SRSD for Writing Strategies
Study: Graham et al. (2005)
Summary
Six basic stages of instruction are used to introduce and develop genre specific and general writing and self-regulation strategies in the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model for writing strategies instruction: a) develop background knowledge, b) discuss it, c) model it, d) support it, e) memorize it, and f) independent performance. Throughout the stages, teachers and students collaborate on the acquisition, implementation, evaluation, and modification of these strategies. The stages are not meant to be followed in a “cookbook” fashion. Rather, they provide a general format and guidelines. The stages can be reordered, combined (in fact, most lessons include at least two stages), revisited, modified or deleted to meet student and teacher needs. Further, the stages are meant to be recursive - if a concept or component is not mastered at a certain stage, students and teachers can revisit or continue aspects of that stage as they move on to others. Some stages may not be needed by all students. For example, some students may have already have the knowledge needed to use the writing and self-regulation strategies, and may skip this stage or act as a resource for other students who need this stage. There are five critical characteristics of SRSD instruction. One, writing (genre specific and general) strategies and self-regulation strategies, as well as declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge are explicitly taught and supported in development. Two, children are viewed as active collaborators who work with the teacher and each other during instruction. Three, instruction is individualized so that the processes, skills, and knowledge targeted for instruction are tailored to children’s needs and capabilities. Goals are adjusted to current performance for each student, with more capable writers addressing more advanced goals. Instruction is further individualized through the use of individually tailored feedback and support. Four, instruction is criterion based rather than time based; students move through the instructional process at their own pace and do not proceed to later stages of instruction until they have met criteria for doing so. Importantly, instruction does not end until the student can use the strategy and self-regulation procedures efficiently and effectively. Five, SRSD is an on-going process in which new strategies are introduced and previously taught strategies are upgraded over time.
- Target Grades:
- 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
- Target Populations:
-
- Students with disabilities only
- Students with learning disabilities
- Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
- English language learners
- Any student at risk for academic failure
- Area(s) of Focus:
-
- Sentence construction
- Planning and revising
- Other: Genre element knowledge and self-regulation strategies for writing (including goal setting, self-instructions, self-assessment and self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement)
- Where to Obtain:
- Karen Harris & Steve Graham
- Initial Cost:
- Free
- Replacement Cost:
- Free
-
SRSD is not sold as a commercial program.
- Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
-
- Special Education Teacher
- General Education Teacher
- Reading Specialist
- Math Specialist
- EL Specialist
- Interventionist
- Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
- Paraprofessional
- Other:
- Training Requirements:
- 6-12 hours of training
-
Instructors are provided with detailed directions for implementing all lessons and activities in small group or one-on-one training sessions. Instructional methods are modeled for the trainees, and they practice implementing the instructional procedures until they can do so without error. They are taught to use checklists to check off the key instructional steps as they go through each lesson
Through programmatic piloting and research for over 25 years
- Access to Technical Support:
- The program developers and associates are available to provide support, and online and print resources and tutorials are available: 1. All of the stages of instruction can be seen in both elementary and middle school classrooms in the video by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2002): Teaching students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom: Using learning strategies [videotape 2]. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://shop.ascd.org/productdisplay.cfm?productid=602084 This video offers the most complete view of the process of SRSD, as two classes are followed throughout instruction. 2. A free, online interactive tutorial on SRSD is available through Vanderbilt University at: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html The tutorial includes all stages of instruction and video clips. From the IRIS homepage, select Resources, in the Pick One box, click on Learning Strategies. Then, in the Select box, click on Modules. In the Link to Resources box, scroll down and click on the module titled “Improving Writing Performance: A Strategy for Writing Expository Essays.” Here is a direct link to the module: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/pow/chalcycle.htm This module outlines and describes the process for teaching students the POW+TREE strategy. To learn about SRSD and implementing a story writing strategy, visit the “Using Learning Strategies: Instruction to Enhance Student Learning.” From the IRIS homepage, select Resources. In the Pick One box, click on Learning Strategies. Then, in the Select box, click on Modules. In the Link to Resources box, scroll down and click on the module titled “Using Learning Strategies: Instruction to Enhance Student Learning.” Here is a direct link to the module: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/srs/chalcycle.htm This module outlines and describes the SRSD approach and how to use the POW + WWW strategy. 3. Our website includes lesson plans and support materials for story and opinion essay writing strategies designed for students with both behavioral and writing challenges in early elementary grades (1-3). Lesson plans and support materials are provided both for working individually with students having difficulties with behavior and writing, and for classwide self-regulated strategy instruction in inclusive classrooms. These lesson plans have been adapted from the typical SRSD lesson format for these students. http://hobbs.vanderbilt.edu/projectwrite/ Additional lesson plans and support materials can be found in the book below by Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander. Detailed print descriptions of SRSD instruction are also available: 1. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. This book includes a discussion of how and why to use SRSD for writing, followed by lesson plans for all of the strategies we have developed for elementary through high school students, as well as prompts and support materials for instruction. We are very excited to have this book available to teachers and parents, as it gives everything needed to use SRSD. Note, this book is less expensive at Amazon.com than it is from the publisher. 2. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Teaching writing processes and self-regulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. This book provides detail on each strategy we have developed, how the strategies can be scaled down or scaled up for different students, and covers the SRSD approach. Strategies useful in elementary through high school are included. 3. Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Brookline Books. Our original book, there is greater detail on how to implement SRSD and devlop the self-regulation components here than in either of the other two books we have written. There are detailed chapters on preparing, implementing, and evaluating SRSD instruction. 4. Harris, K.R., Graham. S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1-16. This article gives a detailed description of implementation of SRSD in one classroom 5. Sandmel, K, Brindle, M., Harris, K.R., Lane, K.L., Graham, S., Little, A., Nackel, J., & Mathias, R. (in press). Making it work: Differentiating tier two writing instruction with Self-Regulated Strategy Development in tandem with schoolwide positive behavioral support for second graders. This article details how instruction was differentiated for three second grade students with different behavioral and writing strengths and needs.
- Recommended Administration Formats Include:
-
- Individual students
- Small group of students
- Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
- 20
- Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
- 3
- Minimum Number of Weeks:
- 6
- Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
- Yes
- Is Technology Required?
- No technology is required.
Program Information
Descriptive Information
Please provide a description of program, including intended use:
Six basic stages of instruction are used to introduce and develop genre specific and general writing and self-regulation strategies in the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model for writing strategies instruction: a) develop background knowledge, b) discuss it, c) model it, d) support it, e) memorize it, and f) independent performance. Throughout the stages, teachers and students collaborate on the acquisition, implementation, evaluation, and modification of these strategies. The stages are not meant to be followed in a “cookbook” fashion. Rather, they provide a general format and guidelines. The stages can be reordered, combined (in fact, most lessons include at least two stages), revisited, modified or deleted to meet student and teacher needs. Further, the stages are meant to be recursive - if a concept or component is not mastered at a certain stage, students and teachers can revisit or continue aspects of that stage as they move on to others. Some stages may not be needed by all students. For example, some students may have already have the knowledge needed to use the writing and self-regulation strategies, and may skip this stage or act as a resource for other students who need this stage. There are five critical characteristics of SRSD instruction. One, writing (genre specific and general) strategies and self-regulation strategies, as well as declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge are explicitly taught and supported in development. Two, children are viewed as active collaborators who work with the teacher and each other during instruction. Three, instruction is individualized so that the processes, skills, and knowledge targeted for instruction are tailored to children’s needs and capabilities. Goals are adjusted to current performance for each student, with more capable writers addressing more advanced goals. Instruction is further individualized through the use of individually tailored feedback and support. Four, instruction is criterion based rather than time based; students move through the instructional process at their own pace and do not proceed to later stages of instruction until they have met criteria for doing so. Importantly, instruction does not end until the student can use the strategy and self-regulation procedures efficiently and effectively. Five, SRSD is an on-going process in which new strategies are introduced and previously taught strategies are upgraded over time.
The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).
Age 0-3
Age 3-5
Kindergarten
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Fourth grade
Fifth grade
Sixth grade
Seventh grade
Eighth grade
Ninth grade
Tenth grade
Eleventh grade
Twelth grade
The program is intended for use with the following groups.
Students with disabilities only
Students with learning disabilities
Students with intellectual disabilities
Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
English language learners
Any student at risk for academic failure
Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
OtherIf other, please describe:
ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.
Early Literacy
Print knowledge/awareness
Alphabet knowledge
Phonological awareness
Phonological awarenessEarly writing
Early decoding abilities
OtherIf other, please describe:
Language
Expressive and receptive vocabulary
Grammar
Syntax
Listening comprehension
OtherIf other, please describe:
Reading
Phonological awareness
Phonics/word study
Comprehension
Fluency
Vocabulary
Spelling
OtherIf other, please describe:
Mathematics
Computation
Concepts and/or word problems
Whole number arithmetic
Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
Algebra
Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Geometry and measurement
OtherIf other, please describe:
Writing
Handwriting
Spelling
Sentence construction
Planning and revising
OtherIf other, please describe:
Genre element knowledge and self-regulation strategies for writing (including goal setting, self-instructions, self-assessment and self-monitoring, and self-reinforcement)
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.
Externalizing Behavior
Physical Aggression
Verbal Threats
Property Destruction
Noncompliance
High Levels of Disengagement
Disruptive Behavior
Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
OtherIf other, please describe:
Internalizing Behavior
Depression
Anxiety
Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
School Phobia
OtherIf other, please describe:
Acquisition and cost information
Where to obtain:
- Address
- Phone Number
- Website
Initial cost for implementing program:
- Cost
- $0.00
- Unit of cost
Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:
- Cost
- $0.00
- Unit of cost
- Duration of license
Additional cost information:
Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)
SRSD is not sold as a commercial program.Program Specifications
Setting for which the program is designed.
Individual students
Small group of students
BI ONLY: A classroom of students
If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?
2-4Program administration time
- Minimum number of minutes per session
- 20
- Minimum number of sessions per week
- 3
- Minimum number of weeks
- 6
N/A (implemented until effective)- If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:
Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?- Yes
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?-
If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program: -
Does the program require technology? - No
-
If yes, what technology is required to implement your program? -
Computer or tablet
Internet connection
Other technology (please specify)
If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
Training
- How many people are needed to implement the program ?
Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?- Yes
- If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:- 6-12 hours of training
Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:- Instructors are provided with detailed directions for implementing all lessons and activities in small group or one-on-one training sessions. Instructional methods are modeled for the trainees, and they practice implementing the instructional procedures until they can do so without error. They are taught to use checklists to check off the key instructional steps as they go through each lesson
What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?
Special Education Teacher
General Education Teacher
Reading Specialist
Math Specialist
EL Specialist
Interventionist
Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
Paraprofessional
OtherIf other, please describe:
- Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
-
No
If yes, please describe:
Are training manuals and materials available?- Yes
-
Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students: - Through programmatic piloting and research for over 25 years
Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?-
Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support? -
Yes
If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:
The program developers and associates are available to provide support, and online and print resources and tutorials are available: 1. All of the stages of instruction can be seen in both elementary and middle school classrooms in the video by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2002): Teaching students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom: Using learning strategies [videotape 2]. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://shop.ascd.org/productdisplay.cfm?productid=602084 This video offers the most complete view of the process of SRSD, as two classes are followed throughout instruction. 2. A free, online interactive tutorial on SRSD is available through Vanderbilt University at: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html The tutorial includes all stages of instruction and video clips. From the IRIS homepage, select Resources, in the Pick One box, click on Learning Strategies. Then, in the Select box, click on Modules. In the Link to Resources box, scroll down and click on the module titled “Improving Writing Performance: A Strategy for Writing Expository Essays.” Here is a direct link to the module: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/pow/chalcycle.htm This module outlines and describes the process for teaching students the POW+TREE strategy. To learn about SRSD and implementing a story writing strategy, visit the “Using Learning Strategies: Instruction to Enhance Student Learning.” From the IRIS homepage, select Resources. In the Pick One box, click on Learning Strategies. Then, in the Select box, click on Modules. In the Link to Resources box, scroll down and click on the module titled “Using Learning Strategies: Instruction to Enhance Student Learning.” Here is a direct link to the module: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/srs/chalcycle.htm This module outlines and describes the SRSD approach and how to use the POW + WWW strategy. 3. Our website includes lesson plans and support materials for story and opinion essay writing strategies designed for students with both behavioral and writing challenges in early elementary grades (1-3). Lesson plans and support materials are provided both for working individually with students having difficulties with behavior and writing, and for classwide self-regulated strategy instruction in inclusive classrooms. These lesson plans have been adapted from the typical SRSD lesson format for these students. http://hobbs.vanderbilt.edu/projectwrite/ Additional lesson plans and support materials can be found in the book below by Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander. Detailed print descriptions of SRSD instruction are also available: 1. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. This book includes a discussion of how and why to use SRSD for writing, followed by lesson plans for all of the strategies we have developed for elementary through high school students, as well as prompts and support materials for instruction. We are very excited to have this book available to teachers and parents, as it gives everything needed to use SRSD. Note, this book is less expensive at Amazon.com than it is from the publisher. 2. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Teaching writing processes and self-regulation to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. This book provides detail on each strategy we have developed, how the strategies can be scaled down or scaled up for different students, and covers the SRSD approach. Strategies useful in elementary through high school are included. 3. Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Brookline Books. Our original book, there is greater detail on how to implement SRSD and devlop the self-regulation components here than in either of the other two books we have written. There are detailed chapters on preparing, implementing, and evaluating SRSD instruction. 4. Harris, K.R., Graham. S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1-16. This article gives a detailed description of implementation of SRSD in one classroom 5. Sandmel, K, Brindle, M., Harris, K.R., Lane, K.L., Graham, S., Little, A., Nackel, J., & Mathias, R. (in press). Making it work: Differentiating tier two writing instruction with Self-Regulated Strategy Development in tandem with schoolwide positive behavioral support for second graders. This article details how instruction was differentiated for three second grade students with different behavioral and writing strengths and needs.
Summary of Evidence Base
- Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.
Study Information
Study Citations
Graham, S., Harris, K. R. & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30() 207-241.
Participants
- Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
- There were 317 students from 12 third-grade classrooms in one school district screened using the Story Construction Subtest from the Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larson) to assess their ability to write a complete and interesting story. This measure was used to determine if a child could be identified as at-risk in writing. All tests were scored by the first author and half were rescored by a graduate student with a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient of .82. Using the score from this measure, 86 children were identified as at-risk in writing. This finding was substantiated by interviews with participants’ teachers that indicated these same students had difficulty in writing and were among the weakest writers in their class. Of these students, 74 were granted informed consent to participate in the study, one of whom moved before random assignment, leaving 73 students total in the study.
- Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
- A norm-referenced measure, the Story Construction Subtest from the Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3) was used to identify children who were at-risk in writing. When the teachers of the identified participants were interviewed, the at-risk students were identified as having difficulty with writing and as being among the weakest writers in the class. Supporting evidence of writing difficulty was obtained using a second norm-referenced assessment, the Writing Fluency Subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational battery-Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) that measures the ability to write a sentence from a picture prompt accompanied by three written words. The mean standard score for the 72 students who completed this study was 7.6 (SD=3.4) where the mean for this subtest is 10 (SD=3), indicating that the identified students performed more than two-thirds of a standard deviation below the normative sample.
-
ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
- below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
- identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
- %
-
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
- emotional disability label,
- placed in an alternative school/classroom,
- non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
- designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
- %
- Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
- SRSD Instruction Only
- Specify which condition is the control condition:
- Writers' Workshop approach to writing instruction
- If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.
Grade Level
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age less than 1 | |||
| Age 1 | |||
| Age 2 | |||
| Age 3 | |||
| Age 4 | |||
| Age 5 | |||
| Kindergarten | |||
| Grade 1 | |||
| Grade 2 | |||
| Grade 3 | 100.0% | 96.0% | 2.26 |
| Grade 4 | |||
| Grade 5 | |||
| Grade 6 | |||
| Grade 7 | |||
| Grade 8 | |||
| Grade 9 | |||
| Grade 10 | |||
| Grade 11 | |||
| Grade 12 |
Race–Ethnicity
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| African American | 79.2% | 72.0% | 0.23 |
| American Indian | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.00 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 0.0% | 4.0% | 2.26 |
| Hispanic | 8.3% | 8.0% | 0.00 |
| White | 8.3% | 12.0% | 0.27 |
| Other | 4.2% | 0.0% | 2.26 |
Socioeconomic Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subsidized Lunch | 62.5% | 56.0% | 0.18 |
| No Subsidized Lunch | 37.5% | 40.0% | 0.05 |
Disability Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speech-Language Impairments | |||
| Learning Disabilities | |||
| Behavior Disorders | |||
| Emotional Disturbance | |||
| Intellectual Disabilities | |||
| Other | 25.0% | 24.0% | 0.03 |
| Not Identified With a Disability | 75.0% | 72.0% | 0.09 |
ELL Status
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| English Language Learner | 12.5% | 12.0% | 0.06 |
| Not English Language Learner | 87.5% | 84.0% | 0.20 |
Gender
| Demographic | Program Number |
Control Number |
Effect Size: Cox Index for Binary Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 37.5% | 48.0% | 0.25 |
| Male | 62.5% | 48.0% | 0.37 |
Mean Effect Size
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Design
- What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
- Random
- Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
- The 73 third-grade children were randomly assigned to three conditions: SRSD instruction only (N=24) SRSD plus peer support (N=24), and comparison (N=25).
-
What was the unit of assignment? - Students
- If other, please specify:
-
Please describe the unit of assignment: -
What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis? -
Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:
-
Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis: - Pairs of students
Fidelity of Implementation
- How was the program delivered?
-
Individually
Small Group
Classroom
If small group, answer the following:
- Average group size
- 2
- Minimum group size
- 2
- Maximum group size
- 2
What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?
- Weeks
- 11.00
- Sessions per week
- 3.00
- Duration of sessions in minutes
- 20.00
- What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
- Six graduate students majoring in education delivered instruction after receiving two weeks of training to learn how to implement the instructional strategies. They practiced until implementation was error free. Instructors were provided a step-by-step checklist for each lesson as well as a set of detailed directions for implementing each lesson. Instructors were blind to the hypotheses of the study. On-going support was provided as well. Instructors met weekly with the second and third authors to discuss issues with implementation.
- Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
- 1. Instructors were provided a step-by-step checklist of the lesson plans that they checked off as they completed each step.
2. Thirty percent of lessons were tape recorded and checked for fidelity.
3. Overall quality of the lessons that were tape recorded were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1-5, where 1 is of low quality and 5 is of high quality)
- What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
- Inspection of the step-by-step lesson plan checklist showed that 99% of the steps in all lessons were completed (in both SRSD and SRSD+Peer Support conditions, combined). Analysis of the tape recorded lessons showed that 97% of the steps were completed correctly in the SRSD only condition. The average quality rating across all tape recorded lessons (both SRSD only and SRSD+Peer Support conditions combined) was 4.98 on a 5-point scale.
- Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Measures and Results
Measures Broader :
| Targeted Measure | Reverse Coded? | Reliability | Relevance | Exposure |
|---|
| Broader Measure | Reverse Coded? | Reliability | Relevance | Exposure |
|---|
| Administrative Data Measure | Reverse Coded? | Relevance |
|---|
Targeted Measures (Full Sample)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all targeted measures | Full Sample | † |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Broader Measures (Full Sample)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all broader measures | Full Sample | -- |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Administrative Measures (Full Sample)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| Average across all admin measures | Full Sample | -- |
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Targeted Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Broader Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
Administrative Measures (Subgroups)
| Measure | Sample Type | Effect Size |
|---|---|---|
| * = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes. | ||
- For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
- Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
- If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
- Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
- p.226 Sect 3 (Directly quoted from research report)
“Scores for most of the writing measures were not normally distributed (i.e., the measure for kurtosis or skewness exceeded 1.0). The only posttest and maintenance variables that were normally distributed were posttest quality scores for stories and persuasive essays. Only four of the pretest variables were normally distributed: story quality, story elements, personal narrative composing time, and informative composing time. Consequently, to test for statistically significant differences between conditions,
we used nonparametric procedures whenever scores were not normally distributed. This meant that we were not able to simultaneously test for differences across both time (pretest, posttest, and maintenance) and condition, as can be done with parametric procedures, because there is no nonparametric equivalent to a Two-Way ANOVA with repeated measures. At each testing time (pretest, posttest, and
maintenance), we used the Kruskal–Wallis test (Siegel, 1956) to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the three conditions when scores were not normally distributed. Follow-up analyses were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U procedure (Siegel, 1956). When scores were normally distributed, a One-Way ANOVA was conducted.”
Additional Research
- Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
- WWC & E-ESSA
- Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :
What Works Clearinghouse Review
Students with Specific Learning Disability
Effectiveness: Based on evidence from single-case design studies, SRSD had potentially positive effects on writing achievement for students with a specific learning disability. The evidence from the single-case design studies for SRSD does not reach the threshold to include single-case design evidence in the effectiveness ratings for the math achievement domain.
Studies Reviewed: 10 studies met standards out of 16 studies total.
Evidence for ESSA
No studies met inclusion requirements.
- How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
- 53
- Citations for Additional Research Studies :
Adkins, M. H. (2005). Self-Regulated Strategy Strategy Development and Generalization Instruction: Effects on Story Writing among Second and Third Grade Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Albertson, L. R. (1998). A Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Study: Assessing the Effects of Instruction on Story Writing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Albertson, L. R., & Billingsley, F. F. (1997, March 24-28). Improving Young Writers' Planning and Reviewing Skills while Story-Writing. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Anderson, A. A. (1997). The Effects of Sociocognitive Writing Strategy Instruction on the Writing Achievement and Writing Self-Efficacy of Students with Disabilities and Typical Achievement in an Urban Elementary School. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Asaro, K., & Saddler, B. (2010). Planning Instruction and Self-Regulation Training: Effects on Writers with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Exceptional Children, 77, 107-124.
Cuenca-Sanchez, Y. (2010). Middle School Students with Emotional Disorders: Determined to Meet Their Needs Through Persuasive Writing. Unpublished Dissertation. George Mason University.
Delano, M. (2007a). Improving Written Language Performance of Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345-351.
Delano, M. (2007b). Use of Strategy Instruction to Improve the Story Writing Skills of a Student with Asperger Syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 252-259. doi:10.1177/1088357607022040701.
De La Paz, S. (2001). Teaching Writing to Students with Attention Deficit Disorders and Specific Language Impairment. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 37-47.
De La Paz, S. & Felton, M. (2010). Reading and Writing from Multiple Source Documents in History: Effects of Strategy Instruction with Low to Average High School Writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174-192. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy Instruction in Planning: Effects of the Writing Performance and Behavior of Students with Learning Difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63, 167-181.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly Teaching Strategies, Skills, and Knowledge: Writing Instruction in Middle School Classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291-304.
Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & Garcia, J. N. (2008). The Long-Term Effects of Strategy-Focused Writing Instruction for Grade Six Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 672-693.
Germain, J. C. (2004). Remediation of Written Expression Deficits in an Elementary School Population. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improving Fourth-Grade Students' Composition Skills: Effects of Strategy Instruction and Self-Regulation Procedures, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 297-310.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving Learning Disabled Students' Skills at Composing Essays: Self-Instructional Strategy Training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201-214.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving Learning Disabled Students' Skills at Revising Essays Produced on a Word Processor: Self-Instructional Strategy Training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133-152.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the Compositions of Students with Learning Disabilities Using a Strategy Involving Product and Process Goal Setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322-334.
Hacker, D., Dole, J., Ferguson, M., Adamson, S., Roundy, L., & Scarpulla, L. (2011). The Short-Term and Long-Term Writing Gains Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Middle School. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving Learning Disables Students' Composition Skills: Self-Control Strategy Training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27-36.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Atkins, M. (2012). Tier 2, Teacher Implemented Writing Strategies Instruction Following Practice-Based Professional Development. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Harris, K. R., Lane, K., Driscoll, S., Graham, S., Wilson, K., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (In Press). Teacher-Implemented Class-Wide Writing Intervention Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Students with and without Behavior Concerns. Elementary School Journal.
Jacobson, L. (2009). Improving the Writing Performance of High School Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Writing Difficulties. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Nebraska.
Jacobson, L, & Reid, R. (2010). Improving the Persuasive Essay Writing of High School Students with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 157-174.
Kiuhara, S. A., O'Neill, R. E., Hawken, L. S., & Graham, S. (2012). The Effectiveness of Teaching 10th-Grade Students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for Planning and Drafting Persuasive Text. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 335-355.
Korducki, R. A. (2001). An Instructional Program Integrating Strategies for Composition and Self-Regulation. Effects on the English and Spanish Language Writing Skills of Bilingual Latino Students with Learning Difficulties. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Lane, K., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Little, M. A., Sandmel, K., & Brindle, M. (2010). Story Writing: The Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Second Grade Students with Writing and Behavioral Difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 107-128.
Lane, K., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development on the Writing Performance of Second Grade Students with Behavioral and Writing Difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 234-253.
Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the Writing Performance of Struggling Writers in Second Grade. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 66-78.
Lienemann, T. O., & Reid, R. (2008). Using Self-Regulated Strategy Development to Improve Expository Writing with Students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 74, 471-486.
Little, A., Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2010). Self-Regulated Strategies Development for Persuasive Writing in Tandem with Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Support: Effects for Second Grade Students with Behavioral and Writing Difficulties. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 157-179.
Luschen, K., Kim, O., & Reid, R. (2012). Paraeducator-Led Strategy Instruction for Struggling Writers. Exceptionality, 20(4), 250-265.
MacArthur, C., & Philippakos, Z. (2010). Instruction in a Strategy for Compare-Contrast Writing. Exceptional Children, 76, 438-456.
MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of Reciprocal Peer Revision Strategy in Special Education Classrooms. Learning Disabilties Research, 6, 201-210.
Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Hoover, T. (In Press). Effects of Quick Writing Instruction for High School Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilties. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.
Mason, L. H., Kubina Jr., R., M., Kostewicz, D. E., Cramer, A. M., & Datchuk, S. (2013). Improving Quick Writing Performance of Middle-School Struggling Learners. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 236-246.
Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Taft, R. (2009). Developing Quick Writing Skills of Middle School Students with Disabilities. Journal of Special Education. Journal of Special Education Online First, October 21st, 2009. doi:10.1177/0022466909350780.
Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., Valasa, L. L., Cramer, A. (2010). Evaluating Effective Writing Instruction of Adolescent Students in an Emotional and Behavior Support Setting. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 140-156.
Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L., & Cramers, A. (In Press). A Qualitative Examination of Intervention Effects on Students' Motivation for Reading and Writing. Reading and Writing Quarterly.
Mason, L. H., & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instruction for Six Elementary Students with Emotional Behavioral Disorders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 71-93.
Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS Strategies for Expository Reading and Writing: Effects for Nine Fourth-Grade Students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69-89.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Mills, S., Cerar, N., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Allen-Bronaugh, D., Regan, K. (2009). Persuading Students with Emotional Disabilities to Write Fluently. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 19-40.
Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Written Expression with Students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 73, 53-68.
Rogevich, M., & Perin, D. (2008). Effects on Science Summarization of a Reading Comprehension Interventino for Adolescents with Behavioral and Attentional Disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 135-154.
Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing Story-Writing Ability through Self-Regulated Strategy Development: Effects on Young Writers with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 291-305.
Saddler, B., & Asaro, K. (2007). Increasing Story Quality through Planning and Revising: Effects on Young Writers with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 223-234.
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing Writing Difficulties: The Effects of Planning Strategy Instruction on the Writing Performance of Struggling Writers. Exceptionality, 12, 3-17.
Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct Teaching, Strategy Instruction and Strategy Instruction with Explicit Self-Regulation: Effects on the Composition Skills and Self-Efficacy of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340-352.
Schnee, A. (2010). Student Writing Performance: Identifying the Effects when Combining Planning and Revising Instructional Strategies. Unpublished Dissertation. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Sexton, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-Regulated Strategy Development and the Writing Process: Effects on Essay Writing and Attributions. Exceptional Children, 64, 295-311.
Trela, K. (2008). The Effects of I Write Now Strategy on High School Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Participation in Composing an Opinion Paragraph. Unpublished Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Wong, B. Y. L., Hoskyn, M., Jai, D., Ellis, P., & Watson, K. (2008). The Comparative Efficacy of Two Approaches to Teaching Sixth Graders Opinion Essay Writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 111, 57-63.
Zumbrunn, S. (2010). Nurturing Young Students' Writing Knowledge, Self-Regulation, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy: The Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Nebraska.
Data Collection Practices
Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.
