Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities.
Abstract
This study extends previous research on components of effective strategy instruction operationalized in an approach referred to as self-regulated strategy development (SRSD). Comparisons were made among learning-disabled students in 4 conditions (SRSD, SRSD without goal setting and self-monitoring, direct teaching, and practice control) at posttest, generalization, and 2 maintenance probes. Normally achieving (NA) peers constituted a social validation condition. Full SRSD resulted in significantly greater schematic structure scores at generalization as compared with the other instructional conditions
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In some studies, improvements for students with LD have resulted in performance similar to that of their normally achieving peers.
“In some studies, improvements for students with LD have resulted in performance similar to that of their normally achieving peers (Danoff et al., 1993;De La Paz, 1999;Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).”
From Self-Regulated Strategy Development in the Classroom: Part of a Balanced Approach to Writing Instruction for Students With Disabilities (2017) · cites this paper as Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992
Studies have been undertaken to determine the contributions of various components of the SRSD approach and the stages of instruction.
“Studies have been undertaken to determine the contributions of various components of the SRSD approach and the stages of instruction (Danoff, Harris, & Graham, 1993;Graham & Harris, 1989;Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).”
From Self-Regulated Strategy Development in the Classroom: Part of a Balanced Approach to Writing Instruction for Students With Disabilities (2017) · cites this paper as Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 249
- Authors
- Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Westat (United States) (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 1992-09
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 340-352
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W1994337725
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 30.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- self-regulated strategy development, strategy instruction, direct instruction, learning disabilities, composition skills, self-efficacy, goal setting, self-monitoring, generalization, maintenance, schematic structure, writing instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
