890 words | 4-minute read
This blog post is part of our Research Article of the Month series. For this month, we highlight “Supporting Teachers’ Data-Based Individualization of Early Writing Instruction: An Efficacy Trial” an article co-authored by Erica Lembke—a featured speaker at the 2025 Iowa Science of Reading Summit. Important words related to research are bolded, and definitions of these terms are included at the end of the article in the “Terms to Know” section. Find more information on terminology specific to literacy learning in our reading glossary.
Key Takeaways
- Teachers who receive tools, learning, and coaching in data-based writing instruction show higher levels of knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy on data-based writing instruction than teachers who do not receive this training.
- Students who receive writing instruction from teachers trained in data-based instruction show improved student early writing outcomes.
What Did the Researchers Examine?
Writing skills are a pillar of comprehensive literacy skills and are often a point of difficulty for many students. Still, elementary teachers in the United States often report that they have been inadequately prepared to teach writing. Providing training in data-based individualization (DBI) may help to address this gap. Through data-based individualization, teachers regularly collect student assessment data to monitor student progress and adjust instruction to best support each student. The researchers of this study examined the effects of teacher professional development on DBI for students with intensive early writing needs.
What Did the Researchers Find?
After receiving DBI training, teachers scored significantly higher on the DBI Knowledge and Skills test and reported a higher measure of personal efficacy, or the belief that they can make a difference in students' writing outcomes. These teachers also demonstrated higher levels of instructional fidelity—how closely the literacy intervention was implemented to its intended design. However, there was not a significant effect on teachers’ general efficacy, or their belief that teachers, in general, can make a difference in students’ writing outcomes.
Students who received DBI instruction showed improvement in spelling, written expression, and transcription and text generation skills at the level of words, sentences, and passages.
What Are the Implications of These Findings?
Professional development in DBI not only led to improved teacher outcomes but to improved student outcomes as well. These findings highlight the importance of teacher training and support related to implementing DBI. This training could be offered through teacher education programs, professional development opportunities, and ongoing in-school supports.
Data collected from teachers who received DBI training indicated that many teachers continued to use DBI components after coaching support were removed, suggesting that the type of training delivered in this study can have long-term effects.
How Did the Researchers Find This?
This was a randomized control trial conducted in 23 public school districts over three academic years. Teachers were randomly assigned to control groups that did not receive DBI training or to treatment groups that received DBI training for 20 weeks. This training included tools for assessment, instruction, fidelity monitoring, and decision-making as well as in-person workshops and support from coaches. The effects of this training were measured through the DBI Knowledge and Skills test and the Teacher Efficacy Scale.
Each fall, the teachers and researchers identified students with significant early writing needs. Some of these students received DBI in writing from teachers from the treatment groups while other students received their usual writing instruction from teachers in the control groups. The effects of this training were measured through the KTEA-3, a standardized writing test on spelling and written expression, as well as curriculum-based measurement assessments on transcription and text generation skills at the level of words, sentences, and passages.
What Are the Limitations of This Paper?
Teachers identified students who would receive DBI instruction after being assigned to the treatment or control group, which may have influenced which students they chose. The researchers note that, in future studies, students with significant writing needs should be identified before teachers are assigned to their group.
The positive student outcomes found in this study were predicated on an intensive amount of teacher professional development and coaching support. The researchers note that this level of training may not always be feasible in school settings, identifying a need for further research on the optimal amount of coaching and on the capacity and effect of schools adopting and sustaining such practices. Additionally, as DBI training contains multiple components, it is difficult to know if the outcomes of this study should be attributed to the entirety of the training or to its individual parts. Further research on each component is needed to determine the most efficient way to improve student outcomes.
Finally, longitudinal research is needed to establish the long-term effects of DBI on student learning outcomes.
Terms to Know
Randomized control trial: Randomized control trials divide participants into two groups: a treatment group, which receives the treatment, and a control group, which does not receive the treatment. These groups are randomly assigned, meaning each participant has equal probability of being in either the treatment or the control group. Both groups are tested before and after the treatment, and their results are compared.
Curriculum-based measurement: A curriculum-based measurement tracks an individual student’s progress toward an annual goal (e.g., reading at least 132 words correctly per minute with an accuracy of 95% or more). It is also used to evaluate the success of the instruction the child is receiving.
References
McMaster, K. L., Lembke, E. S., Shanahan, E., Choi, S., An, J., Schatschneider, C., Duesenberg-Marshall, M. D., Birinci, S., McCollom, E., Garman, C., & Moore, K. (2024). Supporting teachers’ data-based individualization of early writing instruction: An efficacy trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241300324