Essay Example: Writing Approaches for General and Special Needs Students

The research purpose was to determine the most effective approach to writing between the process writing approach (BW) and the widely taught process writing approach (PW). These two approaches to process writing were hypothesized to have varying effectiveness for different groups of students socially special needs students. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) conducted a quasi-experimental study to compare the effectiveness of the BW and PW on general students and special needs students on the student’s expressive writing. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) used an instructional intervention that involved the delivery of a systematic approach involving explicit instruction through all the phases of writing. In this experiment, conspicuous strategies were used to help the students to engage actively in the learning process, which was later compared to the standard writing approach used in almost all the k8 classrooms across the country.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The author’s main question is:

• Is the BW intervention more effective that PW intervention for the general education students as well as the special needs students?
• How do the special needs students perform compared to the gnarl education students for both PW and BW intentions
• How the special needs do trained students with the BW compare to the special need students trained with PW in terms of prefaces?

Discuss the alignment of the research purpose with the research questions.

The research purpose was to compare two approaches to process writing to determine if conspicuous strategies in teaching expressive writing would contribute to improving the student is learning outcomes. By conducting a quasi-experiment, the researcher met the research objective because the research purposes were aligned with the research method. The research purpose was, however, general and could have been imported by examining the research objective and the hypothesis. In this state, the audience might question if the research purpose was to examine the effectiveness of the conspicuous strategies or to determine the effectiveness of then BW and PW approaches to process writing.

The research question was mainly were aligned with the research hypothesis therefore the research purpose could be improved if the researcher was troy prove that the process writing approach (BW) more effective as an intervention for all students than the PW for all students or special needs students only. It is also important to note that the researcher wanted to determine if the special needs students respond to process writing than the general education students for both the PW and BW. Finally, Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) should have improved the research purpose in line to determine if the special needs students trained with the BW improve more than the train with the PW.

Discuss how the literature review and sources in the study support the research purpose and research questions.

The literature review was done using seventeen articles. Most of the reviewed literature are peer-reviewed journals that contribute to their authenticity and validity. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) used the literature review to develop a sound foundation of knowledge of the research topic. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) identified some areas of past scholarships that he could focus on to prevent duplication. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) critically reviewed articles to identify the inconsistencies in the study, the theoretical underpinning as conflicts in than prior studies. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) also used the literature review section to give the researcher a theoretical background of some concepts, policies, and programs.

It is through the literature review that the audience can develop a deeper understanding of the process of writing, the process, and products oriented model. For example, Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) reviewed the research on the best practices in teaching by examining the roles and efforts of the national center for improving the tools of educators (NCITE), Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) equipped the audience with information on the effective teaching principles and how the quality for education can be designed. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) posits that active engagement during the instructional tasks, direct teaching, scaffolding, strategic instruction as well as self-regulation are instrumental for proper comprehension. As such, the principles can be categorized into six accommodations such as big ideas, conspicuous strategies, and primed background knowledge. Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) also explored concepts such as mediated scaffolding and strategic integration.

The bottom-up approach was used to explore the best practice in writing instruction including explicit teaching on the steps of the writing process and convention of writing. From the literate review, there is adequate evidence that in writing, planning, writing, and revision should be given primacy. The Meta-analysis is instrumental for improving the overall quality of the writing as the teacher provides ongoing guided feedback.

Identify the research method

Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) used the quantitative method to compare the two approaches to process writing. Qualitative is more effective in comparing the results of a large sample of subjects. The method was also aligned with the research objectives that were to generalize the results. It is only by using large samples that bias in research can be reduced. The quantitative method enabled greater objectivity of the results and the accuracy, which could not be possible with the qualitative study. The research gathered sand compared to the study results from the WIAT-II subtests scores. The collection and gathering of then scores (quantile data) helped in achieving the research aims objectives as the test scores were a good measure of the student’s performances. The student’s performance is effective in determining the effectiveness of the study outcomes because it shows how much the students understood the instrumentational materials based on the specific instructional strategies adopted.

Describe the data-collection methods and instruments used in the study.

Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) collected data on the WIAT-II subtests scores or performs of the s31 general reducing student and 34 special education students in school A as well as 43 general education steams and 25 special delusion students in school B. By collecting the specific data for each student such as the intervention strategies employed and the statistical results, it was easy to compare the results. Giving the two groups of students the same test after different instructional strategies was an effective way to measure the effectiveness of each instructional strategy.

Evaluate the alignment of the data-collection instruments with the research purpose and questions in the study, including evidence from the study to support your position.

The quantitative data collective instrument was aligned with the research purpose. The quasi-experimental research method is the most appropriate research method for this study because the goal was to estimate the causal impact of the instructional strategies on the general education student and compare it with that o the special needs students without the need to randomize the trials. Demonstrate the causality between the instructional strategies.

Identify the specific data-analysis techniques used in the study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the means growth over the four months that the instructional stares such as the PW and BW approaches were applied across different student populations. The ANOVA is the most appropriate statistical technique even though the t-test could also be used to compare, mean. Comparing the pre-test scores with the posttest scores would be effective in determining the causality. The pre-test scores and posttest scores were compared for the BW and PW instructional approaches for expressive writing. For both the two subgroups, Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) compared the learning outcome of the general education students and the special education students. The data were analyzed using quantities techniques such as ANOVA, descriptive statistics analysis. The statistical significance was found between the two groups for their composite raw scores in the WIAT-11 subtests. Using the grade 6-winter table to standardize the pretest data and the grade 6-spring table to standardize the posttest data, the research found that there was a statistically significant difference if the two-factor independent groups ANOVA procedure is used.

Discuss the results of the study about the research questions. Be sure to identify the specific results as part of your discussion.

The ANOVA results showed that there was a significant correlation between the instructional strategies and the students learning outcomes among general education students. There was a significant improvement in the general education students in the WIAT-11 because the posttest scores were higher than the pretest scores. On the other hand, the special education students in the BW showed more growth than the special education students in the PW statement group.

This was a two-factor independent study as the two groups of students had defended characteristics even if they are subjected to different or similar treatments. The two factors in the student included the intervention method whether BW or PW writing strategies. The second factors were the student’s type. The student was either special education or general education student. It is important to note that the two variables that were analyzed were the scores for the pre-test and posttest. Completely the two factors were adequate, the intervention methods could have been improved. Additionally, Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) could have made provision for external or confounding factors in the study. For example, the research was also supposed to explore the impact of factors such as the student's background, the circumstances around the student, and other factors that can affect student impact. It is also important to note that while the study was conducted, the sample was drawn from only two schools that can significantly impact or confound the results.

The intervention types play a major role in the standard scoters of the students (f (1, 130) =67.78, p<0.01) compares to the interaction between the types of intervention and the type of student. Neve the less, it is important to note there was a difference between the student types but the difference was not statistically significant. The Bonfire Post Hoc comparison shows that the difference between the student types was not significant. For both the student of the sodic need, Fontenot, Carney & Hansen (2015) found that BW learning outcomes and PW intervention were significant at p<0.01 at level t=7.791. Therefore, the growth of the special needs students outperformed that of the general education students.