Author: katie

Bridging Theory and Practice: Solutions for Success

Across elementary classrooms, you can find graphic organizers taped to desks, acronyms written on anchor charts posted on walls, and checklists clipped to student folders. Teachers are working hard to improve writing instruction, yet many still report the same outcome: despite these effective tools, student writing does not improve in lasting or meaningful ways.

This creates a painful question for teachers: If I’m using research-based strategies, why isn’t it working?

The answer matters, especially for educators responsible for teaching writing, selecting a writing curriculum, or supporting a school’s curriculum for writing. The problem is not that teachers are doing the wrong thing. The problem is that writing strategies, by themselves, are not enough.

Recent research on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) helps explain why.

Why Evidence-based Strategies Aren’t a Guarantee

Teachers are often told what strategies to use, but not how to teach them.

A strategy may be evidence-based, but strategy use does not automatically translate into effective writing instruction. Students must learn how to apply the strategy, when to use it, and how to regulate themselves while writing. That requires instruction that goes far beyond handing out an organizer or naming an acronym.

This gap between strategy and instruction shows up in classrooms as:

• Students who know the acronym but don’t know how to start
• Plans that look fine, followed by weak drafts
• Heavy teacher support that never fades
• Writing improvement that disappears once scaffolds are removed

Teachers sense that something is missing, but they are rarely given language or support to name it.

The research identifies this missing piece as multicomponent, strategy-focused writing instruction. While teachers often experience the gap as “I tried the strategy, but it didn’t stick,” the reality is that the strategy lacked the necessary instructional supports, like self-regulation, to make it a permanent part of the student’s writing process.

What “Multicomponent” Actually Means for Teaching Writing

In research terms, SRSD is described as a multicomponent, strategy-focused approach to writing instruction. While that phrase sounds abstract, the meaning is practical: it means you aren’t just handing students a tool; you are teaching them the mental processes required to use it.

Multicomponent writing instruction means that effectively teaching writing includes all of the following working together:

• Explicit strategy instruction
• Clear genre expectations
• Teacher modeling with think-alouds
• Guided practice with feedback
• Self-regulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-talk)
• Gradual release to independence

When any of these components are missing, writing instruction becomes fragile.

Students may appear successful while supports are present, but they do not develop independence. Teachers then conclude that the strategy “didn’t work,” when the real issue is that the strategy was never fully taught.

This distinction matters deeply for anyone responsible for teaching writing or evaluating best practices in writing instruction.

Why Strategies Alone Don’t Improve Writing

The Ray and FitzPatrick study on practice-based professional development makes this point clearly: writing strategies are powerful only when teachers are supported to teach them well.

In the study, teachers did not simply learn about SRSD strategies. They learned how to teach them through:

• Modeling complete lessons
• Practicing instruction with peers
• Receiving feedback on instructional moves
• Using the same materials they would use with students
• Reflecting on student responses

This matters because teaching writing is not a static skill; it involves various techniques that must be mastered. It is a performance skill. Teachers must make thinking visible in real time. That is not something most educators were trained to do in their training programs.

Without structured support, even strong teachers revert to shortcuts:

• Explaining instead of modeling
• Helping instead of guiding
• Fixing student writing instead of teaching students how to fix it

The research does not blame teachers for this. It explains why it happens.

The Professional Learning Problem Beneath the Writing Problem

Many writing initiatives fail not because the approach is flawed, but because professional learning stops at explanation.

Teachers attend a workshop. They see slides. They receive materials. Then they are expected to implement complex writing instruction independently or with limited supports.

A recent article by Amber Ray and Erin FitzPatrick shows that one-shot professional development is not enough for writing instruction. Teachers need opportunities to rehearse instruction, make mistakes, receive feedback, and refine their practice before stepping into the classroom.

This finding aligns with what teachers already know:

• Writing instruction is cognitively demanding
• Modeling writing live is uncomfortable
• Self-regulation language does not come naturally at first
• Feedback during writing requires precision

Effective writing instruction depends on teacher confidence, creativity, and clarity. Those develop through practice, honing skills and implementing effective writing strategies, not through exposure.

Why This Matters for Any Writing Curriculum

This is where an important clarification matters for schools evaluating a curriculum for writing.

SRSD is not a writing curriculum.

It does not replace your writing curriculum. It does not dictate topics, texts, or pacing. Instead, SRSD functions as a framework that strengthens how your writing curriculum is taught.

Think of it this way:

• A writing curriculum defines what students write
• SRSD supports how students learn to write

This distinction allows SRSD to work within many existing curricula for writing decisions. Teachers can apply SRSD strategies to narrative, informational, and argumentative tasks already required by standards and through adopted programs.

For teachers, this matters because it reduces initiative overload. SRSD does not ask them to abandon what they are teaching. It helps them teach it more effectively.

Teaching Writing Requires Teaching Thinking

One of the most consistent findings in SRSD research is that students improve when teachers model their thinking aloud. This is not a small instructional move. It is central to how students learn to write.

When teachers say:

• “Here’s how I decide what goes in my plan”
• “I’m checking whether I included all parts of the genre”
• “I’m stuck, so I’m telling myself what to do next”

They reveal processes that strong writers use automatically. Students who struggle with writing do not lack ideas. They lack access to these processes.

Teaching writing means teaching thinking. That is a core principle of best practices in writing instruction, yet it is rarely supported explicitly in professional learning.

The Role of Self-Regulation in Writing Instruction

Writing places heavy demands on attention, memory, and motivation. Students must manage ideas, language, organization, and time simultaneously.

SRSD addresses this through explicit instruction in self-regulation strategies. Students learn to:

• Set goals for their writing
• Monitor progress while drafting
• Use self-talk to persist
• Evaluate their work against the criteria

The Ray and FitzPatrick article highlights that this component is not optional. When teachers skip self-regulation instruction, student gains are smaller and less durable.

For teachers learning how to teach writing, this explains why some students fall apart during independent work. They were never taught how to manage the task.

Why Fidelity Matters (And How It Empowers Teachers)

The word fidelity often raises concern. Teachers worry it means rigid scripting or loss of professional autonomy. However, Ray and FitzPatrick reframe this: fidelity is not about compliance; it’s about instructional integrity.

In SRSD research, fidelity does not mean rigidity. It means ensuring that essential instructional components (“active ingredients”) are present, even as teachers adapt language, pacing, and examples in a concise manner. The article describes how teachers used fidelity checklists not as evaluation tools, but as supports for self-reflection and growth

This reframes fidelity as a teacher support, not a compliance mechanism.

Teachers are encouraged to adapt instruction, but not to skip critical elements such as modeling, guided practice, or self-regulation.

What Teachers Say Changes When Instruction Improves

Across SRSD studies, teachers report similar shifts once instruction becomes fully implemented:

• Students start writing more quickly
• Planning improves before drafting
• Writing becomes more organized
• Students rely less on teacher help
• Confidence increases

These changes do not happen overnight. They emerge as teachers refine how they teach writing, applying effective writing tips rather than just what they assign.

This is a crucial message for anyone evaluating how to teach writing effectively. Improvement comes from instructional practice, not from materials alone.

Reframing the Question

Teachers often ask: What is the best writing curriculum?

A more useful question may be: What instructional framework helps my writing curriculum work better?

The research suggests that best practices in writing instruction depend less on the specific program and more on how instruction is delivered. Explicit teaching, modeling, self-regulation, and guided practice matter regardless of the curriculum for writing in use.

These reframing respects teacher expertise. It acknowledges that strong teaching writing is complex work and that teachers deserve structures that make that work manageable.

What This Means for Schools and Instructional Leaders

For schools committed to improving writing instruction, several implications follow:

• Professional learning must include practice, rehearsal and feedback
• Writing strategies must be taught, not just introduced
• Self-regulation deserves explicit instructional time
• Writing instruction improves when teachers are supported over time
• Frameworks like SRSD strengthen, rather than replace, existing writing curriculum choices

None of these requires abandoning current materials. They require rethinking how teachers are supported to use them.

Erin FitzPatrick’s Role in Advancing This Work

The research discussed here reflects years of work by scholars deeply involved in writing instruction and teacher development. Erin FitzPatrick has contributed extensively to SRSD research, particularly in understanding how teachers learn to implement evidence-based writing instruction through practice-based professional development. Her work consistently emphasizes that teacher learning must mirror student learning: explicit, supported, and iterative. In addition to her research contributions, she currently serves as an SRSD Online mentor, supporting educators as they strengthen writing instruction in real classrooms. This connection between research and practice is not incidental. It reflects a core principle of SRSD: instructional improvement depends on sustained support, not isolated training.

A Final Thought

When writing strategies fail in classrooms, it is rarely because teachers chose poorly. More often, teachers were never given the conditions needed to succeed.

Effective teaching writing depends on explicit instruction, supported practice, and time to refine craft. The research is clear on this point. Teachers already sense it. What they need is alignment between what research says and how professional learning is designed.

That alignment is where real improvement in writing instruction begins.

Reference

Ray, A. B., & FitzPatrick, E. (2024). Instructional Coaches in Elementary Settings: Writing the Wave to Success with Self-Regulated Strategy Development for the Informational Genre. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 39(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/15405826231218251

---

Moving from Traditional PD to Sustained Classroom Support

Writing instruction is one of the most complex tasks we ask of teachers. While literacy demands are higher than ever, many educators find themselves in the difficult position of navigating this complexity without a consistent, evidence-based framework or the specific training needed to support diverse learners. This lack of a schoolwide approach and the absence of sustained professional support leaves students with learning disabilities particularly vulnerable, as writing instruction often becomes fragmented across grade levels.

This is where instructional coaches become essential, not as occasional support, but as implementation leaders. These coaches are positioned to translate research into daily classroom practice, align instruction across grade levels, and support teachers as they take on one of the most complex instructional tasks we ask of students: writing.

A recent peer-reviewed article by Amber Ray and Erin FitzPatrick (2024) makes this clear, outlining how instructional coaches can lead effective, schoolwide implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). Their research shows how schools can bridge the research-to-practice gap, leading to measurable gains for students and meaningful professional growth for teachers

For instructional coaches, this research provides a blueprint for leading systemic change. Ray and FitzPatrick outline the steps for instructional coaches to use practice-based professional development to ensure evidence-based writing instruction is implemented with high fidelity across all grade levels.

The Writing Problems Coaches See Every Day

Most instructional coaches don’t need another report to tell them writing instruction is inconsistent. They see the “research-to-practice gap” firsthand:

• Teachers vary widely in how they teach writing, even within the same grade.
• Writing time gets squeezed by other priorities.
• Students struggle to use graphic organizers to plan, organize, and sustain writing.
• Teachers feel underprepared to teach writing explicitly.
• Students with learning disabilities receive fragmented support.

The research confirms what most coaches already know. National surveys show that many elementary teachers receive little preparation in writing instruction, and students, both with and without disabilities, underperform on writing assessments. Students with learning disabilities are especially vulnerable because most receive writing instruction primarily in general education classrooms without systematic support.

For instructional coaches, the core issue is not a lack of teacher effort, but that necessary systems are missing.

SRSD offers a framework that addresses this gap, but only when implemented well.

Why SRSD Changes the Coaching Conversation

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) was originally designed to support students with learning disabilities, but decades of research now show its effectiveness across diverse student populations and grade levels. Meta-analyses consistently report large effect sizes for SRSD compared to other writing interventions.

What makes SRSD different from many writing initiatives is not just what it teaches, but how it structures learning:

• Explicit instruction in genre knowledge
• Clear strategies for planning, drafting, and revising
• Embedded self-regulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-talk)
• Gradual release toward independent writing
• Instruction that honors mastery rather than pacing guides

For instructional coaches, SRSD is a natural fit because it creates the systemic coherence necessary for schoolwide success. However, moving this framework from research into the classroom requires more than just high-quality materials; it requires intentional, guided leadership of a coach to ensure it takes root.

The Instructional Coach as Implementation Leader

Ray and FitzPatrick argue that instructional coaches are uniquely positioned to oversee schoolwide SRSD implementation because of their cross-grade visibility, instructional expertise, and daily contact with teachers.

From a coaching perspective, this research reframes a coach’s role in three important ways:

1. From PD provider to implementation leader
2. From classroom support to system coherence
3. From short-term initiative to sustained instructional change

This shift matters. Writing instruction often fails when it becomes a one-year rollout or a “binder on a shelf,” lacking comprehensive curriculum development. SRSD succeeds when coaches treat implementation as a developmental process, one that supports the growth of teachers and students alike.

Building Teacher Buy-In Without Overselling

Experienced coaches know that buy-in cannot be forced. Ray and FitzPatrick emphasize starting with interested teachers rather than mandating immediate schoolwide adoption.

Effective coaches:

• Share student writing samples, not just effect sizes
• Connect SRSD to existing teacher practices
• Highlight alignment with standards teachers already teach
• Acknowledge the complexity of the writing process and instruction, incorporating diverse writing techniques
• Emphasize that SRSD is a framework, not a script

Teachers respond when they see SRSD as a way to organize and strengthen the skills they already possess, not as a replacement for their professional judgment.

This is where mentors such as Erin FitzPatrick bring credibility. Her work consistently bridges research and classroom reality, showing teachers how SRSD plays out in inclusive elementary settings. That credibility matters deeply when coaches ask teachers to try something new.

Practice-Based Professional Development: A Coach’s Most Powerful Lever for Instructional Change

One of the article’s strongest contributions is its emphasis on Practice-Based Professional Development (PBPD). Coaches do not simply explain SRSD; they teach teachers how to teach it by practicing together.

Effective PBPD aims to enhance teachers’ writing skills and includes:

• Modeling complete SRSD lessons
• Practicing lessons with peers
• Using the same materials that teachers will use with students
• Providing feedback focused on instruction, not compliance
• Revisiting challenging lessons multiple times

This approach mirrors SRSD itself, enhancing student engagement through modeling, guided practice, feedback, and independence.

Importantly, PBPD respects teachers as adult learners. Coaches create a safe space for practice, mistakes, and growth before teachers ever step into the classroom with students.

Modeling Matters, Especially in Writing

One of the most powerful moves a coach can make is  providing authentic modeling. The research is clear: teachers (and students) need to see writing happen in real time.

When coaches model SRSD lessons, they do not present polished essays. They write live. They think aloud. They show hesitation, revision, and decision-making. They model self-talk.

This matters because the writing process is invisible unless we make thinking visible.

Coaches who model writing well give teachers permission to slow down, narrate their thinking, and teach writing as a process—not a product.

Supporting Teachers During Classroom Implementation

Even strong practice-based professional development is not enough on its own. The article outlines several coaching supports that matter once instruction begins:

1. In-Class Modeling
Coaches teach SRSD lessons in teachers’ classrooms when needed, especially lessons involving modeling and self-regulation. This allows teachers to see how think-alouds, scaffolds, and student responses unfold in real time with their own students.

2. Co-Teaching
Coaches and teachers plan lessons together, divide instructional roles, and develop skills to differentiate support for students who need additional scaffolding. This shared responsibility reduces instructional risk while helping teachers build confidence and fluency with SRSD practices.

3. Observation and Feedback
Coaches observe SRSD lessons using structured tools and guide reflective conversations focused on instructional moves. Feedback centers on what students are doing and how teacher actions support strategy use, rather than on compliance or performance ratings.

4. Peer Observation
Coaches coordinate opportunities for teachers to observe one another teaching SRSD, strengthening collective expertise. These observations normalize problem-solving and accelerate learning by making effective practice visible across classrooms.

Each of these moves reinforces the idea that implementation is iterative, not evaluative.

Differentiation: Where Coaches Add Real Value

Differentiation is where SRSD shines and where coaches provide essential guidance.

The article highlights how coaches help teachers differentiate:

• Genre strategies (e.g., TIDE across grade levels)
• Self-regulation strategies (personalized self-talk)
• Writing goals (individual and group targets)
• Instructional grouping (intentional and random)
• Expectations aligned to grade-level standards

Because SRSD uses consistent strategies across grades, differentiation becomes additive rather than fragmented. Students do not relearn writing from scratch each year; they build on a shared framework that emphasizes the writing process.

This continuity is one of SRSD’s greatest strengths and one that only coaches can protect at the system level.

Tracking Student Growth Without Overburdening Teachers

Assessment often derails writing initiatives. Coaches help prevent that.

The article describes flexible checklists aligned to standards that allow teachers to:

• Collect pre- and post-writing samples
• Identify specific skill growth
• Set meaningful goals
• Track progress for IEP documentation
• Monitor maintenance across content areas

Crucially, coaches help teachers understand that early SRSD stages focus on knowledge building rather than immediate writing output. Progress can and should be measured before students draft independently.

This protects instructional integrity and prevents premature judgments about effectiveness.

Why This Matters for Students with Learning Disabilities

SRSD was designed with students with learning disabilities in mind, and schoolwide implementation benefits these students most when coaches lead with intention.

Students with learning disabilities gain access to:

• Explicit instruction in planning and organization
• Clear genre expectations
• Scaffolded self-regulation strategies
• Consistent instruction across classrooms
• Opportunities to succeed before being asked to perform independently

For coaches committed to equity, SRSD offers a way to reduce variability without lowering expectations.

A Final Word to Instructional Coaches

Elementary writing instruction does not improve because teachers try harder. It improves when systems support strong teaching.

This research makes one thing clear: instructional coaches are the engine of systemic change. When coaches lead practice-based professional development, align instruction across grades, support differentiation, and protect instructional time, writing instruction changes measurably and sustainably.

SRSD gives coaches a research-validated framework. Your leadership gives it life.

And that combination is what moves writing instruction forward.

Reference:

Ray, A. B., & FitzPatrick, E. (2024). Instructional Coaches in Elementary Settings: Writing the Wave to Success with Self-Regulated Strategy Development for the Informational Genre. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 39(1), 37-52.

---

How SRSD Researcher Barbara Friedlander Shows Teachers What Strong Writing Instruction Really Looks Like

When teachers talk about teaching writing, the conversation often centers on what students produce: sentences, paragraphs, essays. But experienced educators know that strong writing instruction is not just about outcomes. It is about teaching students how writers think.

That is why modeling, specifically modeling through think-aloud writing strategies, sits at the heart of SRSD writing instruction.

In a recent SRSD ZoomSide Chat™, SRSD researcher and practitioner Barbara Friedlander walked teachers through one small part of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD): modeling. While it is just one stage of the framework, Barbara makes a compelling case that it is often the most impactful.

As she explains, even when teachers understand SRSD strategies, student growth accelerates when teachers make their thinking visible, showing students not just what to write, but how to approach writing as skilled writers do.

This blog unpacks the core principles of SRSD modeling as Barbara teaches them, helping educators understand what modeling looks like in practice and why it works so powerfully for students across grades and content areas.

Watch the video here: Barbara Friedlander SRSD ZoomSide Chat™: Modeling

Writing Is Still a Life Skill, Even Now

In today’s classrooms, teachers are navigating rapid change. AI tools can generate text. Students can dictate ideas. Technology can support drafting.

Yet writing remains essential.

Students still need to plan ideas, organize information, and communicate clearly for a specific audience. As Barbara notes, students will need writing skills for “a proposal, a grant, a brief, or Google Slides.” They also write daily emails, texts, and social media posts, often without realizing they are practicing writing.

The question is not whether writing still matters. The question is how to teach writing in a way that truly works for students.

Self-Regulated Strategy Development offers an answer because it teaches students writing strategies for students that mirror what skilled writers already do. Modeling is how students gain access to those strategies.

Why Students Get Stuck Before They Ever Write

Many students struggle with writing long before they put words on the page.

Teachers see this every day:

• Students freeze when asked to write
• They avoid starting
• They wait for help or answers
• They shut down emotionally

Barbara describes years of working with students who had learned that if they waited long enough, “the teacher will just tell me what to do.” By the time many students receive additional support, they have become dependent rather than independent.

SRSD addresses this directly through explicit writing instruction and gradual release writing instruction. Modeling is where that release begins.

What Modeling Means in SRSD

Modeling in SRSD is not simply showing students a finished piece of writing. It is a deliberate, intentional think-aloud in which the teacher writes in front of students and verbalizes the thoughts, decisions, struggles, and strategies that occur while writing.

Barbara describes modeling as “a way to expose your thoughts and what good writers do.” Skilled writers talk to themselves constantly as they write. Students rarely hear that internal dialogue unless teachers make it visible.

This practice is not anecdotal. The What Works Clearinghouse identifies modeling and think-alouds as a core component of SRSD because they allow teachers to explicitly demonstrate strategy use, self-regulation, and goal setting, key elements of evidence-based writing strategies.

Modeling Is About Self-Regulation, Not Just Mnemonics

Many teachers associate SRSD with mnemonics like POW, TREE, or TIDE. These tools matter, especially for students with working-memory or language-processing challenges.

But Barbara is clear: “The mnemonic is not actually the secret to SRSD.”

The real power lies in self-regulation in writing. Teaching students how expert writers set writing goals, plan, and monitor progress:

• Plan
• Monitor progress
• Encourage themselves
• Manage frustration
• Adjust strategies based on the task

Modeling is where students learn these behaviors, which are essential for developing strong writing skills.

The Gradual Release Begins With Modeling

SRSD follows a gradual release of responsibility model. Teachers begin by doing most of the cognitive work, then gradually shift responsibility to students.

Barbara explains that this release starts with:

1. Building background knowledge
2. Understanding the genre
3. Seeing examples and non-examples
4. Watching the teacher model the writing process

Only after this foundation and receiving initial feedback do students move into collaborative writing, peer practice, and independent writing.

Modeling gives students a roadmap before they are asked to drive on their own.

Five Core Components of Effective SRSD Modeling

Barbara designs her modeling carefully, often planning or scripting what she will say. Over time, teachers internalize the process, but early precision matters.

She consistently focuses on five key areas.

1. Modeling How Writers Get Started

Getting started is one of the biggest barriers for struggling writers.

Barbara intentionally voices that struggle: “This might be too much work. I don’t know how to get started.”

Then she models the recovery: “Oh wait—I remember POW and TREE.”

Students learn that uncertainty is normal and that strategies exist to move forward.

2. Modeling Strategy Use in Real Time

Modeling shows students how to use strategies to enhance their writing skills, not just name them.

Barbara writes “POW” at the top of the page and “TREE” down the side, explaining that these tools help her stay organized and focused during the writing process.

This is critical for explicit writing instruction. Students see strategies as thinking tools, not worksheets.

3. Modeling Positive Self-Talk

Many students engage in constant negative self-talk:

• “I can’t do this.”
• “Writing is too hard.”
• “Everyone else is better than me.”

Barbara models productive self-statements: “I can do this.” “This is hard, but I have a plan.”

She also discusses intentionally modeling negative thoughts, then analyzing why they are unhelpful. This teaches students to replace them with more productive language.

4. Modeling Goal Setting and Monitoring

Goal setting is often overlooked in teaching writing, but Barbara emphasizes that it is a life skill.

During modeling, she pauses to check progress: “I said I was going to have eight parts. Let me count.”

Students learn how expert writers monitor their work as they write, not just after they finish.

5. Modeling How Writers Handle Distraction and Frustration

One of the most powerful aspects of Barbara’s modeling is her handling of interruptions and emotional derailments.

In one example, she becomes distracted mid-writing, then redirects herself: “I cannot think about that right now. I won’t get all the points if I do that.”

Students learn that distraction happens and that writers can regain control.

Modeling Is Interactive and Flexible

Barbara emphasizes that modeling does not have to be one uninterrupted performance.

Some classes benefit from stopping frequently to discuss what they noticed. Others can sustain longer models. Teachers can pause, analyze self-statements, then continue.

This flexibility allows modeling to remain high-engagement, even for students with limited attention spans.

When Modeling Works, Students Generalize

One of Barbara’s most powerful examples comes from students who transferred self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) strategies years later without prompting.

Middle school teachers noticed that students who could write independently all shared one experience: SRSD.

They didn’t need reminders. They knew what to do when given an assignment.

That transfer is the goal of SRSD writing instruction. Modeling makes it possible.

Modeling Improves Motivation and Independence

Barbara consistently sees changes in student motivation after SRSD instruction.

Students want to write because they finally understand how writing works. Research confirms that SRSD improves planning, organization, revision, motivation, and independence.

Modeling removes the mystery from writing. Confidence grows when students know what expert writers do.

Modeling Works Across the Curriculum

SRSD modeling is not limited to ELA classes.

Barbara describes supporting a science teacher who struggled with lab writing. After modeling his own thinking (planning, organizing, and self-talk) student writing improved.

Writing is thinking. Modeling teaches thinking in any subject.

Modeling Supports Teachers, Too

Teacher confidence matters for retention.

Barbara notes that when teachers know exactly how to teach writing and see student results, they stay engaged in the profession. SRSD modeling gives teachers clarity and direction.

It shows them how to teach writing, not just what to assign.

There Is No Fixed Timeline. And That’s the Point

Teachers often ask how long to stay in each SRSD stage.

Barbara’s answer is consistent:
It depends on the students.

Some students need extended modeling. Others move quickly into collaboration. SRSD is flexible, responsive, and student-centered.

Final Takeaway for Teachers

From our experience, some teachers think SRSD Modeling is an extra step in writing instruction. Others think SRSD modeling is too tricky. What does Barbara think? SRSD modeling is the heart of the framework.

When teachers model:

• Students learn how writers think
• Self-regulation replaces avoidance
• Strategies become usable tools
• Independence becomes achievable

As Barbara says, modeling lets students “see into your brain.”

That is how students learn to write—and why modeling remains one of the most powerful evidence-based writing strategies teachers can use.

About Barbara Friedlander

Barbara’s leadership as an Inclusion Instructor in Maryland and a Nationally Board-Certified Special Education teacher has been instrumental in incorporating SRSD into classroom practice. With over two decades of experience in special education, she has co-authored influential SRSD books, including the widely acclaimed Powerful Writing Strategies for All Students. Her contributions have earned her recognition, including the Learning Disabilities Association Sam Kirk Educator of the Year award for 2024. As an SRSD training and educational policy leader, Friedlander’s influence shapes inclusive educational practices and co-teaching strategies.

Our favorite study featuring Barbara Friedlander is: Bring Powerful Writing Strategies Into Your Classroom! Why and How (2013)

---

What Practice-Based Professional Development Reveals About SRSD

For decades, writing research has wrestled with a persistent and deeply consequential assumption: complex writing instruction works only when researchers teach it. According to this view, large effect sizes are only achieved under ideal conditions, such as small groups, expert instructors, and tight controls, but inevitably diminish once responsibility shifts to classroom teachers.

This assumption has shaped district decision-making, professional development models, and even skepticism toward evidence-based writing frameworks and effective writing techniques. It has also slowed the scaling of approaches that show enormous promise for students.

The evidence now tells a different story.

A comprehensive review by Harris, Camping, and McKeown (2023) demonstrates that when teachers receive practice-based professional development (PBPD),they implement Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) with high fidelity and produce student writing outcomes that are comparable to, and sometimes stronger than, those achieved in researcher-led studies.

This finding is not incremental. It directly challenges one of the most entrenched beliefs in writing instruction and reshapes what is possible for schools committed to improving writing at scale.

Why Writing Instruction Requires a Different Kind of Professional Development

Teaching writing is not a single skill. It is a complex, self-regulated problem-solving process that draws simultaneously on various elements of the writing process:

• Genre knowledge
• Strategic planning
• Sentence construction
• Audience awareness
• Goal setting and self-monitoring
• Motivation and persistence

Effective writing instruction must address all of these components. Teaching writing well requires far more than assigning prompts or providing feedback after the fact. It requires explicit instruction in strategies and in the self-regulation processes that allow students to use those strategies independently.

Yet for decades, teacher preparation and professional learning have largely sidelined writing. Many teachers report limited preparation in teaching writing instruction, low confidence in their own writing abilities, and uncertainty about how to teach writing explicitly, especially across genres.

Traditional professional development has not solved this problem. One-day workshops, curriculum overviews, and passive presentations rarely change classroom practice, particularly for an instructional domain as complex as writing.

The chapter reviewed here makes a critical point: if teaching writing is multicomponent and complex, professional development must be equally robust.

What Is Practice-Based Professional Development?

Practice-based professional development (PBPD) emerged from the recognition that teaching expertise develops through doing rather than listening. Rather than focusing solely on abstract principles, PBPD centers learning on the real work of instruction.

Across the broader PD literature, and across the studies reviewed in this chapter, PBPD consistently includes:

• Active learning and rehearsal of instructional practices
• Expert modeling of lessons and teacher talk
• Use of classroom-ready materials identical to those used with students
• Structured opportunities for reflection and feedback
• Collaboration among teachers with shared instructional goals
• Ongoing support during classroom implementation

PBPD treats teachers as learners who need time, feedback, and guided practice to develop complex skills, just like their students.

Importantly, PBPD does not aim for rigid replication. Instead, it emphasizes high-fidelity implementation of core instructional components, while allowing teachers to adapt instruction to their students, contexts, and curricula.

Why SRSD Aligns So Well with Practice-Based PD

SRSD is not a script. It is a flexible, research-validated framework built around explicit strategy instruction, gradual release, and self-regulation. Teachers model strategies using think-alouds, support guided practice, and gradually transfer responsibility to students.

Because SRSD relies on teacher judgment and responsiveness, it cannot be learned through passive exposure. Teachers must practice modeling, guiding discussion, managing scaffolds, and responding to students’ writing in real time.

This makes SRSD an especially strong fit for PBPD.

The chapter reviews 27 studies examining professional development for multicomponent strategy-focused writing instruction. Twenty-one of these studies involved SRSD, making it the most extensively researched model in this context.

These studies span:

• Grades 1–9
• Multiple countries (U.S., Portugal, Spain, Netherlands)
• Diverse student populations and socioeconomic contexts
• General and special education settings

Across this body of research, PBPD for SRSD consistently produced strong teacher implementation and meaningful student outcomes.

The Claim That “Teachers Can’t Replicate Research” Falls Apart

One of the central aims of the Harris, Camping, and McKeown review was to compare outcomes from teacher-led instruction following PBPD with outcomes from researcher-led instruction reported in prior meta-analyses.

The results were clear.

Across SRSD studies examining student outcomes from teacher instruction after PBPD:

• Student writing quality and genre elements improved at moderate to very large effect sizes
• Outcomes were comparable to those typically found in researcher-led studies
• Gains were observed across multiple genres, including opinion, informative, narrative, and persuasive writing

In other words, the feared drop-off did not occur.

This finding is especially notable given that teacher-led instruction occurs under less controlled, more demanding conditions: full classrooms, diverse learners, competing curricular demands, and limited instructional time.

Why Teacher-Led SRSD Sometimes Produces Even Stronger Effects

The review does more than show equivalence. It helps explain why teacher-led instruction can sometimes outperform researcher-led instruction.

1. Teachers Sustain Instruction Over Time

Researchers typically teach a single unit or short intervention. Teachers, however, can revisit strategies, reinforce expectations, and embed writing instruction across weeks, months, and content areas.

This extended exposure supports consolidation, maintenance, and transfer.

2. Teachers Integrate Writing Across the Curriculum

Teachers are uniquely positioned to help students apply writing strategies and composition skills in science, social studies, and other subjects, thereby effectively teaching creative writing and other types of writing across various disciplines. This cross-context use strengthens students’ strategic control and deepens learning.

3. Teachers Respond Dynamically to Students

PBPD prepares teachers to adjust pacing, scaffolding, and feedback based on student performance. As students grow, instruction evolves.

This responsiveness is difficult to replicate in tightly controlled research designs but is a strength of classroom teaching.

Fidelity Without Rigidity: A Key Finding

A common concern about scaling instructional models is the issue of fidelity. Will teachers implement the approach “correctly”?

Across the SRSD studies reviewed:

• Fidelity of implementation averaged around 90%
• Most studies reported fidelity rates between 74% and 98%
• Teachers maintained high fidelity while adapting instruction to meet student needs

Crucially, fidelity focused on implementing SRSD’s core components rather than following scripts word-for-word. Teachers were encouraged to differentiate instruction as long as the “active ingredients” remained intact.

This balance of high fidelity with professional autonomy is one reason PBPD works so well with SRSD.

PBPD Builds Teacher Confidence and Commitment

Another powerful pattern in the reviewed studies involves social validity—teachers’ perceptions of the value and usability of SRSD.

Where measured, teachers consistently reported:

• High satisfaction with SRSD
• Increased confidence in teaching writing
• Strong belief in the approach’s impact on students

These perceptions matter. Teachers who see real gains in student writing are more likely to persist, refine their instruction, and advocate for sustained implementation.

PBPD supports this process by ensuring that teachers experience early success, receive feedback, and learn alongside colleagues.

Time Matters but Quality Matters More

The studies reviewed varied widely in duration, ranging from brief PD sessions to more extended PBPD models lasting 12–30 hours, often with follow-up support.

Despite this variation, many studies produced positive outcomes. This suggests that time alone does not guarantee effectiveness. What matters is how professional learning is designed and enacted.

PBPD works because it:

• Focuses on instruction that teachers will actually teach
• Includes rehearsal and feedback
• Connects learning directly to student outcomes

The review emphasizes that future research should continue to refine the understanding of how much time is needed under different conditions. Still, the overall conclusion is clear: investing in high-quality PBPD for SRSD is warranted, given the outcomes achieved.

What This Means for Scaling Writing Instruction

For district leaders, instructional coaches, and policymakers, this body of research carries profound implications.

First, it dispels the myth that writing instruction cannot scale without losing effectiveness, prompting a revision in current educational strategies. When teachers receive PBPD aligned with the complexity of the instruction, student outcomes remain strong.

Second, it reframes professional development as capacity building, not program delivery. PBPD develops teachers’ instructional decision-making, not just procedural compliance.

Third, it positions teachers as the primary agents of sustained change. Rather than relying on external experts indefinitely, PBPD builds internal expertise that endures.

Why This Moment Matters

Teaching writing remains one of the most significant unmet needs in literacy education worldwide. Students struggle to express ideas, demonstrate knowledge, and engage deeply with content across subjects.

The research review by Harris, Camping, and McKeown offers a clear path forward.

• SRSD works.
• Teachers can implement it effectively.
• Engaging in practice-based professional development makes the difference.

What many believed would never be possible, teachers achieving research-level outcomes in real classrooms, is not only possible. It is already happening.

The remaining challenge is not whether this approach works, but whether educational systems are willing to invest in professional learning that respects the complexity of teaching and the expertise of teachers.

Reference

Harris, K. R., Camping, A., & McKeown, D. (2023). A review of research on professional development for multicomponent strategy-focused writing instruction. Knowledge gained and challenges remaining. In F. DeSmedt, R. Bouwer, T. Limpo, & S. Graham (Eds). Conceptualizing, designing, implementing, and evaluating writing interventions. Brill Publishing.

---

What Steve Graham Wants Educators to Understand about the Reading-Writing Connection

When teachers plan literacy instruction, they often treat reading and writing as separate areas. One block focuses on reading comprehension, decoding, and vocabulary. Another block focuses on organizing ideas, drafting, revising, and producing text. Yet, as Steve Graham emphasized during our recent webinar with SRSD Online, this separation does not reflect how students’ literacy skills develop.

In practice, reading and writing draw on shared knowledge, shared language processes, and shared meaning-making systems. Students do not turn one set of cognitive skills off to activate another. Instead, reading and writing develop together, influence each other, and strengthen one another over time.

Decades of research, including multiple meta-analyses conducted by Steve Graham and his colleagues, support a consistent conclusion: students benefit when reading and writing are taught as connected skills rather than isolated subjects. This blog highlights the core ideas Steve emphasized, explains why they matter for teaching and instruction, and shows how integrated literacy practices align with what research consistently finds. 

Why Reading and Writing Interact: Three Foundational Ideas

Steve began by grounding the discussion in theory. If reading and writing influence each other, theory should help explain how and why. He described three complementary perspectives that help make sense of the research.

1. Reading and writing draw from shared knowledge

Reading and writing rely on overlapping language resources, including vocabulary, background knowledge, spelling patterns, and understanding of text. When students learn spelling patterns, they often become more effective decoders. When they build knowledge about a topic through reading, they draw on that same information when they write.

Even though reading and writing remain distinct skills, growth in one area strengthens the foundation for the other.

2. Both are meaning-making processes

Reading and writing are acts of communication. Readers make meaning by interpreting how authors structure ideas, arguments, and prose. Writers make meaning by anticipating what a reader needs to understand their ideas clearly.

In classrooms, this relationship becomes especially powerful when instruction encourages students to analyze how texts work and to consider audience, clarity, and purpose in their own writing. Reading can model craft and structure. Writing requires students to apply those insights intentionally.

3. They function as tools for accomplishing goals

In school settings, reading and writing often serve functional purposes. Students read to gather information for writing tasks. They write to explain, summarize, or respond to what they have read. Writing can also deepen comprehension by requiring students to organize, interpret, and integrate ideas from text.

These perspectives help explain why research consistently shows reciprocal effects between reading and writing instruction.

How Writing Supports Reading Development

One of Steve’s central messages was clear: writing is not only a way to assess learning; it actively supports learning. When students write during or after reading, they often understand the text more deeply.

Writing regularly supports reading comprehension

Research shows that students who write several times per week demonstrate gains in reading comprehension, particularly when writing has a clear purpose or instructional support. Writing requires students to identify important ideas, clarify meaning, and use language precisely.

Writing about text strengthens understanding

Across studies, several types of writing about reading reliably improve comprehension:

• taking notes
• generating and answering questions in writing
• summarizing text
• writing extended responses, explanations, or arguments

The latter approaches often show stronger effects because they require students to interpret, organize, and apply information rather than simply restate it.

Teaching spelling supports reading skills

Explicit spelling instruction improves decoding skills and can also support reading comprehension. As students recognize spelling patterns more efficiently, word recognition becomes more automatic, freeing cognitive resources for understanding text.

Teaching text structure supports comprehension

Instruction in story grammar and informational text structure helps students organize and track ideas while reading. These structures act as internal frameworks that support comprehension across genres.

Engaging students in the writing process supports reading

When students plan, draft, revise, and reflect, they develop metacognitive habits that transfer to reading. Monitoring clarity and meaning while writing supports comprehension monitoring during reading.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that strengthening writing instruction can support growth in reading comprehension and related literacy skills.

How Reading Supports Writing Development

Steve also emphasized that the relationship works in the opposite direction: reading strengthens writing in several well-documented ways.

Increased reading supports writing quality

When students read more, they encounter a wider range of vocabulary, syntax, text structures, and prose styles. These models influence their own writing, including creative writing, often without direct instruction.

Observing reader responses builds audience awareness

When students see how others respond to their writing, or to directions or explanations they wrote, they become more aware of audience needs. This awareness often leads to clearer, more intentional writing.

Analyzing text builds internal criteria for quality

Reading and analyzing texts, including peer writing and mentor texts, helps students internalize expectations for strong writing. These criteria then guide their own drafting and revision decisions.

Reading supports spelling development

Students learn to spell far more words than they are ever taught directly. Much of this orthographic knowledge develops through exposure to written language during reading. Even struggling readers and writers acquire spelling knowledge through repeated encounters with words in text.

Across these findings, research consistently shows that reading supports writing development across grade levels.

Balanced Instructional Time Matters

Steve highlighted the importance of how instructional time is allocated. Classrooms that devote substantial time to both reading and writing, often in a roughly balanced way, show stronger outcomes in reading comprehension, writing quality, writing mechanics, and overall literacy skills.

In many classrooms, writing is limited, reducing opportunities for students to benefit from the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing. The key issue is not a precise ratio but ensuring that writing receives sufficient instructional time.

Writing as a Tool for Learning Across Content Areas

Beyond literacy outcomes, writing also supports learning in science, social studies, and mathematics.

Writing helps students:

• identify important information
• clarify and elaborate ideas
• connect new information to prior knowledge
• revisit and refine understanding through rereading and revision

Because writing is permanent, students can reflect on their thinking, revise it, and deepen comprehension. Research shows that when students write about content-area learning, they retain and apply information more effectively.

Instructional Practices That Support Integrated Literacy

Steve shared several instructional practices with strong research support that connect reading and writing.

Sentence combining

Sentence combining teaches students to construct more complex sentences by joining simpler ones. This practice improves sentence construction and often supports reading fluency by helping students recognize syntactic structures more efficiently, without requiring heavy use of grammar terminology.

Pattern-based spelling instruction

When students analyze spelling patterns and test hypotheses, they naturally connect spelling, decoding, and writing. This approach supports the simultaneous development of reading, writing, and language.

Strategic use of notes, plans, and organizers

Tools such as notes, plans, and graphic organizers support deeper processing of text and ideas. These tools help students manage information, whether they are reading for understanding or preparing to write.

How Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Aligns with the Research

Near the end of the webinar, Steve pointed to Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) as an example of instruction that naturally integrates reading and writing.

SRSD supports the reading–writing connection by:

• teaching explicit, task-specific writing strategies
• modeling thinking aloud to make cognitive processes visible
• guiding students through supported practice and gradual release
• embedding self-regulation (goal setting, monitoring, self-talk) into instruction

One example Steve highlighted involves pairing reading and writing strategies:

• Students use TWA (Think Before, Think While, Think After) to read source material strategically.
• Students use POW + TREE to organize and write an opinion text based on what they learned from reading.

In this approach, reading supplies ideas for writing, and writing deepens comprehension of the text. SRSD does not replace reading instruction. It complements it by providing structured strategies that support both comprehension and composition.

The Core Message from the Research

Steve closed with a clear takeaway supported by decades of research:

When reading and writing are taught as connected parts of literacy instruction, students are more likely to develop strong comprehension, language skills, and written expression.

Students benefit from meaningful opportunities to write, including writing in a journal, responding to text, and practicing structured writing strategies. They benefit from instruction that treats literacy as an interconnected system rather than isolated components.

The research is consistent.
The theory is clear.
The instructional implications are well supported.

Reading and writing grow best when they grow together.

---

Evidence-Based Writing Instruction is Crucial to Superintendents Under Pressure

The just-released 2025 edition of 2025 American Superintendent Study: Mid‑Decade Update from AASA paints a clear picture: leading a school district today is more complex, demanding, and high-stakes than ever before.

Finance, staffing, safety, politics, all these factors combine to put enormous pressure on district leaders. Yet, what stands out most in the data is how committed superintendents remain to their fundamental mission: ensuring that every child receives a high-quality education.

For educators and advocates of evidence-based writing instruction, these findings reinforce a powerful truth: classic models of piecemeal curriculum adoption or short-term interventions are increasingly unsuited for the realities of districts today. What districts need is a writing framework that’s research-aligned, sustainable, easy to implement, and built to relieve burden rather than add to it. That’s exactly where SRSD Online comes in.

Below, I walk through key findings from the AASA study, what they reveal about the current state of U.S. public education administration, and why SRSD Online is uniquely positioned to address those needs.

What the AASA Study Reveals

1. The Superintendent Role Is Growing Wider and Heavier

According to the study, the job of a superintendent now demands more than ever: today’s district leaders must possess a range of skills as communicators, coalition-builders, strategic managers, instructional advocates, and civic leaders, all while devising an overarching strategy to meet these diverse demands. 

They juggle budgets and staffing. They manage safety concerns and community expectations. They balance politics, varying stakeholder agendas, public trust, and, at the core, academic quality and equity for students, including those with learning disabilities. 

In short, superintendents are stretched thin. They don’t have time to craft complex curricula, reinvent writing instruction frameworks, or launch multiple pilot programs.

2. Financial Pressure Is the Dominant Concern

Of all stressors reported, financial and budget issues took the top spot. For many leaders, financial constraints dominate their time and hinder their ability to launch or sustain new initiatives. 

Meanwhile, many districts face shrinking resources, competing mandates, and increased demands for safety, mental-health supports, and community engagement, all under tight budgets.

3. Staffing, Politics, and Community Demands Multiply Complexity

Leaders now routinely confront challenges related to staffing shortages, turnover, recruitment pressures, students’ needs, safety and security demands, and increasing political controversy around curriculum, equity, and community backlash. 

At the same time, superintendents report that the job remains meaningful; many find the greatest satisfaction in seeing students grow and succeed through effective instructional strategies. According to the study, nearly 89% of respondents said they are “satisfied or very satisfied” with their role, even under pressure. Still, the broader context shows that school leaders can no longer rely on one-size-fits-all approaches to curriculum or instruction.

4. Districts, Especially Small or Resource-Limited Ones, Need Solutions That Don’t Add Work

Given all the competing demands (financial, administrative, community, political), many districts cannot afford to support heavy curriculum development or complicated PD initiatives.

For small or rural districts, especially, central office staff may be minimal or non-existent; the superintendent might wear multiple hats, functioning as an independent leader in various capacities. The study notes that superintendents vary widely in their day-to-day responsibilities depending on district size, community context, and resources. 

In that reality, any new program must be easy to adopt, low-overhead, and manageable at the school or teacher level, not reliant on district-level curriculum departments that many districts lack.

What Districts Need Now (And What SRSD Online Offers)

Drawing on those findings, here are what superintendents and districts most need, and how Self-Regulated Strategy Development from SRSD Online meets those needs head-on.

A Simple, Low-Burden Implementation Strategy

Given how stretched leaders and central offices are, schools require a framework that doesn’t demand heavy district-level coordination or staffing. Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) courses and one-on-one mentoring from SRSD Online are ideally suited for exactly this.

• SRSD’s effective writing strategies and streamlined writing process make it an ideal strategy for educational development.
• Teachers receive explicit training and tools; districts don’t need to invest in creating materials.
• Ongoing coaching and support can be managed within existing staffing models.

By offering a turnkey system, SRSD Online reduces load, not adds to it.

High Value, Cost-Conscious, Sustainable Instructional Investment

In an era when budgets dominate conversation, districts want high ROI, interventions that will last, not temporary “pilot-and-drop” programs. SRSD Online provides a long-term investment, not a fleeting fad.

Once teachers complete the self-paced course and internalize the approach, they carry SRSD writing instruction forward. Classroom implementation does not require annual license renewals or expensive re-training. And if they want to review a lesson or the materials, everything is right with them in the online course.

That means districts get enduring value and avoid constantly allocating scarce funds to reinvention.

Equity and Quality for Every Student Regardless of District Size or Resources

SRSD Online levels the playing field. Because it doesn’t require a large curriculum office or extensive resources, even under-resourced districts or small/rural schools can enhance student engagement and provide high-quality, evidence-based writing instruction.

This aligns strongly with superintendents’ moral commitment, which was noted in the AASA study, to high-quality education for all students. 

Whether a district is large, small, urban, or rural, SRSD Online provides a stable, research-based path forward.

Stability Amid Administrative, Political, and Social Pressure

With growing stress related to politics, community tensions, and external pressures, especially around curriculum, equity, and social issues, districts need stable, evidence-based instructional frameworks.

SRSD’s strength lies in its grounding in decades of research (the work of Dr. Karen Harris and Dr. Steve Graham) and its clarity in approach. That makes it defensible, transparent, and resistant to being spun into controversy or misused opportunistically.

When communities ask, “Why this writing program?”, SRSD offers a clear, evidence-based answer.

Writing Instruction Also Improves Reading Outcomes

One crucial finding is often overlooked in district literacy conversations: effective writing instruction supports reading comprehension. SRSD does not treat reading and writing as separate initiatives. It connects them through a shared, evidence-based instructional framework.

Research consistently shows that SRSD writing instruction supports stronger writing and contributes to measurable gains in reading comprehension.

“Writing more makes students better readers. Reading more makes students better writers. Teaching them together multiplies the benefits.”
Adapted from Steve Graham’s research on integrated reading and writing instruction

What the Research Shows

Across multiple meta-analyses led by Steve Graham and colleagues, integrated reading and writing instruction has produced statistically significant gains in both areas.

Research findings show that:

• Writing more frequently improves reading comprehension, with an average effect size of 0.35, a meaningful gain for classroom instruction.
• Writing about reading, such as summarizing, analyzing, or responding to texts, improves reading comprehension by 0.37 on standardized assessments and 0.50 on classroom measures.
• Teaching text structure and the writing process improves reading comprehension by 0.20–0.27.
• Instruction in sentence construction and spelling strengthens reading outcomes, with effects as high as 0.66.

SRSD strategies such as POW+TREE and TIDE make thinking visible. As students plan, organize, and reflect in writing, they strengthen the comprehension skills they rely on when reading complex texts.

Effect sizes reflect meta-analytic averages. Results vary by grade level, context, and implementation fidelity.

Leadership-Friendly: Empowers Teachers, Lightens Central Load

Because SRSD is designed to be teacher-implemented and internally sustained, district leadership doesn’t need to micromanage or rebuild instruction every few years. Leaders can focus their energies elsewhere (budget, policy, safety, community trust) while trusting that writing instruction is consistent, high-quality, and supported.

“SRSD Online has given our district a clear, ready-to-use writing framework that actually moves student learning. It works in real schools, even without big curriculum teams, and it respects our budget and our teachers’ time. This isn’t another program that fades after a year. It’s a sustainable approach that strengthens practice across classrooms and builds capacity from the inside out.”

Shelly Ferro, Curriculum Director

That aligns perfectly with what superintendents told AASA they need: scalable systems that don’t require constant oversight.

Scenarios Where SRSD Online Adds Real Value

To make this more concrete, here are three situations described by superintendents in the AASA study that illustrate exactly where SRSD fits, and why it matters.

Scenario 1: A Small Rural District with a Tight Budget and Limited Staff

A superintendent of a small district faces budget pressures, staffing shortages, and limited central office capacity. They want better writing instruction but worry about the cost, time, staff overhead, and the development of effective strategies.

What SRSD Online brings: A self-paced course for teachers, minimal overhead for administration, sustainable implementation, and high-quality writing instruction, all within the district’s tight constraints.

Scenario 2: A District Facing Turnover, Staff Burnout, and Instructional Instability

The shifting political or community pressures leave instruction inconsistent. The district has tried “short-term fixes,” but nothing sticks.

What SRSD Online brings: A stable, research-aligned writing framework that remains in the school regardless of who comes or goes. Teachers and coaches trained in SRSD carry the program forward.

Scenario 3: A District Seeking Equity but With Varied School Resources

Leadership wants every student to receive excellent writing instruction, ensuring that all students, regardless of their school’s resources (some well-staffed, others under-resourced), have consistent access to quality education.

What SRSD online brings: A universal solution because SRSD doesn’t require an extensive infrastructure; all schools (wealthy and under-resourced alike) can adopt it. It delivers equity in writing instruction across the district.

Now Is the Moment for Self-Regulated Strategy Development 

The findings of the 2025 AASA study show us that school leadership is at a crossroads. Demand is rising from budgets, staffing challenges, changing societal expectations. Yet amid all this, educational leaders remain deeply committed to student learning and equity.

What’s needed is a writing solution that understands their reality and enhances self-regulation through self-regulated strategy development. Something that reduces load, increases consistency, and aligns with evidence without adding new burdens.

SRSD Online has a design for precisely this moment.

• It meets districts where they are: whether urban, rural, large, small.
• It offers a cost-effective, sustainable path forward.
• It guarantees fidelity to the research of Harris & Graham.
• It supports teacher growth and student outcomes without requiring heavy central office support.

In short, SRSD online does not just provide an evidence-based writing program; it’s a strategic response to what superintendents are telling us they need.

A Call to Leaders: Prioritize Instructional Systems That Work

If you lead a district or advise one, consider this: now is the time to move beyond initiatives that demand heavy lift, uncertain outcomes, or short-lived impact.

The 2025 AASA Superintendent Study has made it clear: leadership bandwidth is limited; fiscal pressures are real; districts need sustainable solutions in instruction.

SRSD offers a clear pathway forward with effective writing strategies.

Let’s help more districts discover that writing instruction doesn’t have to be complicated, expensive, or ephemeral. It can be simple, research-aligned, equitable, and built to last. If we commit to systems that meet the needs of both students and leaders.

---

SRSD Online and the Arizona Educational Foundation (AEF) have been awarded a major grant to lead a groundbreaking statewide initiative aimed at strengthening literacy instruction in elementary schools through evidence-based practices and innovative artificial intelligence tools.

The $11.5 million project, Pathways to Evidence-Based Literacy, will be funded under the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) expansion grant initiative – a U.S. Department of Education program. Pathways seeks to broaden the use of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). SRSD is one of the most rigorously researched and impactful writing instruction models in the world. The project will specifically address a longstanding challenge in education: helping teachers successfully integrate evidence-based practices into real-world classroom schedules and curricula.

AEF and partners SRSD Online and American Institutes for Research (AIR) will collaborate on a statewide initiative to provide SRSD professional development to instructional coaches and teachers. Over the course of the grant term, the team will develop an AI-powered integration course designed to help educators embed SRSD seamlessly into daily instruction—removing barriers that have historically slowed the scale of evidence-based literacy practices.

Over five years, the project will reach more than 75 elementary schools, while the team rigorously evaluates processes and outcomes through a large-scale randomized controlled trial. AEF will serve as project manager; SRSD Online will serve as implementation and development lead; and AIR will serve as independent evaluator.

“This grant positions Arizona as a national leader in literacy innovation,” said Kim Graham, CEO of the Arizona Educational Foundation. “By combining strong evidence, professional learning, and AI-enabled supports, we are helping educators overcome the ‘last mile’ challenge of implementation—so students benefit where it matters most: in the classroom.”

“We know SRSD is powerful. With this grant, we endeavor to carve out a path through which schools can integrate and sustain it, and through which students can become skilled, confident writers for life,” adds Dr. April Camping, Research Director at SRSD Online.

In addition to improving writing outcomes for students, the project will generate open-access tools, policy briefs, and professional learning resources to support replication across districts and states. All grant-funded materials will be made publicly available, extending the project’s impact far beyond Arizona.

For districts wishing to participate in this initiative or for general inquiries, contact Kim Graham, Chief Executive Officer at in**@************on.org.

For general inquiries, contact su*****@********ne.com.

---

About SRSD Online: SRSD Online empowers educators to transform students’ writing and learning through Self-Regulated Strategy Development: one of the most researched and most effective approaches to writing instruction. Through accessible, high-impact online courses and ongoing coaching, SRSD Online helps schools build internal expertise, sustain improvement over time, and ensure every student gains the tools they need to think, write, and learn more effectively.

About the Arizona Educational Foundation: Since 1983, the Arizona Educational Foundation (AEF) has served at the frontlines of Arizona’s PreK–12 public education system, celebrating excellence and addressing challenges facing schools, educators, and students. Founded by former Arizona State Superintendent of Public Education Carolyn Warner, AEF is the only statewide education foundation charged with elevating Arizona education by showcasing schools and educators that exemplify best practices. The 11 statewide programs and initiatives AEF provides serve as critical interventions that stabilize schools, build leadership pipelines, and expand opportunities for students and districts who too often go without. Public education is the heart of a community, and AEF remains focused on ensuring every student, in every community, has access to the resources, educators, and opportunities required to succeed.

About American Institutes for Research®: The American Institutes for Research® (AIR) is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that conducts behavioral and social science research and delivers technical assistance to solve some of the most urgent challenges in the U.S. and around the world. From education to workforce development, to healthcare service and delivery, community safety and well-being, nutrition, agriculture, and food security, our work drives toward practical solutions that improve lives for families and communities. We do this work because we are dedicated to closing gaps to opportunity and access across the lifespan. At AIR, we know that improving outcomes begins with systems that work for everyone, so we lead with expertise, follow the evidence, and never stop drawing new connections to fulfill our mission.

What the Data Shows and How SRSD Helps Schools Respond

Across the country, many educators worry about declining or stagnant literacy performance. Reading and writing scores have continued to drop in many states, and achievement gaps are wider than they were a decade ago. These trends did not start during the pandemic. Also concerning is that writing is not assessed at the national level with the same consistency as reading. The most recent national writing assessment took place in 2017, but the data still have yet to be shared. Schools now face an urgent challenge: students need stronger support in both reading and writing.

To help address the need for quality instruction, teachers should be supported with quality PD to teach reading and writing well. Research offers strong evidence that writing instruction plays a key role in improving both writing and reading outcomes, and the opposite is also true – reading instruction can improve reading and writing outcomes. We know that both need dedicated time, balance, and explicit instruction.

Reading scores have declined across grade levels

NAEP Reading results for grades 4 and 8 show steady drops since 2012.
According to the 2022 NAEP Reading Report Card:

• Grade 4 reading scores fell 3 points from 2019 to 2022.
• Grade 8 reading scores fell 3 points over the same period.
• Both grade levels show long-term stagnation or decline compared with earlier years (NAEP Reading, 2022).

These declines reflect more than a short-term disruption. They show a pattern that began before the pandemic and continued after it.

The lowest-performing students lost the most ground

NAEP also reports results by percentile. Students in the bottom quartile experienced the sharpest declines:

• At the 10th percentile, reading scores fell significantly more than those of higher-performing peers.
• The gap between high and low achievers has widened over the past decade.
  (Long-Term Trend 2022)
  

This widening gap shows that students who struggled with reading before the pandemic were the most affected by instructional disruptions and inconsistent literacy practices.

Reading levels for 9-year-olds fell to the lowest point in decades

In the NAEP Long-Term Trend assessment for 9-year-olds, reading scores dropped 5 points between 2020 and 2022, the largest decline since the 1980s. NAEP notes that average reading performance for this age group is now similar to levels last seen in the early 1990s.

This decline signals that early readers need more structured support in foundational skills, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Writing performance has also declined

NAEP’s most recent national writing assessment took place in 2017, however the data have not yet been released, which is a significant challenge for educators and researchers. In 2011, NAEP results showed that

• Fewer students could write clear, organized explanations or arguments than prior years.
• Students struggled with sentence construction, organization, and elaboration.
• Many students had difficulty communicating their ideas clearly and coherently.

Although NAEP has not released a full writing assessment since 2011, state-level writing results and national literacy indicators show continued declines.

Combined, these data reveal a consistent pattern: students are struggling with the skills that support comprehension and written expression.

The broader picture

Across these measures, NAEP’s findings point to the same conclusion:

• Students need more structured support with vocabulary and comprehension.
• Many students lack strategies for understanding complex texts.
• Writing performance mirrors reading performance, showing gaps in planning, organizing ideas, and producing connected text.
• Teachers can benefit from clear tools for teaching writing, and PD to support high quality instruction.

These patterns do not reflect a lack of effort on the part of teachers. They reflect the need for stronger systems and more explicit approaches to reading and writing instruction.

Why the Persistent Challenges? Students need more explicit instruction

Reading and writing are complex skills. Students learn them more effectively when teachers model their thinking, guide practice, and use clear routines. Decades of research from both the science of reading and the science of writing show that explicit instruction strengthens comprehension, vocabulary development, and writing quality.

A major review of writing research by Graham, Gillespie, and McKeown (2013) found that strategy instruction, modeling, and guided practice lead to strong, consistent improvements in student writing. The authors also noted that explicit writing instruction supports broader literacy growth by helping students understand text structure, generate ideas, and revise with purpose.

When classrooms move away from consistent explicit teaching, such as reducing modeling or relying heavily on open-ended tasks, students lose opportunities to learn the mental processes behind skilled reading and writing. These gaps accumulate over time and contribute to the literacy challenges many schools face today.

The lowest-performing students were the most vulnerable

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that the largest declines occurred among the lowest-performing students, especially those at the 10th and 25th percentiles.

These students often entered school with weaker vocabulary, limited background knowledge, and fewer strategies for understanding complex text. When instruction became inconsistent or less structured, these students fell even further behind, widening the achievement gap.

This pattern appears across years of NAEP data:

• High-performing students remained mostly stable.
• Students with early reading or writing difficulties experienced the largest declines.

This reinforces what many educators see in classrooms: students who need the most support are the ones most affected by changes in literacy instruction.

Why Writing Matters for Literacy Growth

Writing instruction plays a major role in improving reading achievement. The science of writing, supported by decades of research, shows clear benefits:

• Writing about text improves reading comprehension (Graham & Hebert, 2010).
• Explicit teaching of writing strategies helps students organize ideas, build vocabulary, and understand text structure.
• Writing develops critical thinking, content knowledge, and a deeper understanding.

When students write regularly, they learn to slow down, process information, and explain their thinking. These skills support reading growth at every grade level.

This is why declining reading rates and weak writing instruction often appear together. Strong writing instruction is not an “addition” to literacy. It is a central part of it.

Why SRSD Works: What the Research Shows

SRSD uses clear, explicit instruction

SRSD gives teachers a simple, predictable way to teach the writing process. Teachers model their thinking out loud so students can see how writers make decisions. Students learn each step of planning, drafting, and revising. They then practice these steps with support until they can write independently.

This approach comes straight from the research. Decades of research show that explicit instruction, modeling, and guided practice consistently improve students’ writing outcomes across grade levels.

Research:

• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next 
  • Strategy instruction produced the strongest gains of any writing practice tested.
• Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2012).
  • Meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in elementary grades.

SRSD builds self-regulation

SRSD teaches students how to manage themselves as writers. They set goals, use positive self-talk, check their progress, and monitor their strategies. These routines help them stay focused and approach writing with more confidence.

Self-regulation is a key factor in SRSD’s effectiveness. Research shows that when students learn to manage their attention, emotions, and strategies, they write better and learn more.

Research:

• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Adkins, M. (2015).
  • Practice-based professional development for SRSD increased student use of self-regulation strategies.
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005).
  • Improving writing performance,teaching, planning, monitoring, and self-talk routines.

SRSD supports students

One of the most consistent findings in SRSD research is that all students can make the strong gains in their writing. This includes students with learning disabilities, ADHD, executive function challenges, and students who struggle with writing stamina or organization.

SRSD works because it breaks writing into small, manageable steps and gives students explicit tools for each part of the process. It also supports motivation, which is often a major challenge for students who struggle.

Research:

• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the Writing, Knowledge, and Motivation of Struggling Young Writers. SRSD produced large effects for students with learning disabilities.
  
• Ray, A., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., et al. (2024). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux

SRSD is practical for teachers

Teachers need tools that work in real classrooms. SRSD provides:

• Clear lesson sequences
• Sample think-alouds
• Progress-monitoring tools
• Ready-to-use student materials
• Models, exemplars, and videos that show what instruction looks like
• A predictable structure that reduces planning time

Teachers often say SRSD brings clarity and consistency to their writing block. They know exactly how to support students from the moment they begin the lesson through independent writing.

Research:

• McKeown, D., Brindle, M., & Harris, K. (2021). Professional development for evidence-based SRSD writing instruction: Elevating fourth grade outcomes
  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1825052
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Tier 1, Teacher-Implemented Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students With and Without Behavioral Challenges

• Without Behavioral Challenges

What This Means for Schools

Schools need a writing approach that is clear, practical, and backed by strong evidence. Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) gives teachers a predictable way to teach writing that works with any curriculum and supports all learners. More than 100 studies show positive outcomes for elementary, middle, and high school students, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, struggling writers, and students with attention or executive function needs.

SRSD improves writing and strengthens reading by helping students learn to think, plan, and monitor their work. These skills help them understand text structure, summarize more effectively, and build vocabulary. As students learn explicit strategies and self-regulation routines, they grow more confident and independent in both writing and reading.

For leaders, SRSD creates consistency across classrooms. Teachers use the same routines, language, and expectations, which helps students move smoothly from grade to grade. For coaches, SRSD provides a shared framework for modeling lessons, supporting teachers, and monitoring progress. And for students who struggle, SRSD offers a clear, reliable path to success that fits within any school’s existing curriculum.

SRSD does not replace what schools already use. Instead, it is a framework that strengthens the instruction inside the curriculum and lays a long-term foundation for literacy growth.

How SRSD Online Helps Teachers Use SRSD With Confidence

SRSD Online provides schools with a comprehensive training and support pathway. The platform includes:

• fully asynchronous teacher training
• step-by-step modeled lessons
• real classroom videos
• student-facing materials
• coaching tools
• facilitator and administrator courses
• schoolwide and districtwide implementation plans

Teachers do not need to guess how to use SRSD. They can watch examples, practice with guidance, and build confidence over time.

Schools also gain a system that supports consistency. Every teacher learns the same framework. Every student receives the same structure and language. This promotes equity and helps schools make steady literacy gains.

A Stronger Path Forward

Schools can take control to improve literacy performance. The data is clear. Students need more structure. Teachers need clearer, explicit, evidence-based guidance. Leaders need a plan that integrates reading and writing in a practical, scalable, and research-based way.

SRSD offers that path. It provides teachers with explicit writing routines. It helps students learn how to plan, organize, and revise. It builds the self-regulation skills students need to stay engaged and make sense of complex text. When schools use SRSD, writing improves. Confidence grows.

SRSD Online provides the support schools need to put this approach into daily practice. Teachers receive modeled lessons, classroom videos, coaching tools, and ready-made materials. Leaders receive clear implementation plans. Coaches receive systems that make their work easier and more consistent. Everyone works from the same shared language and structure, which strengthens instruction across classrooms.

The way forward is not more programs or more disconnected initiatives. The way forward is clearer instruction, stronger systems, and a shared framework that supports teachers in teaching and students in learning. SRSD brings that clarity.

Declining literacy rates present a real challenge, but they are not permanent. When schools teach writing explicitly and give students strategies they can use across subjects, literacy improves. Students write better. They read better. They think more clearly.

With the right support, schools can reverse current trends. They can build stronger writers and stronger readers. SRSD gives them a proven way to begin.

---

Transforming Australian Classrooms with Effective Writing Strategies

Writing is not just an academic skill: it is how students learn, think, and share their ideas with the world. In Australia, as in many countries, writing outcomes have often lagged behind reading. Teachers have asked: How do we help students become confident writers? How do we prepare them for NAPLAN and beyond?

For more than 40 years, researchers have been refining an evidence-based approach to writing instruction that has powerful student impacts. The approach, known as Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), was developed by Dr. Karen Harris, and has helped teachers worldwide, Australia included.

What Is SRSD?

At its core, SRSD is a way of teaching writing that combines two things:

1. Explicit Writing Strategies – Students learn clear steps for planning, organizing, drafting, and revising their writing. Strategies like TREE (opinion), TIDE (informative), and C-SPACE (narrative) give them a structure they can use again and again.
2. Self-Regulation Skills – Students learn to set goals, monitor their progress, use positive self-talk, and reflect on their work.

This mix of writing strategies and self-regulation makes SRSD unique. Students don’t just produce better writing — they also become more confident, motivated, and independent as learners.

How SRSD Came to Australia

SRSD spread beyond the United States as researchers and educators in other countries looked for effective, evidence-based approaches. Australia became one of the first countries outside the U.S. to explore SRSD.

By the early 2000s, Australian teachers and literacy researchers were paying attention to SRSD because:

• NAPLAN (the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy) created new pressures for schools to improve writing outcomes.
• The structured literacy movement in Australia focused on explicit instruction, which aligned with SRSD’s clear routines.

Importantly, universities such as Australian Catholic University (ACU) sought to connect with world-leading literacy researchers including SRSD creator Dr. Karen Harris and writing scholar Dr. Steve Graham. Both were named Research Professorial Fellows in the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education

Australian Schools and SRSD

Over the last two decades, SRSD has become a significant part of the conversation in Australia’s writing instruction, particularly in the context of persuasive writing.

• Teacher blogs and conference reports show that Harris and Graham have presented workshops in Sydney and Brisbane.
• Australian literacy reviews, such as those by EdResearch Australia, include SRSD when discussing high-quality writing instruction.
• ACU’s Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education has highlighted SRSD as part of its commitment to evidence-based literacy practices.

Teachers in Australia who adopt SRSD often report the same thing: it helps students succeed on NAPLAN, aligns well with educational policy, and gives them the confidence to see themselves as writers.

Why SRSD Fits Australian Classrooms

SRSD aligns with several major priorities in Australian education:

1. NAPLAN Preparation – SRSD’s structured strategies map directly onto the writing genres tested in NAPLAN (persuasive, informative, narrative).
2. Structured Literacy – Australian schools are increasingly adopting explicit, structured approaches. SRSD is explicit, replicable, and easy to integrate into existing programs.
3. Equity and Inclusion – SRSD is effective for all learners, including students with learning difficulties, multilingual students, and high achievers. This makes it valuable in diverse Australian classrooms.
4. Teacher Support – SRSD is not just about students. It also gives teachers a clear roadmap, professional learning options, and coaching support.

Research Recognition in Australia

SRSD is featured in ACU’s Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Writing and Reading resources, showing direct relevance for Australian teachers. Further, Australian literacy reviews continue to point out that high-quality writing research is limited in Australia — making international models like SRSD especially valuable.

Looking Ahead

SRSD has been in Australia for decades, but its role is likely to grow even stronger in the years to come. With increasing demand for evidence-based teaching and professional development, more schools are turning to approaches like SRSD.

Karen Harris and Steve Graham have already laid the foundation through their fellowship ties, presentations, and research collaborations in Australia. Now, Australian teachers and leaders have the opportunity to take that foundation and build a culture of writing success for every student.

• Conclusion

The story of SRSD in Australia is part of a much bigger global movement. From its roots in the United States to its growth in Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and Australia, SRSD has always been about one thing: giving teachers and students the tools they need to succeed.

For Australian educators, the message is clear: SRSD is not just another program. It is one of the most researched writing approaches in the world, earning it the label of evidence-based practice. And thanks to the leadership of Karen Harris and Steve Graham, Australia is already part of the SRSD story.

Learn more about bringing SRSD to your Australian school: SRSD Online

Sources

• Australian Catholic University – Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Self-regulated strategy development in writing and reading
• ACU News: ILSTE Fellow is Regents Professor (2021)
• ACU News: Prestigious award for ILSTE’s Professor Graham (2021)
• ACU Research Bank – Steve Graham profile
• ASU Profile (Steve Graham CV) – Our Writing Research, presentation to ACU, Brisbane (2014)
• Association for Psychological Science – Fostering Budding Writers (mentions Harris as ACU Fellow)
• EdResearch Australia – Writing and Writing Instruction (includes SRSD)
• OZLitTeacher Blog – Writing Research Workshop with Graham and Harris

---

Strategies for Individualized Writing Instruction

Students bring a variety of skills and experiences to the writing classroom. Some students arrive writing sentences with strong vocabulary, while others are still learning to form letters and words. Many sit somewhere in the middle. Teachers see this range every day, yet they are still expected to address each learner’s needs through effective teaching methods and help them make progress in the learning process. Often, this all takes place with limited time and limited curriculum support, in learning environments where student engagement can be a challenge.

We recently hosted a live Zoom conversation on our Facebook page between educators and Dr. Karen Harris, creator of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) and a leading researcher in the science of writing. Dr. Harris spoke directly to the challenge of developing content that meets the diverse needs of students. She explained that differentiation does not mean 25 different lesson plans. It means understanding what students can already do, knowing what each group needs next, and helping them move forward with clear, strategic instruction.

This blog brings together the key ideas Karen shared. It shows how SRSD, when applied within an effective learning environment, enhances the learning process through effective classroom strategies and makes the approach to differentiation both possible and manageable in real classrooms.

Watch the entire video discussion by clicking her image:

Start With Formative Assessment: “A Wealth of Information”

Dr. Harris began with one of the most important tools for differentiation: formative assessment. In SRSD, teachers collect student writing samples before instruction begins. This is a baseline, not a test.

Teachers should carefully consider how they introduce this step. She warns that many students panic when they hear the word “test,” even in early grades. To alleviate these fears, teachers can try telling students:

“I want to see what you already know. This isn’t for a grade, and only I will see it.”

This simple shift reduces anxiety and leads to more honest writing. That authentic baseline becomes the foundation for understanding each learner.

Once teachers review student samples,teachers can sort them into three manageable groups:

1. Students who already show many of the skills you plan to teach
2. Students performing in a typical grade-level range
3. Students who begin far behind through no fault of their own

The goal is not to label students. The goal is to understand readiness levels so instruction can support each group.

“Practice Makes Progress”

Dr. Harris reminded teachers that the purpose of writing instruction is growth, not perfection. SRSD helps students progress through repeated practice, clear strategies, and gradual release. Some students may write a strong essay early on. Others may only write a few sentences at first. Both groups can grow.

However, students who begin behind often make the largest gains when instruction is explicit and supportive.

But Karen noted a second truth: advanced writers often do not grow as much as they could because they aren’t sufficiently challenged.

Differentiation must lift all learners, those who need heavy scaffolds and those ready for more independent work.

Challenging Strong Writers: “Look at the Next Grade’s Standards”

Karen also shared a simple way to stretch advanced writers: look ahead one grade level.

She encourages teachers to review the next grade’s standards and ask:

• Which skills could some students work toward now?
• How can these goals connect to SRSD strategies my students already use?
• What goals can students select for themselves?

Advanced goals might include:

• adding dialogue in narratives
• using more complex sentences
• adding stronger evidence or facts
• weaving in a single source before the full research process
• trying different hooks or openings

When writers help choose these goals, their ownership increases, and their self-regulation strengthens.

Differentiation Does Not Mean 25 Lesson Plans

Teachers do not need to create a different set of lesson plans  for each child. Instead, Dr. Harris recommends:

• grouping students by similar writing characteristics
• adjusting goals and rubrics for each group
• rotating groups as needs change
• using peer support to extend teacher capacity

Groups should shift across the unit. Some days may work best with mixed-readiness groups. Other days may call for small groups with specific needs.

Differentiated instruction is not about sameness; it is about adopting classroom strategies and teaching methods that ensure meaningful progress for each learner. It is about adapting to different learning styles and ensuring meaningful progress for each learner.

Stations: Built-In Differentiation Inside SRSD

SRSD Online encourages teachers to use stations for guided practice. Karen noted that stations are a natural way to support differentiation.

Examples include:

• a self-talk station for students who need more internal language
• a planning station with a leader modeling POW + TREE
• a revision station where students practice checking specific goals
• mixed-ability pairs working on topic sentences, reasons, or sentence variety

Teachers may assign stations or allow students to choose based on their goals.

Stations keep practice active, focused, and responsive to what each student needs.

What the Research Says About Differentiation

The ideas Dr. Harris shared in her conversation line up with what her research team has documented for years. Two studies in particular show how SRSD supports differentiation when teachers receive clear guidance, ongoing support, and chances to reflect on student work:

Making it work: Differentiating Tier Two writing instruction with Self-Regulated Strategy Development in tandem with School-Wide Positive Behavioral Support for second graders.

Illuminating growth and struggles using mixed methods: Practice-based professional development and coaching for differentiating SRSD instruction in writing.

SRSD Can Be Adapted for Different Learners

In this first study, researchers examined how SRSD worked as a Tier 2 intervention in second-grade classrooms where student needs varied widely (Sandmel et al., 2009). Teachers used SRSD alongside school-wide behavioral supports. They modified parts of instruction, materials, and pacing while keeping the core of SRSD intact.

The study showed two important things:

1. SRSD is flexible. Teachers could adjust tasks, supports, and expectations while still delivering the strategy instruction students needed.
2. Students with different readiness levels benefited. Even with adaptations, students made meaningful gains in writing quality and independence.

This research reinforces something Karen often tells teachers: differentiation within SRSD is about adjusting what students practice, how much support they receive, and which goals matter most at a given moment.

Teachers Grow as Differentiators When They Receive Coaching

The second study linked above followed three teachers who implemented SRSD after  practice-based professional development (PBPD) and expert coaching (McKeown et al., 2016). The teachers served diverse groups of students and were learning SRSD for the first time.

The researchers found that:

• At first, teachers were unsure how to differentiate SRSD instruction.
• With coaching, all teachers learned to make whole-class adaptations.
• Some teachers learned to group students more strategically, and vary scaffolds without watering down instruction.

When following an approach rooted in PBPD, teachers have models, feedback, and time to practice. All of this helps improve teacher differentiation, and coaching helps them understand when and how to adjust instruction.

Why This Research Matters for Today’s Classrooms

Differentiation can feel overwhelming, especially in writing, where skill gaps can be wide and student attitudes vary. The research reminds us that teachers do not have to guess. They need:

• clear strategies
• explicit routines
• predictable steps
• and a framework that supports adjustment

SRSD was built for this.
It provides the structure teachers need to teach writing clearly and the flexibility they need to support every learner, from those who enter far behind to those who are ready for more challenges.

Supporting Student Motivation: Breaking the Cycle of Frustration

Motivation is key to learning in any subject. However, Dr. Harris shared that writing enjoyment drops sharply after third grade. Many students report disliking writing by fourth or fifth grade. This often comes from repeated frustration and the pressures of mandated testing

Students have told Karen:

• “You’ll never teach me to write.”
• “I was born this way.”
• “I can’t change.”

But after SRSD instruction, many of these same students show pride and confidence.

Differentiation requires paying attention to how students feel, not just what they can produce. To address this, teachers should:

• watch student emotional responses during lessons
• help students set and track individual goals in simple ways
• support students in developing individualized self-talk
• set students up for successful writing experiences

SRSD already supports this work through self-monitoring, reflection, and goal setting.

Rubrics Should Match Group Goals

Rubrics can support or hinder differentiation depending on how teachers use them, and they should include content that aligns with each group’s specific goals. Dr. Harris encouraged teachers to align rubrics with each group’s goals, not with generic expectations.

A student starting far behind might work toward:

• stating an opinion
• generating at least one reason
• organizing ideas with POW + TREE

An advanced student might work toward:

• varied sentence types
• stronger evidence
• more complex openings

Rubrics help clarify when they align with readiness. They become tools for growth rather than fixed measures of success.

Peer Support: “One of the Most Powerful Differentiation Tools We Have”

Importantly, Karen also emphasized the importance of peer collaboration among learners. Peers can reduce anxiety and help students plan, revise, and understand the writing process more clearly.

Helpful routines include incorporating content to enhance understanding:

1. Peer Prompt Analysis Partners pull apart the prompt before planning.
2. Peer Planning Students talk through POW and make notes for TREE, which allows them to share the cognitive load.
3. Peer Feedback Teach students to praise first, then offer a helpful idea.
4. Peer Leadership Strong writers lead stations or model parts of tasks.

Peer collaboration expands the teacher’s reach and reinforces SRSD strategies.

Use Ongoing Assessments to Adjust Groupings

Differentiation is fluid. Dr. Harris recommends quick “show me what you can do” writing moments during the unit. These are not tests. They are short checks to see where students are.

These check-ins help teachers see:

• new strengths
• lingering gaps
• shifting group needs
• pacing adjustments

This information guides the next instructional moves.

Stage 5: Where Differentiation Matters Most

Stage 5 is for supported writing and often feels challenging. Students begin writing with less direct modeling and more independence, making differentiated instruction essential.

For advanced writers, teachers may give time for independent practice, or ask them to guide peer practice. Teachers should also consider how to:

• raise expectations
• offer more complex prompts
• encourage stronger examples and sentence variety

For writers who need more support, teachers should consider how to:

• slow the release of independent writing responsibility
• revisit steps of the strategies
• offer targeted scaffolds or revised organizers
• use small-group check-ins
• increase peer planning opportunities

Differentiation Creates Opportunity and Equity

Karen closed with a reminder that many students have not had access to the differentiated instruction they need to grow as writers. Differentiation is not an optional step. It is a way to give each student a fair chance to develop their skills and confidence.

SRSD was designed for this exact challenge. Its structure, explicit modeling, strategy instruction, self-regulation, gradual release, targeted rubrics, graphing, and station work, allows teachers to adjust instruction and meet individual student needs.

Differentiation helps every student move forward. SRSD gives teachers a practical way to do it.

---