De La Paz, Susan (1999). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, v14 n2 p92-106. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ587699
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.
| White | 100% |
The study was conducted in two middle schools in one school district in the southeastern United States. In one middle school, the student population was 94% White, 5% African American, and 1% Asian or Latino; 18% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. In the other middle school, the student demographics were nearly identical, except only 12% of its students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The intervention took place in two seventh-grade and one eighth-grade general education classrooms.
The study sample included six students in seventh or eighth grade who were identified as having LD by their school district. The students had verbal IQ scores that ranged from 85 to 125; scored below average on the reading, writing, or math sections of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT); had no other disabilities; and spoke English as their primary language. One student was female, while the other five were male. All students in the study sample were White, and their ages ranged from 12 to 14 years old. The study also included separate experiments for 14 other students without LD, who were described as low-, average-, or high-achieving students. The experiments for students without LD are not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness.
The SRSD intervention model was used to teach students how to write effective essays. The PLAN and WRITE mnemonics were used to help students remember the writing steps and strategies they had learned. The PLAN mnemonic asked students to pay attention to the writing prompt, list the main ideas, add supporting ideas, and number their ideas. The WRITE mnemonic asked them to work from the plan they had developed, remember their goals, include transition words, try to use different kinds of sentences, and use exciting words. Twelve to 16 sessions were offered, varying by classroom. Each SRSD session took place during one full class period for 4 days a week, over a 4-week period; some sessions were lost due to weather and other factors. Post-training essay probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple probe design across classrooms for both outcomes. Each of the three classrooms had two students. During the baseline condition for each class, teachers taught their classes as usual.
Teachers were given instruction manuals, and each attended 2 days of SRSD training.
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