A paragraph text-writing intervention for secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Abstract

All Rights Reservedii For Naomi, whoabove all thingsis the most kind and loving person.iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I was a child, my parents often told me that an education was the surest path to a better life; my ticket out of Dodge. It is my hope that this projectand the overall experience it representsconvinces them that I listened to their advice, albeit to an extreme. I extend to them my most profound thanks for their support and love, as it was they who first believed in me.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development

“…Only one of them involved a pretest-posttest control-group design: Haviland [26] (not included in the present review because it is not possible to separate the data for particpants with disorders of ID) studied a total of 22 students with and without ID (IQ = 62-85, ages [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and explored instructions on text writing (sentence combining). The writing outcomes of the participants suggest a positive summary mean effect (g = 0.41) of the intervention (calculated by Rodgers [25]).…”

“…No peer-reviewed systematic review and/or meta-analysis of control group studies to date have summarized writing interventions for students with disorders of ID. However, in a dissertation, Rodgers [25] identified three group-design studies including students with and without disorders of ID. Only one of them involved a pretest-posttest control-group design: Haviland [26] (not included in the present review because it is not possible to separate the data for particpants with disorders of ID) studied a total of 22 students with and without ID (IQ = 62-85, ages [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and explored instructions on text writing (sentence combining).…”

Effects of Writing Interventions on the Level and Trend of Total Words Written: A Meta-Analysis

“…In some SRSD studies, goal setting (e.g., number of essay parts or quality score) was used to indicate when students attained mastery or fluency (Cerar, 2012;Garwood et al, 2019;Mason et al, 2010Mason et al, , 2013Mong Cramer & Mason, 2014). Besides SRSD, a combination of explicit instruction, timed practice (i.e., 3-min or 12-min practice trials), performance feedback, and goal setting was used in two studies (Hough et al, 2012;Rodgers, 2019). In a smaller number of fluency studies, timed practice was provided without additional instruction.…”

“…Following timed practice, students received performance feedback on an aspect of their writing: TWW (Bauernschmidt, 1991;Geisler et al, 2009;Stotz et al, 2008;Taylor, 2010;Wolfe et al, 2000), CWS (Lavik, 2014), and journal composition (Regan et al, 2005). In addition, some of those studies also featured goal setting (Lavik, 2014;Rodgers, 2019;Wolfe et al, 2000) and graphing (Bauernschmidt, 1991;Geisler et al, 2009;Lavik, 2014;Stotz et al, 2008;Taylor, 2010;Wolfe et al, 2000).…”

“…In two additional studies (5%), extended time limits were provided of 30 min (Miller & Little, 2018) and 90 min (Southall, 2011); however, writing duration (i.e., time students spent engaged in writing) was only a portion of the time limit, ranging from 2 min to 76 min. Writing tasks with brief time limits (i.e., ≤10 min) were administered in 16 studies (38%), and tasks were either 3 min or 10 min (Bauernschmidt, 1991;Cerar, 2012;Garwood et al, 2019;Geisler et al, 2009;Hoover et al, 2012;Lavik, 2014;Levy, 2018;Lewandowski, 2011;Mason et al, 2010Mason et al, , 2013Mong Cramer & Mason, 2014;Rodgers, 2019;Stotz et al, 2008;Taylor, 2010;Viel-Ruma et al, 2010;Wolfe et al, 2000).…”