In an effort to identify effective instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, we conducted a meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature, focusing our efforts ...on true and quasi-experiments. We located 115 documents that included the statistics for computing an effect size (ES). We calculated an average weighted ES for 13 writing interventions. To be included in the analysis, a writing intervention had to be tested in 4 studies. Six writing interventions involved explicitly teaching writing processes, skills, or knowledge. All but 1 of these interventions (grammar instruction) produced a statistically significant effect: strategy instruction (ES = 1.02), adding self-regulation to strategy instruction (ES = 0.50), text structure instruction (ES = 0.59), creativity/imagery instruction (ES = 0.70), and teaching transcription skills (ES = 0.55). Four writing interventions involved procedures for scaffolding or supporting students' writing. Each of these interventions produced statistically significant effects: prewriting activities (ES = 0.54), peer assistance when writing (ES = 0.89), product goals (ES = 0.76), and assessing writing (0.42). We also found that word processing (ES = 0.47), extra writing (ES = 0.30), and comprehensive writing programs (ES = 0.42) resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the quality of students' writing. Moderator analyses revealed that the self-regulated strategy development model (ES = 1.17) and process approach to writing instruction (ES = 0.40) improved how well students wrote. (Contains 2 tables.)
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, FFLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PEFLJ, UPUK
2.
Formative Assessment and Writing Graham, Steve; Hebert, Michael; Harris, Karen R.
The Elementary school journal,
06/2015, Volume:
115, Issue:
4
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
To determine whether formative writing assessments that are directly tied to everyday classroom teaching and learning enhance students’ writing performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of true and ...quasi-experiments conducted with students in grades 1 to 8. We found that feedback to students about writing from adults, peers, self, and computers statistically enhanced writing quality, yielding average weighted effect sizes of 0.87, 0.58, 0.62, and 0.38, respectively. We did not find, however, that teachers’ monitoring of students’ writing progress or implementation of the 6 + 1 Trait Writing model meaningfully enhanced students’ writing. The findings from this meta-analysis provide support for the use of formative writing assessments that provide feedback directly to students as part of everyday teaching and learning. We argue that such assessments should be used more frequently by teachers, and that they should play a stronger role in the Next-Generation Assessment Systems being developed by Smarter Balanced and PARCC.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
In order to meet writing objectives specified in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), many teachers need to make significant changes in how writing is taught. While CCSS identified what students ...need to master, it did not provide guidance on how teachers are to meet these writing benchmarks. The current article presents research-supported practices that can be used to meet CCSS writing objectives in kindergarten to grade 8. We identified these practices by conducting a new meta-analysis of writing intervention studies, which included true and quasi-experiments, as well as single-subject design studies. In addition, we conducted a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies examining the practices of exceptional literacy teachers. Studies in 20 previous reviews served as the data source for these analyses. The recommended practices derived from these analyses are presented within a framework that takes into account both the social contextual and cognitive/motivational nature of writing.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
This study examined the intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-regulatory motives for writing and writing achievement of three groups of third- to fifth-grade students in an urban school district: (a) 189 ...emergent bilingual students receiving services for English language development (ELD); (b) 374 reclassified bilingual students who had exited ELD programs; and (c) 563 native English-speaking students. Intrinsic and self-regulatory writing motives were significantly higher for emergent bilingual students and reclassified bilingual students than their native English-speaking peers. Extrinsic writing motives were significantly higher for reclassified bilingual students than both emergent bilingual and native English-speaking students. Native English-speaking students scored significantly higher on a district standardized writing achievement test than both reclassified and emergent bilingual students, with reclassified bilingual students scoring significantly higher than emergent bilingual students. Finally, after controlling for variance related to student language status (e.g., emergent bilingual), gender, and grade, motives for writing predicted a small but statistically detectable amount of variance in writing achievement. Implications for practice and research are provided.
Educational Impact and Implications Statement
This study found that third- to fifth-grade emergent bilingual students placed greater emphasis on intrinsic and self-regulatory motives for writing than their native English-speaking peers. Emergent bilingual students who had scored at the proficient level on a standardized measure of English and no longer received school services to develop their English skills also placed greater emphasis on extrinsic motives for writing than native English speakers and emergent bilingual students still receiving school services. Even so, students' motives for writing were not a good predictor of their writing capabilities.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, FFLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PEFLJ, UPUK
In my response to Alexander's (2018) paper marking the 125th anniversary of the American Psychological Association and the field of educational psychology, I have taken the perspective of a member of ...our discipline from some time in the future who is contributing to a larger work looking back at the history and development of our field (thus, a "future retrospective"). As this "future author," I focus on Alexander's (2018) article and selected developments in our field and more broadly since 2018. Two of the five thematic areas of influence that had established an enduring legacy for the field identified by Alexander are the primary focus: (a) interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary inquiry and (b) evidence-based practice (EBP). The concepts of theoretical integration and theoretical integrationists are discussed in relation to these themes. Early barriers to interdisciplinary approaches, including paradigm wars and a proliferation of false dichotomies, are noted. The emergence of complexity sciences and a complex systems framework for understanding learning and development is discussed, leading to deeper understanding of the unique social and historical context that shaped and informed our work in the second decade of the 21st-century, as well as the multifaceted context we work within today. Given the interwoven nature of the five thematic areas identified by Alexander, however, aspects of the other thematic areas and Alexander's thoughts on the future of educational psychology are also encountered. I concur with Alexander in hoping that her paper and the responses to it generate discussion.
Educational Impact and Implications Statement
In this article, I take the perspective of an educational psychologist from some time in the future who is contributing to a larger work looking back at the history and development of our field. The focus, in part, is on the future of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary inquiry and evidence-based practice and the contribution of educational psychologists and others to this future. In addition, how current issues and developments, including paradigm and social justice wars, an argument culture, and the emergence of complexity sciences and a complex-systems framework for understanding learning and development impact the future of education are explored.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, FFLJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PEFLJ, UPUK
•First study of practice-based professional development for writing at Tier 2.•Randomized controlled study with 11 second grade teachers.•Intervention integrity and social validity high after ...professional development.•Large effect sizes for genre elements, story writing quality, motivation, and effort.•Significant and meaningful generalization to personal narrative writing.
In this randomized controlled study, we investigated implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) 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 teacher’s 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 (.89–1.65). 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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
This meta-analysis examined if students ' writing performance is improved by reading interventions in studies (k = 54 experiments; 5,018 students) where students were taught how to read and studies ...(k = 36 investigations; 3,060 students) where students ' interaction with words or text was increased through reading or observing others read. Studies included in this review involved true- or quasi-experiments (with pretests) written in English that tested the impact of a reading intervention on the writing performance of students in preschool to Grade 12. Studies were not included if the control condition was a writing intervention, treatment students received writing instruction as part of the reading intervention (unless control students received equivalent writing instruction), control students received a reading intervention (unless treatment students received more reading instruction than controls), study attrition exceeded 20%, less than 10 students were included in any experimental condition, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, teaching reading strengthened writing, resulting in statistically significant effects for an overall measure of writing (effect size ES = 0.57) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.63), words written (ES = 0.37), or spelling (ES = 0.56). The impact of teaching reading on writing was maintained over time (ES = 0.37). Having students read text or observe others interact with text also enhanced writing performance, producing a statistically significant impact on an overall measure of writing (ES = 0.35) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.44) or spelling (ES = 0.28). These findings provide support that reading interventions can enhance students' writing performance.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The ability to write is fundamental for learning and achievement across Grades K-12, performance in the workplace, continuing education, college, personal development, and addressing social justice. ...The majority of our students, however, are not capable writers. We have a body of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and best practices that can make a meaningful difference in writing development for our students. We describe one EBP for writing instruction, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of instruction for writing. SRSD results in meaningful improvements in students' writing across grades 1-12 and can be integrated with best practices, including writers' workshop. We then separate fact from fiction regarding this approach for teaching students to write and to engage in reading for writing. Finally, we address paradigm wars and additional barriers to widespread adoption of SRSD in schools, and how to address these barriers.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Reading and writing are critical to students' success in and outside of school. Because they draw on common sources of knowledge and cognitive processes, involve meaning making, and can be used ...conjointly to accomplish important learning goals, it is often recommended that reading and writing should be taught together. This meta-analysis tested this proposition by examining experimental intervention studies with preschool through high school students to determine whether literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction strengthen students' reading and writing performance. To be included in this review, no more than 60% of instruction could be devoted to either reading or writing. As predicted, these programs improved students' reading, resulting in statistically significant effects when reading measures were averaged in each study (effect size ES = .39) or assessed through measures of reading comprehension (ES = .39), decoding (ES = .53), or reading vocabulary (ES = .35). The programs also statistically enhanced writing when measures were averaged in each study (ES = .37) or assessed via writing quality (ES = .47), writing mechanics (ES = .18), or writing output (ES = .69). These findings demonstrated that literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction can strengthen reading and writing and that the two skills can be learned together profitably.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
A random sample of teachers in grades 3 and 4 (N = 157) from across the United States were surveyed about their use of evidence-based writing practices, preparation to teach writing, and beliefs ...about writing. Teachers’ beliefs included their efficacy to teach writing, their orientations to teach writing, their attitude about teaching writing, and their attitudes about their own writing. The teachers’ responses raised some concerns about the quality of writing instruction third- and fourth-grade students receive, as teachers reported spending only 15 min a day teaching writing and students spend only 25 min a day at school writing. While teachers indicated they used a variety of evidence based writing practices in their classroom, a majority of these were applied infrequently. Further, three out of every four teachers reported that their college teacher preparation programs provided no or minimal instruction on how to teach writing. They further rated their preparation to teach writing lower than their preparation to teach reading, math, science, or social studies. On a more positive note, a majority of teachers asked students to write multiple paragraph texts relatively frequently (4 times a month or more often) and complete at least one narrative, informative, and persuasive writing assignment monthly. Teachers were also generally positive about teaching writing, their efficacy to teach writing, and their beliefs about their own writing. Finally, efficacy to teach writing and philosophical orientations to teaching writing each made a unique contribution to predicting teachers’ use of evidence based practices, whereas teacher preparation did the same for reported time spent teaching writing and reported time students wrote at school and home.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
