Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230–240.
Reviewed: June 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Writing quality (Probe 3) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
5.60 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Writing quality (Probe 1) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
4.90 |
3.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Writing quality (Probe 2) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
4.70 |
3.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Essay length (Probe 3) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
107.20 |
51.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Essay length (Probe 2) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
79.50 |
54.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Essay length (Probe 1) |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (GSPS vs. Comparison);
|
78.40 |
58.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in a large suburban district in a mid-Atlantic U.S. state.
Of the 30 students included in the full study sample, 18 students were in 7th grade and 12 students were in 8th grade. The average age of students in the sample was 13 years, 9 months. Approximately 42 percent of students in the sample received free or reduced-price lunch. Students were black (18), Caucasian (10), or Hispanic (2); this racial composition was consistent with the broader student population of the school district. The study did not provide sample characteristics specific to the students included in the goal setting plus strategy use vs. comparison contrast.
In the goal setting plus strategy use intervention condition, as in the goal setting condition, students were assigned an essay topic and participated in a pre-writing conference in which they selected a writing goal and recorded it. However, students in this condition were also informed that they would use a six-step strategy to achieve their writing goal. Students were given a handout with a description of each of the six strategy steps to reference while writing their essays. The six steps included: (1) reading the essay topic and identifying their opinion; (2) brainstorming and writing down ideas; (3) writing the essay, including the ideas that were brainstormed; (4) reading the essay to see if all ideas were included; (5) edit the essay to add brainstormed ideas that were not included; and (6) check to see if the goal was met and return to fifth step if not.
Students in the comparison group did not discuss goal setting during their pre-writing conference. Instead, they discussed with the instructor how they were feeling that day. Students were told they would be assigned an essay topic, write a paper on it, and then participate in a post-writing conference with the instructor.
Graduate students in education implemented the intervention. Graduate students were trained (presumably by the study authors) to carry out the study procedures and followed detailed lesson plans for each session. Each graduate student instructor worked with an equal number of students in each condition.
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