the revision process) was examined in a series of studies by Graham and

MacArthur (1988), MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991), and Stoddard and MacArthur

(1993). Results from these studies indicated that the revising strategies were successfully learned

and were used to improve some aspects of writing quality by students with learning disabilities

in Grades 4, 5, and 6 (Graham & MacArthur, 1988; MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, l99l) as

well as by students in Grades 7 and 8 (Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993). Participants were also

successful in using the strategies independently (Graham & MacArthur, 1988) and in working in

pairs with peers (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham,1991; Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993).

Behavioral Research in Peer Tutoring

Research on peer tutoring is divided into the effects on the tutor and effects on the tutee.

A study conducted by Kohler and Greenwood (1990) used class wide peer tutoring as a tactic to

increase students’ spelling performance. Results showed that after the class wide peer tutoring

was implemented, academic responses for spelling increased among three tutees and the weekly

achievement of one tutee. Mortweet et al. (1999) investigated the academic effects of class wide

peer tutoring for students with mild mental retardation and their typical peers in inclusive

classroom settings. Four participants with mild mental retardation were integrated in two general

education elementary classrooms during spelling instruction. Dependent measures included

performance on weekly tests and direct observations of academic engagement. Results

demonstrated increased spelling accuracy and increased levels of engagement for participants

with mild mental retardation and their typical peers during class wide peer tutoring when

!39

compared to traditional teacher-led instruction. This suggested that class wide peer tutoring was

an effective instructional strategy for improving their spelling performance.

There is a body of research that shows that peer tutoring can benefit the tutor as well as

the tutee (Devin-Sheehan, et al., 1976; Dineen, Clark, & Risley, 1977; Frager & Stem, 1970;

Gumpel, & Frank, 1999; Johnson & Bailey, 1974). Through presenting instruction to the peers,

the tutors also acquired the taught target responses (Devin-Sheehan, et al., 1976; Giesecke,

Cartledge, & Gardner, 1993; Greer & Polirstok, 1982). In a case study by Dineen et al. (1977),

the behavior of the tutor was studied and the acquisition of spelling words was measured among

tutors. Results showed that tutoring a peer increased participants’ spelling accuracy almost as

much as being tutored by a peer. Greer and Polirstok (1982) identified collateral effects from an

intervention where the tutor was taught to present learn units, which produced both tutee and

tutor gains. However, when there was an absence in learn unit presentations, the gains for tutors

and tutees were not the same. These findings further strengthened the utility of peer tutoring in

the classroom and emphasized the importance of the delivery of instruction when investigating

academic gains among tutors and tutees.

Greer and Polirstok (1982) identified that “teaching (students) to use social reinforcement

techniques for tutees’ on-task behavior might have the potential for developing new social

behaviors for tutors” (p.123-124). Their study explored the effects of peer tutoring in a remedial

reading program for adolescents. Data were collected on the reading responses of tutees, tutor

on-task behavior, tutor reading scores, and tutor-to-tutee social reinforcement for low achieving

students in 7th through 9th grade. During intervention, 8th graders or 9th graders tutored 7th

graders and were given tokens for contingent approvals during peer tutoring sessions. In addition

!40

to increases in on-task behaviors and reading scores for both the tutor and the tutee, there was a

significant increase in the number of social approvals emitted. Data showed that training tutors

and delivering positive reinforcement to tutors results in an increase in the use of social

approvals by the tutors (Greer & Polirstok, 1982). In a replication of this study, Polirstok and

Greer (1986) found significant increases in the number of social approvals and decreases in the

number of disapprovals emitted for four 9th grade low achieving students when tokens were

implemented with peer tutoring. These social interactions were identified by Greer and Polirstok

(1982) as collateral behaviors of peer tutoring. Collateral behaviors are behaviors that are

topographically different from the target behavior. The target behavior in the case of peer

tutoring is increasing the tutees’ correct responding. Both the increase in tutors’ academic

achievement and the increase in social approvals by tutors are collateral behaviors of peer

tutoring.

Greer, Keohane, Meincke, Gautreaux, Pereira, Chavez-Brown, and Yuan (2004)

presented a review of the tutoring literature along with a series of six studies that tested the

effects of tutoring on the tutee and the tutor by isolating the component of tutoring that made it

effective. Authors also examined whether tutors or tutees could learn responses not directly

taught as a function of the tutoring material and then use the material to emit untaught novel

responses without direct instruction. This measure was in addition to showing that using a peer to

teach a student was just as effective as teacher presentations when learn units were present and

controlled for (equal presentations for teachers and students). This measure showed it was the

presence of learn units rather than whether a peer or teacher taught, and that the use of learn units

was the strongest predictor for learning for either the tutee or tutor. They also found that the

!41

tutors acquired observational learning repertoires as a function of delivering learn units. In

several of the studies presented, the tutor acquired new repertoires as a function of tutoring.

Data suggested that when a student learns to tutor, he or she subsequently learns to

observe correct and incorrect responses emitted by the tutee as they provide consequences to the

tutee for correct and incorrect responses. In one of the six studies, the data showed that when

tutors presented learn units versus non-learn units (no consequences) on foreign language words

the tutors emitted a higher level of correct responses following tutoring sessions. In fact, in the

non-learn unit conditions, the tutors emitted zero correct responses following tutoring sessions.

These findings suggest the importance of learn units, where the observer (tutor) gains from

observing correct and incorrect responses and the contingencies associated with each response.

In relevance to observational learning, the results presented in these studies show how the tutor

can acquire novel repertoires (previously tested not present in their repertoire) by observing learn

units when delivered to tutees. Given these findings, it appears that observing consequences is

key to observational learning, and the capability of observational learning has the same effect as

tutoring on learning by tutors.

The Learn Unit and the Importance of Feedback

The learn unit is relevant to research on peer tutoring because researchers who use learn

units as measures of instruction can explicitly control for the acquisition of novel operants versus

previously acquired operants. Researchers and teachers who implement learn units can identify

units of teaching. One body of research suggests that the learn unit is the basic scientific measure

of teaching. In Greer et al. (2004), it was suggested that the learn unit should be the instructional

unit used to measure teacher and student responses. The learn unit is a measure of instruction that

!42

may be described as an interlocking contingency between the teacher and student that consists of

at least one interlocking contingency for the student and at least two interlocking contingencies

for the teacher or teaching device (Greer & McDonough, 1999). Learn units, when presented

accurately to students increase the number of correct student responses (Albers & Greer, 1991;

Greer & McDonough, 1999; Ingham & Greer, 1992). The definition of the learn unit includes the

following components, 1) the teacher obtains the attention of the student(s), 2) the teacher or

device presents an unambiguous antecedent to the student(s), 3) the student has the opportunity

to respond, and 4) teacher feedback, which includes either reinforcement or a correction in which

the student(s) who emit the incorrect response is to then independently repeat the correct

response while observing the antecedent. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of

learn units during instruction (Emurian, 2007; Emurian, Wang, & Durham, 2000; Hogin, 1996).

Hogin (1996) analyzed correction procedures in the learn unit and in a three-term

contingency and found that the delivery of learn units was most effective. A correction procedure

was implemented with second grade male students who were given mathematical problems to

solve. During the first condition the correction procedure consisted of students revisiting the

problem in the absence of the antecedent, or, an incomplete learn unit. During the second

condition the correction procedure consisted of students revisiting the problem in the context of a

complete learn unit; in this condition the antecedent was re-presented. Participants emitted

higher rates of correct responding during the condition in which they were exposed to the learn

unit following an incorrect response.

Learn units delivered to individual students are effective in increasing the rates of

learning in one to one settings. However, most students today are educated in settings in which

!43

they depend upon acquiring new repertoires through the observation of other students (e.g.

Catania, 2007; Charania, LeBlan, Sabanthan, Kteach, Carr, & Gunby, 2010; Greer, Singer-

Dudek, & Gautreaux, 2006; Rachman, 1972).

Neu (2013) conducted two experiments on the comparative effects of the observation of

learn units during (a) reinforcement or (b) correction conditions on the acquisition of math

objectives using a counterbalanced simultaneous treatment design. The dependent variable was

the within-session cumulative numbers of correct responses emitted during observational

sessions. The independent variable was the observation of reinforcement for correct responses as

the control condition and the observation of corrections for incorrect responses. Target

participants and non-target peers were presented with math objectives that were not in repertoire.

Non-target peers received feedback in the form of either reinforcement or a correction in two

separate conditions, while target students observed and received no feedback. Results from

Experiment 1 showed that all of participants mastered the 3 math objectives presented during the

observation of the correction condition, while 7 of the 8 participants mastered the objective

during the reinforcement condition. Target participants met criterion with significantly fewer

numbers of observing opportunities during the correction condition than during the

reinforcement condition.

Experiment 2 was a replication of Experiment 1 but used a between-subjects

counterbalanced reversal design across conditions and math objectives. Results showed that all

target participants mastered all math objectives presented during the correction condition and

target participants mastered 10 out of 18 objectives presented during the reinforcement condition.

This was a major finding in the verbal behavior community because it provides evidence that

!44

students acquire new skills quicker when observing peers receive a correction for emitting an

incorrect response versus peers receiving reinforcement for emitting a correct response. This

relates to the current study because through the editing intervention, participants acquired a

functional writing repertoire and self-editing skills through providing corrections to another peer.

Behavioral Research in Writing and Editing

Research on writing and editing in the field of behavior shows that, “the critical function

of writing is that the written extension of the writer affects the behavior of the reader” (Greer &

Ross, 2008 p. 152). Greer adds that this principle holds true for the writers and readers of any

profession. Writing can be measured structurally and functionally. While the standards of usage,

that is conformity with contemporary conventions, are critical (structural writing), the function,

or how the writer affects the behavior of the reader, is the purpose. Consequently, it is the

function of language that must be emphasized. According to Greer (Greer, personal

communication, October 20, 2014), that function must become the reinforcer for the behavior

whether the audience is present or in the future. However, the functions must not be held in

isolation, rather, they must be taught simultaneously with the linguistic forms.

The teaching of writing can be done in ways consistent with the science of behavior

whereby each response is provided a consequence and structure follows function. In the

beginning stages, “each product of writing should be read and responded to immediately by the

teacher functioning as the reader...the reader responds to what was written” (Greer & Ross, 2008

p. 151). As writers become more effective, they affect a reader’s behaviors by requiring fewer

revisions and corrections. Writers build upon their repertoire and requests through writing,

classroom activities, and materials, and the teacher or reader provides a consequence

!45

immediately. As writers develop their writing skills, one observes the evolution of what Skinner

called “rule-governed behavior” or what Vargas called “verbally governed behavior.” That is, “as

verbal behavior substitutes for direct contact with the non-verbal environment, the behavior of

writing becomes more abstract” (Greer & Ross, 2008 p.151).

From a behavioral perspective, “the critical function of writing is that the written text of

the writer affects the behavior of a reader. This holds whether the writers and readers are

engineers, poets, teachers, scientists, friends, lawyers, business people or family

members” (Greer & Ross, 2008 p. 152). The development of effective writing skills is gradual

and builds upon previously mastered skills. The goal in writing instruction is to affect the

behavior of the reader. Functional writing skills in everyday life include filling out forms,

making shopping lists, giving directions, and completing employment forms. Research in the

behavior field utilizes the behaviors of the reader to develop the writing skills of the writer. This

approach is an extension of Skinner’s verbal behavior theory (Broto & Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014;

Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Jodlowski, 2000; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-Lawson &

Greer, 2006). However, these studies did not measure the direct effects of the written responses

on a reader, only the writer.

Writer immersion is one tested procedure in the behavior analytic field that uses

establishing operations to induce the functional component and to improve the structural

components of writing (Greer & Ross, 2008). It is a tactic where all communication is done in

writing (Greer, 2002; Greer & Ross, 2008). Students are typically taught only the structural

components of writing in an educational setting, which are usually, but not limited to, spelling,

punctuation, grammar, capitalization, and sentence structures. However, students also need to

!46

learn the function of writing, which is to affect the behavior of the reader (Greer, 2002). Being a

form of verbal behavior, specifically an extension of the a speaker repertoire, it should be treated

as such (Skinner, 1957). Rather than solely focusing on the structures of good writing, a student

also needs to learn that writing, as a verbal behavior, invokes a response desired by the writer

from the audience, which is the reader.

There are multiple ways to implement the writer immersion tactic in the classroom. For

example, a portion of the day could be dedicated to having all communication conducted through

writing, where teachers and students are not allowed to vocally communicate. This can create an

establishing operation and the need-to-write; in order for a student to get what he or she wants,

he or she has to write it down so that a reader can deliver the specified reinforcer. For example, if

a student needs to sharpen his pencil he has to write, "Can I please sharpen my pencil,” and wait

for a teacher to respond in writing, “yes you may” (Greer & Ross, 2008).

Other procedures include delivering learn units in the context of writing a set of

directions to a task, and having a peer read the written directions and attempt to follow them.

This procedure continues until a peer reader completes the task with 100% accuracy on a novel

writing assignment on the first attempt. Writing structures must be accurate and the writing must

function to change the behaviors of the peer reader in order for a peer reader to correctly

accomplish the task. A writer recycles, or rewrites, his or her instructions until a reader can

accurately follow them. To increase the probability that a motivating operation is in place, some

studies have added the peer-yoked contingency tactic (Broto & Greer, 2014; Helou, Lai, &

Sterkin, 2007; Reilly-Lawson & Greer, 2006). This tactic can be implemented during writer

immersion in which both a writer and a peer reader access reinforcement once a peer reader has

!47

accomplished a task successfully based on a writer’s writing; hence, a writer and a reader are

yoked to a common social motivator.

In an early study, Madho (1993) focused on teaching the effects of writing with children

who have developmental delays. The pilot study of his dissertation sought to determine the

effects of students’ verbal behavior when a common written stimulus was provided in terms of

integrating the verbal behavior of the experimenter, peers, and participants self through mands,

tacts, intraverbals, and echoics. The study also investigated to what extent the students could use

writing to scribe their vocal behavior into written verbal behavior.

The experiment utilized a reversal design where during baseline sessions, all vocal

interactions were recorded and classified into operants — mands (pure and impure), tacts,

intraverbals, echoics or duplics, and talking to one self. During the intervention students were

told not to speak, but rather express their verbal operants in writing. Students gained the attention

of the experimenter by raising their hands and giving their paper to the experimenter who passed

it on to a peer. Vocal utterances were not allowed during the intervention sessions. Results from

this experiment suggested that given the appropriate conditions, participants generalized their

vocal behaviors into written behaviors. Doing this improved the functional and structural

responses of the participants. The significance of this pilot study for educators is that students

with developmental delays can use writing to communicate and interact with peers and teachers

and secondly, that by providing the appropriate conditions, students may improve their written

communication repertoire.

Madho's (1997) second experiment tested the effectiveness of a writer immersion

procedure on participants’ functional and structural writing. Participants were asked to write

!48

about an object (i.e. apple) without stating the name of the object. Subsequently, a naive adult

reader was asked to read the writing and provide feedback in written form. Writers edited their

work until they met 100% criterion on functional components of writing and the reader could

guess the object that was being described (a writer’s effect on the reader) using feedback

provided by the readers (a writer’s effect on a reader’s behaviors). This was seminal research in

the verbal behavior field because results showed a writer could change his or her behavior in

order to affect the behavior of a reader. It also showed that editing, which involved a reader’s

responses, caused a change in the behavior of a writer. Writers wrote and revised to affect the

behavior of a reader.

Marsico (1998) tested the functional relationship between self-editing math scripts

participants read to themselves and independence on math problems. Independently completing

math problems was measured by the latency of time between task initiation and seeking help or

stopping work, and the rate of correct and incorrect responses completed before stopping work or

seeking help. Participants were given the scripts to use while completing math instruction in a

group setting after they were taught to mastery on how to use the scripts. Participants worked in

a small group setting where 80% mastery criterion was achieved before the participants began

intervention. Post-intervention probes showed all participants had increased intervals of working

independently, increased rates of correct responding, and low incorrect rates of responding. In

her second experiment, she tested the generalization of the self-editing checklist with reading

objectives, and the self-editing checklist generalized effectively. These results showed substantial

increased intervals of time participants worked independently while their rates of correct

!49

responses increased. In addition, all participants shifted from using the script during treatment to

independently correcting their own work.

Reilly-Lawson and Greer (2006) and Helou, Lai, and Sterkin (2007) replicated and

expanded Madho’s writer immersion package and tested the effects of writer immersion and the

responses emitted by peer readers. Participants were chosen for this study due to their high

number of structural errors and inability to write functionally in order to affect the behavior of a

reader. The dependent measures were the percentage of accurate structural components written

during the pre- and post-experimental probes, the number of correct components drawn by a

reader based on participant’s writing during the pre- and post-experimental probes, the

percentage of accurate structural components written during the writer immersion intervention,

and the number of components completed by a reader during the writer immersion intervention.

The writer immersion intervention and the observation responses of a peer reader were used to

increase both accurate structural and functional components of written responses to a probe

picture and selected tasks. Results showed that the writer immersion procedure and the effect of

a peer reader’s responses to the participant’s writing functioned to increase accuracy in both the

structure and function of writing across all four participants.

Research on writing in mathematics instruction has shown that writing-to-learn strategies

resulted in an increase in student achievement as well as metacognitive skills. The problem with

using the term “metacognitive skills,” or skills that are learned, however, and the broad category

of academic achievement as measurements in the behavior analytic field is that they cannot be

directly observed and measured (Broto & Greer, 2014). Therefore, Broto and Greer (2014) tested

the effects of a functional writing protocol on the accurate functional and structural responses in

!50

mathematical algorithms written and read by six typically developing students using a delayed

pre- and post-experimental probe design. Participants wrote an algorithm on how to solve word

problems, and then observed a peer completing the steps written. A yoked- contingency game

board was implemented in which both participants and peers could move up on the game board if

a peer was able to solve the word problem based on a participant’s written algorithm. Results

showed an increase in the number of functionally accurate written algorithms written by the

writers as a function of the procedure.

More recently, Fas (2014) tested the effects of mastery of writing mathematical

algorithms on the emergence of complex problem solving. This was done in two experiments

using a time-lagged multiple probe design across matched pairs of participants. In Experiment 1,

six participants were selected because they were unable to write mathematical algorithms despite

mathematical proficiency. The dependent variables were pre- and post-algorithm instruction

probes, consisting of verbally governing algorithm probes and abstraction to complex problems.

Verbally governing responses were defined as a functional algorithm on how to complete the

mathematical problem. Abstraction to complex problems was defined as solving untaught

complex problems by applying learned algorithms. The independent variable was algorithm

instruction which consisted of two teacher antecedent models for less complex problems, using

an algorithm to complete the problem, then writing the algorithm, followed by learn units to the

participants who served as writers. A peer-yoked contingency was also implemented to teach the

functionality of writing algorithms by providing an establishing operation for participants.

In Experiment 2, the same procedure was implemented and tested with four new

participants. Results of the study showed all participants performed novel, more complex,

!51

mathematical skills and wrote functional algorithms for mathematical problems solved.

Participants’ overall mathematical skills increased from skill levels prior to algorithm instruction.

After serving as a writer, participants were able to solve two more complex mathematical

problems without receiving additional instruction.

Prior studies have focused on how to improve writing to effect the behavior of the reader

while Jodlowski (2000) conducted three experiments on the functional relations between peer

editing, teacher editing, and serving as a peer editor on student self-editing behaviors and

maintenance. Experiment 1 tested the effects of peer editing and compared it to the effects of

teacher editing on the acquisition of self-editing skills. Results from this experiment showed that

the peer editing package resulted in completion of essays with fewer learn units to criterion than

the teacher editor alone treatment. Self-editing probes resulted in fewer learn units to criterion

after the peer editing treatment than the teacher editing treatment.

Experiment 2 examined the relationship between a teacher editor and a peer editor,

however, the writer was not serving as an editor, but rather only receiving peer or teacher

feedback. Results from this experiment did not indicate a significant effect in the peer editor

treatment as compared to a teacher editor treatment. The effects seen in self-editing acquisition

did not maintain over time, and the effects seen in accuracy of self-editing skills were

inconsistent across students.

Experiment 3 examined the effects between a teacher editor and a peer editor while the

writer was serving as a peer editor. Data from Experiment III showed that essays were completed

in fewer learn units to criterion per week and the effect was maintained over time as an editor.

Effects seen in the accuracy of self-editing skills indicated that participants were more accurate

!52

in the self-editing process after the editing treatment than after the teacher editor alone treatment.

These effects on accuracy were maintained over time.

Rationale and Educational Significance

The summary of the relevant literature and research in the educational field suggests that

many teachers instruct using a content-based instruction while supplementing with various

instructional aids (i.e, teaching fictional writing using graphic organizers), rather than using

skills-based instruction (i.e, teaching the function and structure of writing). Educational

researchers found that peer-editors improved their own writing, while self-editors found more

errors in their writing but did not increase their functional writing repertoires (Diab, 2011;

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Rollinson, 2005; Sager, 1973; Teo, 2006). What was unaccounted for

in all of these studies, however, was a form of data collection and there was an insufficient

number of interactions between the editor and the peer. There was also a lack of precise

measurement on the behavior of the reader after the peer edited the writing.

In an attempt to measure and successfully teach writing, peer tutoring is a successful

tactic found in both educational and behavioral research (Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993).

Research in peer tutoring treatments shows that peer tutoring is as effective as teacher-directed

instruction (Greenwood, Dinwiddie, Terry, Wade, Stanley, Thibadeau, & Delquadri, 1984; Pigott,

Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986).

Further research in peer tutoring suggests that the tutor benefits as much as the tutee (Dineen,

Clark, & Risley, 1977; Greer & Polirstok, 1982, 1986). These results are supported by the

following experiment because I demonstrated that an editor functioning as a tutor could write

!53

more effectively and increase self-editing repertoires by providing consequences to peers

(tutees).

From a verbal behavior perspective, writing is a form of verbal behavior that is taught

effectively through teaching the function of writing (Madho, 1997; Skinner, 1957; Vargas, 1978).

Teaching functional writing allows writers to observe the effects of their writing to change the

behavior of the reader (Broto & Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Jodlowski,

2000; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-Lawson & Greer, 2006; Vargas, 1978). Research on

writing and editing in the field of behavior shows that, “the critical function of writing is that the

written extension of the writer affects the behavior of the reader” (Greer & Ross, 2008 p. 151).

Writing can be measured structurally and functionally, however, it is the functions of language

that must be emphasized.

The teaching of writing can be done in ways consistent with the science of behavior

whereby each response is provided a consequence and structure follows function. In the

beginning stages, “each product of writing should be read and responded to immediately by the

teacher functioning as the reader...the reader responds to what was written” (Greer & Ross,

2008). As writers become more effective, they affect the reader’s behaviors by needing fewer

revisions and corrections. Repertoires are strengthened by requesting through writing, classroom

activities, and materials, and the teacher or readers providing an immediate consequence. As the

writers develop their writing skills, one observes the evolution of what Skinner called “rule-

governed behavior” or what Vargas called “verbally governed behavior.” That is, “as verbal

behavior substitutes for direct contact with the non-verbal environment, the behavior of writing

becomes more abstract” (Greer & Ross, 2008, p. 151).

!54

Research in the behavior field utilizes the behaviors of the reader to develop the writing

skills of the writer. This approach is an extension of Skinner’s verbal behavior theory (Broto &

Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-

Lawson & Greer, 2006). All of these studies measured functional writing after the

implementation of a writer immersion treatment package. This intervention used a process of

teacher-provided feedback and a recycling process until criterion was met on a writing

assignment.

Jodlowski (2000) studied the effects of teacher editing, peer editing, and serving as a peer

editor while there was a teacher editor on self-editing skills. Results of this study showed that the

accuracy of self-editing skills after serving as a peer editor while the teacher edited a

participant’s work was greater than the other two conditions. These results were also maintained

over time.

Based on prior research on the writer immersion treatment package (Broto & Greer,

2014; Fas, 2014; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-Lawson &

Greer, 2006) and self-editing (Jodlowski, 2000), I examined the relationship between mastering

an editing intervention using a writing checklist on the number of accurate functional and

structural writing components as well as participants’ ability to self-edit. Prior research supported

a clear effect on the behavior of the writer when a peer editing treatment package was

implemented. An even stronger effect was demonstrated on the behavior of the writer when the

writer was editing another peer’s essay compared to when the writer only received feedback

from a peer (Jodlowski, 2000). A limitation in Jodlowski’s experiment, however, was that the

design of the experiments resulted in the teacher and peer providing feedback simultaneously

!55

while the target participant (the editor) was editing another peer’s essay. This did not isolate the

effects of the procedure to determine if self-editing skills increased as a result of editing alone.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to control for feedback on participants’ own

writing. This was done by having participants master an editing intervention rather than write or

simultaneously write and edit while peers and teachers provided feedback. Pre- and post-

intervention probes measured participants’ functional and structural writing repertoires as well as

self-editing skills. During the intervention, unlike prior research, the participant only served as an

editor to peer writers’ writing work. The experimenter provided feedback to the participant

through written learn units and in turn, the participant provided learn units to a peer writer. This

was done to isolate the effects of the mastery of the editing intervention on the correct functional

and structural writing repertoire and the self-editing skills.

Research Questions

The research questions addressed in this study are as follows:

1. Does the number of writing revisions (learn units to criterion) for technical writing

assignments decrease as a function of mastery of editing a peer’s writing assignments?

2. Does the role of serving as an editor to another peer’s writing assignments affect the behavior

of editing his or her own writing?

!56

CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENT

Method

Participants

Three females and five males between eight and nine years old were participants in this

study. Participants were typically developing, general education students, whose level of

academic responding ranged from grade level (demonstrating mastery of all third grade

objectives across reading, writing, and mathematics up until the onset of the study) to multiple

years above grade level (fourth grade level math achievement and fifth grade level reading

achievement). Participant 8 was the only student who did not perform at or above grade-level for

reading instruction at the onset of the study.

Participants were selected from a third grade inclusion classroom located in a public

elementary school. Participants were students in a classroom that utilized the CABAS®/AIL

(Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling/Accelerated Independent

Learner) model of teaching as applied behavior analysis (Greer, 2002; www.cabasschools.org).

Participants were students who had been in this educational model for 2 years and were

accustomed to working in small groups with a teacher or teaching assistant. They were also

accustomed to receiving learn units (Albers & Greer, 1991) across all academic subject areas. A

learn unit involves a generalized reinforcer such as a token economy system or teacher praise as

a consequence for correct responses, and a correction procedure for incorrect responses. This

tactic is characteristic of the CABAS®/AIL model classrooms.

!57

Participants took part in multiple daily classroom procedures including peer tutoring,

choral responding and response boards, and other standard procedures used in Accelerated

Independent Learner Classrooms (see Table 1 for a complete list). Participants received frequent

and contingent positive reinforcement, in the form of behavior-specific praise. A token economy

point system was contingently implemented for following rules and for emitting correct

academic responses. Points were traded in at various times throughout the day for leisure

activities such as reading books, building with blocks, working on a craft, or engaging in board

games.

Participants’ current level of educational achievement was measured using the beginning-

of-the-year assessments mandated by the school district. The Developmental Reading

Assessment, 2nd Edition (DRA2) was the district reading assessment used in all classrooms to

measure students’ reading fluency and comprehension every six to eight weeks. Students’ DRA2

scores ranged from Level 16 to Level 40, or the grade equivalent of first to fourth grade reading

levels in the classroom where the experiment occurred. Nineteen out of 23 students in the

classroom were at or above grade level in reading and mathematics. Participants also engaged in

other educational measures for academic subjects such as math, reading, spelling, and writing

using probe assessments with no feedback, as well as traditional educational measures, such as

tests where responses, either correct or incorrect, went without a consequence.

Pre-experimental screening tests were conducted on participants for an array of verbal

behavior developmental cusps and capabilities. These included the observational learning (OL)

of new operants in group and 1:1 settings (Greer & Ross, 2008), transformation of stimulus

function across saying and writing (Greer, Yaun, & Gautreaux, 2005), and the Naming capability

!58

in group and 1:1 settings (Greer, Stolfi, Chavez- Brown, & Rivera-Valdes, 2005). Participants

demonstrated all of the aforementioned cusps and capabilities as well as a number of other verbal

behavior developmental cusps prior to the onset of the study. For a complete list of academic and

verbal behavior development levels for each participant, please refer to Table 2.

Assessments on teacher and student behavior are frequently conducted using the Teacher

Performance Rate Accuracy (TPRA) in the CABAS®/AIL model classrooms. The TPRA is a

direct observation that measures the accuracy of instruction and student learning (Ingham &

Greer, 1992). It is used by teachers and supervisors to change student learning and teacher

behaviors by utilizing a measure that builds on the research in academic engaged time and

programmed instruction (Ingham & Greer, 1992). The TPRA is an integral component of teacher

training and evaluation in CABAS® schools. Feedback is provided immediately following the

completion of instruction on the completed TPRA. According to Ingham and Greer (1992), the

TPRA is an effective tool to measure the accuracy of instruction and student learning; their

findings proved that the TPRA increased teacher performance and, as a result, student

achievement improved. The TPRA is a useful tool for evaluating teacher and student behavior

because its primary unit of measure, the learn unit, builds on opportunities for the students to

respond to the learn units. For this study, the TPRA was used as a tool for inter-scorer agreement.

The experimenter also assessed the accuracy of the instruction being delivered for reliability-

checks during pre- and post-intervention probes.

The learn unit is the measurable unit used in CABAS® AIL classrooms. Greer (1994)

summarizes that the learn unit signifies both student and teacher performance and their relation

to each other. Research indicates that learn units have positive effects on student learning and it

!59

has also been proven that the more learn units delivered, the higher the students number of

correct responses. Learn units were chosen as the tactic for this study because participants

functioned as peer tutors who provided learn units during the intervention sessions. Once

participants mastered the editing intervention (delivered learn units accurately so that the peer

writer wrote to criterion), participants were considered to be effective in delivering learn units

(Greer, 1994).

Participants were selected for this study because they performed at or above grade-level

in reading, as measured by the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) except for

Participant 8 who was chosen by the experimenter to be included in the experiment. Participants

were also chosen because they did not emit criterion-level responding across the dependent

variables during their pre-intervention probe sessions. Participants did not have functional

writing skills for the four chosen subject areas of technical writing. They also lacked self-editing

skills. All participants could label their own academic and social behavior (self-monitor),

therefore it was understood that they could label functional and structural errors in their own

writing when given an algorithm. This was important to note because self-editing was partly

defined as labeling the errors in writing. Participants had the necessary skills to correctly emit

that behavior. Participants were matched for the multiple-probe design across two groups of

participants in numerical order (e.g. Participant 1 from group 1 was matched with Participant 5

from group 2). This was done to show the delay of the intervention in the graphs. For this study,

participants were the students who participated in the intervention procedure. Students who read

a participant’s writing during the pre- and post-intervention probe measures were referred to as

naive or peer readers. A different reader was used each time the participant rewrote a writing

!60

assignment. Students who served as writers during the intervention phases were referred to as

peer writers.

Table 1

AIL Standard Procedures Chart.

CABAS AIL® Standard Procedures and Tactics

Rules in Place Choral Responding/ Response Boards

Learning Pictures for Math and Reading for Each Student

Approvals for Rule Following (4 per minute) OSI Learn Unit Graphs for Teachers -

Graphed Daily

Names on Desk Peer Tutoring Learn Units to Meet an Objective for Teachers - Graphed Weekly

Token Economy (Point System) PSI TPRA Graphs for Teachers - Graphed Weekly

Back-up Reinforcers Differentiated Small Group Instruction

Decision Graphs For Teachers - Graphed Weekly

Transitions Graphed Between Groups and Lining Up

Data recorded for each Response Emitted By Every Student CABAS® Teacher Ranks Posted

Public Posting for Homework, Book Reports, etc…

Graphs for Self-Management and Decrease in Behaviors

Module Graphs for Teachers - Graphed Weekly

Comportment Permanent Product Book for Each Student

Class Wide Weekly Cumulative Objectives - Graphed Weekly

TPRA’s to Measure Teacher and Student Behavior AIL Class Summary Spreadsheet Class Wide Correct and Total

Learn Units - Graphed Weekly

Graphs available for Students with an IEP for Goals

Class Wide Correct and Incorrect TPRAs - Graphed Weekly

Fluency for Math and Reading (and graphs) Decision Protocol

Weekly Book Reports

!61

Table 2

Demographic and verbal development information for participants.

Participant 1 SB 2 CS 3 AM 4 OM 5 AA 6 ZB 7 MS 8 DB

Age 8.7 8.3 8.7 8.7 9.0 8.6 8.7 9.2

IEP N N N N N N N N

Free / Reduced

LunchN N N N Y Y N N

Naming ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓OL (1:1

and group)*

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

TSF Across Saying and

Writing✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Grade Level -

Math**4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Grade Level -

Reading (DRA

Score)***

34 30 40 40 30 30 30 28

Note: ✓ indicates cusp / capability was present at the onset of the study. *OL is Observational Learning **Grade Level for math indicates participants are currently working through the objectives for that grade. ***DRA was conducted at the beginning of the year. The DRA is the Developmental Reading Assessment that tests the reading fluency and comprehension repertoires of students. Grade-level equivalent is displayed by the score as a decimal (e.g. a score of “30” translates to “3.0" or beginning of third grade.

!62

Setting

The setting of the probe and intervention sessions took place in the participants’

classroom. Participants sat in child-sized chairs at a child-sized desk. The desks were grouped

together where students faced each other. The group was composed of 7-8 students. There were

three groups of desks in the classroom where all classroom instruction took place. Two groups of

desks were used for the experiment and were located in the center and the back of the classroom.

Students who did not participate in the study sat at the group of desks located at the front of the

room. The classroom library and leisure area were located in the front end of the classroom by

the windows. During assessments and intervention procedures, remaining students not

participating in the experiment were present in the classroom and received other writing

instruction provided by the teaching assistants. The entire classroom was silent. Participants, the

remaining students, and the experimenter and teaching assistants communicated through a

written topography on whiteboards.

Materials

Pre- and post-intervention Writing Materials

Pre- and post-intervention writing materials included multiple technical writing

assignments scripted from four academic subject areas and four checklists that were specific to

the type of subject area. The classroom was silent throughout the experiment, so participants

used a white board and a marker to write questions to the experimenter or teachers. The

experimenter and teaching assistants used their own white boards and markers to respond to

participant or student questions. Other materials used during the pre- and post-intervention probe

!63

measures included writer’s notebooks, pencils, and a data collection form designed specifically

for the study (please refer to Appendix B for the form). The data sheet was used during pre- and

post-intervention probe sessions as well as during intervention sessions. This form allowed the

experimenter to keep track of the correct and total functional and structural writing components

written and edited. The same form was used for interscorer agreement.

Functional Writing Checklists

Functional writing requirements were scripted by the experimenter from the four different

subject areas and all writing assignments were required to include eight functional writing

components in order to meet criterion. All checklists were printed on an 8.5” by 11” sheet of

paper with 12 point Times New Roman font as a table. The first column of the table had the

heading “Question" with the eight functional requirements defined in each cell down in a row.

The second column had the heading “Yes / No.” This was where participants were required to

write “Yes” or “No” when editing if he or she determined the answer to the question was or was

not present in the writing. The third column had the heading “Comments" where participants had

to provide written feedback in the form of reinforcement or a correction for that functional

writing component. All four types of functional writing checklists were organized in the same

way. Participants and peer writers had access and could utilize the checklist that corresponded to

the respective writing assignments throughout the experiment. Please refer to Table 3 for the

functional writing requirements for each subject area that participants and peer writers saw on

their checklist.

Structural Writing Checklist

!64

On the back side of each functional editing checklist was a structural editing checklist.

The checklist included six structural writing components required to be in each writing

assignment. The checklist was organized in the same way as the functional writing checklists.

The six structural writing rules were held constant throughout the experiment and were applied

to every piece of writing for each subject area. Please refer to Table 4 for the structural writing

requirements that participants and peer writers saw on their checklist.

Technical Writing Assignments

Writing assignments were printed on 8.5” by 11” white paper using 12 point Times New

Roman font and were printed in black and white. The writing assignments were scripted from the

New Jersey Common Core Content Standards in the areas on social studies, mathematics,

science, and speaking and listening in grades 3-5. All writing assignments included the necessary

information to meet the functional writing component requirements (e.g. the descriptive

assignments and the how-to assignments) or were already in repertoire (e.g. for the mathematics

and science assignments). Participants and peer writers had the opportunity to read through the

assignment for approximately 5-10 minutes before the experimenter took the assignment away.

Participants, peer readers, and peer writers did not have access to the writing assignment after the

experimenter took it away.

Technical Descriptive Writing Assignments. The technical descriptive writing

assignments included describing a sequence of historical events or detailed information about a

historical landmark in New Jersey. Examples included describing the history and significance of

the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, the Walt Whitman House, or Lucy the Elephant. The written

directions on the assignment were, “Read the following passage. In as much detail as you can,

!65

write so that another person can completely describe and understand the significance of this

historic NJ landmark. Happy writing!” Please refer to Table 3 for the functional writing

requirements required to be in each technical descriptive writing assignment.

Technical Mathematics Writing Assignments. The technical mathematics writing

assignments consisted of different mathematical algorithms scripted from the 3rd-5th grade

mathematics curriculum. Participants and peer writers were required to explain how to solve a

mathematical problem. Examples included how to calculate the volume of a prism, how to

subtract with regrouping, or how to solve an extended multiplication problem. The written

directions on the assignment were, “Read the following directions on how to calculate the

following math problem. In as much detail as you can, write so that another person, who doesn’t

know how to, can learn the algorithm. Happy writing!” Please refer to Table 3 for the functional

writing requirements required to be in each technical mathematic writing assignment.

Technical Science Writing Assignments. The technical science writing assignments

consisted of different life-cycles and other sequential science topics scripted from the 3rd-5th

science curriculum. Participants and peer writers were required to provide details and explain the

process or life cycles so that another individual could draw and provide a written explanation of

the process or life cycle. Examples included sequencing the life-cycle of a butterfly, a human, or

the planets. The written directions on the assignment were, “Read the following passage. In as

much detail as you can, write so that another person can draw and describe the life cycle /

process, too. Happy writing!” Please refer to Table 3 for the functional writing requirements

required to be in each technical science writing assignment.

!66

Technical How-To Writing Assignments. The technical how-to writing assignments

consisted of different sequential procedures where participants had to describe “how to”

complete a task or follow a direction. These assignments were scripted from the speaking and

listening curriculum. Examples included how to write a memo, how to make a flyer, or how to

complete a non-fiction book report. The writing instructions had the directions, “In as much

detail as you can, write so that another person can follow your written directions to complete a

task. Happy writing!” Please refer to Table 3 for the functional writing requirements required to

be in each technical how-to writing assignment.

Intervention Writing Materials

Intervention writing materials were the same as the pre- and post-intervention writing

materials except that the materials consisted of different writing assignments. When participants,

naive readers, or peer writers were not editing, reading, or writing, they completed other

independent classroom assignments during the intervention.

!67

Table 3

Functional writing components that were included in each version of the checklist. These are the

questions that participants and peers saw when they used the checklist.

Question Number

Descriptive Editing Questions on the

Checklist

Mathematics Editing Questions on the

Checklist

Science Editing Questions on the

Checklist

How-To Editing Questions on the

Checklist

1

Does the writing have an introductory

sentence that tells the reader what is being

written?

Does the writing tell the reader what you

are calculating?Same as the technical descriptive checklist

Same as the technical descriptive checklist

2

Does the writing have a concluding sentence

that sums up the information?

Does the writing tell you the materials you need to complete the

problem?



3

Does the writing describe who or what

(3 characteristics / details)?

Does the writing tell you the correct

operation(s) to use?



4

Does the writing describe when the object was built or

when the event took place (3 details)?

Does the writing have a step-by-step

procedure on how to solve the equation?

Does the writing describe what time of the year the lifecycle

takes place (3 details)?

Does the writing tell you the materials you need to complete the

directions?

5

Does the writing describe where the object was built or

where event took place (3 details)?

Does the writing give you an example about

how to solve the equation?

Does the writing describe where the life-cycle occurs (3

details)?

Does the writing describe why you need

to complete these directions (3 details)?

6Does the writing describe why this

object or event was important (3 details)?

Does the writing have the correct formula?

Does the writing include each step of

the life-cycle?

Does the writing have a step-by-step

procedure on how to complete the directions?

7

Does the writing describe how the object

or event became a historical landmark (3

details)?

Does the answer have units and does the

writing explain what the units are?*

Can you draw a picture (visualize) the correct order of the life-cycle with the information

written?

Does the writing give you an example about what the completed

steps look like?

8Is there a CLEAR

sequence in the writing (first, second, third)?




*Note: units were what was being measured in the equation. For example, if participants wrote on how to complete a money problem, the units were dollars and cents.

!68

Table 4

Structural writing components that were included in each version of the checklist. There are the

questions that participants and peers saw when they used the checklist.

Design

The current study included a multiple-probe design across two groups of four participants

(Horner and Baer, 1978). A multiple-probe design consists of simultaneous collection of initial

probe data for all participants. In order to vary probe phase lengths and the onset of the treatment

between the two groups, all participants began the probe period at the same time and then the

first group of four participants entered intervention. After the first group of four participants met

criterion on the intervention, the next group of four participants were re-probed before they

entered intervention. The two groups were arranged to control for instructional history and

maturation.

Question Number

Structural Editing Questions on the Checklist

1 Did the writing have complete sentences?

2 Did the writing have correct endings for words (subject-verb agreement) in each sentence?

3 Was there capitalization (beginning of sentence, names of places and people) in each sentence?

4 Was there punctuation (periods, question marks, exclamation points, commas) in each sentence?

5 Were all of the words spelled correctly (you may ask a teacher or use a dictionary) in each sentence?

6 Did the writing use different words to describe (not the same word all the time) in each sentence?

!69

Experimental Sequence

The experimental sequence was as follows: 1) The experimenter conducted pre-

intervention probe sessions with all participants which involved completing one how-to writing

assignment to measure the effects of the writing on the behavior of a naive reader (the number of

rewrites to criterion).; 2) The experimenter conducted pre-intervention probe sessions to test self-

editing by having participants write and edit six different writing assignments.; 3) The

experimenter began the editing intervention with the first group of four participants.; 4) After the

first group of four participants met mastery criterion for the editing intervention, the

experimenter conducted post-intervention probe sessions which involved completing one how-to

writing assignment to to measure the effect of the writing on the behavior of a naive reader (the

number of rewrites to criterion) as well as testing self-editing by having participants write and

edit six different writing assignments.; 5) Once the first group of participants demonstrated a

decrease in the number of rewrites until criterion and an increase in their self-editing repertoires,

the experimenter implemented the same experimental sequence for the second group of

participants. However, three more self-editing probe measures were given (for a total of nine

measures) for the second dependent measure; one measure for each type of writing assignment.

Figure 1 shows the experimental sequence. Please refer to Table 5 to determine what roles

participants and peers played during each phase of the experimental sequence.

!70

!

Figure 1. Experimental sequence for all participants.

Pre-Intervention

Intervention

Post-Intervention

All Participants

6 Technical writing assignments to test for accuracy of editing

own’s own writing

1 Technical writing assignment to affect behavior of reader - 5

rewrites to criterion

2 Descriptive / Science

2 Math

2 How-To

1 How-To

Group One (Participants 1-4) Group Two (Participants 5-8)


rewrites to criterion1 How-To

Teach editing marks to criterion

Target participants remain in intervention until criterion is met

(100% functional editing accuracy and 90% structural editing accuracy across two

consecutive writing assignments on the first attempt)

6 Technical writing assignments to test self-editing accuracy

across multiple writing assignments


rewrites to criterion


2 Math

2 How-To

1 How-To

Intervention

3 Technical writing assignments to test for accuracy of editing

own’s own writing


1 Math

1 How-To

!71

Table 5

This table shows the role participants and peers played during each phase of the experiment.

Pre- and Post-Intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables

Dependent variable 1: Number of Rewrites Until Criterion During Pre- and Post-intervention

Probe Measures

The first dependent variable consisted of the number of rewrites to criterion as measured

by the number of correct functional writing components a naive reader completed after reading a

participant’s writing. Participants were given a novel how-to writing assignment and a

corresponding checklist. These assignments were different from the self-editing writing

assignments. The experimenter also provided the written instruction, “Use your checklist to

Phase Participants Peers

Pre-Intervention Probe Dependent Variable 1

Served as a writer

Served as a reader to complete task / follow directions. *A new peer served as a reader for each

rewrite


Served as both the writer and self-editor

Intervention Served as an editor

Served as a writer. *The same writer was paired with the same

participant throughout the intervention


Served as a writer

Served as a reader to complete task / follow directions. *A new peer served as a reader for each

rewrite


Served as both the writer and self-editor

!72

answer the writing assignment,” and participants responded to the assignment in writing. They

were given one class period (a 40 minute session) to respond to the assignment. Once the writing

period was complete, the experimenter immediately made two copies of the participant’s writing,

checklist, and any other materials. On one set of the copied materials, the experimenter scored

correct and incorrect responses emitted by the naive reader. The other set of copied materials

were used by an independent observer for interscorer agreement.

Next, all of the original writing materials, including the materials needed to complete the

directions (i.e., a digital alarm clock or a map), a blank copy of the checklist, and the

participant’s writing were given to a naive reader. The naive reader then read the directions

written by the participant and attempted to follow them (e.g. used a pencil to draw where he or

she would walk on the map or attempt to set a digital alarm clock). While the participant was

observing the effects of his or her writing on the reader, the experimenter scored the number of

correct functional writing components on her copy of the checklist based on the number of

components on the checklist the naive reader completed. The functional components the naive

reader completed independently totaled the number of accurate functional components included

in the participant’s writing. The experimenter scored the structural components of the writing

after the participant finished observing the reader. If the participant needed to rewrite the

assignment, a different peer reader was used to test the effects of the writing on the behavior of

the reader.

Participants did not receive any written consequences from the experimenter during pre-

and post-intervention probe measures. Criterion for affecting the behavior of a reader was set at

!73

participants writing at 100% functional writing accuracy after one rewrite attempt. Please refer to

Table 6 for the writing topics given to each group of participants during these probe phases.

Dependent variable 2: Self-editing

The second dependent variable was self-editing as measured by the following

components; the number of functional and structural writing components that participants

provided a consequence for on the checklist, positive or corrective feedback that was written on

the checklist, and corresponding edits in the participant’s writing. Participants were given a

writing assignment and a corresponding checklist. The experimenter also provided the written

instruction, “Use your checklist to write about the writing assignment given.” The experimenter

did not provide any prior instruction as to how to use or reference the checklist or how to edit the

writing. Participants were given one class period (a 40 minute session) to compose the essay in a

written response. After the writing period was complete, the experimenter gave the written

instruction, “Take out your pen and edit your essay using your checklist. Make sure you fill out

your checklist as well.” Participants then edited their own paper using a pen to make edits where

functional and/or structural components were missing or where they thought more detail needed

to be added in the writing. Participants were also required to fill out the checklist that

corresponded with the writing assignment.

Next, the experimenter made two copies of the participant’s writing and completed

checklist. One set of copies were used for the experimenter to score, while the other set was used

by an independent observer for interscorer agreement. Self-editing was scored based on the

objective definitions of self-editing for functional and structural writing. The experimenter did

not provide feedback during pre- and post-intervention probe measures. Criterion for self-editing

!74

during pre- and post-intervention probe sessions was defined as whether the participant

accurately labeled the presence or absence of the writing component on the checklist, provided

feedback in the form of reinforcement or a correction on the checklist, and made the

corresponding edits in his or her writing assignment for each of his or her six writing

assignments with 80% accuracy for functional writing components and structural writing

components. Participants only wrote and self-edited each writing assignment one time. Please

refer to Table 7 for the writing topics given during this probe phase for both groups of

participants.

Table 6

Writing topics per group for the number of rewrites until criterion for pre- and post-intervention

phases.

Probe Group 1 Group 2

1 How-To Set an Alarm on a Digital Clock

How-To Play Candyland

2 How-To Set an Alarm on a Digital Clock

1 How-To Get to a Point of Interest on a Map

How-To Get to a Point of Interest on a Map

!75

Table 7

Writing topics given to each group of participants for the self-editing variable during pre- and

post-intervention phases.

Probe Group 1 Group 2

Description 1 Sandy Hook Lighthouse Lucy the Elephant

Mathematics 1

2X1 Multiplication Subtraction with Regrouping

How-To 1 How-To Memo How-To Make a Flyer

Science 2 Photosynthesis Life Cycle of a Frog

Mathematics 2

Volume of a Cube Addition with decimals and regrouping

How-To 2 How-to Write a Non-Fiction Book Report

How-to Write a Fiction Book Report

Description 3 Walt Whitman House

Mathematics 3

Place Value of Decimals

How-To 3 How-To Get to the Cafeteria

Post-Intervention

Probes

Description 1 Lucy the Elephant Sandy Hook Lighthouse

Mathematics 1

Subtraction with Regrouping 2X1 Multiplication

How-To 1 How-To Make a Flyer How-To Memo

Description 2 Life Cycle of a Frog Photosynthesis

Mathematics 2

Addition with decimals and regrouping

Volume of a Cube

How-To 2 How-to Write a Fiction Book Report How-to Write a Non-Fiction Book Report

!76

Definition of Correct Responses to Pre- and Post-Intervention Probes: Tests of the Dependent

Variables

There were two dependent variables measured in this experiment. Both dependent

variables were measured during pre- and post-intervention probe sessions. Participants and peers

participated in the pre- and post-intervention probe measures. Participants functioned as writers

for both dependent measures while peers functioned as naive readers for the number of rewrites

to criterion variable.

Dependent Variable I and Data Collection: Number of Rewrites Until Criterion During

Pre- and Post-Intervention Probe Measures. The number of pre- and post-editing intervention

rewrites until criterion was measured across one technical writing assignment for the first group

of four participants, and two different technical writing assignments for the second group of four

participants. Please refer to Table 3 for the functional writing components participants and peers

saw on their checklists that were required to be in each technical writing assignment. Please refer

to Table 4 for the structural writing requirements that participants and peers saw on their

checklist. Please refer to Table 6 for the writing topics given to each group of participants for the

pre- and post-intervention phases.

Rewrites stopped when a naive reader emitted 100% functional accuracy on a novel

attempt of performing or following the steps in the participant’s writing. This also meant that

participants wrote at 100% functional accuracy. During this probe measure, the number of

rewrites to criterion was capped at five rewrite attempts to simulate writing instruction and the

recycling process (Greer and Ross, 2008). An incorrect rewrite occurred when a naive reader did

not successfully follow the directions or complete the steps in the writing, while the participant

!77

observed. The probe session was terminated at five rewrites if participants did not rewrite his or

her writing assignment to 100% functional writing accuracy and 90% structural accuracy.

Writing assignments for the pre-intervention test of the number of learn units to criterion were

not counterbalanced.

Data for functional writing responses were recorded as the number of correct components

over the total number of functional components for that writing assignment. Functional writing

components were sentences or phrases in the writing that assisted the writer in affecting the

behavior of the reader. For a written piece to be effective, it had to control the behavior of a

reader. This meant that a reader had to successfully complete the task that was written, or, he or

she could follow a writer’s directions. A writing assignment was scored as having an incorrect

functional component if a reader could not complete the task or follow the written directions.

Data for accurate structural responses were recorded as the number of correct

components over the possible total components, and then calculated as a percentage for that

component in the writing assignment. An accurate structural component in writing occurred

when the target component was correctly used in each sentence. Structural components included

punctuation, capitalization, spelling, grammar (subject verb agreement), complete sentences, and

descriptive words (adjectives and adverbs) used. Punctuation measures included correct periods,

commas, apostrophes, colons, question marks, and exclamation points in the appropriate places.

Spelling measures included point-to-point correspondence with the phonemes of the words for

grade-level words. Capitalization measures included words at the beginning of each sentence and

all proper nouns. The correct use of lower-case letters were also measured. Grammar measures

included the correct subject-verb agreement scored by sentence. Complete sentences included a

!78

number of words with a finite noun and verb which tells the reader something. For example,

“First you write the larger number on the top,” is a complete sentence whereas, “2,039 write

this,” is not. Adjective and adverb measures were measured as: an adjective was a word which

served as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of thing being named, to indicate its quantity

or extent or to specify a thing as district from something else. An adverb was a word serving as a

modifier of a verb, adverb, preposition, phase, a clause or sentence, expressing some relation of

quality or manner, place, time, degree, number, cause, affirmation or denial. An incorrect

response for a structural writing component was defined as not including one of the defined

structural components or not having point-to-point correspondence with the given component in

each sentence.

Dependent Variable II and Data Collection: Self-Editing. Self-editing was measured

across six different technical writing assignments for the first group of four participants, and nine

different technical writing assignments for the second group of four participants. Please refer to

Table 3 for the functional writing components required to be in each technical writing

assignment that participants and peers saw on their checklist. Please refer to Table 4 for the

structural writing components that participants and peer writers saw on their checklist. Please

refer to Table 7 for the writing topics given to each group of participants during the self-editing

pre- and post-intervention probe phases.

Self-Editing for Functional Writing. A correct response for self-editing functional writing

components occurred when participants labeled (in a written topography) the presence or

absence of the component, made the corresponding edit on their writing assignment, and

provided feedback for the component on their checklist. For example, a self-edit for functional

!79

writing was considered as correct if the participant checked “Yes” on his or her checklist

(indicating he or she recognized the component in the writing), provided the appropriate

reinforcement in the “Comment” column of his or her checklist (i.e. “Yes, I did a great job

writing my introduction”), and included the writing component in his or her writing (as defined

objectively by the experimenter). A self-edit was also considered as correct if the participant

checked “No” on his or her checklist (indicating they recognized the component was not in the

writing), provided the appropriate correction in the “Comment” column of his or her checklist

(i.e. “I need to add an introductory sentence that states what I am going to write about”), and

went back and included the correction in his or her writing.

A self-edit for functional writing was considered as incorrect if the participant checked

“Yes,” on his or her checklist, when it was not included in his or her writing. A self-edit for

functional writing was also scored as incorrect if the participant checked, “No,” to a question on

the checklist the experimenter determined was included in the writing. A self-edit for functional

writing was also scored as incorrect if participants did not make the corresponding edit in the

writing. Finally, a self-edit for functional writing was scored as incorrect if participants did not

provide a consequence for his or her writing in the comment section of the editing checklist.

Self-editing for Structural Writing. Correct and incorrect responses for self-editing

structural writing components were scored in the same manner as functional writing components

except using the structural objective definitions. Please refer to Table 7 for objective definitions

of structural writing components.

Experimenters did not provide any consequences for self-editing during the pre- and post-

intervention probe sessions. Data for self-editing for functional writing components were

!80

recorded as the number of correct functional edits over the total number of functional

components on the corresponding data form (see Appendix B). The same data were recorded for

the self-editing for the structural writing components.

Independent Variable and Data Collection: Mastery of the Editing Intervention

The independent variable was the mastery of an editing intervention. An editing learn unit

for the intervention was defined as the participant labeling (checking “Yes” or “No” on the

corresponding checklist) the presence or absence of the functional or structural writing

component, providing a written consequence for the peer writer’s written verbal behavior, and if

applicable, making the corresponding edit on the peer’s writing assignment if the functional or

structural component was not included in the writing.

Participants and peer writers were taught five editing marks to criterion before the onset

of the intervention. Criterion for learning the editing marks was set at 90% accuracy in a single

session across all five marks. The five editing marks were: a paragraph mark (¶) which indicated

to start a new paragraph or to indent the paragraph; a carrot (^) which indicated to insert a letter,

word, phrase or sentence that was missing; a circle (o) around a punctuation mark indicating to

change, add or delete it; an underscore ( _ ) which indicated to capitalize a letter or to make the

letter lowercase; and a circle (o) around a word to change the spelling of that word. The

experimenter also reviewed the objective definitions of the functional and structural checklists.

Both the functional and structural writing components were in the participant’s repertoires, but

not necessarily in the peer’s repertoires. For example, all participants could vocally state what an

introduction was when they were asked by the experimenter.

!81

Next, the experimenter sat with the participant and his or her peer writer and vocally

explained the writing assignment to both students. Then, peer writers were given the technical

writing instruction, the corresponding checklist, and the written instruction, “Use your checklist

to answer the given assignment.” Peer writers were given one class period (a 40 minute session)

to respond in writing to the assignment. Peer writers were not told they were required to use the

checklist. Participants worked on other classroom assignments during the writing period.

Then, at the start of the next writing period, the experimenter gave the written direction to

participants, “Use the checklist to edit your peer’s writing. Remember to provide all your

feedback in writing (corrections and reinforcement) on the checklist and on the writing. When

you finish editing, please give the writing and the checklist back to me.” Participants edited the

peer’s writing using the editing marks they were taught. Participants were required to complete

the checklist and provide a consequence (reinforcement or correction) for the peer’s writing on

the editing checklist. Participants provided written feedback for the peer’s writing for both

functional and structural components.

The experimenter then made two copies of the peer’s writing with the participant’s

corrections and the checklist with the editing feedback. One copy was used for interscorer

agreement while the other copy was used for providing written feedback to the participant on his

or her editing. The experimenter independently scored the peer writer’s functional and structural

writing and the editing behaviors of the participant. The experimenter provided written

consequences on the editing and then gave the copy of the writing and the checklist with the

experimenter’s feedback back to the participant. Data for both individuals were marked on a

separate data sheet. The experimenter vocally discussed any questions the participant had about

!82

the feedback. Next, the participant went back and made any corrections to his or her editing and

feedback on the original writing and checklist. The participant gave the original writing

assignment and checklist back to the peer writer after he or she finished making his or her

corrections. The participant vocally explained the corrections given and answered any of the peer

writer’s questions. Peer writers never had access to the feedback given to the participant by the

experimenter. Peer writers also never received any direct feedback from the experimenter.

The experimenter provided learn units to the participant, who in turn, completed the

editing learn unit with the peer writer. The participant’s edits and feedback served as

consequences for the peer writer’s work. In turn, these consequences served as antecedents for

the peer writer to rewrite his or her essay. All consequences for the peer writer’s behavior were

provided in a written response from participants and then explained vocally. The experiment

controlled for only the participant consequating the peer writer with feedback provided by him or

her because the feedback given to the participant was provided by the experimenter on copies of

the writing. This was done to separate the behaviors of the participant from the experimenter.

Peer writers were rotated between participants after each intervention session.

Definition of Correct Responses During Intervention Sessions

Correct and incorrect responses were defined in the same manner as how functional and

structural editing were defined in the pre- and post-intervention probes. However, pre- and post-

intervention probes measured self-editing while the intervention measured the editing of a peer

writer’s writing.

Criterion for the mastery of the intervention was when a peer writer wrote at 100%

functional and 90% structural accuracy on the first attempt across two consecutive writing

!83

assignments. This meant that the participant mastered the editing intervention for both functional

and structural editing. Table 8 shows an example of learn unit presentations and the operant

components during intervention session.

!84

Table 8

Example of learn unit sequence and the operant components during intervention session.

Event Operant Components

1. Peer writer is given an essay topic with the directions

First peer writer instruction

2. Peer writer responds with written verbal behavior

First peer writer behavior

3. Peer writer gives paper to the participant First participant instruction

4. Participant responds with written consequences (on essay and checklist) for functional and structural components

First participant behavior, first peer writer consequence

5. Experimenter provides feedback on separate copy of writing and checklist to the participant. The participant goes back and makes corrections on original writing and checklist

Consequence for participant and antecedent for participant to make changes to his or her editing

6. The participant returns essay to the peer writer with feedback and peer writer rewrites essay to include corrections given by participant

Next peer writer behavior

7. Peer writer returns paper to the participant Next participant instruction and consequence from first edit

8. The participant responds with written consequences (on essay and checklist) for functional and structural components and gives feedback to the peer writer*

Next participant behavior, next peer writer consequence

*This continues until the participant and peer writer meet 100% accuracy on functional and structural components

!85

Post-intervention Tests of the Dependent Variables

After participants met criterion on the intervention, post-intervention probes for both

dependent variables were conducted. Post-intervention probe sessions were identical to pre-

intervention sessions, except that writing assignments used for the self-editing writing

assignments were counterbalanced. That is, the self-editing writing assignments that were given

to the first group of participants during the pre-intervention probes were given to the second

group of participants during post-intervention probes and visa versa. Writing assignments given

to participants during the post-intervention probes on the number of learn units to criterion

dependent variable were the same for all participants.

Interscorer Agreement

Interscorer agreement was determined by an independent scorers’ ability to accurately

score a participant’s writing and editing during all phases of the experiment. Scorers were naïve

to the objectives of the study as well as if the writing was used for pre- or post-intervention

measures. A plus (+) was recorded for each correct functional or structural component included

in the number of rewrites to criterion phase, each correct edit made by the participant in the self-

editing measures, and each correct edit made by the participant during the intervention. A minus

(-) was recorded if the participant did not complete any of the previous correct responses. Table

11 shows the mean interscorer agreement (ISA) and the range calculated for every participant

during each phase of the study. ISA was calculated for each phase by dividing the number of

point-by-point agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying

this number by 100%. Functional and structural writing scores and editing scores were combined

!86

when calculating ISA. Interscorer agreement was conducted by the teaching assistants in the

classroom as well as teachers and teaching assistants in other CABAS® AIL classrooms. The

independent scorers were trained to criterion and could reference the objective definitions of the

behaviors on how to accurately score the writing assignments. The independent scorers scored all

writing on separate copies from the original writing and the experimenter’s copies. Please refer

to Table 9 for the operational definitions for every functional writing component across each

subject area included on the checklist the experimenter and independent scorers referenced while

scoring during pre- and post-intervention measures and intervention sessions. Please refer to

Table 10 for the operational definitions for each structural writing component included on the

checklist the experimenter and independent scorers referenced while scoring during pre- and

post-intervention measures and the participants editing during the intervention sessions.

Interscorer agreement was conducted for a mean of 88.5% of the sessions with a range of

75-96% during the pre-intervention phase of number of rewrites until criterion. Interscorer

agreement was conducted for a mean of 100% of the sessions with a range of 100% during the

pre-intervention self-editing phase. Interscorer agreement was conducted for a mean of 80.5% of

the sessions with a range of 75-86% during the intervention. Interscorer agreement was

conducted for a mean of 96% of the sessions with a range of 89-89% during the post-intervention

phase of number of rewrites until criterion. Interscorer agreement was conducted for a mean of

91.5% of the sessions with a range of 83-96% during the post-intervention self-editing phase.

Mean and range of interscorer agreement for individual participants are found in Table

11. Interscorer agreement was below 80% for some participants because all other independent

!87

scorers were typically busy implementing writing instruction for the remaining students in the

classroom. Interscorer agreement was often completed after school hours.

Table 9

Operational definitions for each functional writing component across each subject area included

on the checklist the experimenter and independent scorers referenced while scoring the writing

of the participants during pre- and post-intervention measures and editing during the

intervention sessions.

!88

Question Number

Operational Definition of Editing Questions

for Descriptive Checklist

Operational Definition of Editing Questions

for Mathematics Checklist

Operational Definition of Editing Questions for Science Checklist

Operational Definition of Editing Questions for How-To Checklist

1

Did the writing include 1-2 sentences that

introduced the topic including the main

idea?


introduced the problem the writer was

explaining how to solve?

Same as the technical descriptive definition


2


summarized what was written about?

Did the writing include all of the materials needed to solve the

problem?



3

Did the writing include 3 distinct

characteristics (internal or external) about the object or event so the reader can understand

what it looks like (writers used their 5

senses to describe the object or event)?

Did the writing include the correct operation(s) for the reader to solve

the problem?



4


characteristics about when the object was

built, or when the event took place so the reader can understand why the

object or event was significant?

Did the writing include every step to solve the problem so readers can perform the problem

independently without prior instruction?


characteristics about what time of year the lifecycle occurs so the reader can understand why this time of year is significant to the

lifecycle?

Same as the technical mathematic definition

5


characteristics about where the object was

built, or where the event took place so the reader can understand why the location of the

object or event was significant?

Did the writing include an example of the

operation(s) and the step-by-step directions

so the reader has a model to work from?


characteristics about where the lifecycle

occurred so the reader can understand why the location of the

lifecycle was significant?


characteristics about when an individual

completed the directions so the reader

can understand why this was significant?

6


characteristics about why the object was

significant, or what the impact of the event

was?

Did the writing include an example of the

operation(s) (not in words) with the correct formula so the reader could model his or her

problem after a positive exemplar?

Did the writing include a step-by-step process of the life-cycle and

how the animal transformed?


!89

7


characteristics about how the object or event became a landmark or

significant date in history?

Did the writing include units that described the answer to the problem?

Did the writing include the sequence of the

life-cycle in the correct order so the reader can

draw the life-cycle? *Note: this step will

not be marked as correct if any of the previous functional writing components

were missing.


8

Did the writing include an introductory paragraph, body

paragraphs, and a conclusion paragraph? Did the writing flow?

Were all of the previous functional

components answered? *Note: this step will

not be marked as correct if any of the previous functional writing components

were missing.




*Note: units were what was being measured in the equation. For example, if participants wrote on how to complete a money problem, the units were dollars and cents.

!90

Table 10

Operational definitions for each structural writing component included on the checklist the

experimenter and independent scorers referenced while scoring the writing of the participants

during pre- and post-intervention measures and editing during the intervention sessions.

Interobserver Agreement

A second independent observer, naïve to the experimental objectives, provided

interobserver agreement for the number of rewrites until criterion pre- and post-intervention

probe measures. The independent observer was trained by the experimenter on identifying the

functional components of the written assignments, recording correct and incorrect responses for

the writing assignments, and recording the number of rewrites needed. The functional

Question Number

Operational Definitions of Structural Editing Questions Experimenters Used

1 Did each sentence have a subject and corresponding predicate?

2 Did each sentence have subject-verb agreement?

3Did each sentence have appropriate capitalization (e.g. beginning of sentences and

all proper nouns)?

4 Did each sentence have appropriate punctuation (e.g. end of sentences, apostrophes, commas, and quotation marks)?

5 Did each sentence have correct grade-level spelling?

6 Did each sentence use different descriptive words so that they were repeated?

!91

components of each written assignment were scored using a score sheet (Appendix B). Data

were compared for point by point agreements and subtracted by the number of disagreements.

The results were then divided by the total number of opportunities for agreement. The percentage

of agreement was calculated by multiplying the figure by 100. Permanent products of probe

sessions were also scored by an independent observer in the same manner. Interobserver

agreement for all experimental sessions was 95% with a range of 87%-98%.

!92

Table 11

Mean interscorer agreement (ISA) and the range calculated for each participant during each

phase of the study. Functional and structural writing scores and editing scores were combined

when calculating ISA.

Participant 1 SB 2 CS 3 AM 4 OM 5 AA 6 ZB 7 MS 8 DB

Pre-Intervention

Rewrite Until

Criterion

86% 91% 93% 88% 93% 82% 84% 91%

Range 82-90% 86-96% 81-95% 80-90% 85-94% 75-89% 77-90% 82-94%

Pre-Intervention

Editing Essays

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Range 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Intervention 82% 85% 82% 81% 75% 83% 86% 82%

Range 80-84% 85-90% 78-88% 74-87% 70-82% 80-87% 79-92% 74-85%

Post-Intervention

Rewrite Until

Criterion

97% 98% 95% 98% 96% 96% 94% 95%

Range 95-99% 96-99% 90-99% 95-99% 87-99% 90-99% 91-98% 89-98%

Post-Intervention

Editing Essays

92% 89% 90% 93% 91% 93% 92% 93%

Range 87-96% 86-92% 82-95% 89-98% 85-97% 88-96% 83-95% 84-94%

*The mean interscorer agreement included both functional writing components and structural writing components.

!93

Results

Results are shown in Figures 2-11,

Figure 2 shows the number of rewrites to criterion for the technical writing assignment(s)

for pre- and post-intervention probe sessions. The rewrites to criterion was capped at five

rewrites to criterion across pre- and post-probe sessions for all participants. During pre-

intervention probe measures, none of the participants met criterion on affecting the behavior of

the reader. During post-intervention probe measures, Participant 4 did not need to rewrite his

essay, while Participants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 rewrote their essays one time to meet criterion.

Participant 8, an outlier, rewrote his essay 3 times in order to meet criterion. This was attributed

to Participant 8 performing slightly below grade-level in reading and reading comprehension.

!94

! !

! !

Figure 2. The number of rewrites to criterion for the technical writing assignments for pre- and

post-intervention probe sessions for each participant. Participants from group 1 are matched with

participants from group 2 to show the delay of the intervention.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-Intervention Probe Post-Intervention Probe

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-Intervention Probe 1


Post-Intervention Probe

Session

Num

ber o

f Rew

rites

Unt

il C

riter

ion

for F

unct

iona

l W

ritin

g

Participant 1

Participant 5

0

1

2

3

4

5


0

1

2

3

4

5




Session N

umbe

r of R

ewrit

es U

ntil

Crit

erio

n fo

r Fun

ctio

nal

Writ

ing

Participant 3

Participant 7

0

1

2

3

4

5


0

1

2

3

4

5




Session

Num

ber o

f Rew

rites

Unt

il C

riter

ion

for F

unct

iona

l W

ritin

g

Participant 2

Participant 6

0

1

2

3

4

5


0

1

2

3

4

5




Session

Num

ber o

f Rew

rites

Unt

il C

riter

ion

for F

unct

iona

l W

ritin

g

Participant 4

Participant 8

0

!95

Figure 3 shows the number of correct functional components during the pre- and post-

intervention probe sessions for each rewrite where participants wrote to affect the behavior of a

peer reader. The mean number of correct responses during pre-intervention probe measures for

this variable was 1.10 with a range of 0-3 correct responses per writing session for all

participants. The mean number of correct responses during post-intervention probe measures for

this variable was 6.5 with a range of 5-8 correct responses per writing session for all participants.

!96

! !

! !

Figure 3. The number of correct functional components during the pre- and post-intervention

probe sessions for the initial writing and each subsequent rewrite where participants wrote to

affect the behavior of a peer reader. Participants from group 1 are matched with participants from

group 2 to show the delay of the intervention.

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal W

ritin

g C

ompo

nent

s Pe

r Rew

rite

Session

Participant 1

Participant 5

0 0

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal W

ritin

g C

ompo

nent

s Pe

r R

ewrit

e

Session

Participant 2

Participant 6

0

0

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Session

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal W

ritin

g C

ompo

nent

s Pe

r Rew

rite

Participant 4

Participant 8 0 0 0

0 0 0

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0

2

4

6

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Session

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal W

ritin

g C

ompo

nent

s Pe

r R

ewrit

e

Participant 3

Participant 7 0

!97

Figures 4-7 show the number of correct edits to his or her own functional writing each

participant made during the pre- and post-intervention probe sessions. Participants 1-4 wrote and

edited 6 of their own essays (2 of each descriptive, math, and how-to), while Participants 5-8

wrote and edited 9 of their own essays (3 of each descriptive, math, and how-to) during pre-

intervention probe sessions. All participants wrote and edited six of their own essays (2 of each

descriptive, math, and how-to) during post-intervention probe sessions. Participants 1-8 did not

accurately edit any of the functional writing components during pre-intervention probe sessions.

This was attributed to how the experimenter defined editing. The mean number of correct

functional components edited was 6.35 with a range of 2-8 correct responses per editing session

for all participants during post-intervention probe sessions. Although all participants did not meet

criteria on the self-editing dependent measure, they did significantly increase their self-editing

skills.

!98

!

Figures 4-7. The number of correct self-edits for functional writing each participant made during

the pre- and post-intervention probe sessions. Participants 1-4 wrote and edited 6 of their own

essays (2 of each descriptive, math, and how-to), while Participants 5-8 wrote and edited 9 of

their own essays (3 of each descriptive, math, and how-to) during pre-intervention probe

sessions. All participants wrote and edited 6 of their own essays (2 of each descriptive, math, and

0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1 Descriptive 2 Descriptive 1 Descriptive 2 0

2

4

6

8

Math 1 Math 2 Math 1 Math 2

0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

Descriptive 3

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

0

2

4

6

8

Math 1 Math 2 Math 3 Math 1 Math 2

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Session

Session

0

2

4

6

8

How-To 1 How-To 2 How-To 1 How-To 2

0

2

4

6

8

How-To 1 How-To 2 How-To 3 How-To 1 How-To 2

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Session

Participant 1

Participant 5

Participant 1

Participant 5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

Participant 1

Participant 5

!99

how-to) during post-intervention probe sessions. Participants from group 1 are matched with

participants from group 2 to show the delay of the intervention.

!100

!

Figure 5. The number of correct self-edits for functional writing Participants 2 and 6 made


0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8


2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

Descriptive 3

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

0

2

4

6

8


Session

Session Session

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Participant 2

Participant 6

Participant 2

Participant 6

Participant 2

Participant 6

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

!101

!



0

2

4

6

8


2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

Descriptive 3

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8


Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Session

Session Session

Participant 3

Participant 7

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

Participant 3

Participant 7

Participant 3

Participant 7

!102

!



0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1 Descriptive 2 Descriptive 1 Descriptive 2

0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

Descriptive 3

Descriptive 1

Descriptive 2

0

2

4

6

8


0

2

4

6

8


Session

Session

Session

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal C

ompo

nent

s Edi

ted

Participant 4

Participant 8

Participant 4

Participant 8

Participant 4

Participant 8

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

!103

Figures 8-11 These graphs show the cumulative number of learn units per writing

assignment participants provided to peer writers during the intervention. From these data, it is

speculated that overall, the more learn units participants provided during the intervention

sessions, the fewer rewrites it took participants to meet criterion on the dependent variable of

affecting the behavior of a reader. The exceptions were Participants 1, 2, and 5 who were

determined to be above grade level across all academic areas based on standardized tests given at

the onset of the school year as well as the verbal developmental cusps and capabilities that were

in repertoire. The other exception was Participant 8 who was below grade level across all

academic areas based on standardized tests given at the onset of the school year as well as the

verbal developmental cusps and capabilities he had in repertoire. Participant 8 was also paired

with a peer who did not need many editing learn units in order to master the intervention.

!104

Figure 8. These graphs show the cumulative number of learn units per writing assignment

Participants 1 and 2 provided to peer writers during the intervention.

Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t / In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Writing Assignment / Intervention Session1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es

Per W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t / In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26


Cumulative Number of Correct Editing Responses

Participant 1

Participant 2

!105



Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t /

Inte

rven

tion

Sess

ion

02468

101214161820222426


Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t /

Inte

rven

tion

Sess

ion

02468

101214161820222426



Participant 3

Participant 4

!106



Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t /

Inte

rven

tion

Sess

ion

02468

101214161820222426


Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t /

Inte

rven

tion

Sess

ion

02468

101214161820222426



Participant 5

Participant 6

!107



Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es

Per W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t / In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26


Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Cor

rect

Edi

ting

Res

pons

es P

er W

ritin

g A

ssig

nmen

t /

Inte

rven

tion

Sess

ion

02468

101214161820222426



Participant 7

Participant 8

!108

Figure 12 shows the intervention graphs for participants. Intervention consisted of how

many sessions participants edited until they met criterion. The mean number of sessions

participants completed the intervention in was 10.75 sessions with a range of 6-18 sessions.

Participant 5 met criterion on the intervention within 6 sessions and 3 phases, which was the

shortest time it took to master the intervention. Participant 7 met criterion on the intervention

within 18 sessions and 7 phases, which was the longest time it took to master the intervention.

!109

!

Figure 12. The intervention graphs of the participants. Data consisted of how many times the

participant edited until her or she met criterion. Criterion for the intervention occurred when the

peer writer wrote at 100% functional accuracy and 90% across all structural writing components

on the first attempt across two consecutive novel writing assignments.

0

2

4

6

8

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Per

In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

Session

0

2

4

6

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Pe

r Int

erve

ntio

n Se

ssio

n

Participant 2

Participant 6

0

2

4

6

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Pe

r Int

erve

ntio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Per

In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

Session

Participant 1

Participant 5

0

2

4

6

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Pe

r Int

erve

ntio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Per

In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

Session

Participant 3

Participant 7

0

2

4

6

8

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Pe

r Int

erve

ntio

n Se

ssio

n

0

2

4

6

8

Num

ber o

f Acc

urat

e Fu

nctio

nal E

dits

Per

In

terv

entio

n Se

ssio

n

Session

Participant 4

Participant 8

!110

Appendix C includes two tables that show the mean percentage of correct functional

components as a writer during the rewrites until criterion phase for participants 1-4 and 5-8,

respectively. Appendix C also includes a table that shows the means of accurate functional

writing components as a writer and editor during pre-intervention, intervention, and post-

intervention sessions for each group of participants as well as the number of accurate structural

components edited during intervention phases per group.

It is also evident from the results of this experiment that there is a significant effect on

each participant’s own writing and editing when those students function solely as editors to

peer’s writing work. The increases in the number of accurate functional writing components in

participant writing, as well as self-editing skills are especially important and data suggest that an

intervention treatment designed to edit another student’s work may be protocol used to establish

conditioned reinforcement for more complex verbal developmental cusps involving writing. This

treatment package also has implications to be an efficient way to teach writing skills and to be

the beginnings of a writing curriculum that is objective and measurable.

A limitation in Jodlowski’s (2000) experiment was that the design of the experiments

resulted in the teacher and peer providing feedback simultaneously while the target participant

(the editor) was editing another peer’s essay. This did not isolate the effects of the procedure to

determine if self-editing skills increased as a result of editing alone. Therefore, the objective of

this study was to control for feedback on the participants’ own writing. This was done by having

participants master an editing intervention rather than write or simultaneously write and edit

while peers and teachers provided feedback. However, unlike prior research, the participant only

served as an editor to peer writers’ writing work during the intervention. The experimenter

!111

provided feedback to the participant through written learn units and in turn, the participant

provided learn units to a peer writer. This intervention, which controlled for feedback given to

participants on his or her own writing, served to increase writing skills as well as self-editing

behaviors.

Overall, all eight participants demonstrated an increase in the number of accurate

technical functional skills. Participants also completed essays with fewer learn units to criterion

in post-intervention probes compared to the pre-intervention probes where participants did not

affect the behavior of a reader within five sessions. Participant 4 showed the strongest effect

during the post-intervention probe measures on the number of rewrites to criterion. This

participant did not have to rewrite her essay in order for the peer reader to complete the writing

task at 100% functional accuracy. Participant 8 showed the least effect during the post-

intervention probe measure on the number of rewrites to criterion. This participant had to rewrite

his essay 3 times before the peer reader completed the task at 100% functional accuracy. Further

speculation as to why Participant 8 did not meet criteria on the number of rewrite until criterion

will be discussed in the discussion.

All eight participants also demonstrated an increase in the number of accurate functional

writing and structural writing self-editing skills. Data collected on pre-intervention probe

measures on self-editing repertoires showed that all participants did not self-edit according to the

definition of this study. Participants were required to label the presence or absence of the

functional or structural writing component on their checklist, provide a consequence for that

component on the checklist, and if needed, make the corresponding edit in his or her permanent

product in order for a self-edit to be considered correct. The data show that Participants 2 and 4

!112

had the strongest effect during post-intervention probe measures on self-editing while Participant

8 showed the least effect. Overall, participants self-edited the how-to / science writing

assignments more accurately then the other two types of assignments. Participants least

effectively self-edited the social studies (descriptive) essays. This discrepancy is attributed to the

difficulty of the writing assignments and the functional components that were required for that

particular type of writing. For example, the how-to / science writing assignments asked for a

step-by-step sequence on how to complete a direction, follow a routine, or describe the life-cycle

of an animal, while the descriptive writing assignments were less “functional” and required three

details per functional component on a social studies objective and were taught through reading

comprehension.

Table 12 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of correct functional components on

the first attempt of the first dependent measure during the pre-intervention probe measure

compared to the number of intervention sessions needed to meet criterion compared to the

number of correct functional components on the first attempt of the first dependent measure

during the post-intervention probe measure. Table 12 also shows the number of times

participants had to rewrite his or her essay during the pre- and post-intervention probe measures.

Participants 3, 4, and 6 support the speculation that the more learn units provided to peer writers

on editing (or the more intervention sessions needed to meet criterion), the higher the number of

correct functional writing components emitted on the first attempt of the dependent measure of

affecting the behavior of a reader.

!113

Table 12

Side-by-side comparison of the number of correct functional components on the first attempt of

the first dependent measure during the pre-intervention probe measure compared to the number

of intervention sessions needed to meet criterion compared to the number of correct functional

components on the first attempt of the first dependent measure during the post-intervention probe

measure.

Participant

Number of Correct

Functional Components

Emitted on the First Attempt of Pre-Intervention Probe Measure

Number of Rewrites Until

Criterion During Pre-Intervention Probe Measure

Number of Intervention

Sessions Participants

Received Learn Units

Number of Correct Functional

Components Emitted on the

First Attempt of Post-Intervention Probe Measure

Number of Rewrites Until

Criterion During Post-Intervention Probe Measure

1 1 5 3 6 1

2 1 5 3 7 1

3 1 5 8 6 1

4 0 5 8 8 0

5 0 10* 3 7 1

6 1 10* 7 6 1

7 1 10* 11 5 1

8 0 10* 3 4 3

*Note: The second group of four participants received an additional probe measure before entering intervention.

!114

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION

Based on prior research on the writer immersion treatment package (Broto & Greer,

2014; Fas, 2014; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Reilly-Lawson &

Greer, 2006) and editing (Jodlowski, 2000), I examined the relationship between mastering an

editing intervention using a writing checklist on the number of accurate functional and structural

writing components as well as participants’ ability to self-edit. Prior research supported a clear

effect on the behavior of the writer when a peer editing treatment package was implemented. An

even stronger effect was demonstrated on the behavior of the writer when the writer was editing

another peer’s essay compared to when the writer only received feedback from a peer

(Jodlowski, 2000).

During the pre-intervention phase, the five attempts to rewrite after observing the

behavior of the reader did not punish the number of correct functional writing components for

participants. These data show that participants in this study already had conditioned

reinforcement for observing the effects of their writing on the behavior of a reader. This will be

further discussed in terms of verbal behavior and the acquisition of behavioral cusps. Through

the peer-editing intervention, all participants acquired the functional writing repertoires to

accurately affect a behavior of the peer reader within five rewrite sessions in post-intervention

probe measures. The following section will present an analysis and discussion of the results

found in the experiment. The findings from this experiment will be related to the literatures of

both behavior analysis and research in education. Limitations and suggestions for future research

!115

will be discussed, followed by a conclusion and the educational impact of the results from this

experiment.

Major Findings

Verbal Behavior

The behavioral methodology for teaching language and writing is the verbal behavior

model (Skinner, 1957). The literature in verbal behavior theory demonstrated that writing is a

form of verbal behavior which can be taught effectively though behavioral techniques and

writing treatment packages (Broto & Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014; Frank, 1992; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin,

2007; Jodlowski, 2000; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Monahan, 1984; Reilly-Lawson & Greer,

2006; Skinner, 1957; Vargas, 1978). These researchers found that a reader affected a writer’s

behavior and a writer would change his or her behavior to satisfy a reader. Behavioral

researchers have addressed the challenge of having students review and rewrite effectively by

having the reader ask the writer specific questions. In this way, the revising process does not

become a mechanical process of fixing errors and changing single words, but rather, the writer

will address specific issues which are unclear or omitted in the essay.

The results of this experiment are consistent with these findings in that the peer writers

revised effectively when presented with specific editing feedback given by participants. This

research was also expanded because a participant’s writing was measured prior to and after

mastery of an editing intervention, and results showed that the participant’s writing repertoire

increased to affect the behavior of the reader in fewer learn units to criterion. Participants also

self-edited their own writing work more efficiently than in pre-intervention probe measures. This

experiment demonstrated that when participants were provided feedback on their editing, and

!116

tutored another student in the writing and editing process, participants were more effective in

completing essays in fewer learn units to criterion and acquired self-editing skills more quickly

(Jodlowski, 2000).

What distinguishes this study from other research on behavioral techniques and writing

treatment packages (Broto & Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014; Frank, 1992; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007;

Jodlowski, 2000; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998; Monahan, 1984; Reilly-Lawson & Greer, 2006;

Skinner, 1957; Vargas, 1978) is that it was speculated that participants in this experiment already

had conditioned reinforcement for writing to affect the behavior of a reader. In previous studies

(Broto & Greer, 2014; Fas, 2014; Helou, Lai, & Sterkin, 2007; Madho, 1997; Marsico, 1998;

Reilly-Lawson & Greer, 2006), a social contingency (a yoked-contingency game board) was

used as a motivational tool / reinforcement system to yoke students together in order to receive a

common reinforcer (complete the writing task successfully in order to access reinforcement). A

yoked-contingency was not used in this experiment. Participants were selected for this

experiment based on their grade-level performance in reading and mathematics instruction (all

students with the exception for Participant 8 were at or above-grade level) and pre-intervention

probe measures which suggested participants had the social reinforcer in place of affecting the

behavior of the reader. However, these pre-intervention probe measures did not show

participant’s had conditioned reinforcement for editing. Figure 3 shows the number of correct

functional components during the pre- and post-intervention probe sessions for the initial writing

piece and each subsequent rewrite where participants wrote to affect the behavior of a peer

reader. These data suggest that a participant’s writing was not punished for emitting an incorrect

response (overall, correct responses to the functional writing assignment did not extinguish,

!117

correct responses just did not increase). These data may support why participants showed

conditioned reinforcement for affecting the behavior of the reader as suggested by the

experimenter. These data show that participants did not meet criteria in the amount of time given

(five recycles). Perhaps these data are an indicator that if students in general education or

inclusive settings have conditioned reinforcement for observing the behavior of a reader, a new

protocol has been developed to condition reinforcement for editing a peer’s writing as well as

student’s own writing.

Verbal behavior developmental trajectory (VBDT) research has led to empirical evidence

of collateral behaviors that result as a function of the acquisition of certain cusps and certain

capabilities. VBDT also identifies many writing cusps (technical writing affects reader’s

behavior, aesthetic writing affects emotions, writing as self-editing, textually responding for

complex operations (solving problems is verbally mediated), and writing governs complex

operations of others) (Greer & Ross, 2008). In VBDT, the earlier writing cusps are often induced

using a writer immersion treatment package, but further research in writing has not been

conducted on the acquisition of the later writing cusps (writing as self-editing, textually

responding for complex operations, and writing governs complex operations of others) to

determine protocols and instructional procedures to induce those higher-order cusps.

Recently, Greer and Du (2015) identified conditioned reinforcers which provide the

establishing operations for the induction of certain cusps. The above examples demonstrate that

the acquisition of conditioned reinforcers is key to the acquisition of behavioral cusps and

capabilities. Perhaps the editing intervention provided the necessary instructional history for

reinforcement of listening to corrective writing feedback that led to increases in self-editing and

!118

writing governing the complex operations of others. In pre-intervention probe measures, it was

demonstrated that participants could not self-edit, but through an intervention that conditioned

reinforcement for editing, participants’ self-editing increased in post-intervention probe

measures. The experimenter also argues that all participants increased their functional writing

repertoires because their listener repertoires (as a reader) joined their speaker repertoires (as a

writer). During pre-intervention probe measures, participants did not demonstrate the ability to

write and edit simultaneously to affect the behavior of a reader. After mastery of the editing

intervention, which conditioned editing peers’ writing through multiple exemplars of writing

assignments, participants demonstrated an increase in writing and editing behaviors and could

now simultaneously affect the behavior of a reader. Results from this study also contribute to the

research on the learn unit, the importance of corrective feedback, and peer tutoring.

Written Learn Units and the Importance of Corrective Feedback

In this experiment, editing involved the participant (the audience or editor) providing a

response to a peer writer’s written verbal behavior during the intervention. This study measured

the effectiveness of editing in terms of the number of learn units participants provided the peer

writers until the writers met criterion on the intervention. This built on Skinner’s (1968) three-

term contingency in that the learn unit incorporates student (the writer) and teacher (the

participant) interaction that in turn has the potential to change the behavior of each party. All

three components (antecedent, response, and consequence) were present for both the student (the

writer) and teacher (the participant) (Greer, 1994). The learn units given by participants provided

feedback, in the form of a correction or reinforcement, for the peer writer and in turn, taught the

peer writers how to affect the behavior of the audience writers wrote for.

!119

Greer (1993) noted, “in the course of the delivery of a curriculum based learn unit, a

teacher under the accurate control of the student’s three-term contingency is involved in at least

two three-term contingencies” (p. 137). Thus, Greer’s learn unit is different in that it represents at

least two or more interlocking three-term contingency trials. In this study’s intervention, there

were multiple antecedents providing interlocking operants included in the learn unit. The first

antecedent was the writing assignment given to the peer writers in a written topography. The next

antecedent was the written antecedent experimenters provided for participants to edit the written

response of the peer writer. After participants emitted the response behavior of editing a peer

writer’s essays, that served as the antecedent for the experimenter to make corrections on the

edits participants made on a peer writer’s permanent products. The final antecedents in the

editing learn unit cycle were those edits that experimenters provided participants which served as

an indication for participants to make the corrections on his or her edits. Peer writers had to make

the corrections provided by participants on their writing assignment. This sequence completed

the learn unit sequence for the intervention. Peer writers’ or participants’ behaviors in response to

the antecedents served as consequences for the following antecedent.

Greer (1994) suggested the learn unit is a strong predictor of learning. Therefore, the

significant findings in this experiment could have been attributed to the fact that the mastery of

the editing intervention had multiple learn unit sequences. When the number of cumulative learn

units to criterion per writing assignment for the intervention was analyzed, it showed that

participants who needed more sessions to master the intervention (Participants 3, 4, and 6), had

more correct functional responses in the post-intervention probe measure of the number of learn

units to criterion in his or her first post-intervention essay (see Figures 8-11 and Table 12). These

!120

results contribute to learn unit research in the respect that the participants who came under the

control of the intervention contingencies and were exposed to learn units across different writing

topics, performed better on post-intervention probe measures. Figure 8 also suggests that these

participant’s rate of learning decreased.

Contrary to this, Participant 8, who only had exposure to learn units in three intervention

sessions, did not perform as well in post-intervention probe measures compared to the remaining

participants. This was attributed to the fact that; 1) he was below grade-level on the

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) at the onset of the study, as well as below grade-

level on mathematics when compared to the rest of the participants; 2) he was only exposed to

learn units for three intervention sessions (two of which his peer writer wrote at 100% functional

and 90% structural accuracy on the first attempt at a novel writing assignment to meet criterion);

and 3) the peer writer he was paired with did not need as many learn units to come under the

control of the contingencies of the intervention in order to meet criterion. If the peer writer who

was paired with Participant 8 had needed to be exposed to more learn units in the form of written

edits given by Participant 8, it is speculated that Participant 8 would have performed better on

post-intervention probe measures. The hypothesis of receiving more learn units during the

intervention resulting in a higher number of correct functional components in the first attempt at

a novel writing assignment also does not fit for Participants 1, 2, and 5. It is argued that although

these participants only needed three intervention sessions with editing learn units to master the

intervention, they performed just as well on the post-intervention probe of affecting the behavior

of a reader as Participants 3, 4, and 6 because they performed above grade-level across all

academic instruction. Participants 1, 2, and 5 were also in the CABAS/AIL® model for three

!121

years at the onset of this study. These participants may have been under the contingencies of the

classroom procedures and tactics (see Table 1) and therefore did not need exposure to multiple

intervention sessions to master the editing procedure and join the listener and speaker repertoires

for writing and editing. However, according to Figure 8, all participant’s rate of learning

decreased.

Generally, the data from this experiment showed that the more learn units that were given

by participants in the intervention, the greater the effects seen in this experiment (See Figure 8

and Table 12). This is different from the results of Jodlowski’s (2000) experiment where she

determined that the effects were attributed to the treatments. In Jodlowski’s (2000) study, she

tested different editing interventions to see which one produced the greatest effects. In this

experiment, I controlled for the limitations in the experiment that she found had the greatest

effects (Experiment III), and I found that it was in fact the more learn units participants provided

to peer writers, the better they performed on post-intervention probe measures.

Neu (2013) found in two experiments that learning through observation occurs at faster

rates through the observation of a correction. The participants acquisition of new math objectives

occurred at higher rates while observing a correction procedure delivered for incorrect responses

versus reinforcement delivered for correct responses. The results of Neu’s (2013) study provided

evidence that students acquire new skills quicker when observing peers receive a correction for

emitting an incorrect response versus peers receiving reinforcement for emitting a correct

response. The significance of these results should be used to influence the type of instructional

feedback delivered to students during group instruction. The results of her study suggest how

educators should deliver instruction to students and how these methods can have a positive

!122

impact on student learning. The outcomes of Neu’s (2013) study are comparable to the findings

of a previous study conducted by Greer, et. al. (2004) in which the results indicated that students

learn faster when observing other students receive a correction for an incorrect response versus

reinforcement for a correct response. The results from this current experiment add to the

correction research findings (Greer et. al., 2004 & Neu, 2013) in the sense that overall, the more

corrections that participants provided to peer writers, the more correct responses they emitted on

post-intervention probe measures on the rewrites to criterion variable as well as the self-editing

dependent variable for some participants.

Self-Management and Peer Tutoring

The process of self-management can lead to learner independence (Keogh, et al., 1983),

Self-management refers to the process by which the student has learned to evaluate and record

how much he or she knows and how well he or she knows it. Self-management skills are needed

in the self-editing process. The writer needs to evaluate his or her writing accurately, record

where errors occurred, and revise his or her writing to affect the intended audience. The writer

becomes more independent as self-editing skills improve.

The literature suggests that self-management and self-instruction treatment packages

increase learner independence when self-instruction is reinforced by either the instructors or

through a self-reinforcement program (Ballard & Glynn, 1975; Roberts, Nelson, & Olsen, 1987).

It was therefore necessary to ensure that reinforcement occurred in the self-editing probe

measures in the current experiment. Other researchers have found that children in regular

education or inclusive settings are effective in implementing self-management procedures

(Christian & Poling, 1997; Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Koegel & Koegel, 1992; Marsico, 1998;

!123

Pierce & Schreibman, 1994; Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985; Stahmer &

Schreibman, 1992; Thomas, 1976). The current study supported the findings in previous self-

management research because participants in the current study were in an inclusive setting and

effectually implemented a self-editing procedure using a checklist. Researchers have had success

with self-management treatments across a variety of academic material, including writing

(Ballard & Glynn, 1975). The current study demonstrates that students can learn to self-manage

their writing behaviors, and perform as both a speaker and listener while writing, to edit their

writing in order to affect an intended audience after an intervention consisting of providing

editing learn units to peers.

The results of this experiment are also consistent and further extend peer tutoring

research. Peer tutoring involves a task presentation, monitoring, corrective feedback, and error

correction, in which students are acting as both the tutor and tutee (Harper, Mallette, & Moore,

1991). Peer tutoring is an effective classroom strategy for improving student academic

performance (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989). The premise of peer tutoring is that when

someone teaches material to another individual, the teacher— in this case, the tutor — has access

to the material being taught, and therefore can effectively learn those skills quicker than an

individual who does not have access to the material. Research shows that children who are

engaged in peer tutoring classrooms have higher levels of academic achievement than their peers

in teacher-designed instruction classrooms (Greenwood, Dinwiddie, Terry, Wade, Stanely,

Thibadeau, & Delquadri, 1984; Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986).

Other research in peer tutoring shows that it can benefit the tutor as much as the tutee

(Devin-Sheehan, et al., 1976; Dineen, Clark & Risley, 1977; Frager & Stem, 1970; Gumpel, &

!124

Frank, 1999; Johnson & Bailey, 1974). Through presenting instruction to the peers, tutors also

acquired the taught target responses (Devin-Sheehan, et al., 1976; Giesecke, Cartledge, &

Gardner, 1993; Greer & Polirstok, 1982). Greer and Polirstok (1982) identified collateral effects

from the intervention where the tutor was taught to present learn units produced both tutee and

tutor gains. However, when there was an absence in learn unit presentations, the gains for tutors

and tutees were not the same. These findings further strengthened the utility of peer tutoring in

the classroom and emphasized the importance of the delivery of instruction when investigating

academic gains among tutors and tutees.

Further research by Greer, Keohane, Meincke, Gautreaux, Pereira, Chavez-Brown, and

Yuan (2004) presented a review of the tutoring literature along with a series of six studies that

tested the effects of tutoring on the tutee and the tutor by isolating the component of tutoring that

made it effective. In several of the studies presented, the tutor acquired new repertoires as a

function of tutoring. Data suggested that when a student learns to tutor, the tutor subsequently

learns to observe correct and incorrect responses emitted by the tutee as they provide those

consequences to the tutee. These findings suggest the importance of learn units, where the

observer (tutor) gains from observing correct and incorrect responses and the contingencies

associated with each response. This current experiment supported and further expanded the

research on peer tutoring in the sense that this study provides significant data demonstrating that

students who serve as tutors acquire new repertoires as much as students who are tutees.

Participants (tutors) who provided consequences to another student’s writing (tutees) benefited

and acquired new operants (as demonstrated in the post- intervention probe measures) as if they

were being taught by an instructor. Participants did not receive writing instruction during the

!125

intervention; it was only measured prior to and following. Results showed that all participants

emitted more correct responses in terms of affecting the behavior of a reader and well and

accurately self-editing their own writing work. Peer tutoring does not have to be limited to

spelling and math instruction (Greer et. al., 2004), it can be expanded to teach new writing and

self-editing repertoires.

Limitations

One limitation in this study was the lack of data collection and measurement on the peers

who served as writers during the intervention sessions. Measuring the pre- and post-intervention

writing of the individuals who served as peers through the intervention sessions could further

expand the peer tutoring research. The acquisition of functional writing skills could have been

measured for the tutors (the target participants) and the tutees (the peers who served as writers

during the intervention) (Dineen, Clark, & Risley, 1977; Greenwood, Dinwiddie, Terry, Wade,

Stanley, Thibadeau, & Delquadri, 1984; Greer & Polirstok, 1982, 1986; Pigott, Fantuzzo, &

Clement, 1986; Harris & Sherman, 1973; Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986; Stoddard &

MacArthur, 1993).

Another limitation of this experiment was a lack of measurement for the checklist.

Participants, peer writers, and peer readers had access to the functional and structural writing

checklists throughout the experiment. The experimenter did not measure at what point during the

intervention the checklist became contingency-shaped (when participant’s would stop using it

when editing a writer’s writing assignment). Singer-Dudek and Greer (2005) tested the

generalization effects of component skill instruction. This consisted of experimenter-designed

rules and scripted presentation of learn units. Results of this experiment showed that students

!126

who emitted verbally governed responding required more learn units and written operations to

criterion compared to students in the responding to a rate criteria and contingency-shaped

responding categories. However, no differences in the number of learn units or written operations

to criterion were found between students in the contingency-shaped category of responding and

the normed rate criteria category. In Singer-Dudek and Greer’s (2005) experiments, all of the

rules involved in the completion of the composite task were included in the written instructions

and made overt for all participants. By reading the instructions aloud or by responding to the

experimenter’s vocal antecedents, students were forced to verbalize their next step. The students

needed to either read or say what they were going to do next before they did it. The moment that

the students responded to the next step without stating the rule first (self-initiated responding),

their behavior had become contingency-shaped (Singer-Dudek & Greer, 2005). At some point

during the composite task instruction, all students learned to complete the composite task

problems with contingency-shaped responding. Students moved from requiring experimenter-

presented learn units for each operation, to independently completing the operations (Singer-

Dudek and Greer, 2005). In this sense, learning was observed when students’ verbally governed

responses became contingency-shaped because they stopped relying on the scripted learn units

presented by the experimenter. Learning occurred when there was a shift in stimulus control,

from stimuli that evoked verbally governed responding (e.g., asking for help), to stimuli that

evoked contingency-shaped responding (Singer-Dudek and Greer, 2005). The current experiment

did not control, or even measure, when or if the writing checklists became contingency-shaped

for participants or peer writers.

!127

A final limitation in this experiment is the lack of measurement for handwriting and

transcription speed. Educational research on writing focuses on handwriting and how

transcription speed changes a student’s writing. Transcription is a basic cognitive process in

writing that enables the writer to translate covert verbal behavior into overt written symbols to

express ideas in written language (Richards, Berninger, & Fayol, 2009). Transcription ability,

which draws on handwriting and spelling, has been found to uniquely predict composing length

and quality in developing writers, and is thus not a mere mechanical skill. Competence in

handwriting is usually described in terms of speed and legibility (Graham, 1986; Graham &

Miller, 1980). Berninger and Swanson (1994) concluded that transcription may be especially

important in beginning and developing writing in the elementary school years. However,

researchers who study adult writers have subsequently documented that transcription is also an

important cognitive process in skilled writing. Findings from recent studies show that

handwriting plays an important role in learning to compose (Briggs, 1980; Chase, 1986; Graham,

Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker, 1997; Hughes, Keeling, & Tuck, 1983). When writing

is not “mechanical” for students, they could be identified as being “at-risk” for writing and

composition (Berninger, Vaughan, Abbott, Abbott, Rogan, Brooks, Reed, and Graham, 2007).

Therefore, this experiment could have benefited from a transcription /handwriting measurement

to determine if the intervention was successful in increasing transcription and handwriting speed

as well as the effect of transcription speed on the functional writing repertoires of participants.

Future Research

Future research should replicate the study in order to further validate the effects of the

editing intervention on the writing and self-editing behavior of the participants. Does the ability

!128

to write more complex functional writing assignments depend on serving as an editor? This study

suggests that the ability to produce verbally governing writing does depend on the role of editor,

but these results need to be replicated. Due to the limited number of studies testing for verball

governing algorithms, the role of the checklist needs to be further explored and measured as to

when the checklist became contingency-shaped. Future research should also explore a

measurement of the conditioned reinforcement of writing to affect the behavior of a reader to

determine if it is in a student’s repertoire before the onset of the intervention. Finally, future

research should focus on using an editing intervention procedure on the effects of evoking an

emotional response from an audience, or aesthetic writing.

Conclusion and Educational Significance

The results of this experiment play a significant role in educational research and have

implications in terms of writing instruction and measurement. Research in the educational field

suggests that many teachers instruct using a content-based instruction while supplementing with

various instructional aids (i.e, teaching fictional writing using graphic organizers), rather than

using skills-based instruction (i.e, teaching the function and structure of writing). Educational

researchers also found that peer-editors improved their own writing, while self-editors found

more errors in their writing but did not increase their functional writing repertoires (Diab, 2011;

Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Rollinson, 2005; Sager, 1973; Teo, 2006). What was unaccounted for

in all of these studies, and in educational writing research, was a direct method to teach writing

and editing, a form of data collection, and there was an insufficient number of interactions

between students (social contingencies).

!129

One of the best ways to use writing time more effectively is to “provide students with the

opportunity to generate whole pieces of meaningful text, i.e., writing that has a real purpose and

audience” (NY State Dept. of Ed., 1992, p. 7). Individuals should not write merely for going

through the process; they should write to influence an audience. “Writing should therefore be

viewed as an end, that is, something one learns how to do. Writing should have a clear purpose

and goal in order to be effective (Madho, 1997). With that, there is currently no writing

curriculum or initiatives that address a student’s functional writing repertoire and how that

function affects the behavior of a reader. The current study, together with prior studies on

functional writing, provide the beginnings of a writing curriculum that is objective, measurable,

and can be used to teach functional writing skills, structural writing skills, and editing skills. The

writing research from the verbal behavior field fills the deficit on a functional writing curriculum

and has the potential to have significant effects on writing instruction, test-taking skills, and

curriculum development. This “treatment package” provides an objective and measurable scope

and sequence of teaching functional writing skills, structural writing skills, and editing skills. It

may also provide an intervention to condition reinforcement for affecting the behavior of a

reader as well as to condition reinforcement for editing a peer’s writing. This “treatment

package” presents a model to develop instructional methods for inducing higher-order writing

operants.

The current study provided evidence that mastery of an editing intervention is an

important way to teach students how to functionally write to affect the behavior of a reader and

to increase self-editing repertoires. Furthermore, the results suggested the mastery of this editing

intervention may qualify as a verbal behavior developmental protocol in that, once implemented,

!130

participants in the study increased their functional writing repertoires and self-editing skills to

attain new verbal behavior developmental cusps. However, this study must be replicated to

validate these findings.

!131

References

Alvarez, V., & Adelman, H. S. (1986). Overstatements of self-evaluation by students with

psycho-educational problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 567-571.

Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1998). Increasing active student responding and improving academic

performance through class wide peer tutoring. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34,

89-94.

Albers, A. & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is the three term contingency trial a predictor of

effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(3), 337-354.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I.V. S. (1986). The writing report card: Writing

achievement in american schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas.

Ballard, K.D., & Glynn, T. (1975). Behavioral self management in story writing with elementary

school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(4), 387-395.

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of

designs for learning. Written Communication, 25, 166–195.

Bracewell, R.J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness

in writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Toronto, Canada, March 27-31.

!132

Bridewell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students transactional writing.

Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197-222.

Bridge, C. A., Compton-Hall, M., & Cantrell, S. C. (1997). Classroom writing practices

revisited: The effects of statewide reform on writing instruction. Elementary School

Journal, 98, 151-170.

Brigham, T.A. , Graubard, P.S., & Stans, A. (1972). Analysis of the effects of sequential

reinforcement contingencies on aspects of composition. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 5, 421-429.

Bomer, R., & Bomer, K. (2001). For a better world: Reading and writing for social action.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Broto, J.A. & Greer, R.D. (2014). The effects of functional writing contingencies on second

graders’ writing and responding accurately to mathematical algorithms. Behavioral

Development Bulletin, 19(1), 7-18).

Calkins, L.M., & The Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. (2006). Units of study for

primary writing: A yearlong curriculum, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new

democracy of American schools: Immigration and the no child left behind act.

Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute. Center on Education Policy.

Catania, C. A. 2007. Learning. Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.

!133

Charania, S. M., LeBlanc, Sabanthan, N., Kteach, I. A., Carr, J. E., Gunby, K. (2010). Teaching

effective hand raising instruction to children with autism during group instruction.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 493-493.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26-58.

Chomsky, N., & Place, U. T. (2000). The Chomsky-Place correspondence 1993-1994. The

Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 17, 7-38.

Christian, L., & Poling, A. (1997). Using self-management procedures to improve the

productivity of adults with developmental disabilities in a competitive employment

setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 169–172. doi:10.1901/jaba.

1997.30-169.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Crowhurst, M. & Piche, G.L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic

complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2),

101-109.

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.

DeCasper, A.J.. & Spence, M.J. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns’

perception of speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 133-150.

!134

Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer

tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542.

Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R.S., & Allen, V.L. (1976). Research on children tutoring children:

A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 355-385.

Diab, N.B. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the

quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16, 274-292.

Dill, E. M. & Boykin, A. W. (2000). The comparative influence of individual, peer tutoring, and

communal learning contexts on the text recall of African American children. Journal of

Black Psychology, 26,65-78.

Dineen, J. P., Clark, H. B., & Risley, T. P. (1977). Peer tutoring among elementary students:

Educational benefits to the tutor. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 231-238.

Donley, C.R. & Greer, R.D. (1993). Setting events controlling social verbal exchanges between

students with developmental delays. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3(4), 387-401.

Donahoe, J. W, & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and complex behavior. Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

DuPaul, G.J., Ervin, R.A., Hook, C.L., & McGoey, K.E. (1998). Peer tutoring for

children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of classroom behavior and

academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579-592.

Dutro, E. (2010). What ‘hard times’ means: Mandated curricula, class-privileged assumptions,

and the lives of poor children. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(3), 255–291.

!135

Eby C.M, Greer R.D, Tullo L.D, Baker K.A, & Pauly R. (2010). Effects of multiple exemplar

instruction on the transformation of stimulus function across written and vocal spelling

instruction responses by students with autism. The Journal of Speech-Language

Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis. 5, 20–31. Retrieved from http://

baojournal.com/SLP-ABA%20WEBSITE/SLP-ABA%20VOL-5/SLP-ABA-5-1.pdf.

Emurian, H. H. (2007). Programmed instruction for teaching JavaTM: Consideration of learn

unit frequency and rule-test performance. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(1), 70-88.

Emurian, H. H., Wang, X. H. J., & Durham, A. G. (2000). Learning Java: A programmed

instruction approach using Applets. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 395-422.

Epstein, R. (1997). Skinner as self-manager. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 545-568.

Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,

32, 400-414.

Fas, T.M. (2014). The effects of mastery of writing mathematical algorithms on the emergence of

complex problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2013).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 3628786.

Frank, L.A. (1992). Writing to read: Young writers’ ability to demonstrate audience awareness

when evaluated by their readers. Research in Teaching English, 26, 277-291.

Fiorile C.A, & Greer R.D. (2007). The induction of naming in children with no echoic-to-tact

responses as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis of Verbal

Behavior. 23, 71–88.

!136

Fitzgerald, J. (1988). Helping young writers to revise: A brief review for teachers. The Reading

Teacher, 42, 124-129.

Fitzgerald, J. & Markham, L. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. The Reading

Teacher, 42, 124-129.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.

Fueyo, V. & Bushell, D., Jr. (1998). Using number line procedures and peer tutoring to improve

the mathematics computation of low-performing first graders. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 31, 417-430.

Fullman, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.

Gilic L, & Greer R.D. (2011). Establishing naming in typically developing children as a function

of multiple exemplar speaker and listener experiences. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior.

27, 157–178.

Glover, J. & Gary, A.L. (1976) Procedures to increase some aspects of creativity. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 79-84.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2002). Prevention and intervention for struggling writers. In M.

Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems

II: Preventive and remedial techniques (pp. 589-610). Washington, DC: The National

Association of School Psychologists.

!137

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2003). Primary grade teachers’

instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national Survey. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 95, 279-292.

Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising

essays produced on a word-processor: Self-instructional strategy training. Journal of

Special Education, 22, 133-152.

Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural

facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and

leaning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Greenlee, M.B. (1990). The effects of the audience on letter writing of fifth, eighth, and twelfth

grade students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kentucky.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer

tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.

Greenwood, C.R., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S., Thibadeau, S., & Delquadri, J.

(1984). Teacher- versus peer-mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis of

achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521-538.

Greer, R. D. (1991). The teacher as strategic scientist: A solution of our educational crisis?

Behavior and Social Issues, 1(2), 25-42.

!138

Greer, R. D. (1992). L’enfant terrible meets the educational crisis. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 25, 65-69.

Greer, R. D. (1994). A systems analysis of the behaviors of schooling. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 4(3), 255-264.

Greer, R. D. (1997). The comprehensive application of behavior analysis to schooling

(CABAS®). Behavior and Social Issues, 7(1), 59-63.

Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis systems

approach. New York: Academic Press.

Greer, R.D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis systems

approach. New York: Academic Press.

Greer, R. D. (2008). The ontogenetic selection of verbal capabilities: Contributions of Skinner’s

verbal behavior theory to a more comprehensive understanding of language. The

International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(3), 363-386.

Greer, R. D., Chavez-Brown, M. Nirgudkar, A. S., Stolfi, L., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005).

Acquisition of fluent listener responses and the educational advancement of young

children with autism and severe language delays, European Journal of Behavior Analysis,

6(2), 1-20.

Greer R. D., & Du L., (2015). Identification and Establishment of Reinforcers that Make the

Development of Complex Social Language Possible. International Journal of Behavior

Analysis & Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1.

!139

Greer, R. D. & Keohane, D. D. (2006). The evolution of verbal behavior in young children.

Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(2), 111-141.

Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., & Healy, O. (2002). Quality and comprehensive applications of

behavior analysis to schooling. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(2), 120-132.

Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., Meincke, K., Gautreaux, G., Pereira, J. A., Chavez-Brown, M., &

Yuan, L. (2004). Key components of effective tutoring, In J. Moran & R. Malott, (Eds.).

Evidence-Based Educational Practices. New York: Elsevier/Academic Press.

Greer, R. D., & Longano, J. (2010). A rose by naming: How we may learn how to do it. Analysis

of Verbal Behavior, 26(1), 73-106.

Greer, R. D., & McDonough (1999). Is the learn unit a fundamental unit of pedagogy? The

Behavior Analyst, 22, 5-16.

Greer, R.D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: inducing and expanding new verbal

capabilities in children with language delays. New York: Pearson and Allyn and Bacon.

Greer, R.D. & Polirstok, S.R. (1982). Collateral gains and short-term maintenance in reading and

on-task responses by inner-city adolescents as a function of their use of social

reinforcement while tutoring. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 123-139.

Greer, R. D., & Speckman-Collins, J. (2009). The integration of speaker and listener responses:

A theory of verbal development. The Psychological Record, 59(3), 8.

!140

Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005). The emergence of the

listener to speaker component of naming in children as a function of multiple exemplar

instruction. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 123.

Greer R.D, Stolfi L, & Pistoljevic N. (2007). Emergence of naming in preschoolers: A

comparison of multiple and single exemplar instruction. European Journal of Behavior

Analysis. 8, 119–131.

Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D, & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The Fourth R - Research in the

classroom. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Toronto.

Harper, G.F., Mallette, B., & Moore, J. (1991). Peer mediated instruction: Teaching spelling to

primary aged children with mild handicaps. Reading Writing and Learning Disabilities

International, 7, 139-154.

Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the ‘‘good behavior game’’ to reduce

disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 405–417.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. Meaningful differences. (1995). Baltimore: MD. Brookes Publishing.

Harvey, M., May, M., & Kennedy, C. (2004). Nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs and the

evaluation of educational systems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(4), 267-276.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.) (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-

Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.

Helou, Y. J., Lai, J., & Sterkin V. L. (2007). The effects of writer immersion and the

!141

responses of a peer reader on teaching the function of writing with middle school

students. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Interventions, 4(2), 483- 498.

Hogin, S. (1996). Essential contingencies in correction procedures for increased learning in the

context of the learn unit. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College,

Columbia University, New York, NY.

Horne, P. J., & Lowe, F. C. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior.

Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 65(1), 185-241.

Horn, J.M. (1986). Fifth graders awareness of purpose in writing: Audience and publication.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Ingham, P., & Greer, R.D. (1992). Changes in student and teacher responses in observed and

generalized settings as a function of supervisor observations. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 25, 153-164.

Jodlowski, S.M. (2000). The effects of a teacher editor, peer editing, and serving as a peer

editor on elementary students’ self-editing behavior. (Doctoral dissertation,

Columbia University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 9970212.

Johnston, J. M., & PennyPacker, H.S. (2008). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research. New

York: Routledge.

Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K., Dimling, L., & Shankland, R. (2005,

February). Writing into the twenty-first century: A map of contemporary research on

!142

writing, 1999-2004. Paper presented at the Writing Research in the Making Conference,

University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Keller, F.S. & Schoenfeld, W.N. (1950). Principles of psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

Kellog, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of

Writing Research, 1 (1), 1–26.

Keohane D, Luke N, & Greer R.D. (2008). The things we care to see: The effects of the rotated

protocol immersion on the emergence of early observing responses. Journal of Early and

Intensive Behavioral Interventions. 5, 23–39.

Keogh, D., Burgio, L., Whiman, T., & Moses, J. (1983). Development of listening skills in

retarded children: A correspondence training program. Child and Family Behavior

Therapy, 5, 51-71.

Koegel, R.L., & Koegel, L.K. (1990). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students

with autism through a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 23(1), 119-127. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-119.

Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Surratt, A. (1992). Language intervention and disruptive behavior

in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 141-152.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing

one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.

!143

Lodhi, S., & Greer, R. D. (1989). The speaker as listener. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 51(3), 353-359.

Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review

to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three

methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of

Special Education, 21(3), 22-42.

Madho, V. (1993). Establishing a writing repertoire in middle school children. Unpublished

research paper, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Madho, V. (1997). An analysis of automatic verbal behavior of young children, Doctoral

Dissertation, Teachers College Columbia University, New York.

Madrid, D., Terry, B., Greenwood, C., Whaley, M., & Webber, N. (1998). Active vs. passive peer

tutoring: Teaching spelling to at-risk students. Journal of Research and Development in

Education, 31, 236-244.

Marsico, M.J. (1998). Textual stimulus control of independent math performance and

generalization to reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1998).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 9822227.

McCarthey, S.J. & Ro, Y.S. (2011). Approaches to writing instruction. Pedagogies: An

International Journal, 6(4), 273-295.

!144

McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction: What science really tells us about how to

teach reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meece, J. L., & Courtney, D. P. (1992). Gender differences in students’ perceptions:

Consequences for achievement-related goals. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.),

Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 209-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Michael, J. (1984). Verbal Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42,

363-376.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching in a universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Monohan, B.D. (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for

different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 288-303.

Mortweet, S.L., Utley, C.A., Walker, D., Dawson, H.L., Delquadri, J.C., Reddy, S.S.,

Greenwood, C.R., Hamilton, S., and Ledford, D. (1999). Classwide peer tutoring:

Teaching students with mild mental retardation in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional

Children 65(4), 524-536.

Moxley, R.A. (1996). The import of Skinner’s three-term contingency. Behavior and Philosophy,

24(2), 145-167.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges (2003). The neglected “R”:

The need for a writing revolution. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). National assessment of educational progress

(NAEP). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

!145

Neu, J.A. (2013). The effects of observation of learn units during reinforcement and correction

conditions on the rate of learning math algorithms by fifth grade students. (Doctoral

dissertation, Columbia University, 2013). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3561018.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multi-literacies: Designing social futures. Harvard

Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

New Jersey State Department of Education (2006). New Jersey state learning standards.

Retrieved April 10th 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/education/aps/cccs/.

Otto, W., Barrett, T.C., Smith, R.J., Dulin, K.L., & Johnson, D.D. (1973). Summary and review

of investigations relating to reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 66(8),

338-362.

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211-225.

Parsla Vintere, Nancy S. Hemmes, Bruce L. Brown, & Claire L. Poulson (2004). Gross-motor

skill acquisition by preschool dance students under self-instruction procedures. Journal of


Pereira-Delgado, J. A., & Greer, R. D. (2009). The effects of peer monitoring training on the

emergence of the capability to learn by observing instruction received by peers. The

Psychological Record, 59, 407-434.

!146

Pereira-Delgado J, Greer R.D, Speckman J, & Goswami A. (2009). Effects of conditioning

reinforcement for print stimuli on match-to-sample responding in preschoolers. Journal

of Speech Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis. 3.2–3.3, 60–77.

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Pierce, K.L., & Schreibman, L. (1994). Teaching daily living skills to children with autism in

unsupervised settings through pictorial self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 27, 471-481.

Pigott, H. E., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Clement, P. W. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring

and group contingencies on the academic performance of elementary school children.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(1), 93-98.

Polirstok, S. R. & Greer, R.. (1986). A replication o f collateral effects and a component analysis

of a successful tutoring package for inner-city adolescents. Education and Treatment of

Children, 9(2), 101-121.

Rachman, S. (1972). Clinical applications of observational learning, imitation and modeling.

Behavior Therapy, 3(3), 379-397.

Reilly-Lawson, T., & Greer, R. D. (2006). Teaching the function of writing to middle school

students with academic delays. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3,

151-172.

!147

Roberts, R.N., Nelson, R.O., & Olsen, T.W. (1987). Self-instruction: An analysis of the

differential effects of instruction and reinforcement. Journal ofApplied BehaviorAnalysis,

20, 235-242.

Robinson, A. (2007). The story of writing. (2nd ed.). New York: Thames and Hudson.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.

Rosales-Ruiz, J. & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic

concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533-544.

Ross, D. E., Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005). The teacher performance rate and accuracy

scale (TPRA). Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(4), 411-423.

Rubin, D.L. & Piche, G.L. (1979). Development in syntatic and strategic aspects of audience

adaption skills in writing persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of

English, 13(4), 293-316.

Sager, C. (1973, November). Improving the quality of written composition through pupil use of

rating scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers

of English, Philadelphia, PA.

Salzinger, K. (1959). The place of operant conditioning of verbal behaviorism in psychotherapy.

In C. Frank (ed.) Behavior Therapy. McgGraw Hill, New York, 375-395.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Writing. In R. F. Dillon & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),

Cognition and instruction (pp. 59-81). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

!148

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction

(pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, S.M. & Morris, E.K. (1987). A history of the term radical behaviorism: From watson

to skinner. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 27-39.

Sidman, M. (1971) Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing

Research, 14, 5-13.

Sidman M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors

Cooperative.

Singer-Dudek, J. & Greer, R. D. (2005). Long-term analysis of the relationship between

fluency and the training and maintenance of complex math skills. The Psychological

Record, 55, 361-376.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Massachusetts:

Copley Publishing Group.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. Skinner, B. F.

(1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24,

86-97.

Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group.

Skinner, B.F. (1978). About Behaviorism. Vintage Books, New York.

!149

Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 39(9),

947-954.

Skinner, B. F. (1989). The behavior of the listener. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior:

Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 85–96). Reno, NV: Context

Press.

Sowers, J., Verdi, M., Bourbeau, P., & Sheehan, M. (1985). Teaching job independence and

flexibility to mentally retarded students through the use of a self-control package. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 81–85.

Spradlin, J.E. (1985). Studying the effects of the audience on verbal behavior. The Analysis of

Verbal Behavior, 3, 5-10.

Stahmer, A. C., Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with autism appropriate play in

unsupervised environments using a self management treatment package. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 447 - 459.

Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning disabled

students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 76-103.

Stone, C. A., & May, A. L. (2002). The accuracy of academic self-evaluations in adolescents

with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 370-383.

Svalberg, A. M. L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language

Awareness, 18 (3-4), 242–258.

!150

Teo, A. K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL

Journal, 18, 160–178.

The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, Bureau of English

and Reading Education, Bureau of Curriculum Development, Albany, New York, 12234

(1992). Composition in the English Language Arts Curriculum K-12.

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication (Vol. 2008). Cambridge, MA: MIT

press.

Troia, G. A. (2005). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A.

MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.). New

York: Guilford.

Utley, C.A., Reddy, S.S., Delquardi, J.C. (2001). Class wide peer tutoring: An effective teaching

procedure for facilitating the acquisition of health education and safety facts with

students with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(1),

1-27.

Van Houten, R., Morrison, E., Jarvis, R., & McDonald, M. (1974). The effects of explicit timing

and feedback on compositional response rate in elementary school children. Journal of


Vargas, J. S. (1978). A behavioral approach to teaching composition. The Behavior

Analyst, 1, 16-24.

!151

Williams, G. & Greer, R.D. (1993). A comparison of verbal-behavior and linguistic-

communication curricula for training developmentally delayed adolescents to acquire and

maintain vocal speech. Behaviorology, 1, 31–46.

Wray, D., Medwell, J., Fox, R., & Poulson, L. (2000). The teaching practices of effective

teachers of literacy. Educational Review, 52, 75-84.

Yuan, L. (2005). The effects of observational learning on the emergence of higher order operants

for first grade tutoring pairs with and without developmental disabilities. (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Zuriff, G. E. (1988). Radical behaviorism and theoretical entities. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 7, 572.

!152

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Definition of Terms

Applied Behavior Analysis - A science of teaching in which behavior change tactics

derived from experimental studies and research change socially important behavior to a

meaningful degree (Cooper, et. al., 2007). B. F. Skinner published The Behavior of Organisms in

1938, which summarized the first research conducted and identified operant and respondent

behavior.

Antecedent - An antecedent is a stimulus in the environment, which is observed before a

particular behavior of interest (Cooper, et. al., 2007). In a learn unit (Greer, 1991), the teacher

obtains the attention of the student, which is the antecedent and the attention of the student is

obtained, which is the behavior of the student. The antecedent in this example is the teacher

obtaining the attention of the student.

Bi-Directional relationship between Listener and Speaker repertoires - The bi-

directional relationship between listener and speaker repertoires speaks to one’s ability to

respond as both a speaker and a listener to the same stimulus. Children who may select objects

when given the name, but may not produce the name of the object itself do not demonstrate this

bi-directional relation. In rare cases, the lack of a relation may go the opposite direction, with a

child who may emit the name of a stimulus, but may not be able to select the stimulus. The bi-

!153

directional relationship between speaker and listener repertoires is one of the key components in

the naming theory.

Behavioral Developmental Cusp – A cusp is defined by Rosalez-Ruiz and Baer (1997) as

a verbal developmental stage that allows children to learn things that they could not before. That

is, children can contact reinforcement from stimuli that they could not before acquisition of the

cusp. A cusp could be amounted to the difference in what a child could learn before and after

learning to walk. While a child is crawling, it can only contact stimuli that are at a specific height

level, however after learning to walk, the child may contact stimuli that are higher up. So to,

before a child acquires a verbal developmental cusp, the child may only contact reinforcement in

one way (say as a listener), however after a cusp is induced (independent mands and tacts) the

child can contact reinforcement for emitting speaker behavior and thus can learn things that he

could not before.

Comprehensive Application of Behavior Analysis to Schooling (CABAS®) - A research

based model of education characterized by the comprehensive application of behavior analytic

principles across all aspects of schooling, from supervisors and parents to teachers and students.

Teachers individualize instruction for each student, and monitor learning by collecting data on all

responses. Since instruction is driven by the moment-to-moment responses of each individual

student, teachers continuously modify instruction based on student learning and ongoing

research. Instructional decisions are made by applying a scientific algorithm to the graphical

displays of student learning (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer & Ross, 2008). The participants

!154

included in the current study were selected from classrooms that utilize the CABAS® model of

instruction.

Capability – A capability is defined by Greer and Speckman-Collins (2009) as a cusp that

allows children to learn in ways that they could not before. There are three verbal behavior

developmental capabilities that have been identified in the literature, 1) generalized imitation,

observational learning, and naming. In each case, once the capability is present, a child may

learn in a way that they could not before. In generalized imitation, a child may imitate the

behavior of another instead of having to have individual behaviors that make up an operant

reinforced individually. In observational learning, a child may learn by watching another contact

reinforcement or corrections as long as the antecedent has been observed as well, instead of

contacting these contingencies directly. In the case of naming, a child may learn to respond to a

stimulus as both a listener and a speaker while only contacting the name of a stimulus

incidentally.

Conditioned Reinforcement - A stimulus that has been paired with another conditioned or

unconditioned reinforcer and that now also functions as a reinforcer (Cooper, et. al., 2007).

Consequence - A consequence is a stimulus change in the environment, which is observed

following a particular behavior of interest (Cooper, et. al., 2007). A teacher presents the vocal

antecedent, “What is 2 + 2?” (antecedent), the student responds with, “4” (behavior of interest),

and the teacher responds with, “You are correct!” (consequence).

!155

Contingency - A contingency is a dependent relationship between operant behavior, or

learned behavior and the surrounding antecedent and consequent variables in the environment

(Cooper, et. al., 2007). Upon a student completing a worksheet he earns free time on the

computer. Earning free time on the computer is contingent upon completing the assignment and a

contingency put into place by the classroom teacher.

Criterion - A predetermined level of accuracy or proficiency for a short- or long-term

objective or skill.

Discriminative stimulus - A stimulus in the presence of which certain responses have

been reinforced, but in the absence of the stimulus, the responses have occurred and have not

been reinforced; this stimulus evokes behavior in its future presence (Cooper et al., 2007).

Learn Unit – Interlocking three-term contingencies between student and teacher;

measurable unit of student-teacher interactions that leads to significant changes in student

behavior (Greer & McDonough, 1999). An example of a learn unit in which the student responds

correctly would be as follows:

Teacher: “What is 4 plus 3?” (antecedent for student)

Student: “7” (student response, also antecedent for teacher)

Teacher: “That is correct, 4 plus 3 does equal 7. Nice work!” (consequence for student,

response of teacher)

The next example provides a scenario where the student emits an incorrect response and the

teacher provides a correction procedure. Correction procedures serve as prompts for the next

time the antecedent is presented.

!156

Teacher: “Spell the word ‘shore’.” (antecedent for student)

Student: “s-h-u-r” (student response, antecedent for teacher)

Teacher: “Spell the word, ‘shore’. S-h-o-r-e. ‘Shore’.

Student: “S-h-o-r-e. Shore.” (student echoes correction, antecedent for teacher to provide

the antecedent again for an independent response of student)

Teacher: “Now it’s your turn. Spell the word ‘shore’.” (response of teacher to student

echoic, re-presentation of antecedent )

Student: “S-h-o-r-e”. (student response)

Teacher: “Thank you.” (teacher response) Records accurately

Learn units to criterion - Number of learn units needed to master a predetermined level

of accuracy or proficiency (Greer, Keohane, & Healy, 2002).

Listener component of naming – The listener component of naming is defined as

selecting, orienting to, or otherwise identifying a stimulus without emitting a vocal verbal name

for the stimulus without having received direct instruction in responding to the stimulus as a

listener.

Motivating operation - “An environmental variable that (a) alters (increases or decreases)

the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event; and (b) alters

(increases or decreases) the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced or

punished by that stimulus, object, or event” (Cooper et al., 2007, p. 699).

!157

Multiple Exemplar Instruction – Multiple Exemplar Instruction, or MEI, has two general

definitions. In either definition, MEI is an instructional tactic by which there is a rotation of

either stimuli or responses. Multiple exemplar instruction to establish general case responding

requires one to respond to different exemplars of a single stimulus, where each exemplar varies

across specific characteristics and remains steady across others such that the responder may

establish the necessary stimulus control in order to learn the essential stimulus control.

Multiple exemplar instruction may also be used to join control of multiple responses to a

single stimulus. This can be done across establishing operations (mand and tact), vocal and

written topographies for production responses, and listener and speaker responses (such as

naming). In this case, MEI establishes the equivalence between listener and speaker responses

such that a participant may respond to a single stimulus in multiple ways.

Naming - Horne and Lowe (1996) defined naming as “a higher order bidirectional

behavioral relation that (a) combines conventional speaker and listener behavior within the

individual and (b) does not require reinforcement of both the speaker and listener behavior for

each new name to be established, and (c) relates to classes of objects and events.” (Horne &

Lowe, 1996, p. 207). Horne and Lowe suggested that naming is a, or the, source for acquisition

of language incidentally.

Operant – An operant is a behavior or response that is learned under specific antecedent

and reinforcement conditions. Operant behaviors are behaviors that are not naturally emitted in

the presence of environmental stimuli, but rather are differentially reinforced and paired with the

antecedent stimuli that will signal the presence of reinforcement in the future. This is contrasted

!158

with respondent behavior that is not learned, but rather is naturally emitted based on the

phylogeny of the species.

Operant behavior - “Behavior that is selected, maintained, and is brought under stimulus

control as a function of its consequences; each person’s repertoire of operant behavior is a

product of his history of interactions with the environment (ontogeny)” (Cooper et al., 2007, p.

700).

Probe – A probe is defined as an unconsequated instructional trial in which an

experimenter presents an antecedent to a child, the child emits a response, but the experimenter

does not provide feedback (either reinforcement or corrections) based on the response. The

purpose of a probe is to test for the presence or absence of an operant, cusp, or capability, as

opposed to teaching or inducing an operant, cusp, or capability.

Reinforcement - A stimulus that immediately follows a behavior and increases the

probability of that behavior emitted in the future (Cooper, et. al., 2007). A student raises his hand

and calls out during class when the teacher presents a question. The teacher calls on the student

immediately following the student raising his hand and not when he calls out. Calling on the

student when he raises his hand reinforces the probability of the student raising his hand in the

future.

Repertoire - A set of acquired behaviors by an individual emitted during certain

environmental conditions (Greer & Ross, 2008). A student emitted zero correct responses on a

math objective, solving 2-digit by 1-digit long division problems, on a pre-unit assessment.

!159

Learn units were delivered and mastery criterion was met during the lesson. A post-unit

assessment was conducted in which the student emitted zero incorrect responses. The student

now has a repertoire for solving 2-digit by 1-digit long division problems.

Say-Do Correspondence – Say-do correspondence training establishes a relation between

what a person says and then does, or does and then reports.

Speaker as own listener – Speaker as own listener is a behavior by which one may listen

to him or herself speaking, and respond as a listener, or as an additional speaker. In this way,

verbal behavior, previously defined as behavior mediated by a listener, may be mediated by one’s

own behavior. If a person says, “I’m thirsty” and then goes to get a drink, the person mediated

their verbal behavior in exactly the same way a listener would mediate this verbal behavior

(providing a drink). Further, if the person responded to, “I’m thirsty” by asking, “What would

you like?”, to which the same person responded, “I think I would like a glass of water” the

person would be emitting conversational units within their own skin.

Speaker component of naming – The speaker component of naming is defined as emitting

a correct vocal verbal response to a stimulus without having received direct instruction on how to

respond to a stimulus in such a way. In this case, a child may emit a vocal verbal name for a

stimulus after hearing a caregiver previously name the stimulus.

Stimulus - Single or multiple physical events or the relation between specific events that

can be described as descriptive or functional classes (Catania, 2007).

!160

Tactic - A scientifically tested procedure to change behavior based on one or more than

one principles of behavior. The procedure has demonstrated effective behavior change across

subjects, settings, and behaviors (Cooper, et. al. 2007). Multiple exemplar instruction across

response topographies is a behavior change tactic that has been implemented to induce certain

higher order operants, developmental cusps and capabilities such as Naming and observational

learning, and as a general teaching tactic for learners struggling to acquire a particular skill.

Multiple exemplar instruction is presented across various response topographies (Davies-Lackey,

2005; Greer, Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, & Rivera-Valdez, 2005; Greer, Yuan, & Gautreaux, 2005).

Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy Scale (TPRA) - An observation procedure on

the rate of teacher instructional presentations to student(s), the response(s) of the student(s), and

feedback delivered by the teacher following the response(s) of the student(s). A study conducted

compared the use of a Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy Scale (TPRA) on teacher

effectiveness and student learning (Ingham & Greer, 1992). The results indicated that when the

TPRA was implemented teacher effectiveness and student learning outcomes increased

(Selinske, Greer, & Lodhi, 1991; Ingham & Greer, 1992; Ross, Singer-Dudek, & Greer, 2005).

Token System - A stimulus used as a generalized conditioned reinforcer, that can be

delivered following a behavior desired for increase, which can be exchanged for a variety of

unconditioned or conditioned reinforcers (Cooper, et. al., 2007). Students in a classroom emit

correct responses and engage in appropriate behaviors (i.e. raise hand, complete assignments,

deliver assistance to peers) and are delivered a token or classroom point. The teacher may say,

“yes, thank you for raising your hand, please give yourself a classroom point on your data sheet.”

!161

Upon students earning a predetermined number of tokens or points, student may turn in their

points for a back up reinforcer such as reading a book, a snack, or a game with a peer.

Transformation of Stimulus Function Across Saying and Writing — Being taught under

one condition and emit the response in an untaught repose topography.

Verbal Behavior – Verbal behavior is the study of language from a behavioral

perspective. B.F. Skinner first introduced verbal behavior in 1957 in the book of same name.

This book is a theory of language based on the control of environmental stimuli and

reinforcement contingencies. Verbal behavior itself is defined as the behavior of any speaker that

is mediated by the behavior of a listener. The presence of a listener is a stimulus discriminative

for the emission of verbal behavior, and verbal behavior itself is reinforced by the behavior of the

listener. Skinner identified six individual operants that are the basic units of verbal behavior,

these being the mand (command), tact (contact), echoic, intraverbal, textual response, and

autoclitic.

Vocal Praise - A conditioned reinforcer spoken aloud by a teacher or peer to increase a

desired behavior (Greer & Ross, 2008). Students in a classroom emit correct responses and

engage in appropriate behaviors (i.e. raise hand, complete assignments, deliver assistance to

peers) and are delivered vocal praise. The teacher may say, “thank you for raising your hand,

great job.”

Vicarious Reinforcement - A student observes another person emitting a behavior and

receiving reinforcement upon engaging in the behavior. The student then performs the same

behavior in order to gain access to reinforcement (Bandura, 1965).

!162

Appendix B

Data Collection Form

!

!

!163

Appendix C

Tables

Mean percentage of correct structural components as a writer during the rewrites until criterion

phase for participants 1-4 and 5-8, respectively.

Percentage Means of Correct Structural Components as a Writer - Group 11 2 3 4

CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S WPre-Intervention

Probes 97 94 87 97 85 97 91 97 89 75 85 98 96 95 93 86 78 78 86 86 85 88 79 86

InterventionPost-Intervention

Probes 98 96 92 98 94 95 100 91 96 94 92 93 100 94 95 92 98 96 100 93 98 95 95 91

Percentage Means of Correct Structural Components as a Writer - Group 25 6 7 8

CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S W CS SV C P S WPre-

Intervention Probes

97 91 85 88 38 86 83 89 70 68 67 90 77 97 82 81 65 91 95 98 92 97 87 100

InterventionPost-

Intervention Probes 91 89 87 87 92 95 98 92 98 85 89 93 97 94 98 92 93 96 100 95 98 95 95 91

*Note: Abbreviations are as follows; complete sentences (CS), subject-verb agreement (SV), capitalization (C), punctuation (P), spelling (S), and word-usage (W).

!164

Means of accurate functional writing components as a writer and an editor during pre-

intervention, intervention, and post-intervention sessions for each group of participants as well as

the number of accurate structural components edited during intervention phases per group.

Session

Correct Functional Component Means for Group 1 as

Writers


Writers


Editors


Editors

Correct Structural

Component Means for Group 1 as

Editors

Correct Structural

Component Means for Group 2 as

Editors

Pre-Intervention -

Re-writes Until

Criterion

2.1 1.35

Pre-Intervention -

6 Editing Probes

0 0 0 0

Pre-Intervention -

Re-writes Until

Criterion #2

1.2

Intervention 6.18 6.04 5.2 5.2

Post-Intervention -

Re-writes Until

Criterion

6.8 6.3

Post-Intervention -

6 Editing Probes

6.72 6.10 5.7 5.3

*Functional writing and editing was out of 8 components while structural writing and editing was out of 6 components.

!165

Appendix D

Examples of writing assignments and the corresponding checklists.

Example of a descriptive technical writing assignment and the corresponding checklist.

!

!166

!

!167

Example of a mathematic technical writing assignment and the corresponding checklist.

!

!168

!

!169

Example of a science technical writing assignment and the corresponding checklist.

!

!170

!

!171

Example of a how-to technical writing assignment and the corresponding checklist.

!

!172

!

!173

Example of the structural writing checklist.

!

the effects of mastery of editing peers’ writing on the

Documents