Use of a Check-off System to Improve Middle School Students' Story Compositions

Abstract

This study examined the effects of a self-management procedure designed to teach three 13- to 14-year-old middle school boys with learning and behavior problems to improve the completeness (inclusion of identified story elements) and quality (organization and coherence) of their story compositions. The procedure was based on two strategies: teaching the students to plan stories composed in a narrative style, and teaching them to monitor the inclusion of elements from the plan with a check-off system. A multiple baseline design was used to assess the effectiveness of the procedure, and a combination of holistic and atomistic ratings was used to assess the completeness and quality of the students' written work. Results indicated that stories were more complete when students used a simple check-off system to plan and monitor their work. In addition, there was a moderate correlation between the atomistic and holistic measures used to assess stories, with the total number of words written correlating most strongly (r = .49) with the overall rating for story quality.

Common Characteristics of Writing Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Literature

“…The non‐SRSD category consisted of two DI studies ( M = .87), two AT studies ( M = .44), and six studies that fell into a category we called SI ( M = .75). This category is defined by the use of descriptive phrases generated from pictures prior to writing (Dowell, Storey, & Gleason, ), story mapping and story map question (Li, ), story enders (Montague & Leavell, ), a check‐off system (Martin & Manno, ), summarization process (Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, ), and sentence combining strategy using peer assistance (Saddler, Asaro, & Behforooz, ) to improve student's writing.…”

An Alternative Method for Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Researches

“…Because a single extreme outlier can produce a detrimental effect on the PND score (Scruggs et al, 1987). Researches with results that have a data point reaching ceiling or floor in the baseline phase were found in Billings and Wasik (1985); Blick and Test (1987); Brigham, Hopper, Hill, Armas, and Newsom (1985); Burgio, Whitman, and Johnson (1980); Burgio, Whitman, and Reid (1983); Carr and Punzo (1993); Dunlap and Dunlap (1989); Glomb and West (1990); Gumpel and David (2000); Kern, Ringdah, Hilt, and Sterling-Turner (2001); Kern-Dunlap et al (1992); Kissel, Whitman, and Reid (1983); Koegel, Keogel, Hurley, and Frea (1992); Koegel and Frea (1993); Martin and Manno (1995); McKenzie and Rushall (1974); Olympia et al (1994); Stahmer and Schreibman (1992); Swanson (1981); Wilson, Leaf, and Nathan (1975); and Wood, Murdock, and Cronin, (2002).…”

A Model for Aligning Self-Determination and General Curriculum Standards

“…• Teach students to plan and self-monitor story writing with a story-elements checklist (Martin & Manno, 1995). • Teach students to self-record through check marks, stickers, or graphing the completion of a target behavior (e.g., remaining on task, paying attention, employing self-recruitment, achieving accuracy of academic task; Edwards, Salant, Howard, Brougher, & McLaughlin, 1995;Harris, Graham, Reid, McElroy, & Hamby, 1994;Hughes et al, 2002;Levendoski & Cartledge, 2000;Reid & Harris, 1993).…”