The Effects of Distant Professional Development Model on Second Grade Teachers' Instruction and Students' Quality of Procedural Papers
Traga Philippakos, Zoi A.; Voggt, Ashley (2021). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v34 n7 p1791-1822 Sep 2021. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1306406
-
examining84Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Confidence in writing: Text structure (organization) subtest |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
75.52 |
70.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Confidence in writing: Affect subtest |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
74.00 |
70.65 |
No |
-- |
|
Confidence in writing: Processes subtest |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
83.29 |
84.63 |
No |
-- |
|
Confidence in writing: Grammar subtest |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
71.14 |
74.04 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.98 |
105.02 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Confidence in teaching writing |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.30 |
5.05 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural writing quality |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
4.39 |
3.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Procedural writing quality |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.26 |
3.33 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Writing quality transfer to persuasion |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
4 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.65 |
3.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Writing quality transfer to science (with reminders) |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
3 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.15 |
2.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Writing quality transfer to science (no reminders) |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.29 |
2.97 |
No |
-- | ||
|
TEWL-3 Contextual Writing |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
2 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.43 |
23.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Procedural writing quality |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
22 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.61 |
2.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Procedural writing quality |
Distant professional development model for genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing - Philippakos and Voggt (2021) vs. Business as usual |
21 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.57 |
3.00 |
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.
-
12% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Rural
-
Race Black 16% Other or unknown 12% White 73% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in four second-grade classrooms in one rural, Title I, public school located in the Eastern United States.
Study sample
The student sample is 73% White and 16% African-American, with 7% Latino. Just over half (54%) of students were female. In the student sample, 7% of students had an Individualized Education Plan and 12% received English for Speakers of Other Languages. The student sample was comprised of 42 students in the intervention group and 42 students were in the comparison group. Two teachers were in the intervention group, and two teachers were in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The intervention provided teachers with a virtual workshop, videos of instruction, and coaching. Teachers in the intervention group watched a podcast that discussed writing as a cognitive and social process; reviewed research on planning and revision; reviewed the recommendations of an elementary practice guide and the Common Core State Standards guidelines with an emphasis on grade 2; and identified the specific instructional components and principles of the procedural writing intervention. Teachers were asked to watch videos of instruction and received a manual that included lessons that addressed the intervention components. Students in the intervention group receive genre-based instruction in procedural writing with a focus on strategy and dramatization. The sequence of writing instruction implemented in the classrooms is based on the components of Strategy for Teaching Strategies (STS) curriculum.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison condition taught procedural writing using a structured writing program the school adopted for grades K to 5 the previous year. All teachers had a manual and related resources, such as graphic organizers, and had received professional development on the use of these resources. Students in the comparison classrooms received the school's standard writing instruction.
Support for implementation
Teachers completed an online workshop prior to implementing the intervention. Teachers also received coaching from the researcher to implement the intervention with fidelity. They submitted recorded lessons to the researcher, who then provided written feedback to each teacher via email.
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).