Troia, Gary A.; Harris, Karen R.; Graham, Steve (1999). Exceptional Children, v65 n2 p235-52. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ579491
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.
| Black | 33% | |
| White | 67% |
The study took place in two suburban elementary schools located in the mid-Atlantic United States.
The study sample included three students (Luke, Ben, and Leia) from two schools. All three students were in the fifth grade, had an IQ of 101, were from an economically disadvantaged background, spoke English as their primary language, and were identified by their school district as having LD. Luke was a 10-year-old African-American male. Ben was an 11-year-old White male who had been retained in second grade. Leia was an 11-year-old White female who had repeated first grade.
SRSD was used to teach students how to integrate planning strategies into the writing process. Using the SRSD intervention, the instructor modeled how to use three strategies in the first three lessons: goal setting, brainstorming, and organizing. In the first lesson, the instructor prepared a speech and wrote a story while modeling aloud how to use the strategies. The instructor gave students a list of questions to help them identify essential features and the value of the strategies used by the instructor. The second lesson followed the same procedures, but the instructor instead read a chapter and wrote a story, and the third lesson followed the same procedures as the first two lessons, with the instructor planning a trip. In the second and third lessons, the students were asked to compare the strategy usage with earlier lessons. The instructor also introduced the STOP & LIST (Stop, Think of Purpose & List Ideas, Sequence Them) strategies to the students. The fourth and fifth lessons focused on applying the STOP & LIST strategies. In lessons 6 and 7, the students were expected to plan and write stories independently. The seven lessons took three weeks to cover, in 60–90 minute sessions. Post-training story probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple probe design across participants. During the baseline condition for each student, teachers taught their classes as usual.
Not reported.
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