A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades.

TLDR

The study aimed to identify effective writing instruction practices for elementary students by conducting a meta‑analysis of true and quasi‑experimental interventions. The authors identified 115 studies, computed weighted effect sizes for 13 interventions tested in at least four studies, and categorized them by instructional focus such as process skills and scaffolding techniques. Nearly all interventions produced significant gains, with strategy instruction yielding the largest effect (ES = 1.02) and self‑regulated strategy development showing the strongest improvement (ES = 1.17). Supplemental materials are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.supp.

Abstract

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. Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.supp