Sexton, Melissa; Harris, Karen R.; Graham, Steve (1998). Exceptional Children, v64 n3 p295-311. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ563946
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 | 83% | |
| White | 17% |
The study was conducted in a suburban mid-Atlantic school. The school’s student population was 62% African American, 23% White, 11% Asian, and 3% Hispanic; about 40% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 8% were English learners. The students in this study received services in general education classes, with the support of special education teachers.
The study sample included six students who were identified as having LD by their district. Marian, a 10-year-old fifth grader, was a Black female with an IQ of 81 and a third-grade reading level. Robin, a 10-year-old fifth grader, was a Black male with an IQ of 96 and a third-grade reading level. Alan, a 12-year-old sixth grader, was a White male with an IQ of 98 and a fourth-grade reading level. Matilda, an 11-year-old sixth grader, was a Black female with an IQ of 86 and a third-grade reading level. Richard, a 10-year-old fifth grader, was a Black male with an IQ of 105 and a third-grade reading level. John, a 12-year-old sixth grader, was a Black male with an IQ of 117 and a fourth-grade reading level.
The six-step SRSD intervention was used to help students write essays. Students were taught how to use the “TREE” mnemonic strategy which included starting with a topic sentence, stating the reasons behind their arguments, evaluating their reasons, and ending with a conclusion. Once a stable baseline was obtained for both students in the first pair (Marian and Robin), SRSD instruction was started for that pair. Instruction for the second pair of students (Alan and Matilda) began once the first pair reached criterion level (one and a half times the number of functional elements produced during baseline). The same procedure was used for the third pair (Richard and John). The instruction period consisted of 40–50 minute sessions, and the number of sessions varied across pairs, ranging from 8–10 to complete the training. The first author of the study led the instruction. Post-training essay probes were administered immediately following SRSD instruction.
The study used a multiple probe design across pairs of students. During the baseline period, usual writing instruction processes were used, in which students were encouraged to plan, draft, edit, and publish their papers. During the baseline condition, students wrote essays without special instruction.
Not reported.
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