Practice-based professional development and self-regulated strategy development for Tier 2, at-risk writers in second grade
Harris, K. R, Graham, S., & Adkins, M. (2015). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 5–16. .
-
examining51Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Self-Regulated Strategy Development)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Story Elements |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.42 |
4.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Personal Narrative Elements |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.20 |
4.39 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Story Quality |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.52 |
3.33 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Personal Narrative Quality |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.73 |
2.58 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Story Elements |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
4 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
5.40 |
3.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Narrative Genre Writing: Story Quality |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development vs. Business as usual |
4 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.56 |
3.20 |
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.
-
16% English language learners -
Female: 41%
Male: 59% -
Urban
-
Race Asian 2% Black 65% Other or unknown 12% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 57% No FRPL 43%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 11 second-grade general education classrooms in 4 schools in a single urban school district.
Study sample
Study participants were second-grade students at risk of writing difficulties. Fifty-three students were randomly assigned, with 27 assigned to receive Self-regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction and 26 to receive business-as-usual instruction. The average age of children participating in the study was 8 years, 5 months. The majority of children were boys (59%), spoke English as the first language (84%), and were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (57%). Two-thirds (65%) of study participants were Black, 21% were White, and 12% were Hispanic. Six students (12%) had a health or learning disability.
Intervention Group
The intervention group received SRSD instruction in small groups of 2 - 4 children in a learning center of the classroom during regularly scheduled writing periods, as a replacement for a portion of regular instruction. Lessons were approximately 20 minutes each, and occurred 3 times a week. Teachers taught on average of 19 lessons, or 6.3 hours of SRSD instructional time.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received business-as-usual instruction. This consisted of approximately 1 hour per day of writing instruction spent in a combination of writing time and instruction. Approximately half of the instructional time was devoted to teaching spelling, handwriting, and grammar. Teachers did not report teaching any strategies for composition or revision of text. While the intervention small groups received SRSD instruction, comparison students were typically working independently.
Support for implementation
The 11 classroom teachers participated in 12 -14 hours of professional development in SRSD. While implementing the intervention, teachers were able to contact the professional development leaders by phone or email. Teachers were also observed in their classrooms approximately once a week and received feedback and support. Teachers were also encouraged to talk to the other participating teachers in their school.
Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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
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
Study sample characteristics were 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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).