Search

The current best evidence meta-analysis reanalyzed the data from a meta-analysis by Graham et al. (J Educ Psychol 115:1004–1027, 2023). This meta-analysis and the prior one examined if teaching writing improved the writing of students in Grades 6 to 12, examining effects from writing intervention studies employing experimental and quasi-experimental designs (with pretests). In contrast to the prior meta-analysis, we eliminated all N of 1 treatment/control comparisons, studies with an attrition rate over 20%, studies that did not control for teacher effects, and studies that did not contain at least one reliable writing measure (0.70 or greater). Any writing outcome that was not reliable was also eliminated. Across 148 independent treatment/control comparisons, yielding 1,076 writing effect sizes (ESs) involving 22,838 students, teaching writing resulted in a positive and statistically detectable impact on students’ writing (ES = 0.38). Further, six of the 10 writing treatments tested in four or more independent comparisons improved students’ performance. This included the process approach to writing (0.75), strategy instruction (0.59), transcription instruction (0.54), feedback (0.30), pre-writing activities (0.32), and peer assistance (0.59). In addition, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model for teaching writing strategies yielded a statistically significant ES of 0.84, whereas other approaches to teaching writing strategies resulted in a statistically significant ES of 0.51. The findings from this meta-analysis and the Graham et al. (2023) review which included studies that were methodologically weaker were compared. Implications for practice, research, and theory are presented.

This study examined the extent of perspective taking and language features represented in secondary students’ text-based analytical writing. We investigated (1) whether perspective taking is related to writing quality, accounting for language features in writing; (2) whether students’ English learner status is related to perspectives represented in their writing; and (3) whether the relation between perspective taking and writing quality differs by the level of language features (e.g., syntactic diversity, appropriate word usage, and tone). Secondary students’ text-based analytical essays (N= 195, Grades 7–12) were coded for perspective taking and language features and analyzed using multiple regression. There was a higher frequency of own-side perspectives than dual perspectives. Dual perspective was related to writing quality after accounting for student demographics and grade levels. However, the relation was no longer statistically significant when language features were accounted for. English learners exhibited significantly less own-side perspectives compared to their English-only counterparts, but there was no difference in dual perspectives, which might be due to overall low frequency of dual perspectives represented in students’ text-based analytical writing. The findings suggest the roles of both perspective taking and language features in quality writing.

PurposeChildren's ability to adjust one's language according to discourse context is important for success in academic settings. This study examined whether second graders vary in linguistic and discourse features depending on discourse contexts, that is, when describing pictures in contextualized (describing the picture to an examiner while looking at it together) and decontextualized (pretending to describe the picture to a friend while sitting in front of the examiner) conditions.MethodA total of 330 English-speaking second graders in the United States (M age = 7.33 years; 53% boys; 55% Caucasian children, 35% African American children) described three pictures in contextualized and decontextualized conditions. Children's picture descriptions were transcribed verbatim and coded for linguistic (e.g., elaborated noun phrase) and discourse (e.g., proper character introduction, degree of decontextualization) features.ResultsType-token ratio was higher in the contextualized condition than in the decontextualized condition, whereas certain types of elaborated noun phrases (e.g., simple descriptive noun phrase, noun phrase with postmodification), coordinating conjunctions, and nonclauses occurred more frequently in the decontextualized condition, controlling for total productivity and student demographics. The proportion of proper character introduction was higher in the decontextualized condition, whereas higher degrees of decontextualization and complex perspective-taking were found in the contextualized condition.ConclusionVarious linguistic and discourse cues illustrated the extent to which primary grade students employ their discourse knowledge when producing oral language.

There is considerable concern that many adolescents do not attain the writing competence needed to be successful in school, their personal lives, or the workplace. Ensuring that students acquire this competence is a basic responsibility of schools. In order to meet this objective, teachers need access to effective practices for teaching writing. In this meta-analysis, we examined if teaching writing improved the writing and reading of students in Grades 6–12, and what specific writing treatments enhanced students’ writing. Our review included writing treatments tested using an experimental or quasi-experimental design (with pretests) and published and unpublished studies, and computed effect sizes (ESs) for all writing and reading outcomes assessed. Across 406 independent comparisons, yielding 3,514 ESs involving 52,529 students, teaching writing had a positive and statistically detectable impact on students’ writing (ES=0.47) and reading (ES= 0.22). Moreover, a variety of different writing treatments improved students’ performance on writing measures. Across all writing outcomes, statistically detectable effects (presented in parentheses) were obtained for comprehensive writing programs (0.47; which included the process approach to writing), strategy instruction (0.76), digital writing tools (0.31), transcription instruction (0.71), computer-assisted instruction (0.32), teaching critical/creative thinking skills for writing (0.27), emulating good models of writing (0.46), feedback (0.34), goal setting (0.44), prewriting activities (0.49), grammar instruction (0.77), sentence instruction (0.73), inquiry (0.92), observing writers/readers, peer assistance (0.41), summarization instruction (0.49), and text structure instruction (0.39). Implications for practice, research, and theory are discussed.

In this study, we examined the relation of observed classroom practices to language and literacy achievement and the moderation of this relation for students from pre-K to sixth grade. A total of 136 studies (N = 107,882 participants) met the inclusion criteria, of which 108 studies were included for meta-analysis and the other 28 studies were narratively synthesized. The average zero-order (r =.12) and partial correlations (rp =.04) were statistically significant but weak in magnitude. The relation was slightly weaker in upper than in lower grade levels, and stronger for observations capturing macro quality and instructional dimension than those capturing micro measurement and emotional or structural dimension, respectively. The relation did not vary by observation duration, frequency, adopted statistical approach, or type of covariates. Taken together with the narrative synthesis, the results highlight the complex nature of classroom observation and a need for more classroom research, particularly on higher grade levels.

Perspective taking, one's knowledge of their own mental and emotional states and inferences about others' mental and emotional states, is an important skill for writing development. In the present study, we examined how perspective taking is expressed in writing and how it is related to overall writing quality. We analyzed seventh graders' source-based analytical essays (N = 195) to investigate (1) the extent to which students incorporated perspective taking in their essays, (2) how the extent of perspective taking in essays differ by students' sex and English learner status, and (3) the extent to which perspective taking in writing is associated with overall writing quality. Findings revealed that students wrote more from their own perspective than that of others. Moreover, the results of multi-level analyses suggested that female students exhibited more varied perspectives but there was no meaningful difference by English learner status. Lastly, greater extent of perspective taking, particularly that of higher level of perspectives (i.e., dual perspective), was associated with better writing quality, after accounting for students' demographic backgrounds (e.g., sex, poverty status, English learner status) and essay length. These results underscore the importance of writing from multiple perspectives on writing quality.