Directions. In Week 6, you are to provide a two- to the three-page synthesis of a quantitative research study that addresses a study topic and population of interest (e.g., reading comprehension strategies for middle school learners, models of behavior change in product useage, real estate trends in Millenials and Generation Zs,.). 

Important, as I communicated in Week 4 (for the qualitative synthesis), it is critical that you stick with the same topic across the semester because the five research syntheses (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, action research, and literature review) will culminate into your practitioner paper. 

Guidelines. In a research synthesis, there are several key elements that need to be reported: the purpose of the study, the participants (i.e., how many, ethnicity, disability, age, grade-level), the research design, instruments for collecting data, key findings (i.e., what are the major conclusions), limitations, and recommendations and/or implications for practitioners and future research. 

For the most part, the above-mentioned elements are reported in the abstract; however, while the abstract can provide a basic framework for performing an effective synthesis, several elements need additional elaboration. 

Below, I outline the procedures for writing a research synthesis in three steps. 

Example (see D2L for the Article, below)

[DW1] we investigated implementation of [DW2]  in story writing by 11 second grade teachers who first collaborated in practice-based professional development in SRSD. Students at-risk for failure in writing were randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions in each teachers classroom. Teachers implemented SRSD with small groups of students at-risk for failure in writing (referred to as Tier 2 intervention in the Response to Intervention, or RTI, model) in their classrooms; control students at-risk in writing received regular classroom

instruction from their teachers. Integrity of strategies instruction and social validity were assessed among the participating teachers. Student outcomes assessed included inclusion of genre elements and story quality, generalization to personal narrative, and teacher perceptions of intrinsic motivation and effort for writing. Teachers implemented strategies instruction with high integrity; social validity was positive. Significant effects were found for inclusion of genre elements and story quality at both posttest and maintenance; effect sizes were large (.891.65). Intervention also resulted in significant generalization to personal narrative (effect sizes were .98 for elements and .88 for quality). Teachers reported significantly higher perceptions of both intrinsic motivation and effort (effect sizes were 1.09 and 1.07, respectively). Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

[DDRW3]  Intervention

Prior to implementing instruction with at-risk students, the 11 teachers participated in 12 to 14 hours of professional development on the six stages of SRSD instruction. In addition, teachers were interviewed about their writing practices using Cutler and Grahams (2008) survey of classroom writing practices. 

Next, students received instruction on the six recursive stage of SRSD instruction to develop their genre specific and general writing skills: (1) Develop and activate background knowledge, (2) Discuss it, (3) Modeling, (4) Memorize it, (5) Support it, and (6) Independent writing performance. Students were also taught a general planning strategy (POW + WWW). The mnemonic POW prompted students to: Pick my ideas, Organize my notes, and Write and say more. The WWW mnemonic helped students remember: What = 2, How = 2; Who are the main characters? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? And, How does the story end? 

To support students, they were provided with graphic organizers, which were faded to plain scratch paper across time, to help students become independent. 

Measures

Several measures were used to examine the effectiveness to SRSD instruction, compared to the business-as-usual form of instruction at pretest, posttest, and on a maintenance probe (2 months after instruction ended). After responding to prompts, students essays were scored on: (a) number of words written, and (b) number of structural elements. Teachers also completed a social validity measure, which allowed Harris et al. (2015) to assess teachers opinions about the feasibility of SRSD instruction.  

Results and Interpretations of the Data

 Next, report your findings to the measures described in the Measures section of the example. 

Implications for Practice

As you had in Week 4 (for your qualitative synthesis), what are the implications for practitioners? 

Step III: Professional Presentation: A Research Synthesis

Finally, and as before, my suggestion would be to drop the headings, and combine the sections into a single research synthesis (see below). For Week 6, your final submission should look similar to the following example. 

Practice-based professional development and self-regulated strategy development for Tier 2, at-risk writers in second grade.

            Using a randomized control design, Harris, Graham, and Adkins (2015) examined the effects of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD), with story writing, on second grade students who were considered at-risk for writing difficulties. Eleven second grade teachers were trained to use SRSD with at-risk students through a series of practice-based professional development sessions. 

Using the third edition of the Test of Written Language (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larson, 1996), 299 students from 11 classrooms, in four separate schools, were screened. To qualify as at-risk for writing difficulties, a child had to score at or below the 25^th percentile on the TOWL. A total of 55 out of the original 299 students (or 28% of the sample) were identified, using the criteria described.  Next, the 55 students were randomly assigned to either the SRSD condition, or a business-as-usual comparison form of instruction.  Eleven teachers were also selected to provide instruction to students in their respective classrooms. 

SRSD Instruction

Prior to implementing instruction with at-risk students, the 11 teachers participated in 12 to 14 hours of professional development on the six stages of SRSD instruction. In addition, teachers were interviewed about their writing practices using Cutler and Grahams (2008) survey of classroom writing practices. 

Next, students received instruction on the six recursive stage of SRSD instruction to develop their genre specific and general writing skills: (1) Develop and activate background knowledge, (2) Discuss it, (3) Modeling, (4) Memorize it, (5) Support it, and (6) Independent writing performance. Students were also taught a general planning strategy (POW + WWW). The mnemonic POW prompted students to: Pick my ideas, Organize my notes, and Write and say more. The WWW mnemonic helped students remember: What = 2, How = 2; Who are the main characters? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? And, How does the story end? To support students, they were provided with graphic organizers, which were faded to plain scratch paper across time, to help students become independent. 

Several measures were used to examine the effectiveness to SRSD instruction, compared to the business-as-usual form of instruction at pretest, posttest, and on a maintenance probe (2 months after instruction ended). After responding to prompts, students essays were scored on: (a) number of words written, and (b) number of structural elements. Teachers also completed a social validity measure, which allowed Harris et al. (2015) to assess teachers opinions about the feasibility of SRSD instruction.  

            The results showed.

            For teachers, what this study shows is that