Study Highlights Possible Path Forward for Teaching Writing to Students With Disabilities
Writing is critical for all students, but many students struggle to develop strong writing skills. New research suggests a technique called performance feedback could be a valuable tool for helping students with disabilities become stronger writers – even in a virtual setting.
To learn more about the research, we talked with Kristen Mahony-Atallah, lead author of a paper on the work and an assistant professor of psychology at NC State. The paper, “A Virtual Implementation of the Performance Feedback Writing Fluency Intervention for Students with Disabilities: A Single-Case Design,” is published in the Journal of Behavioral Education. The paper was co-authored by Elizabeth McCallum, Ara Schmitt and Daniel Thomas of Duquesne University; and by Cortney Chelecki of the Leechburg Area School District in Pennsylvania.
The Abstract: What was the question or challenge you were setting out to address with this work? And why is that important?
Kristen Mahony-Atallah: Writing is one of the most essential skills for success in education, the workplace and everyday life. Yet nearly 75% of students in the United States perform below proficiency in writing, with students with disabilities facing the steepest challenges. Our study set out to address a critical question: Can performance feedback (PF), when delivered virtually, improve the writing fluency and quality of students with disabilities, including those with ADHD and autism?
This question is especially important because students with disabilities often face unique barriers to written expression, such as difficulty focusing, regulating emotions or understanding the context of their writing. At the same time, the pandemic highlighted the urgent need for effective virtual interventions to ensure these students are not left behind. By exploring the potential of PF in this new virtual format, we aimed to contribute not only to the academic literature but also to the development of accessible, evidence-based tools that educators and families can use to support students with disabilities.
TA: What is performance feedback, or PF, in this context?
Mahony-Atallah: Virtual PF is a straightforward yet highly impactful intervention designed to improve students’ writing skills by providing tailored feedback on their writing fluency and quality in a structured, motivating format. It leverages timely and specific feedback to address performance deficits, encouraging students to engage actively in the writing process and improve their output. In our study, we utilized virtual PF to provide students with individualized feedback on their writing performance – specifically, the number of words they wrote in their previous session, a measure known as Total Words Written (TWW). This feedback was complemented by motivational cues, such as arrows that visually indicated improvement, decline or no change. The core objective of PF is to inspire students to build on their existing skills by focusing on writing fluency, which is a key determinant of overall writing proficiency.
What distinguishes virtual PF is its remarkable adaptability. In our study, the intervention was delivered through one-on-one Zoom sessions, combined with tailored physical intervention packets. These packets were customized to include individualized performance feedback from the previous writing session (e.g., total words written with visual indicators such as arrows for progress) and writing prompts aligned with the procedures, enhancing engagement and addressing each student’s unique progress and needs.
Virtual PF is particularly effective in addressing “performance deficits,” which are situations where students possess the necessary writing skills but struggle to apply them consistently. By emphasizing growth through clear, structured feedback, virtual PF encourages students to actively engage with their writing and strive for measurable improvements. This innovative approach not only meets students where they are but also aligns with modern demands for accessible, resource-efficient educational solutions.
TA: What did you learn from this study?
Mahony-Atallah: The results were both promising and insightful. All three participants demonstrated clear gains in writing fluency during the intervention phase, and these improvements were sustained in follow-up sessions, even after the intervention ended. This shows that PF can be a powerful tool for helping students overcome performance barriers. However, the impact on writing quality was more nuanced. While two students showed some improvement in the quality of their writing (measured by correct written sequences), one student’s results were less encouraging, with writing quality not improving.
What this tells us is that PF alone may not be enough for students who struggle with foundational writing skills. That said, all three participants found the intervention enjoyable and believed it helped improve their writing, which is a critical measure of success when designing interventions for young students. We also learned that PF can be successfully adapted to virtual formats, which is a significant step forward in making evidence-based interventions more accessible, especially in remote or resource-limited settings.
TA: I noticed that there were very few study participants in this study. Why is that?
Mahony-Atallah: That’s a great observation. Our study employed a single-case design, which is a methodology that focuses on in-depth analysis of individual participants to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships. This approach requires fewer participants but allows for detailed, individualized insights that wouldn’t be possible with larger-scale studies. We also had specific inclusion criteria, focusing on elementary students with diagnosed disabilities who struggled with writing fluency. Only three students met these criteria, which is not unusual for pilot studies like ours.
Moreover, the intervention was resource-intensive, involving one-on-one virtual sessions conducted by trained doctoral students. Our goal was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of this virtual approach on a smaller scale before considering larger studies. In essence, while the participant pool was small, it allowed us to rigorously examine the impact of the virtual PF intervention and lay the groundwork for future research.
TA: Given the small study size, are these findings that we can generalize to a larger population? If not, how does this study move things forward?
Mahony-Atallah: While the findings from a small, single-case study aren’t immediately generalizable to the larger population, their significance lies in what they reveal about potential solutions and future directions. This study is a critical first step, demonstrating that performance feedback can be adapted to virtual settings and improve writing fluency for students with disabilities. It also highlights the intervention’s limitations, particularly its lack of impact on writing quality for certain students and underscores the need for complementary strategies.
The study moves the field forward by providing a blueprint for future research. For instance, it suggests that pairing PF with other evidence-based practices, such as explicit instruction or Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), could address both fluency and quality deficits. It also calls for larger-scale studies with more diverse populations to evaluate generalizability. What we’ve done is provide a foundation – a proof of concept – on which educators and researchers can build.
TA: What are the next steps here?
Mahony-Atallah: The next steps are both exciting and essential. First, we need to explore how PF can be integrated with other interventions. For example, pairing PF with direct instruction methods like SRSD could target not just fluency but also critical aspects of writing quality, such as grammar, organization and idea development. Second, we plan to expand this research to larger and more diverse populations to assess the intervention’s scalability and generalizability.
We also see an opportunity to refine how we measure writing quality. Traditional metrics like Correct Writing Sequences are helpful but may not fully capture improvements in areas like narrative coherence or creativity. Developing more comprehensive rubrics could provide deeper insights into the intervention’s impact. Finally, we aim to study the long-term effects of PF to determine whether it leads to sustained improvements in writing habits and academic performance. Each of these steps brings us closer to making writing interventions more effective, accessible and inclusive for students with disabilities.
