Saddler, Bruce (2006). Learning Disability Quarterly, v29 n4 p291-305. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ786220
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 | 100% |
The study was conducted in an urban elementary school in the northeastern United States. The school’s population was 50% White, 37% African-American, 7% Asian, and 6% Hispanic; 48% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The students’ intervention took place in a room outside of their general education classroom.
There were six 7-year-old students in the sample from five second-grade classrooms. School staff identified the students as having LD while they were in first grade, and their current teachers identified them as struggling writers. The students were all African American; four were male (Mike, John, Larry, and George) and two were female (Tracy and Alice). All six students were reading at the first-grade level, and their full-scale IQ scores from the Stanford-Binet ranged from 89 to 102. The students received co-teaching support during their general education language arts classes from a special education teacher.
The SRSD intervention used in this study included six lessons (some of which took multiple sessions) to help students improve their planning and story writing skills. A graduate student implemented the intervention to pairs of students. Students met with the instructor for 30 minutes per session, three times a week. The training sessions took place outside of the student’s typical general education classroom, and students were still in their class during regular writing instruction. The number of sessions was either 10 or 11, as each group moved through the lessons at their own pace. Lesson 1 focused on developing background knowledge, including introducing two mnemonic devices. POW reminded students to pick ideas, organize notes, and write and say more. The “WWW, What=2, How=2” device 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?” Lesson 2 consisted of review and practice. Lesson 3 used self-statements designed to elicit story ideas. Lesson 4, which was repeated twice, involved a student-led collaborative writing exercise with the instructor. Lesson 5 involved another story writing exercise, but without the graphic organizer, and was repeated (two to three times) for each group until all seven story parts were included. Lesson 6 involved a story writing exercise without instructor assistance. Post-training story probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used multiple probe designs across pairs of students for each outcome. During the baseline condition, students wrote essays and participated in their regular writing instruction with their teachers in a general education classroom.
The study author trained the graduate student instructor. The author modeled each lesson and then observed the graduate student’s implementation of the lesson.
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