Effects of Informational Text Instruction for Students with or At-Risk for Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of Informational Text Instruction for Students with or At-Risk for Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Burk, Mackenzie |
| Committee Members: | Jessica Namkung; Michael Hebert |
| Summary: | The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of informational writing interventions on informational text writing outcomes for 4th to 12th graders with or at-risk for disabilities. Informational text writing is heavily used in daily lives and not enough attention is brought to how the informational text writing is taught. A total of nine studies with 39 effects sizes were included. The studies included were coded by the first author and a graduate research assistant for specific design features (e.g., age, interventionist, dosage, teacher effects). The results indicated that informational writing instruction had positive impacts on the writing outcomes for all students (Hedges g = .97). The findings also identified three potential moderators (i.e., percent of students with disabilities included, grade level, and fidelity). Advisors: Jessica Namkung & Michael Hebert |
| URL: | https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/366 |
| Database: | OpenDissertations |
| Abstract: | The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of informational writing interventions on informational text writing outcomes for 4th to 12th graders with or at-risk for disabilities. Informational text writing is heavily used in daily lives and not enough attention is brought to how the informational text writing is taught. A total of nine studies with 39 effects sizes were included. The studies included were coded by the first author and a graduate research assistant for specific design features (e.g., age, interventionist, dosage, teacher effects). The results indicated that informational writing instruction had positive impacts on the writing outcomes for all students (Hedges g = .97). The findings also identified three potential moderators (i.e., percent of students with disabilities included, grade level, and fidelity). Advisors: Jessica Namkung & Michael Hebert |
|---|
