Danoff, Barbara; And Others (1993). Journal of Reading Behavior, v25 n3 p295-322. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ472501
Reviewed: October 2017
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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report (841 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 33% | |
| White | 67% |
The study was conducted in a suburban elementary school located in the northeastern United States. The intervention took place in three general education classrooms, including two fifth-grade classrooms and one fourth-grade classroom, during a period called “writers’ workshop.” The school’s special education teacher took primary responsibility for developing and delivering the lessons included in this study, with back-up provided by the general education classroom teachers. The school had about 370 students, and there were 25 to 28 students in each class.
The study sample included two fifth-grade students (one male, one female) and one fourth-grade student (female) who were identified as having learning disabilities (LD) by their school district. Each student had an IQ above 85, with achievement at least one standard deviation below grade level. The fifth graders were White, and the fourth grader was Asian. The study also included experiments for three additional participants who did not have LD. The experiments for these students are not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness.
The SRSD intervention model was used to teach students how to improve their writing skills. The writing and self-regulation strategies used in this study were taught to all students through a series of mini-lessons delivered by the school’s special education teacher. During the SRSD training phase, the teacher introduced a writing strategy to the class and gave them a small chart and a mnemonic device for remembering the seven basic parts of a story. The mnemonic device was ““WWW, What=2, How=2” and asked students to think about the following prompts: “Who are the main characters? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What do the main characters want to do? What happens when the main characters try to do it? How does the story end? How do the main characters feel?” Progression through the stages of instruction was criterion-based rather than time-based. The students required a series of nine to 11 mini-lessons to master the strategy and self-regulation procedures. The post-training story probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple baseline design across students for each outcome. During the baseline condition for each student, teachers taught their classes as usual, and the special education teacher provided instructional assistance to students with disabilities.
The special education teacher adapted lesson plans from previous studies of SRSD and followed all steps of the SRSD model.
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.
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
Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers Practice Guide