SRSD for Writing Strategies
Study: Lane et al. (2011)

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).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
not selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
selected Sentence construction
selected Planning and revising
selected Other
If 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

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If 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.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   2-4

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
6
not selected 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?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected 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?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If 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

Lane, K. L., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Morphy, P., Hebert, M. & House, E. (2011). Self-Regulated Strategy Development for Second-Grade Students with Writing and Behavioral Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
As part of regular school practices in five elementary schools, behavioral and academic screening data were used to identify student to participate in the study. First, teachers completed the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) and the Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) to identify students who were at risk for EBD. Students earned a Critical Events Index score of 1 or more during Stage 2 of the SSBD or in the high or moderate risk range on the SRSS. Second, teachers administered the Test of Written Language-3 to second grade students. Of the 461 students screened across five schools in Southeastern schools, 61 students met the inclusion criteria. Of the 23 teachers asked to participate in the study, 22 consented. Consequently, there were 57 students invited to participate. Of these 57 students, 49 (experimental = 24; control = 25) students returned parent/guardian consent forms and were assented to participate in the study. Throughout the study, parents of 2 students withdrew their consent, two students moved out of the area, and 1 student was removed from the study due to absenteeism. There were a total of 44 students (experimental =23; control = 21).

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were identified as at-risk for academic failure by their performance on the story construction subtest of the Test of Written Language-3. Students scored at or below the 25th percentile, wrote between 10-50 words, and included at least one complete sentence.

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:
The treatment that is the submitted program is the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) approach. Students learned an over all planning strategy (POW; P – Pick my idea, O – Organize my notes, W – Write and say more). Students learned one persuasive writing strategy (TREE; T –Topic, R – Reasons, 3 or more, E – Ending, E – Examine). Students also learned a story writing strategy (WWW, What =2, How =2; W – Who is the main character? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What does the main character do or want to do; what do other characters do? What happens when the main character tries it; what happens with other characters? How does the story end? How does the main character feel; how do other characters feel?) Students learned self-regulation strategies: goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Teachers in the participating schools taught process writing combined with basic skills. Teachers completed a survey about their classroom writing practices and two 30 min observations were conducted at the beginning and towards the end of the study. Teachers emphasized the created a supportive writing environment, encouraged high levels of student interactions, stressed personal responsibility for writing, and engaged in cycles of planning, translating and revising. Students in the experimental condition received writing instruction in their general education classrooms in addition to the intervention 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 2 100.0% 100.0% 0.00
Grade 3
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 4.3% 0.0% 2.26
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 0.0% 4.8% 2.40
White 91.3% 95.2% 0.38
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments 0.0% 4.8% 2.40
Learning Disabilities 8.7% 0.0% 2.78
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 8.7% 9.5% 0.07
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 26.1% 28.6% 0.09
Male 73.9% 71.4% 0.09

Mean Effect Size

1.16

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 Full Bobble

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 49 consented students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: experimental (n = 24) or control (n = 25). Over the course of the study, parents of two students (both in the control condition) withdrew their students from the study, two other students (also in the control condition) moved out of the area, and one student (in the intervention group) was removed from the study as she was unable to complete the intervention due to absenteeism. Consequently, 44 students completed the study: 23 in the intervention condition and 21 in the control condition. Findings reported reflect data for these 44 students.

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?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

How was the program delivered?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
8.00
Sessions per week
4.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Instruction was delivered by 11 graduate students. Instructors were provided with 12 hours of training. The received two notebooks with lessons and activities for the opinion essay strategy and the story writing strategy. Instructors received training and role played implementing the SRSD approach for the opinion essay strategy and story writing strategy until they reached criterion. They were provide with checklists to complete during their role-playing and marked off each step completed. Instructors had flexibility to respond to individual student needs, repeating steps if necessary, reording steps, and addressing individual concerns.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
First, instructors received training of criterion in how to apply the instructional procedures. Second, instructors met with authors weekly to discuss individual cases. Third, authors were available by phone to address questions or concerns that arose (e.g., behavioral issues). Fourth, instructors had a checklist for each student that contained step-by-step directions. Fifth, instructors recorded every session with each student on an audio cassette tape. Two research assistants familiar with the instruction reviewed at least 3 sessions for each student, except for one student for whom they reviewed two, while completing a treatment fidelity form. A second research assistant listened to at least one tape of each student and completed the same treatment fidelity form.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
At least 3 sessions for each student were reviewed by a research assistant completing a treatment fidelity form of tape recorded sessions. For one student, only two sessions were reviewed. A second research assistant listened to at least one tape recorded session for each student. Session integrity was computed by dividing the number of lesson components taught divided by the total number of components possible, multiplying by 100. Treatment fidelity for opinion writing was 88.00% (SD = 12.59) and for story writing strategy was 88.67% (SD = 9.67). The reliability of the treatment fidelity for opinion writing was 88.07% (SD = 18.01) and for the story writing strategy was 87.79% (SD = 17.74).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble
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 0.72*
* = 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 0.80*
* = 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:
Students in the intervention and control conditions were compared on number of elements, length, and quality for RA administered and teacher administered writing prompts for both genres of writing: opinion essay and story writing. Students in the intervention and control conditions were compared on their academic engaged time (AET) for the teacher administered writing prompts. A series of one-way, fixed effects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVAs) using the general linear model was used to determine changes in performance in opinion essay, story writing, and academic engagement. Differences in scores were computed by subtracting time 1 scores from time 2 scores to measure growth. If the MANOVA was significant according to the Wilks’s lambda, univariate ANOVAs were computed to compare the two groups. Effect sizes were calculated using the pooled standard deviation in the denominator weighted by the number of participants in each condition to examine the magnitude of differences in change scores between groups.

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.

Full Report

 

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.

Summary

Program Information
Descriptive Information
Program Specifications
Training
Evidence Base

Study Information
Study Citations
Participants
Design
Fidelity of Implementation
Measures and Results

Additional Research

Data Collection Practices