The effects of synchronous online cognitive strategy instruction in writing for students with learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation)
Straub, C. L. (2012). Retrieved from http://stars.library.ucf.edu/.
-
examining4Students, grades6-10
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: 25%
Male: 75% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race White 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study intervention took place in a secondary school in Florida, via an online tutoring system that connected the students to an instructor at a local university. The intervention occurred during a study hall period immediately after lunch.
Study sample
The study sample included four secondary school students who had been diagnosed with LD. All four students were White. Damon was a 14-year-old male in eighth grade; Carson was a 15-year-old male in ninth grade; Jake was a 16-year-old male in tenth grade; and Monica was a 13-year-old female in sixth grade.
Intervention
SRSD was used to teach students strategies for both planning and writing. An undergraduate research assistant delivered the instruction via online chatting and video conferencing through the use of Adobe Connect and Google Docs. The structure of the intervention included up to five lessons, where the fifth lesson would be repeated if the student did not meet prespecified criteria. Students were taught how to use the “POW+TREE” mnemonic strategies. POW reminded students to pick ideas, organize information, and then write and check their work. TREE prompted students to think of a topic sentence, reasons, examples, and an ending. During training, students could also earn points towards reinforcers. These reinforcers were described as “items valued at two dollars or less.” A preference assessment was used to develop a list of reinforcers, based on students’ preferences. Post-training essay probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
Comparison
The study uses a multiple probe design across participants. During the baseline condition for each student, teachers taught their classes as usual.
Support for implementation
The tutor received 4 hours of training in applying the instructional procedures of SRSD.
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).