Increasing Story Quality through Planning and Revising: Effects on Young Writers with Learning Disabilities
Saddler, Bruce; Asaro, Kristie (2007). Learning Disability Quarterly, v30 n4 p223-234. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ786254
-
examining6Students, grade2
Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report (841 KB)
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 67% White 33%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in an urban elementary school in the northeastern United States. The school’s student population was 52% White, 35% African-American, 7% Asian, and 6% Hispanic; approximately half of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The students’ intervention took place in a room outside of their general education classroom.
Study sample
There were six students in the sample, all of whom were 7 years old and in second grade. All students (three males, three females) were identified by their teacher as having LD in first grade, and their IQ scores ranged from 98 to 103. A special education co-teacher provided each student with additional support within their general education classroom. The sample included four African-American students and two White students.
Intervention
The SRSD intervention model was used to teach students how to improve their story writing skills. The students participated in the SRSD intervention in pairs (Arnold and Maria; Gracie and George; and Scarlet and Rhett). The first and third pair covered the content of the intervention in 11 lessons, and the second pair needed 12 lessons. Lessons were taught three times a week in 30-minute sessions, outside of the general education classroom. The intervention included two strategies. The first was POW (pick ideas; organize notes; write and say more). During the “organize notes” stage of POW, the instructor also introduced the “WWW, What=2, How=2” mnemonic device which asked students to think about the following prompts: “Who are the main characters? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What do the main characters want to do? What happens when the main characters try to do it? How does the story end? How do the main characters feel?” Both strategies were introduced in the first lesson and were repeated and reviewed at the start of each subsequent lesson. The students began writing their own stories using the strategies beginning in Lesson 2, with growing independence over time as they became more comfortable with the strategies. Post-training story probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
Comparison
The study used a multiple baseline design across pairs of participants for each of the four eligible outcomes. During the baseline condition, students received their regular writing instruction and wrote essays without receiving any strategy instruction.
Support for implementation
Not reported.
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).