Implicit Theories of Writing and Their Impact on Students' Response to a SRSD Intervention
Limpo, Teresa; Alves, Rui A. (2014). British Journal of Educational Psychology, v84 n4 p571-590. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045381
-
examining192Students, grades5-6
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 with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Essay quality |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
12 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.54 |
3.68 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Essay length |
Secondary Writing vs. Business as usual |
12 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
128.01 |
79.34 |
Yes |
|
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
- 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
International
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 5th and 6th grade classrooms in a single school in Portugal.
Study sample
The sample had an average age of 11 years old, 52 percent were female, and about 30 percent had a mother with less than a high school education.
Intervention Group
The intervention was administered in 12 weekly sessions of 90-minutes. Students were taught a mnemonic strategy to write opinion essays: "tell what you believe, give three or more reasons, explain each reason, and wrap it up" (p. 578, adapted for Portuguese from the mnemonic TREE developed by Harris, Graham, Mason, and Friedlander (2008)). The strategy was paired with SRSD self-regulation procedures such as setting a goal to write a complete essay and self-monitoring with a worksheet where they noted the goal and steps to goal attainment.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received standard writing instruction, with weekly sessions of 45 to 90 minutes focused mainly on grammar and independent composition.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers attended an 8-hour pre-intervention workshop and received a manual with lesson plans. Teachers met weekly with the first author and completed implementation checklists. The first author also observed one third of the lessons to ensure implementation steps were met and to rate the instructional quality.
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).