ArticlePDF Available

A Meta-Analysis of Writing Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities

June 2014
Exceptional Children 80(4):454-473

DOI:10.1177/0014402914527238

Authors:

Amy Gillespie Rouse

Southern Methodist University

Steve Graham

Arizona State University

In this meta-analysis, the impact of writing interventions on the quality of writing produced by students with learning disabilities (LD) was assessed. Ancestral and electronic searches were used to locate experimental, quasi-experimental, and within-subjects design studies with participants in Grades 1–12 with documented LD. The effects of writing interventions on participants’ writing quality were averaged across 43 eligible studies to calculate an average weighted mean effect size (ES). Average weighted mean ES were also calculated for six writing treatment subgroups that contained four or more studies each (i.e., strategy instruction, dictation, procedural facilitation, prewriting, goal setting, and process writing). Overall, writing interventions had a statistically significant positive impact on the writing quality of students with LD (ES = 0.74). All writing treatment subgroups also had positive average weighted ES, but only four were statistically different from zero (i.e., strategy instruction ES = 1.09, dictation ES = 0.55, goal setting ES = 0.57, and process writing ES = 0.43). In addition, treatments designed specifically to enhance writing processes (e.g., planning, revising) were only effective when instruction was provided. Implications for the types of writing treatments and the types of instruction that may be most beneficial to students with LD are discussed and directions for future research are provided.

Descriptions of Individual Writing Comparisons

…

Percent of Quality Indicators Met for Writing Treatments That Included Four or More Effect Sizes

…

Multivariate Regression Model Predicting Average Weighted ES for All Studies (Question 1) Moderator B SE t

…

Figures - uploaded by Steve Graham

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Steve Graham

Content may be subject to copyright.

Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 454 –473.

DOI: 10.1177/0014402914527238

Exceptional Children

454 Summer 2014

Students with learning disabilities

(LD) have considerable difficulty

learning to write (Graham &

Harris, 2003). Their difficulties

with writing are complex and

manifested in multiple ways. Compared to

their typically achieving peers, they spend less time

planning, less time generating coherent ideas, and

less time revising for meaning and content (Gersten

& Baker, 2001; Graham, Harris, & McKeown, in

press). Further, students with LD typically approach

writing as if it involves a single process: content gen-

eration. When given a topic to write about, they

search long-term memory for relevant information,

generate text based on what they know about the

topic and the genre of writing, and compose each

subsequent phrase or sentence in response to the one

before it. This process continues until they have

exhausted their knowledge of the topic

or met the length requirement for the assignment

(e.g., write one page); the resulting text often lacks

coherence, clarity, and purpose (Graham, 1990).

A Meta-Analysis of Writing

Interventions for Students With

Learning Disabilities

Amy GilleSpie

Southern Methodist University

Steve GrAhAm

Arizona State University

AbStrAct: In this meta-analysis, the impact of writing interventions on the quality of writing

produced by students with learning disabilities (LD) was assessed. Ancestral and electronic

searches were used to locate experimental, quasi-experimental, and within-subjects design studies

with participants in Grades 1–12 with documented LD. The effects of writing interventions on

participants’ writing quality were averaged across 43 eligible studies to calculate an average weighted

mean effect size (ES). Average weighted mean ES were also calculated for six writing treatment

subgroups that contained four or more studies each (i.e., strategy instruction, dictation, procedural

facilitation, prewriting, goal setting, and process writing). Overall, writing interventions had a

statistically significant positive impact on the writing quality of students with LD (ES = 0.74). All

writing treatment subgroups also had positive average weighted ES, but only four were statistically

different from zero (i.e., strategy instruction ES = 1.09, dictation ES = 0.55, goal setting ES = 0.57,

and process writing ES = 0.43). In addition, treatments designed specifically to enhance writing

processes (e.g., planning, revising) were only effective when instruction was provided. Implications

for the types of writing treatments and the types of instruction that may be most beneficial to students

with LD are discussed and directions for future research are provided.

527238ECXXXX10.1177/0014402914527238Exceptional ChildrenSpring 2014

research-article2014

Exceptional Children 455

In addition, students with LD often approach

revising as if it were proofreading. Most of their

revisions involve making changes in spelling,

grammar, and mechanics (Graham, MacArthur, &

Schwartz, 1995). They experience difficulty coor-

dinating the processes involved in skilled revision,

including evaluating text, making decisions about

what to change, and executing a plan for the

proposed changes (Graham, 1997).

Another challenge for students with LD

involves difficulties with handwriting, typing, and

spelling (Graham et al., in press). These transcrip-

tion problems impede their writing in several ways.

When students must focus on forming letters

properly and spelling words correctly, they have

little room left in working memory to devote to

content, meaning, and written coherence (Baker,

Gersten, & Graham, 2003). Difficulties with tran-

scription skills make it more likely students with

LD will forget ideas or writing plans being held in

working memory. Also, they may terminate the

writing process prematurely due to fatigue.

Because writing can be cognitively overwhelm-

ing, physically exhausting, and time consuming

for students with LD, they often develop negative

attitudes about writing (Graham et al., in press).

As a result, many students with LD put forth mini-

mal effort when writing and avoid writing when

possible (Baker et al., 2003; Garcia-Sanchez &

Fidalgo-Redondo, 2006).

To address the writing difficulties experienced

by students with LD, it is important to identify

instructional practices that enhance the quality of

their writing. There are many practices that are

potentially effective. For instance, students’ tran-

scription difficulties might be addressed through

dictation or by teaching them handwriting and typ-

ing skills (Portilla-Revollar, 1994). Unsophisticated

approaches to planning and revising might be ame-

liorated by explicitly teaching students with LD to

use strategies for these tasks (e.g., Garcia-Sanchez &

Fidalgo-Redondo, 2006) or by providing proce-

dural supports (e.g., prompts) that help them carry

out these processes (e.g., Graham, 1990, 1997).

The identification of effective writing practices

provides more than just practical information. It

also provides important theoretical insights into

the writing challenges faced by students with LD.

For example, if procedures designed to enhance

students’ planning or revising processes result in

improvement in writing quality, this provides

evidence of the role of such processes in the

writing difficulties experienced by students with

LD. Likewise, the presumed impact of weak tran-

scription skills on writing is further verified if

writing improves with the removal of these skills

via dictation.

One approach for identifying effective writing

practices for students with LD is to conduct a sys-

tematic review of writing interventions with these

students. To do this, we chose meta-analysis. In

contrast to a narrative review of the literature,

meta-analysis permits analysis of the magnitude,

direction, and consistency of writing intervention

effects obtained across all relevant empirical studies

(Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009).

Researchers have reported positive effects of spe-

cific writing treatments for struggling writers and

students with LD in several meta-analyses (Gra-

ham, 2006: Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham,

McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Graham &

Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008). However,

none of these reviews focused specifically on stu-

dents with LD; only one provided results disaggre-

gated for students with LD (Graham & Harris,

2003), but this was only for strategy instruction.

Researchers have reported positive

effects of specific writing treatments for

struggling writers and students with

LD in several meta-analyses.

To date, only Gersten and Baker (2001) have

conducted a meta-analysis synthesizing the

research on writing interventions for students with

LD. They examined the impact of 13 true- and

quasi-experiments on the writing of students with

LD in Grades 1 to 9. Overall, writing interven-

tions had a positive impact (ES = 0.81) on stu-

dents’ writing. After a post hoc analysis of specific

features of the writing interventions, Gersten and

Baker indicated three instructional components

were essential for effective writing instruction for

students with LD: (a) explicit instruction in the

steps of the writing process, (b) explicit instruction

in text structures of various writing genres, and (c)

guided feedback from the instructor or peers dur-

ing the writing process.

456 Summer 2014

The present meta-analysis extends Gersten and

Baker’s (2001) review in four ways. First, only

studies that included a measure of writing quality

were reviewed, as this measure provides a broad

index of writing performance. Gersten and Baker

computed an ES for each study using all writing

measures assessed. This is problematic, as studies

varied considerably in the writing measures used to

compute the aggregate ES. Although measures of

writing quality vary, they provide a more consis-

tent index than aggregating all possible outcomes.

Second, our search for studies was more extensive

than Gersten and Baker’s search, as we searched

more databases; hand searched more journals;

included grey literatures, dissertations, and theses;

and conducted ancestral searches of all obtained

documents. Third, the current review incorpo-

rated 12 additional years of research beyond the

Gersten and Baker paper. As a result, we found

more than four times as many writing comparisons

as were located by Gersten and Baker. Fourth, we

tested if explicit instruction in writing processes

was related to variability in effects.

The present review was guided by two research

questions: (a) Are writing interventions, in gen-

eral, effective for students with LD? and (b) Which

specific writing interventions are effective with

students with LD? Moderator analyses were also

applied to determine if specific study-level charac-

teristics (e.g., study quality, explicit instruction)

accounted for excess variability in effects.

method

Study Eligibility CritEria

To be eligible for this review, each study had to

meet these criteria: (a) included students in Grades

1 to 12 identified as LD with appropriate support-

ing information (e.g., test scores, Individualized

Education Plans, special education placement);

(b) tested a writing intervention (this ranged from

teaching writing to activities where students car-

ried out a procedure designed to improve writing

performance); (c) assessed the quality of students’

writing (quality measures included holistic scales,

analytic scales, and norm-referenced assessments);

(d) involved a true-experiment with randomization,

a quasi-experiment with pretest data, or a within-

subjects group design (i.e., students participated in

both the treatment and comparison conditions);

(e) provided data for calculating an ES and an aver-

age weighted ES (authors were contacted to obtain

missing information for studies published in the

last 10 years); and (f) was published in English. We

did not include studies examining the effectiveness

of word processing with students with LD, as this

was examined in a recent meta-analysis by Morphy

and Graham (2012).

SEarCh S tratEgiES

We conducted electronic searches, ending in

December 2011, of Education Abstracts, ERIC,

PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Dissertation Abstracts

International. Search terms describing writing

(writing skills or writing instruction or written lan-

guage), the population (special education or strug-

gling writers or learning disabilit* or learning

disabled or writing problems), and writing out-

comes (writing quality or composition or assessment)

were combined with these keywords: revising,

editing, prewriting, peer writing, summary writing,

writer’s workshop, process writing, strategy instruc-

tion, dictation, sentence combining, genre, imagery,

rubrics, goal setting, inquiry, self-assessment, self-

monitor, self-evaluation, grammar, spelling, mechan-

ics, motivation, planning, peer collaboration, free

writing, models, 6 traits, evaluative scales, and cre-

ativity. These searches generated 26,716 items.

The first author read abstracts for all items, and

full-text documents were obtained for promising

items (confirmed by the second author).

We also searched the National Technical Infor-

mation Service (NTIS) to identify technical

reports that met eligibility criteria, and we searched

the reference lists of prior meta-analyses (e.g., Ger-

sten & Baker, 2001; Graham et al., 2012; Graham

& Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1984; Sandmel & Gra-

ham, 2011). We searched these journals by hand:

Exceptional Children, Journal of Learning Disabili-

ties, Learning Disability Quarterly, Learning Dis-

abilities Research & Practice, Reading & Writing,

Remedial & Special Education, and The Journal of

Special Education. The reference lists of all col-

lected documents were further examined to find

additional studies. Of the 281 documents identi-

fied, 43 studies met inclusion criteria. Some stud-

ies had more than one writing intervention, so 53

different ESs were calculated.

Exceptional Children 457

Coding o f S tudy f EaturES

Each study was coded for (a) year of publication,

(b) type of publication (journal article, book chap-

ter, dissertation, thesis, conference presentation, or

technical report), (c) grade level of participants, (d)

learning environment (general education class-

room, special education classroom, resource room/

pull-out, or after school program), (e) who deliv-

ered the intervention (teacher, researcher, or peer),

(f) subject in which the treatment was delivered

(English/Language Arts, Math, Science, History),

(g) genre of writing emphasized during the inter-

vention (narrative, persuasive, or expository), and

(h) treatment duration.

Studies were further coded and scored for seven

quality indicators: (a) design (true-experiment = 1

point; quasi-experiment = .5 point; within-subject

design = zero points), (b) treatment fidelity (1

point if fidelity was .80 or greater), (c) control for

instructor effects (1 point if methods were used

to control instructor effects; e.g., instructors ran-

domly assigned to conditions, instructors taught

both conditions), (d) number of instructors (1

point if two or more instructors were assigned to

each condition), (e) study attrition (1 point if at

least 80% of students completed the study), (f)

equal attrition across conditions (1 point if there

was no more than 10% difference in attrition

between groups), and (g) reliability of writing qual-

ity measure (1 point if reliability was .80 or higher).

Two quality indicators, control for instructor

effects and more than one instructor per condi-

tion, were not scored when writing was not directly

taught (e.g., studies involving dictation or studies

where students were asked to use a graphic orga-

nizer). Likewise, the equal attrition indicator was

not applicable to within-subjects group designs. As

a result, we calculated a total quality score for each

study as points earned divided by points possible,

multiplied by 100%.

The first author coded all 53 writing compari-

sons. Thirty percent of the studies were randomly

chosen and coded by the second author. Interrater

reliability was 99%.

CatEgorizing S tudiES b y t rEatmEnt

ConditionS

After reading the collected papers, the first author

placed all studies into the following 15 categories:

(a) strategy instruction, which involved modeling

how to use specific strategies for planning, writ-

ing, revising, and/or editing text and incorporated

student practice of the strategies in at least two

sessions with the goal of independent use over

time; (b) process writing, which consisted of stu-

dents engaging in cycles of planning, drafting,

revising, editing, and publishing their writing,

sustained time for writing for authentic purposes

and authentic audiences, and instruction con-

ducted in mini-lessons to target students’ writing

needs as they arose; (c) prewriting, which involved

students participating in activities such as brain-

storming or using a graphic organizer to help gen-

erate and organize ideas for their writing; (d)

procedural facilitation, which included supports

for students such as verbal prompts or cue cards

that facilitated planning, writing, or revising com-

positions; (e) goal setting, which involved provid-

ing students with a goal for their writing (e.g.,

include elements of a persuasive essay) or students

choosing their own goals for writing; (f) peer

tutoring, which consisted of peers instructing

each other and assisting each other with writing

tasks; (g) creativity training, which included activ-

ities designed to foster creative thinking abilities;

(h) the addition of self-regulation procedures to

strategy or skill instruction; (i) dictation to a

scribe or into a tape recorder; (j) adding instruc-

tion to process writing (students were taught writ-

ing strategies while participating in process

writing); (k) activities to increase writing motiva-

tion; (l) instruction on how to write sentences;

(m) self-evaluation using a rubric; (n) collabora-

tive writing where students created compositions

with peers; and (o) comprehensive writing pro-

grams where multiple writing treatments were

combined (e.g., strategy instruction, process writ-

ing, and prewriting were combined).

The second author confirmed the placement of

all but four studies. These studies were discussed

and reassigned until 100% consensus was reached

on their placement.

data a nalySiS

Effect sizes (ESs). ES was calculated by subtract-

ing the control or comparison group’s mean writ-

ing quality score at posttest from the treatment

group’s mean writing quality score at posttest, and

458 Summer 2014

then dividing by the pooled standard deviation of

the two groups. When pretest scores were available

(all quasi-experiments and some true-experiments

and within-subject designs), the difference between

treatment and control groups was first adjusted by

subtracting the mean pretest score for each group

from its mean posttest score. We also calculated ESs

for maintenance and generalization scores when

possible (i.e., in 7 of 43 studies).

The following rules were applied when comput-

ing ESs for writing quality. If a holistic measure

(i.e., a single score that encompasses factors such as

ideation, organization, vocabulary, mechanics, and

voice) was reported, it was used to calculate the ES

for a study. If a study included a holistic as well as

an analytic measure (i.e., separate scores for factors

such as ideation, organization, coherence) or norm-

referenced outcome, an ES was calculated for only

the holistic measure. In five instances only an ana-

lytic measure was reported, so we computed sepa-

rate ESs for each writing attribute and averaged

them to produce a single ES. In essence, this

reduced the analytic scores to a holistic score. There

were also nine instances where only a norm-refer-

enced measure was available for computing an ES.

For some ESs, it was necessary to aggregate the

performance of two or more groups (e.g., boys and

girls) using procedures developed by Nouri and

Greenberg (Cortina & Nouri, 2000). Missing stan-

dard deviations also had to be estimated from the

statistics presented in the publication for two stud-

ies (Clippard & Nicaise, 1998; Croes, 1990). We

corrected all ESs for small sample size using proce-

dures recommended by Hedges and Olkin (1985).

Average weighted effects across studies. A ran-

dom effects model was applied when calculating

average weighted ESs, statistical significance, and

confidence intervals. We also computed two mea-

sures of heterogeneity (Q and I2) to determine if

the variability in ESs was greater than what would

be expected from sampling error alone (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001).

To answer Research Question 1 (Are writing

interventions, in general, effective for students

with LD?), we calculated a single ES for all 43

studies in this review. If a study had multiple writ-

ing comparisons, we aggregated scores (see Cortina

& Nouri, 2000) for all writing treatment groups

and compared the aggregated score to the score for

the control condition.

To answer Research Question 2 (Which

specific writing interventions are effective?), we

calculated an average weighted ES for each writing

treatment containing four or more ESs (i.e., strat-

egy instruction, dictation, procedural facilitation,

prewriting, goal setting, and process writing). This

was consistent with other writing meta-analyses

(e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007).

Nine studies included more than one writing

treatment comparison. To avoid violating the

assumption of independence of ESs (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001), only one ES was used per study

when computing average weighted ESs and when

conducting moderator analyses.

Outliers. Prior to computing average weighted

ESs, we examined the ESs and sample sizes of all

studies for extreme outliers (any ES or sample size

falling three times the interquartile range above

the 75th percentile or three times the interquartile

range below the 25th percentile). One ES (Eissa,

2009) met this definition, and it was winsorized to

a less extreme value (i.e., an ES equivalent to the

definition of an extreme outlier above).

Moderator analysis. To determine if specific

study characteristics were related to excess variabil-

ity in ESs for Question 1 (Are writing interven-

tions, in general, effective for students with LD?),

we conducted a meta-regression (Borenstein et al.,

2009), which is similar to a multiple regression.

We examined if four moderators accounted for

excess variability in ESs. Study quality was

selected as a moderator because studies of higher

quality may produce smaller effects, as method-

ological rigor may prevent inflated outcomes or

erroneous findings. Publication date was chosen

as a moderator, because more recent publications

may produce larger effects, as researchers may have

improved writing interventions over time. Type of

publication was selected because journal articles

may have larger effects than dissertations, which

are generally conducted by less skilled researchers.

Who delivered the intervention was also chosen

as a moderator, but it was unclear if teacher- or

researcher-delivered interventions would have

a greater effect. Students may work harder for

their teachers, resulting in greater writing gains.

In contrast, teachers may be less likely to admin-

ister interventions with high fidelity due to class-

rooms demands, resulting in less effective writing

interventions.

Exceptional Children 459

For Question 2 (Which specific writing inter-

ventions are effective?), we used the ANOVA ana-

log (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) to assess excess

variability in ESs. Consistent with our decision

about the calculation of average weighted ESs, we

only conducted such an analysis when there were

at least four effects in each category of a moderator

variable. The only intervention with enough ESs

was strategy instruction. Three of the same mod-

erators used in the meta-regression (study quality,

publication year, and instructor) were used with

this analysis. Additionally, we examined differ-

ences between studies using Self-Regulated Strat-

egy Development (SRSD) and those not using

SRSD. SRSD involves explicit instruction in

task-specific writing strategies through a series of

criterion-based lessons. The instructor models the

strategies and scaffolds students’ strategy use until

students can apply the writing strategies indepen-

dently. Students also learn to self-regulate and

monitor their progress in learning and using the

writing strategies. SRSD differs from other strat-

egy approaches in its emphasis on self-regulation

and mastery learning (Harris, Graham, Mason, &

Friedlander, 2008).

Finally, we made an a priori decision to use

the ANOVA analog to examine the differences

between studies with writing process treatments

that involved instruction (n = 16) and those that

involved minimal to no instruction (n = 10). Dic-

tation and goal setting were excluded from this

analysis because they were not focused on writing

processes specifically. Studies of the process writ-

ing approach were also excluded because the type

and extent of instruction in these studies was

unclear. For the purposes of this analysis, a study

was deemed to include instruction if it had a min-

imum of two sessions and included instructor

modeling, student practice applying the writing

process or strategy, and a goal for independent

student application. Studies that did not meet

these requirements were considered to have mini-

mal or no instruction (e.g., students used cue

cards to remind them to include specific elements

in their writing).

reSultS

Table 1 presents individual descriptions for

all writing comparisons. Descriptive information

(publication type, design, grade level, writing

genre emphasized during the intervention, sum-

mary of treatment and comparison conditions,

and sample size) as well as Hedge’s g and the qual-

ity score are reported for each study. Writing treat-

ments are ordered from the treatment containing

the most studies to the treatment with the least

studies, with treatments with an equal number of

studies ordered alphabetically. Studies in a cate-

gory with fewer than four ESs are presented at the

end of the table.

Quality o f r ESEarCh

Overall, 60% of the quality indicators were met

for all studies (see Table 2). Of the studies report-

ing information about attrition, most (93%) had

little attrition; all had equal attrition across treat-

ment and comparison groups. Only 44% of stud-

ies employed a true experimental design. Another

42% were quasi-experimental and 14% were

within-subjects designs. More than two thirds of

studies (67%) reported reliability of writing qual-

ity outcome measures. Of these, 79% reported

reliability at .80 or higher. Few studies reported

treatment fidelity or controlled for instructor

effects. Less than half of studies involved multiple

instructors in treatment and comparison condi-

tions. As seen in Tables 1 and 2, quality varied

across studies and treatments.

QuEStion 1: ar E W riting

intErvEntionS, in g EnEral,

EffECtivE for S tudEntS W ith ld?

In 43 studies, researchers evaluated the effective-

ness of writing interventions on the writing quality

of students with LD. Most studies (n = 35)

involved students in upper elementary and middle

grades (i.e., Grades 4-8). The remaining studies

included students in primary grades (n = 3) and

high school (n = 5). Writing interventions were

delivered in a variety of settings, including (a)

resource room/pullout (n = 15), special education

(n = 9), general education (n = 6), and after school

programs (n = 3). A majority of studies (n = 22)

did not include information about the content

area in which a writing intervention was imple-

mented; 17 studies involved writing interventions

460 Summer 2014

tAble 1

Descriptions of Individual Writing Comparisons

Study

Type of

publication Design

Grade

level

Writing

genre

Treatment and

comparison

conditions N

Hedge’s

g ES

Quality

scorea

Writing treatments that included four or more effect sizes

Strategy instruction

Bryson & Scardamalia

(1996)

J E 10 P Inquiry strategies vs.

genre elements

15 1.22 57%

Curcic (2009) D E 7-8 EX Big 6 Skills strategy

vs. BAU

20 0.80 71%

Curry (1997) D Q 4 N Plan/write strategies

vs. writing skills

48 0.57 50%

De La Paz & Graham

(1997)

J E 5-7 P Plan/write strategies

vs. genre elements

42 0.91

1.08 M

100%

Eissa (2009) J E 9 P Planning strategy vs.

BAU

67 3.50b 43%

Englert, Raphael, Anderson,

Anthony, & Stevens

(1991)

J Q 4-5 EX Plan/write/revise

strategies vs. BAU

55 0.55

0.85 G

64%

Garcia & de Caso (2004) J E 5-6 MG Plan/write strategies

vs. BAU

127 0.96 57%

Garcia & de Caso-Fuertes

(2007)

J Q 5-6 MG Plan/write strategies

vs. BAU

100 0.71 50%

Garcia-Sanchez &

Fidalgo-Redondo (2006)

J E 5-6 EX Plan/write/revise

strategies vs.

writing skills

121 2.21 71%

MacArthur, Schwartz,

& Graham (1991)

J Q 4-6 N Revise/edit strategies

vs. BAU

29 1.42 64%

Reynolds, Hill, Swassing,

& Ward (1988)

J Q 6-8 CD Revising strategies

vs. BAU

53 0.15 50%

Sawyer, Graham, & Harris

(1992)

J E 5-6 N Plan/write strategies

vs. BAU

21 1.14 86%

Therrien, Hughes, Kapelski,

& Mokhtari (2009)

J E 7-8 EX Writing prompt

strategies vs. BAU

40 0.32 71%

Troia & Graham (2002) J E 4-5 N Planning strategy vs.

BAU

20 0.821

.73 M

–0.48 G

86%

Welch (1992) J Q 6 EX Plan/write strategies

vs. BAU

18 1.79 36%

Dictation

De La Paz & Graham

(1997)

J E 5-7 P Dictate to scribe vs.

write by hand

42 0.64

0.43 M

100%

Graham (1990) J WS 4, 6 P Dictate to recorder

vs. write by hand

23 0.75 50%

Lane & Lewandowski

(1994)

J WS 7-8 N Dictate to recorder

vs. write by hand

19 1.19 50%

MacArthur & Graham

(1987)

J WS 5-6 N Dictate to recorder

vs. write by hand

11 0.61 50%

Montague, Graves,

& Leavell (1991)

J E 7-8 N Dictate to recorder

vs. write by hand

40 –0.20 80%

Portilla-Revollar (1994) D E 2-4 N Dictate to recorder

vs. write by hand

24 0.36 80%

continues

Exceptional Children 461

Study

Type of

publication Design

Grade

level

Writing

genre

Treatment and

comparison

conditions N

Hedge’s

g ES

Quality

scorea

Procedural facilitation

Graham (1997) J WS 5-6 N Index cards to revise

vs. BAU revising

12 0.00 75%

Graham (1990) J WS 4, 6 P Prompt to write

more vs. no

prompt

23 1.15 50%

Graham et al. (1995) J E 4-6 N Procedure to revise

vs. BAU revising

43 0.02 80%

Graves, Montague, & Wong

(1990)

J E 5-6 N Cue cards for

elements vs. no

cue cards

30 1.22 60%

Montague et al. (1991) J WS 7-8 N Cue cards for

elements vs. no

cue cards

40 –0.43 50%

Page-Voth & Graham

(1999)

J E 7-8 P Procedure to

include elements

vs. no procedure

20 –0.52 100%

Prewriting

Bahr, Nelson, & Van Meter

(1996)

J WS 5, 8 N Prewriting questions

vs. no prewriting

6 0.00 50%

Blair (2003) D Q 7-8 EX Prewriting story

webs vs. no

prewriting

18 0.01 70%

Bulgren, Marquis, Lenz,

Schumaker, & Deshler

(2009)

J E 9-10,

EX Prewriting graphic

organizer vs.

BAU

18 1.37 80%

Kurtz (1987) D Q 4-6 N Graphic organizer

vs. no prewriting

12 0.97 50%

Sturm & Rankin-Erickson

(2002)

J WS 8 EX Concept map vs. no

prewriting

12 –0.46 33%

Goal setting

Ferretti, Lewis, & Andrews-

Weckerly (2009)

J E 4, 6 P Genre elements goal

vs. general goal

48 0.36 100%

Ferretti, MacArthur, &

Dowdy (2000)

J E 4, 6 P Genre elements goal

vs. general goal

62 0.34 60%

Graham et al. (1995) J E 4-6 N Goal to add text vs.

general goal

43 0.75 80%

Page-Voth & Graham

(1999)

J E 7-8 P Genre elements goal

vs. no goal

20 1.59 100%

Process writing

Clippard & Nicaise (1998) J Q 4-5 CD Writer’s workshop

vs. writing related

to content area

curriculum

27 0.36 64%

Croes (1990) D Q 1-5 MG Process writing vs.

BAU

157 0.34 36%

Curry (1997) D Q 4 N Writer’s workshop

vs. writing skills

45 0.45 50%

Weiss (1992) D Q 2-3 MG Process writing vs.

BAU

24 1.11 36%

tAble 1. Continued

continues

462 Summer 2014

Study

Type of

publication Design

Grade

level

Writing

genre

Treatment and

comparison

conditions N

Hedge’s

g ES

Quality

scorea

Writing treatments that did not include four or more effect sizes

Brantley & Small (1991) T Q Junior

high

CD Evaluated own

writing with rubric

vs. no rubric

37 0.23 36%

Bui, Schumaker, & Deshler

(2006)

J Q 5 N 6 Traits; genre

elements, plan/

sentence/

paragraph

strategies vs. BAU

14 0.18 50%

Curry (1997) D Q 4 N Prewrite/genre

strategies and

Writer’s workshop

vs. Writer’s

workshop

51 0.27 50%

de Caso, Garcia, Diez,

Robledo, & Alvarez

(2010)

J E 5-6 N Self-efficacy and

motivation vs.

BAU

60 1.10 43%

Fewell (1985) D Q 10-12 CD Intrinsic motivation

vs. no motivation

30 0.45 50%

Fewell (1985) D Q 10-12 CD Sentence

construction

skills vs. BAU

23 –0.79 50%

Fortner (1986) J Q 3-6 CD Creative thinking

skills vs. BAU

49 1.03 64%

Garcia and de Caso (2006) J Q 5-6 MG Self-efficacy and

motivation vs.

BAU

60 1.59

2.04 M

36%

Jolly (1988) D Q 9-11 N Writing with a

partner vs. BAU

20 0.55

–0.26 M

70%

Kurtz (1987) D Q 3-6 N Prewriting with

self-regulation

vs. prewriting

with instructor

guidance

12 1.21 50%

MacArthur, Graham,

Schwartz, & Schafer

(1995)

J Q 5 MG Writer’s workshop;

word processor;

plan/revise

strategies vs. BAU

166 0.43 36%

Sawyer et al. (1992) J E 5, 6 N Strategies with goal

setting and self

monitoring vs.

strategies

22 –0.02

–0.13 M

0.19 G

86%

Utay & Utay (1997) J E 2-6 MG Partners taught

writing skills vs.

BAU

71 0.00 43%

Note. Several studies were included in multiple categories because they had multiple treatment-control group

comparisons. J = journal; D = dissertation; E = experimental; Q = quasi-experimental; WS = within-subjects;

P = persuasive; EX = expository; N = narrative; CD = cannot determine; MG = multiple genres; BAU = business as

usual; M = maintenance; G = generalization.

aEffect size was winsorized because it was an extreme outlier.

bQuality score is a percentage of the points possible for each study.

tAble 1. Continued

Exceptional Children 463

conducted in English/Language Arts classrooms.

Writing treatments lasted from 1 day to 1 school

year, and comparison conditions varied as well

(see Table 1).

Overall, writing interventions had a statisti-

cally significant positive impact (see Table 3) on

the writing quality of students with LD (average

weighted ES = 0.74, p < .001), with 86% of

tAble 2

Percent of Quality Indicators Met for Writing Treatments That Included Four or More Effect Sizes

Writing

treatment

Quality indicators

Design Fidelity

Instructor

effects

N > 1

Instructor per

condition Attrition

Equal

attrition Reliability

All studies

(N = 43)

65%

(28/43)

19%

(8/43)

33%

(9/27)

48%

(13/27)

93%

(40/43)

100%

(37/37)

53%

(23/43)

Strategy

instruction

(n = 15)

80%

(12/15)

27%

(4/15)

40%

(6/15)

53%

(8/15)

100%

(15/15)

100%

(15/15)

47%

(7/15)

Dictation

(n = 6)

50%

(3/6)

17%

(1/6)

NA NA 100%

(6/6)

100%

(3/3)

100%

(6/6)

Procedural

facilitation

(n = 6)

50%

(3/6)

33%

(2/6)

NA NA 100%

(6/6)

100%

(3/3)

83%

(5/6)

Prewriting

(n = 5)

40%

(2/5)

(0/5)

100%

(1/1)

(0/1)

100%

(5/5)

100%

(3/3)

60%

(3/5)

Goal setting

(n = 4)

100%

(4/4)

50%

(2/4)

NA NA 100%

(4/4)

100%

(4/4)

75%

(3/4)

Process writing

(n = 4)

50%

(2/4)

(0/4)

75%

(3/4)

75%

(3/4)

100%

(4/4)

25%

(1/4)

Note. NA = not applicable.

tAble 3

Average Weighted Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity Statistics for Writing Treatments That Included Four or

More Effect Sizes

Writing

treatment

Number of

ESs

Average

weighted ES SE

Confidence

interval pa

Heterogeneity

QI2

All studies 43 0.74 0.10 (0.55, 0.94) <.001 170.13*** 75.30

Strategy

instruction

15 1.09 0.19 (0.72, 1.47) <.001 73.58*** 81.00

Dictation 6 0.55 0.20 (0.17, 0.94) <.01 10.00 50.00

Procedural

facilitation

6 0.24 0.31 (–0.37, 0.84) 0.45 26.13*** 80.90

Prewriting 5 0.33 0.35 (–0.35, 1.01) 0.34 10.20* 60.80

Goal setting 4 0.57 0.22 (0.14, 0.99) <.01 5.46 45.10

Process

writing

4 0.43 0.13 (0.18, 0.68) <.01 2.99 0.00

aTest of the null hypothesis that ES = zero.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

464 Summer 2014

studies yielding a positive ES. The Q-statistic for

the test of heterogeneity was statistically signifi-

cant (Q = 170.13, df = 42, p < .001), and I2 indi-

cated that 75% of the observed variance between

ESs was due to true variance between studies.

Therefore, we conducted a meta-regression to

determine if study quality score, year of publica-

tion, type of publication, or who delivered the

intervention (i.e., researcher or teacher) explained

any of the excess variance.

Table 4 displays the results from the multivari-

ate regression model predicting the average

weighted ES for all studies with the four study-

level moderators. There was no evidence of multi-

collinearity between the moderator variables and

the average weighted ES. Together, the four

moderators explained 9% of the variance between

studies. The Q-residual statistic (Q = 137.91, df =

38, p < .001) indicated a statistically significant

amount of between-study variance was left unex-

plained with the moderators in the model. Thus, it

is not surprising that none of the moderators (i.e.,

study quality score, year of publication, type of

publication, and who delivered the intervention)

had statistically significant relationships with the

average weighted ES. I2 indicated that 72% of

the residual variance was due to between-study

factors.

QuEStion 2 : WhiCh S pECifiC W riting

intErvEntionS arE EffECtivE for

improving thE W riting Quality o f

StudEntS With ld?

The average weighted ESs for the six writing treat-

ments containing four or more ESs were all posi-

tive (see Table 3). Four of the writing treatments

(i.e., strategy instruction, dictation, goal setting,

and process writing) had statistically significant

effects on the writing quality of students with LD.

Strategy instruction. Fifteen studies examined

the effects of strategy instruction. Most studies

(n = 13) involved students in Grades 4 to 8, with

a majority taking place in resource room/pullout

(n = 7) or self-contained special education classes

(n = 3). In 11 studies, students learned strate-

gies for planning and writing texts. Two studies

involved strategies for revising and editing texts,

and two studies involved strategies for planning,

writing, and revising. Comparison conditions

varied, with most studies (n = 11) using a busi-

ness-as-usual comparison condition. Students

in the other study comparison conditions either

practiced writing skills (e.g., grammar, spelling)

or learned and practiced using the elements of

specific writing genres. Approximately half of the

studies involving strategy instruction were deliv-

ered by researchers, whereas strategy instruction

was delivered by teachers in six studies and by

educational psychologists in one study. Length

of strategy instruction varied from 7 days to

7 months.

Teaching writing strategies to students with LD

had a statistically significant (ES = 1.09, p < .001)

impact on writing quality (see Table 3). The Q-

statistic was also statistically significant (Q =

73.58, df = 14, p < .001), indicating variance

between ESs was greater than expected from sam-

pling error alone. I2 indicated that 81% of the

variance between ESs was due to variance between

studies. Thus, we proceeded with moderator anal-

yses to determine if study quality, year of publica-

tion, type of instructor, or the use of SRSD could

explain excess variability.

The average weighted ES for studies with qual-

ity scores of 80% and above (n = 4) was 0.73; it

was 1.05 if study quality was below 80% (n = 11).

Both ESs were statistically significant (p < .001),

but they were not statistically different from each

other (Q = 2.38, df = 1, p = .12). All of the variance

tAble 4

Multivariate Regression Model Predicting Average Weighted ES for All Studies (Question 1)

Moderator B SE t

Study quality score –0.00 0.01 –0.37

Year of publication –0.01 0.02 –0.99

Type of publication –0.27 0.23 –1.19

Who delivered the intervention –0.19 0.17 –1.28

Exceptional Children 465

in ESs was accounted for by sampling error alone

(Q = 2.89, df = 3, p = .41; I2 = 0%) in higher qual-

ity studies. A statistically significant amount of

heterogeneity between studies remained for lower

quality investigations (Q = 68.31, df = 10, p <

.001; I2 = 85%).

To determine if year of publication accounted

for excess variance, we examined differences

between studies published in the last 10 years,

from 2002 to the present (n = 7), and studies pub-

lished before 2002 (n = 8). Both average weighted

ESs were statistically significant (p < .001). The

average weighted ES for studies published from

2002 to the present (ES = 1.14) was statistically

larger (Q = 5.51, df = 1, p = .02) than the average

weighted ES for studies published before 2002

(ES = 0.76). Although variation in ESs was

accounted for by sampling error alone for studies

published before 2002 (Q = 13.30, df = 7, p = .07;

I2 = 47%), this was not the case for studies pub-

lished in the last 10 years (Q = 54.77, df = 6,

p < .001; I2 = 89%).

The average weighted ES for strategy interven-

tions delivered by teachers (n = 6) was 0.85,

whereas the average weighted ES for interventions

delivered by researchers (n = 7) was 0.63. Although

both average weighted ESs were significantly dif-

ferent from zero (p < .001), there was not a statis-

tically significant difference between them (Q =

1.46, df = 1, p = .23). The variation in the ESs was

consistent with what would be expected from

sampling error alone for studies with interven-

tions delivered by teachers (Q = 7.65, df = 5, p =

.18; I2 = 35%) and for studies with interventions

delivered by researchers (Q = 7.42, df = 6, p = .28;

I2 = 19%).

Seven of the studies involved strategy instruc-

tion using SRSD (Harris et al., 2008). The average

weighted ES for studies using SRSD was 1.33,

which was statistically larger (Q = 12.06, df = 1,

p < .01) than the average weighted ES for studies

that did not use SRSD (ES = 0.76). Both ESs were

statistically significant (p < .001). The variation in

the ESs was consistent with what would be

expected from sampling error alone for studies that

did not use SRSD (Q = 10.70, df = 7, p = .15; I2 =

35%). However, statistically significant heteroge-

neity remained between studies that used SRSD

for teaching writing strategies (Q = 50.82, df = 6,

p < .001; I2 = 88%).

Maintenance and generalization were assessed

in two studies each. Students who received strategy

instruction continued to outperform students in

comparison conditions at 2 weeks (ES = 1.08;

De La Paz & Graham, 1997) and 4 weeks (ES =

1.73; Troia & Graham, 2002) postintervention.

Generalization effects were mixed. In Englert et al.

(1991), students in the strategy condition outper-

formed comparison students (ES = 0.85) when

generalizing to a different genre, whereas in Troia

and Graham (2002), students in the strategy

condition did not outperform comparison stu-

dents (ES = –0.48) when generalizing a strategy to

a different genre.

Dictation. The impact of dictating into a tape

recorder (n = 5) or to a scribe (n = 1) was tested

in six studies. In all studies, students in compari-

son conditions composed by hand. Five studies

involved students in Grades 4 to 8. One study

involved students in Grades 2 to 4. No studies

reported data about the content area/subject mat-

ter used with dictation, but three reported that

dictation was conducted in resource room/pullout

settings. Most dictation interventions (n = 5) were

delivered by researchers and lasted between 1 and

3 days (see Table 1).

Dictation resulted in statistically significant

improvements in writing quality (average weighted

ES = 0.55, p < .01; see Table 3), and 83% of studies

produced positive effects. The Q-statistic was not

statistically significant (Q = 10.00, df = 5, p = .08),

indicating variation in the ESs was consistent with

sampling error or chance alone. Nonetheless, I2

indicated 50% of the observed variance was due to

between-study factors. One study assessed mainte-

nance effects. In this study, students in the dicta-

tion group continued to outperform students in

the comparison condition 2 weeks postinterven-

tion (ES = 0.43; De La Paz & Graham, 1997).

Procedural facilitation. Researchers evaluated

the effects of procedural facilitation in six studies

with students in Grades 4 through 8. Half of the

studies used procedures (e.g., cue cards) to prompt

students to include specific genre elements in their

written compositions. Two studies incorporated

procedures to assist students in making decisions

about revising their texts. In the remaining study,

students were given verbal prompts to add more

information to their texts. Students in comparison

conditions wrote (n = 4) or revised (n = 2) texts

466 Summer 2014

without extended procedures or prompts to assist

them while writing. Researchers delivered proce-

dural facilitation interventions in all studies and

interventions lasted 2 to 6 days. Although no stud-

ies provided information about the content areas

where the interventions were implemented, four

studies reported students participated in the inter-

ventions in resource room/pullout classrooms.

Procedural facilitation interventions had a posi-

tive impact on students’ writing quality, with an

average weighted ES of 0.24 (see Table 3), but this

was not statistically significant (p = .45). Half of

the procedural facilitation studies produced posi-

tive effects, whereas two studies produced effects

favoring the comparison treatment, and one study

produced no effect (ES = 0.00). Although there

was statistically significant variability between

studies (Q = 26.13, df = 5, p < .001) and I2 indi-

cated 81% of the observed variance was due to

between-study factors, we did not conduct follow-

up moderator analyses because there were only six

studies in this subgroup.

Prewriting. In five studies, researchers inves-

tigated the impact of prewriting activities. The

majority of prewriting studies (n = 4) involved

students completing graphic organizers (e.g., con-

cept maps, webs) to plan and organize text before

writing. In one study, students answered prewrit-

ing questions to generate and organize ideas before

composing. In all studies, comparison conditions

involved students composing texts without spe-

cific prewriting tasks; in one study, students had

the option to take notes before writing, but no

directions for how to do so were provided. Stud-

ies involved students in Grades 4 through 12. Pre-

writing interventions were delivered in English/

Language Arts (n = 2), Science (n = 1), and mul-

tiple content areas (n = 1). Researchers (n = 3) and

teachers (n = 2) delivered prewriting treatments:

(a) after school (n = 2), (b) in general education

(n = 1), (c) in resource rooms/pullout settings (n =

1), and in study hall (n = 1). Interventions lasted

between 2 and 9 days, except for one study lasting

39 days.

Four of the five prewriting studies produced

positive effects and the average weighted ES was

0.33 (see Table 3), but this effect was not statisti-

cally significant (p = 0.34). Variability between

studies was statistically significant (Q = 10.20, df =

4, p = 0.04) and I2 indicated 61% of the variance

was between studies. However, we did not conduct

moderator analyses because there were only five

studies testing the effectiveness of this writing

treatment.

Goal setting. The effectiveness of goal setting

was examined in four studies. In one study, stu-

dents selected a goal for their compositions from

a set of goals provided by the instructor. In other

studies, instructors gave students specific goals for

revising (n = 1) or for including genre elements

in their writing (n = 2). In two studies, control

students responded to writing prompts but did

not set or select writing goals. Control students in

other studies were told to make their papers bet-

ter (n = 1), or they would share their essays with

an instructor who would provide feedback (n = 1).

All studies involved students in Grades 4 through

8. Goal setting interventions were delivered by

researchers and lasted from 2 to 6 days. The con-

tent area for goal setting was not provided in any

studies. Three studies incorporated goal setting

into resource room/pullout classes and one used

goal setting in a general education setting.

Goal setting had a statistically significant (p <

.01) effect on the writing quality of students with

LD (see Table 3). All goal setting studies produced

positive effects, and the average weighted ES for

goal setting interventions was 0.57. The variability

between studies was not statistically significant

(Q = 5.46, df = 3, p = 0.41), but I2 indicated 45%

of the observed variance was due to differences

between studies within this writing treatment

subgroup.

Process writing. Process writing was examined

in four studies. All studies involved students in

Grades 1 to 5, in English/Language Arts classes.

In three studies, students in comparison condi-

tions learned writing skills through worksheets/

textbook activities. One study involved a writing

comparison group who practiced writing texts

related to themes in content area instruction.

Although both teachers and researchers delivered

process writing in one study, teachers delivered

the interventions in the remaining studies. The

duration of process writing varied from 2 months

to 10 months. Treatment place varied as well. Pro-

cess writing was carried out in general education

classrooms (n = 1), resource room/pullout class-

rooms (n = 1), and special education classrooms

(n = 1). Students in one study participated in

Exceptional Children 467

process writing in both general education and

resource/room pullout settings.

Involving students in process writing had a sta-

tistically significant (p < .01) effect on writing qual-

ity (see Table 3). All studies in this subgroup

produced positive effects, in favor of process writing

over comparison conditions. The average weighted

ES was 0.43. There was no variation in ESs (I2 =

0%) attributed to true study differences; all variance

was what would be expected from sampling error, or

chance, alone (Q = 2.99, df = 3, p = 0.39).

Instruction versus minimal to no instruction. Six-

teen studies examined the effects of writing process

treatments that involved instruction. This included

all strategy instruction studies (n = 15) and one

study (Sturm & Rankin-Erickson, 2002) involv-

ing prewriting. Ten studies examined the effects

of writing process treatments with minimal to no

instruction. These studies included four studies

involving prewriting and all procedural facilitation

studies (n = 6).

The average weighted ES for treatments with

instruction (ES = 0.93) was statistically larger (Q =

25.80, df = 1, p < .001) than the average weighted

ES for treatments with minimal/no instruction

(ES = 0.22). Although the average weighted ES for

treatments with instruction was statistically signifi-

cant (p < .001), the average weighted ES for treat-

ments with minimal to no instruction was not (p =

0.06). Both sets of studies had considerable hetero-

geneity. For studies with instruction (Q = 86.24, df

= 15, p < .001), I2 indicated 83% of observed vari-

ance between ESs was due to variance between

studies. For studies with treatments with minimal/

no instruction (Q = 33.83, df = 9, p < .001), 73%

of variance was due to between-study factors.

diScuSSion

arE W riting intErvEntionS, in gEnEral,

EffECtivE for StudEntS With ld?

The writing quality of students with LD was

improved through intervention. Writing interven-

tions had a positive impact on the writing quality

of students with LD, resulting in an average

weighted ES of 0.74 across 43 studies. Thirty-eight

of the studies produced positive effects favoring

the writing treatment. These effects were found

across all grades, with most involving students in

Grades 4 to 8. Although they reviewed fewer stud-

ies with less variety in participant and treatment

characteristics, Gersten and Baker (2001) reported

similar findings, with an overall ES of 0.81 for 13

writing intervention studies conducted with stu-

dents with LD in Grades 1 through 9.

Despite these promising results, the overall

findings must be tempered by the quality of stud-

ies (although study quality was not related to vari-

ability in effects). It is especially important that

future writing intervention studies are true experi-

ments that control for instructor effects, report

reliability of outcome measures, and provide treat-

ment fidelity data, as these were weaknesses in the

studies reviewed here. Unfortunately, the weak-

nesses observed in this review are common in edu-

cational research (Gersten, Baker, Smith-Johnson,

Flojo, & Hagan-Burke, 2004; Pressley & Harris,

1994). Obvious means for correcting these short-

comings are better preparation for researchers and

more funding to reduce the compromises research-

ers often make when they have limited resources.

It is especially important that future

writing intervention studies are true

experiments that control for instructor

effects, report reliability of outcome

measures, and provide treatment

fidelity data, as these were weaknesses

in the studies reviewed here.

With a corpus of just 43 studies, there is con-

siderable need for additional research. The search

we conducted was extensive, with no date restric-

tions, and yet only 43 studies were found. Only

five involved students beyond Grade 8. Similarly

low numbers of studies for older students were

found by Gersten and Baker (2001) and Graham

and Harris (2003). More research with older stu-

dents is needed.

All of the writing interventions assessed here

should be the subject of additional research, as most

involved six or fewer studies. Other writing inter-

ventions tested even less frequently should also be

the subject of future research. Emphasis should be

placed on assessing maintenance and generalization

effects too, as few studies in this review did so.

468 Summer 2014

WhiCh S pECifiC W riting

intErvEntionS arE E ffECtivE With

StudEntS With ld?

Of the six writing treatments including four or

more studies, strategy instruction, dictation, goal

setting, and process writing had positive and statis-

tically significant effects on the writing of students

with LD. The practical and theoretical implica-

tions of findings for each writing treatment are

discussed below.

Strategy instruction. Strategy instruction signif-

icantly improved the quality of writing of students

with LD. More recent strategy instructional studies

had a greater impact on writing quality than stud-

ies published before 2002, and SRSD studies pro-

duced greater effects than studies that did not use

SRSD. The practical implications of these findings

are that teaching students with LD to plan, write,

and revise using strategy instruction is an effective

method for improving their writing. These effects

are most pronounced if strategies are taught via

SRSD. This approach emphasizes criterion-based

instruction and teaches students the background

strategies and self-regulation procedures needed to

use the target strategies effectively (Harris et al.,

2008). These findings are similar to those obtained

in other meta-analyses examining strategy instruc-

tion in studies conducted with a broad range of

students (Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 2003;

Graham et al., in press).

Most of the positive effects for strategy instruc-

tion were for students in Grades 4 to 8, but two

studies also produced positive effects for high

school students (Bryson & Scardamalia, 1996;

Eissa, 2009), so this method appears promising for

older students too. The effects of strategy instruc-

tion also support Graham’s (1997) theoretical con-

tention that the writing difficulties experienced by

students with LD are due to strategic difficulties

with planning, revising, and editing. When they

are taught strategies for carrying out these pro-

cesses, students with LD show considerable

improvement in the quality of their writing.

Although strategy instruction treatments were

better represented in the literature than any other

writing treatments, additional research is still

needed. Few studies assessed strategy instruction

for revising and editing. In addition, strategy

instruction studies need to be conducted with a

wider grade range of students with LD, with a vari-

ety of writing genres, and with different writing

strategies.

Dictation. Students with LD who dictated

their compositions into a tape recorder or to a

scribe showed greater writing improvements than

students who composed by hand. In terms of class-

room practice, short dictation interventions (1 to

3 days) were effective in improving the writing

of students with LD in elementary and middle

grades. It appears dictation into a tape recorder

provides a relatively low cost option for assisting

students. However, it must be noted that in each

study reviewed here adults transcribed oral com-

positions, reducing the practicality of dictation in

the classroom.

Theoretically, the positive impact of dictation

interventions supports the contention that prob-

lems with transcription skills (e.g., handwriting,

spelling) contribute to the writing difficulties of

students with LD (Graham & Harris, 2003).

When the demands of text transcription were

removed via dictation, students with LD produced

texts of higher quality, presumably because inter-

ference from mechanical concerns was lessened

(Baker et al., 2003).

Future studies should test dictation beyond

Grade 8. High school students with LD are less

likely to receive instruction in handwriting and

spelling; thus, transcription difficulties that still

exist are likely to impact their writing. Although

the practicality of using dictation procedures

remains an open question, high school students

may be ideal candidates for dictation interven-

tions, including speech to text synthesis.

Goal setting. Setting goals for writing was also

an effective intervention for improving the writ-

ing of students with LD. Similar to the findings

reported by Graham and Perin (2007), relatively

short goal setting interventions, involving goals

for revising or including specific genre elements,

were effective for students in upper elementary

and middle grades. Only four studies of goal set-

ting interventions with students with LD were

located, so more research testing this interven-

tion is needed. Despite this limitation, providing

students with goals for their writing is a relatively

easy process, which can be translated into class-

room practice with minimal preparation or use of

instructional time.

Exceptional Children 469

Theoretically, the positive impact of goal set-

ting in the studies reviewed here suggests students

with LD possess greater capabilities for carrying

out writing processes than they apply spontane-

ously. The writing and revising behaviors of these

students were positively changed by directing

their attention to what needed to be done while

writing. Their failure to typically apply capabili-

ties they possess is likely a consequence of multi-

ple factors. For example, many students with LD

view writing as a process of simply generating text

(Graham & Harris, 2003), potentially limiting

the knowledge, skills, and writing processes they

apply when writing. Because students with LD

often develop negative beliefs about their writing

capabilities, they may not be motivated to exert

the effort needed to apply their capabilities fully.

Additional research is needed to examine why stu-

dents with LD fail to use relevant resources when

writing. Future studies should also test the effects

of student-created goals with students with LD, as

the studies reviewed here involved instructor-

developed goals. Such studies may help to learn

more about the types of students (e.g., grade level)

and types of goals students with LD can set and

achieve on their own.

Process writing. Process writing was effective

in improving the writing quality of students with

LD in the elementary grades. Our finding differed

from the conclusion drawn in a meta-analysis by

Sandmel and Graham (2011). They did not find

process writing to be effective with struggling

writers. The primary difference between the two

reviews was that Sandmel and Graham included

studies involving English language learners.

Theoretically, process writing may be effective

for improving the writing of students with LD

because it addresses a number of the difficulties they

experience. With process writing, students learn to

follow the stages involved in writing, addressing dif-

ficulties students with LD may have understanding

how to approach writing and what writing entails

beyond surface-level components such as text gen-

eration or spelling (Graham et al., in press). Process

writing also incorporates writing for authentic pur-

poses and audiences, which may provide incentives

for students with LD who lack motivation to write

(Baker et al., 2003). It further involves direct

instruction in writing skills as the need arises, which

may serve to bolster the weaknesses students with

LD have with specific aspects of writing (Graham,

2006; Graham & Harris, 2003).

As with the other writing treatments examined

in this review, additional research is needed.

Future studies should examine the impact of this

treatment with older students, as the studies

reviewed here only involved students in the ele-

mentary grades. The long-term impact of process

writing also needs to be assessed. Additionally,

component analysis studies need to be undertaken

to determine which instructional elements of pro-

cess writing, or combinations of instructional ele-

ments, have the greatest positive impacts on

students’ writing quality.

One caveat for implementing process writing in

the classroom is that it may require considerable

changes in how some educators teach writing (e.g.,

instruction is targeted to students’ needs as they

arise, sustained time for writing is provided). Thus,

teachers interested in implementing this approach

should be prepared for the time and effort involved

in setting up and running an effective process writ-

ing classroom.

Treatments designed to enhance a

specific writing process were only

effective when time was devoted to

teaching the writing skill or process.

Instruction versus minimal to no instruction.

Treatments designed to enhance a specific writing

process were only effective when time was devoted

to teaching the writing skill or process. Thus, sim-

ply providing students with a graphic organizer or

procedure to use while writing, without providing

explicit instruction, modeling, and guided prac-

tice, is likely insufficient for students with LD. To

learn to use these writing processes independently,

students with LD need systematic instruction,

teacher support, and scaffolding. This finding

seems obvious, given what we know about the

writing weaknesses of students with LD, as well as

theories about the processing and working mem-

ory difficulties of these students (Swanson, Harris,

& Graham, 2003). Not only does instruction and

scaffolding provide students with LD the writing

skills they lack, but it likely provides the practice

required to internalize these skills. Although other

470 Summer 2014

reviews have suggested that explicit instruction

is important to the writing success of students

with LD (Gersten & Baker, 2001), this is the first

study to test this proposition.

limitationS

Although the findings from this meta-analysis sup-

port and extend what is known about effective

writing treatments for students with LD, five fac-

tors limit interpretation of the results. One, we

tried to locate all possible studies using a variety of

search methods, but it is possible that a publication

bias exists, as studies with smaller ESs are less likely

to be publically available. Two, conclusions from

our analysis must be tempered due to variability in

comparison conditions across studies reviewed.

Three, as noted earlier, conclusions presented in

this article are limited by the quality of the studies

available. Four, a majority of studies reviewed

involved upper elementary and middle school stu-

dents, limiting the generalizability of our conclu-

sions. Five, we limited our review to studies where

writing quality was the outcome measure. Not all

studies, however, applied the same quality measure,

and a sole focus on writing quality excluded some

types of writing interventions. For example, we

located no handwriting or spelling intervention

studies where writing quality was assessed.

futurE dirECtionS

Taken together, the findings from this review and

their theoretical implications lead us to an over-

arching recommendation for future research.

Good writing involves mastery of and simultane-

ous use of multiple skills (e.g., planning, transcrib-

ing, revising) (Gersten & Baker, 2001; Graham &

Harris, 2003), and students with LD tend to

struggle with many of them. Thus, perhaps most

importantly, future research should evaluate com-

prehensive writing programs and multicomponent

interventions that involve teaching a wide range of

writing skills to students with LD.

In fact, there is some evidence that programs

targeting a range of writing skills are effective for

students with LD. In Bui, Schumaker, and Deshler

(2006), a program combining several writing strat-

egies, genre elements instruction, and the process

approach to writing had a positive impact on the

writing quality of students with LD in Grade 5.

Similarly, in MacArthur et al. (1995), fifth-grad-

ers with LD who participated in a writer’s work-

shop, composed on a word processor, and learned

planning and revising strategies outperformed

students in a control group who participated in

business-as-usual writing instruction. More

research is needed to replicate findings for these

types of multicomponent programs with other

grade levels and with other combinations of evi-

dence-based writing instruction. With more mul-

tifaceted evidenced-based approaches to writing

instruction, researchers and teachers may be able

to better meet the complex writing needs of stu-

dents with LD.

referenceS

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies

included in the meta-analysis.

*Bahr, C. M., Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M.

(1996). The effects of text-based and graphics-based

software tools on planning and organizing of sto-

ries. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 355–370.

doi:10.1177/002221949602900404

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003).

Teaching expressive writing to students with learning

disabilities: Research-based applications and exam-

ples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109–123.

doi:10.1177/002221940303600204

*Blair, R. B. (2003). The effects of story webbing and visual

thinking software on the written language performance of

students with mild disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., &

Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis.

Chichester, UK: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386

*Brantley, H., & Small., D. (1991). Effects of self-

evaluation on written composition skill in learning dis-

abled children (ERIC 345404). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

*Bryson, M., & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Fostering reflec-

tivity in the argumentative thinking of students with dif-

ferent learning histories. Reading & Writing Quarterly,

12, 351-384. doi:10.1080/1057356960120402

*Bui, Y. N., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006).

The effects of a strategic writing program for students

with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-

grade classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,

21, 244–260. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x

Exceptional Children 471

*Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker,

J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2009). Effectiveness of

question exploration to enhance students’ written

expression of content knowledge and comprehen-

sion. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 271–289.

doi:10.1080/10573560903120813

*Clippard, D., & Nicaise, M. (1998). Efficacy of writ-

ers’ workshop for students with significant writing deficits.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(1), 7–26.

doi:10.1080/02568549809594723

Cortina, J. M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for

ANOVA designs (Vol. 129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Croes, M. J. (1990). The efficacy of employing a writing

process approach for the instruction of language arts with

learning disabled elementary students. Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX.

*Curcic, S. (2009). Students with learning disabilities

and the world wide web: Teaching information problem

solving to improve expository report writing. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East

Lansing, MI.

*Curry, K. A. (1997). A comparison of the writing prod-

ucts 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.

*de Caso, A. M., Garcia, J. N., Diez, C., Robledo, P., &

Alvarez, L. M. (2010). Enhancing writing self-efficacy

beliefs of students with learning disabilities improves

their writing processes and products. Electronic Journal

of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, 195–206.

Retrieved from http://repositorio.ual.es:8080/jspui/

handle/10835/797

*de la Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dic-

tation and advanced planning instruction on the

composing of students with writing and learning prob-

lems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.203

*Eissa, M. A. (2009). The effectiveness of a program

based on self-regulated strategy development on the

writing skills of writing-disabled secondary school

students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational

Psychology, 7, 5–24.

*Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M.,

Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making

strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in

regular and special education classrooms. American

Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.

*Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly,

S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’

argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 101, 577-589. doi:10.1037/a0014702

*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. Journal of Educational Psychology,

92, 694–702. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694

*Fewell, D. H. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and

learning strategies: A combined approach to educating

learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel

Hill, NC.

*Fortner, V. L. (1986). Generalization of creative

productive-thinking training to LD students’ written

expression. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 274–284.

doi:10.2307/1510381

*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. doi:10.2307/1593665

*Garcia, J. N., & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Changes in

writing self-efficacy and writing products and processes

through specific training in the self-efficacy beliefs of

students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities:

A Contemporary Journal, 4, 1–27.

*Garcia, J. N., & de Caso-Fuertes, A. M. (2007).

Effectiveness of an improvement writing program

according to students’ reflexivity levels. The Spanish

Journal of Psychology, 10, 303–313.

*Garcia-Sanchez, J.- N., & Fidalgo-Redondo, R. (2006).

Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction pro-

grams on students with learning disabilities in writing

products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 29, 181-211. doi:10.2307/30035506

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive

writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-

analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.

doi:10.1086/499668

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Smith-Johnson, J., Flojo, J.

R., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2004). A tale of two decades:

Trends in support of federally funded experimental

research in special education. Exceptional Children, 70,

323–332.

*Graham, S. (1990). The role of production fac-

tors in learning disabled students’ compositions.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.

doi:1037/0022-0663.82.4.781

*Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revis-

ing of students with learning and writing difficul-

ties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.223

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the

teaching of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham,

472 Summer 2014

& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research

(pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Guilford.

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 learning disabilities

(pp. 323–344). New York, NY: Guilford.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (in press).

The writing of students with LD, meta-analysis of

SRSD writing intervention studies, and future direc-

tions: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham

(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford.

*Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995).

Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation

on the revising behavior and writing performance

of students with writing and learning problems.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.230

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S. A., & Harris,

K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for

students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 104, 879-896. doi:10.1037/a0029185

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis

of writing instruction for adolescent students.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

*Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y. (1990). The

effects of procedural facilitation on the story composi-

tion of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities

Research, 5, 88–93.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander,

B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students.

Baltimore: Brookes.

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for

meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching com-

position: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment

studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.

doi:10.1086/443789

*Jolly, D. V. (1988). Effects of word processing, synthesized

word processing, and collaborative freewriting on the writ-

ten language of learning disabled students. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at

Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL.

*Kurtz, H. (1987). Effects of a specific strategy training

on the written expression of learning disabled students

grades 3-6. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drake

University, Des Moines, IA.

*Lane, S. E., & Lewandowski, L. (1994). Oral and writ-

ten compositions of students with and without learning

disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12,

142–153. doi:10.1177/073428299401200204

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

*MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning dis-

abled students’ composing under three methods of

text production: Handwriting, word processing, and

dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.

doi:10.1177/002246698702100304

*MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., &

Schafer, W. D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruc-

tion model that integrated a process approach, strategy

instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 18, 278–291. doi:10.2307/1511234

*MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991).

Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special

education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and

Practice, 6, 201–210.

*Montague, M., Graves, A., & Leavell, A. (1991).

Planning, procedural facilitation, and narrative compo-

sition of junior high students with learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 219–224.

Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing

programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis

of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25, 641–678.

doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5

*Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal

setting and strategy use on the writing performance and

self-efficacy of students with writing and learning prob-

lems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.230

*Portilla-Revollar, C. (1994). Differences in story produc-

tion between students with learning disabilities and nor-

mally achieving students under two modes of production.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas

at Austin, Austin, TX.

Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (1994). Increasing the

quality of educational intervention research. Educational

Psychology Review, 6, 191–208. doi:10.1007/BF0221

3181

*Reynolds, C. J., Hill, D. S., Swassing, R. H., & Ward,

M. E. (1988). The effects of revision strategy instruction

on the writing performance of students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 540–

545. doi:10.1177/002221948802100904

Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of

single subject design writing intervention research.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879

Sandmel, K., & Graham, S. (2011). The process writ-

ing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational

Exceptional Children 473

Research, 104, 396-407. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.

488703

*Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1992). Direct

teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction

with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition

skills and self-efficacy of students with learning dis-

abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340–352.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.340

*Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects

of hand-drawn and Computer generated concept

mapping on the expository writing of middle school

students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 17, 124–139. doi:10.1111/

1540-5826.00039

Swanson, L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2003).

Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.

*Therrien, W., Hughes, C., Kapelski, C., & Mokhtari,

K. (2009). Effectiveness of a test-taking strategy on

achievement in essay tests for students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 14–23.

doi:10.1177/0022219408326218

*Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a

highly explicit, teacher directed strategy instruction rou-

tine. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305. doi:1

0.1177/00222194020350040101

*Utay, C., & Utay, J. (1997). Peer-assisted learning:

The effects of cooperative learning and cross-age peer

tutoring with word processing on writing skills of stu-

dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Computing in

Childhood Education, 8, 165–185.

*Weiss, D. H. (1992). The effects of process writing

instruction on the writing and reading performance of stu-

dents with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation, Florida International University, Miami, FL.

*Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASE strategy: A

metacognitive learning strategy for improving the

paragraph writing of students with mild learning dis-

abilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 119-128.

doi:10.2307/1511013

About the AuthorS

Amy GilleSpie, Department of Teaching and

Learning, Simmons School of Education and

Human Development, Southern Methodist Uni-

versity. Steve GrAhAm, Mary Emily Warner

Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College,

Arizona State University.

Address correspondence concerning this article

to Amy Gillespie, Department of Teaching and

Learning, Southern Methodist University, 3101

University Blvd, Ste 345 Dallas, TX 75205

(e-mail: amy.gillespie@vanderbilt.edu).

Manuscript received July 2012; accepted January

2013.

CopyrightofExceptionalChildrenisthepropertyofSagePublicationsInc.anditscontent

maynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyright

holder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesfor

individualuse.

Individualizing goal-setting interventions using automated writing evaluation to support secondary school students' text revisions

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024
LEARN INSTR

Background: Revising is central in the process of writing and for acquiring writing skills. Setting revision goals is challenging especially for novice writers: students do not revise frequently, especially in homework conditions that demand high levels of self-regulation. Empirical studies of goal-setting interventions providing a detailed list of goals show positive effects on students' revisions, and researchers have argued that individualizing such goal-setting interventions could increase intervention effectiveness. Aims: The present study investigated an individualized goal-setting intervention that provided a list of goals based on students' previous writing using automated writing evaluation. Sample: Participants were 345 academic track students from upper-secondary schools in Germany. Methods: We asked students to write a text in English as a second language (ESL) as homework and then to revise it. In a hierarchical sequence of four groups, we expanded the information to support students in self-evaluating their texts and setting appropriately challenging revising goals in a stepwise manner. Students received a textbook passage showing a list of process goals (all groups), an assessment rubric (groups two, three, and four), an automated performance score (groups three and four), and individualized goal-setting instruction based on their performance score and the textbook passage (group four). Results: Students receiving individualized goal-setting instructions showed the largest revision performance compared to the other groups, with and without controlling for text length. Conclusions: We discuss how goal-setting support in ESL writing can benefit from automated writing evaluation to provide individualized support and thus improve the effectiveness of goal-setting interventions in supporting students' revision performances.

Educational Technology to Support Written Expression: A Systematic Literature Review

Article

Oct 2023

The purpose of this descriptive review of nine research studies was to explore the types of educational technologies used with SWDs to support written expression (WE), the implementation of the educational technology for WE, and the methods and domains WE outcomes are measured. This review focused on: (1) the technologies utilized in combination with WE outcomes; (2) student demographics, background experience and knowledge of technology, and the training they received for the educational technology in the intervention; (3) strategy use for WE and the accompanying student training; and (4) the in-strumentation and WE criteria assessed. Based on the results of this review, we provide recommendations for future research around educational technologies to support WE.

Implementing a Metalinguistic Approach to Secondary School Writing

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Lynne Telesca

Purpose Writing is an essential skill that secondary students need to establish for success in their further education, careers, and lives. However, most secondary students in the United States do not achieve the level of writing proficiency expected to ensure academic and future success. One approach that is emerging more in the research literature is the use of a metalinguistic approach to writing. Method This tutorial begins with a discussion of current educational demands and performance trends in secondary-level academic writing and how secondary students and their educators are presently struggling to meet those demands. The tutorial continues further with a discussion of existing effective writing interventions, as well as current gaps in areas of writing intervention that have the potential to be filled if metalinguistic abilities are also targeted as part of comprehensive secondary-level writing instruction. The author then provides rationale for the use of a metalinguistic approach to secondary school writing including explanation of the metalinguistic processes of writing, how to target those processes while writing, and existing metalinguistic writing interventions. The tutorial concludes with step-by-step suggestions and methods for instructors/interventionists to implement a metalinguistic approach to academic writing with secondary students including (a) review of the critical aspects of students' academic writing expectations, (b) collection of baseline data of students' metalinguistic abilities, (c) facilitation of metalinguistic discussion while working on writing with students, and (d) differentiation of students' instructional level of support. Conclusion This tutorial will provide instructors/interventionists with the background information, rationale, and a framework to implement a metalinguistic approach to writing that can be utilized when working with secondary students during any academic writing task.

An SRSD Intervention Study for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities to Improve Narrative Writing and High Cognitive Skills

Chapter

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Developing written expression is a challenging task for students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). The current study describes a 28-hour novel writing intervention program for Greek 5th and 6th graders with SLD that focuses on cognitive and metacognitive written expression strategies. The resource room teachers used the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instructional approach. Participants were divided into two groups: experimental (N = 36) and control (N = 44). The study was designed as a pre-while-post-follow-up experimental study. All students were assessed on written expression and cognitive and metacognitive strategy knowledge. The ANOVA results showed that the experimental group improved statistically significantly in writing and metacognitive skills compared to the control group, providing tangible evidence that writing can be taught effectively to SLD students. The educational implications of the related findings are also discussed.

The effects of mobile-assisted concept mapping on EFL learners’ writing fluency and motivation

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Writing and its role in English as a foreign language (EFL) context has been one of the primary areas of focus for many years. The present study examined the effects of mobile-based concept mapping on EFL learners’ writing fluency and motivation. To fulfill the objective, 70 upper-intermediate level Persian EFL learners were assigned into one experimental and one control conditions, each including 35 participants. The experimental condition’s participants received instruction through mobile-based concept mapping while the students of the control condition did not receive any instruction and were just required to discuss the topics and write about them traditionally. The findings of the study revealed that mobile-mediated concept mapping was effective for EFL students’ writing fluency. Moreover, the results indicated that mobile-based concept mapping was beneficial for learners’ writing motivation.

Hitching a Ride with Steve Graham Through the Galaxy of Writing Research

Chapter

Oct 2023

Steve Graham’s legacy as a writing researcher may be best represented through his systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Through his reviews, he has hitchhiked through the literature and provided the field with a guide to the galaxy of writing research. The purpose of this chapter was to review Graham’s systematic reviews and place them within the context of a scoping review of all of the other systematic reviews of writing research. To do this, we conducted two separate reviews. First, we identified all of the reviews of writing research on Steve Graham’s curriculum vitae and grouped and reviewed them by type. Second, we conducted a scoping review of the writing research. We identified a total of 317 systematic reviews of the writing literature, of which 40 (13%) involved Steve Graham as an author. Of the 277 reviews that did not include Steve Graham as an author, 117 (42%) cited Graham at-least once. Graham’s reviews have spanned 44 years (and counting) and included more than 2900 studies. We classified Graham’s reviews into three primary types: (1) instructional effectiveness, (2) group comparisons, and (3) general non-systematic reviews. Some of the major findings of Graham work include (a) the identification of more than 30 effective general practices for improving writing outcomes for students, (b) writing and writing instruction improve reading and content learning, (c) students who are at-risk for learning difficulties due to reading, language, or ADHD also tend to perform lower than their typically developing peers in writing, and (d) some of his general reviews of the literature show a more complete picture of the writing literature in a particular area. The discussion includes ideas for how Graham’s work might be used to inform future writing research.

Can Argumentative Writing Improve Math Knowledge for Elementary Students with a Mathematics Learning Disability?: A Single-Case Classroom Intervention Investigation

Chapter

Full-text available

Oct 2023

Students with high incidence disabilities continue to perform considerably lower than their same-aged peers without disabilities in the areas of written expression and mathematical reasoning. This is especially concerning for students who come from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds. We examined the effectiveness of a writing-to-learn mathematics intervention designed for students with a mathematics disability. The intervention incorporated the six-stages of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) that targeted students’ understanding of fractions as numbers and their argumentative writing and mathematical reasoning. A single-case multiple-baseline design was implemented with seven special education teachers who were randomly assigned to the staggered tiers of the design. Following 2 days of professional development and training, the teachers initiated the intervention in their classrooms. Visual and statistical analyses of the data revealed selected positive baseline-to-intervention phase changes in students’ performance during implementation of SRSD. Implications and future directions of the research are discussed.

Writing Interventions Using SRSD for Secondary Students with and At-Risk for Learning Disabilities: A Review of Empirical Research

Chapter

Oct 2023

Amber B. Ray

Many secondary students find writing challenging and teachers need research-based interventions to help students become successful writers. Seventeen studies using self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) to teach writing were evaluated using the Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. All studies had participants that were in middle and high school and were identified as having or at-risk for a learning disability. The studies were examined by looking at types of writing, writing strategies used, and writing outcomes measured. The studies showed that there are effective strategies for argumentative, narrative, expository, summary, informative, compare and contrast, and paragraph writing. All writing strategies were represented by mnemonics devices. The most commonly used writing outcomes measures were quality, elements, and length. Several implications for practice were identified, most notably that secondary teachers should consider using SRSD writing instruction to enhance the writing skills of students with and at-risk for learning disabilities. Recommendations for future writing instruction research and limitations are discussed.

Remedial and compensatory writing technologies for middle school students with learning disabilities and their classmates in inclusive classrooms

Article

Sep 2023

Patricia M Barbetta

Specially Designed Assessment of Writing to Individualize Instruction for Students

Chapter

Jun 2023

For the teaching of writing across disciplines, teachers need to use formative assessments to document student learning and to direct their instructional decision making. Using genre-specific rubrics is a strategy that can be used across disciplines. The content of the rubrics should differ to reflect the norms, practices and discourses of those disciplines. The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide (a) a description of an analytic persuasive writing rubric to assess students' disciplinary writing and (b) guidance as to how practitioners can use this rubric to make data-driven decisions about students' writing instruction within various disciplines. This chapter provides an authentic teaching scenario involving students with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder.

The effectiveness of a program based on self-regulated strategy development on the writing skills of writing-disabled secondary school students

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2009

Mourad Ali eissa Saad

Introduction. Writing poses challenges for many students. In Egypt, many students with learning disabilities (LD) who learn English as a foreign language exhibit deficiencies in the writing process. In order for students to achieve a good level of competence, those students need to apply strategies which have proven to be effective in improving levels of writing in English. The focus of the research is to explore the effectiveness of program based on the self-regulated strategy development of writing skills in writing-disabled secondary school students. Method. A total of 67 students identified with LD were invited to participate. The sample was randomly divided into two groups; experimental (n= 34; 20 boys and 14 girls) and control (n= 33, 20 boys, 13 girls). ANCOVA and Repeated Measures Analyses were employed for data analysis. Results. Findings from this study indicated the effectiveness of the program employed in improving the writing performance of the students in the experimental group. Discussion. On the basis of the findings, the study advocates for the effectiveness of Self- Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) in improving the writing performance of students in the experimental group.

Changes in Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Products and Processes through Specific Training in the Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Students with Learning Disabilities.

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2006

This study aimed at verifying whether a specific program on writing self-efficacy , designed to train the four sources of self-efficacy suggested by Bandura (1997), could improve not only productivity and quality of writing composition in students with LD and their processes of writing, but also their writing self-efficacy beliefs and other motivational constructs. Sixty fifth-and sixth-grade students with LD were assessed on a series of measures prior to and following the specific training on writing self-efficacy, which was applied to 40 of the students with the remaining 20 making up a control group. Results showed that self-efficacy-trained students got better scores on most of the variables than their peers in the standard curriculum group after the instruction. This emphasizes the importance of modifying the writing self-efficacy of students with LD and shows how it can improve their written texts, not only in terms of quality and productivity but also in terms of the time they spend thinking, writing, and checking as processes of writing.

Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-Analysis of SRSD studies

Article

Jan 2003

Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis

Article

Jan 2006

Steve Graham

Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis

Article

Jun 1986

Estimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods

Article

Dec 1985

This chapter focuses on the study of parametric and nonparametric methods for estimating the effect size (standardized mean difference) from a single experiment. It is important to recognize that estimating and interpreting a common effect size is based on the belief that the population effect size is actually the same across studies. Otherwise, estimating a mean effect may obscure important differences between the studies. The chapter discusses several alternative point estimators of the effect size δ from a single two-group experiment. These estimators are based on the sample standardized mean difference but differ by multiplicative constants that depend on the sample sizes involved. Although the estimates have identical large sample properties, they generally differ in terms of small sample properties. The statistical properties of estimators of effect size depend on the model for the observations in the experiment. A convenient and often realistic model is to assume that the observations are independently normally distributed within groups of the experiment.

Handbook of Learning Disabilities

Article

Nov 2004

What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies

Article

Nov 1984

Jr. George Hillocks

An Introduction to Meta-Analysis

Article

Mar 2009

IntroductionIndividual studiesThe summary effectHeterogeneity of effect sizesSummary points

Enhancing Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Students with Learning Disabilities Improves their Writing Processes and Products

Article

Apr 2010

Objectives: We present a research study focused on the improvement of the writing product and the writing processes fostering self-efficacy in writing. We assessed pre and post results, comparing an experimental and a control group of students with LD. The question is whether we can improve, through a writing self-efficacy intervention, not only the writing product but the processes involved, and their relationship. Method: In total 60 students participated. These students were placed in either the experimental or control group. Two writing samples were evaluated. The four major components of self-efficacy were taught to the experimental group. Results: The results show improvement, not only in the process, but in the product of writing (productivity, coherence, structure and quality) in the experimental group, and in the relationship of process and product in the experimental group but not in the control one Discussion: More instructional and experimental studies are required to confirm the nature of the process-product relationship in writing. The benefits of employing process product model of writing appears warranted.

A Meta-Analysis of Writing Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

The Effect of Computers on Student Writing: A Meta-analysis of Studies from 1992 to 2002

The need for effective writing instruction

Student Critics, Teacher Models: Introducing Process Writing to High School Students with Learning D...

Writing Workshop