Midgette, Ekaterina; Haria, Priti; MacArthur, Charles (2008). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v21 n1-2 p131-151. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ785479
Reviewed: October 2019
Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively Practice Guide
(findings for Secondary Writing)
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tone |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
1.23 |
1.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Audience engagement |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
0.39 |
0.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Opposing reasons |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
1.55 |
0.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Rebuttals |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
1.03 |
0.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Elaboration of reasons |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
2.27 |
1.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Reasons |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
3.60 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Position |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
2.53 |
2.44 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coherence |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
1.25 |
0.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Persuasiveness |
Secondary Writing vs. General goal comparison condition |
0 Days |
Content and Audience Awareness Goal (intervention) v. General Goal (comparison);
|
3.89 |
3.39 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 45% | |
| White | 33% |
| Hispanic | 17% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 83% |
The study took place in one public elementary school and two public middle schools in an urban/suburban school district in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
The analytic sample was composed of 60 boys and 47 girls. Forty-five percent were African American, 33 percent were Caucasian, 17 percent were Hispanic, and five percent were Asian. The report presents SES information at the school level; 29 percent of the students at the participating elementary school and 39 percent of the students at the two participating middle schools came from low income families as indicated by eligibility for the free or reduced price lunch programs. No students had disabilities or were English learners.
From the previous MRG: The study was carried out in two sessions. The authors do not report the duration of each session or the amount of time between sessions. In the first session, all students were asked to write a persuasive essay on a prompt in intact classroom groups. In the second session, the students in the three conditions were physically separated into three rooms. In each condition, the students were asked to reread their essays and revise their papers according to their assigned group condition. Students in the general goal condition were given a general goal and guidelines for improving their essays (e.g. “make any changes that you think would improve the essay”). Students in the content goal condition were given a content goal and guidelines that instructed them to think of additional reasons to support their opinions and of examples and evidence to support their reasons. In addition to receiving a content-oriented goal and related guidelines, students in the content and audience awareness condition were given an audience awareness goal and guidelines that instructed them to think who might disagree with their opinion, what reasons those people might give, and how to defend their own opinion. Students in each condition were given specific guidelines to revise their essays.
See above.
The report does not discuss support for implementation.
Reviewed: June 2012
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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 30% | |
| White | 53% |
| Hispanic | 13% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 87% |
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube