Student Writing Performance: Identifying the Effects when Combining Planning and Revising Instructional Strategies

The purpose of the current study is to identify the impact of teaching students to revise their stories on writing production (Total Words Written; TWW), writing accuracy (Percent Correct Writing Sequences; %CWS), number of critical story elements included in stories, and quality of writing. Three third-grade and one fourth-grade student who were experiencing difficulties in the area of writing were involved in the study. The students were first taught to plan their stories using the evidence-based program, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), which has frequently been implemented to teach students to plan their stories. Students were then taught to revise their stories using SRSD procedures modified for instruction in revision strategies. Student progress was evaluated through a multiple-probe design across tasks and a multiple-probe design across participants, which allowed for experimental control over time and across story probes. In addition to the previously mentioned variables, student’s acceptability of the intervention and their attitudes toward writing were also assessed. Results indicated that instruction in revising increased student writing accuracy beyond the effects of instruction in planning. Additionally, although instruction in planning was shown to increase writing production, number of critical story elements, and quality of writing, instruction in revising produced additional improvement in these variables as well. Finally, results indicated that students liked the intervention and their attitudes toward writing generally increased. Implications for practice and future research directions will be discussed. Advisor: Merilee McCurdy

The Perception of Natural, Cell Phone, and Computer-Synthesized Speech During The Performance Of Simultaneous Visual-Motor Tasks

This study investigated the influence of top-down and bottom-up information on speech perception in complex listening environments. Specifically, the effects of listening to different types of processed speech were examined on intelligibility and on simultaneous visual-motor performance. The goal was to extend the generalizability of results in speech perception to environments outside of the laboratory. The effect of bottom-up information was evaluated with natural, cell phone and synthetic speech. The effect of simultaneous tasks was evaluated with concurrent visual-motor and memory tasks. Earlier works on the perception of speech during simultaneous visual-motor tasks have shown inconsistent results (Choi, 2004; Strayer & Johnston, 2001). In the present experiments, two dual-task paradigms were constructed in order to mimic non-laboratory listening environments. In the first two experiments, an auditory word repetition task was the primary task and a visual-motor task was the secondary task. Participants were presented with different kinds of speech in a background of multi-speaker babble and were asked to repeat the last word of every sentence while doing the simultaneous tracking task. Word accuracy and visual-motor task performance were measured. Taken together, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the intelligibility of natural speech was better than synthetic speech and that synthetic speech was better perceived than cell phone speech. The visual-motor methodology was found to demonstrate independent and supplemental information and provided a better understanding of the entire speech perception process. Experiment 3 was conducted to determine whether the automaticity of the tasks (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977) helped to explain the results of the first two experiments. It was found that cell phone speech allowed better simultaneous pursuit rotor performance only at low intelligibility levels when participants ignored the listening task. Also, simultaneous task performance improved dramatically for natural speech when intelligibility was good. Overall, it could be concluded that knowledge of intelligibility alone is insufficient to characterize processing of different speech sources. Additional measures such as attentional demands and performance of simultaneous tasks were also important in characterizing the perception of different kinds of speech in complex listening environments.