Learning Strategies Curriculum: Fundamentals in the Sentence Writing Strategy
Study: Bui, Schumaker, & Deshler (2006)

Summary

This program is designed for teaching students how to write four types of complete simple sentences. If students are having difficulty writing complete sentences, this program is a good starting program for sentence-writing instruction.

Target Grades:
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning 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
  • Other: Any student having difficulty writing complete sentences.
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Sentence construction
  • Other: Students learn to check their sentences for all the required parts as well as to construct complete simple sentences. They learn how to use prepositional phrases, infinitives, adjectives, and adverbs as well.
Where to Obtain:
Edge Enterprises, Inc. (publisher); Jean B. Schumaker & Jan B. Sheldon (authors & developers)
Edge Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 1304, Lawrence, KS 66044; KU Center for Research on Learning,
785-749-1473; FAX: 785-749-0207
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com
Initial Cost:
$32.50 per Teacher
Replacement Cost:
$32.50 per Teacher per N/A

The cost of the instructor's manual (from KU) is $20, and the cost for the student materials book (from Edge) is $12.50. The instructor's manual contains the step-by-step instructions and all the visual aids, progress charts, and handouts needed to present the information to students. The student materials volume contains 8 learning sheets for each of the 27 lessons plus answer keys. Teachers are given permission to copy the pages in the student materials volume for use when instructing students.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • EL Specialist
Training Requirements:
Three to six hours.

The training involves lecture, discussion, modeling of instructional practices, practice of instructional practices, cooperative-group activities, paired activities, and scoring activities. The training materials include powerpoint presentations, a detailed agenda, handouts, and materials for all the activities.


The training materials were field tested by the certified professional developers associated with the International Network of Professional Developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These professional developers used the training materials in their workshops and college courses across the nation and provided feedback for changes needed. Those changes were made.

Access to Technical Support:
They can obtain support and coaching from certified professional developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning who are located in states all across the nation.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
25
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
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:

This program is designed for teaching students how to write four types of complete simple sentences. If students are having difficulty writing complete sentences, this program is a good starting program for sentence-writing instruction.

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.

not 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
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Any student having difficulty writing complete sentences.

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
not selected Planning and revising
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Students learn to check their sentences for all the required parts as well as to construct complete simple sentences. They learn how to use prepositional phrases, infinitives, adjectives, and adverbs as well.

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
Edge Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 1304, Lawrence, KS 66044; KU Center for Research on Learning,
Phone Number
785-749-1473; FAX: 785-749-0207
Website
www.edgeenterprisesinc.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$32.50
Unit of cost
Teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$32.50
Unit of cost
Teacher
Duration of license
N/A

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)

The cost of the instructor's manual (from KU) is $20, and the cost for the student materials book (from Edge) is $12.50. The instructor's manual contains the step-by-step instructions and all the visual aids, progress charts, and handouts needed to present the information to students. The student materials volume contains 8 learning sheets for each of the 27 lessons plus answer keys. Teachers are given permission to copy the pages in the student materials volume for use when instructing students.

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?

   Four to six

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
25
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
6
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:
The program is intended to be taught until students reach mastery on each of the 27 lessons. Materials are provided such that students can repeat a lesson as many as 8 times if they do not reach mastery.

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:
The program does not require technology; however, a pdf of the student materials volume is available for $12.50 on a compact disc (or $18.50 on a thumb drive) for teachers wishing to display the learning sheets on a screen or print the learning sheets at the district print shop.

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Three to six hours.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The training involves lecture, discussion, modeling of instructional practices, practice of instructional practices, cooperative-group activities, paired activities, and scoring activities. The training materials include powerpoint presentations, a detailed agenda, handouts, and materials for all the activities.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
not selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
not selected Interventionist
not 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)
not 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:
The training materials were field tested by the certified professional developers associated with the International Network of Professional Developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These professional developers used the training materials in their workshops and college courses across the nation and provided feedback for changes needed. Those changes were made.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
Yes

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

They can obtain support and coaching from certified professional developers associated with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning who are located in states all across the nation.

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.

Bui, Y., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). Effects of a strategic writing program for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-grade classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 244-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x

 

Bui, Y. N. (2002). The Demand Writing Instructional Model: Impacting the writing performance of students with learning disabilities and low-performing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds on the statewide writing assessment. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.] University of Kansas. 

Study Information

Study Citations

1) Bui, Y. N., Schumaker, J. B. & Deshler, D. D. (2006). The effects of a Strategic Writing Program for Students with and without Learning Disabilities in Inclusive Fifth-grade Classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4) 244-260; 2) Bui, Y. N. The Demand Writing Instructional Model: Impacting the Writing Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities and Low-Performing Students from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds on the Statewide Writing Assessment. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, United States .

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Participants were 113 fifth-grade students enrolled in two low-performing elementary schools. The students were regularly enrolled in five intact general education classes in which students with learning disabilities, other heath impairments, and emotional disturbance were fully included in all aspects of instruction along with other students who had no disabilities. The district in which the students were enrolled has the policy of randomly selecting students to be placed in each classroom. Then the classes were randomly selected to participate as either the experimental classes or the control classes. Thus, the students were randomly selected into the groups because they were randomly selected by the district to enroll in each class, and then the classes were randomly selected into the experimental and control groups.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
The five classes were selected because at least 10% of the students had been identified with disabilities, the students with disabilities had IEPs, and the classification of students with disabilities met federal and state requirements. Fourteen of the students had been formally classified as having learning disabilities according to state of Kansas guidelines, which are based on the IQ discrepancy model. The researchers verified that all fourteen students with LD had written language specified as part of their disability.

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?
12.0%

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:
Students who participated in the treatment condition received instruction in the Fundamentals in the Sentence Writing Strategy program. This program involves the instruction of four types of complete simple sentences. Lessons 1 through 10 in the program were implemented with the students on consecutive school days.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Students who participated in the comparison condition received writing instruction as it normally occurred in their classes. The teachers in this condition had been instructed by the school district to spend one class hour per day on writing instruction using the "Write for Power" program (Sparks, 1982) and the "Six Traits of Writing" (NREL, 2001) program.

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):
N/A

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
Grade 4
Grade 5 100.0 % 100.0 % 0.00
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 35.8 % 52.2 % 0.40
American Indian 6.0 % 0.0 % 2.52
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.5 % 0.0 % 1.40
Hispanic 19.4 % 8.7 % 0.52
White 37.3 % 39.1 % 0.05
Other 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.00

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 80.6 % 73.9 % 0.24
No Subsidized Lunch 19.4 % 26.1 % 0.24

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities 13.4 % 10.9 % 0.12
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance 1.5 % 2.2 % 0.43
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 3.0 % 2.2 % 0.25
Not Identified With a Disability 82.1 % 84.8 % 0.13

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner 100.0 % 100.0 % 0.00

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 46.3 % 45.7 % 0.00
Male 53.7 % 54.3 % 0.00

Mean Effect Size

0.39

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.

Statistical tests were conducted to determine whether the experimental students with LD were comparable to the comparison students with LD. A two-way contingency table analysis revealed no significant differences among the two groups of students with LD with regard to their gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and residential status (e.g. single-parent household). One-way ANOVA tests revealed that there was a significant difference among the two groups of students with LD with regard to their average language arts scores on the previous year's Metropolitan Achievement Test. The students with LD in the experimental classes had a mean score of 28.4 and those in the comparison classes had a mean score of 38. However, there was no difference between the groups of students with LD with regard to age. When the student groups without LD were compared, a two-way contingency table analysis showed that there were no significant differences among the experimental and comparison students without LD with regard to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and residential status. The ANOVA tests showed there were also no differences with regard to age and average language arts scores. (See the statistical statements in the article.)

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.
In the two participating schools, students had been randomly assigned to classes at the beginning of the school year. The five participating classes were randomly assigned to the experimental and comparison conditions. Two fifth-grade classes from School X and one class from School Y were randomly assigned to the experimental condition. Two fifth-grade classes from School Y were randomly assigned to the comparison condition.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:
First, the students were assigned randomly to the classes by the district, and then the classes were assigned to the experimental conditions.

Please describe the unit of assignment:
The unit of assignment was students.

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:
Students' scores on writing assessments were used in the primary data analyses.

Fidelity of Implementation Half Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
not selected Small Group
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
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The instructor in the experimental classes was a graduate student who was working toward her Ph.D. in special education. She was not a certified teacher. She was supported by her Ph.D. advisors.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
To ensure instructional fidelity across the experimental classes, the instructor followed a written protocol (Schumaker & Sheldon, 1998) that specified step-by-step instructions for 10 lessons for teaching students to write simple sentences. The instructions include scripted words to say and details about how to use the supplied visual aids and how to present handouts and worksheets. The instructor checked off each instructional step as it was completed in each experimental class. Reference Schumaker, J. B., & Sheldon, J. B. (1998). Fundamentals in the Sentence Writing Strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises, Inc.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The instructor's written records indicated that she completed 100% of the instructional steps for each lesson in each experimental classroom.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No, the instruction in the comparison classrooms was "business as usual." The teachers presented their English Language Arts information as they normally would. They had been instructed to use the "Write for Power" program and the "Six Traits of Writing" program one hour per day. They were not monitored in any way by project staff. The fidelity measure used in the experimental classes would not have pertained to the instruction in the comparison classes because it listed the step-by-step procedures to be followed in teaching the Sentence Writing Strategy.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
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.
Statistical tests were conducted to determine whether the experimental students with LD were comparable to the comparison students with LD. A two-way contingency table analysis revealed no significant differences among the two groups of students with LD with regard to their gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and residential status (e.g. single-parent household). One-way ANOVA tests revealed that there was a significant difference among the two groups of students with LD with regard to their average language arts scores on the previous year's Metropolitan Achievement Test. The students with LD in the experimental classes had a mean score of 28.4 and those in the comparison classes had a mean score of 38. However, there was no difference between the groups of students with LD with regard to age. When the student groups without LD were compared, a two-way contingency table analysis showed that there were no significant differences among the experimental and comparison students without LD with regard to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and residential status. The ANOVA tests showed there were also no differences with regard to age and average language arts scores. (See the statistical statements in the article.) Since the students with LD in the comparison group scored higher than the students with LD in the experimental group on the language arts test, no statistical controls were needed.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
The state writing assessment was an end-of-year test. No previous scores were available on this measure.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
This study involved the implementation of a package of instructional programs for teaching writing, including instruction in paragraph writing and essay writing. Measures that pertained to sentence writing have been included here. Other measures pertaining to other skills (e.g., paragraph writing and essay writing) were not.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
From the research article: For the comparison group students without LD, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each of the dependent variables using the testing time (pretest and posttest) as the within subjects factor. Because there were only five students with LD in the comparison group, descriptive scores were calculated. For the experimental group, repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each of the dependent variables using achievement group (students with and without LD) as the between-subjects factor and the testing time (pretest and posttest) as the within-subjects factor. No differences were found related to the achievement group factor. For the experimental students with LD and without LD, a significant difference was found between the pretest and posttest complete sentence scores in favor of the posttest, representing large effect sizes. The students with LD made a mean gain of 47 percent from pretest to posttest. The students without LD made a mean gain of 38 percent from pretest to posttest. Significant differences were also found for the students with and without LD from pretest to posttest on the complicated sentences score, representing mean gains of 19 and 23 percent, respectively. Both gains represented large effect sizes. (See the article for the statistical statements.) From the dissertation study: For the dissertation, data were analyzed for three groups: two classes of experimental students in School X (called Group A), one class of experimental students in School Y (called Group B), and two classes of comparison students in School Y (called Group C). One-way ANCOVAs were conducted to compare the posttest scores of the groups with the pretest scores serving as the covariate. Follow-up statistics (Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure) were calculated to evaluate pairwise differences. The ANCOVAs and follow-up tests conducted on the percentage of complete sentences score earned by students with LD revealed that the Group A scores and the Group B scores were each significantly higher than the Group C scores. Similar significant differences were found for the percentage of complicated sentences for the whole groups: Group A scores were significantly higher than Group C scores, and Group B scores were significantly higher than Group C scores.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

 

This program was not reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse.

 

 

Evidence for ESSA*

 

Program Outcomes: A total of six studies met standards. Five involved targeted forms of SIM and one involved CLC. Outcomes were remarkably consistent, with four of the six effect sizes falling in the range from +0.07 to +0.15, with an average of +0.10. Several of the outcomes were statistically significant, qualifying SIM for the ESSA “Strong” category.

 

Number of Studies: 6

 

Average Effect Size: 0.10

 

Full Report

 

*Evidence for ESSA evaluated the Strategic Instruction Model, which encompasses Learning Strategies Curriculum.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

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.