Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., Rebelo, J. A., Damião, M. H., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2015). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 17–27.
Reviewed: October 2019
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for Secondary Writing)
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Structural elements (opinion essay) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
6.38 |
3.62 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Structural elements (opinion essay) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
4.84 |
2.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word count |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
132.63 |
148.89 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Word count |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
2 Months |
Full sample;
|
167.00 |
155.41 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in six schools in a major city in Portugal (three middle schools, three combined middle and high school).
The analytic sample for the intervention group had a mean age of 13.33 and was 51.9% female. In the intervention group, 10% had repeated a grade and 1.9% had a special need. The language arts grades for the intervention schools was 3.66 and the general school achievement was 3.82. The analytic sample for the comparison group had a mean age of 13.56 and was 56.6% female. In the comparison group, 11.1% had repeated a grade and 4.3% had a special need. The language arts grades for the comparison schools was 3.68 and the general school achievement was 3.69.
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) was developed by Karen Harris. It “…combines the teaching of writing processes (including planning, drafting, composing, revising and evaluating); instruction in writing strategies; and development of self-regulation strategies, including goal-setting, self-assessment (self-monitoring and self-recording), self-instruction, and self-reinforcement.” (p. 18). Strategies for writing in specific genres are explicitly taught as are approaches to developing self-regulation. “Such strategies for writing and self-regulation are developed in six recursive, interactive, individualized instructional stages with gradual release of responsibility for writing to students: (1) develop and activate background knowledge; (2) discuss and describe the strategies to be learned; (3) model the strategies; (4) memorize the strategies; (5) support the strategies; and (6) independent performance (Harris et al., 2008). Instruction proceeds based on students’ progress; students are given the time they need to make these strategies their own.” (p. 18). In the study, teachers used these six stages of the SRSD model, determining their pacing on students’ progress and needs. During the first stage, teachers introduced the strategies designed to support students’ development of genre-specific knowledge, vocabulary, writing approaches and self-regulation strategies. In the third stage, teachers modeled self-regulation strategies (e.g., goal-setting, and self-instruction) as well as how to use the POW/PODE and TREE/TRAVE approaches (described below). In stage 5, teachers supported students writing opinion essays and in the final stage students wrote essays independently. POW/PODE: This is an English/Portuguese mnemonic for: “Pick my idea, i.e., pick an initial idea of what to write about; Organize my notes, i.e., write a plan using a graphic organizer; Write and say more, i.e., continue modify and upgrade the plan during writing)” (p. 21) TREE/TRAVE: This is an English/Portuguese mnemonic for the strategy specifically designed for writing opinion essays “… to carry out the second step of POW (Organize my notes), TREE (Topic sentence, Tell what you believe; Reasons, three or more, and elaborate on or say more about each one; Ending, Wrap it up right; and Examine, do I have all my parts?)” (p. 21) Teachers provided weekly 45-minute class sessions on SRSD for opinion essays for three months. They used materials provided by the researchers adapted from Harris et al. (2008) and another Harris source (not specified) so they would be appropriate in Portuguese classrooms (and translated into Portuguese). The mnemonics for the SRSD strategies were also adapted and translated.
Teachers in the comparison condition used standard teaching strategies, which included a variety of practices and some of the elements of SRSD instruction. The study assessed the comparison teaching practices with a teacher questionnaire and found that the comparison group teachers spent less time teaching writing compared to the intervention group.
Teachers received a 2-day (14 hour) training session and had weekly meetings with a research assistant to support implementation. In addition, they received guidelines and materials for implementing the activities in the intervention. The research team translated the SRSD materials into Portuguese and adapted them as needed to fit into Portuguese classrooms. They also discussed with the research teams ways in which to adapt the model for use with differentiated instruction. Finally, teachers met with researchers weekly for an hour during the study to discuss questions, concerns, and plans.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Scrivener, Susan; Au, Jenny. (2007). Enhancing Student Services at Lorain County Community College: Early Results from the Opening Doors Demonstration in Ohio. MDRC.
Scrivener, Susan; Au, Jenny. (2007). Enhancing Student Services at Lorain County Community College: Early Results from the Opening Doors Demonstration in Ohio. MDRC.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube