Graham, Steve; Harris, Karen R. (1989). Exceptional Children, v56 n3 p201-14. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ400693
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.
The study took place in one suburban elementary school in the northeastern United States. The intervention was administered individually to each student in a quiet room within the elementary school.
The study sample included three sixth-grade students who were identified as having LD by their district and were receiving special education services in a resource room. Elaine was a 12-year-old girl with an IQ of 101 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). She scored at least 3 years below grade level in math, writing, and knowledge achievement. Morgane was a 12-year-old girl with an IQ score of 89 on the Slossom Intelligence Test. She scored 2 years below grade level in reading. Arthur was a 12-year-old boy with an IQ of 99 on the WISC-R. He also scored 2 years below grade level in reading and math achievement and had repeated third grade.
SRSD, referred to as self-instructional strategy training procedures in this study, was administered individually to students to help improve their writing skills. The instructor, a graduate student majoring in special education, first worked with each student to define the components of a good essay using a mnemonic device (TREE) which prompted students to think of a topic sentence, reasons, examples, and an ending. The instructor then reviewed the student’s current level of essay writing and discussed goals. Next, the instructor presented a three-step essay-writing strategy to the student (Think, Plan, Write) and modeled for the student how to use the strategy. Next, the student memorized the strategy and practiced self-regulation. The instructor and the student then worked together to write an essay using the strategy. Finally, the student wrote essays independently. Elaine, Morgane, and Arthur participated in seven, five, and eight SRSD training sessions, respectively. Each session lasted approximately 40 minutes. Post-training essay probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple probe design across three students. During the baseline condition for each student, the graduate student instructor asked students to write essays on a specific topic or in response to a picture. General procedures were in effect in the resource room during this period.
The instructor received training on the step-by-step implementation procedures and received detailed lesson plans with guidance on how to conduct each step.
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