De La Paz, Susan; Graham, Steve (1997). Exceptional Children, v63 n2 p167-81. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ542671
Reviewed: October 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Self-Regulated Strategy Development.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report (841 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 67% | |
| White | 33% |
The study took place in two suburban mid-Atlantic elementary schools. The students received the intervention during individual instruction periods.
The study sample included three fifth-grade students who received special education services for students with LD. Rand was an 11-year-old African-American student who had an IQ of 64 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale-III. Elayne was an 11-year-old Caucasian student who had an IQ of 128. Aviendha was a 10-year-old African-American student who had an IQ of 105.
The SRSD intervention model was used to teach students the STOP and DARE writing strategies. For STOP, students were taught to suspend judgment, take a side, organize ideas, and plan as they write. For DARE, students were taught to develop a topic sentence, add supporting ideas, reject possible arguments for the other side, and end with a conclusion. Each session lasted 45–55 minutes. Post-training essay probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple probe design across participants. Prior to collecting baseline data, teachers had introduced students to the components of a good essay and the importance of advanced planning. During the baseline condition, students wrote essays on select topics without any planning instruction.
The teacher used scripted lesson plans and a checklist to ensure that all instructional steps were completed.
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