680884

research-article2016
CDEXXX10.1177/2165143416680884Career Development and Transition for Exceptional IndividualsKonrad et al.

Article
Career Development and Transition for

Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Strategy

Exceptional Individuals
2017, Vol. 40(1) 45­–55
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016
Instruction on Expository Writing Skills Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

for Students With Disabilities DOI: 10.1177/2165143416680884

cdtei.sagepub.com

Moira Konrad, PhD1, Kelly A. Clark, MSA2, and David W. Test, PhD2

Abstract
Students with disabilities trail behind their peers without disabilities while in school, as well as in post-secondary outcome
areas. Given that self-determination and enhanced academic skills are associated with improved post-school outcomes,
one possible solution is to identify interventions that teach self-determination and academic skills simultaneously. This
study investigated the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on expository writing skills of five high school
students with low-incidence disabilities. Using a multiple-probe-across-participants design, the authors measured the
effects of strategy instruction on quality of expository paragraphs and quality and content of individualized education
program (IEP) goal paragraphs. Results indicated a functional relation between the intervention and improved paragraph
writing. Limitations, suggestions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords
self-determination, writing instruction, students with disabilities

Despite efforts to improve services and instruction for stu-
dents with disabilities, in-school and post-school outcomes
for these students remain unacceptable (Newman et al.,
2011). For instance, the results from the National Assessment
of Educational Progress reported 45% of students with dis-
abilities completed a below standard curriculum compared
with only 24% of students without disabilities. Overall, stu-
dents with disabilities completed fewer credits in academic
courses compared with their peers without disabilities
(Nord et al., 2011).
When students with disabilities leave high school, their
challenges often follow them. For example, the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) data show
employment, post-secondary education, and independence
are three areas in which students with disabilities show sig-
nificant deficits compared with their same-age peers in the
general population (Newman et al., 2011). Specifically,
Bouck and Joshi (2012) analyzed data from NLTS2 and dis-
covered less than half of students with a mild intellectual
disability were employed, 26.1% attended post-secondary
education, and 26.1% lived independently.
To address these gaps between students with disabilities
and their peers without disabilities, researchers have worked
to identify predictors of improved outcomes for individuals
with disabilities. One such predictor is academic skills (Test
et al., 2009). For instance, for students with autism spectrum
disorders (ASD), academic performance plays a role in post-
secondary education outcomes, employment opportunities,
wages earned, and hours worked (Migliore, Timmons,
Butterworth, & Lugas, 2012). These findings are consistent
with earlier research conducted by Halpern, Yovanoff,
Doren, and Benz (1995) who found students with disabili-
ties, who exhibited high academic performance in the areas
of reading, writing, math, responsible behavior, and prob-
lem-solving skills, were more likely to attend post-second-
ary education. In addition, students who passed more than
half or all of their academic courses were more likely to
enroll and attend post-secondary education. Wagner,
Newman, and Javitz (2014) found that grade point average
and earning credits in general education academic courses
were related to improved post-school outcomes for students
with disabilities.
Another predictor of success for students with disabili-
ties is self-determination, defined as a dispositional charac-
teristic manifested as acting as the causal agent in one’s life
(Shogren Wehmeyer, Palmer, Forber-Pratt, et al., 2015, p. 2).
Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, and Wood (2007) found that
instruction in self-determination component skills can have
a positive effect on academic achievement for students with
1
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
2
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Corresponding Author:
David Test, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University
City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA.
Email: dwtest@uncc.edu
46 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 40(1)
disabilities. Students’ levels of self-determination when
exiting high school also appear to be positively correlated
with improved post-school outcomes (Shogren, Wehmeyer,
Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015).
Given the importance of both self-determination and
academic skill development for students with disabilities,
interventions that infuse self-determination and academic
content standards could assist special education teachers
who are responsible for teaching both transition skills
(including self-determination) and academic skills. This
could in turn assist in increased post-school outcomes for
all students (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, &
Little, 2015).
Previous research suggests teaching students learning
strategies is an effective way to enhance academic skills for
individuals with disabilities (Harris, Graham, & Mason,
2003). One approach to strategy instruction is self-regulated
strategy development (SRSD), which explicitly teaches stu-
dents a writing strategy using and mnemonic and six stages
of instruction: developing background knowledge, discuss-
ing the strategy, modeling it, memorizing it, supporting it,
and providing opportunities for independent performance
(Harris et al., 2003). Although most research on strategy
instruction focuses on students with learning disabilities,
Joseph and Konrad (2009) found evidence suggesting that
those with intellectual disabilities can also learn to use writ-
ing strategies through modified and systematic instruction.
Strategy instruction that addresses both academic and
self-determination skills may offer at least a partial solution
for today’s special educators who are tasked with the chal-
lenge of teaching such a broad range of skills. One such
approach is GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction, which
integrates self-determination skills, strategy instruction,
and common core writing skills (Rowe, Mazzotti, &
Sinclair, 2015). Specifically, the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! mne-
monic—Goals, Objectives (4 objectives), Identify Timeline,
Name topic, Organize details, Wrap it up—teaches students
to write six-sentence paragraphs about potential individual-
ized education program (IEP) goals and to generalize their
skills to other types of paragraphs.
Konrad, Trela, and Test (2006) conducted a study to
investigate the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruc-
tion on the ability of high school students with physical and
cognitive disabilities to write paragraphs about potential IEP
goals and their overall paragraph writing skills. Results
indicated a functional relation between GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
strategy instruction—delivered in a one-to-one teaching
format—and enhanced writing skills. Konrad and Test
(2007) extended these findings by investigating the effects
of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction—delivered in a
small-group teaching format—on the writing skills of mid-
dle school students with high-incidence disabilities. Results
indicated a functional relation between GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
strategy instruction and students’ abilities to write potential
IEP goals and objectives in paragraph format. In both stud-
ies, results for generalization to other types of paragraphs
were mixed and were identified as an important area for
future research. Therefore, the purpose of the current study
was to determine the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy
instruction on expository paragraph writing skills of high
school students with autism and intellectual disabilities. We
sought to answer the following research question:
What are the effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy
instruction on (a) the quality of expository paragraphs,
(b) the quality of IEP goal paragraphs, and (c) the con-
tent of IEP goal paragraphs for high school students with
autism and intellectual disabilities?
Method
Participants
Five male high school students with mild intellectual dis-
abilities participated in this study. To be included in the
study, students had to (a) be able to write simple sentences,
(b) be unable to compose a cohesive paragraph, and (c)
have signed student assent and parent permission forms. All
participants were enrolled in the occupational course of
study, which provides instruction in (a) all academic areas
including basic writing skills, (b) vocational skills, and (c)
self-determination skills.
Brian.  Brian was a 16-year-old White male identified as hav-
ing autism and mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 59;
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition
[WISC-IV]). His academic skills were in the low average
range in the areas of reading and writing (Woodcock–John-
son III [WJ-III]). He did not have any physical limitations,
and his adaptive scores (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Rating
Scales [Vineland]) were moderately low in the areas of com-
munication and socialization.
Cameron.  Cameron was a 17-year-old White male identi-
fied as having autism and mild intellectual disability (full-
scale IQ: 65; WISC-IV) and who struggled with academic
skills. His academic skills were in the low average range in
basic reading, reading comprehension, and written expres-
sion (WJ-III). He did not have any physical limitations.
Dominic.  Dominic was a 17-year-old Black male identified
as having mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 71;
WISC-IV). His academic skills were significantly below
grade level for all areas, including reading, math, and writ-
ten expression (WJ-III). His most recent evaluation indi-
cated he struggled to stay on-task and had a current IEP goal
concerning appropriate behavior. He did not have any phys-
ical limitations.
Konrad et al. 47
Andrew. Andrew was a 19-year-old White male identified
as having a mild intellectual disability (full-scale IQ: 63;
Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales-2) and Down syn-
drome. His academic skills were in the low average range
for all areas, including reading, math, and written expres-
sion (WJ-III). He did not have any physical limitations.
Brendan.  Brendan was a 17-year-old White male identified
as having autism and mild intellectual disability (full-scale
IQ: 63; WISC-IV). His academic skills were in the low
average range in all areas, including reading, math, and
written expression (WJ-III). He did not have physical limi-
tations but had limitations with social interaction skills
(Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition
[ABAS-II], Childhood Autism Rating Scale).
Setting
Students attended a public, suburban high school in the
Southeastern United States. All lessons and data collection
took place in a small conference room located within the
school building. The experimenter sat next to the student(s)
at a table during data collection and intervention sessions.
Experimenter
The second author served as the experimenter. She had a
master’s degree in school administration and was in her first
year of a doctoral program in special education. She had 8
years of experience teaching students with autism, intellec-
tual disabilities, and behavioral and emotional disabilities at
the high school level.
Dependent Variables
Quality of expository paragraphs. The primary dependent
variable was the quality of students’ expository paragraphs
measured using a 10-point scoring guide (see Konrad et al.,
2006). Points were distributed as follows: (a) 2 points for a
topic sentence, (b) 1 point for each supporting detail (up to
4 points), (c) 1 point for logical presentation of ideas, (d) 1
point for the appropriate use of transition words, (e) 1 point
for a restatement of the topic sentence in the concluding
sentence, and (f) 1 point for staying on topic.
Quality of IEP paragraphs.  As a secondary variable, the qual-
ity of students’ IEP paragraphs was measured using the
same 10-point paragraph-scoring guide used to measure the
writing quality of their expository paragraphs. This measure
focused on paragraph writing skills, not on the content.
Content of IEP goal paragraphs.  Content of participants’ IEP
goal paragraphs, another secondary variable, was measured
using a 12-point scoring guide. The scoring guide contained
six items: (a) student’s goal was based on an identified
need, (b) Objective 1 was a step toward reaching the goal,
(c) Objective 2 was a step toward reaching the goal, (d)
Objective 3 was a step toward reaching the goal, (e) Objec-
tive 4 was a step toward reaching the goal, and (f) the time-
line established was no longer than 1 year. Each of these
items was scored as follows: 0 (i.e., no evidence of the
skill), 1 (i.e., shows an attempt, but response is incomplete),
or 2 (i.e., response is complete, makes sense, and reflects
understanding of self and process). This scale was used in
earlier GO 4 IT . . . NOW! studies (see Konrad et al., 2006).
Social Validity
To measure consumer satisfaction, on the last day of inter-
vention, students completed an eight-item questionnaire
that was a modified version of the Student Intervention
Rating Profile (SIRP; Snyder, 2002). The questionnaire
used a 4-point rating scale (1 = I strongly disagree, 2 = I
disagree, 3 = I agree, 4 = I strongly agree) to indicate their
level of agreement or disagreement with each statement,
with higher scores indicating greater treatment acceptabil-
ity. Directions and statements were read to students.
Students were instructed not to put their names on surveys
and to be honest when responding.
In addition, participants’ special education teachers com-
pleted an eight-item questionnaire to provide feedback on
their perception of the intervention and student outcomes.
Two general education English teachers also completed a
nine-item questionnaire on their impression of the interven-
tion and student outcomes. All teachers responded using the
same 4-point rating scale used by student participants.
Last, two general education English teachers who did
not know the purpose of the study were given writing sam-
ples from baseline, Session 14 (last lesson of intervention),
and maintenance. They were instructed to indicate which
paragraphs they would find acceptable in their general edu-
cation classrooms and which paragraphs they felt were best
within each student’s writing samples. Paragraphs did not
have any identifying information to show when they were
completed.
Experimental Design
The experimental design was a multiple-probe-across-par-
ticipants design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). All stu-
dents received three initial baseline probes, and decisions
about when to begin intervention were based on the primary
dependent variable. The student with the most stable base-
line scores on expository paragraphs was chosen to begin
intervention first. Once the first student began intervention,
the other students were probed during Sessions 7 and 14 on
both the expository paragraph and the IEP goal paragraph
for quality and content. The student in intervention was
48 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 40(1)
probed daily on the expository paragraph probe, and during
Sessions 7 and 14 on the IEP goal paragraph probe. Data
collected after Lesson 14 on expository paragraphs and
after Session 15 for IEP goal paragraphs indicated whether
the participant moved to post-intervention or into booster
sessions. Once participants reached mastery, which was
defined as 80% on the quality of the expository paragraph,
80% on the quality of the IEP goal paragraph, and 75% on
the content of the goal paragraph, they then moved to main-
tenance. Maintenance data were collected each week for
three consecutive weeks. The same rules were used to begin
intervention with each subsequent student.
Procedures
Pre-intervention instruction.  Prior to collecting baseline data,
all participants received pre-intervention instruction on the
contents of an IEP for 5 days (see Table 1). Specifically,
they received instruction on the purpose of an IEP, the
meaning of present levels of performance, and how they are
determined. These pre-instruction lessons were delivered in
a small group—all five students participated together. As
part of the pre-intervention instruction, students identified
13 needs they wanted to address in academic (e.g., I need to
work on multiplying fractions), non-academic (e.g., I need
to make more friends), and vocational areas (e.g., I need to
fill out job applications). These were used throughout the
intervention as the topics of their IEP goal paragraphs.
Baseline.  Initial baseline sessions took place over 3 days.
Each day, participants were prompted to compose an expos-
itory paragraph based on a prompt randomly selected from
the list of predetermined topics (e.g., “Name your favorite
type of music and explain why this type of music is your
favorite”). Students were also prompted to write an IEP
goal paragraph addressing one of the needs they identified
during pre-instruction. The prompts were given over three
consecutive days using a different prompt each day for the
expository paragraph and with instruction to use a different
need each day to write their IEP goal paragraph.
GO 4 IT . . . NOW instruction.  Instruction included fourteen
45-min scripted lessons delivered in a 1:1 format (see Table
1 for lesson scope and sequence). Lesson sequence was
based on the six stages of SRSD (Harris et al., 2003) and
was divided into two phases. For the last two participants,
instruction was delivered in a 1:2 format for all sessions
across both phases of the intervention. Each student received
a workbook (i.e., a binder with worksheets for each
lesson).
To promote generalization, we enhanced lessons using
three strategies suggested by Alber-Morgan, Hessler, and
Konrad (2007), which in turn were based on those presented
by Stokes and Baer (1977): (a) teaching self-management,
(b) teaching enough examples, and (c) programming com-
mon stimuli. Specifically, students set their own goals and
monitored their performance by revising and editing their
own work (self-management). Students used graphic orga-
nizers for prewriting and drafting, had explicit instruction
with models of correct paragraph writing, and participated
in mini-lessons to evaluate their writing during the revising
and editing stages (teaching enough examples). Last, stu-
dents were provided with a mnemonic to help them remem-
ber the steps they needed to follow (i.e., GO 4 IT . . . NOW!),
and were provided with a transition word pyramid to help
them remember key transition words (programming com-
mon stimuli).
GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Phase I.  The first phase of GO 4 IT . . .
NOW! strategy instruction consisted of five lessons. During
these lessons, students learned (a) how to identify the parts
of a paragraph, (b) the purpose of the GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
strategy and when to use it, (c) the difference between goals
and objectives, and (d) how to identify an annual goal based
on their individual needs. Instruction during this phase
focused on modeling of both an expository paragraph and
an IEP goal paragraph and memorizing the strategy.
GO 4 IT . . . NOW! Phase II.  In Lessons 6 through 14, students
(a) learned how to apply the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy, (b)
continued memorizing the strategy, (c) practiced writing a
range of paragraph types with assistance and feedback, (d)
learned to use feedback to revise their paragraphs, and (e)
gradually moved toward writing paragraphs independently.
Instruction included guided practice, individualized feed-
back, and a gradual removal of writing supports. For the last
two participants, Lesson 7 took 2 days to complete because
one of the students worked at a slower pace and this particu-
lar lesson was longer than the others.
Maintenance.  Once a participant reached mastery criteria,
the participant entered the maintenance phase. Maintenance
conditions were identical to baseline conditions. Data were
collected every 7 days for 3 weeks. During maintenance
probes, participants wrote an expository paragraph based on
generalization prompts they had not already written about
and wrote an IEP goal paragraph based on a need they did
not use during intervention.
Inter-Observer Agreement
To determine inter-observer agreement, a second scorer
independently scored 30% of the paragraphs. An item-by-
item analysis was used to determine agreement for all
dependent variables. Scorers assigned points for the items,
and the number of agreements was divided by the total
number of items (i.e., nine items on the paragraph quality
scale and six items for the goal content scale). The quotient
Konrad et al. 49

Table 1.  IEP Goal Paragraphs Scope and Sequence.

Lesson Objectives Sample activities

Pre-intervention lessons
 Pre-1 Define IEP and describe its purpose. Students read about and discuss the IEP document and process.
 Pre-2 Identify four areas of transition. Write a Teacher provides examples of the four areas of transition. Students
vision statement. write vision statements.
 Pre-3 Define present level of performance. Identify Teacher explains list of strengths, and students highlight their own
strengths. personal strengths.
 Pre-4 Identify needs. Students identify academic and non-academic needs.
 Pre-5 Identify needs. Students write needs identified in previous lesson on a summary sheet.
Intervention lessons
 1 Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! and name Teacher shows examples and non-examples of paragraphs. Teacher
paragraph parts. introduces GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
 2 Identify strong/weak goals. Match objectives Teacher models turning poorly written goals into better ones. Students
to goals. match objectives to goals.
 3 Identify an annual goal based on a need. Teacher shares verbs to use in writing goals. Teacher models turning
needs into goals.
 4 Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Teacher models strategy use with one academic need/goal.
 5 Describe GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Teacher models strategy use with one non-academic need/goal.
 6 Describe how to apply the NOW portion of Teacher models NOW part of the strategy with an expository
the strategy. paragraph prompt.
 7 Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as
Write a goal paragraph. students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified
needs.
 8 Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-
paragraph. evaluate it with checklist.
 9 Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as
Write a goal paragraph. students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified
needs.
 10 Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-
paragraph. evaluate it with checklist.
 11 Memorize GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy. Students use flash cards to memorize mnemonic. Teacher assists as
Write a goal paragraph. students develop a goal paragraph based on one of their identified
needs.
 12 Revise and self-evaluate a non-goal-related Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-
paragraph. evaluate it with checklist.
 13 Write a goal paragraph independently. Students write an IEP goal paragraph with no assistance and then revise
with assistance.
 14 Revise and self-evaluate non-goal-related Students rewrite a paragraph using a fill-in template and then self-
paragraph. evaluate it with checklist.

Note. IEP = individualized education program.

was multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. Mean agree-
ment on the quality of expository paragraphs was 96.7%
(range = 90%–100%). Mean agreement on writing quality
of IEP goal paragraphs was 98.3% (range = 90%–100%).
Mean agreement on the content of the goal paragraphs was
99.2% (range = 90%–100%).
Procedural Fidelity
Two doctoral students were trained to collect procedural fidel-
ity data and observed 31% of the intervention sessions. They
observed different instructional sessions across all partici-
pants. Observations were distributed across the intervention to
have procedural reliability checks in each of the instructional
stages of the intervention. To document the adherence to the
intervention, the observers had a lesson plan of the session to
use as a checklist. The lesson plan was divided in steps, and
the observer marked each section as present or not. Number of
present steps across the session was divided by total number
of steps and multiplied by 100 to obtain a procedural fidelity
mean score of 98% (range = 90%–100%).
Results
Figure 1 illustrates each student’s quality scores on their
expository paragraphs. Figures 2 and 3 show students’
50 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 40(1)
Figure 1.  Quality of expository paragraphs.
Note. Small breaks in the data path represent student absences.
scores on IEP goal paragraphs, quality, and content, respec-
tively. Finally, Table 2 shows students’ ratings on the con-
sumer satisfaction measure.
Writing Quality of Daily Expository Paragraphs
Brian.  During baseline, Brian’s mean score was 2.7 (range =
2–3). Upon introduction of the first phase of GO 4 IT . . .
NOW! instruction, there was little change in paragraph
quality. However, following the third session in Phase II,
there was a clear increase, and although there was some
variability following that session, there was a clear improve-
ment in paragraph quality and an increasing trend. During
intervention, Brian’s mean score was 5.2 (range = 2–10). In
maintenance, his mean score was 7.6 (range = 7–9).
Cameron. During baseline, Cameron’s mean score was 1.2
(range = 0–3). During Phase I of the intervention, there was
little change in paragraph quality; however, during Phase II,
his scores showed a distinct increase after Lesson 3. There was
some variability, but then scores show an increasing trend.
During intervention, Cameron’s mean score was 5.6 (range =
2–9). In maintenance, his mean score was 8.3 (range = 8–9).
Dominic.  During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 1.7
(range = 1–2). During the first phase of intervention, the
change in paragraph quality was slight. During Phase II,
there was a clear increase after Lesson 3, and paragraph
quality steadily increased for the remainder of the phase.
Dominic’s mean score was 5.6 (range = 2–8). In mainte-
nance, his mean score was 7.7 (range = 7–8).
Andrew and Brendan. Andrew and Brendan went through
intervention together because there was not enough time left
in the school year to teach each student individually. During
baseline, Andrew’s mean score was 1.6 (range = 1–2). During
Phase I of intervention, his scores slowly increased; during
Phase II, his scores continued to slowly increase throughout
Konrad et al. 51
Figure 2.  Quality of goal paragraphs.
the rest of intervention. During intervention, Andrew’s mean
score was 4.8 (range = 2–7). During baseline, Brendan’s mean
score was 3.1 (range = 3–4). During Phase I of intervention,
there was a slight increase. During Phase II, there was a clear
increase in the quality of his paragraphs after Lesson 3. Dur-
ing intervention, Brendan’s mean score was 6.8 (range = 4–9).
No maintenance data were collected for these two participants
due to the end of the school year.
Writing Quality of IEP Goal Paragraphs
Brian.  During baseline, Brian scored a 2 for each paragraph
written. During intervention, Brian’s mean score was 8.7
(range = 8–9). His maintenance scores were 9 for each data
point, indicating that he was able to maintain the skills he
learned.
Cameron.  During baseline, Cameron’s mean score was 1.2
(range = 1–2). During intervention, Cameron’s mean score
was 7.7 (range = 5–9). His mean maintenance score was 8.7
(range = 8–9), indicating he was able to maintain skills over
time.
Dominic.  During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 2.7
(range = 2–3). During intervention, Dominic’s mean score
was 7.25 (range = 4–10). His mean maintenance score was
7.3 (range = 6–8), indicating he was also able to maintain
the skills he learned.
Andrew and Brendan.  Andrew and Brendan entered interven-
tion together as a dyad. During baseline, Andrew’s mean score
was 0.71 (range = 0–1). During intervention, Andrew’s mean
score was 4.7 (range = 4–5). During baseline, Brendan’s mean
52 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 40(1)
Figure 3.  Content of goal paragraphs.
Table 2.  Students’ Ratings on the Student Intervention Rating
Profile.
Item
The writing training was fair.
The training was challenging but not too difficult.
This was a good way for me to learn how to
write my IEP goals and objectives.
This was a good way for me to learn how to
write paragraphs.
I like the training I received for writing my own
IEP goals and objectives.
I think learning to write my own IEP goals and
objectives will help me do better in school.
I think learning to write paragraphs will help me
do better in school.
The training I received would be good for other
students with IEPs.
Note. IEP = individualized education program.
score was 2.8 (range = 2–3). During intervention, he scored a
9 for each paragraph written. Due to time constraints, mainte-
nance data were not collected and booster sessions were not
M Range
provided for Andrew, who made progress at a slower rate than
4 4–4 Brendan.
3.5 3–4
4 4–4
Content of IEP Goal Paragraphs
3.5 3–4 Brian.  During baseline, Brian earned a score of 1 each ses-
sion. During intervention, Brian’s mean score was 9.7
3.5 3–4 (range = 8–11), indicating a clear change in level. His main-
tenance scores were 11 for all three paragraphs, indicating
3.5 3–4 he was able to maintain these skills over time.
4 4–4
Cameron.  During baseline, Cameron’s scores earned a score
of 1 each session. During intervention, Cameron’s mean
4 4–4
score was 7.7 (range = 5–9), indicating a change in level.
His maintenance scores were 9 for all three paragraphs,
indicating he maintained skills over time.
Konrad et al. 53
Dominic.  During baseline, Dominic’s mean score was 1.2
(range = 1–2). During intervention, Dominic’s mean score
was 7.3 (range = 2–11), indicating a clear change in level.
His mean maintenance score was 7.7 (range = 5–9), indicat-
ing he was able to maintain skills over time.
Andrew and Brendan. Andrew and Brendan completed the
intervention together. During baseline, Andrew earned a
score of 1 each session. During intervention, Andrew’s
mean score was 4.3 (range = 4–5), demonstrating a clear
increase in his scores. During baseline, Brendan’s mean
score was 1.1 (range = 1–2). During intervention, Brendan’s
mean score was 10.3 (range = 10–11), indicating a signifi-
cant increase in level. Due to the end of the school year, no
maintenance data were collected.
Social Validity
Table 2 presents students’ mean scores and ranges on the
SIRP. Mean student scores ranged from 3.5 to 4, indicating
high levels of student satisfaction with procedures and out-
comes. Students also made comments during the interven-
tion supporting the social significance of the intervention:
•• I want to go to my IEP meeting now, so I can hear
what they have to say and tell them some things I
want to do.
•• This is going to make me the best writer ever!
•• I think this is really helping me write in my other
classes. It makes writing easier for me, I can think
about how to put it together. My teacher even said
my writing is getting better.
•• This strategy is easy to remember and it is helping
me get better at writing.
Participants’ special education teachers’ mean score for
the acceptability of the goals of the intervention was 3.7
(range = 3–4), indicating they felt it was important for stu-
dents to be able to write paragraphs, IEP goals, and objec-
tives, and to have an intervention that combined writing
skills with self-determination skills. Their mean score on the
acceptability of outcomes was 3.8 (range = 3–4), indicating
they felt GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction helped their
students learn to write paragraphs, state their goals, and
learn about their IEPs. They also indicated they would like
to use GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction in the future.
General education English teachers’ mean score on
acceptability of intervention goals was 3.3 (range = 3–4),
indicating they felt it was important for students to (a) be able
to write paragraphs, (b) be able to write about their future
goals, and (c) have an intervention that combined writing
skills with self-determination. Their mean score for accept-
ability of outcomes was 3.5 (range = 3–4), indicating they felt
GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction helped students to
write clearer, closer to grade level, and cohesive para-
graphs. Their scores also indicated general education English
teachers felt that the GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction
was helpful, and they would like to use in the future.
The two English teachers consistently identified writing
samples from Session 14 (last intervention session) and
maintenance sessions as acceptable in their general educa-
tion classroom. Specifically, for expository paragraphs,
general education teachers identified 10 paragraphs from
Session 14 and maintenance as acceptable and only one
from baseline as acceptable. For IEP goal paragraphs, gen-
eral education teachers identified 12 paragraphs from
Session 14 and maintenance as acceptable and only one IEP
goal paragraph from baseline as acceptable.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of
GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on expository para-
graph writing skills for high school students with disabili-
ties. Results indicated a functional relation between GO 4
IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction and students’ abilities to
compose quality expository paragraphs based on general-
ization prompts and to articulate potential IEP goals and
objectives in written IEP goal paragraphs. Given 14 or 15
instructional sessions, students in this study were able to
improve their ability to write expository paragraphs, as well
as paragraphs about potential IEP goals, and they were able
to maintain these skills over time.
These findings extend those of earlier studies on the
effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction (Konrad &
Test, 2007; Konrad et al., 2006) by demonstrating that with
additional practice and feedback, students can generalize the
GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy to a range of paragraph types.
Learning to write paragraphs about goals is a good first step
for students to make toward learning about setting and
reaching goals and improving their writing skills. However,
if they cannot generalize these skills to more practical tasks,
the intervention is limited. Indeed, Alber-Morgan et al.
(2007) contended “every writing task is a generalization
task” (p. 124) and provided guidance for promoting general-
ization of writing skills based on those presented by Stokes
and Baer (1977): (a) teaching self-management, (b) teaching
enough examples, and (c) programming common stimuli. To
ensure generalization was achieved, in addition to embed-
ding additional instruction to promote generalization, the
primary dependent variable was a generalization task, given
that each writing prompt addressed a different writing topic.
In addition, although Konrad et al. (2006) included stu-
dents with multiple disabilities, none were identified with
autism. These results provide evidence to support the
growing literature on effective writing instruction for
students with intellectual disabilities using strategies
such as modeling, guided practice, feedback, and
54 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 40(1)
systematically promoting generalization (Joseph &
Konrad, 2009). They also add support to the effectiveness of
explicit instructional strategies for students with ASD
(Pennington & Delano, 2012).
Limitations and Recommendations for Future
Research
Although findings indicate a clear functional relation, there
were some limitations. First, there was considerable vari-
ability in the expository paragraph quality data. Over time,
students’ data stabilized and maintained, so this variability
was likely a function of the fact that it takes time for writing
skills to improve to a consistently high level.
Another potential limitation of this study was that contin-
uous data were not collected for the two secondary dependent
variables, which could have compromised the rigor of exper-
imental control. There were several reasons for not collecting
data on the IEP goal paragraphs continuously throughout the
intervention. First, the primary dependent variable and focus
for the study was on generalization to expository writing.
Second, each IEP goal paragraph students wrote was based
on one of 13 needs the student identified during pre-instruc-
tion. Continuous data collection throughout intervention
would have required students to identify even more needs,
which would likely result in their identifying needs solely for
the purpose of this study (i.e., “needs” that were not their true
needs). Finally, written expression gains are not often seen
immediately (Sexton, Harris, & Graham, 1998). Due to these
issues, it did not make sense to collect data on every variable
throughout intervention.
As with all applied research, individual student charac-
teristics and disruptions in the environment may pose limi-
tations. For instance, during Brian’s Session 12, another
teacher and student entered the conference room and began
talking while he was writing his expository paragraph. He
was given the option to move to another room or to stop and
continue in a few minutes. He chose not to stop or move to
another room. Then, when the other student sat down near
him, he stopped writing and said he was “done” for the day.
This data point shows a drop in his scores; however, this
data point may not be an accurate representation of his
knowledge due to outside factors. Some students, particu-
larly those with autism, can experience anxiety with changes
in schedules and interruptions in their environment. Future
studies focusing on this population would be beneficial to
add to the literature base on written expression interven-
tions for students with autism. Researchers may consider
adding the following adaptations to the intervention, includ-
ing written instructions, a visual schedule for the lesson,
and a calendar of activities.
Another possible limitation was that instruction was deliv-
ered in a one-on-one format but then for the last two partici-
pants in a one-to-two format. Because a functional relationship
had been established with the first three students, it was
decided to implement the intervention with the final two stu-
dents using a small-group format. One-to-one instruction may
not be practical for teachers who are responsible for teaching
larger groups of students. This is a limitation because it can be
hard to determine whether this intervention would be effective
with students in small groups. The last two participants par-
ticipated as a group of two, and both made gains in all areas of
writing. However, one of the students worked at a slower pace
and wanted to rush through his work if the other student was
already finished. Also, Session 7 took these two participants 2
days to complete due to time. Future research should seek to
determine whether this instruction could be modified for
small groups of two or three students, and that study should
pair students by skill level and/or build in strategies for
addressing students’ different paces.
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study indicate GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy
instruction may help students learn to write paragraphs and
become actively involved in their own educational planning.
The standards-based reform movement has focused on pro-
viding academic instruction and access to the general educa-
tion curriculum for all students (Thurlow, 2002). Lee,
Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, and Little (2008) discussed the
importance of bringing transition education and standards-
based education together to ensure students are receiving
adequate instruction in both areas. GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strat-
egy instruction brings these two together in one intervention
by addressing core academic skills (i.e., writing) and essential
transition skills (e.g., goal setting) concurrently. This interven-
tion may allow teachers to teach both content areas together
and maximize instructional time. It may also ensure teachers
have time to address both areas and help students gain skills
needed to be successful after high school. Classroom teachers
may need to make modifications to address the students in
their classrooms. Depending on student needs, they may want
to add direct instruction, visual aids, and word banks when
students struggle and to assist students in generalizing these
skills to other forms of writing across the curriculum.
During this study, some participants struggled with break-
ing goals into specific objectives or steps to reach their goal.
Teachers may want to add a bank of possible objectives for
students to choose from based on their goals. This would give
students a voice in their objectives, while providing assistance
for students who struggle to generate ideas independently.
When students are able to develop IEP goal paragraphs,
teachers should identify meaningful ways for students to
use their paragraphs to become involved in their IEP pro-
cess. For example, students can learn how to record data on
their progress on goals and objectives they have developed.
Then they can share data with their families and IEP teams
at their meetings. Also, students can turn their goal para-
graphs into an IEP essay that can be used to develop their
next IEP. Students can share essays with the IEP team and
Konrad et al. 55
work with their teacher on how to lead parts of the IEP
meeting to share their ideas. In addition, students could
develop a PowerPoint presentation to share with the IEP
team on the needs they have identified and the goal para-
graphs they developed based on those needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, students with disabilities are struggling to
attain in-school and post-school success comparable with
their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011; Nord
et al., 2011). Emphasis on teaching academic content to all
students is promising for students with disabilities who
previously were excluded from the general curriculum
(Thurlow, 2002). However, teachers need research-based
interventions that allow them to teach the general curricu-
lum without sacrificing instruction in other important
areas, such as self-determination. This study adds to the
evidence that GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction is one
viable approach.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Alber-Morgan, S. R., Hessler, T., & Konrad, M. (2007). Teaching
writing for keeps. Education and Treatment of Children, 30,
107–128.
Bouck, E. C., & Joshi, G. S. (2012). Functional curriculum and
students with mild intellectual disabilities: Exploring post-
school outcomes through the NLTS2. Education and Training
in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 399–409.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied
behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.
Halpern, A. S., Yovanoff, P., Doren, B., & Benz, M. R. (1995).
Predicting participation in postsecondary education for school
leavers with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 151–164.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated
strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced
approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.
Joseph, L. M., & Konrad, M. (2009). Teaching students with intel-
lectual or developmental disabilities to write: A review of the
literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1–19.
Konrad, M., Fowler, C. H., Walker, A. R., Test, D. W., & Wood,
W. M. (2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on
the academic performance of students with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 89–113.
Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. (2007). Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW!
strategy instruction on the written IEP goal articulation and
paragraph-writing skills of middle school students. Remedial
and Special Education, 28, 277–291.
Konrad, M., Trela, K., & Test, D. W. (2006). Using IEP goals
and objectives to teach paragraph writing to high school stu-
dents with physical and cognitive disabilities. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 111–124.
Lee, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., & Little,
T. D. (2008). Self-determination and access to the general
curriculum. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 91–107.
Migliore, A., Timmons, J., Butterworth, J., & Lugas, J. (2012).
Predictors of employment and postsecondary education of
youth with autism. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55,
176–184. doi:10.1177/0034355212438943
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K.,
Shaver, D., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high school
outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years
after high school (A report from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study–2 [NLTS2; NCSER 2011-3005]). Menlo
Park, CA: SRI International.
Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J.,
& Schuknecht, J. (2011). The nation’s report card: America’s
high school graduates (NCES 2011-462; U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pennington, R. C., & Delano, M. E. (2012). Writing instruction for
students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of litera-
ture. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
27, 158–167. doi:10.1177/1088357612451318
Rowe, D. A., Mazzotti, V. L., & Sinclair, J. (2015). Strategies
for teaching self-determination skills in conjunction with the
common core. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 131–141.
Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated
strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay
writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64, 295–311.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Forber-Pratt,
A. J., Little, T. J., & Lopez, S. (2015). Causal agency theory:
Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determina-
tion. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 50, 251–262.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Rifenbark, G.
G., & Little, T. D. (2015). Relationships between self-deter-
mination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities.
The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256–267.
Snyder, E. P. (2002). Teaching students with combined behavioral
disorders and mental retardation to lead their own IEP meet-
ings. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 340–357.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of
generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10,
349–367.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A., Fowler, C., Kortering,
L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transi-
tion predictors for improving postschool outcomes for stu-
dents with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 160–181.
Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all stu-
dents: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and
Special Education, 23, 195–202.
Wagner, M. M., Newman, L. A., & Javitz, H. S. (2014). The influ-
ence of family socioeconomic status on the post-high school
outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development
and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 5–17.
doi:10.1177/2165143414523980