storage.googleapis.com€¦ · web viewthe article “the multiple effects of direct instruction...

RUNNNG HEAD: Research Synthesis

Research Synthesis

Caitlyn Ross

Clemson University

Research Synthesis 2

2

Research Synthesis- Phrased Reading

Description of Intervention

Phrased reading is a reading intervention that is purposed with increasing students’ oral

reading fluency. In a typical session students are trained within this reading intervention to

recognize and highlight difficult words, words that may slow them down when reading, then

copy the phrase around that word onto an index card with a partner. The fluent reader then reads

those phrases with the difficult word or words correctly. After each phrase is modeled by the

more fluent reader, the second reader is given the opportunity to repeat the phrase with the

difficult word then transitions into reading the entire passage. Lastly, both readers provide each

other with feedback regarding the reading of the highlighted phrases as well as the entire

passage. Phrased reading is an appropriate intervention to use with students in all grades who

have difficulty reading words that are multi-syllabic and unfamiliar but is usually exercised in

elementary and middle school grades as oral reading fluency is the targeted outcome of phrased

readings. There are many factors that contribute to successful phrased reading interventions.

Direct instruction must be provided by the teacher in order to outline how students are to go

about the whole process as well as specifics within the process such as defining what a

“difficult” word is, how to define what phrase to highlight around that word, etc. A combination

of a type of phrased drilling and repeated readings also play a big part in this intervention as the

student is required to read the phrases with the difficult words multiple times and is shown the

correct way to read a passage. Partner feedback after the reading has been done is a key aspect in

the intervention as the partners swap criticism, praise, as well as discussions of next


3

intervention’s goals. This intervention is also being implemented in a self-contained classroom;

therefore literature on reading fluency is this type of setting is also provided within the paper.

Research Synthesis of Relevant Studies

Direct Instruction

Direct instruction is a viable aspect in implementing the intervention phrased readings.

The article “The Multiple Effects of Direct Instruction Flashcards on Sight Word Acquisition,

Passage Reading, and Errors for Three Middle School Students with Intellectual Disabilities”

discusses the effects of direct instruction on sight word acquisition. In this study the participants

consisted of three middle school boys who have been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities.

Participant 1 has an IQ of 46 and is diagnosed with ADHD. Participant 2 has an IQ of 58 and is

diagnosed with scoliosis. Participant 3 has an IQ of 65 (Ruwe et al. 2011). The only information

given is there are two “authors” conducting the intervention as we are missing credentials,

training, etc. This implementation is very similar to the phrased reading format in that each

student within the intervention read a personalized compilation of 60 words from a printed list

with fluency as well as 100-word passage reading probes where the authors included the sight

words that they had previously received DI (Ruwe et al. 2011). The goal was to see if this DI on

the flashcards would carry over to reading passages more fluently. The researchers hold that

direct instruction flashcards in this specific study as well as other such as in phrased readings

offer evidence-based, systematic, and effective ways to increase student knowledge in many

areas of academics. This led to an implication that not only does direct instruction on flashcards

or index cards increase oral reading fluency but it can also affect comprehension as well.


4

The study design consisted of a combination multiple baseline across sets and an ABAB

design to evaluate the effectiveness of the DI Flashcard procedure. During baseline, the

participants were presented with the flashcards with no instruction. Then they took data on the

flashcards with DI instruction as well as passage probe data. The results showed that over all 3

sets of words and 3 participants within the study that there was significant improvement could be

noted. It was tough for them to directly correlate the flashcard system to their improvement as a

whole, but something that stood out was the fact that the 3 students bulk of mistakes was made

specifically in substitution errors. “As upper level students with significant reading deficits, all

three of the participants had developed alternative reading strategies to either decoding or sight

word knowledge. Often, they compensated for lack of reading ability by guessing at words. This

tendency to guess resulted in frequent substitutions by all three participants” (Ruwe et al. 2011).

The results of the passage word probes did display a significant correlation in that the students’

instances of guessing at words were greatly reduced for occurrences of the sight words from each

of their individual lists they had received instruction on. This finding has great impact on my

choice of intervention as the student I am working with also makes a bulk of his errors guessing

at and substituting words for words that may seem too difficult or foreign in his eyes at the time.

Phrase Drill and Repeated Readings

The first study on repeated readings “Improving Oral Reading Fluency Through

Response Opportunities: A Comparison of Phrase Drill Error Correction with Repeated

Readings” compares phrase drill to repeated reading interventions. It is important to remember as

previously mentioned that we are viewing repeated readings as a step within the phrased reading


5

intervention. The participant was a third-grade student receiving Special Education services for a

Speech-Language Impairment and a Learning Disability in the area of Written Expression

attending a school that served students with academic and behavior problems. There was no

specific information given on the interventionists of the study.

The study included the phrase drill intervention by which the phrase drill error correction

is a procedure which involves consequent modeling on the part of the instructor (i.e., the

instructor models the appropriate response) and prompting the student to repeatedly practice the

phrase from the text which includes the error word (Begeny et al. 2006). This type of “phrase

drilling” (PD) is utilized in phrased reading as the fluent reader provides the modeling of the

correct reading of the difficult words as well as providing multiple times for repeated practice

which plays into the repeated reading piece of phrased reading. Research suggests that phrased

drilling can be a useful component in reading interventions targeting fluency and accuracy. PD

has been shown to be superior to other error correction procedures that provide fewer response

opportunities. “The difference between the two is that whereas the student practices all words

with repeated readings, the student practices only error words and the phrase(s) containing error

words when PD is applied” (Begeny et al. 2006). Within this study they implemented an

alternating treatments design where a different passage was used for each session as they

presented in an order of sequentially increasing difficulty, and difficulty level of passages was

controlled. During RR sessions, the student read a passage twice before being evaluated for oral

reading fluency of that text. During PD sessions, the student would read a passage and then

practiced each word he read incorrectly during that initial reading by reading a 3-5 word phrase


6

comprising of the incorrectly read word. He read each phrase 3 times correctly before practicing

the next incorrectly read word. After practicing each incorrectly read word, Lucas read the

passage again to determine the immediate effects of the PD intervention on that passage (Begeny

et al. 2006). The results indicated that the instructional treatments of both RR and PD were

equally effective at improving reading fluency although results also showed PD had the lowest

error rate of all of the conditions.

The third article “Comparing the Efficiency of Repeated Reading and Listening-While-

Reading to Improve Reading Comprehension” addresses more of the repeated reading aspect of

phrased reading and stresses why doing repeated readings are so important verses listening while

reading strategies. The participants consisted of Four male African American students from one

fourth-grade classroom participated in the study. Students ranged in age from 9-10 years old.

They were all also identified to be in the “at-risk” or “some-risk” categories. Four school

psychology graduate students served as data collectors and delivered the interventions. The

graduate students were second- and third-year doctoral students. These graduate students had

been previously trained in DIBELS and Maze administration and scoring by the primary

researcher in required Program coursework on academic assessment (Hawkins et al. 2015). The

study design utilized an alternating treatments design to compare the effectiveness and efficiency

of repeated readings (RR) and listening-while-reading (LWR) interventions. The study was

completed across a 12 week span where students participated 1-2 times per week and the

duration of the sessions were 4 min 42 seconds to 20 min 57 seconds.


7

The study consisted of both RR and LWR Specifically the RR procedures were the

following: the researcher would instruct the student to read the passage aloud and if a reading

error was made, the researcher said, “Stop. The word is ____. Point to the word and read it three

times.” The student read the passage aloud to the researcher three times, receiving error

correction as needed during each reading. After the third reading, the researcher stopped the

stopwatch and recorded the time (Hawkins at al. 2015). Overall, results revealed that the mean

oral reading fluency increased for all four participants through a slightly increasing trend

throughout the weeks of implementation. The students that were considered “at-risk” improved

to “some-risk” by the end of the intervention. Another interesting note was that when looking at

social validity data in regards to RR three of the students preferred RR over LWR interventions,

which may have led to the fact that RR scores were slightly higher than LWR’s results set.

Feedback

Yet another important piece to phrased reading is the feedback from a partner whether

that be teacher feedback or peer feedback. “The Effects of Written Teacher Feedback on the

Academic Achievement of 5th Grade Students With Learning Challenges” has a couple of

implications for phrased reading feedback for teachers and can also be attributed to peer

feedback as well. The author states that intentional corrective feedback (oral or written) is the

type of feedback teachers should offer their students in order to make a difference and defines it

as “a ‘direct interpersonal action between the teacher and students’. One of the purposes of

intentional feedback is to let the students know whether they have responded correctly to the

exercise at hand” (Siewert 2011). This is exactly why phrased reading provides such good oral or


8

written feedback in that it gives this immediate corrective feedback like previously mentioned in

phrase drilling.

Participants for this research project were 25 fifth-grade students who were attending a

Title I school in an urban city in the southeastern region of the United States. The goal of the

intervention was to determine whether students could be motivated to not only complete the

writing assignments, but to do so also with correct punctuation and capitalization when provided

written feedback either corrective or corrective and intentional from the teacher. The study was

conducted for 6 weeks for 2-3 times per week (Siewert 2011). Data was collected through

anecdotal notations, a sampling of completed sentences used in the trial, a student interview

survey and the final data source was writing samples from students. Results indicated that 66%

of the students answered what the students liked the most about the intervention was the

teachers’ written, intentional feedback. Students performed significantly better when receiving

written intentional feedback, and not far behind that was oral intentional feedback. The students’

confidence and self-esteem increased significantly when looking at the student surveys as well as

their grades within their writing in punctuation specifically (Siewert 2011). The study also

indicated that offering feedback immediately after a mistake had been made the students were

more likely to fix that error and generalize it to similar errors in future problems or areas that

were similar. This has implications for phrased reading in that offering intentional oral and

written feedback or correction on those “difficult words” will likely increase students’ openness

to correction and will likely lead them to generalize correction on other similar errors in the

future regarding similar difficult words.


9

Self-Contained Settings and ORF

As a result of the student whom I am working with having emotional and behavioral

disorders being in a self-contained classroom, it is necessary to look into how reading fluency

affects his academic and behavioral success with this self-contained setting. The participants in

this study are 3 seventh-grade boys in a self-contained middle school EBD room of seven

students participated in this study. Each student had been special education identified at least 4

years prior and had been placed in the self-contained room after repeatedly failing in the general

education environment because of disruptive behavior (Scott and Shearer 2002). It is interesting

to point out that initial observations of these students led the observers to assume that the

students instead of spending time reading, spent most of their time arguing with peers or

teachers. A special education teacher certified in learning and behavior disorders (LBD) and an

instructional assistant were always present and responsible for overseeing the instruction and

discipline of all seven students while this intervention was being implemented.

This study used a multiple baseline design across students is used to implement two

different teacher-directed reading programs: Teach Your Child To Read in 100 Easy Lessons and

Great Leaps Reading. The difference between the two reading programs was the delivery. In the

Teach Your Child program the teacher models letter-sound correspondences leading students

through practice with the sounds and then testing the students. The Great Leaps program

followed a daily 1-minute timing of each of three segments: phonic sounds, sight phrases, and a

brief story. The interventionists kept track of the rate of reading during these 2 interventions to

compare to each other as well as to compare to what the students were already receiving. Rates


10

of on-task behavior remained stable across subjects during the baseline phase, showed a slight

improvement during the Teach Your Child phase, and showed a marked increase in level, to near

90% for two of the subjects, with the start of the Great Leaps phase (Scott and Shearer 2002).

The biggest finding within the study was that students who are in this type of setting with this

certain diagnosis is that the key to success is to create as many opportunities for success! Results

indicated that although both program provided great instruction, Great Leaps led to more

improvement in the students as a result of the fact that it provided students with more frequent

opportunities to measure their success.

When it comes to phrased reading, opportunities to be successful is higher than many

reading programs in that the more fluent reader doesn’t only provide the correct modeling of

how to read a certain phrase as well as the difficult words within it but offers many opportunities

for the student to read the difficult phrase multiple times successfully before going back through

the passage that the phrase is inserted into. This sets up the student who does have a behavior

and emotional obstacles for nothing but success as it provides only opportunities to practice and

be successful in oral reading fluency.

Description of Implementation of the Intervention

In order to carry out a phrased reading intervention, materials used are the reading

materials, index cards, highlighter(s), and graph paper if progress monitoring data is being taken.

When implementing a phrased reading intervention the following instructions should be adhered

to. The instructor should utilize a direct instruction approach when introducing the intervention

to the student or students. For students who do have learning disabilities each step and skill set in


11

the sequence of phrased reading should be demonstrated by the instructor first. So, the student or

students will receive explicit instruction regarding how to discern what difficult words are, how

to distinguish and highlight a phrase, as well as instruction in what and how to take turns

reading, how many times to read difficult phrases and how to provide helpful feedback (Siewert

2011). The students first work with a partner to highlight phrases with difficult words. A difficult

word can be defined dependent on the reader’s error history data taken in the past. Many students

tend to make guesses or substitute words they already know for longer multi-syllabic words or

words that are foreign to them instead of using decoding strategies (Hawkins at al. 2015). These

certain words are then defined and demonstrated by the teacher. Students should demonstrate the

ability to pick out difficult words with each other before moving on to the next step. Then the

phrase around that difficult word should be highlighted by the teacher. The teacher will explain

fluent readers chunk or construe text into syntactically appropriate units or units of a sentence

that relate to each other. Students will also need to demonstrate they are able to correctly

highlight phrases that contain these difficult words. The teacher then demonstrates the next step

which is writing the phrases with the difficult words within them on index cards- one phrase per

each index card. Next, through direct instruction the teacher takes the role of the more fluent

reader and shows how to read each phrase fluently as well as how many times to read each

phrase (Begeny et al. 2006). The teacher reads one phrase once and the student follows by

reading the same phrase three times. After all of the cards have been read through and practiced

three times by the student, it is now time to go back to the passage and the student then reads the

entire passage. The teacher then models how to provide helpful, corrective feedback to a peer


12

going through acceptable wording for offering specific correction feedback as well as praise. The

students then are given scenarios in order to display that they are able to give suitable feedback

to peers. After this instruction, the teacher is able to allow students to do phrased readings with

each other as the teacher monitors.

There is no specific training the administrator necessarily needs to be qualified to

implement a phrased reading intervention. The teacher should be prepared, though, before

implementing this intervention by using his or her resources in order to be knowledgeable about

how to directly instruct students in each of the steps within the intervention (Begeny at al. 2006).

The appropriate setting for utilizing phrased readings consists of a less noisy area for students to

work in although some noise may be allowed as there may be different groups working with each

other who are discussing their phrases etc. Students would be able to work at their desks or in

separated areas with minimal distractions where they are able to focus on their discussion with

their partners only. This intervention should be allowed a time frame of 5 minutes to 20 minutes

dependent on the passage length and type (informational text vs. expository text) of text as well

as individual student oral reading fluency levels and should be implemented frequently 2 to 3

times per week also dependent on the need of the students in order to make a difference (Begeny

at al. 2006).

References


13

Begeny, J. C., Daly III, E. J., & Valleley, R. J. (2006). Improving Oral Reading Fluency

Through Response Opportunities: A Comparison of Phrase Drill Error Correction with Repeated

Readings. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 15(4), 229-235. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9028-4

Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).

Comparing the Efficiency of Repeated Reading and Listening-While-Reading to Improve

Fluency and Comprehension. Education & Treatment Of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

Ruwe, K., McLaughlin, T., Derby, K., & Johnson, J. (2011). The Multiple Effects of

Direct Instruction Flashcards on Sight Word Acquisition, Passage Reading, and Errors for Three

Middle School Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal Of Developmental & Physical

Disabilities, 23(3), 241-255. doi:10.1007/s10882-010-9220-2.

Scott, T. M., & Shearer-Lingo, A. (2002). The Effects of Reading Fluency Instruction on

the Academic and Behavioral Success of Middle School Students in a Self-Contained EBD

Classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 167

Siewert, L. (2011). The Effects of Written Teacher Feedback on the Academic

Achievement of Fifth-Grade Students With Learning Challenges. Preventing School Failure,

55(1), 17-27.


14

RUNNNG HEAD: Research Synthesis

Research Summary Table- Caitlyn Ross- Phrased Readings

Citation Participant Description

Description of

Interventionist

Intervention Implementation

Information

Study Design Results Other Information

DIRECT INSTRUCTION-Ruwe, K., McLaughlin, T., Derby, K., & Johnson, J. (2011). The Multiple Effects of Direct Instruction Flashcards on Sight Word Acquisition, Passage Reading, and Errors for Three Middle School Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal Of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 23(3), 241-255. doi:10.1007/s10882-010-9220-2

Participants consisted of three middle school boys who have been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. Participant 1 has an IQ of 46 and is diagnosed with ADHD. Participant 2 has an IQ of 58 and has scoliosis as well. Participant 3 has an IQ of 65.

The article does not go into detail about the interventionists who conducted this intervention. They only refer to them as “authors” but it is unclear as to how many “authors” there were. I believe there was at least 2.

Each student within the intervention read a personalized compilation of 60 words from a printed list with fluency that is defined in the text as well as 100-word passage reading probes where the authors included the sight words that they has received DI on. The goal was to see if this DI on the flashcards would carry over to reading passages more fluently.

Overall the study design consisted of a combination multiple baseline across sets and an ABAB design with a singleparticipant was employed to evaluate theeffectiveness of the DI Flashcard procedure as well. During baseline, the participants were presented with the flashcards with no instruction. They then took data on the flashcards with DI instruction as well as passage

Utilization of the flashcard systemgenerated marked improvement across all three sets of words for all three participants. But based on these data, they were unable to directly attribute student success in passage reading to the use of DI flashcards in improving sight word knowledge. ***It is important to note however that substitution errors represented the largest group of

Interrater- agreement was conducted within the study.

**Pay special attention to the discussion piece of the article! This has many inferences to the student who will receive the phrased reading interventions!!


probe data. mistakes for each of the participants. As upper level students with significant reading deficits, all three of the participants had developed alternative reading strategies to either decoding or sight word knowledge. Results of the passage word probes show that the instances of guessing were greatly reduced for occurrences of the sight words from each student’s individual word list in passage context!

REPEATED READINGHawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R.,

Four male African American students

Four school psychology graduate students

The purpose of this intervention was to compare the results of a repeated

This study did utilize an alternating treatments

For three of thestudents, mean fluency with practiced

Interrater agreement was also utilized


Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015). Comparing the Efficiency of Repeated Reading and Listening-While-Reading to Improve Fluency and Comprehension. Education & Treatment Of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

from one fourth-gradeclassroom participated in the study. Students ranged in age from 9-10 years old. They were all also identified to be in the “at-risk” or “some-risk” categories.

served as data collectorsand delivered the interventions. The graduate students were second- and third-year doctoral students. These graduate studentshad been previously trained in DIBELS and Maze administration andscoring by the primary researcher in required Program coursework onacademic assessment. Graduate students were established as

reading intervention to the results of the listening-while-reading (LWR) approach to improve fluency and comprehension. During all sessions, students read 200-word passages from Reading Fluency: Level D, written at the fourth-grade level. Researchers also converted Reading Fluency passages to Maze assessments. During the LWRcondition, students read along to an audio reading of the passage on an MP3 player. The audio recording was transferred from the commercially available Reading Fluency: Level D

design was used to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of RR and LWR interventions. The study was completed across 12 weeks. Students participatedin experimental sessions 1-2 times per week. The duration of interventionsessions ranged from 4 min 42 sec to 20 min 57 sec.

passages was in the "Somerisk" range based on DIBELS winter benchmarks, improved from the "At risk" range during baseline based on fall DIBELS benchmarks. Also, data for these students showed a slight increasing trend over the duration of the study. Visual analysisof Dave's data revealed consistent and marked higher levels of readingfluency during the RR intervention as compared to LWR. Dave's mean fluency with practiced passages was at benchmark

within the study to ensure fidelity.

*Results suggestedthat LWR led to more rapid learning than RR

*Make sure to look back over the discussion


reliable. series CD to the MP3 player. Stopwatches were used to record session durations.

levels in the RR conditionand in the "Some risk" range for LWR based on DIBELS winterbenchmarks, as compared to baseline performance in the "At risk" range based on fall DIBELS benchmarks.

PHRASE READING v RRBegeny, J. C., Daly III, E. J., & Valleley, R. J. (2006). Improving Oral Reading Fluency Through Response Opportunities: A Comparison of Phrase Drill Error Correction with Repeated Readings. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 15(4), 229-235. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9028-4

One student was an 8-year-old Caucasian male who presented in a rural outpatient clinic servingschool-aged children referred for academic and behavior

The article does not go into detail about the interventionists who conducted this intervention.

Three separate treatments and a baseline condition were evaluated: repeated readings (RR), phrase-drill with error correction (PD), and reward (RE). During RR sessions, Lucasread a passage two times before being evaluated for oral reading fluency of that

This study implemented an alternating treatments design. A different passage was used for each session, passages werepresented in an order of sequentially increasing difficulty, and difficulty level of passages

The data indicate that the instructionaltreatments (RR and PD) were equally effective at improving reading fluency relative to both BL and RE conditions, with RE producing somewhat better


problems. He was a third-grade student receiving Special Education services for a Speech-Language Impairment and a Learning Disability in the area of Written Expression

same text. During PD sessions, Lucas read a passage and then practiced each word he read incorrectly during that initial reading by reading a three to five word phrase containing the incorrectlyread word. He read each phrase three times correctly before practicing the next incorrectly read word. After practicing each incorrectly read word, Lucas read the passage again to determine the immediate effects of the PD intervention

was controlled across conditions within a quarter to a half grade level of one another

improvements in performancecompared to BL. * The PD condition had the lowest error rate of all the conditions.


on that passage. In RE sessions,Lucas received a preferred reward (e.g., toy or extra privilege) if he read a passage faster(with the same or fewer errors) than his reading of a previously administered passage (of similar difficulty level) that he was not allowed to practice.

SELF-CONTAINED RFScott, T. M., & Shearer-Lingo, A. (2002). The Effects of Reading Fluency Instruction on the Academic and Behavioral Success of Middle School Students in a Self-

Three seventh-grade boys in a self-containedmiddle school EBD room of seven students participated

A special education teacher certifiedin learning and behavior disorders (LBD)and an instructional assistant were

*(I think it is important to note that initial observations indicated that students rarely read, spending most of the reading time engaging their peers or arguing with adults.) Two

This study implemented a multiple baseline design across students is used to implement two differentteacher-directed reading programs.

Results indicate that when instruction sets students up to succeed on a daily basis and monitor their progress, positive academic and social outcomes

*This article will be utilized to connect the self-contained aspect of my particular student to the reading fluency


Contained EBD Classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 167

in this study. Eachstudent had been special education identified at least 4 years prior and had been placed in the self-contained room after repeatedly failing in the general educationenvironment because of disruptive behavior.

alwayspresent and responsible for overseeing theinstruction and discipline of all seven students while this intervention was being implemented.

reading programs were sequentiallyintroduced and were independent variablesfor this study; each was selected tobe delivered directly, teacher-to-student inindividual sessions. We selected TeachYour Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessonsand Great Leaps Reading because they adhere to research-basedinstructional principles for teaching reading. The total timerequired to complete the reading portionof a daily lesson is approximately 10–15 minutes. The Great Leaps programinvolves daily 1-minute timings of

Single subjectresearch results and qualitative descriptionsof student outcomes were also included for each of the students that participated in the interventions.

are more likely. Oral reading fluency rates remained stable across all subjects during the baseline phase and, as expected, showed little or no increase during the Teach Your Child phase. Rates of on-task behavior remained stable across subjects during the baseline phase, showed a slight improvement during the Teach Your Child phase, and showed a marked increase in level, to near90% for two of the subjects, with the start of the Great Leaps phase.

intervention I will implement


each of3 segments: phonic sounds, sight phrases, and a brief story. Students read from the same timed pieces each day, while the teacher monitors the number oferrors made and subtracts from the totalread at the end of the minute.

Siewert, L. (2011). The Effects of Written Teacher Feedback on the Academic Achievement of Fifth-Grade Students With Learning Challenges. Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 17-27.

Participants for this research project were 25 fifth-grade students who were attending a Title I school in an urban city in the southeastern region of the United States

There is little information given about the interventionists who conducted the intervention.

They observed through early writing assignments that manyof the students still made punctuation and capitalization errors. This was the case even though basic writing conventionsare taught as early as in the second grade. Also,additional observations revealed that

They used 4 methods of data collection to examine the effectivenessof the intervention. The first source was my anecdotalnotations. The second source of data was a samplingof completed sentences used in the trial. The third source of

Because of the continuous demands placed on teachers,some of the long-established teaching practices have begunto fade away. The capability of providing students with written feedback on a regular basis is one such area of concern.Students


student work was not receiving any type of feedback, written or verbal,from the primary teacher. Therefore, it became apparentthat some students were not completing the writing assignmentsat all. The goal of the intervention was to determine whether students could be motivated to not only complete the writing assignments, but to do so also with correct punctuation and capitalization when provided written feedback from the teacher.

data was a student interview survey. The final data source was writing samples from students. These samples were notclass assignments and are presented in the present articleto show the transference of writing conventions.

traditionally expect teachers to provide this feedback more often than the obligatory report card does. Another aim of this study was to determinewhether receiving written teacher feedback wouldlower the self-esteem of students with learning disabilitiesor their general education peers. *Specific feedback coupled with intentional feedback resulted in the students best response.

storage.googleapis.com€¦ · web viewthe article “the multiple effects of direct instruction...

Documents