Search

Increasingly, students must demonstrate knowledge in mathematics through mathematics writing, yet research lags in understanding how students engage in mathematics-writing tasks. Most available research on mathematics writing focuses on typically achieving students without considering students with mathematics difficulty (MD). In this study, we explored how students with MD who participated in a word-problem intervention randomized-control trial performed on a mathematics-writing task. We sampled 144 third-grade students with MD and evaluated student performance on an explanatory mathematics-writing measure. Overall, students with MD, on a mathematics-writing rubric with five categories, scored between 1 and 2 points out of a possible 5 points for each category. For one of the five rubric categories, Mathematics Content, the students in the word-problem interventions marginally outperformed the students in the business-as-usual condition. On average, students wrote 33.3 words, numbers, and symbols in response to the mathematics-writing prompt with an average of 8.7 mathematics vocabulary words. Of the mathematics vocabulary words used, students most frequently used formal mathematics vocabulary and names for symbolic numbers, with symbolic symbols and general vocabulary used to a lesser extent. The trends in this study will support future research to enhance mathematics-writing instruction.

Reading and writing rely on related foundational literacy skills (e.g., phonological processing, phonological memory, phonemic awareness). Therefore, students struggling with reading often have literacy difficulties that continue throughout their school years. However, lack of time and resources may make it difficult for schools to implement interventions for both reading and writing. Interventions that combine instruction for both skills may help to mitigate time and resource constraints. This paper reports the results of two pilot studies designed to examine the effectiveness of the Write Sounds integrated handwriting intervention for students with word-level deficits in reading and writing. Study 1 included 33 students struggling with handwriting and word-level reading or spelling difficulties in second and third grade. We randomly assigned participants to receive the Write Sounds intervention or a business-as-usual control. At posttest, students who received the Write Sounds intervention (n = 17) significantly outperformed the control group (n = 16) on researcher-created measures of handwriting quality and overall legibility. In study 2, three first-grade students who showed difficulty with reading, spelling, and phonemic awareness received instruction with Write Sounds. We implemented a multiple-baseline design. Results showed that Write Sounds increased participants' word reading abilities. Results of both studies suggest that Write Sounds showed promise of effectiveness. Limitations such as small sample sizes and the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the findings.

Introduction and Methods: We do not have an accurate count of the number of teachers of students with visual impairments working in the field, and it is a difficult number to estimate. As part of a national survey, states were contacted to estimate how many teachers of students with visual impairments are working in the United States and compared to the estimate developed by the National Plan for Training Personnel to Serve Children with Blindness and Low Vision (NPTP) in 2000. Results and Discussion: The estimate calculated from this process is very similar to the estimate from NPTP (2000), indicating that there are roughly the same number of teachers of students with visual impairments in the field now as there were 20 years ago.

We report on a meta-analysis designed to test the theory that instruction that involves direct teaching of academic vocabulary and teaching strategies to determine the meaning of unknown words develops students' abilities to infer new words' meanings and builds students' overall vocabulary knowledge. We meta-analyzed 39 experimental and quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted in grades K-5 to examine the effects of these instructional approaches. Results indicate that interventions that targeted word meaning instruction do not show overall positive effects on measures of breadth of vocabulary knowledge. Although strategy interventions are effective in improving word solving skills on near transfer measures, strategy interventions do not significantly impact students' overall breadth of vocabulary knowledge. These findings suggest that direct teaching of vocabulary words may not be effective for building overall vocabulary knowledge among elementary-grade students. More research is needed to examine the potential of teaching strategies to determine the meaning of unknown words.

We used multivariate generalizability theory to examine the reliability of hand-scoring and automated essay scoring (AES) and to identify how these scoring methods could be used in conjunction to optimize writing assessment. Students (n = 113) included subsamples of struggling writers and non-struggling writers in Grades 3-5 drawn from a larger study. Students wrote six essays across three genres. All essays were hand-scored by four raters and an AES system called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Both scoring methods were highly reliable, but PEG was more reliable for non-struggling students, while hand-scoring was more reliable for struggling students. We provide recommendations regarding ways of optimizing writing assessment and blending hand-scoring with AES.

Three studies examined if teachers' beliefs about writing predicted their efficacy to teach writing. We surveyed primary grade teachers from Taiwan (N = 782), Shanghai (N = 429), and the United States (N = 214). At each location, teachers completed surveys assessing attitudes toward writing and the teaching of writing, beliefs about students' progress as writers, and epistemological beliefs about writing instruction, writing development, and writing knowledge. We examined if each of these beliefs made unique and statistically significant contributions to predicting efficacy to teach writing after variance due to all other predictors, as well as personal and contextual variables, was controlled. With one exception, these three sets of beliefs each accounted for unique variance in predicting teacher efficacy at each location. There was, however, variability in unique variance in teacher efficacy scores accounted for by specific beliefs across locations and the factor structure of various measures by location.

Students with writing difficulties may have difficulty when writing informational text with source material due to (a) inexperience with such text and (b) difficulties reading and understanding source material. Teaching students to take notes related to informational text using text structures (e.g., description, compare/contrast) may help them access source text and improve planning and organization of their ideas. Two pilot studies examining the usability, feasibility, and promise of a note-taking and text structure intervention are presented in this manuscript. In study 1, the researchers employed a multiple-probe design across three 4th grade participants with reading difficulties. In study 2, the researchers employed an underpowered experimental design, comparing the intervention to a narrative-based reading and writing strategies. Fidelity of implementation was acceptable to high in both studies, indicating preservice teachers find it useable and it is feasible to implement the lessons within the 30-minute time frame. However, there were mixed results of the intervention on note-taking outcomes. In study 1, a functional relation was demonstrated for two of three participants for the note-taking measure. In study 2, the intervention group did not statistically outperform the control group on the note-taking measure, but there was a non-significant effect size of 0.75 between the groups. The findings, though mixed, warrant further study of the intervention in a fully powered study. Results on reading outcomes for both studies are also discussed.

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children identified with reading difficulties (RD) evidence writing difficulties. We included studies comparing children with RD with (a) typically developing peers matched on age (k = 87 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar reading capabilities (k = 24 studies). Children identified with RD scored lower on measures of writing than their same age peers (g = -1.25) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality (g = -0.95), output (g = -0.66), organization (g = -0.72), sentence skills (g = -0.78), vocabulary (g = -1.17), syntax (g = -1.07), handwriting (g = -0.64), and spelling (g = -1.42). Differences in the writing scores of children identified with RD and same age peers were moderated by whether the writing assessment was a norm-referenced or researcher-designed measure when all writing measures or just spelling were included in the analyses. Depth of orthography for studies involving European languages also moderated differences in the spelling scores of children identified with RD and same age peers. Finally, children identified with RD scored lower on writing than younger peers with similar reading capabilities (g = -0.94) and more specifically on spelling (-0.93). We concluded that children with RD experience difficulties with writing, providing support for theoretical propositions of reading and writing connections as well as the importance of writing instruction for these students.

Expository writing may be especially difficult for elementary grade students due to lack of background knowledge and unfamiliar text structures. A text structure writing intervention aimed at teaching students to write informational text using text structures has been shown to have promise for improving the informational text writing of upper elementary grade students using small group instruction ("Reading and Writing," 31, 2115-2145; "Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal," 31, 2165-2190; "Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal," 23, 35-55.). There are disadvantages to small group instruction, however, because it requires additional resources. In the current study, 41 students in grade 4 were randomly assigned to receive the "Structures Writing" intervention or BAU narrative writing instruction. Both groups received instruction in a large group setting. At posttest, students who received the "Structures Writing" intervention statistically significantly outperformed the control group on researcher-created measures of simple description, compare/contrast, sequence, problem-solution, and cause-effect writing. Results indicated no differences between on distal reading outcomes. The intervention components completed within the allotted time-frame were completed with a high degree of fidelity (97%), providing an indicator of usability. However, students only fully completed 57% of lesson activities, indicating that it is not feasible to complete the lessons within a 30-min time frame. The discussion highlights the "Structures Writing" intervention as a promising approach for improving informational text writing skills of fourth grade students with moderate to large effect sizes that support findings of a prior pilot test. A larger efficacy trial is warranted following revision of the lessons to shorten lesson duration.

Students in the elementary and secondary grades may use mathematics writing to express ideas and reasoning about mathematics. To understand current classroom practices related to the assessment and instruction of mathematics writing, we conducted a survey of kindergarten through Grade 12 educators across the United States who taught mathematics, with 324 respondents from 44 states. Educators expressed the primary purposes of mathematics writing included helping students learn mathematics and informing mathematics instruction. The majority of educators believed mathematics writing was important yet fewer than half regularly engaged students in instructional activities about mathematics writing. Similarly, only half of educators assessed the mathematics-writing performance of their students. A regression model used to predict the frequency of mathematics-writing activities in classrooms indicated that educators included mathematics-writing activities more frequently in their classrooms if they had higher self-efficacy for teaching mathematics writing, as well as whether they actually provided instruction in mathematics writing or assessed their students in mathematics writing.

This paper describes a survey of teachers of students with visual impairments (TVIs) in Nebraska. Questions addressed their preparation to teach writing, writing practices, and beliefs about writing instruction. Twenty-four of 60 TVIs in Nebraska responded to the survey, and 19 answered all questions. Teachers were split on their preparation to teach writing (50% indicated receiving adequate training), but slightly to moderately agreed that they knew how to use writing to support their students' needs. The TVIs unanimously agreed that all writing purposes (e.g., for fun, to demonstrate knowledge, for daily living activities) are appropriate for students who are functionally blind, students who have low vision, and students with multiple disabilities or deaf-blindness. However, they were split on whether writing instruction was their responsibility (47.8% agreed, 52.2% disagreed) and varied in the use of writing practices across different groups of students (e.g., 74% of TVIs felt writing to inform was appropriate for students who are functionally blind, whereas only 42% and 11% felt this was appropriate for students with low vision and multiple-disabilities, respectively). The implications of this study are limited due to the small number of participants, but the results represent 40% of the total number of Nebraska TVIs.

Despite the importance of writing skill development, we know very little about how writing instruction is provided to students with visual impairments (VI) with and without co-occurring disabilities (e.g., multiple disabilities, deaf-blindness). The purpose of this study was to survey a national sample of U.S. teachers of students with visual impairments (TSVIs) on several important constructs, including their preparation to teach writing; their beliefs, attitudes, and experiences about teaching writing; and the writing practices they use for students with various visual conditions. We received responses from 457 TSVIs. The results showed that TSVIs vary considerably in their preparation to teach writing and disagree as to whether writing instruction (above and beyond braille) is part of their responsibilities. Most TSVIs indicated that they believe writing to be important for their students with VI, and they reported using various writing practices in their instruction within different student groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Phonological awareness (PA), the awareness of sounds in spoken words, is strongly linked to reading outcomes. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of PA instruction without including print (i.e. PA without exposure to words or letters). Specifically, is PA-only instruction just as effective in improving reading outcomes when compared to print-based instruction (e.g. phonics)? Method: Robust variance estimation was used to examine the effectiveness of PA-only instruction across 38 independent studies and 293 effect sizes. The sample consisted of 3,880 participants in preschool through first grade. The average age of participants was 5 years 7 months. Moderator analysis were conducted to examine differences in effect across outcomes, comparison conditions and participant characteristics. Results: PA-only instruction had a moderate overall effect (g = 0.57, 95% CI [0.40, 0.74], p <.001) on reading-related outcomes. PA-only instruction was less effective when compared to print-based instruction (g = −0.54, 95% CI [−0.80, −0.27], p <.001) and less effective for word reading outcomes (g = -0.33, 95% CI [−0.66, −0.01], p =.05) than for PA outcomes (g = 0.64, 95% CI [0.44, 0.84], p <.001). Conclusion: PA-only instruction can be beneficial for reading-related outcomes, but the effect varies depending on two important contextual factors: 1) the reading outcome type and 2) the comparison condition. Specifically, PA-only instruction might be less effective in improving word reading outcomes than PA outcomes. In addition, it has less of an effect on reading-related outcomes when compared to print-based instruction like phonics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research indicates that sentence-combining instruction is effective for improving writing outcomes; however, no studies to date have examined the effects of sentence-combining instruction on the writing skills of Spanish-speaking language-minority (LM) students. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of explicit sentence-combining instruction that focused on correct adjective use when used with Spanish-speaking LM students with poor sentence construction skills. Across two studies, seven Spanish-speaking LM children in third to fifth grade participated in sentence-combining interventions designed to teach adjective placement. Results indicated that there was a functional relation between the introduction of sentence-combining instruction and student performance on sentence-writing probes. In addition, the intervention led to an improvement in number of correct writing sequences on the sentence-writing probe.

Current mathematics curricula and assessments emphasize students' ability to communicate mathematical reasoning in writing. Limited research exists, however, on what mathematics writing (MW) is and how to assess the quality of MW. Therefore, based on our definition of MW construct, we explored 4 approaches to scoring MW: (a) holistic rubric scoring for overall quality of explanation; (b) analytical rubric scoring across 4 components (i.e., mathematics content, mathematics vocabulary, writing organization, writing grammar); (c) genre-based elements scoring (modified from the scoring form used for the Essay Composition subtest of the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test); and (d) curriculum-based measurement mathematics-writing sequences (MWS) scoring, including rules for scoring numbers and symbols. Students from 6 classrooms in 3rd-grade, 4th grade, and 5th grade (2 classrooms at each grade level; N = 122) were recruited for the current study. Results indicated all 4 scoring methods were moderately correlated with measures of writing and mathematics. Holistic, analytic, and elements scoring were strongly correlated with each other, with slightly lower correlations for the MWS scoring. Confirmatory factor analysis further demonstrated adequate construct validity. All 4 scoring methods were reliable with an exception of lower reliability for writing components assessed by analytic scoring. Based on the validity, reliability, efficiency, and information provided by each scoring method, we recommend holistic scoring for summative assessments and elements scoring for formative assessments.

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children classified with specific language impairment (SLI) experience difficulties with writing. We included studies comparing children with SLI to (a) typically developing peers matched on age (k = 39 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar language capabilities (k = six studies). Children classified with SLI scored lower on writing measures than their typically developing peers matched on age (g = -0.97) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality (g = -0.92), output (g = -1.00), grammar (g = -0.68), vocabulary (g = -0.68), and spelling (g = -1.17). A moderator analysis revealed that differences in the writing scores of children classified with SLI and typically developing peers matched on age were not as large, but were still statistically significant, when assessment involved a contrived response format (vs. measured based on students' writing), researcher-created measures (vs. norm-referenced tests), or SLI included just children with a speech disorder (vs. children with a language disorder). Children classified with SLI further scored lower on writing than typically developing peers with similar language capabilities (g = -0.47). We concluded that children with SLI experience difficulties with writing.

Writing may be an especially useful tool for improving the reading comprehension of lower performing readers and students with disabilities. However, it is reasonable to expect that students with poor writing skills in particular, may actually be less adept at using writing to improve their reading skills, and may not be able to do so without instruction. The purposes of this study were to examine (1) the extent to which writing about text (i.e., taking notes or writing an extended response) would enhance reading comprehension, (2) whether note taking was more effective than writing extended responses for improving reading comprehension for fourth grade students across three measures, and (3) whether the effects of the two writing tasks were moderated by student writing ability, indicating a minimum level of writing proficiency needed to take advantage of writing to improve reading. Students were randomly assigned to a note taking condition in which they took notes about an expository text, an extended writing condition in which they compared and contrasted ideas from the text with their own experiences, or a read and study control condition in which they studied the important ideas from the text. Minimal instruction was provided to the students in each treatment group during a single 45-minute session, primarily to ensure they understood their assigned task. The students then met for another 45-minute session, during which they were asked to read an expository passage and complete their assigned task. Students' reading comprehension was tested using three measures. Students in the combined writing treatments made significantly greater gains than students in the read and study condition on a multiple choice inference measure. No other statistically significant differences were found between the treatment groups, and no moderator effects were found. Implications for future research are framed in terms of the limitations of the study.

High-stakes mathematics assessments require students to write about mathematics, although research suggests students exhibit limited proficiency on such assessments. Students with LD may have difficulties with writing, mathematics, or both. Researchers employed an intervention for teaching students how to organize mathematics writing (MW). Researchers randomly assigned participants (n = 61) in grades 3-5 to receive instruction in MW or information writing. Students receiving MW outperformed control students on a researcher-developed measure of MW (d = 1.05). Component assessment revealed MW students improved in writing organization (d = 1.49) but not in mathematics content (d = 0.11 ns). Results also indicated MW students outperformed control on percentage of correct MW sequences (d = 0.82). Future directions for MW intervention development are discussed.

The present study examined issues pertaining to the reliability of writing assessment in the elementary grades, and among samples of struggling and nonstruggling writers. The present study also extended nascent research on the reliability and the practical applications of automated essay scoring (AES) systems in Response to Intervention frameworks aimed at preventing and remediating writing difficulties (RTI-W). Students in Grade 3 (n = 185), Grade 4 (n = 192), and Grade 5 (n = 193) responded to six writing prompts, two prompts each in the three genres emphasized in the Common Core and similar "Next Generation" academic standards: narrative, informative, and persuasive. Prompts were scored using an AES system called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Generalizability theory was used to examine the following sources of variation in PEG's quality scores: prompts, genres, and the interaction among those facets and the object of measurement: students. Separate generalizability and decision studies were conducted for each grade level and for subsamples of nonstruggling and struggling writers identified using a composite measure of writing skill. Low-stakes decisions (reliability = 0.80) could be made by averaging scores from a single prompt per genre (i.e., 3 total) or 2 prompts per genre if administered to struggling writers (i.e., 6 total). High-stakes decisions (reliability = 0.90) could be made by averaging across two prompts per genre (6 total) or 4-5 prompts per genre if administered to struggling writers (12-15 total). Implications for use of AES within RTI-W and the construct validity of AES writing quality scores are discussed.

Introduction: Not much is known about the writing skills of students with visual impairments, and this research is often limited to subgroups of the population or subskills. A more comprehensive approach to research on the writing skills of students with visual impairments is needed. Methods: Researchers used a cross-sectional design to examine the writing of students with visual impairments in Nebraska, attempting to include as many students as possible aged from 4 to 21 years. Fifty students participated. All students were given the Essay Composition subtest of the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test (third edition), with modified instructions. Essays were scored on number of words, essay elements, and mechanics. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons of groups are provided. Results: Mean scores of the overall sample and subgroups fell within the average range when compared to normative samples. There were no statistical differences between students who were blind and students with low vision and no statistical differences between writing modality. There were statistical differences between students with multiple disabilities and others. Results suggest substantial heterogeneity in the sample. Discussion: Results suggest some students with visual impairments write as well as do their sighted peers. These results are complicated by heterogeneity and do not imply anything about the writing ability of individual students. Implications for practitioners: Teachers should avoid making assumptions about the writing potential of specific students. Students with visual impairments in this study scored comparably to a normative sample, and students with multiple disabilities may be able to participate in writing activities in a variety of ways.

This study investigated undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of integrating virtual reality (VR) technology into a community nursing course, specifically home and environmental patient safety assessments. This study used a mixed-methods approach with an explanatory design. Participants were recruited from a community health course. The students engaged in a VR simulation involving home visits using the vizHome platform. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Quantitative data were collected through Qualtrics and secure Zoom connections for the interviews. The data were analyzed with SPSS and MAXQDA. The results indicated that participants perceived VR as valuable and easy to use for learning home assessment skills. The System Usability Scale (SUS) score revealed room for improvement. Technical limitations were identified as challenges that must be addressed to enhance the user experience. Participants acknowledged VR's potential to supplement traditional learning methods, providing safe and realistic exposure to diverse home environments. While VR was seen as beneficial, it was not considered a replacement for actual home visits in community nursing education. This study provided clinical teaching evidence on the usability and student perceptions of VR in community courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the growing attention to motivation, less is known about international students' motivational beliefs and attitudes about academic writing. In this study, we aimed to explore the motivational factors influencing international students' performance in academic English classes at a large public research university in the western United States. Specifically, we examined students' self-efficacy, goal orientation, beliefs, and affect for writing, along with their malleability, and their contributions to academic achievement in academic English writing classes. The sample comprised 97 students, predominantly from China, enrolled in online academic English courses. Exploratory factor analysis tended to extract more complex models of the motivational constructs than principal component analysis. Students' self-efficacy and enjoyment of writing significantly increased from the beginning to the end of the 10-week term, suggesting motivational factors' malleability. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that students' self-efficacy at the beginning of the term positively predicted their final grades. However, logistic mixed modeling revealed that students who held stronger beliefs about writing as a means of exploring and expressing ideas had lower odds of passing. Our findings contribute to the understanding of international students' motivation in academic English settings in higher education and offers potential pedagogical interventions to enhance their academic success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Children with dyslexia often have related writing difficulties. In the simple view of writing model, high-quality writing depends on good transcription skills, working memory, and executive function--all of which can be difficult for children with dyslexia and result in poor spelling and low overall writing quality. In this article, we describe the challenges of children with dyslexia in terms of the simple view of writing and instructional strategies to increase spelling and overall writing quality in children with dyslexia. Method: For spelling strategies, we conducted systematic searches across 2 databases for studies examining the effectiveness of spelling interventions for students with dyslexia as well as including studies from 2 meta-analyses. To locate other instructional practices to increase writing quality (e.g., handwriting and executive function), we examined recent meta-analyses of writing and supplemented that by conducting forward searches. Results: Through the search, we found evidence of effective remedial and compensatory intervention strategies in spelling, transcription, executive function, and working memory. Some strategies included spelling using sound-spellings and morphemes and overall quality using text structure, sentence combining, and self-regulated strategy development. Conclusions: Many students with dyslexia experience writing difficulty in multiple areas. However, their writing (and even reading) skills can improve with the instructional strategies identified in this article. We describe instructional procedures and provide links to resources throughout the article.

Mathematics standards expect students to communicate about mathematics using oral and written methods, and some high-stakes assessments ask students to answer mathematics questions by writing. Assumptions about mathematics communication via writing include (a) students possess writing skill, (b) students can transfer this writing skill to mathematics writing, and (c) mathematics writing is representative of a mathematics knowledge. We conducted a study in which we investigated the connections among general writing ability, mathematics computation skill, and mathematics writing. With 155 fourth-grade students in two regions of the United States, we administered a measure of essay writing, a measure of mathematics computation skill, and two mathematics-writing prompts. Results indicate moderate correlations among general writing ability, computation skill, and mathematics writing. Additionally, general writing ability and computation skill are significantly related to mathematics-writing outcomes.

Increasingly, students are expected to write about mathematics. Mathematics writing may be informal (e.g., journals, exit slips) or formal (e.g., writing prompts on high-stakes mathematics assessments). In order to develop an effective mathematics-writing intervention, research needs to be conducted on how students organize mathematics writing and use writing features to convey mathematics knowledge. We collected mathematics-writing samples from 155 4th-grade students in 2 states. Each student wrote about a computation word problem and fraction representations. We compared mathematics-writing samples to a norm-referenced measure of essay writing to examine similarities in how students use writing features such as introductions, conclusions, paragraphs, and transition words. We also analyzed the mathematics vocabulary terms that students incorporated within their writing and whether mathematics computation skills were related to the mathematics vocabulary students used in writing. Finally, we coded and described how students used mathematics representations in their writing. Findings indicate that students use organizational features of writing differently across the norm-referenced measure of essay writing and their mathematics writing. Students also use mathematics vocabulary and representations with different levels of success. Implications for assessment, practice, and intervention development are discussed.

In this meta-analysis of 45 studies involving students in Grades 2-12, the authors present evidence on the effects of text structure instruction on the expository reading comprehension of students. The meta-analysis was deigned to answer 2 sets of questions. The first set of questions examined the effectiveness of text structure instruction on proximal measures of comprehension, including examination of potential moderators and effectiveness for students with or at-risk for disabilities. The second set of questions examined the effectiveness on transfer measures of the effectiveness of the intervention across temporal contexts (maintenance), near-contexts (untaught text structures), and far-contexts (general reading comprehension). Overall, the results indicated that text structure instruction improves expository reading comprehension, but the effects were tempered when text structure instruction was compared with stronger comparison groups. The findings also identified 2 moderators that led to increased effect sizes (teaching more text structures and including writing in the instruction). Text structure instruction was also found to be effective across all 3 levels of transfer, although the effects for far-transfer are small and lack consistency. Recommendations include conducting more research to understand the nuances of potential interactions between various instructional approaches and student populations.

This study examined the number of writing samples needed to obtain a reliable estimate of young struggling writers' capabilities. It further assessed if performance in one genre was reflective of performance in other genres for these children. Second- and third-grade students (81 boys, 56 girls), who were identified as struggling writers in need of special assistance by their teacher and scored at the 25th percentile or lower on a norm-referenced story-writing test, wrote four compositions: a story, personal narrative, opinion essay, and informative text. Applying generalizability theory (G-theory), students' scores on three writing measures (total number of words [TNW], vocabulary diversity, and writing quality) for the four compositions were each portioned into variance due to the following sources: students, writing tasks, and the interaction between students and writing tasks. We found that 14, 8, and 11 compositions, respectively, would be needed to obtain a reliable estimate of these students' writing capabilities in terms of TNW, vocabulary diversity, and writing quality. Furthermore, how well these students wrote in one genre provided a weak prediction of how well they wrote in other genres.

To determine whether formative writing assessments that are directly tied to everyday classroom teaching and learning enhance students' writing performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of true and quasi-experiments conducted with students in grades 1 to 8. We found that feedback to students about writing from adults, peers, self, and computers statistically enhanced writing quality, yielding average weighted effect sizes of 0.87, 0.58, 0.62, and 0.38, respectively. We did not find, however, that teachers' monitoring of students' writing progress or implementation of the 6 + 1 Trait Writing model meaningfully enhanced students' writing. The findings from this meta-analysis provide support for the use of formative writing assessments that provide feedback directly to students as part of everyday teaching and learning. We argue that such assessments should be used more frequently by teachers, and that they should play a stronger role in the Next-Generation Assessment Systems being developed by Smarter Balanced and PARCC.

Multi-tiered system of supports represents one of the most significant advancements in improving the outcomes of students for whom typical instruction is not effective. While many practices need to be in place to make multi-tiered systems of support effective, accurate implementation of evidence-based practices by individuals at all tiers is critical to obtain student outcomes. Effective strategies to achieve program fidelity are available; however, maintaining program fidelity at the individual level remains elusive. Lessons drawn from medicine indicate strategies to maintain program fidelity should address the implementer. Medical practitioners have used self-monitoring checklists to maintain fidelity with striking results. Research evaluating strategies to maintain program fidelity at the individual level represents an important next step in the field of education. Recommendations for a systematic research agenda focused on self-monitoring checklists are presented.

This systematic descriptive historical review was conducted to examine the status and trends in expository text structure instruction efficacy research for first through twelfth grade students. The analysis included sixty studies, which spanned the years 1978 to 2014. Descriptive dimensions of the research included study type, research design, treatment fidelity, school level, number of participants, service delivery settings, and comprehensiveness of demographic reporting, text structure instruction, and measurement. Researchers primarily used randomized and quasi-experimental research designs. Analysis of results revealed that (a) a relatively large number of text structure efficacy research studies have been conducted, (b) complete demographic information was difficult to ascertain for many of the participants, (c) researchers of few studies instructed students in all five expository text structures, (d) treatment fidelity data were often missing, and (e) researchers rarely used both direct and indirect measures of effects. Limitations of the analysis and future research directions are discussed.