EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE WRITING OF

WRITINGNEXT

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE

WRITING OF ADOLESCENTS IN MIDDLE

AND HIGH SCHOOLS

By Steve Graham and Dolores Perin

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic

or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission

om Car

ie Corporation of New York.

A full-text PDF of this document is a

ailab

le for fr

ee download

om www

.all4ed.org and www

.car

neg

ie.org/literacy. Additional print copies of this report may be ordered from

the Alliance for Excellent Education at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 901,Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 828-0828.

Permission for reproducing excerpts from this report should be directed to: Permissions Department, Carnegie

Corporation of Ne

York, 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

Suggested citation: Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents

in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent

Education.

Car

negie Corporation’s

vancing Literacy

ogram is dedicated to the issues of adolescent literacy and

the research, policy, and practice that focus on the reading and writing competencies of middle and high

school students. Advancing Literacy reports and other publications are designed to encourage local and national

discussion, explore promising ideas, and incubate models of practice, but do not necessarily represent the

recommendations of the Corporation. For more information, visit www.carnegie.org/literacy.

Pub

lished by the Alliance for Excellent Education.

WRITINGNEXT

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE

WRITING OF ADOLESCENTS IN MIDDLE

AND HIGH SCHOOLS

By Steve Graham and Dolores Perin

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

About Carnegie Corporation of New York

Carnegie Corporation of New York was created by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 to promote “the

advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.” As a grant-making foundation, the

Corporation seeks to carry out Carnegie’s vision of philanthropy, which he said should aim “to do

real and permanent good in the world.” The Corporation’s capital fund, originally donated at a value

of about $135 million, had a market value of $2.2 billion on September 30, 2005.The Corporation

awards grants totaling approximately $80 million a year in the areas of education, international peace

and security, international development, and strengthening U.S. democracy. For more information,

visit www.carnegie.org.

About the Alliance for Excellent Education

Based in Washington, D.C., the Alliance for Excellent Education is a national policy and advocacy

organization that works to ensure that all children graduate from high school prepared for college

and work and to be contributing members of society. It focuses on the needs of the six million

secondary school students (those in the lowest achievement quartile) who are most likely to leave

school without a diploma or to graduate unprepared for a productive future.

The Alliance’s audience includes parents, educators, the federal, state, and local policy communities,

education organizations, business leaders, the media, and a concerned public.To inform the national

debate about education policies and options, the Alliance produces reports and other materials, makes

presentations at meetings and conferences, briefs policymakers and the press, and provides timely

information to a wide audience via its biweekly newsletter and regularly updated website,

www.all4ed.org.

iii

The Authors

Dr. Steve Graham is the Currey Ingram Professor of Special Education and Literacy, a chair he shares

with Karen R. Harris, at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of Education. His research interests

include learning disabilities, writing instruction and writing development, and the development of

self-regulation. Graham’s research has focused primarily on identifying the factors that contribute to

the development of writing difficulties; the development and validation of effective procedures for

teaching planning, revising, and the mechanics of writing to struggling writers; and the use of technol-

ogy to enhance writing performance and development. Graham is the editor of

Exceptional Children

and the former editor of Contemporary Educational Psychology. He is coauthor of the Handbook of Writing

Research, Handbook of Learning Disabilities,Writing Better,

and Making the Writing Process Work. He

received an EdD in special education from the University of Kansas. In 2001, Graham was elected a

fellow of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities. He is the recipient of career

research awards from the Council for Exceptional Children and Special Education Research Interest

Group in the American Educational Research Association.

Dr. Dolores Perin is associate professor of psycholo

gy and education at Teachers College, Columbia

University. She directs the Reading Specialist MA Program, which prepares teachers to assess and

teach children and adolescents with reading and writing difficulties. Perin is also a senior research

associate at Teachers College’s Community College Research Center. Her research interests include

the education of academically underprepared students in secondary education, community colleges,

and adult literacy programs, and the preparation of teachers to incorporate literacy strategies in

content-area instruction in middle and high schools. She is principal investigator of studies entitled

“Enhancing Teacher Preparation for Adolescent Literacy through Interdisciplinary Learning

Communities” (Carnegie Corporation of New York) and “Postsecondary Content-Area Reading-

Writing Intervention: Development and Determination of Potential Efficacy” (U.S. Department of

Education Institute of Education Sciences).

Her work also includes studies of community college

velopmental education; the integration of academic and career education, funded by the Alfred P.

Sloan F

oundation; and state- and federally-funded projects in school-to-work transition, workplace

literacy

, and adult learning disabilities. Perin received a PhD in psychology from the University of

Sussex in England and is a Ne

w York State-licensed psychologist.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Andrés Henríquez, program officer at Carnegie Corporation of New

York, and Cindy Sadler at the Alliance for Excellent Education, who offered helpful suggestions in the

conceptualization and reporting of this research.We wish to thank Joel Levin, Chris Schatschneider,

and Robert Bangert-Drowns for their advice and assistance. Regan Phillips and Beth Chase assisted

in the collection and organization of material for the study, and Paul Morphy served as a second coder

to establish reliability. A special thanks goes to Andrew Wilson and Gina Biancarosa, who took a

120-page document and worked and reworked it to make it suitable for a broad audience.They not

only made the document more readable but contributed important ideas regarding how this work

should be framed and presented. It was a pleasure to work with them.They are both consummate

professionals.The order of authorship is alphabetical.

Steve Graham

Dolor

es P

erin

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

CONTENTS

Foreword by Vartan Gregorian........................................................................................................1

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................7

Recommendations: 11 Key Elements of Effective Adolescent Writing Instruction

as Identified by Meta-analysis

.......................................................................................................11

Implementing the Elements..........................................................................................................22

Accumulation of Research on Adolescent Writing Instruction..................................................25

A Challenge...................................................................................................................................28

References......................................................................................................................................29

Appendix A: Meta-analysis Methodology.....................................................................................35

Appendix B:

Quasi-experimental and Experimental Studies

Suppor

ting the 11 Key Elements

..................................................................................................

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

FOREWORD

Around the world, from the cave paintings in Lascaux, France, which may be 25,000 years old, to the

images left behind by the lost Pueblo cultures of the American Southwest, to the ancient aboriginal

art of Australia, the most common pictograph found in rock paintings is the human hand. Coupled

with pictures of animals, with human forms, with a starry night sky or other images that today we can

only identify as abstract, we look at these men’s and women’s hands, along with smaller prints that

perhaps belong to childr

en, and cannot help but be deeply moved by the urge of our ancestors to

lea

ve some permanent imprint of themselves behind.

Clearly, the instinct for human beings to express their feelings, their thoughts, and their experiences

in some lasting form has been with us for a very long time.This urge eventually manifested itself in

the creation of the first alphabet, which many attribute to the Phoenicians.When people also began

to recognize the concept of time, their desire to express themselves became intertwined with the

sense of wanting to leave behind a legacy, a message about who they were, what they had done and

seen, and even what they believed in.Whether inscribed on rock, carved in cuneiform, painted in

hieroglyphics, or written with the aid of the alphabet, the instinct to write down everything from

mundane commercial transactions to routine daily occurrences to the most transcendent ideas—and

then to ha

e other

s read them, as well as to read what others have written—is not simply a way of

transfer

ing infor

mation fr

om one per

son to another, one generation to the next. It is a process of

lear

ning and hence

of education.

Ariel and Will Durant were right when they said,“Education is the transmission of civilization.”

Putting our current challenges into historical context, it is obvious that if today’s youngsters cannot

read with understanding, think about and analyze what they’ve read, and then write clearly and

effectively about what they’ve learned and what they think, then they may never be able to do justice

to their talents and their potential. (In that regard, the etymology of the word

education, which is to

draw out and draw forth—from oneself, for example—is certainly evocative.) Indeed, young people

who do not have the ability to transform thoughts, experiences, and ideas into written words are in

danger of losing touch with the joy of inquiry, the sense of intellectual curiosity, and the inestimable

satisfaction of acquiring wisdom that are the touchstones of humanity.What that means for all of us is

that the essential educative transmissions that have been passed along century after century, generation

after generation,

e in danger of f

ading a

, or even falling silent.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

In a recent report, the National Commission on Writing also addresses this concern.They say, “If

students are to make knowledge their own, they must struggle with the details, wrestle with the facts,

and rework raw information and dimly understood concepts into language they can communicate to

someone else. In short, if students are to learn, they must write.”

It is in this connection that I am pleased to introduce

Writing Next. As the report warns, American

students today are not meeting even basic writing standards, and their teachers are often at a loss for

how to help them. In an age overwhelmed by information (we are told, for example, that all available

information doubles every two to three years), we should view this as a crisis, because the ability to

ead, comprehend, and write—in other words, to organize information into

knowledge—can be vie

wed

as tantamount to a survival skill.Why? Because in the decades ahead, Americans face yet another

challenge: how to keep our democracy and our society from being divided not only between rich

and poor, but also between those who ha

ve access to information and knowledge, and thus, to

power—the power of enlightenment,

the po

wer of self-improvement and self-assertion, the power to

achieve upw

ard mobility

, and the power over their own lives and their families’ ability to thrive and

succeed—and those who do not.

Such an uncrossable divide will have devastating consequences for the future of America.Those who

enrich themselves by learning to read with understanding and write with skill and clarity do so not

only for themselves and their families, but for our nation as well.They learn in order to preserve and

enhance the record of humanity, to be productive members of a larger community, to be good citizens

and good ancestors to those who will follow after them. In an age of globalization, when economies

sink or swim on their ability to mine and manage knowledge, as do both individual and national

security, we cannot afford to let this generation of ours or indeed, any other, fall behind the learning

curve. Let me bring us back to where we began: For all of us, the handprint must remain firmly and

clearly on the wall.

Vartan Gregorian

President, Carnegie Corporation of New York

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Writing Proficiency Crisis

Writing well is not just an option for young people—it is a necessity. Along with reading comprehen-

sion, writing skill is a predictor of academic success and a basic requirement for participation in civic

life and in the global economy.Yet every year in the United States large numbers of adolescents gradu-

ate from high school unable to write at the basic levels required by colleges or employers. In addition,

every school day 7,000 young people drop out of high school (Alliance for Excellent Education,

2006), many of them because they lack the basic literacy skills to meet the growing demands of the

high school curriculum (Kamil, 2003; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Because the definition of

literacy

includes both reading and writing skills, poor writing proficiency should be recognized as an intrinsic

part of this national literacy crisis.

This report offers a number of specific teaching techniques that research suggests will help 4th- to

12th-grade students in our nation’s schools.The report focuses on all students, not just those who

display writing difficulties, although this latter group is deservedly the focus of much attention.The

premise of this report is that all students need to become proficient and flexible writers. In this report,

the term

low-achieving writers is used to refer to students whose writing skills are not adequate to meet

classroom demands. Some of these low-achieving writers have been identified as having learning

disabilities;

others are the “silent majority” who lack writing proficiency but do not receive additional

help

. As will be seen in this report, some studies investigate the effects of writing instruction on groups

of students acr

oss the full range of ability, from more effective to less effective writers, while others

focus specifically on indi

viduals with low writing proficiency.

Recent r

epor

ts b

y the National Commission on

Writing (2003, 2004, 2005) have helped to bring

the impor

tance of wr

iting pr

oficiency forw

ard into the public consciousness.These reports provide

a jumping-off point for thinking about ho

w to impr

e writing instruction for all young people,

with a special focus on str

uggling r

eader

Reading Next (Biancar

osa & Sno

2004), commissioned by

Carneg

ie Cor

poration of New York, used up-to-date research to highlight a number of key elements

seen as essential to impr

ving r

eading instruction for adolescents (defined as grades 4–12).

iting

sets out to pr

vide guidance for impr

oving writing instruction for adolescents, a topic that has

previously not r

eceived enough attention from researchers or educators.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

While Reading Next presented general methods and interventions that several of America’s most

respected adolescent literacy experts found to be useful for improving reading instruction,

Writing

highlights specific teaching techniques that work in the classroom. It does so by summarizing

the results of a large-scale statistical review of research into the effects of specific types of writing

instruction on adolescents’ writing proficiency. Although several important reviews of research on

writing instruction exist (e.g., Langer & Applebee, 1987; Levy & Ransdell, 1996; MacArthur, Graham,

& Fitzgerald, 2006; Smagorinsky, 2006), the special strength of this report is its use of a powerful

statistical method known as meta-analysis.This technique allows researchers to determine the

consistency and strength of the effects of instructional practices on student writing quality and to

highlight those practices that hold the most promise.

The Recommendations

Eleven Elements of Effective Adolescent Writing Instruction

This report identifies 11 elements of current writing instruction found to be effective for helping

adolescent students learn to write well and to use writing as a tool for learning. It is important to note

that all of the elements are supported by rigorous research, but that even when used together, they do

not constitute a full writing curriculum.

1. Writing Strategies, which involves teaching students strategies for planning, revising, and

editing their compositions

2. Summarization, which involves explicitly and systematically teaching students how to

summarize texts

3. Collaborative Writing, which uses instructional arrangements in which adolescents work

together to plan, draft, revise, and edit their compositions

4. Specific Product Goals, which assigns students specific, reachable goals for the writing they

e to complete

d Pr

ocessing,

which uses computer

s and w

d pr

ocessors as instructional supports for

writing assignments

6. Sentence Combining, which involves teaching students to construct more complex,

sophisticated sentences

7. Prewriting, which engages students in activities designed to help them generate or organize

ideas for their composition

8. Inquir

Acti

vities

which engages students in analyzing immediate

concr

ete data to help

them develop ideas and content for a particular writing task

9. Process Writing Approach, which interweaves a number of writing instructional activities in

a w

orkshop en

vir

onment that str

esses extended wr

iting oppor

tunities, writing for authentic

audiences, personalized instruction, and cycles of writing

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

10. Study of Models, which provides students with opportunities to read, analyze, and emulate

models of good writing

11. Writing for Content Learning, which uses writing as a tool for learning content material

The

Writing Next elements do not constitute a full writing curriculum, any more than the Reading

elements did for reading. However, all of the Writing Next instructional elements have shown

clear results for improving students’ writing.They can be combined in flexible ways to strengthen

adolescents’ literacy development.The authors hope that besides providing research-supported

information about effective writing instruction for classroom teachers, this report will stimulate

discussion and action at policy and research levels, leading to solid improvements in writing

instruction in grades 4 to 12 nationwide.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

INTRODUCTION

Although the nation has made progress recently in improving

the literacy achievement of its elementary school students,

adolescent literacy levels have remained stagnant (Lemke et al.,

2004; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999, 2006;

Olson, 2006). As a result, attention has begun to turn to the need

to impr

ove the literacy of adolescent students. One example of

this ne

w focus is the recently created Striving Readers Initiative,

a federal pr

ogram to help school districts meet the challenge of

improving adolescents’ literacy skills, for which the U.S. Congress

appropriated just over $29 million for the 2006–07 school year.

Several reports have drawn attention to the adolescent literacy

crisis (e.g., Kamil, 2003; American Diploma Project, 2004;

Carnevale, 2001; National Commission on Writing, 2004).

Among them,

Reading Next outlined elements of literacy

instruction with a strong track record of positive results among

adolescents (Biancar

osa & Sno

, 2004).While these reports

and other

s ha

e br

ought m

uch-needed attention to adolescents’

literacy needs,

the

y w

e concer

ned more with reading than

with wr

iting skills.

w-Achie

ving

iters: Scope of the Problem

iting is sometimes seen as the

“flip side”

of r

eading. It is

often assumed that adolescents who ar

e pr

oficient r

eader

s must

be pr

oficient wr

iter

too. If this were the case, then helping

students lear

n to r

ead better w

ould naturally lead to the same

students wr

iting w

ell.

However, although reading and writing

are complementar

y skills whose de

velopment runs a roughly

parallel cour

they do not necessarily go hand in hand. Many

adolescents ar

e ab

le to handle a

verage reading demands but have severe difficulties with writing.

Moreov

er, the nature of the relationship between reading and writing skills changes over time

CAUSE FOR ALARM

• Seventy percent of

students in grades 4–12

are low-achieving writers

(Persky et al., 2003).

•

Every school day, more

than 7,000 students drop out

of high school (Pinkus,

2006).

• Only

70% of high school

students graduate on time

with a regular diploma,

and fewer than 60% of

African-American and

Latino students do so

(Greene & Winters, 2005).

• Students who enter ninth

grade in

the lowest 25%

of their class are 20 times

more likely to drop out than

are the highest-performing

students (Carnevale, 2001).

• Nearly one third

of high

school graduates ar

not ready for college-level

English composition

courses (ACT

, 2005).

•

Over

half of adults scoring

at the lowest literacy

levels are dropouts, and

almost a quarter of these

persons are high school

graduates

(National Center

for Education Statistics,

2005).

Continued on Page 8

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

(Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Researchers know that reading

and writing often draw from the same pool of background

knowledge—for example, a general understanding of the

attributes of texts. At the same time, however, writing differs from

reading.While readers form a mental representation of thoughts

written by someone else, writers formulate their own thoughts,

organize them, and create a written record of them using the

conventions of spelling and grammar.

Therefore, although writing and reading are both vital aspects of

literacy, they each require their own dedicated instruction.What

improves reading does not always improve writing.This report

responds to the strong need for information about how to

improve classroom writing instruction to address the serious problem of adolescent writing difficulty.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing

exam was last given in 2002 (Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003); it

measured the writing skills of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders and

translated their scores into three levels of proficiency: Basic,

Proficient, or Advanced. A disturbing finding was that only 22%

to 26% of students scored at the Proficient level across the three

grades, and very few were found to write at the Advanced level (Persky et al., 2003,Table 2.1). Even

worse, alarmingly high proportions of students were found to be at or below the Basic level. Not

only did 15% of 4th and 8th graders and 26% of 12th graders test below the Basic level, but 58%,

54%, and 51% of students, respectively, at these grade levels tested at the Basic level. In sum, 72% of

4th-grade students, 69% of 8th-grade students, and 77% of 12th-grade students did not meet NAEP

writing proficiency goals.

These results clearly demonstrate that very large numbers of adolescents need interventions to help

them become better writers. Some, especially those who score at or below the Basic level on the

NAEP, require more help than others.

Consequences

A wide range of jobs require employees to produce written documentation, visual/text presentations,

memoranda, technical reports, and electronic messages.The explosion of electronic and wireless

communication in everyday life brings writing skills into play as never before. Recent reports by

the National Commission on Writing (2004, 2005) reveal that the majority of both public and

private employers say that writing proficiency has now become critical in the workplace and that it

directly affects hiring and promotion decisions.The demand for writing proficiency is not limited to

CAUSE FOR ALARM

• College instructors estimate

that 50% of high school

graduates are not prepared

for college-level writing

(Achieve, Inc., 2005).

• U.S. graduates’

literacy

skills are lower than

those of graduates in most

industrialized nations,

comparable only to the

skills of graduates in Chile,

Poland, Portugal, and

Slovenia (OECD, 2000).

The knowledge and skills

required for higher education

and for employment are now

considered equivalent (ACT,

2006; American Diploma

Project, 2004).

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

professional jobs but extends to clerical and support positions

in government, construction, manufacturing, service industries,

and elsewhere. In fact, about 30% of government and private

sector employees require on-the-job training in basic writing

skills. Private companies spend an estimated $3.1 billion annually

on remediation, and state governments spend an estimated $221

million annually (National Commission on Writing, 2005).

Young people who have difficulty writing are not fully equipped

to meet the demands of college, either. A recent study by ACT

(2005) revealed that about a third of high school students

intending to enter higher education do not meet readiness

benchmarks for college-level English composition courses

(among certain ethnic groups, 50% or more of adolescents do

not meet ACT benchmarks), making it unlikely that they will

be able to learn effectively in the college setting.

Many students begin postsecondary education at a community

college. However, at least a quarter of new community college

students enroll in remedial writing courses (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003). Compounding the problem, remedial

enrollments appear to underestimate the number of students

who actually need help with writing (Perin, 2006). Community

colleges have always attempted to meet the needs of students with

reading and writing difficulties, and many would argue that doing so is a core part of their mission.

Many 2-year institutions find it difficult, however; they are not equipped to teach writing effectively

to such large numbers of students, and the presence of students with poor academic skills in their

classr

ooms can under

mine the quality of the r

egular academic cur

iculum (Gr

ubb et al.,

1999;

Perin &

Char

on,

2006).

iting Is Impor

tant

Most contexts of life (school,

the w

orkplace

and the comm

unity) call for some le

el of writing skill,

and each context mak

es o

erlapping,

ut not identical,

demands.

Proficient writers can adapt their

iting flexib

ly to the context in which it tak

es place

In the school setting, writing plays two distinct but complementary roles. First, it is a skill that draws

on the use of strategies (such as planning, evaluating, and revising text) to accomplish a variety of

goals, such as writing a report or expressing an opinion with the support of evidence. Second, writing

is a means of extending and deepening students’ knowledge; it acts as a tool for learning subject matter

WRITING IN THE

WORKPLACE

Thirty-five percent of high

school graduates in college

and 38% of high school

graduates in the workforce

feel their writing does not

meet expectations for quality

(Achieve, Inc., 2005).

About half of private

employers and more than

60% of state government

employers say

writing

skills impact promotion

decisions

(National

Commission on Writing,

2004, 2005).

“Poorly written applications

are likely to doom

candidates’ chances for

employment

” (National

Commission on Writing,

2005, p. 4).

Writing remediation costs

American businesses as

much as $3.1 billion annually

(National Commission on

Writing, 2004).

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

(Keys, 2000; Shanahan, 2004; Sperling & Freedman, 2001). Because these roles are closely linked,

Reading Next recommended that language arts teachers use content-area texts to teach reading and

writing skills and that content-area teachers provide instruction and practice in discipline-specific

reading and writing.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

RECOMMENDATIONS: 11 KEY ELEMENTS OF

EFFECTIVE ADOLESCENT WRITING INSTRUCTION

AS IDENTIFIED BY META-ANALYSIS

This report provides long-needed guidance for teachers and policymakers by identifying specific

instructional practices that improve the quality of adolescent students’ writing.The special contribution

of this report is that it draws from empirical evidence.

The authors set out to collect, categorize, and analyze experimental and quasi-experimental research

on adolescent writing instruction in order to determine which elements of existing instructional

methods are reported to be effective by research.The method used, meta-analysis, provides a measure

of effectiveness using the effect size statistic. On the basis of the effect sizes found,

Writing Next

presents 11 elements of effective adolescent writing instruction. (A detailed description of the

methodolo

gy used is found in Appendix A.)

No single approach to writing instruction will meet the needs of all students. Also, some extant

techniques may be effective but have not yet been studied rigorously.There is a tremendous need

for more research on and dissemination of adolescent writing interventions that work, so that adminis-

trators and teachers can select the strategies that are most appropriate, whether for whole classrooms,

small groups, or individual students.

Though each instr

uctional element is tr

eated as a distinct entity

, the different elements are often

elated,

and the addition of one element can stim

ulate the inclusion of another. In an ideal world,

teacher

s w

ould be ab

le to incorporate all of the 11 key elements in their everyday writing curricula,

ut the list ma

y also be used to constr

uct a unique blend of elements suited to specific student needs.

The elements should not be seen as isolated b

ut rather as interlink

ed.

For instance, it is difficult to

implement the pr

ocess wr

iting approach (element 9) without having peers work together (element 3)

or use pr

writing supports (element 7). A mixture of these elements is likely to generate the

biggest r

etur

n. It remains to be seen what that optimal mix is, and it may be different for different

subpopulations of students.

wever, it is important to stress that these 11 elements are not meant

to constitute a cur

iculum.

1. Writing Strategies

2. Summarization

Collaborative Writing

4. Specific Product Goals

5. Word Processing

6. Sentence-Combining

7. Prewriting

8. Inquiry Activities

Process Writing Approach

10. Study of Models

11. Writing for Content Learning

Effective Elements to Impr

ove Writing Achievement in Grades 4 to 12

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

The instructional elements are ordered according to their average

effect.Therefore, elements with larger effect sizes are presented

before those with smaller effect sizes. However, many of the

effect sizes differ only minimally, so readers should be cautious

in interpreting the differences in effect strength. Appendix B lists

references for the studies used in determining the elements, in the

same order as the elements.

The report’s findings are based strictly on experimental and

quasi-experimental research, as this is the only type of research

that allows for rigorous comparison of effects across studies.

While a range of methodologies have been used to study

writing—from research into the history of writing instruction

to surveys of student attitudes about writing to studies that aim

to describe the actions of particularly successful teachers—there

have been few efforts to compare the effectiveness of specific

teaching strategies. Meta-analysis fills this gap.

It is also important to note that the findings in this report are

cumulative, in that they build on earlier meta-analyses of writing

instruction (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, &

Wilkinson, 2004; Goldberg, Russell, & Cook, 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003; Hillocks,

1986).This report includes all of the studies of adolescents reviewed in the prior meta-analyses.

Further, the report adapts some of the earlier authors’ categorizations of instruction, such as some

of those used by Hillocks (1986). In addition, these earlier meta-analyses have been considerably

extended by (a) updating the earlier findings; (b) reorganizing earlier instructional categories to

incorporate newer findings; and (c) examining the impact of instruction more recently studied.

Benefits of Meta-analytic

Appr

oach

By their v

y natur

meta-analyses ar

e concer

ned with quantitative data; as noted above, this report

look

ed at exper

imental and quasi-exper

imental r

esear

ch on wr

iting instr

uction. Its conclusions

should in no w

y detract fr

om the impor

tant contr

utions that other types of r

esearch make to

an under

standing of ho

w to teach wr

iting.

or instance

the report’s conclusions do not reflect the

findings fr

om a n

umber of excellent obser

ational studies that examine the wr

iting practices of

effective teacher

s of wr

iting (e

.g.,

Pressley,Yokoi, Rankin,Wharton-McDonald, & Mistretta, 1997),

studies that measur

e the cor

elations betw

een wr

iting perfor

mance and particular teaching procedures

(e.g., Applebee

Langer

Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003), or single-subject design studies (e.g., De La Paz,

1999). Like

wise

man

y perspectives, including cognitive (Hayes, 2000), sociocultural (Prior, 2006), and

discourse (Chafe &

annen,

1987),

infor

m the study of writing (Sperling & Freedman, 2001).

THE OPTIMAL MIX

In the medical profession,

treatment is tailored to

individual patient needs;

at times, more than one

intervention is needed to

effectively treat a patient.

Similarly, educators need

to test mixes of intervention

elements to find the ones

that work best for students

with different needs.

Researchers do not know

what combination or

how much of each of the

ecommended activities is

needed to maximize writing

instruction for adolescents

in general or low-achieving

writers in particular. Nor

do they yet know what

combination of elements

works for which types

of writers.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

Although these viewpoints

were not equally represented

in the research studies included

in this analysis, each is critical

to understanding writing

development. Finally, the

recently published third edition

Research on Composition

(Smagorinsky, 2006) provides

a broad overview of the field—

covering topics such as

rhetoric, second language

writing, multimodal composi-

tion, and home and workplace

writing—and a survey of

research and theory over the

past 20 years (see also

Handbook

of Writing Research

; MacArthur,

Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006).

With such a wide range of

iting instr

uction practices

and per

specti

ves, this review

of the literatur

e aims not to

descr

ibe the full context of the

high-functioning classr

oom b

to pr

vide specific practices

that ha

e demonstrated effecti

eness across a number of

contexts—a pur

pose to which meta-analysis is ideally suited.

or an

y of the practices r

eviewed, contexts can vary widely.

or instance

they may include any grade between 4th and 12th;

the

y ma

y or ma

y not be inclusive classrooms serving students

with lear

ning disabilities or wr

iting in their second language;

and

the

y ma

y in

volve teachers with very different beliefs about what

good wr

iting instr

uction entails. However, meta-analysis allows

consideration of both the str

ength and consistency of a practice’

s effects.

A TECHNICAL NOTE ON META-ANALYSIS

What is a Meta-analysis?

Meta-analysis is a particularly powerful way of synthesizing large

bodies of research, as it relies on quantitative studies and permits

the calculation of effect sizes. The strength of meta-analysis as

an approach is that it allows consideration of both the strength

and consistency of a practice’s effects.

What is an Effect Size?

Effect sizes report the average difference between a type of

instruction and a comparison condition. They indicate the

strength of the effect. The following guidelines make these

numbers mor

e meaningful.

0.20 =

small or mild effect

0.50 =

medium or moderate ef

fect

0.80 =

large or strong ef

fect

Positive effect sizes mean the instruction had a positive effect on

student writing.

Negative effect sizes mean the instruction had a negative effect

on student writing.

Although these guidelines are commonly accepted, it is important

to interpr

et effect sizes within the context of a given field. For

instance, the National Reading Panel report (National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development, 2000) found an effect size

of 0.53 for phonemic awareness instruction, while effect sizes for

fluency instruction ranged from 0.35 to 0.50. More research is

needed to establish the range of effect sizes for writing strategies

identified in the current meta-analysis.

Also, it is important to note that the large number of factors that

affect adolescent literacy outcomes and the difficulty in improving

writing ability render

any significant effect meaningful.

Appendix A sets out the

methodology used in the

meta-analysis. Appendix B

lists all of the categories for

which four or more studies

were analyzed and provides

descriptive information about

each study.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

he Outcome of Writing Instruction

The authors followed in the footsteps of previous researchers by using writing quality as the outcome

studied.Writing quality is defined here in terms of coherently organized essays containing well-

developed and pertinent ideas, supporting examples, and appropriate detail (Needels & Knapp, 1994).

Writing quality was included as the primary outcome, or one of several primary outcomes, in all

previous meta-analyses on procedures for teaching writing (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg et al.,

2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003; Hillocks, 1986).Writing quality served as the sole

outcome measure because the authors were interested in identifying treatments that had a broad

impact on writing performance.The only exceptions involved studies examining the teaching of

summarization, in which completeness and accuracy of summaries were assessed, and writing-to-learn

studies, in which content learning was the outcome measure.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

The 11 Key Elements of Adolescent Writing Instruction

Writing Strategies (Effect Size = 0.82)

Teaching adolescents strategies for planning, revising, and editing their compositions has shown a

dramatic effect on the quality of students’ writing. Strategy instruction involves explicitly and

systematically teaching steps necessary for planning, revising, and/or editing text (Graham, 2006).

The ultimate goal is to teach students to use these strategies independently.

Strategy instruction may involve teaching more generic processes, such as brainstorming (e.g.,Troia &

Graham, 2002) or collaboration for peer revising (MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991). In other

instances, it involves teaching strategies for accomplishing specific types of writing tasks, such as

writing a story (Fitzgerald &

Markham, 1987) or a

persuasive essay (Yeh, 1998).

Whether generic or highly

focused, explicitly teaching

adolescents strategies for

planning, revising, and/or

editing has a strong impact on

the quality of their writing.

Writing strategy instruction

has been found especially

effective for adolescents who

have difficulty writing, but it

is also a powerful technique

for adolescents in general. For

example, 11 studies with low-

achieving writers and 9 studies

with students representing

normal variation within the

classroom were reviewed.

The average weighted effect

size for the studies with

low-achieving writers (1.02)

was larger than the average

weighted effect size for

students across the full

range of ability in regular

classrooms (0.70).

WRITING STRATEGIES: AN EXAMPLE

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is an approach

for helping students learn specific strategies for planning,

drafting, and revising text. SRSD instruction is also characterized

by explicit teaching, individualized instruction, and criterion-

based versus time-based learning. Children are treated as active

collaborators in the learning process. Instruction takes place in

six stages:

Develop Background Knowledge: Students are taught any back-

ground knowledge needed to use the strategy successfully.

Describe It: The strategy as well as its purpose and benefits is

described and discussed.

Model It: The teacher models how to use the strategy.

Memorize It: The student memorizes the steps of the strategy

and any accompanying mnemonic.

Suppor

t It

: The teacher suppor

ts or scaffolds student mastery of

the strategy.

Independent Use: Students use the strategy with few or no

supports.

Students are also taught a number of self-regulation skills

(including goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and

self-reinforcement) designed to help them manage writing

strategies, the writing process, and their behavior. Mnemonics

are introduced to help students remember strategies to increase

writing per

for

mance. T

wo such strategies ar

e PLAN and WRITE:

PLAN (

Pay attention to the prompt, List the main idea, Add

suppor

ting ideas, Number your ideas)

WRITE (

Work from your plan to develop your thesis statement,

Remember your goals, Include transition words for each

paragraph, Try to use different kinds of sentences, and Exciting,

interesting, $10,000 words).

Sour

ces: De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Harris & Graham, 1996

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a particularly effective approach for teaching

writing strategies.The average weighted effect size for SRSD studies (1.14) was larger than for

non-SRSD studies (0.62). SRSD is characterized by explicit instruction of writing strategies and

self-regulation procedures (e.g., self-assessment and goal setting), as well as individualized instruction

and criterion-based learning (see box above).

Strategy instruction is well supported by research. Its effects appear to be more dramatic for lower-

achieving writers than for those across the full range of ability. Although SRSD had stronger effects

than most other strategy approaches, the meta-analysis indicates moderate to strong effects of writing

strategy instruction in general.

Summarization (Effect Size = 0.82)

Writing instruction often involves explicitly and systematically teaching students how to summarize

texts.The summarization approaches studied ranged from explicitly teaching summarization strategies

to enhancing summarization by progressively “fading” models of a good summary. In fact, students can

learn to write better summaries from either a rule-governed or a more intuitive approach. Overall,

teaching adolescents to summarize text had a consistent, strong, positive effect on their ability to write

good summaries.

Collaborative Writing (Effect Size = 0.75)

Collaborative wr

iting involves developing instructional arrangements whereby adolescents work

gether to plan,

draft, revise, and edit their compositions. It shows a strong impact on improving the

quality of students’

iting.

Studies of this approach

compared its effectiveness

with that of having students

compose independently

The

effect sizes for all studies w

positi

e and large

Collecti

ely

these in

estigations sho

w that

collaborati

e ar

rangements in

which students help each other

with one or mor

e aspects of

their writing ha

e a str

ong

positive impact on quality

It w

as not possib

le to draw separate conclusions for low-achieving writers,

as only two studies (Daile

1991;

Macar

thur et al., 1991) involved these students specifically. However,

in both studies the effect size exceeded 1.00.

COLLABORATIVE WRITING: ONE APPROACH

Collaborative writing involves peers writing as a team. In one

approach, a higher achieving student is assigned to be the

Helper (tutor) and a lower achieving student is assigned to be

the Writer (tutee). The students are instructed to work as partners

on a writing task. The Helper student assists the W

riter student

with meaning, organization, spelling, punctuation, generating

ideas, creating a draft, rereading essays, editing essays, choosing

the best copy

, and evaluating the final pr

oduct. Thr

oughout the

inter

vention, the teacher’

s role is to monitor, prompt, and praise

the students, and addr

ess their concer

ns.

Source: Yarrow & Topping, 2001

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

pecific Product Goals (Effect Size = 0.70)

Setting product goals involves assigning students specific, reachable goals for the writing they are

to complete. It includes identifying the purpose of the assignment (e.g., to persuade) as well as

characteristics of the final product.

Specific goals in the studies

reviewed included (a) adding

more ideas to a paper when

revising, or establishing a goal

to write a specific kind of

paper and (b) assigning goals

for specific structural elements

in a composition. Compared

with instances in which

students were simply given

a general overall goal, these

relatively simple procedures resulted in a positive effect size, and the average effect was strong. It was

possible to obtain effect sizes specifically for low-achieving writers in three of the five product goal

studies (which involved disaggregating results reported in Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, 2000).

The average effect for these students was similarly strong, providing some tentative evidence that,

inter

preted cautiously (because of the small sample), indicates that setting pr

oduct goals is effective

with adolescents who are weaker wr

iters. Overall, assigning students goals for their written product

had a str

ong impact on wr

iting quality.

Word Processing (Effect Size = 0.55)

The use of word-processing equipment can be particularly helpful for low-achieving writers. In this

type of instruction, students might work collaboratively on writing assignments using personal laptop

computers, or they might learn to word-process a composition under teacher guidance.Typing text on

the computer with word-processing software produces a neat and legible script. It allows the writer to

add, delete, and move text easily.Word-processing software, especially in more recent studies, includes

spell checkers as well.

Compared with composing by hand, the effect of word-processing instruction in most of the studies

reviewed was positive, suggesting that word processing has a consistently positive impact on writing

quality.The average effect on writing quality was moderate for students in general (effect size = 0.51),

but for low-achieving writers it was larger (effect size = 0.70).Thus, word processing appears to be

an effective instructional support for students in grades 4 to 12 and may be especially effective in

enhancing the quality of text produced by low-achieving writers.

SETTING SPECIFIC PRODUCT GOALS:

ONE APPROACH

Setting specific product goals provides students with objectives

to focus on particular aspects of their writing. For example,

students may be instructed to take a position and write a

persuasive letter designed to lead an audience to agree with

them. In addition to this general goal, teachers provide explicit

subgoals on argumentative discourse, including a statement

of belief, two or three reasons for that belief, examples or

supporting information for each reason, two or three reasons

why others might disagree, and why those reasons are incorrect.

Source: Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, 2000

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

entence Combining (Effect Size = 0.50)

Sentence combining involves

teaching students to construct

more complex and sophisticat-

ed sentences through exercises

in which two or more basic

sentences are combined into

a single sentence.Teaching

adolescents how to write

increasingly complex sentences

in this way enhances the

quality of their writing. Studies

establishing the effectiveness of

sentence combining primarily

compared it with more traditional grammar instruction.The effect sizes for all studies were

consistently positive and moderate in strength.

Only one study (Saddler & Graham, 2005) examined the effects of sentence combining on low-

achieving writers.When the effects of sentence combining were disaggregated for different types

of writers in this study (low-achieving and average writers), the effect size for the weaker writers

was 0.46. Overall,

the current analysis of sentence combining indicates that this focus of instruction

has a moderate impact on improving the quality of the writing of adolescents in general.

e-wr

iting (Effect Size = 0.32)

Pre-writing engages students in activities designed to help them generate or organize ideas for their

composition. Engaging adolescents in such activities before they write a first draft improves the quality

of their writing. Pre-writing activities include gathering possible information for a paper through

reading or developing a visual representation of their ideas before sitting down to write. For example,

some common pre-writing activities include encouraging group and individual planning before

writing, organizing pre-writing ideas, prompting students to plan after providing a brief demonstration

of how to do so, or assigning reading material pertinent to a topic and then encouraging students to

plan their work in advance. It was not possible to draw separate conclusions for low-achieving writers,

as all of the pre-writing studies involved students across the full range of ability in regular classrooms.

Collectively, these investigations show that pre-writing activities have a positive and small to moderate

impact on the quality of students’ writing.

SENTENCE-COMBINING: ONE APPROACH

Sentence-combining is an alternative approach to more

traditional grammar instruction. Sentence-combining instruction

involves teaching students to construct more complex and

sophisticated sentences through exercises in which two or

more basic sentences are combined into a single sentence.

In one approach, students at higher and lower writing levels

are paired to receive six lessons that teach (a) combining

smaller related sentences into a compound sentence using the

connectors

and, but, and because; (b) embedding an adjective

or adverb from one sentence into another; (c) creating complex

sentences by embedding an adverbial and adjectival clause from

one sentence into another; and (d) making multiple embeddings

involving adjectives, adverbs, adverbial clauses, and adjectival

clauses. The instructor provides support and modeling and the

student pairs work collaboratively to apply the skills taught.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

nquiry Activities (Effect Size = 0.32)

Inquiry means engaging

students in activities that

help them develop ideas and

content for a particular writing

task by analyzing immediate,

concrete data (comparing and

contrasting cases or collecting

and evaluating evidence).

Involving adolescents in

writing activities designed to

sharpen their inquiry skills

improves the quality of their

writing. Effective inquiry

activities in writing are

characterized by a clearly specified goal (e.g., describe the actions of people), analysis of concrete

and immediate data (observe one or more peers during specific activities), use of specific strategies

to conduct the analysis (retrospectively ask the person being observed the reason for a particular

action), and applying what was learned (assign the writing of a story incorporating insights from

the inquiry pr

ocess).

It was found that this type of instr

uction was last studied in 1986.

The comparison conditions in

the inquir

y studies w

ere relatively similar, primarily involving writing activities facilitated by teachers.

It w

as not possib

le to dra

w any specific conclusions for low-achieving writers, as all of the studies

involved the full range of students in a typical classroom. Despite the lack of new research, the

evidence suggests that engaging students in inquiry activities in which they analyze data before

writing is an effective instructional practice.

Process Writing Approach (Effect Size = 0.32)

The process writing approach involves a number of interwoven activities, including creating

extended opportunities for writing; emphasizing writing for real audiences; encouraging cycles

of planning, translating, and reviewing; stressing personal responsibility and ownership of writing

projects; facilitating high levels of student interactions; developing supportive writing environments;

encouraging self-reflection and evaluation; and offering personalized individual assistance, brief

instructional lessons to meet students’ individual needs, and, in some instances, more extended and

systematic instruction.The overall effect of the process writing approach was small to moderate, but

significant. Only three studies specifically examined the impact of the process writing approach with

low-achieving writers, making it difficult to draw any conclusions about its efficacy for these students.

INQUIRY ACTIVITIES: AN EXAMPLE

Students examine and infer the qualities of a number of objects

in order to describe them in writing. The students touch objects

while wearing blindfolds, examine seashells, listen to sounds,

do physical exercise, become aware of bodily sensations,

examine pictures, pantomime brief scenarios, act out dialogues,

and examine model compositions. Students’ responses to these

objects are elicited. Students list more and more precise details,

and respond to each other’s descriptions in small groups or whole

classes under teacher guidance in order to become increasingly

aware of the writing task and possible audience reactions to

the written pr

oduct. The students write and revise several

compositions. The teacher makes comments on each draft of

the composition with the intention of incr

easing specificity, focus,

and impact of the writing.

Source: Hillocks, 1982

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Explicit teacher training was a major factor in the success of the process writing approach.When

teachers had such training, the effect was moderate (0.46), but in the absence of training the effect

was negligible, except for students in grades four to six, where the effect size was small (0.27) but

significant. Five of the six studies in which teachers received training in applying the process writing

model were conducted by the National Writing Project (NWP)

to provide support for its work. Additional research is needed to

verify these findings, particularly as the content of NWP training

has changed over time.Also, it was not always clear what teachers

learned or subsequently applied in their classrooms in the NWP

studies; random assignment did not occur in any of the NWP

studies; NWP was a partner in much of this research; and in some

instances the NWP teachers were volunteers. Nevertheless, it is

interesting to note that many of the components included in a

recent description of the NWP model (peers working together, inquiry, and sentence-combining; see

Nagin, 2003) were found by this meta-analysis to enhance the quality of adolescents’ writing.

Study of Models (Effect Size = 0.25)

The study of models provides

adolescents with good models

for each type of writing that is

the focus of instruction.

Students are encouraged to

analyze these examples and to

emulate the critical elements,

patterns, and forms embodied

in the models in their own

writing.The effects for all six

studies reviewed were positive, though small. It was not possible to draw separate conclusions for

low-achieving writers, as none of the studies specifically addressed this population.

Writing for Content Area Learning (Effect Size = 0.23)

Writing has been shown to be an effective tool for enhancing students’ learning of content material.

Although the impact of writing activity on content learning is small, it is consistent enough to predict

some enhancement in learning as a result of writing-to-learn activities.

About 75% of the wr

iting-to-lear

n studies analyzed had positive effects.The average effect was small

but significant.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to draw separate conclusions for low-achieving

writers, as none of the studies examined the impact of writing-to-learn activities specifically with

The process writing

approach

stresses activities

that emphasize extended

opportunities for writing,

writing for real audiences,

self-reflection, personalized

instruction and goals,

and cycles of planning,

translating, and reviewing.

STUDY OF MODELS: AN EXAMPLE

An example of Study of Models involves presenting students

with two models of excellent writing, such as a well-written essay

that sets out to persuade the reader that UFOs exist and another

well-written persuasive essay claiming that there is no such thing

as a UFO. The teacher discusses the essays with the students.

The next day, students are given the essay that claimed that

UFOs do not exist and are asked to write a persuasive essay

arguing for or against the position that girls are not better in

math than are boys.

Sour

ce: Knudson, 1991

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

these students.Writing-to-learn

was equally effective for all

content areas (social studies,

math, and science) and grades

(4–6 versus 7–12) studied.

A Note About Grammar

Instruction

Grammar instruction in the

studies reviewed involved the

explicit and systematic teaching

of the parts of speech and

structure of sentences.The

meta-analysis found an effect for this type of instruction for students across the full range of ability, but

surprisingly, this effect was negative.This negative effect was small, but it was statistically significant,

indicating that traditional g

rammar instr

uction is unlikely to help improve the quality of students’

writing.

Studies specifically examining the impact of grammar instruction with lo

w-achie

ving writers

also yielded negative results (Anderson,

1997;

Saddler & Graham, 2005). Such findings raise serious

questions about some educators’

enthusiasm for traditional g

rammar instruction as a focus of writing

instruction for adolescents. Ho

wever, other instructional methods, such as sentence combining, provide

an effective alter

native to traditional grammar instruction, as this approach improves students’ writing

quality while at the same time enhancing syntactic skills.

In addition, a recent study (F

earn & Farnan,

2005) found that teaching students to focus on the function and practical application of g

rammar

within the context of writing (versus teaching grammar as an independent activity) produced strong

and positive effects on students’ writing. Overall, the findings on grammar instruction suggest that,

although teaching grammar is important, alternative procedures, such as sentence combining, are more

effective than traditional approaches for improving the quality of students’ writing.

WRITING-TO-LEARN: AN EXAMPLE

In a science class, the students study the human circulatory

system. The teacher’s goal is to help students develop alternative

conceptualizations of the role of the heart, blood, and circulation.

The science teacher asks the students to write summaries and

answer questions in writing to increase their ability to explain

information, elaborate knowledge leading to deeper understanding

of the topic, comment on and interpret information in the written

science text, communicate what has not been understood, and

describe a change of belief they might be experiencing. Note

that in the writing-to-learn approach, the teacher assigns writing

tasks but does not provide explicit instruction in writing skills.

Thus, writing is a tool of lear

ning content material rather than an

end in itself.

Source: Boscolo & Mason, 2001

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

IMPLEMENTING THE ELEMENTS

Although currently eclipsed by reading instruction, teaching students to write played a central role in

education in many historical periods, from ancient Greek times through the 19th century. Indeed,

writing well was once a central goal of education in both Europe and the United States. However,

what is valued in writing, and thus the focus of writing instruction, has changed over the years. For

example, while the Greeks prized rhetoric, or persuasive writing, the Romans prized eloquence. In

the 18th- and 19th-century British Empire, the teaching of writing was seen as an important way to

instill moral values. Although writing instruction played a prominent role in U.S. schools during the

19th century, by the 20th century it was already on the wane (Murphy, 1990). It is possible, though,

that writing instruction will regain some of its earlier prominence as a result of the acknowledgement

that writing difficulties are occurring across the nation.

Aims of

Writing Instruction

Moder

n writing instruction in the United States recognizes that students need to write clearly and

for a wide v

ariety of real-life purposes.Thus,

flexibility is no

w perhaps the most prized goal of writing

instruction because the fully proficient writer can adapt to different contexts, formats, and purposes

for writing.

Most contexts of life (school, the workplace, and the community) call for writing skills, and each

context makes overlapping but not identical demands. Proficient writers can adapt their writing to

its context.Writing is also produced in different formats, such as sentences, lists, outlines, paragraphs,

essays, letters, and books. Proficient writers can flexibly move among most, if not all, of these formats.

Proficient writers are also able to move among purposes that range from writing solely for themselves

(as in a per

sonal diar

y) to comm

unicating with an external audience.

iting in School

Despite the r

eal-w

orld need for flexibility in wr

iting skill,

classr

oom instruction sometimes over-

emphasizes cer

tain for

ms of wr

iting o

ver others. For example, many students are taught a specific

and quite r

id str

uctur

e for writing an essay, commonly known as the “five-paragraph essay.” Skilled

iter

wever, have more than that single structure to draw on when approaching a writing task.

The

y ha

e a v

ariety of forms, strategies, knowledge, and skills at their disposal that they can apply

flexib

ly to achie

e their wr

iting goals. Further, some teachers may overemphasize correct grammar or

spelling at the expense of the expr

ession of ideas.

Excellent instr

uction in wr

iting not only emphasizes

correctness of for

ms and conventions, but also instills in writers the command of a wide variety of

forms, genr

es, styles, and tones, and the ability to adapt to different contexts and purposes.

The use of different genres deserves special mention. Research has shown that, to the extent

that teacher

s r

equir

e wr

iting in the early g

rades,

the

y tend mainly to ask students to write stories,

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

descriptions of personal experiences, and other kinds of narratives. However, in the middle and high

school years, writing assignments typically involve expository tasks, such as reporting, summarizing and

analyzing factual information, and expressing an opinion with the support of evidence. Sixty percent

of writing assignments in 4th grade, 65% in 8th grade, and 75% in 12th grade are expository in nature

(Persky et al., 2003). Moreover, expository writing is the most frequently assigned writing task at the

college level (Bridgeman & Carlson, 1984).

Writing plays two distinct roles in school. First, it is a skill that draws on subskills and processes such as

handwriting and spelling; a rich knowledge of vocabulary; mastery of the conventions of punctuation,

capitalization, word usage, and grammar; and the use of strategies (such as planning, evaluating, and

revising text). All are necessary for the production of coherently organized essays containing well-

developed and pertinent ideas, supporting examples, and appropriate detail (Needels & Knapp, 1994).

This role can be characterized as “learning to write.” Second, writing is a means to extend and deepen

students’ knowledge; it acts as a tool for learning subject matter (Keys, 2000; Shanahan, 2004; Sperling

& Freedman, 2001).This role is called “writing to learn.” In fact, the roles of learning to write and

of writing to learn are interdependent. It was for this reason that Biancarosa and Snow (2004)

recommended that language arts teachers use content-area texts to teach reading and writing skills

and that content-area teachers provide instruction and practice in discipline-specific reading and

writing. Using writing tasks to learn content offers students opportunities to expand their knowledge

of vocabulary; to strengthen the planning, evaluating, and revising process; and to practice grammar,

spelling, punctuation, modes of argumentation,

and technical writing (Yore, 2003).

iting De

velops

iting proficiency develops over time. It begins as a kind of free association of ideas that a reader

y find difficult to follow. From this comes a growing knowledge of stylistic conventions and more

sophisticated uses of pr

ocesses for planning,

aluating, and revising. Development continues with

compositions mark

ed b

y a

areness of an audience and writing as a more unified and productive

craft.

Finally

at the most adv

anced stage, writing becomes a personal tool for transforming one’s

wn exper

iences and kno

wledge (Bereiter, 1980). As they become more proficient writers, students

e g

radually from “knowledge-telling” to “knowledge-transformation” (Bereiter & Scardamalia,

1987,

5–6). Knowledge-telling is most typical of less proficient writers and involves writing

content that could in pr

inciple also be con

eyed orally. Knowledge-transformation is more

complex;

the wr

iting pr

ocess is used as a way to extend ideas and reasoning and as a vehicle for

the de

elopment of kno

wledge, philosophical ideas, and personal awareness.

Effectiv

e wr

iting instr

uction ackno

wledges that the smooth deplo

yment of the higher-level writing

strategies needed to plan,

generate

and r

vise text depends on easy use of lower-level skills such as

handwr

iting,

yboar

ding,

spelling, grammar and punctuation, and access to appropriate vocabulary.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

It will be harder for students to utilize strategies to write a coherent summary or persuasive essay if

they are not fluent in the lower-level skills. At the same time, students who have difficulty with either

lower-level writing skills or higher-level writing strategies will find it difficult to write to learn.

In-depth research performed with proficient adult writers has revealed important information about

the mental activity that underlies the act of writing (Flower, 1979; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Graham,

2006).This work has shaped the design of contemporary writing instruction—for example, the

planning, drafting, and revision process taught within the National Writing Project model (Pritchard &

Marshall, 1994). According to this model, writing is made up of closely linked processes that operate

simultaneously, as teachers model and guide students through various writing strategies.This research

framework also emphasizes building the motivation of low-achieving writers, which has often gone

into a steep decline by the time they are identified as needing help (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Garcia &

de Caso, 2004).

Choosing Elements for Implementation

This report identifies elements of instruction that hold promise for improving writing ability.

However, as mentioned earlier, together the instructional elements do not represent a curriculum.

Before implementing any of the elements, educators should consider the needs of their students as

revealed by assessment data. Such data include observations of students while they are writing, analysis

of their writing samples (see, e.g., Needels & Knapp, 1994), and test scores. Just as with reading,

writing intervention is most effective when matched to student needs. Once an intervention begins,

assessment and diagnostic teaching should be used in an ongoing w

ay to examine its effects (Barr,

Blacho

wicz,

Bates, Katz, & Kaufman, 2007). Not all elements are effective with all students and

all teacher

s. Sometimes positive results are not seen immediately; implementing new elements of

instr

uction often requires a significant investment of time to reveal their full potential (Graham &

Har

is,

2005).

Moreover, the elements identified in this report have not been jointly tested or

methodically compar

ed with each other

ending conclusive data on the relative effects of one

strategy o

er another

teachers should choose on the basis of fit with existing instructional conditions

and futur

e goals.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

ACCUMULATION OF RESEARCH ON

ADOLESCENT WRITING INSTRUCTION

This report is intended to inform the public about empirical evidence that has accumulated over

the years on what elements of writing instruction work best with adolescents.The last comprehensive

review of writing was conducted 20 years ago (Hillocks, 1986). In the intervening years, researchers

have focused their attention more narrowly, using meta-analysis to examine the impact of elements

such as strategy instruction (Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003), word processing (Bangert-

Drowns, 1993; Goldberg et al., 2003), and writing to learn (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004). Studies

from these reviews were included in the current review, as were new investigations uncovered through

an extensive and rigorous search process.

A considerable body of research has accumulated since Hillocks

(1986). Although there is much less research on writing than

reading instruction, the current study located a total of 176 effect

sizes, only 29 of which came from the Hillocks review.These

effect sizes encompassed more than 25 categories of adolescent

writing instruction, with four or more effect sizes available for

18 of the categories (for seven of these categories, the findings

were not reliable enough or the instructional procedures too

diverse to be included here).Twenty-six writing-to-learn studies

with students in grades 4 to 12 were found, but only three of

these (Boscolo & Mason, 2001; Hand, Hohenshell, & Prain, 2004;

Wong, Kuperis, Jamieson, Keller, & Cull-Hewitt, 2002) were conducted after a writing-to-learn

meta-analysis that surveyed the research available through 1999 (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004).Thanks

to all of this research, there is a reasonable body of experimental and quasi-experimental research from

which policymakers and educators can draw conclusions and develop recommendations.

The field of wr

iting r

esear

ch has matured in the past 20 years. Unfortunately, the number of studies

conducted with lo

w-achie

ving wr

iters, especially those from low-income families in inner-city

settings,

emains r

elatively small. Only 41 (23%) of the 176 effect sizes in this meta-analysis involved

w-achie

ving wr

iters in general or students with learning disabilities, low English language proficiency,

or mild handicapping conditions.

Although the cur

ent study did not examine whether effect sizes

e moderated b

y the location of the study (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), there was a notable lack

of exper

imental r

esearch with low-achieving writers in urban settings. So, even though there is

an impr

essi

ve amount of research testing different approaches to writing instruction, the lack of

information on effecti

ve writing instruction for low-income, urban, low-achieving adolescent

writers remains a serious gap in the literature.

BURGEONING

RESEARCH BASE

In 1986, Hillocks was able

to calculate only 29 effect

sizes for students in grades

4 to 12 from existing

quasi-experimental and

experimental studies of

writing instruction. In 2005,

176 were located. The writing

instruction research base

has grown more than 600

percent in just 20 years.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Identifying what combination or how much of each of the recommended elements is needed to

maximize writing instruction, for adolescents in general or for low-achieving writers in particular,

was beyond the scope of this study. Also, because studies of many aspects of writing instruction

remain to be done, the recommendations in this report do not address certain aspects of writing,

such as teaching spelling, handwriting, punctuation, and vocabulary, or certain approaches to

instruction, such as conferencing with students about their writing.The findings of the meta-analysis

do not provide clear direction for the use of technological tools other than word processing, nor is

there enough evidence to offer firm guidelines for how teachers can boost adolescents’ motivation to

write (c.f., Bruning & Horn, 2000; Garcia & de Caso, 2004).The conclusions of this report are based

only on rigorous empirical data; the areas for which the report has no recommendations point to gaps

in the current state of research on writing instruction.

A Research Agenda for Writing Instruction

Some instructional procedures have been investigated more often than others. Only four key elements

in this report’s list (strategy instruction, word processing, process writing approach, and writing-to-

learn activities) yielded 10 or more studies that met the criteria established for selection for the

meta-analysis. One other area of writing instruction—traditional grammar instruction—was the

focus of more than 10 studies, but its effects were negative. Some other areas of instruction showed

promise, but reliable conclusions could not be drawn because of limited evidence. In fact, some

recommendations from previous reports have an uneven research record. For instance, increasing

the frequency and amount of writing is generally proposed as an important practice because of

widespread concerns about how little actual writing students do in schools (Applebee, 2000; National

Commission on Writing, 2003), but evidence of a consistent effect is ambiguous.There were too few

effect sizes, too much variability in effect sizes, too much diversity in the procedures used to promote

extra writing time, and too many different comparison conditions to allow any reliable conclusions

to be drawn about the impact of this approach. As was claimed many years ago (Braddock & Jones,

1969), it may well be that although it is important for students to engage frequently in writing

practice, providing more opportunities to write without effective instruction and motivation is not

enough to improve writing quality.

Although wr

iting instr

uction has been r

esearched much less often than reading instruction, it is an

equally impor

tant component of literacy pr

oficiency and encompasses,

in itself, an extremely complex

set of skills.

The r

ich natur

e of the practice of writing and its relative neglect in instructional research

mak

e it ine

vitab

le that a whole compendium of possible approaches has not yet been studied.

Research is clearly needed not only to identify additional effecti

ve practices that already exist but to

develop new ones.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

Several rather well-established practices still have small and uneven research bases.Text structure

instruction, which involves explicitly and systematically teaching students about the structure of

specific types of text, such as stories, informational text, and persuasive essays, has not been studied

sufficiently. Another area in which more empirical evidence is needed is feedback, which involves

giving students structured responses about their writing.This study identified five studies that

examined the impact of feedback on the quality of students’ writing, but the methods and outcomes

were too variable to draw any reliable conclusions. In addition, a wide variety of external supports

(such as prompts, guides, hints, and visual frameworks that structure the writing process) designed

to facilitate students’ writing are in use in classrooms but have not been studied adequately, so firm

evidence for their efficacy is lacking. Further, as in the field of reading (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004),

more attention needs to be directed at the impact of individualized instruction as well as small-group

instruction, especially with low-achieving writers.

New practices in writing instruction have recently arisen and require investigation. For example,

teachers have begun to use rubrics to teach students to reflect on and evaluate the quality of their

own writing.The leveled lists of writing qualities or traits provided in a rubric give students tangible

evaluation criteria.This approach is gaining support among educators.Vocabulary instruction in

the context of writing is another practice that has been increasing recently and may be an effective

procedure for improving students’ writing.

When considered against a backdrop of the vast number of studies of reading instruction, research

into writing instruction needs more attention (National Commission on Writing, 2003).The coming

years must bring increased effort to collect stringent data on approaches to writing instruction that are

used in classrooms but for which evidence is lacking.The list of writing elements offered in this report

is limited by what has been studied rigorously thus far.Those who conduct the next meta-analysis

of writing instruction, whether 5, 10, or 20 years from now, need a body of literature to review that

scrutinizes a greater variety of instructional practices.

New researchers must take on the challenge of studying writing instruction in all its complexity.

Reading research was once limited in much the same way as writing research now is, but consistent

attention from the academic community brought forth a flood of knowledge about many aspects

of the reading process.Writing must be next.The future success of the nation’s young people

depends on it.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

A CHALLENGE

The results of this meta-analysis point toward a number of specific changes that teachers can make

to promote increased writing proficiency among all their students. One important outcome of

improved writing is students’ ability to use it as a tool for understanding and analyzing subject-matter

information. Setting high standards through implementing effective writing instruction sends

adolescents a message that higher-level thinking about substantive material is important. In the

words of an adolescent attending an innovative inner-city high school in New York City, “They

wanted, like, essays.They wanted you to get it” (Herszenhorn, 2005).

Improving the writing abilities of adolescent students has social implications far beyond the classroom.

Helping these young people to write clearly, logically, and coherently about ideas, knowledge, and

views will expand their access to higher education, give them an edge for advancement in the

workforce, and increase the likelihood they will actively participate as citizens of a literate society.

Only the combined efforts of policymakers, educators, and researchers will make this happen.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

REFERENCES

Achieve, Inc. (2005). Rising to the challenge:Are high school graduates prepared for college and work?

Washington, DC: Author.

ACT. (2005).

Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City:Author. Retrieved

July 31, 2006, from http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/crisis_report.pdf

ACT. (2006).

Reading between the lines:What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City:

Author. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/reading_report.pdf

American Diploma Project. (2004).

Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts.Washington,

DC: Achieve, Inc.

Anderson, A. A. (1997).

The effects of sociocognitive writing strategy instruction on the writing achievement and

writing self-efficacy of students with disabilities and typical achievement in an urban elementary school

Unpub

lished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston,TX.

Anthony, H., & Anderson, L. (1987, January ).The nature of writing instruction in regular and special

education classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Applebee, A. (1986). Problems in process approaches:Towards reconceptualization of process

instruction.

In A. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.),

The teaching of wr

iting. Eighty-fifth Yearbook of the

National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 95–113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Applebee, A. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.),

Perspectives on writing research, theory, and practice (pp.90–110). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to

developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high

school English.

American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730.

Bangert-Dr

owns, R. (1993).The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word

ocessing in writing instruction.

Review of Educational Researc

h, 63,

69–93.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004).The effects of school-based Writing-

to-Learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research,

74, 29–58.

Barr, R., Blachowicz, C. Z., Bates, A., Katz, C., & Kaufman, B. (2007).

Reading diagnosis for teachers: An

instructional approac

(5th ed).

Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Bean,T.W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984).The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth

graders’ summary writing and comprehension.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 297–306.

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),

Cognitive processes

in wr

iting

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987).

The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004).

Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school

literacy:A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent

Education.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001).Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P.Tynjala, L.

Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Studies in writing:Vol. 7.Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and

practice

(pp. 83–104). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Braddock, R., & Jones, R. L. (1969). English composition. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of

educational research (4th ed., pp. 443–461). New York: Macmillan.

Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S.B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks.

Written Communication, 1,

247–280.

Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write.

Educational Psychologist, 35, 25–37.

Calkins, L. (1981). Case study of a nine year old writer. In D. Graves (Ed.),

A case study observing

development of primary-children’s composing, spelling, and motor behavior during the writing process

(pp. 239–262). Durham: University of New Hampshire.

Carnevale,A. P. (2001).

Help wanted… college required.Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service,

Office for Pub

lic Leadership.

Chafe,W., & Tannen, D. (1987).The relation between written and spoken language.

Annual Review of

Anthropology, 16,

383–407.

Curry, K. A. (1997).

A comparison of the writing products of students with learning disabilities in inclusive and

resource room settings using different writing instruction approaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.

Dailey, E. M. (1991).

The relative efficacy of cooperative learning versus individualized learning on the written

performance of adolescent students with writing problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, John Hopkins

University, Baltimore, MD.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving

outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research and

Practice, 14, 92–106.

De La Paz,

S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge:Writing

instruction in middle school classrooms.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.

Duin,

A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique.

Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 311–330.

Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2005, April).

An investigation of the influence of teaching grammar in writing to

accomplish an influence on wr

iting

aper pr

esented at the ann

ual meeting of the

Amer

ican Educational

Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000).The effects of an elaborated goal on the

persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers.

Journal

of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.

Fitzgerald, J., & Markham, L. (1987).Teaching children about revision in writing.

Cognition and

Instruction, 4, 3–24.

Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan,T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.

Educational

Psychologist, 35, 39–50.

Flower, L. (1979).Writer-based prose:A cognitive basis for problems in writing.

College English, 41,

19–37.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.

College Composition &

Communication,

32,

365–387.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

Garcia, J. N., & de Caso, A. M. (2004). Effects of a motivational intervention for improving the writing

of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 141–159.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003).The effects of computers on student writing: A

metaanalysis of studies from 1992 to 2002.

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1–51.

Golden, P. (1986).Writing process reconsidered.

Boston Writing Project Newsletter.

Graham, S. (1990).The role of production factors in Learning Disabled students’ compositions.

Journal

of Educational Psychology, 82,

781–791.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. MacArthur,

S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),

Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.

Graham, S. (2006).Writing. In P. Alexander & P.Winne (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology

(pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham. S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing:

A meta-analysis of SRSD studies.

In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),

Handbook of

research on learning disabilities (pp. 383–402). New York: Guilford.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005).

Writing better. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Graham,

S., & Perin, D. (2006).

A meta-anal

ysis of writing instruction for adolescent students

. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2005).

Public high school graduation and college-readiness rates: 1991-2002

(Education Working Paper No. 8). New York: Manhattan Institute. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ewp_08.pdf

Gregg, L., & Steinberg, E. (Eds.). (1980).

Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Grubb,W. N.,Worthen, H., Byrd, B.,Webb, E., Badway, N., Case, C., et al. (1999).

Honored but invisible:

An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.

Hand,

B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain,V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions

when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year ten science students.

Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210.

Har

is, K., & Graham, S. (1996).

Making the wr

iting process work:

Strategies for composition and self-regulation

(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Har

is, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the

evolution of self-regulated strategy development.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.

Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R.

Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.),

Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark,

DE:

International Reading Association. Originally published in C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.)

(1996).

The science of writing:Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hedges,

L.,

& Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Herszenhorn, D. M. (2005, August 08). In New York’s smaller schools, ‘good year and a tough year.’

New York Times, p. A1.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1982).The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the

composing process.

Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261–278.

Hillocks,

(1986).

Researc

h on wr

itten composition:

New directions for teaching

Urbana,

IL:

National

Council of Teachers of English.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century.Washington, DC: Alliance for

Excellent Education.

Kerchner, L. B., & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing:Written expression,

computers and learning disabled students.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329–335.

Keys, C.W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition

of a scientific laboratory report.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676–690.

Knudson, R. E. (1989). Effects of instructional strategies on children’s informational writing.

Journal of

Educational Research, 83,

91–96.

Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students’ persuasive writing.

Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 141–152.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. (1987).

How writing shapes thinking: Studies of teaching and learning. (NCTE

Research Report 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lemk

e, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D.,Williams,T., et al. (2004).

Inter

national outcomes of

learning in mathematics, literacy, and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective

. (NCES

2005-003).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics.

Levy, M., & Ransdell, S. (1996).

The science of writing:Theories, methods, individual differences, and

applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001).

Practical meta-analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006).

Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford.

MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in

special education classrooms.

Learning Disability Research and Pr

actice, 6,

201–210.

Murphy, J. J. (Ed.). (1990).

A short history of writing instruction from ancient Greece to twentieth-century

America. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Nagin, C. (2003).

Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics.

(1999).

Nation’

s repor

t card: Reading 1998

ashington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from

http://nces.ed.go

v/pubsear

ch/pubsinfo

.asp?pubid=1999500

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003, November).

Remedial education at degree-granting

postsecondary institutions in Fall 2000: Statistical analysis report

. (Technical Report, NCES 2004-0101).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Science.

National Center for Education Statistics.

(2005).

A first look at the liter

acy of America’s adults in the 21st

century

.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006470

National Center for Education Statistics.

(2006).

The condition of education 2006.

ashington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006071

National Commission on

iting.

(2003,

April).

The neglected R:

The need for a wr

iting rev

olution

Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.writingcommission.org/report.html

National Commission on

iting.

(2004,

September).

iting:

A tic

ket to work… or a tic

ket out:

A sur

vey

of business leaders

Retr

ed July 31, 2006, from http://www.writingcommission.org/report/html

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

National Commission on Writing. (2005, July). Writing:A powerful message from state government.

Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.writingcommission.org/report/html

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).

Report of the National Reading

Panel.Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and

its implications for reading instruction

(Publication No. 00-4769).Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Needels, M. C., & Knapp, M. S. (1994).Teaching writing to children who are underserved.

Journal of

Educational Psychology, 86,

339–349.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2000).

Literacy in the information

age: Final report of the international adult literacy survey

. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved July 31, 2006,

from http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/8100051E.pdf

Olson,

L. (2006). A decade of effort.

Quality Counts

, 25,

8–10,

12, 14, 16, 18–21.

erin, D. (2006). Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The problem of

remediation.

Teachers College Record, 108, 339–373.

Perin, D., & Charron, K. (2006).“Lights just click on every day”: Academic preparedness and

remediation in comm

unity colleges. In

T. R. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.),

Defending the comm

unity

college equity agenda

. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin,Y. (2003).

The nation’s report card:Writing 2002. (NCES 2003–529).

U.S. Depar

tment of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education

Statistics.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Pinkus, Lyndsay. (2006).

Who’s counted? Who’s counting? Understanding high school graduation rates.

Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2006).The state of educational intervention research.

British

Journal of Educational Psycholog

y, 76,

1–19.

Pressle

y, M.,Yokoi, L., Rankin, J.,Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the

instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy.

Scientific

Studies of Reading, 1,

1–16.

Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),

Handbook of wr

iting researc

(pp

54–66).

New York: Guilford.

itchar

(1987).

Effects on student wr

iting of teacher training in the National Writing Project

Model.

Written Communication, 4, 51–67.

Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, J. (2006). Process writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald

(Eds.),

Handbook of writing research (pp. 275–290). New York: Guilford.

itchar

J., & Marshall, J. C. (1994). Evaluation of a tiered model for staff development in writing.

Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 259–285.

Rosenberg,

M.,

Adams,

& Gur

evitch, J. (2000).

MetaWin:

Statistical soft-w

are for meta-anal

ysis

(Version 2). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005).The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the

writing performance of more and less skilled young writers.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,

43–54.

Shanahan,T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication:Writing to think and to learn. In

T. L.

etton & J

Dole (Eds.).

Adolescent liter

acy researc

h and pr

actice

(pp

59–73).

ork:

Guilfor

Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). (2006).

Research on composition. New York:Teachers College.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap:What do we know and

where do we go from here? New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Sperling, M., & Freedman, S.W. (2001). Review of writing research. In V. Richardson (Ed.),

Handbook

of research on teaching

(4th ed., pp. 370–389).Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Stotsky, S. G. (1988). Commentary.

Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 89–99.

Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002).The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy

instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.

Wolf, I. (1986).

Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wong, B.Y. L., Kuperis, S., Jamieson, D., Keller, L., & Cull-Hewitt, R. (2002). Effects of guided journal

writing on students’ story understanding.

Journal of Educational Research, 95, 179–191.

arrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing:The effects of metacognitive prompting and

structured peer interaction.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.

Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education:Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-

school students.

Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49–83.

Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and

science resear

ch.

International Jour

nal of Science Education, 25,

689–725.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

APPENDIX A: META-ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

This appendix reviews in more detail the methodology in conducting the meta-analysis that yielded

the

Writing Next recommendations. A more in-depth description of the methodology can be found in

a forthcoming publication (Graham & Perin, under review).

Location and Selection of Studies

This meta-analysis was performed to draw a series of instructional recommendations for teaching

writing as well as update the conclusions drawn by Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, and Wilkinson (2004)

about the effectiveness of writing as a tool for learning.The strategies used for locating and selecting

studies for inclusion were influenced by nine main factors.

First, the search concentrated on two separate areas: learning-to-write and writing-to-learn. For

learning-to-write, studies of the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve students’ writing

quality were looked for. For writing-to-learn, all relevant studies from Bangert-Drowns et al.’s (2004)

meta-analysis were included and writing-to-learn studies conducted after 2000 were searched, since

Bangert-Drown et al.’s (2004) search ended in 1999.

Second, the investigation was limited to studies of students in grades 4 to 12. Some studies that

included students in grades 4 to 12 were eliminated if they also included students in the primary

grades and it was not possible to calculate an effect size solely for the older students.

Third, studies of writing intervention in special schools for children with deafness, autism, or severe

emotional disturbance were not included.While writing instruction is an important part of the

curriculum for these students, the purpose of this review was to draw recommendations for writing

instruction within regular school settings.

our

th,

only studies that used a measur

e of wr

iting quality for the learning-to-write analysis were

included.

iting quality w

as the pr

imar

y outcome, or one of several primary outcomes, in all

vious meta-analyses on wr

iting instr

uction (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg, Russell, & Cook,

2003;

Graham,

2006;

Graham & Har

ris, 2003; Hillocks, 1986).The review was limited to studies of

iting quality to identify inter

entions that had a br

oad impact on writing performance.The only

exception in

olv

ed summar

y-writing instruction. Measures of quality for studies in this category

e based on the completeness and accuracy of the wr

itten summar

y produced by students.

Fifth, studies in which reliability for the writing quality measure was questionable were excluded. For

example, studies that provided no information on interrater reliability or that provided no training to

raters were eliminated. Studies in which low levels of interrater reliability (i.e., below 0.60) were report-

ed were also eliminated.Almost all contemporary measures of writing quality involve some degree of

subjecti

vity

making the estab

lishment of r

eliability of scor

ing pr

ocedures particularly important.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Sixth, writing-to-learn studies were eliminated if outcomes did not include an assessment of

content-related academic achievement in addition to writing quality measures.These content-

learning measures were conducted in the school setting where the investigation took place and

varied in form, including such diverse assessments as final grades, locally constructed examinations,

and standardized tests.

Seventh, only studies employing an experimental or quasi-experimental design were included.This

method was consistent with most previous meta-analysis in writing (Bangert-Drowns, 1993;

Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004; Goldberg et al., 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003; Hillocks,

1986). Consequently, each study in this meta-analysis compared at least two groups of students who

received different instructional conditions. Correlational, qualitative, or single-subject design studies

and studies in which students served as their own comparison group were not included. Even

though each of these other types of research has much to add to the ongoing dialogue about effective

instructional practices (see Pressley, Graham, & Harris, 2006), the review was concerned specifically

with experimental and quasi-experimental studies.

Eighth, only studies that provided the data needed to calculate appropriate statistics, including an

effect size, a weighted average effect size, and homogeneity, were included. For example, if a study did

not provide information on the number of participants involved in the experiment (e.g., Kerchner &

Kristinger, 1984), it was excluded, as it could not be used in the calculation of homogeneity or an

average weighted effect size.

Ninth, a search that was as broad as possible was undertaken to identify relevant studies for both the

learning-to-write and the writing-to-learn analyses. Included in this search were studies with students

in grades 4 to 12 in previous meta-analyses of writing (i.e., Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Bangert-Drowns

et al., 2004; Goldberg et al., 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003; Hillocks, 1986). Edited

books and book series were also searched for possible studies (e.g., Gregg & Steinberg, 1980; Levy &

Ransdell, 1996). Further, multiple searches in a number of databases, including ERIC, PsycINFO,

ProQuest, Education Abstracts (i.e., Education Full Text), and Dissertation Abstracts, were run during

May 2005 to identify relevant studies. Of 582 documents collected as well as the studies for grades

4 to 12 reported in Bangert-Drowns (1993), Bangert-Drowns et al. (2004), and Hillocks (1986), 142

studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. Some of these contained more than one intervention

comparison, and a total of 176 different effect sizes were generated from these studies.

Categorizing Studies Into Intervention Conditions

Each study was read and then placed into pre-identified groupings.While some of the pre-identified

groupings were developed from previous meta-analyses (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Bangert-Drowns

et al., 2004; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003), others reflected the broad array of topics

included in the electronic searches described in the previous section. Studies that did not fit neatly

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

into groupings were held apart until all studies had been read once.Then, studies in each

pre-identified category were examined to determine if each investigation represented the same

basic intervention. If they did not, they were held apart with studies not categorized during the

initial reading.After all the groupings had been verified in this manner, uncategorized studies were

reread and new groupings were constructed as needed. In a few instances, a study was placed into

one of the pre-identified groupings. Studies in any new grouping as well as any pre-identified

grouping in which an additional study was placed were read again to determine if each intervention

represented the same basic approach. Some studies were placed into more than one grouping

because they included two or more interventions.

As noted previously the groupings fell into two general types: learning-to-write and writing-to-learn.

Writing-to-learn studies were not further categorized, but learning-to-write studies were. Learning-

to-write groupings fell into three broad categories (explicit instruction, instructional supports, and

mode of instruction). Because summary effect sizes were calculated only for groupings that contained

four or more effect sizes, only those groupings are described by category here (a list of all groupings

with four or more effect sizes is presented in Appendix B).

Explicit Instruction

A considerable number of studies focused on explicitly teaching skills, processes, or knowledge.

All these studies involved sustained, direct, and systematic instruction designed to facilitate student

mastery.Three categories—writing strategies, summarization, and sentence combining—yielded at

least four or mor

e effect sizes that pr

ovided a reliable estimate.

Strategy instruction shared some overlap with other categories classified as “explicit teaching.”While

the primary focus was always on teaching planning, revising, and/or editing strategies, some studies

(especially those involving the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model; Harris & Graham, 1996)

also directly taught students knowledge and skills needed to use these processes. It is also important to

note that some author

s w

ould classify strategy instr

uction as a pr

ocess wr

iting appr

oach (see Pr

itchar

& Hone

ycutt,

2006),

as both ar

e concer

ned with pr

omoting students’

use of processes for planning,

translating,

and r

vie

wing.

Strategy instr

uction w

as not included under the process writing approach

for tw

o r

easons:

(a) explicit and sustained instr

uction in wr

iting strateg

ies is not common in man

classr

ooms that use a pr

ocess appr

oach model (e

.g.,

Anthon

y &

Anderson, 1987) and (b) such

instr

uction is rar

ely included in descr

iptions of the components of a pr

ocess wr

iting pr

gram (see, e.g.,

Nag

in,

2003).

en though sentence combining is included as a component of the National

iting

Project,

this also w

as not included under the pr

ocess wr

iting appr

oach, as it is only one of many

elements included in this model.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

nstructional Supports

Supporting students’ writing involves providing some form of assistance that helps them carry out

one or more processes involved in writing.These procedures include structuring how students carry

out a particular writing process, having peers help each other as they compose, providing students

with feedback on their performance, focusing students’ attention on specific aspects of the task, and

providing a model of what the end product should look like. Six supporting categories—collaborative

writing, specific product goals, word processing, prewriting, inquiry activities, and study of models—

yielded four or more effect sizes that provided a reliable estimate.

These procedures differ from the categories included under “explicit teaching” in a subtle but

important way.The primary goal for explicit instruction categories, such as strategy instruction and

sentence combining, is the immediate mastery of the declarative and procedural knowledge targeted

for instruction.This goal is accomplished by directly teaching such knowledge until students can apply

it independently.The mastery of processes, knowledge, or skills is more indirect with the supporting

procedures described above, as students are assumed to internalize the use of these procedures as a

result of applying them over time. For example, as students repeatedly analyze models of good writing

and attempt to emulate them, it is assumed that they develop a better understanding of the criteria

underlying good writing and that they increasingly begin to apply this newly acquired knowledge

without having to rely on the models for assistance.

It is also important to realize that some of these supporting procedures are integral components

of explicit teaching procedures. For example, with strategy instruction, students often help each other

apply (and adapt) a strategy as they are learning to use it, they are encouraged to attain specific goals

for their paper

s that can be achieved by using the strategy, and they receive feedback on how the

strategy has enhanced their writing (Graham & Harris, 2003).These supporting procedures are not

elements just of explicit teaching procedures, however, as many of them (e.g., prewriting and inquiry

activities, feedback, and peers working together to compose a composition) are integral to the process

approach to writing as well. Finally, it is noted that inquiry could be classified as a prewriting activity.

However, it was decided to keep it as a separate category because it employs a set of distinctive

features for developing and analyzing ideas, and it was also kept distinct in Hillocks’ (1986) review

(as was the study of models).

Mode of Instruction

In the meta-analysis conducted by Hillocks (1986), four categories (presentational, environmental,

individualized, and natural process) encompassed teachers’ mode or form of instruction.These modes

differed in the role assumed by the teacher, the kinds and order of activities applied, and the specificity

and clarity of objectives and learning tasks.The

presentational mode was not examined, as there were

too few studies. In addition, the

environmental mode was not investigated, as this category has been

criticized in terms of its distinctiveness and clarity (Applebee, 1986; Golden, 1986; Stotsky, 1988), and

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

most of the studies included in this category could also be placed in the inquiry activities category

too.The

individualized mode of instruction was also not included in this investigation, because the

interventions included under this category were too diverse to form a cohesive treatment.

For the meta-analysis, the more common title

process writing approach was adopted for what Hillocks

called the

natural process mode. Included under the “process writing” umbrella were studies that

examined the effectiveness of the process writing approach as described by Graves (1983), the Writers’

Workshop (Calkins, 1981), the National Writing Project (Pritchard, 1987), and whole language

(when a process writing approach was applied).

Coding of Study Features

Each study was coded for seven variables: grade, type of student, number of participants, writing genre,

assignment of subjects, comparison condition, and publication type.These variables provided informa-

tion on who received an intervention (grade and type of student), how broadly it was applied (number

of participants), what genre it was designed to impact (writing genre), and what intervention served

as the comparison condition. Most of these variables were also selected because it was assumed that

they might account for variability in effect sizes beyond subject-level sampling error (assessed by the

test of homogeneity). For example, variability in effect sizes may be related to systematic differences

in the comparison condition, type or grade level of participants, and writing genre assessed.To

establish reliability of the coding procedures used in this review, a doctoral student majoring in

education was familiar

ized with each category and then asked to score 15% of the studies (randomly

selected).

Acr

oss studies and variables, interrater reliability between the graduate student and our

coding w

as 94%.

Two of the study feature variables are described below because they are included in

Appendix B

. See Graham and Perin (2006) for a fuller discussion of these and other features.

Grade.The specific grade(s) that participants attended were identified. In a few instances, it was known

only that students were in high school, as the researchers did not identify the specific grade levels of

the par

ticipants.

Type of student. Participants were labeled as LD (students with a learning disability only), low-achieving

(poor writers only), MH (students with mild handicapping conditions, such as learning disabilities or

speech and language difficulties), Average (average writers; this category did not include the weakest

and strongest writers in a classroom), High (above-average writers only), ESL (students with English as

a second language only), L2 (second language learners only), and Full-Range (representing the full

range of writers found in typical classrooms). It should be noted that LD and MH categories are part

of the broader low-achieving category, but students in these two categories were also receiving special

education services. Each of these groups of youngsters is educated either exclusively or primarily in

the general classroom. Unless indicated otherwise, students with LD and MH were poor writers.

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

An additional study feature was coded for investigations in two categories. In the strategy instruction

category, studies were coded as using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model (Harris

& Graham, 1996, 1999) or not using this model.This was done because Graham (2006) found that the

SRSD model yielded larger effect sizes than did other methods of strategy instruction combined.

Studies in the category entitled “process approach to writing instruction,” which involved training of

teachers, were identified as well. Five of the six identified studies involved training through the

National Writing Project (Nagin, 2003). Such training (or the lack of it) may account for variability in

effect sizes for the process writing intervention.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

Effect sizes were calculated as Cohen’s d or the standardized mean difference.The posttest mean

performance of the comparison group was subtracted from that of the intervention group at posttest

and divided by the pooled standard deviation of the two groups.To standardize the calculation of

effect sizes, the learning-to-write effect sizes reported in previous meta-analysis on writing instruction

(Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg et al., 2003; Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003; Hillocks, 1986)

were recalculated because a variety of procedures were used in these prior reviews.The writing-to-

learn effect sizes from Bangert-Drowns et al. (2004) were not recalculated, as 23 of the 26 studies

were included in the previous review.

In calculating learning-to-write effect sizes, writing quality was used as the outcome. Holistic quality

scores (a single score that measur

es general overall quality) were used over analytic scales (separate

scor

es for specific aspects of wr

iting, such as content, organization, vocabulary, mechanics, and so

for

th).

If only an analytic scale was available, the scores for mechanics were excluded when calculating

a mean effect size for quality

. For writing-to-learn studies, effect sizes were calculated on the academic

achie

vement measures most similar to typical classroom achievement measures, as was done by

Banger

t-Dr

wns et al.

(2004).

A cor

ection w

as made for small sample size bias in thr

ee instances in which the sample size w

as less

than 20 (Hedges & Olkin,

1985).

When means or standar

d de

viations w

e unr

eported, effect sizes were

calculated fr

om t-tests,

analysis of v

iance (ANO

A),

or regression analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

To avoid inflating sample size (Wolf, 1986) and violating the assumption of independence of data,

only one effect size was computed for each study, with two exceptions. One exception involved

comparisons of two interventions in which each intervention fit one of the established groupings

and an effect size was calculated for both categories. For example, Curry (1997) compared strategy

instruction (effect size = 0.51) and the process writing approach (effect size = -0.51).The other

exception involved cases in which more than two different interventions were compared.When this

occurred, an effect size for each intervention was calculated. For example, Knudson (1989) compared

four different interventions.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

Statistical Analysis of Effect Sizes

Analyses were conducted only for groupings that included four or more effect sizes based on the

precedents set by Hillocks (1986). Nevertheless, it is recognized that small sample sizes are not very

reliable, and a summary statistic is not reported for groupings with small samples and considerable

variation in effect sizes.

Our meta-analysis employed a weighted fixed-effects model. For each grouping, we calculated the

mean, standard deviation, and median for the unweighted effect sizes.We also calculated the mean and

confidence interval for weighted effect sizes.While it is best to interpret the magnitude of an average

weighted effect size (e.g., strategy instruction in writing) in relation to the distribution of other mean

effect sizes in the same general area (i.e., other writing instructional approaches), in interpreting effect

sizes, we used the generally accepted rule of thumb that an effect size of 0.20 is small, 0.50 is medium,

and 0.80 is large (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

We also conducted a test of homogeneity to determine if the various effect sizes averaged together

in a grouping estimated the same population effect size.When variability in effect sizes was larger

than expected based on sampling error alone (i.e., the homogeneity test was statistically significant),

this excess variability was examined to determine whether it could be accounted for by identifiable

differences between studies (i.e., grade level). Using a fixed-effects model (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001),

the effect size variance was partitioned in order to examine if a specific study feature (a) systematically

differentiated between investigations with larger and smaller effect sizes and (b) accounted for the

excess in variability. MetaWin software (Rosenberg,Adams, & Gurevitch, 2000) was used to conduct

these analyses.

Note that not all of the analyses are included in this document.These can be obtained from Carnegie

Corporation of New York or from a forthcoming article (Graham & Perin, 2006).

Limitations

Readers should keep in mind several caveats and limitations of this report’s findings and

recommendations.

Fir

st, only studies in which the performance of an experimental group was compared with that

of a comparison group were included in this review. Consequently, the conclusions from this

meta-analysis do not reflect the findings from a number of excellent observational studies that

examined the writing practices of effective teachers of writing (e.g., Pressley,Yokoi, Rankin,Wharton-

McDonald, & Mistretta, 1997), studies that measured the correlations between writing performance

and particular teaching procedures (e.g., Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003), or single-

subject design studies (e.g., De La Paz, 1999). Likewise, it was not possible to draw any conclusions

about the effectiveness of a procedure such as dictation, as most of the research in this area involved

students acting as their own comparison group (e.g., Graham, 1990).

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Second, because the analysis was limited to studies that assessed the quality of students’ writing, we

can draw no conclusions about studies that did not examine effects on writing quality. Consequently,

we were unable to analyze the viability of teaching basic text transcription skills, such as spelling or

handwriting, to adolescents because the search did not yield any studies that examined whether such

instruction had an impact on the writing quality of students in grades 4 through 12.

Third, some instructional procedures have been the focus of more research than others. Although

vocabulary instruction (e.g., Duin & Graves, 1987) may be an effective procedure for improving

students’ writing, for example, not enough research is available to draw even a tentative conclusion

about its impact. In addition, only four areas (strategy instruction, word processing, process writing

approach, and grammar instruction) yielded 10 or more effect sizes. Less confidence can be placed

in the reliability of an average effect size when it is based on a small number of studies.

Four

th, even for some areas that included a large number of effect sizes, not all grade levels were

covered. For strategy instruction, for instance, there were no studies beyond 10th grade.The results of

our meta-analysis do not permit a determination of whether the interventions are effective at specific

grade levels. Interpretation of the findings from this review must be tempered by this fact.

Fifth, in only one instructional approach, strategy instruction, was it possible to examine whether

type of student moderated outcome effects. Even though the authors wanted to determine whether

an instructional approach was effective with low-achieving writers, it was difficult to do so. In addition

the samples of low-achieving writers who participated in the studies in this review represented a mix

of students, including those with and without learning disabilities.

Sixth,

as with Hillocks (1986), a host of subjective decisions had to be made about what constituted

a wr

iting intervention grouping (e.g., process writing approach). In light of the reaction to Hillocks’

vie

w (see

, e.g., Stotsky, 1988), other researchers will undoubtedly question one or more of the

methodolo

ical decisions in the cur

ent meta-analysis. As a result, the reasoning process and

decision-making has been made as transpar

ent as possib

and reliability for the groupings decided

upon is r

epor

ted.

Finally

one concer

n with meta-analysis in

olv

es ho

w coherent the intervention is for the comparison

condition,

which is also a concer

n in the cur

ent r

vie

w. For some groupings, such as product goal

setting,

the compar

ison conditions w

e homo

geneous.

or other groupings, such as the process writing

appr

oach,

ther

e w

as considerab

le v

iation in the comparison conditions. In some of these instances

(e.g., the pr

ocess wr

iting appr

oach),

it was possible to examine whether differences in comparison

conditions w

e systematically r

elated to the obtained a

erage w

eighted effect size. In other instances,

diversity in compar

ison conditions along with other f

actor

s (e.g., heterogeneity in effect sizes or

variability in the inter

entions within a g

ouping) resulted in a decision not to report an average

weighted effect size for a g

ouping,

and these g

oupings are not discussed in the current report.

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

APPENDIX B: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL AND

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES SUPPORTING

THE 11 KEY ELEMENTS

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

Size

1. Writing Strategies

Curry, K. A. (1997). A comparison of

the writing products of students

with learning disabilities in inclusive

and resource room settings

using different writing instruction

approaches

. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Florida Atlantic

University, Boca Raton, FL.

4 LD Students taught planning

strategies for story writing

versus writing skills

instruction

SRSD

0.51

Glaser, C. (2005). Improving the fourth-

grade students’ composition skills:

Effects of strategy instruction and

self-regulator

y procedures

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Pottsburg, Germany.

4 Full

range

Students taught a planning

strategy for story writing

versus unspecified com-

parison condition

SRSD

1.24

Walser, T. M. (2000). Teaching self-

management of writing strategies

to promote transfer. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Utah State

University, Logan, UT.

4 Full

range

Students taught planning

and revising strategies for

story writing versus direct

instruction in narrative

writing plus journal writing

0.91

Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The

effectiveness of a highly explicit,

teacher-directed strategy instruction

routine: Changing the writing

performance of students with

learning disabilities.

Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 35,

290–305.

4–5 LD Students taught a planning

strategy for persuasive

writing versus partial

process writing model

0.14

MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham,

S. (1991). Ef

fects of a r

ecipr

ocal peer

revision strategy in special education

classrooms.

Learning Disability

Research and Practice, 6,

201–210.

4–6 LD Students taught a peer

evising strategy for nar

tive writing as part of a

process writing approach

versus process writing

instruction only

SRSD

1.09

Details of Quasi-experimental and Experimental Studies Supporting Key Elements

of Adolescent Writing Instruction

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classr

ooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

nderson, A. A. (1997).

he effects

of sociocognitive writing strategy

instruction on the writing achieve-

ment and writing self-efficacy of

students with disabilities and typical

achievement in an urban elementary

school

. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Houston,

Houston, TX.

5 F

ull

range

tudents taught a planning

strategy for story writing

versus grammar and writ-

ten literature summariza-

tion instruction

SRSD

.40

Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.

(1992). Direct teaching, strategy

instruction, and strategy instruction

with explicit self-regulation: Effects

on the composition skills and self-

efficacy of students with learning

disabilities.

Jour

nal of Educational

Psychology, 84, 340–352.

5–6 LD Students taught a planning

strategy for story writing

versus writing practice

SRSD

1.86

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997).

Effects of dictation and advanced

planning instruction on the

composing of students with writing

and learning pr

oblems.

Journal of

Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222.

5–7 LD Students taught a planning

strategy for persuasive

writing versus text

str

ucture instruction on

persuasive essays

SRSD

0.82

Fitzgerald, J., & Markham, L. (1987).

Teaching children about revision in

writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4,

3–24.

6 Full

range

Students taught revising

strategies versus reading

good literature

0.32

Scar

damalia, M., Ber

eiter

, C., &

Steinbach, R. (1984). T

eachability

of reflective processes in written

composition.

Cognitive Science, 8,

173–190.

6 Full

range

Students taught strategies

for being self-r

eflective

when planning versus

unspecified comparison

condition

0.65

Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASE strategy:

A metacognitive learning strategy for

improving the paragraph writing of

students with mild disabilities.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 15,

119–128.

6 LD Students taught a planning

strategy for paragraph

writing versus unspecified

comparison condition

2.26

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

elch, M., & Jensen, J. (1990). Write,

PLEASE: A video-assisted strategic

intervention to improve written

expression of inefficient learners.

Remedial and Special Education, 12,

37–47.

–8

Low-

achieving

tudents taught a planning

strategy for paragraph

writing versus unspecified

comparison condition

.72

Reynolds, C., Hill, D., Swassing, R., &

Ward, M. (1988). The effects of

revision strategy instruction on the

writing performance of students with

learning disabilities. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 21,

540–545.

6–8 LD Students taught editing

and sentence-level

revising strategies versus

directing students to

plan, draft, and revise

compositions

0.16

Gamelin, Y. M. A. (1996). The effects of

Cognitive Strategy Instruction in

Writing (CSIW) on the writing skills

of severely learning disabled stu-

dents and their peers in an inclusive

classroom. Unpublished master’s

thesis, Simon Fraser University,

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

7 Full

range

Students taught planning

and revising strategies for

compare/contrast essays

versus process writing

instruction

0.98

Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education:

Teaching argumentative writing to

cultural minority middle-school

students.

Resear

ch in the Teaching

of English, 33, 49–83.

7 Full

range

Students taught a planning

strategy for persuasive

writing versus process

writing appr

oach

0.14

De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002).

Explicitly teaching strategies, skills,

and knowledge: Writing instruction

in middle school classrooms.

Jour

nal of Educational Psychology,

94, 291–304.

7–8 Full

range

Students taught a planning

strategy for persuasive

writing versus traditional

writing instruction

SRSD

0.95

De La Paz, S. (2005). Teaching historical

reasoning and argumentative writing

in culturally and academically

diverse middle school classrooms.

Jour

nal of Educational Psychology

97,

139–158.

8 Full

range

Students taught a planning

strategy for writing histori-

cal text versus traditional

writing instruction

SRSD

1.36

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

immons, D. C., Kameenui, E. J.,

Dickson, S., Chard, D., Gunn, B., &

Baker, S. (1994). Integrating narrative

reading comprehension and writing

instruction for all learners. In D. J.

Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.),

Multidimensional aspects of literacy

research, theory, and practice: 43rd

yearbook of The National Reading

Conference

(pp. 572–582). Chicago:

National Reading Conference.

8 F

ull

range

tudents taught planning

and revising strategies

for narrative text versus

narrative text structure

instruction and general

writing strategies

.40

Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S.

A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low

achievers and students with learning

disabilities to plan, write, and revise

opinion essays.

Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 29,

197–212.

8–9

Low-

achieving

Students taught planning

and revising strategies

for expository text versus

no-treatment comparison

condition

3.50

Bryson, M., & Scardamalia, M. (1996).

Fostering reflectivity in the argumen-

tative thinking of students with

dif

ferent learning histories.

Reading

and Writing Quar

terly: Overcoming

Learning Difficulties, 12, 351–384.

10 LD

Full

range

Students taught strategies

for reflection when writing

persuasive text versus

instr

uction on basic

elements of persuasive

writing

1.27

2. Summar

ization

Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D.

(2002). The effect of concept map-

ping to enhance text comprehension

and summarization.

Journal of

Experimental Education, 71, 5–23.

5 Full

range

Students taught to

summarize information by

completing progressively

faded expert summaries of

text versus no-treatment

comparison condition

0.81

Bean, T

. W

., & Steenwyk, F

. L. (1984).

The effect of three forms of summa-

rization instruction on sixth graders’

summar

y writing and compr

ehen-

sion.

Journal of Reading Behavior,

16, 297–306.

6 Full

range

Students taught r

ule-based

strategy to summarize

paragraph-length material

versus advice to write

summaries by finding the

main ideas (i.e., no explicit

instruction)

1.09

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

night, J. E. (2003).

elping able

readers synthesize information from

multiple sources in response to

open-ended questions

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Maryland, College Park, MD.

8 H

igh

tudents taught how to

synthesize information

from multiple sources

versus no-treatment

comparison condition

.18

Placke, E. (1987). The effect of cognitive

strategy instruction on learning

disabled adolescents’ reading

comprehension and summary

writing. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, State University of

New York, Albany, NY.

10–12 LD Students taught strategies

for summarizing main ideas

in expository material

versus cloze instruction

(i.e., filling in missing

words in reading materials)

1.12

3. Collaborative Writing

Prater, D. L., & Bermúdez, A. B. (1993).

Using peer response groups with

limited English proficient writers.

Bilingual Research Journal, 17,

99–116.

4 ESL Peers helped each other

choose topics as well

as revise and edit text

versus individual work on

compositions

0.19

MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham,

S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal

peer revision strategy in special

education classrooms. Learning

Disability Research and Practice, 6,

201–210.

4–6 LD Peers helped each other

revise and edit text versus

process writing instruction

1.09

Boscolo, P., & Ascorti, K. (2004).

Effects of collaborative revision

on children’s ability to write

understandable narrative texts.

In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy

(Eds.),

Revision: Cognitive and

instructional processes (pp.

157–170). Boston: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

4, 6, 8 Full

range

Peers helped each other

revise text versus teacher

correction of text

0.96

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

arrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001).

Collaborative writing: The effects

of metacognitive prompting and

structured peer interaction.

British

Journal of Educational Psychology,

71, 261–282.

–6

ull

range

eers helped each other

draft, revise, and edit text

after receiving training in

a process for composing

text versus individual

composition after

training in a process

for composing text

.58

Olson, V. B. (1990). The revising

processes of sixth-grade writers

with and without peer feedback.

Journal of Educational Research,

84, 22–29.

6 Full

range

Peers provided each other

with feedback on their

compositions versus

grammar instruction and

individual writing using

process writing approach

0.42

Hill, B. G. (1990). A comparison of

the writing quality of paired and

unpaired students composing at

the computer. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Texas,

Austin.

8 High Peers composed together

on a word processor

versus individual writing

on a word processor

0.46

Dailey, E. M. (1991). The relative

efficacy of cooperative learning

versus individualized learning

on the written performance of

adolescent students with writing

problems. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, John Hopkins

University, Baltimore, MD.

9–12 LD

Low-

achieving

Peers helped each other

plan, draft, and revise

text versus individuals

composing alone

1.18

4. Specific Product Goals

Graham, S., MacArthur, C., &

Schwar

tz, S. (1995). Ef

fects of goal

setting and procedural facilitation

on the r

evising behavior and writing

per

formance of students with

writing and learning problems.

Jour

nal of Educational Psychology

87,

230–240.

4–6 LD Goal to add three pieces

of infor

mation while r

evis

ing versus goal to make

paper better

0.77

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

chunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993).

Goals and progress feedback:

Effects on self-efficacy and writing

achievement.

Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 18,

337–354.

5 F

ull

range

oal to write a certain

type of paragraph versus

goal to do best

.69

Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993b).

Writing strategy instruction with

gifted students: Effects of goals and

feedback on self-efficacy and skills.

Roeper Review, 15, 225–230.

5 Full

range

Goal to write a certain

type of paragraph versus

goal to do best

1.01

Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., &

Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects

of an elaborated goal on the

persuasive writing of students

with learning disabilities and their

nor

mally achieving peers.

Jour

nal

of Educational Psychology, 92,

694–702.

6, 8 Full

range

Goal to include common

persuasive elements ver-

sus goal to write persua-

sive paper

0.38

Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999).

Effects of goal setting and strategy

use on the writing performance and

self-efficacy of students with writ-

ing and lear

ning problems. Jour

nal

of Educational Psychology, 91,

230–240.

7–8 LD Goal to include common

persuasive elements

versus goal to write

persuasive paper

1.18

5. Word Processing

Cheever, M. S. (1987). The effects

of using a word processor on

the acquisition of composition

skills by the elementary student.

Unpublished doctoral disser

tation,

Northwestern University,

Evanston, IL.

4 Full

range

Students composed on

computer 1 day a week

0.30

Jackiewicz, G. (1995). The effect of

computer based instruction on

writing at the elementar

y level

(ERIC Document Reproduction

Ser

vice No. ED380802)

4 Full

range

Students used word

processor during

computer lab for 12 weeks

1.74

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

oore, M. A. (1987).

he effect of word

processing technology in a develop-

mental writing program on writing

quality, attitude towards composing,

and revision strategies of fourth and

fifth grade students

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

South Florida, Tampa, FL.

–5

ull

range

tudents used word

processor as part of

writing program for

more than 10 weeks

.44

Lichtenstein, N. (1996). The effect

of word processing on writing

achievement

. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED394146)

5 Full

range

Students used word

processor for all writing

assignments for 20 weeks

0.75

Espinoza, S. F. (1992). The effects of

using a word processor containing

grammar and spell checkers on the

composition writing of sixth graders.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

6 Full

range

Students composed

with word processor for

6 weeks

0.03

Miller, S. K. (1984). Plugging your pencil

into the wall: An investigation of

word processing and writing skills at

the middle school level. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Oregon, Eugene, OR.

6 High Students composed

paragraphs on word

processor over 4 weeks

-0.09

Hagler

, W. J. (1993).

The ef

fects of the

word processor on the revision

behaviors of sixth grade students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Aubur

n University, Auburn, AL.

6 Full

range

Students wr

ote and

revised compositions on

word processor for 1 week

0.97

Dybdahl, C. S., Shaw, D. G., & Blahous,

E. (1997). The impact of the computer

on writing: No simple answers.

Computers in the Schools, 13, 41–53.

6 Full

range

Students used

word processor for

all assignments for

28 weeks

-0.18

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

owther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison,

G. M. (2003). When each one has

one: The influences on teaching

strategies and student achievement

of using laptops in the classroom.

Educational Technology, Research

and Development, 51, 23–44.

–7

ull

range

tudents had round-the-

clock access to laptop

computers for academic

year

.11

Shinn, J. A. (1986). The effectiveness

of word processing and problem

solving computer use on the skills

of learning disabled students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

United States International

University, San Diego, CA.

6–8 LD

Full

range

Students composed with

word processor and

received problem-solving

instruction on computer for

12 weeks

1.38

Lytle, M. J. (1987). Word processors

and writing: The relation of seventh

grade students’ learner characteris-

tics and revision behaviors.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

7 Full

range

Students used word

processor to write and

revise all assignments

-0.05

Dalton, D. W., & Hannafin, M. J. (1987).

The effects of word processing on

written composition.

Journal of

Educational Resear

ch, 80,

338–342.

Low-

achieving

Students used word

processor for writing

assignments for academic

year

0.28

Ler

ew, E. L. (1997).

The use of comput

ers to improve writing skills among

low-achieving Hispanic students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of La V

erne, La Verne, CA.

Low-

achieving

Students used wor

processor for writing

assignments for 20 weeks

0.89

Head, B. B. (2000). Revision instruction

and quality of writing by eighth

grade students using paper and

pencil or word processing.

Unpublished doctoral disser

tation,

Oakland University, Rochester, MI.

8 Full

range

Students used word

processor for 4 weeks

0.01

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

Lam, F. S., & Pennington, M. C. (1995).

The computer vs. the pen: A

comparative study of word process-

ing in a Hong Kong secondary

classroom. Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 8, 75–92.

9 Low-

achieving

Students composed

with word processor for

academic year

0.33

Philhower, S. C. (1985). The effects of

the use of a word processing pro-

gram on the writing skills of mildly

handicapped secondary students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

9–12 MH Students composed with

word processor for 16

weeks

0.51

Cirello, V. J. (1986). The effect of word

processing on the writing abilities

of tenth grade remedial writing

students. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, New York University,

New York.

10 Low-

achieving

Students received 20

weeks of remedial writing

instruction while using

word processor

1.10

Silver, N. W., & Repa, J. T. (1993).

The effect of word processing

on the quality of writing and self-

esteem of secondary school

English-as-second-language

students: Writing without censure.

Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 9,

265–283.

9–12 ESL Students composed with

word processor for 13

weeks

0.52

Sentence-Combining

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The

effects of peer-assisted sentence-

combining instruction on the writing

performance of more and less

skilled young writers.

Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97, 43–54.

4 Average

Low-

achieving

Sentence-combining

instruction versus

grammar instruction

0.42

Stoddard, E. P. (1982). The combined

effect of creative thinking and

sentence-combining activities on

the writing ability of above average

ability fifth and sixth grade students.

Unpublished doctoral disser

tation,

University of Connecticut, Storrs.

5–6 High Sentence-combining

instruction versus

unspecified comparison

condition

0.66

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

Pedersen, E. L. (1977). Improving

syntactic and semantic fluency in

writing of language arts students

through extended practice in

sentence-combining. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Minnesota, Minneapolis.

7 Full

range

Sentence-combining

instruction added to tradi-

tional literacy instruction

versus traditional literacy

instruction

0.40

Howie, S. M. H. (1979). A study: The

effects of sentence combining

practice on the writing ability

and reading level of ninth grade

students

. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Colorado,

Boulder.

9 Full

range

Sentence-combining

instruction versus

grammar instruction

0.21

Kanellas, R., Carifio, J., & Dagostino, L.

(1998). Improving the expository

writing skills of adolescents. Oxford

University Press, New York.

9 Average Sentence-combining

instruction versus

grammar instruction

0.61

7. Prewriting

Loader, L. M. (1989). The effects of

the semantic organizer on writing

ability and motivation with fourth

grade students. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Connecticut, Storrs.

4 Full

range

Students completed a

semantic web versus

listing ideas for writing

0.32

Brodney, B., Reeves, C., & Kazelskis, R.

(1999). Selected prewriting

treatments: Effects on expository

compositions written by fifth-grade

students. Journal of Experimental

Education, 68, 5–20.

5 Full

range

Students read information

on topic and were prompt-

ed to plan versus listening

to infor

mation on topic

0.95

odney

, B., Reeves, C., & Kazelskis, R.

(1999). Selected prewriting

treatments: Effects on expository

compositions written by fifth-grade

students. Journal of Experimental

Education, 68, 5–20.

5 Full

range

Students pr

ompted to

plan a paper after listening

to information on topic

versus only listening to

information on topic

0.17

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

eece, J. E., & Cumming, G. (1996).

Evaluating speech-based composi-

tion methods: Planning, dictation,

and the listening word processor.

In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),

The science of writing: Theories,

methods, individual differences,

and applications (pp. 361–380).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Study 4)

–6

ull

range

tudents encouraged

to plan after brief

demonstration of how

to do so versus no-

treatment comparison

condition

.61

Vinson, L. L. N. (1980). The effects of

two prewriting activities upon the

overall quality of ninth graders’

descriptive paragraphs. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

South Carolina, Columbia.

9 Full

range

Groups of students

brainstorm ideas for paper,

discuss which ideas to

include, and organize

their ideas prior to writing

versus writing paragraphs

with emphasis on

correction of first draft

0.06

8. Inquiry Activities

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1982). The interaction of

instruction, teacher comment, and

revision in teaching the composing

process. Research in the Teaching

of English, 16,

261–278.

7–8 Full

range

Students examined or

observed various activities

and collected data to write

about them versus writing

that was facilitated by

teacher discussion

0.14

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1982). The interaction of

instr

uction, teacher comment, and

revision in teaching the composing

process.

Research in the Teaching

of English, 16,

261–278.

7–8 Full

range

Students examined or

obser

ved various activities

and collected data to write

about them and then

revised papers versus

writing that was facilitated

by student discussion

-0.05

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1979). The effects of

observational activities on student

writing. Research in the Teaching of

English, 13, 23–35.

9, 11 Full

range

Students examined or

observed various activities

and collected data to

write about them

versus instr

uction in

paragraph writing

0.75

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

idvey, L. I. H. (1971).

study of the

use of a problem-solving approach

to composition in high school

English

. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Nebraska,

Lincoln.

ull

range

tudents formulated

hypotheses, gathered and

analyzed data, and made

inferences to structure

writing versus traditional

writing instruction

.65

Pisano, R. C. (1980). The effectiveness

of an intervention study in critical

thinking skills designed to improve

written composition in eleventh

and twelfth graders. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Rutgers:

The State University of New Jersey,

New Brunswick.

11–12 Full

range

Students asked to respond

to questions designed

to engage them in

critical thinking about

five literature topics versus

teachers’ regular question-

ing techniques

-0.07

9. Process Writing Approach

Umbach, B. T. (1990). A comparison

of two methods of teaching written

language to low-performing fourth

graders in two rural schools.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Low-

achieving

Process writing approach

versus instruction in

strategies for drafting a

paper

-0.03

Curry, K. A. (1997). A comparison of

the writing products of students

with learning disabilities in inclusive

and resour

ce room settings using

dif

fer

ent writing instr

uction

appr

oaches

. Unpublished doctoral

disser

tation, Florida Atlantic

University

, Boca Raton, FL.

4 LD Process writing approach

versus skills instruction

0.69

oia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The

effectiveness of a highly explicit,

teacher-directed strategy instruction

outine: Changing the writing

performance of students with

lear

ning disabilities.

Jour

nal of

Learning Disabilities, 35,

290–305.

4–5 LD Modified pr

ocess writing

approach versus strategy

instruction

-0.14

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

orka, D. M. (1992).

he effects of a

staff development program in writing

process on learners’ writing skills

and attitudes toward writing

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Pennsylvania State University,

University Park.

–6

ull

range

taff training in process

writing approach versus

unspecified comparison

condition with no training

TRAINING STUDY

.83

Pantier, T. F. (1999). A comparison of

writing performance of fifth grade

students using the process writing

approach and the Shurley Method

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Oklahoma State University,

Stillwater.

5 Full

range

Process writing

approach versus

grammar instruction

-0.30

Moye, M. J. (1993). The impact of a

cognitive strategy on students’

composing skills. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

5 Full

range

Process writing approach

(including models and

scales) versus teaching

students to use graphic

organizers

0.48

Robinson, M. E. (1986). The writing

performance and revision behavior

of fifth grade process and non-

ocess writing students during one-

day and two-day writing sessions.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Maine, Orono.

5 Full

range

Process writing

approach versus

traditional instruction

0.28

Varble, M. E. (1990). Analysis of writing

samples of students taught by teach

ers using whole language and tradi-

tional approaches.

Journal of

Educational Resear

ch, 83,

245–251.

6 Full

range

Whole-language

instr

uction with pr

ocess

writing instruction versus

skills instruction

-0.11

Gamelin, Y. M. A. (1996). The effects

of Cognitive Strategy Instr

uction in

riting (CSIW) on the writing skills

of severely learning disabled stu-

dents and their peers in an inclusive

classroom. Unpublished master’s

thesis, Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

7 Full

range

Process writing approach

versus strategy instr

uction

-0.98

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

ayes, B. L. (1984).

he effects of

implementing process writing into

a seventh grade English curriculum.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Delta State University, Cleveland,

MS.

7 F

ull

range

rocess writing approach

versus traditional grammar

instruction

.22

Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education:

Teaching argumentative writing to

cultural minority middle-school stu-

dents. Research in the Teaching of

English, 33, 49–83.

7 Full

range

Process writing approach

versus strategy instruction

-0.14

Olson, M. C., & DiStefano, P. (1980).

Describing and testing the

effectiveness of a contemporary

model for in-service education in

teaching composition.

Engineering

Education, 12, 69–76.

7-9 Full

range

National Writing Project

training in process

writing approach versus

unspecified comparison

condition with no training

TRAINING STUDY

0.40

Ganong, F. L. (1974). Teaching writing

through the use of a program based

on the work of Donald M. Murray.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Boston University School of

Education, Boston, MA.

9 Average,

high

Early form of process

writing approach versus

more traditional approach

in which students follow

prescribed series of

writing exercises

-0.13

Roberts, C. (2002). The influence of

teachers’ professional development

at the Tampa Bay Area Writing

Project on student writing

performance

. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation: University of South

Florida, Tampa, FL.

6–12 Full

range

National Writing Project

training in process writing

approach versus

unspecified comparison

condition with no training

TRAINING STUDY

0.14

Pritchard, R. J. (1987). Effects on

student writing of teacher training in

the National Writing Project Model.

Written Communication, 4, 51–67.

7–12 Full

range

National Writing Project

training in process writing

approach versus unspeci-

fied comparison condition

with minimal or no training

TRAINING STUDY

0.38

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

ritchard, R. J., & Marshall, J. C. (1994).

Evaluation of a tiered model for staff

development in writing. Research in

the Teaching of English, 28,

259–285.

–12

ull

range

ational Writing Project

training in process writing

approach versus

unspecified comparison

condition with no training

TRAINING STUDY

.50

Alloway, E., Carroll, J., Emig, J., King, B.,

Marcotrigiano, I., Smith, J., & Spicer,

W. (1979). The New Jersey Writing

Project

. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University, Educational Testing

Program Service, and Nineteen New

Jersey Public School Districts.

7–12 Full

range

National Writing Project

training in process writing

approach versus

unspecified comparison

condition with no training

TRAINING STUDY

0.39

Gauntlett, J. F. (1978). Project WRITE

and its effect on the writing of high

school students. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

10–12 Full

range

Process writing

approach versus

traditional instruction

0.02

Adams, V. A. (1971). A study of the

effects of two methods of teaching

composition to twelfth graders.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Illinois, Champaign-

Urbana.

12 High Early form of process writ-

ing approach versus skills

instr

uction

0.28

Reimer, M. (2001). The effect of a

traditional, a process writing,

and a combined talking and writing

instr

uctional approach on the quality

of secondar

y English students’

written response. Unpublished

master’

s thesis, University of

Manitoba, Canada.

9–12 Full

range

Process writing

approach versus

traditional instruction

-1.00

Scannella, A. M. (1982). A writing-as-

process model as a means for

improving compositions and

attitudes toward composition in

the high school. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Rutgers:

The State University of New Jersey,

New Br

unswick.

9–12 Full

range

Process writing

approach versus

traditional instruction

0.14

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

10. Study of Models

Knudson, R. E. (1989). Effects of

instructional strategies on children’s

informational writing. Journal of

Educational Research, 83,

91–96.

4, 6, 8 High Students examined model

pieces of writing to direct

composition of their

papers versus free writing

0.26

Knudson, R. E. (1991). Effects of

instructional strategies, grade,

and sex on students’ persuasive

writing. Journal of Experimental

Education, 59, 141–152.

4, 6, 8 Full

range

Students examined model

pieces of writing to direct

composition of their

papers versus free writing

0.24

Thibodeau, A. E. (1964). Improving

composition writing with grammar

and organization exercises utilizing

differentiated group patterns.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Boston University School of

Education, Boston, MA.

6 Full

range

Students examined model

pieces of writing for both

narrative and expository

writing versus traditional

language arts instruction

0.44

Reedy, J. E., Jr. (1964). A comparative

study of two methods of teaching

the organization of expository

writing to ninth-grade pupils.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Boston University School of

Education, Boston, MA.

9 Full

range

Students examined

model composition for

six patterns used to

organize expository

writing versus instruction

in the process of

communication in writing

0.26

Vinson, L. L. N. (1980). The effects

of two prewriting activities upon

the overall quality of ninth graders’

descriptive paragraphs.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of South Carolina,

Columbia.

9 Full

range

Students examined models

used to illustrate concrete

detail, sensory imagery,

unnecessary detail, and

single impression versus

writing paragraphs with

emphasis on correction of

first drafts

-0.29

Caplan, R., & Keech, C. (1980). Show-

writing: A training program to help

students be specific

. (Collaborative

Resear

ch Study No. 2). Berkeley

CA: Bay Area Writing Project. (ERIC

Document Repr

oduction Ser

vice

No. ED198539)

12 Full

range

Students examined

models used to illustrate

difference between

showing and telling

0.11

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

11. Writing for Content Learning

Davis, B. H. (1990). The effects of

expressive writing on the social

studies achievement, writing fluency,

and learning retention of fourth-

grade students

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock.

4 Full

range

Social studies: Students

made journal entries about

social studies materials

0.12

Millican, B. R. (1994). The effects of

writing-to-learn tasks on achieve-

ment and attitude in mathematics

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of North Texas, Denton.

4 Full

range

Math: Students used

writing activities to facili-

tate math learning

0.59

Lodholz, R. D. (1980). The effects of

student composition of

mathematical verbal problems

on student problem solving

performance. Unpublished doctoral

disser

tation, University of Missouri,

Columbia.

4–5 Full

range

Math: Students wrote

verbal descriptions of math

problems

-0.02

Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). W

riting

to learn, writing to transfer. In G.

Rijlaarsdam, P. Tynjala, L. Mason, &

K. Lonka (Eds.),

Studies in writing:

Vol. 7. W

riting as a learning tool:

Integrating theory and practice

(pp. 83–104). The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

5 Full

range

History: Students used

writing for note-taking,

commenting, synthesizing,

reflection, and expressing

doubt

1.04

Bauman, M. A. (1992). The effect of

teacher-directed journal writing on

fifth-grade student mathematics

achievement. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Marquette University,

Milwaukee, WI.

5 Full

range

Math: Students used

writing-to-learn activities

during math instruction

0.23

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

adden, B. R. (1992).

n investigation

of the relationship between

journal writing and mathematics

achievement in fifth grade students

in a rural unit school district

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Southern Illinois University,

Edwardsville.

5 F

ull

range

ath: Students completed

journal entries in response

to prompts about math

material

.33

Moynihan, C. M. (1994). A model and

study of the role of communication

in the mathematics learning process

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Boston College, Boston, MA.

5 Full

range

Math: Students wrote and

shared journal entries

about math activities

0.86

Dipillo, M. L. (1994). A quantitative/

qualitative analysis of student

journal writing in middle-grade

mathematics classes. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of

Akron, Akron, OH.

5–6 Full

range

Math: Students made

journal entries as part of

math instruction

0.52

Baisch, C. L. (1990). Writing methods

used in the teaching of mathematics:

An empirical study. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Eastern Michigan

University, Ypsilanti.

6 Full

range

Math: Students used

writing methods developed

in English to learn math

-0.21

Konopak, B. C., Mar

tin, S. H., & Martin,

M. A. (1990). Using a writing strategy

to enhance sixth-grade students’

comprehension of content material.

Jour

nal of Reading Behavior, 22,

19–36.

6 Full

range

Histor

y: Students used

writing to explore historical

knowledge

-0.01

Shepard, R. G. (1992). Using writing

for conceptual development in

mathematics instruction.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Indiana University

, Bloomington.

6 Full

range

Math: Students completed

writing assignments for

math homework

0.20

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

yers, W. E. (1993).

study of the

effectiveness of expressive writing

as a learning enhancement in

middle school science

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Temple

University, Philadelphia, PA.

–8

ull

range

arth science: Students

used expressive writing

activities to explore earth

science

0.77

Rivard, L. P. (1996). The effect of talking

and writing, alone and combined,

on learning in science: An

exploratory study. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University

of Manitoba, Canada.

8 Full

range

Science: Students wrote

about tasks involving

scientific explanation

for real-world ecology

problems

-0.46

Willey, L. H. (1988). The effects of

selected writing-to-learn approach-

es on high school students’ attitudes

and achievement. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Mississippi

State University, Mississippi State.

8 Full

range

Social studies: Students

wrote journal entries and

wrote about social studies

material

0.04

Reaves, R. R. (1991). The effects of

writing-to-learn activities on the

content knowledge, retention of

information, and attitudes toward

writing of selected vocational

agriculture education students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

North Carolina State University,

Raleigh.

9 Full

range

Natural resources:

Students completed

various writing activities

to promote learning about

protecting ground water

-0.12

Johnson, L. A. (1991). Ef

fects of essay

writing on achievement in algebra

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Connecticut, Stor

rs.

9 Full

range

Algebra: Students pr

ovided

instr

uction in how to

answer math essay

questions

0.55

Stewart, C. B. (1992). Journal writing

in mathematics classrooms: A

practical inquiry. Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation, Memphis State

University

, Memphis, TN.

9–10 Full

range

Algebra: Students wrote in

journals about class math

activities

0.59

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

anger, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987).

How writing shapes thinking.

Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English. (Study 2)

, 11

ull

range

ocial studies: Students

used writing to reformulate

and extend social studies

material

0.13

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987).

How writing shapes thinking.

Urbana, IL: National Council of

Teachers of English. (Study 3)

9, 11 Full

range

Social studies: Students

wrote summaries to review

new material

0.18

Willey, L. H. (1988). The effects of

selected writing-to-lear

appr

oaches on high school

students’ attitudes and achievement

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Mississippi State University,

Mississippi State.

10 Full

range

Biology: Students wrote

jour

nal entries and wrote

about biology activities

1.48

Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V.

(2004). Exploring students’ responses

to conceptual questions when

engaged with planned writing

experiences: A study with year

ten science students. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 41,

186–210.

10 Full

range

Biology: Students

completed two writing

assignments versus one

writing assignment

0.77

Kasparek, R. F. (1993). Effects of

integrated writing on attitude

and algebra performance of high

school students

. Unpublished

doctoral disser

tation, University

of North Carolina, Greensboro.

11 Full

range

Algebra: Students

completed two writing

assignments versus one

writing assignment

0.37

Wong, B. Y. L., Kuperis, S., Jamieson, D.,

Keller, L., & Cull-Hewitt, R. (2002).

Effects of guided journal writing on

students’ story understanding.

Jour

nal of Educational Research, 95

179–191.

12 Full

range

English: Students made

journal entries structured

with general response

questions about material

ead

1.68

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

ell, E. S., & Bell, R. N. (1985). Writing

and mathematical problem solving:

Arguments in favor of synthesis.

School Science and Mathematics,

85, 210–221.

–12

ull

range

ath: Students solved

math problems using

writing to record steps

.27

Licata, K. P. (1993). Writing about

mathematical relations in science:

Effects of achievement

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, State

University of New York, Buffalo.

9–12 Full

range

Math in science: Students

wrote about mathematical

relationships in science

0.27

Nieswandt, M. (1997, March).

Improving learning in chemistry

classes through original writing

about chemical facts

. Paper

presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago.

9–12 Full

range

Chemistry: Students wrote

about chemical facts

0.12

Traditional Grammar Instruction

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005).

The effects of peer-assisted

sentence-combining instruction

on the writing performance of

more and less skilled young writers.

Journal of Educational Psychology,

97, 43–54.

4 Average

Low-

achieving

Traditional grammar

instruction versus

sentence-combining

-0.42

Anderson, A. A. (1997). The effects

of sociocognitive writing

strategy instruction on the

writing achievement and writing

self-efficacy of students with

disabilities and typical achievement

in an urban elementary school

Unpublished doctoral disser

tation,

University of Houston, Houston, TX.

5 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus planning

or revising strategy

instruction

-1.40

Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

Average = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

approach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

Pantier, T. F. (1999). A comparison of

writing performance of fifth grade

students using the process writing

approach and the Shurley Method

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Oklahoma State University,

Stillwater.

5 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus process

writing approach

0.30

Thibodeau, A. L. (1964). A study of the

effects of elaborative thinking and

vocabulary enrichment exercises on

written composition

. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Boston

University School of Education,

Boston, MA.

6 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus peers

working on elaborative

thinking and vocabulary

enrichment activities

-0.54

Thibodeau, A. L. (1964). A study of the

effects of elaborative thinking and

vocabular

y enrichment exercises on

written composition. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Boston

University School of Education,

Boston, MA.

6 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus

individual students

working on self-directing,

elaborative thinking, and

vocabulary enrichment

activities

-0.41

Howie, S. M. H. (1979). A study: The

effects of sentence combining

practice on the writing ability and

reading level of ninth grade students

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Colorado, Boulder.

9 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus

sentence-combining

-0.21

Hayes, B. L. (1984). The ef

fects of

implementing process writing into

a seventh grade English cur

riculum

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Delta State University, Cleveland,

MS.

7 Full

range

raditional grammar

instruction versus process

writing appr

oach

-0.22

A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York

LD = students with learning disability

MH = students with mild handicapping conditions

ESL = students with English as second language

Low-achieving = low-achieving writers who were not LD or MH

verage = average writers

High = above average writers

Full range = full range of writers found in typical classrooms

SRSD = Self-Regulated Strategy Development study

TRAINING STUDY = professional development in process writing

appr

oach

Study Grades Students Instructional Approach Effect

ize

Kanellas, R., Carifio, J., & Dagostino, L.

(1998).

Improving the expository

writing skills of adolescents

. Oxford

University Press, New York.

9 Average Traditional grammar

instruction versus

sentence-combining

-0.61

Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2005, April).

An investigation of the influence

of teaching grammar in writing

to accomplish an influence on

writing

. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association,

Montreal, Canada.

10 Full

range

Traditional grammar

instruction versus gram-

mar instruction in context

1.07

Elley, W. B., Barham, I. H., Lamb, H., &

Wyllie, M. (1975). The role of

grammar in a secondary school

English curriculum.

New Zealand

Journal of Educational Studies, 10,

26–42.

11 Average Transformational grammar

instruction versus reading

and writing

0.00

Elley, W. B., Barham, I. H., Lamb, H., &

Wyllie, M. (1975). The r

ole of

grammar in a secondary school

English curriculum.

New Zealand

Journal of Educational Studies, 10,

26–42.

11 Average Traditional grammar

instruction versus r

eading

and writing

0.03

Want to receive the latest information on high school policy?

Add your name to the Alliance’s mailing list!

The Alliance for Excellent Education promotes

high school transformation to make it possible for every

child to graduate prepared for postsecondary education

and success in life.

Washington-based policy, research, and advocacy

organization,

the Alliance focuses on issues of concern

to middle and high schools, including adolescent literacy

school leadership

, college preparation, dropout reduction,

and the use of data to inform decisionmaking.

To add your name to the Alliance mailing list, visit

http://www.all4ed.org/whats_at_stake/mailinglist.html or fill

out the following form and mail it to the Alliance for Excellent

Education at 1201 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 901,

Washington, DC 20036. You may also fax the form to

202-828-0821. If you have questions, call 202-828-0828.

Name__________________________________________

Title___________________________________________

rganization

____________________________________

Address_________________________________________

City/S

tate/Z

ip ___________________________________

Phone ___________________Fax ___________________

mail addr

____________________________________

mail addr

ess is r

equir

ed to r

eceive

aight A

’

Want to receive the latest information on high school policy?

Add your name to the Alliance’s mailing list!

The Alliance for Excellent Education promotes

high school transformation to make it possible for every

child to graduate prepared for postsecondary education

and success in life.

A Washington-based policy, research, and advocacy

organization, the Alliance focuses on issues of concern

to middle and high schools, including adolescent literacy,

school leadership, college preparation, dropout reduction,

and the use of data to inform decisionmaking.

To add your name to the Alliance mailing list, visit

http://www.all4ed.org/whats_at_stake/mailinglist.html or fill

out the following form and mail it to the Alliance for Excellent

Education at 1201 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 901,

Washington, DC 20036. You may also fax the form to

202-828-0821. If you have questions, call 202-828-0828.

Name__________________________________________

Title___________________________________________

Organization ____________________________________

Address_________________________________________

City/State/Zip ___________________________________

Phone ___________________Fax ___________________

Email address____________________________________

(Email address is required to receive Straight A’s.)

Alliance for Excellent Education

1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 901

Washington, DC 20036-2605

Place

Postage

Here

Straight A’s focuses on education news and events in

Washington, DC, and around the country. The format

makes information on national education issues accessible

to everyone from elected officials and policymakers to

parents and community leaders. Learn about emerging

research, promising practices, and policy decisions that are

helping to shape secondary school reform in America.

The Alliance publishes cutting-edge reports such as

Reading Next that combine the best research currently

available with well-crafted strategies for turning that

research into practice.

Alliance for Excellent Education

1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW

uite 901

Washington, DC 20036-2605

lace

Postage

ere

Straight A’s focuses on education news and events in

Washington, DC, and around the country. The format

makes information on national education issues accessible

to everyone from elected officials and policymakers to

parents and community leaders. Learn about emerging

research, promising practices, and policy decisions that are

helping to shape secondar

y school reform in America.

The Alliance publishes cutting-edge r

eports such as

Reading Next that combine the best research currently

available with well-crafted strategies for turning that

research into practice.