MacArthur, Charles A.; Traga Philippakos, Zoi A.; May, Henry; Compello, Jill (2022). Journal of Educational Psychology, v114 n4 p815-832 May 2022. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1338886
Reviewed: October 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed measure of writing self-efficacy: tasks and processes |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
77.50 |
68.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of writing self-efficacy: self-regulation |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
77.40 |
70.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of writing self-efficacy: grammar |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
67.50 |
60.54 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of writing affect |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.42 |
3.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Researcher-developed measure of achievement goals for writing – mastery factor |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.23 |
4.24 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-developed measure of achievement goals for writing – performance factor |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.93 |
3.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-developed measure of writing avoidance |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.57 |
2.71 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Accuplacer Reading assessment |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
104.30 |
104.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed argumentative essay grammar |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.54 |
0.51 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Argumentative essay length |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
472.00 |
436.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed argumentative essay quality |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.35 |
3.01 |
Yes |
|
|
|
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing quality assessment |
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.28 |
2.72 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 38% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 14% | |
| White | 43% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in the developmental writing courses of two community colleges located in different states in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
The researchers randomly assigned 10 instructors to the intervention group and 9 instructors to the comparison group in two community colleges. A total of 207 community college students were included in the study. The 207 students were enrolled in developmental writing courses taught by 19 instructors in the two schools. Approximately 62% of the students were female. Forty-three percent were White, 38% were Black, 4% were Asian, 1% were Native American, and 14% did not report their race. Nine percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Supporting Strategic Writers (SSW) is an instructional approach that combines writing and self-regulation strategies to improve quality of college students’ writing. Students were taught strategies for composing essays based on genres often taught in college (for example, causal explanation, personal narrative, or argumentation). The curriculum included writing strategies for planning (analyzing the writing task to set goals, brainstorming, and using a genre-specific graphic organizer), drafting (using the plan, writing the main idea, and writing supporting details), and revising (self-evaluation and peer review using genre-specific criteria and editing). Throughout the process, the curriculum also featured self-regulation strategies, such as goal setting, task management, progress monitoring, and reflection. Students were taught in instructional units that covered instruction in paragraphs and essays in argumentative writing and other writing genres. The intervention was offered in class for one semester.
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction in developmental writing courses. Instructors continued to use their prior approaches to instruction which consisted of writing assignments in multiple genres, including an argumentative essay as a final course assignment. Instructors in the comparison group did not teach self-regulation strategies.
Course instructors in the intervention group received an instructor’s guide for SSW containing detailed lesson plans and received 2–3 days of professional development before the start of the semester. In addition, instructors received in-class coaching where researchers observed each instructor three to five times to provide feedback and answer questions on instruction.
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