Yes, They Can: Developing Transcription Skills and Oral Language in Tandem with SRSD Instruction on Close Reading of Science Text to Write Informative Essays at Grades 1 and 2
Karen R. Harris; Young-Suk Kim; Soobin Yim; April Camping; Steve Graham (2023). Contemporary Educational Psychology v73 Article 102150. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED626427
-
examining91Students, grades1-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Combining and copying sentences |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.96 |
8.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Sentence-copying fluency |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
43.45 |
42.45 |
No |
-- |
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, (WIATII, 2nd ed.): Alphabetic Writing Fluency subtest |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.23 |
13.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Writing plan quality |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.74 |
5.14 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Use of transition words |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.30 |
0.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Writing quality |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.83 |
3.82 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Writing productivity (number of words written) |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
74.15 |
39.82 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Use of source-text information |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.40 |
3.55 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Writing process knowledge |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.89 |
12.27 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Use of structural elements in an informational text |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.57 |
4.57 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Use of transition words |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
African American and multiracial students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Use of transition words |
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
-- | ||
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
South
-
Race Black 34% Other or unknown 7% Two or more races 10% White 49% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one elementary school in the southeastern United States. The study included 14 classrooms across grades 1 and 2, including eight grade 1 classrooms and six grade 2 classrooms. The school served students in a high-poverty setting.
Study sample
The study included 93 students in grades 1 and 2. Students with identified intellectual disabilities or severe behavioral problems were not included. The researchers randomly assigned 47 students to the intervention group and 46 students to the comparison group. A few students left the study before the posttest, so posttest findings were based on 90-91 students, depending on the outcome measure.
Intervention Group
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Plus is a writing intervention for beginning writers that combines strategy instruction with lessons in foundational skills that support writing. The intervention aimed to help students closely read science texts, use what they learned from those texts, and write informative essays. SRSD Plus included instruction in handwriting, spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure, close reading, planning, and writing informative essays. In this study, students used science texts as the basis for their informative writing. In grade 1, the science content focused on plants; in grade 2, the science content focused on earth and space. Certified teachers taught groups of three or four students outside the regular classroom. Students received SRSD Plus for 45 minutes per session, three times per week, for 10 weeks.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received their typical writing instruction from their teachers. Comparison teachers reported using writers workshop as their approach to writing instruction, and the study did not report that they used a commercial writing program. The authors did not observe comparison instruction, so the manuscript did not describe the writers workshop lessons in detail.
Support for implementation
The research team provided practice-based professional development to the SRSD Plus teachers and instructional coordinator. The training lasted 3 days. The professional development included an overview of the goals, relevant research, intervention content, and hands-on practice until teachers and the instructional coordinator met criteria for leading the lessons. Implementation support included feedback during the first 2 to 3 weeks, weekly calls lasting about 1 hour, and additional virtual support when needed.
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).