Wednesday, August 26, 2015

AN EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS OF SELF-REGULATED STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT WRITING INTERVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

Areej ALHARBI
Brittany L. HOTT
Beth A. JONES
Harvetta R. HENRY

Department of Psychology, Consulting and
Special Education
Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA

Recived: 03.06.2014
Accepted: 15.09.2014
Original article

Citation: Alharbi A, Hott BL, Jones BA, Henry HR. An evidence-based analysis of self-regulated strategy development writing interventions for students with specific learning disabilities. J Spec Educ Rehab 2015; 16(1-2): 55-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/JSER-2015-0004

Introduction

According to the United States Department of Education, the percent of the student population diagnosed with a specific learning disability (SLD) increased from 1.8% in 1976-1977 to 4.7% in 2011-2012 (1). One type of specific learning disability, dysgraphia, is a neurological disorder that impacts an individual’s written expression, spelling, and handwriting (2). Dysgraphia can negatively impact a child’s performance in school. Many children with dysgraphia struggle to keep up with written work or cannot organize thoughts on paper. Early intervention to remediate the effects of dysgraphia is crucial. However, the treatment of dysgraphia can be elusive, and only some of the numerous proposed instructional strategies have empirical evidence to support them (3).
Therefore, quality, evidence-based practices (EBPs) soundly grounded in empirical research are desperately needed (4, 5, 6). Further, research can support practices that have meaningful effects on student outcomes (7,8). The federal government indirectly supports EBPs by requiring schools to use instructional programs and tools that have scientific backing (2,9).
EBPs that support students with dysgraphia include self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) writing interventions. SRSD is widely considered as a theoretically and empirically tested method that helps the improvement of writing outcomes for both students with LD and students with emotional and writing difficulties (10,11). In SRSD, teachers assist their students in understanding the writing process, which includes planning, composing, editing, and revising. They also help them to develop positive attitudes towards writing (12,13).
SRSD includes strategies for expository (TWA + PLANS) and persuasive writing (POW-TREE), story writing (W-W-W- What = 2, How = 2; POW-WWW), quick writes (POW-TREE), opinion writing (STOP-DARE), and essay composition (TREE). The philosophy behind SRSD is to provide individualized, explicit instruction to meet the needs of students, specific to the skill being taught (14). SRSD employs a structured format of instructional stages (develop and activate background knowledge, discuss, model, memorize, support, and independent performance) through which students can progress at their own pace to meet their specific learning needs. A key feature of SRSD is that it is not a specific curriculum, rather it can be used with the current curriculum. SRSD instruction is intended to teach students to recognize when to use the strategy to assist their learning, in contrast with other strategies that use a single use rote memorization activity that is only good in one specific setting (15).
Previous meta-analyses focused on SRSD writing interventions for students experiencing difficulty with writing (16), writing interventions for students with emotional or behavioral difficulties (10), and general writing interventions (e.g.,17,18) for students with and without disabilities. The purpose of this study is to provide an updated synthesis on the use of SRSD writing interventions for students with specific learning disabilities. The following research questions are addressed:
  1. What are the overall effects of SRSD interventions on the writing achievement of children with specific learning disabilities?
  2. What SRSD writing interventions are most effective?
  3. Do the effects of SRSD writing interventions differ across settings, genders, grades, and ages?
Method
Single case designs examine and document functional relationships between independent and dependent variables in applied settings (19,20,21). Single case designs are par­ti­cularly helpful when evaluating interventions in special education as there are often small samp­les of students exhibiting a particular be­havior (22). This synthesis provides a com­pre­hensive review of the single case writing in­tervention literature.
The following databases were used: (a) Aca­de­mic Search Complete, (b) Taylor & Francis Online, (c) ERIC, (d) PsycINFO, (e) Sage Jour­nal Online, (f) Wiley Online Library, (g) SpringLink, (h) ScienceDirect, and (i) ProQuest. Additional secondary searches in Google Scholar were also completed. Search ter­ms included: (a) self-regulated strategy de­ve­lopment, (b)inter­vention, (c) SRSD, (d) dys­graphia, (e) story writing, (f) report writing, (g) narrative, (h) expository, and (i) pers­uasive writing. Ancestral searches of re­le­vant research articles were completed as well as a manual search of (a) Learning Disa­bi­lities Quarterly, (b) Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, (c) Journal of Learning Disa­bilities, (d) Exceptional Chil­dren, and (e) The Journal of Special Edu­ca­tion.
Studies included in the review: (a) used a single case design, (b) evaluated a SRSD writing intervention, (c) included school-aged children with specific learning disabilities (if a study included students without learning di­sa­bilities, only data for individual par­ticipants with SLD was analyzed), (d) were conducted in a school or clinic setting, (e) were published in English, and (f) were published in a peer-reviewed journal between January 1970 and March 2014. Next, manuscripts meeting study inclusion criteria were coded utilizing a systematic set of rules and procedures.
Each usable graph in the selected studies was analyzed to determine the Percentage of NonOverlapping Data (PND) and Percentage of Data Exceeding the Median (PEM). Both PND and PEM were calculated to provide an accu­rate reflection of the data. PND was calcu­lated by counting the number of treatment data points that exceeded the highest baseline data point and dividing this number by the total number of data points in the treatment phase (22, 23). PND scores range from 0% to 100%. A PND of less than 50% reflects unreliable treatment, 50%-70% reflects questionable effectiveness, 70%-90% reflects a fairly effective treatment, and 90% or greater reflects a highly effective treatment (22). Alternatively, PEM is calculated by finding the median point, or point between the two median positions in the baseline data, where the median is the middle part in the distribution (24). A PEM of 0.90 or greater is considered highly effective, 0.70 to 0.90 is considered moderately effective, and 0.69 and below represent questionable effects. By using both non-overlap methods, multiple designs can be evaluated using a common metric and floor and ceiling treatment effects are evaluated-both easily and objectively calculated (20). Inter-rater reliability was calculated for all variables in the coding sheet by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100 (21).

Results


 
Of the 123 writing intervention articles initially located, 15 met study inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability for the search was 100%. Studies included in the synthesis were published between 1989 and 2012 in six journals, with the majority of studies published within the last five years.
R-1: What are the overall effects of SRSD interventions on the writing achievement of children with specific learning disa­bilities? SRSD interventions included seven models for addressing persuasive writing, expository writing, essay composition, and storytelling. Each strategy included mne­mo­nics that assisted students with mastering steps in the writing process. SRSD writing inter­ventions improved overall stu­dent per­formance and instruction in varying contexts. Both mean PND (89.69%, Range = 38% – 100%) and mean PEM (0.98, Range = 0.91 – 1.00) suggest that SRSD writing in­ter­ven­tions are effective to highly effective. Table 1 summarizes intervention types.

Table 1.SRSD Interventions by Targeted Skill and Participant Characteristics

 

R-2: What SRSD writing interventions are most effective? The SRSD writing interventions reviewed were moderately to highly effective. Interventions used with younger children to support story development had the greatest overall effects. Treatment effects by strategy are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.Treatment Effects by Intervention
    
R-3: Do the effects of SRSD writing interventions differ across genders, ages, and school settings, and grades?

The 15 studies included a total of 58 participants, with a mean of 4 students per study. The majority of studies (N = 11) included elementary aged children. Fewer studies targeted middle school (N = 1) and high school students (N = 3). Of the 58 participants, 30 (52%) were male and 28 (49%) participants were female. Regarding age, the majority of participants (N = 78%, 71%) were elementary aged (Range = 7-12 years) enrolled in grades 2 to 6. Fewer participants (N = 2, 3%) were middle school aged (Range = 12-14 years) enrolled in 7th and 8th grades and high school (N = 11, 19%) aged (Range = 15-19 years) enrolled in grades 10 to 12.
All studies were completed in public school settings that included the general education classroom (N = 5), a room outside of the general education classroom (N = 3), the resource room (N = 3), study hall (N = 1), individually administered support room (N = 2), and unspecified (N = 1). There were no significant differences between genders or intervention setting. However, SRSD strategies were generally more effective with elementary and middle school students than high school students.
Individual participant results varied across studies. One participant did not respond to treatment; however, results suggest that the majority of participants demonstrated rapid writing improvement during intervention phases. Table 3 provides a summary of participant level data. 



Table 3.Treatment Effects by Participant
Disucussion

There is a well-documented difference between typically achieving learners and students with specific learning disabilities (1). Therefore, it is not surprising that students with specific learning disabilities, including children with dysgraphia, require additional resources and support to overcome the obstacles that their disability presents. Specifically, students with dysgraphia need targeted interventions to facilitate capturing and organizing thoughts on paper. However, most proposed interventions are not supported by empirical evidence (3). Results of this synthesis indicate that SRSD interventions have the potential to positively impact students with specific learning disabilities. This synthesis provides evidence that explicitly teaching students using an SRSD model significantly increased writing achievement. SRSD interventions were effective across genders, grade levels, and settings.
Although this synthesis provides evidence that SRSD writing interventions are promising, it is not without limitations. The most confounding limitation is that the synthesis only includes studies that utilized single case designs. Additionally, only two methods of analysis were utilized. Only two researchers searched university databases, theses and dissertations were excluded, and current researchers were not contacted to ascertain studies that may be in press; therefore, it is possible that the synthesis does not include all studies. Further, the fifteen studies included a relatively small sample size and a limited number of genres. The majority of participants were elementary aged students enrolled in second, fourth, and fifth grades. Although early interventions are essential for long-term achievement, as students age writing demands increase and discrepancies between typically achieving and students with specific learning disabilities widen. Therefore, strategies to assist with additional types of writing and older students are desperately needed. Focus on treatment dosage would be beneficial, as would generalizability measures across subject areas. Additional analyses addressing level, trend, variability, immediacy, and consistency may be beneficial.

Conclusion

Self-regulated writing strategies are an effective intervention for students with learning disabilities enrolled in grades 2 and 5. The POW-TREE strategy was a particularly robust intervention. However, additional research is needed to critically evaluate writing interventions in the upper grades. Studies exploring the efficacy of writing interventions across the curriculum are also needed. However, given the current evidence base, teachers may consider self-regulated writing strategies as a means of addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities.

Conflict of interests
Authors declare that have no conflict of interests.

References
 

  1. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976-77 through 2011-12 [online] December 2013 [cited may 24 2014]. Аvaliable from URL: http://nces.ed.Gov /programs /digest /d13/tables/dt13_204.30.asp.
  2. Crouch A, Jakubecy J. Dysgraphia: How It Affects a Student's Performance and What Can Be Done about It. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus [serial online]. January 1, 2007;3(3)Available from: ERIC, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 28, 2014.
  3. Cook BG, Cook L, Landrum, TJ. Moving research into practice: Can we make dissemination stick? Exceptional Children 2013;79(2):163–180.
  4. Kretlow AG, Blatz, SL. The ABCs of evidence-based practice for teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children 2011;43: 8–19.
  5. Torres C, Farley, CA, Cook BG. A special educator's guide to successfully implementing evidence-based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children 2012;45(1):64–73.
  6. Brackenbury T, Burroughs E, Hewitt LE. A qualitative examination of current guidelines for evidence-based practice in child language intervention. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools 2008; 39(1):78–88.
  7. Cook BG, Tankersley M, Landrum, TJ. Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children 2009; 75(3): 365–382.
  8. Simpson RL. Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 2005;20(3):140-149. Proven methods: Questions and answers on No Child Left Behind. U. S. Department of Education [online] 2008 [cited may 3 2014] Avaliable from URL: www.ed.gov/nclb/ methods/whatworks/doing.html.
  9. Graham S, Harris, KR. Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers. The Elementary School Journal 1993;94(2):169–181.
  10. Lane KL, Harris KR, Graham S, Weisenbach JL, Brindle M, Morphy P. The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education 2008;41(4):234–253.
  11. Mason LH, Kubina RM, Hoover T. Effects of quick writing instruction for high school students with emotional disturbances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 2011; 21(3):163–175.
  12. Mason LH, Benedek-Wood E, Valasa, L. Teaching low-achieving students to self-regulate persuasive quick write responses. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 2009; 53(4): 303–312.
  13. Gast DL. Single subject research methodology in the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010.
  14. Harris KR, Graham S, Mason LH. Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children 2003; 35(7):1–16.
  15. Harris KR, Pressley M. The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children 1991; 57:392–404.
  16. Graham S, Harris KR. Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In: Swanson HL, Harris KR, Graham P, eds. Handbook on Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: Gilford Press; 2003:323–344.
  17. Graham S, Perin, D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007;99(3):445–476.
  18. Rogers LA, Graham S. A meta-analysis of single subject writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology 2008;100(4):879–906.
  19. Horner RH, Carr EG, Halle J, McGee G, Odom SL, Wolery, M. The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children 2005; 71(2): 165–179.
  1. Kennedy CH. Single case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2009.
  2. Kazdin AE. Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011.
  3. Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, Casto G. The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education 1987; 8: 24–33.
  4. Parker, RI, Vannest, KJ, Davis, JL. Effect size in single case research: A review of nine nonoverlapping techniques. Behavior Modification 2001; 35:303–22.
  5. Ma, HH. An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject researches: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification 2006; 30(5):598–617.
  6. Danoff, B, Harris, K, Graham, S. Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom. Journal of Literacy Research 1993; 25(3):295–322.
  7. Saddler, B. Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 2006;29(4):291–305.
  8. Saddler, B, & Asaro, K. Increasing story quality through planning and revising: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 2007; 30(4):223–234.
  9. Saddler, B, Moran, S, Graham, S, & Harris, K. Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality 2004; 12(1):3–17.
  10. Lienemann, T, Graham, S, Leader-Janssen, B, & Reid, R. Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. The Journal of Special Education 2006; 40(2):66–78.
  11. De La Paz, S. Strategy instruction in planning: Teaching students with learning and writing disabilities to compose persuasive and expository essays. Learning Disabilities Quarterly 1997; 20(3):227–48.
  12. De La Paz, S, & Graham, S. Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children 1997; 63(2):167–81.
  13. De La Paz, S. Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 1999; 14(2):92–106.
  14. Kiuhara, S, O'Neill, R, Hawken, L, & Graham, S. The effectiveness of teaching 10th-grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text. Exceptional Children 2012; 78(3):335–355.
  15. Graham, S, & Harris, K. Improving learning disabled students' skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children 1989; 56(3):201–14.
  16. Sexton, M, Harris, K, & Graham, S. Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children 1998; 64(3):295–311.
  17. Hoover, T, Kubina, R, & Mason, L. Effects of self-regulated strategy development for POW+TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality 2002; 20(1):20–38.
  18. Mason, L, Kubina, R, & Taft, R. Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education 2011; 44(4):205–220.
  19. Mason, L, & Cramer, A. Rarely had the words poured: Teaching persuasive writing. Insights on Learning Disabilities 2008; 5(2):25–39.
  20. Mason, L, Snyder, K, Sukhram, D, & Kedem, Y. TWA plus PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children 2006; 73(1):69–89.
 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)