Developing, conducting, and sharing the results of a good intervention study is a challenging task, requiring considerable effort and expertise. I offer my reflections on this enterprise, commenting on the need for studying complex interventions, using multiple methodologies. I also argue that such research should be theoretically grounded and, more frequently than is currently the case, should test theoretical propositions. Finally, I comment on conducting research with limited funding, the importance of veracity when sharing research findings, and the need for more intense and extended preparation for new intervention researchers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsM. (2002). The Ig Nobel prizes: The annals of improbable research. New York : Dutton.
2.
AlexanderP. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In MaehrM. L. & PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.
3.
AlexanderP., GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154.
4.
GrahamS. (in press). Writing. In AlexanderP. & WinneP. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
5.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (2000). The role of self–regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
6.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center to Accelerate Student Learning. Journal of Special Education, 39, 19–33.
7.
GrahamS., HarrisK. R., & FinkB. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–633.
8.
GrahamS., HarrisK. R., & MasonL. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self–efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self–regulated writing development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
9.
GrahamS., HarrisK. H., & ZitoJ. (2005). Promoting internal and external validity: A synergism of laboratory–like experiments and classroom–based self–regulated strategy development research. In PhyeG. D., RobinsonD. H., & LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 235–265). San Diego, CA : Elsevier/Academic Press.
10.
HarrisK. R., GrahamS., & MasonL. (in press). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self–efficacy of struggling writers in second grade: The effects of Self–Regulated Strategy Development. American Educational Research Journal.
11.
HayesJ., & FlowerL. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL. & SteinbergE. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
12.
LevinJ. (2005). Randomized classroom trials on trial. In PhyeG. D., RobinsonD. H., & LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 3–27). San Diego, CA : Elsevier/Academic Press.
13.
LevinJ., & O'DonnelA. (1999). What to do about educational research's credibility gap. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 177–229.
14.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence–based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC : National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
15.
107th Congress. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC : United States Congress.
16.
PressleyM., GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (in press). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Research.
17.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1986). Written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York : Macmillan.
18.
WolfM. (1978). Social validity: The case of subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
