Teaching Children about Revision in Writing.
Fitzgerald, Jill; Markham, Lynda R. (1987). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282220
-
examining30Students, grade6
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2017
-
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for Secondary Writing)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall writing score (stage 4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.27 |
27.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Overall writing score (stage 1) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.13 |
27.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of suggested deletions per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.41 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total number of revisions made per 100 words (stages 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.19 |
16.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of deletions made per 100 words (stage 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.14 |
3.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of suggested meaning changes per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.06 |
0.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Average specificity of suggested changes |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.60 |
1.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of surface changes made per 100 words (stages 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.05 |
10.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of additions made per 100 words (stages 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.08 |
2.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of spots suggested for revision per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.54 |
0.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of suggested rearrangements per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.21 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of meaning changes made per 100 words (stages 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.14 |
5.88 |
No |
-- | |
|
Average specificity of goals for revisions |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.50 |
1.17 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of substitutions made per 100 words (stage 1-4) |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.94 |
3.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of suggested additions per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.27 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of suggested substitutions per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.25 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of suggested surface changes per 100 words |
Secondary Writing vs. Comparison condition for instruction in the process of revision intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.31 |
0.43 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Black 43% White 53%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in two classrooms in what appears to be one school in California.
Study sample
The overall sample of 30 sixth grade students consisted of 17 males and 13 females. They study also indicates that 13 students were black, 16 students were white, and one student was Indian.
Intervention Group
Two trained doctoral students delivered the intervention. The intervention consisted of four cycles, with each cycle lasting three days. The intervention culminated in an additional session that was intended as a recap of all the lessons. Each forty-five minute lesson focused on different kinds of revisions, including additions, deletions, substitutions, and rearrangements. The lessons were organized such that instructors would introduce the revision process, model it, and then provide opportunities for group and individual practice which included writing and revising their own story. Before each new day, instructors would review what they covered previously.
Comparison Group
The same two doctoral students who delivered the intervention to the intervention group taught the comparison group. The lessons for the comparison group were based on reading good literature taken from the Random House (Goodman, 1980) Spotlight on Literature series. During the lessons, students had opportunities to read individually, as well as, time to read aloud in groups. They engaged in group discussions about what they read but also wrote and revised their own stories.
Support for implementation
The two trained doctoral students who taught the intervention and comparison group classrooms were observed daily either directly by one of the investigators or through a recording. However, the report doesn't mention whether this information was used to support implementation.
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).