No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Reading and writing are critical to students' success in and outside of school. Because they draw on common sources of knowledge and cognitive processes, involve meaning making, and can be used conjointly to accomplish important learning goals, it is often recommended that reading and writing should be taught together. This meta-analysis tested this proposition by examining experimental intervention studies with preschool through high school students to determine whether literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction strengthen students' reading and writing performance. To be included in this review, no more than 60% of instruction could be devoted to either reading or writing. As predicted, these programs improved students' reading, resulting in statistically significant effects when reading measures were averaged in each study (effect size [ES] = .39) or assessed through measures of reading comprehension (ES = .39), decoding (ES = .53), or reading vocabulary (ES = .35). The programs also statistically enhanced writing when measures were averaged in each study (ES = .37) or assessed via writing quality (ES = .47), writing mechanics (ES = .18), or writing output (ES = .69). These findings demonstrated that literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction can strengthen reading and writing and that the two skills can be learned together profitably.
... The concept of task orientations emphasizes a child's tendency to accept and overcome challenging learning tasks (Lepola et al., 2016). Because content literacy instruction is designed to help students achieve challenging mastery goals for learning, acquire deep conceptual understanding, draw inferences from text, and use reading and writing as tools for understanding of disciplinary knowledge (Ainley et al., 2001;Graham et al., 2017;Lepola et al., 2005), it affords numerous opportunities for children to develop and exercise attentional and behavioral control. In other words, task orientations are an observed child behavior that sustain learners' engagement with challenging literacy tasks and foster reading comprehension gains, above and beyond decoding and language skills (Cartwright & Guajardo, 2015;Lepola et al., 2005;van de Sande, Segers, & Verhoven, 2013). ...
... Ultimately, depth of vocabulary may serve as a proxy for having a rich network of domain knowledge that helps students read and learn from text (McKeown, Deane, Scott, Krovetz, & Lawless, 2017;Neuman et al., 2011). Selecting coherent texts in thematically organized lessons may help students (a) develop conceptual understanding of semantically related words (Cervettti et al., 2016;Fitzgerald, Elmore, Kung, & Stenner, 2017;McKeown et al., 2017;Read, 2004), (b) integrate words into text comprehension processes about domain specific texts (Bos & Anders, 1990;Hirsch, 2016;Perfetti, 2007;Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), and (c) build domain knowledge needed to generate relevant ideas in reading and writing (Graham et al., 2017). In the MORE lessons, we chose informational texts related to animals in the Artic ecosystem because they afforded multiple exposures to target vocabulary words related to the topic of animal survival. ...
... Content literacy instruction provides students with opportunities to use reading and writing as tools for extending their understanding of science (and social studies) content. A recent meta-analysis of reading and writing during content literacy revealed modest to large effects on both student reading and writing outcomes in grades 3 to 8, but no extant evidence on effectiveness for first graders (Graham et al., 2017). ...
This study investigated the effectiveness of the Model of Reading Engagement (MORE), a content literacy intervention, on first graders’ science domain knowledge, reading engagement, and reading comprehension. The MORE intervention emphasizes the role of domain knowledge and reading engagement in supporting reading comprehension. MORE lessons included a 10-day thematic unit that provided a framework for students to connect new learning to a meaningful schema (i.e., Arctic animal survival) and to pursue mastery goals for acquiring domain knowledge. A total of 38 first-grade classrooms (N = 674 students) within 10 elementary schools were randomly assigned to (a) MORE at school (MS), (b) MORE at home, (MS-H), in which the MS condition included at-home reading, or (c) typical instruction. Since there were minimal differences in procedures between the MS and MS-H conditions, the main analyses combined the two treatment groups. Findings from hierarchical linear models revealed that the MORE intervention had a positive and significant effect on science domain knowledge, as measured by vocabulary knowledge depth (ES = .30), listening comprehension (ES = .40), and argumentative writing (ES = .24). The MORE intervention effects on reading engagement as measured by situational interest, reading motivation, and task orientations were not statistically significant. However, the intervention had a significant, positive effect on a distal measure of reading comprehension (ES = .11), and there was no evidence of treatment-by-aptitude interaction effects. Content literacy can facilitate first graders’ acquisition of science domain knowledge and reading comprehension without contributing to Matthew effects.
Keywords: content literacy intervention, science domain knowledge, reading comprehension, reading engagement, randomized controlled trial
... The co-occurring experiences facilitate and reinforce representation and acquisition of key knowledge and metaawareness about print (e.g., conventions of orthographic symbols and graphophonics), text attributes, and meaningmaking processes as well as procedural knowledge about how to access and generate meaning in written texts (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;Shanahan, 2016). Therefore, reading comprehension is expected to influence writing texts, and writing experiences can help students to reflect on how information is presented in written texts, which may promote awareness of text structure and text meaning and, consequently, reading comprehension (Graham et al., 2017;J. A. Langer & Flihan, 2000). ...
... For example, quality teaching of phonological, orthographic, and morphological skills would result in improved word reading and spelling. Phonology, orthography, and morphology can be taught in the context of either reading or spelling, but learning is strengthened and reinforced when they are taught synergistically together in the context of reading and spelling words (Graham et al., 2017). ...
... In addition, high quality integrated instruction should attend to language skills such as vocabulary and syntactic knowledge (e.g., parsing and constructing sentences), background knowledge such as content/ domain and world knowledge and discourse knowledge (e.g., text structure and associated linguistic features), and higher order cognitive skills and regulation such as setting goals, monitoring, making inferences, and understanding others' perspectives. A recent meta-analysis showed that integrating instruction of comprehension and composition improves both comprehension and composition (Graham et al., 2017). ...
This article presents the application of the interactive dynamic literacy (IDL) model (Kim, 2020a) toward understanding difficulties in learning to read and write. According to the IDL model, reading and writing are part of communicative acts that draw on largely shared processes and skills as well as unique processes and skills. As such, reading and writing are dissociable but interdependent systems that have hierarchical, interactive, and dynamic relations. These key tenets of the IDL model are applied to the disruption of reading and writing development to explain co-occurrence of reading–writing difficulties using a single framework. The following hypotheses are presented: (a) co-occurrence between word reading and spelling and handwriting difficulties; (b) co-occurrence of dyslexia with written composition difficulties; (c) cooccurrence between reading comprehension and written composition difficulties; (d) co-occurrence of language difficulties with reading difficulties and writing difficulties; (e) co-occurrence of reading, writing, and language difficulties with weak domain-general skills or executive functions such as working memory and attentional control (including attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]); and (f) multiple pathways for reading and writing difficulties. Implications are discussed.
... Reading and writing are basic skills [13] that gradually develop from logographical, via alphabetical, to orthographical skills [14]. The process of accurately and fluently transforming written letters into words (decoding) and transforming spoken words into letters (encoding), respectively, is especially critical [15]. Phonological skills, including phonological awareness [16,17], phonological memory [16,17] and letter-sound correspondence [17], have been found to be associated with the development of these basic skills. ...
... However, in a dissertation, Rodgers [25] identified three group-design studies including students with and without disorders of ID. Only one of them involved a pretest-posttest control-group design: Haviland [26] (not included in the present review because it is not possible to separate the data for particpants with disorders of ID) studied a total of 22 students with and without ID (IQ = 62-85, ages [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and explored instructions on text writing (sentence combining). The writing outcomes of the participants suggest a positive summary mean effect (g = 0.41) of the intervention (calculated by Rodgers [25]). ...
... The total sample included 372 participants, ranging from 15 [37] sample were not included in the above reporting of age and IQ since they had collapsed age for the treated and control groups together (M = 10.0 years, SD = 2.8), and no IQ values were given in the paper. Since all participants in their sample had Down syndrome, they still fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. ...
Students with disorders of intellectual development (ID) experience challenges in reading and writing, indicating the need for research-based interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of reading and writing interventions for students aged 4–19 with disorders of ID using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs (QEDs). We conducted electronic searches of relevant databases, backward and forward searches, and contacted experts in the field. Based on predefined criteria, nine studies were included in the systematic review, and seven were included in the meta-analysis. The reading interventions included decoding strategies, often combined with sight-word and supplemental instructions appropriate to the participants’ adaptive and cognitive skills. None of the studies aimed to increase writing skills. The overall mean effect size from the reading interventions for trained reading was large (g = 0.95, 95% CI = [0.51, 1.38]), for transfer reading small-to-moderate (g = 0.49, 95% CI = [0.20, 0.78]) and for transfer writing small (g = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.36, 0.44]). Students with disorders of ID can benefit from reading interventions combining decoding strategies and sight word reading. There is a need for RCT and QED studies investigating writing interventions for students with disorders of ID only.
... A balanced literacy intervention may be beneficial for these students. For a literacy intervention to be considered balanced, at most only 60% of instruction should be devoted to either reading or writing (Graham et al., 2018). Two reasons are discussed that support utilizing interventions that balance reading and writing. ...
... A meta-analysis conducted by Graham and colleagues examined the effects of balanced reading and writing interventions. The balanced programs examined in the study showed to improve students' reading with an average effect size of 0.39 (Graham et al., 2018). Balanced programs also seem to improve student's writing, with an average effect size of 0.37 (Graham et al., 2018). ...
... The balanced programs examined in the study showed to improve students' reading with an average effect size of 0.39 (Graham et al., 2018). Balanced programs also seem to improve student's writing, with an average effect size of 0.37 (Graham et al., 2018). The instruction of spelling skills may also improve word reading skills. ...
Students who have difficulty with reading and writing are at risk to continue having difficulty throughout their schooling. Lack of time and resources may be a contributing factor for students not receiving additional instruction for both skills. However, there is evidence that balanced reading and writing programs can be effective. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Write Sounds intervention for students who had deficits in reading and writing. This study was a multiple baseline across participants design with three first-grade students who showed difficulty with reading, spelling, and phonemic awareness. Students received 40 minutes of instruction for two days a week. The primary outcome measure was word reading with a secondary measure of spelling. Results showed that the Write Sounds intervention increased participants’ word reading abilities. Researchers concluded that Write Sounds was effective for the students who completed the instruction. Future research should examine the Write Sounds intervention program in its entirety with students at different grade levels and with different needs. Advisor: Michael Hebert
... The co-occurring experiences facilitate and reinforce representation and acquisition of key knowledge and metaawareness about print (e.g., conventions of orthographic symbols and graphophonics), text attributes, and meaningmaking processes as well as procedural knowledge about how to access and generate meaning in written texts (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;Shanahan, 2016). Therefore, reading comprehension is expected to influence writing texts, and writing experiences can help students to reflect on how information is presented in written texts, which may promote awareness of text structure and text meaning and, consequently, reading comprehension (Graham et al., 2017;J. A. Langer & Flihan, 2000). ...
... For example, quality teaching of phonological, orthographic, and morphological skills would result in improved word reading and spelling. Phonology, orthography, and morphology can be taught in the context of either reading or spelling, but learning is strengthened and reinforced when they are taught synergistically together in the context of reading and spelling words (Graham et al., 2017). ...
... In addition, high quality integrated instruction should attend to language skills such as vocabulary and syntactic knowledge (e.g., parsing and constructing sentences), background knowledge such as content/ domain and world knowledge and discourse knowledge (e.g., text structure and associated linguistic features), and higher order cognitive skills and regulation such as setting goals, monitoring, making inferences, and understanding others' perspectives. A recent meta-analysis showed that integrating instruction of comprehension and composition improves both comprehension and composition (Graham et al., 2017). ...
This article presents the application of the interactive dynamic literacy (IDL) model (Kim, 2020a) toward understanding difficulties in learning to read and write. According to the IDL model, reading and writing are part of communicative acts that draw on largely shared processes and skills as well as unique processes and skills. As such, reading and writing are dissociable but interdependent systems that have hierarchical, interactive, and dynamic relations. These key tenets of the IDL model are applied to the disruption of reading and writing development to explain co-occurrence of reading–writing difficulties using a single framework. The following hypotheses are presented: (a) co-occurrence between word reading and spelling and handwriting difficulties; (b) co-occurrence of dyslexia with written composition difficulties; (c) co-occurrence between reading comprehension and written composition difficulties; (d) co-occurrence of language difficulties with reading difficulties and writing difficulties; (e) co-occurrence of reading, writing, and language difficulties with weak domain-general skills or executive functions such as working memory and attentional control (including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]); and (f) multiple pathways for reading and writing difficulties. Implications are discussed.
... According to the shared knowledge theory, reading and writing draw on the same knowledge and cognitive systems (Ehri, 1987(Ehri, , 1997(Ehri, , 2005Graham et al., 2017;Shanahan, 2016). Thus, teaching reading together with writing has reciprocal benefits (Graham et al., 2017). ...
... According to the shared knowledge theory, reading and writing draw on the same knowledge and cognitive systems (Ehri, 1987(Ehri, , 1997(Ehri, , 2005Graham et al., 2017;Shanahan, 2016). Thus, teaching reading together with writing has reciprocal benefits (Graham et al., 2017). Moreover, increasing a student's ability to access letter forms rapidly and efficiently may free up additional space in the working memory for more complicated literacy tasks. ...
... This is incorporated with repeated practice forming the grapheme while verbalizing the associated phoneme. Instruction in the underlying skills necessary for reading and writing (i.e., phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, letter-sound correspondence) can provide reciprocal benefits (Ehri, 2005;Graham et al., 2017). ...
Reading and writing rely on related foundational literacy skills (e.g., phonological processing, phonological memory, phonemic awareness; Brooks et al., 2011; Graham & Hebert, 2010, 2011; Sanders et al., 2018). Therefore, students struggling with reading often have writing problems, including handwriting (Kandel et al., 2017; Sanders, Berninger, & Abbott, 2018). It is often difficult to determine the source of writing difficulties as they could come from uncertainty in how to form the graphemes, poor spelling skills, or organizational deficits (Berninger et al., 2008). This study aimed to determine the usability, feasibility, and promise of an integrated handwriting intervention on 33 students struggling with handwriting and word-level reading or spelling difficulties in second- and third-grade. Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive the Write Sounds integrated handwriting intervention or a BAU control condition. Due to safety concerns surrounding the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic, all the participating schools closed, and the university suspended all in-person research. Therefore, the study ended abruptly, and the participants were unable to complete the intervention or posttest assessments as designed. The researchers used the Write Sounds Mastery Check 1 as a proxy for the posttests. At posttest, students who received the Write Sounds intervention (n = 17) significantly outperformed the control group (n = 16) on researcher-created measures of handwriting quality and overall legibility. The data presented should be interpreted cautiously as the small sample size and adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the original study methodology may have impacted the results.
... Although reading and writing have cognitively different starting points (i.e., respectively receptive and productive by nature), they are closely related (Fitzgerald and Shanahan, 2000;Shanahan, 2016Shanahan, , 2019. Recently, the literacy research field in which the study of reading-writing connections is central, gained increased attention, both in theoretical and empirical research (Shanahan, 2016(Shanahan, , 2019Graham et al., 2018). In this respect, three theoretical models are especially relevant for research into the reading-writing nexus. ...
... In this respect, three theoretical models are especially relevant for research into the reading-writing nexus. Each framework describes particular ways in how reading and writing are connected (Shanahan, 2016(Shanahan, , 2019Graham et al., 2018). First, the rhetorical relations theory, which is socio-cognitive by nature, states that reading and writing are both communicative activities in which reader-writer relations and awareness are central. ...
... Based on the study of Hamilton et al. (2013), we hypothesize possible grade-level differences in the SRQ-Writing Motivation items, which draw upon SDT Deci, 2000a, 2020). Second, based on theoretical and empirical research on readingwriting connections (Shanahan, 2016(Shanahan, , 2019Graham et al., 2018) and on previous studies regarding reading and writing motivation in Flanders (De Naeghel et al., 2012;De Smedt et al., 2018b), we anticipate high correlations between students' autonomous reading and writing motivation on the one hand, and their controlled reading and writing motivation on the other hand. Finally, given the general decline in academic intrinsic motivation throughout students' school careers (Gottfried et al., 2001;Bouffard et al., 2003;Corpus et al., 2009;Gnambs and Hanfstingl, 2016) and based on the reported significant decline in Flemish students' reading performance the past decade (Mullis et al., 2017; OECD, 2019), we hypothesize a significant decline in Flemish students' reading and writing motivation as it relates to higher educational grades. ...
The twofold aim of this study was to substantiate the validity of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Reading Motivation and Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Writing Motivation for third to eight graders and to map motivational trends in elementary and secondary education students’ academic and recreational reading and writing. More specifically, we adopted the innovative and coherent theoretical framework of the Self-Determination Theory to study qualitatively different motives for reading and writing and to examine the relationships between them. In total, 2,343 students from third to eighth grade were involved. Based on confirmatory factor analyses, a two-factor model, distinguishing between autonomous and controlled motivation, for academic and recreational reading and writing was confirmed in all grades. Furthermore, the scales were reliable, and the measurement models were invariant across students’ gender and their general achievement level. Despite the absence of strong invariance for the measurement models across each of the different grades, we found evidence that students within the same grade level (i.e., middle elementary, upper elementary, and lower secondary grade) interpreted the SRQ-Reading and Writing scale items in a conceptually similar way. Factor correlations confirmed the interrelatedness of reading and writing motives, as well as strong associations between students’ motivation to read and write in either academic and recreational contexts. Finally, concerning the motivational trends, the present results advert to a significant decline of students’ autonomous motivation to read and write, both in and outside school. Accordingly, we point out that the late elementary and the lower secondary grades are crucial phases to engage students in motivating literacy activities. In light of these alarming results, we recommend future experimental research studies to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of instructional reading and writing activities that foster students’ innate need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
... Furthermore, as mentioned, most of the instruction programs focused on reading or writing. However, research has shown that providing instruction on reading can be a way to improve writing in upper elementary through high school (Graham et al., 2018). Teaching reading may benefit writing in general terms but also multiple-texts tasks (De La Paz et al., 2017) and argumentative writing tasks (Harris et al., 2019). ...
... Recursivity-induced students wrote an argumentative essay of better quality, that is, with a higher level of intertextual integration, and recalled more valid inferences, i.e., achieved a deeper comprehension. These results are relevant for two reasons: they extend to multiple-texts comprehension the notion that writing processes may benefit from reading interventions (Graham et al., 2018), and they emphasize the contribution of recursivity in integrating multiple perspectives and depth of comprehension (Mateos & Solé, 2009;Solé et al., 2013). Most intervention studies on multiple-texts comprehension scaffold reading (e.g., sourcing interventions; see Brante & Strømsø, 2018) or writing (e.g., integration interventions; see Barzilai et al., 2018, Luna et al., 2022, whereas results of this study represent a reminder of the highly interactive nature of these two processes, an aspect that research on multiple-texts comprehension should target more. ...
The present study analyzed the efficacy of a brief intervention aimed at scaffolding readers’ “recursivity” (i.e., going back to the texts) while reading multiple texts and writing an argumentative essay. The participants were 151 university students, randomly assigned to two conditions: experimental (Recursivity-induced, RI) and active control (AC). We collected data about participants’ thinking dispositions, perceived prior knowledge and perceived level of instruction in argumentative writing received, and prior beliefs. Then, students were assigned two texts about the evaluation of teachers, one pro and one against. RI students were prompted to compare the argumentation of each text with their own prior beliefs, whereas AC students were asked to write a summary of each text. Immediately after reading the texts and performing the accompanying tasks, RI and AC students were asked to write an argumentative essay to express their opinion on the topic. Process data were collected through the software Kidlogger. Results confirmed that the brief intervention improves students’ analysis of the belief-inconsistent text, the overall argumentative quality of students’ essay, and valid inferences made in a recall task one month after. The process analysis suggested that the intervention increases recursivity in at least a certain number of RI participants.
... Specifically, study quality was evaluated using an 11-item 5 checklist adapted from recent meta-analyses in education research (e.g. Graham et al., 2018) to assess both education-specific risks and critical design features recognised across many scientific fields (see Table S3; online only). Appropriate education-specific items were identified in a recent meta-analysis of literacy interventions (Graham et al., 2018) and general items from established quality and bias checklists (e.g. ...
... Graham et al., 2018) to assess both education-specific risks and critical design features recognised across many scientific fields (see Table S3; online only). Appropriate education-specific items were identified in a recent meta-analysis of literacy interventions (Graham et al., 2018) and general items from established quality and bias checklists (e.g. NICE, 2012). ...
This systematic review investigated small-group Tier 2 interventions to improve oral language or reading outcomes for children during preschool and early primary school years. Literature published from 2008 was searched and 152 papers selected for full-text review; 55 studies were included. Three strength of evidence assessment tools identified a shortlist of six interventions with relatively strong evidence: (a) Early Reading Intervention; (b) Lonigan and Philips (2016) Unnamed needs-aligned intervention; (c) PHAB+WIST (PHAST)/PHAB+RAVE-O; (d) Read Well-Aligned intervention; (e) Ryder and colleagues’ (2008) Unnamed Phonological Awareness and Phonics intervention; and (f) Story Friends. Investigation of intervention componentry found common characteristics included 3–5 students, 4–5 sessions per week, minimum 11-week duration, content covering a combination of skills, modelling and explicit instruction, and trained personnel. Shortlisted interventions provide a useful foundation to guide further interventions and inform educators and policymakers seeking to implement effective evidence-based interventions in the early years of schooling.
... As predicted, the writing treatments tested in the studies with Turkish students in this meta-analysis had all been tested in previous meta-analyses conducted almost exclusively with studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe (see Andrews et al., 2006;Graham et al., 2012;Graham, Liu, et al., 2018;Graham & Perin, 2007;Hillocks, 1986;Koster et al., 2015;Sandmel & Graham, 2011). The 77 investigations in this meta-analysis involved the following 11 different writing treatments: peer assistance, pre-writing activities, process writing, strategy instruction, text structure instruction, individualized writing instruction, writing instruction supplemented with reading materials, process approach plus strategy instruction, sentence combining, observation of writers, and the environmental writing approach. ...
... The most obvious educational implication from this meta-analysis is that teaching writing has a strong and positive effect on Turkish students' writing. Given the importance of writing to learning (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004;Graham et al., 2020), reading (Graham, Liu, et al., 2018), and communication (Graham, 2018), this meta-analysis and prior reviews (e.g., ) make a compelling case for the power of teaching students how to write. In essence, better writing can be achieved through instruction. ...
An important goal of schooling is teaching students how to write. Teachers need access to effective writing practices to meet this goal. For close to 40 years, metaanalyses of writing intervention studies have been used to identify evidence-based practices in writing. Most of the research included in these reviews involved studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe. The current meta-analysis included 77 experimental studies examining the effectiveness of writing interventions conducted in schools in Turkey with 4,891 students in primary grades through college. The writing outcome in all of these studies was quality of students’ writing. The average weighted effect size for teaching writing across all 77 studies was 1.39. The average
weighted effect sizes for the five writing treatments tested in four or more studies were 0.92 for peer assistance, 1.55 for pre-writing activities, 1.30 for the process approach to writing, and 1.28 for strategy instruction. Directions for future research and implications for practice are discussed.
... Writing is one of the most powerful tools we possess in order to convey information, thoughts, and concepts, as well as to inform our understanding of the world. In the words of Graham et al. (2018), writers use their abilities to "learn new ideas, persuade others, record information, create imaginary worlds, express feelings, entertain others, heal psychological wounds, chronicle experiences, and explore the meaning of events and situations" (p. 26). ...
... In assessing the factors that impact the current state of writing, we know that genetics, biological functioning, and poverty do come into play (Graham et al., 2018); however, the type of instruction and the models used in writing instruction also significantly affect how children acquire the skill of writing (Graham, 2019). The influence and impact of teachers, and the perspective they adopt regarding writing instruction, is of prime importance, then, as it affects the ways in which young writers develop. ...
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine pre-service teachers’ perceptions about providing writing feedback to fourth-grade students. A group of 102 pre-service teachers participated in the study. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. The findings revealed four critical components to giving feedback, the importance of scaffolding for the writer, and the vulnerability of pre-service teachers regarding writing. Implications for teacher educators include the importance of providing authentic writing and feedback opportunities for pre-service teachers. Additionally, pre-service teachers would benefit from being exposed to a strengths perspective in order to nurture their growth as proficient writers and writing teachers, thereby modeling how strong writing communities are built.
... One further aspect of the evidence on reading and writing is worth considering. This is from a few meta-analyses which have looked at the relationship between writing and reading (Graham and Hebert, 2010), the benefits of balancing reading and writing instruction (Graham et al., 2017) and the value of writing for success in other subjects (for example, writing to learn: Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004). Graham and Hebert's (2010) meta-analysis indicates that writing about material which has recently been read improves students' comprehension of this material and that teaching students how to write improves their reading comprehension (an effect size of 0.37 on standardised tests), as well as their reading fluency (0.66) and word reading. ...
... Empirical studies and literature reviews have shown writing has a positive impact on reading (Applebee, 1984;Graham, et al., 2018;Graham & Santangelo, 2014;Klein, 1999) and that one way to promote literacy in the classroom is through writing (Collins, et al., 2017;Gao, 2013;Rhodes, 2013). The connection between reading and writing to promote literacy provides a unique vehicle for exploration in the secondary English classroom, but what does the early career teacher do when he or she does not feel equipped to make such connections in their classroom? ...
Educators need to experience the transformative power of writing in order to convey their passion for writing and inspire their students to be writers. A writing marathon empowers educators and students by providing time for self-selected writing without fear of judgment. In this article, we walk readers through the history and educational importance of writing marathons, describe the steps and procedures for implementing a writing marathon, and share what a writing marathon might look like in a variety of contexts. Our goal is to inform educators about the writing marathon, a non-threatening writing experience that can help teachers develop their own voices as writers as well as encourage the development of student voices.
... Practice and familiarity with the writing task may improve self-efficacy for writing, leading students to become more self-assured and self-regulated in their writing (Klein & Boscolo, 2016). Many students also appear to benefit from direct instruction to learn best practices for the organization of a written report (Graham et al., 2018;MacArthur et al., 2015). Instruction around text structure often involves the direct and systematic teaching of the organization of specific types of text (Graham et al., 2016;Graham & Perin, 2007;Hebert et al., 2016). ...
This study describes the pedagogical use of an online digital tool designed to support students' writing of research reports. The tool, Manuscript Builder, provides a structure and a set of prompts to support students' writing. Participants included students enrolled in an undergraduate psychology course (N ¼ 22) who were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (Manuscript Builder, word document outline, and no-treatment control) across three different times throughout one semester. Results suggest the use of Manuscript Builder was associated with higher quality written reports compared with not using an outline and using a word document outline, most notably at Time 3. Further research may improve the use of supplemental resources such as Manuscript Builder for written instruction, particularly in the planning and revising stages. This study describes the results from the design, pedagogical use, and efficacy of a digital tool created to assist students in drafting their papers for research methods in psychological science. The digital tool, Manuscript Builder, provides computer-mediated online procedural support in the planning stages of writing. Manuscript Builder was created to provide a purpose and structure for students as they develop their research report. Based on a review of current literature, no such resource for undergraduate research report writing exists to date.
... Genre-based strategy instruction builds on SRSD and its emphasis on goal setting and self-regulation (Harris & Graham, 2009) and incorporates theories on genre (Martin & Rose, 2012;Rose, 2016), reading and writing connections (Graham & Hebert, 2010;Graham et al., 2018;Tierney & Shanahan, 1991), evaluation for revision using genre-specific criteria (Philippakos, 2017;Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016a, b), and connection between planning and revision using genre elements (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991). The approach has been found to support learners' writing performance across genres in studies with primary and upper elementary students (Traga Philippakos, 2020;Traga Philippakos, 2019;Traga Philippakos & MacArthur, 2020;Philippakos, MacArthur, & Munsell, 2018;Philippakos, Overly, et al., 2018). ...
The purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of a distant-professional development model that supported the implementation of genre-based strategy instruction for procedural writing on second grade teachers’ fidelity of implementation and students’ writing quality. Participants were 84 s graders and four teachers who were randomly assigned to condition. Teachers completed an online workshop module prior to instruction, a survey on their instruction and confidence to teach writing, received coaching feedback during implementation, and were interviewed at pretest and posttest. Students wrote in response to two procedural topics at pretest and posttest, at maintenance, completed transfer tasks in science and in persuasion, were interviewed at posttest, completed a confidence scale, and standardized measures. Results showed that treatment teachers positively evaluated the PD and its components, taught with high fidelity, and positively commented on the instructional approach. Treatment students wrote papers of better quality at posttest and maintenance tasks, while there were no statistically significant differences at the transfer tasks, on students’ confidence, and on standardized measures. Implications for professional development, practice, and research are further discussed.
... In content form, handwritten texts are better than the ones written electronically. They are longer, and more extended than the electronically written ones [48]. If one takes into consideration that use of texting does not provide a better use of vocabulary [49], one could assume that a decent performance in vocabulary relates to a better general skill in handwriting. ...
Living in a new environment has provoked a series of challenges for adults in the field of using their written skills. The notion of texting used in many applications existing on the market has helped students to demonstrate their way of thinking in a new form, that of a smartphone. Contradictions have existed in the effect of texting by hand and on screen, a matter which has been labeled as a top priority for researchers. In a rapidly changing world where forms of communication are rapidly changing and developing, this research attempted to delve into the relationship between martphones, texting, the amount of time that people spend on using applications, and the differences produced in how they affect people’s communication and handwriting. Participants were 316 adults, aged from 18 to 22 years old, who were selected through convenient sampling. They took part voluntarily in the specific research in which a set of questions regarding their preferences and the time spent on social
media was given. They were also asked to write two answers -in handwriting and electronically regarding their feelings during the quarantine. All possible precautions were taken to avoid biased answers to the questions given to the participants (anonymity, different order of media writing). All these elements had a common parameter; the quarantine which was imposed on the Greek state due to COVID-19 in spring 2020. In a nutshell, the results have shown that both genders' performance in
handwriting was significantly better than in texting.
... There is further evidence that balanced reading and spelling/writing instruction is effective (Blachman et al., 2004;Craig, 2006;Graham et al., 2018;Santa & Høien, 1999). However, one limitation of much of this research is that the instruction in the experimental vs. the control groups differs in several ways, which makes it difficult to determine exactly what makes the experimental program superior. ...
The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of a brief experimental intervention that integrated spelling practice into a systematic phonics approach to initial reading instruction for at-risk children. The effects of this intervention were studied by means of a randomized controlled trial design that compared the experimental condition to two trained control conditions and a further business-as-usual condition. The two trained control conditions were phonics-based interventions without spelling but with additional time spent on letter-sound practice. One emphasized letter-sound production, the other letter-sound recognition. Participants were 65 kindergartners with limited letter knowledge and no reading skills. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Children were taught individually in four 20-min sessions in all three trained conditions. Analyses of the gains in abilities from pre- to posttest revealed that the integrated spelling condition was associated with significantly larger gains in phoneme awareness, spelling, and reading than were either the trained letter-sound recognition condition (d = 0.38–0.86) or the business-as-usual condition (d = 0.54–1.21). The results also favored the integrated spelling condition over the trained letter-sound production condition. Regarding the two trained control conditions, the letter-sound production condition was associated with slightly better reading and spelling outcomes than the letter-sound recognition condition. These findings indicate that integrated spelling may improve systematic phonics for children at risk of early reading difficulties, and that activities that encourage letter-sound production may be more beneficial than those which only require letter-sound recognition.
... A meta-analysis that compared the effects of different kinds of writing activities on reading comprehension found that engaging students in extended writing activities improved their reading comprehension more than question-answering activities did when assessed by an extended writing task and that writing summaries improved their comprehension more than question answering did when students were asked to write down everything they could remember about the text they had read (Hebert, Simpson, & Graham, 2013). A more recent meta-analysis found that literacy instruction that balanced reading and writing (i.e., taught the subjects together, with no subject dominating more than 60% of instructional time) significantly improved students' reading comprehension (Graham et al., 2018). ...
Decades of research offer important understandings about the nature of comprehension and its development. Drawing on both classic and contemporary research, in this article, we identify some key understandings about reading comprehension processes and instruction, including these: Comprehension instruction should begin early, teaching word‐reading and bridging skills (including graphophonological semantic cognitive flexibility, morphological awareness, and reading fluency) supports reading comprehension development, reading comprehension is not automatic even when fluency is strong, teaching text structures and features fosters reading comprehension development, comprehension processes vary by what and why we are reading, comprehension strategy instruction improves comprehension, vocabulary and knowledge building support reading comprehension development, supporting engagement with text (volume reading, discussion and analysis of text, and writing) fosters comprehension development, and instructional practices that kindle reading motivation improve comprehension. We present a visual depiction of this model, emphasizing the layered nature of impactful comprehension instruction.
... Thus, students can express themselves through writing. In the learning process of writing skills, students describe their knowledge to teachers, and teachers use students' writing products to know the extent of their comprehension and to gain some points as to provide learning reflection for them (Deane, 2018;Graham et al., 2017). In such a way, teachers view students' writing works by drawing upon a formative assessment-informed principle to find better ways to improve students' further learning of English writing in a better way (Burner, 2015;Han & Fan, 2019). ...
This research aimed to find out the types of sentence structure errors in English paragraphs written by tertiary English students and the factors causing the errors. This research employed an explanatory mixed-method design. Fourth-semester students from the English department of IAIN Curup were engaged as the subjects of this research. Positivism-governed document analyses and constructivism-based interviews were conducted to solicit the data as desired. The quantitative findings garnered from document analyses endorsing a ready-to-use construct proposed by Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), revealed that there were four types of sentence structure errors students made, namely omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. Those types of errors were exhibited in a proximate composition which meant that the students had compatible difficulties in terms of the four types of errors. As uncovered from students' writing works, the four types of errors were found in the domains of words, phrases, and clauses. Subsequently, the qualitative findings, elicited from interviews, demonstrated that the factors of sentence structure errors extended to students' mother tongue interference, overgeneralization in the use of English rules and norms, and the lecturer's teaching material delivery and method. Anchored in the data gained, this research discussed the data from the perspective of interlanguage theory, wherein some reviews of SLA and EFL pedagogy-related theories were offered to help lower the factors causing English sentence structure errors in writing skills. Keywords: Errors, Sentence Structure, English writing skill
... Reading performance equips students with the basic abilities to acquire knowledge and meet important learning goals, which are essential for students' future development (Graham et al., 2017). In learning how to read, elementary school students are expected to acquire basic reading skills (e.g., Araújo & Costa, 2015), and fourthgrade students are at an important transition point (Mullis et al., 2017). ...
Contextual factors have been identified as greatly influencing students’ reading performance. However, the collaborative influence of key contextual factors on students’ reading performance is still elusive and warrants further exploration. Based on Walberg’s educational productivity theory and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory, emphasizing that learning in humans can only be understood by considering the influence of multiple factors combined into a unit or system, the current study sought to identify the optimal factor set of key contextual factors that collaboratively influences fourth-grade students’ reading performance. In this study, data from 183,428 students from 61 countries/regions were extracted from the progress in international reading literacy study 2016 dataset. First, a support vector machine (SVM) was adopted to classify the contextual factors influencing high-performing (students whose reading score is above 550) and low-performing (students whose reading score is below 475) students. Second, SVM recursive feature elimination (SVM–RFE) was applied to identify the key contextual factors capable of differentiating the two student cohorts. The findings indicate that 20 key contextual factors selected from 106 contextual factors at the student, family and school levels collectively differentiate high- and low-performing students, providing implications for future teaching and learning on elementary school students’ reading performance.
... For the third research question, we hypothesized that there would be significant relations between characteristics of interventions and the effects on vocabulary and comprehension. For example, students may benefit more from an intervention if it involves a variety of literacy activities (e.g., reading and writing vs. reading only; Graham et al., 2018), if comprehension strategies are taught to support students to leverage what they already know to comprehend new texts (Allen & McNamara, 2020) or if hands-on activities are provided as a component of the integrated instruction to stimulate students' interest to learn (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2006). ...
This study synthesized impacts of integrated literacy and content-area instruction (i.e., science, social studies) on vocabulary and comprehension outcomes in the elementary years (i.e., kindergarten through fifth grade). A systematic search of the extant literature identified 35 (quasi)experimental studies. Random-effects models were used to combine effect sizes across studies. Results of meta-analysis revealed that the overall effects were positive and significant for vocabulary (effect size [ES] = 0.91) and comprehension (ES = 0.40). Moreover, a significant positive effect was observed for standardized comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.25), but not for standardized vocabulary outcomes. Supplementary analysis including studies with content knowledge outcomes demonstrated the positive and significant overall effect for content knowledge (ES = 0.89). In addition, no significant moderators of the effect sizes were found among features of research design and characteristics of interventions, perhaps partly due to the small number of studies. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that integrated literacy and content-area instruction has potential to enhance vocabulary words taught to students and comprehension in the elementary years, with the additional benefit of simultaneously cultivating science and social studies knowledge.
... Similarly, Graham and Santangelo (2014) found moderate effects of explicit spelling instruction on phonological awareness (0.51) for students in primary grades, as well as on word-reading, fluency, and general measures of reading for students with literacy difficulties in Grades K-6 (with most effect sizes greater than 0.30). Further, Graham et al. (2018) provided evidence of strong, positive effects of balanced reading and writing instruction for students overall as well as those experiencing literacy challenges, though ES varied widely (-0.03 to 0.92, with most ES greater than 0.45). ...
The purpose of this paper is to describe what we know and what we still need to learn about literacy intervention for children who experience significant difficulties learning to read. We reviewed 14 meta‐analyses and systematic reviews of experimental and quasi‐experimental studies published in the last decade that examined the effects of reading and writing interventions in the elementary grades, including research focused on students with reading difficulties and disabilities, including dyslexia. We attended to moderator analyses, when available, to further refine what we know and need to learn about interventions. Findings from these reviews indicate that explicit and systematic interventions focusing on the code and meaning dimensions of reading and writing, and delivered one‐to‐one or in small groups, are likely to improve foundational code‐based reading skills, and to a lesser extent, meaning‐based skills, across elementary grade levels. Findings, at least in the upper elementary grades, indicate that some intervention features including standardized protocols, multiple components, and longer duration can yield stronger effects. And, integrating reading and writing interventions shows promise. We still need to learn more about specific instructional routines and components that provide more robust effects on students’ ability to comprehend and individual differences in response to interventions. We discuss limitations of this review of reviews and suggest directions for future research to optimize implementation, particularly to understand for whom and under what conditions literacy interventions work best. The purpose of this paper is to describe what we know and what we still need to learn about literacy intervention for children who experience significant difficulties learning to read. We reviewed 14 meta‐analyses and systematic reviews of experimental and quasi‐experimental studies published in the last decade that examined the effects of reading and writing interventions in the elementary grades, including research focused on students with reading difficulties and disabilities, including dyslexia.
... Looking at studies on teaching writing skills, there seem to be many challenges in this regard (Al-Wasy, 2020;Xu et al., 2019). In a meta-analytical study carried out on issues regarding teaching writing, there are suggestions for redesigning and rethinking technologies and approaches to teaching writing (Graham et al., 2018;Xu et al., 2019). ...
Purpose
This paper asserts that while educational resources are times effective in teaching students how to write, the format in which they are delivered can influence results. With this in mind, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of using educational resources in a blended format.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used a mixed-method research design to elicit information from 70 participants recruited for this study. The researcher divided the participants into experimental and control groups where the researcher taught the control group writing skills in a hybrid learning environment without using educational resources while the experimental group used blended interactive educational resources. The researcher analyzed and interpreted the participants’ post-test scores and transcripts of the interviewees.
Findings
This study finds that blended interactive educational resources contribute significantly toward improving the students' writing skills; however, improvements were not found in all aspects of their writing.
Originality/value
This study unpacks the positive contributions of blended interactive educational resources in writing instruction. This study contributes to educational literature in showing that these resources may be effective in improving some aspects of writing text. This study adds to other corpora of studies that emphasize the importance of using educational resources for learning.
... Quality writing requires reading one's own work for revision as well as reading source materials, which is particularly emphasized in academic work such as Common Core State Standards in the US and content area instruction such as social studies and science. Systematic integration of reading and writing instruction with a focus on their shared component skills, in addition to reading-focused and writing-focused instruction, is supported by recent meta-analyses (Graham et al., 2017. ...
Within the context of the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (Kim & Park, 2019), we examined a dynamic relations hypothesis, which contends that the relations of component skills, including reading comprehension, to written composition vary as a function of dimensions of written composition. Specifically, we investigated
(a) whether higher-order cognitive skills (i.e., inference, perspective taking, and monitoring) are differentially related to three dimensions of written composition—writing quality, writing productivity, and correctness in writing; (b) whether reading comprehension is differentially related to the three dimensions of written composition after accounting for oral language, cognition, and transcription skills, and whether reading comprehension mediates the relations of discourse oral language and lexical literacy to the three dimensions of written composition; and (c) whether total effects of oral language, cognition, transcription, and reading comprehension vary for the three dimensions of written composition. Structural equation model results from 350 English-speaking second graders showed that higher-order cognitive skills were differentially related to the three dimensions of written composition. Reading comprehension was related only to writing quality, but not to writing productivity or correctness in writing, and reading comprehension differentially mediated the relations of discourse oral language and lexical literacy to writing quality. Total effects of language, cognition, transcription, and reading comprehension varied largely for the three dimensions of written composition. These results support the dynamic relation hypothesis,
role of reading in writing, and the importance of accounting for dimensions of written composition in a theoretical model of writing.
... Thus, in our intervention, we focus on language across reading and writing through opportunities to read and write text related to the thematic topics we address. For bilingual students who must learn to integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing into coherent systems across languages, leveraging the reading-writing connection may be particularly supportive (Graham et al., 2017;Mancilla-Martinez, 2010). ...
Writing is a critical dimension of literacy that is grounded in language and intimately connected to reading. However, instruction to support writing remains understudied, particularly among bilingual students. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the CLAVES intervention specifically on argument writing. The CLAVES intervention
is a multicomponent, small-group intervention focused on language and literacy that was designed with bilingual learners in mind. CLAVES is an acronym for comprehension, linguistic awareness, and vocabulary in English and Spanish and means keys or clues in Spanish. It includes
text-based discussions, explicit language instruction, and support for argument writing. The study was conducted with 239 Spanish-English or Portuguese-English students in grades 4 and 5. There were 120 students in the intervention and 119 students in the business as usual control group. Findings showed positive effects of the intervention on two
identified aspects of argument writing: argument and counterargument.
... 13) -in other words, those who are using SVR to prioritize phonics are communicating the idea that since children understand language naturally, the only element left to teach is phonics. Unfortunately, this idea seems to ignore the vast body of research connecting comprehension skill development to other literacy topics such as reading fluency (Kuhn, 2020;LaBerge & Samuel, 1974;Rasinski & Padak, 1998;Young et al., 2018), motivation and interest (Cordova & Lepper, 1996;McBreen & Savage, 2020;Vansteenkiste et al., 2006;Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), and writing (Graham & Hebert, 2010;Graham et al., 2018). Many of our respondents who expressed difficulty with ranking whether or not STR "should be hot" did mention that all areas of literacy research, not just phonics, should be what is receiving attention. ...
Literacy topics fluctuate each year in how much attention they receive in research and practice. The What’s Hot in Literacy annual survey asks twenty-five leading experts what literacy topics are currently receiving attention, or are hot, as well as which topics should be hot in the field. The results of these interviews are tallied to identify consensus among the participants. The following three levels are used to report the findings: a) “extremely hot” or “extremely cold” (100% consensus), b) “very hot” or “very cold” (75% consensus), and c) “hot” or “cold” (50% consensus). Items are identified as “should be hot” or “should not be hot” if at least 50% of the respondents agree. The four “very hot” topics for 2021 are digital literacy, dyslexia, phonics/phonemic awareness, and social justice/equity/anti-racism in literacy. Discussion of these topics (and others that were deemed should be hot) and why they may be currently receiving more attention than others in the field is included. Findings can be utilized by both K-12 and higher education professionals alike.
In the elementary grades, students should write for at least
30 minutes a day, and they should write for even longer periods
in middle school and high school. Students’ writing in middle
and high school should be across the subject areas and should
include longer and shorter writing tasks (e.g., brief response to
reading or a report on a specific topic synthesis). The effects of
writing are more likely to be maximized if students write for
real purposes and audiences. To master specific forms of writing, students need multiple opportunities to practice each type
of text
https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-teaching-writing-to-improve-reading-skills.pdf
The demand for evidence‐based instructional practices has driven a large supply of research on adolescent literacy. Documenting this supply, Baye, Inns, Lake, and Slavin’s 2019 article in Reading Research Quarterly synthesized far more studies, with far more rigorous methodology, than had ever been collected before. What does this mean for practice? Inspired by this article, I investigated how this synthesis compared with the 2008 U.S. Institute of Education Sciences practice guide for adolescent literacy. I also include two contemporary documents for context: Herrera, Truckenmiller, and Foorman’s (2016) review and the U.K. Education Endowment Foundation’s 2019 practice guide for secondary schools. I first examine how these documents define adolescent, reading, and evidence, and propose more inclusive definitions. I then compare their respective evidence bases, finding that the quality and quantity of evidence have dramatically changed. Only one of the 34 studies in the 2008 U.S. practice guide met Baye et al.’s inclusion criteria in 2019, and the average sample size in Baye et al.’s studies was 22 times as large as those in the 2008 U.S. practice guide. I also examine the potential implications for a new practice guide’s instructional recommendations and comment on the expansion of research in technology, disciplinary literacy, and writing—topics scarcely covered in the 2008 U.S. practice guide but which have been extensively researched since then. Finally, I call for revision of the U.S. practice guide and the establishment of standing committees on adolescent literacy to help educators translate the latest research findings into updated practices.
Real-World Writers shows teachers how they can teach their pupils to write well and with pleasure, purpose and power. It demonstrates how classrooms can be transformed into genuine communities of writers where talking, reading, writing and sharing give children confidence, motivation and a sense of the relevance writing has to their own lives and learning.
Based on their practical experience and what research says is the most effective practice, the authors share detailed guidance on how teachers can provide writing study lessons drawing on what real writers do and how to teach grammar effectively. They also share a variety of authentic class writing projects with accompanying teacher notes that will encourage children to use genres appropriately, creatively and flexibly.
The authors’ simple yet comprehensive approach includes how to teach the processes and craft knowledge involved in creating successful and meaningful texts. This book is invaluable for all primary practitioners who wish to teach writing for real.
What Is It Writing For Pleasure Teachers Do That Makes The Difference? was a one year research project which investigated how Writing For Pleasure teachers achieve writing teaching which is highly effective (greater than average progress) and also affective (pertaining to positive dispositions and feelings). This research comes at a time where we are seeing profound underachievement in writing (Ofsted 2012, DfE 2017) coupled with an increase in young people’s indifference or dislike for writing (Clark, 2016; Clark & Teravainen 2017). As this is a pedagogy newly formulated and articulated by the researcher, the report first gives a definition of Writing For Pleasure and explains why it is important for children’s success. It then discusses the findings emerging from a rich literature review and describes the deep connection between what research shows is the most effective writing teaching and the affective domains of Writing For Pleasure. Next, Writing For Pleasure teachers’ practices are analysed, shared and discussed. Finally, the report provides recommendations and implications on how teachers can successfully realise Writing For Pleasure in their own classrooms, and puts forward questions that need to be further investigated and considered by policy makers, researchers, teachers and other stakeholders.
Schreibförderung kennt viele Förderansätze und -maßnahmen. Über zahlreiche Maßnahmen ist aber noch zu wenig bekannt, ob sie die Schreibkompetenz überhaupt verbessern. In diesem Band werden daher systematisch und kompakt Förderansätze dargestellt, die ihre Effektivität in internationalen Studien bereits unter Beweis gestellt haben. Diese Maßnahmen beziehen sich auf die Hauptprozesse des Schreibens (Planen und Revidieren als kognitiv anspruchsvolle Fähigkeiten und das Verschriften als basale Fertigkeit) und Entlastungsmöglichkeiten des Schreibens. Zu den Förderansätzen beim Verschriften zählen Trainings der Handschrift bzw. des Tastaturscheibens und das Kombinieren von Sätzen. Das Planen und Revidieren lassen sich durch gezielte Vermittlung von Schreibstrategien und Textstrukturwissen sowie klare Produktziele vor dem Schreiben verbessern. Daneben haben Lehrpersonen diverse Möglichkeiten, den Schreibprozess zu entlasten, etwa durch Feedback, kooperatives Schreiben, die Option, Texte diktieren zu können, den Einsatz von Computern mit Textverarbeitungssoftware und die gezielte Analyse von Textprodukten und Schreibprozessen. Diese Fördermaßnahmen lassen sich in der Unterrichtspraxis wie einzelne Module einsetzen und adressieren verschiedene Probleme beim Schreiben. Das Buch stellt Schreibprozesse dahin, wo sie im Unterricht gehören: in das Zentrum. Es richtet sich an Lehrpersonen aller Schulstufen und -formen, die einen kompakten Überblick über wirksame Förderansätze und deren systematische Verbindungen untereinander suchen. Der Band gibt zudem einen Überblick über den Erwerb und die Entwicklung von Schreibkompetenz, den Stellenwert des Schreibunterrichts und den Ertrag des Schreibens für das Leseverstehen und für das Fachlernen. Dieser Überblick hilft Lehrpersonen dabei, besser abzuschätzen, wo ihre Schülerinnen und Schüler sich in ihrem Kompetenzerwerb befinden, und angemessene Maßnahmen auszuwählen.
This chapter explores the integration of disciplinary literacy across learning stations in PreK through 3rd Grade classrooms to facilitate culturally and linguistically responsive learning. Through a synthesis of research and the professional experience of the authors, the chapter offers a conceptual framework and pedagogical support for literacy practices that are culturally and linguistically responsive to each child's emerging and developing literacy. Additionally, this chapter describes the components of an interdisciplinary approach to facilitating literacy learning at the prekindergarten through third grade level that ensures a culturally and linguistically responsive curriculum integrating language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies using learning stations. This model supports self-directed learning facilitated by responsive adult-initiated adult-child interaction in a play-based environment for nurturing intrinsic motivation and self-directed learning.
A review for the New Zealand Ministry of Education, as background to the 2022 Literacy and Communications & Mathematics strategy.
Science has greatly enhanced what we know about reading and writing. Drawing on this knowledge, researchers have proffered recommendations for how to teach these two literacy skills. Although such recommendations are aimed at closing the gap between research and practice, they often fail to take into account the reciprocal relation that exists between reading and writing. Writing and writing instruction improve students’ reading and vice versa. Theory and evidence that support this reciprocal relation are presented, and implications for the scientific study of reading and writing, policy, and practice are offered, including the proposal that the sciences of reading and writing need to be better integrated.
I detail findings from an ethnographic study of a high school remedial reading class, with a particular focus on students’ perceptions of what it means to be literate and how their mandatory enrollment in the course impacted their identities. Compounding students’ experiences was the existence of a high‐stakes reading examination that all students in the district must pass to graduate high school. Findings describe the contrast between school literacies that students learn in class and their own literate practices, which neither youth nor their teacher recognized as literacies, as well as the functioning of the remedial reading class as a sort of “purgatory” that holds and segregates students, the majority of whom are students of color and/or from marginalized socioeconomic backgrounds, for semesters on end. Still, students employed tactical literacies to subvert the teacher’s directives and reclaim their time. These findings suggest that common approaches to remediation may be a cause of youth disinterest in reading and that youth literacies may be leveraged in service of broader literacy goals, although the school must first acknowledge them.
Background:
As a complex cognitive task, integrated writing (IW) requires not only different language modalities but also persistent cognitive effort. In practice, varied language modalities are taught together with IW tasks. However, little research has been done to investigate independent and integrated language tasks simultaneously. In addition, the need for cognition (NfC), which plays an important role in cognitive processing, has not been explored in the context of IW.
Aims:
The present study aims to investigate the influence of different language modalities (i.e., reading and writing) on IW performance and how NfC moderates this influence.
Sample:
A total of 246 Secondary Four students from three schools in Hong Kong.
Methods:
Measures of reading, writing, NfC and IW performance were obtained. Structural equation modelling was used to explore the relationships between reading, writing and IW and investigate the role of NfC.
Results:
Positive effects of reading and writing on IW performance were observed, and writing played a mediating role in the relationship between reading and IW at the same time. Although NfC negatively moderated the influence of reading on IW, it had no moderating effect on the influence of writing on IW.
Conclusions:
The teaching of different language modalities enhances IW performance. The negative moderating effect of NfC on the relationship between reading and IW performance implies that differentiated instruction is required due to individual differences in the influence of reading on IW. Regarding pedagogical implication, teachers should integrate the teaching of reading and writing and focus on cultivating students' cognitive needs to enhance their IW performance.
El interés por la competencia genérica de comprensión lectora avanzada (CLA) como contenido transversal ha aumentado en el último lustro. En este estudio se persigue identificar factores asociados a los resultados de los estudiantes en CLA. Se realiza un análisis de dos tipos de variables: i) instruccionales: estrategias y técnicas de enseñanza y aprendizaje utilizadas, sistemas de evaluación y enseñanza innovadores, géneros textuales y medios físicos o digitales empleados; y ii) psicoeducativas: compromiso por el aprendizaje, motivación de logro, autoeficacia, estrategias de afrontamiento, inteligencia emocional, atribuciones, autorregulación, estilos de aprendizaje. Se diseña y aplica un cuestionario online, Evaluación y Metodologías Instruccionales en Competencias Genéricas (EMICOG) a estudiantes de pregrado de una universidad Latinoamericana, completándolo 2.775 (48% H, M: 22 años). Los resultados evidencian patrones diferenciales en la mayoría de las variables en función del nivel de CLA como competencia genérica clave para el éxito académico con independencia de la rama y el campo de formación universitaria. Dada su complejidad, cualquier medida que se adopte sobre la actuación para la mejora de la transversalización de la enseñanza y la evaluación de las competencias genéricas debe considerarlos para definir pautas de actuación específicas tales como la creación de observatorios permanentes.
Expository writing may be especially difficult for elementary grade students due to lack of background knowledge and unfamiliar text structures. A text structure writing intervention aimed at teaching students to write informational text using text structures has been shown to have promise for improving the informational text writing of upper elementary grade students using small group instruction (Reading and Writing, 31, 2115–2145; Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 2165–2190; Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 35–55. ). There are disadvantages to small group instruction, however, because it requires additional resources. In the current study, 41 students in grade 4 were randomly assigned to receive the Structures Writing intervention or BAU narrative writing instruction. Both groups received instruction in a large group setting.
At posttest, students who received the Structures Writing intervention statistically significantly outperformed the control group on researcher-created measures of simple description, compare/contrast, sequence, problem–solution, and cause-effect writing. Results indicated no differences between on distal reading outcomes. The intervention components completed within the allotted time-frame were completed with a high degree of fidelity (97%), providing an indicator of usability. However, students only fully completed 57% of lesson activities, indicating that it is not feasible to complete the lessons within a 30-min time frame. The discussion highlights the Structures Writing intervention as a promising approach for improving informational text writing skills of fourth grade students with moderate to large effect sizes that support findings of a prior pilot test. A larger efficacy trial is warranted following revision of the lessons to shorten lesson duration.
This chapter addresses the association between nurturing prosocial classroom behavior in young children, literacy, and income inequality. Literacy will be explored as it relates to social competence in the classroom as influenced by income inequity. One highlighted area of importance is a play-based, child-focused environment that is culturally sensitive and responsive to the needs of the whole child. Socioeconomic disparities in literacy skills have been increasing over the past 40 years. This subject must be addressed in order to effectively meet the cognitive, social, and emotional needs of each individual child. Literacy skills are developed during early childhood. It is also the case that limited literacy during early childhood increases the risk of children displaying aggressive behavior at school as they progress to higher grades. For these reasons, tackling the problem during the early years with developmentally appropriate adult-child interventions are what is needed to reverse the trends placing an increasing number of young children at-risk of academic underachievement.
Writing is a critical literacy skill that emerges in kindergarten. The research literature has only addressed transcription skills of kindergarteners and has failed to address text generation. The purpose of this action-research study was to investigate the effect of oral language instruction that focused on narrative text structures on kindergarten students’ ability to generate written narrative text. We conducted a concurrent multiple baseline design across three groups of students with two participants in each group. Students received six instructional sessions that involved the teacher modeling a story and supporting the students while they retold and generated oral stories. Pictures and icons were used to represent story grammar elements, but were faded within session to facilitate independent storytelling. The oral language instruction had an immediate positive effect on the narrative quality of students’ writing. Individual and overall effects were significant and maintained three to four weeks later. Findings suggest an efficient causal relation between oral language instruction and writing quality.
In the last decade, published data on the performance of Colombian students have concerned educators and researchers, making critical reading one of the priorities of Colombian education. That is why this article presents the results of a study carried out in a Latin American university in which the perceptions of students and professors are analyzed regarding the strategies and textual genres used to work and cross-evaluate the advanced reading comprehension (ARC). This study is materialized in the application of an ad hoc online questionnaire, in its two versions (students and teachers), designed through Survey Monkey. For this, it has the participation of 182 teachers and 2,775 students. There are several trends in the use of specific textual strategies and typologies to work and evaluate ARC, by both, depending on the department of assignment. The evidence found is provided and evaluated considering the implications for cross-curricular instruction and assessment in higher education in Latin America, including study limitations and prospects for overcoming them.
Proficient writing performance in English requires multiple cognitive skills, which can be particularly challenging for English Learners (ELs). However, compared with reading and mathematics, there have been fewer scientific inquiries that explore the relationship between cognitive components and writing. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of three cognitive components (phonological aware-ness [PA], oral language development [OLD], and working memory [WM]), on writing development in Spanish-speaking EL children. To achieve this goal, 374 children in Grades 3 to 5 were administered a battery of cognitive measures in both Spanish as well as English, and a narrative writing task in English. Using structural equation modeling, three important findings emerged. First, the results showed that PA in both Spanish and English positively predicted English writing performance. Second, English OLD had a positive effect on writing, but Spanish OLD was a negative predictor of writing. Third, WM in both languages had large positive effects on writing in English. Taken together, the findings from this study highlight the important roles first- and second-language PA, OLD, and WM play in upper elemen-tary ELs’ English writing.
The demand for evidence to support instructional practices in education is surging. Consequently, many adolescent literacy researchers and educators take guidance from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Practice Guide for Adolescent Literacy (Kamil et al., 2008). The document, however, is now 12 years old, and adolescent literacy research and practice has shifted substantially. First, I document the limitations of the IES Guide’s pre‐2008 research base and of the students sampled in its underlying studies. Then, I survey research from 2008–2020 that expands on the Guide’s five recommendations, and name areas of research undeveloped in 2008 but vibrant in 2020. To illustrate the instructional implications of these changes, I present an example unit incorporating changes suggested by research since 2008. Finally, I call on adolescent literacy organizations to maintain, revise, and publish practice guidelines to ensure all our adolescents get the daily literacy instruction they deserve.
The term balanced literacy was popularized in the mid-1990s to describe a middle ground in terms of text selection, instruction, skills, and strategies. The intention was to merge the promising elements of whole language and phonics. Interactions with educators and literacy leaders across the country currently suggest that a term that had been seemingly well defined 20 years ago had become more vague. This descriptive study polled 25 veteran teachers to identify commonalities among their definitions and instructional applications.
Writing is an essential but complex skill that students must master if they are to take full advantage of educational, occupational, and civic responsibilities. Schools, and the teachers who work in them, are tasked with teaching students how to write. Knowledge about how to teach writing can be obtained from many different sources, including one’s experience teaching or being taught to write, observing others teach writing, and advise offered by writing experts. It is difficult to determine if much of the lore teachers acquire through these methods are effective, generalizable, or reliable unless they are scientifically tested. This special issue of Reading & Writing includes 11 writing intervention studies conducted primarily with students in the elementary grades. It provides important new information on evidence-based writing practices.
This article is an expanded version of my presentation to Division 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological Association for the Career Achievement Award for Distinguished Psychological Contributions to Education in 2019. It provides an overview of research conducted by colleagues and I that examined the following four topics: (a) the role of writing knowledge, strategies, motivation, and skills in writing and students’ growth as writers; (b) the connections between writing, language, reading, and learning; (c) the identification of effective writing practices; and (d) the current state of writing instruction in schools. For each topic, I provide examples of the logic and the different types of evidence collected in studying each area. Concluding comments focus on areas still in need of investigation.
Reading comprehension and writing are essential skills for success in modern societies. Additionally, reading and writing have been described as highly reflective activities that necessitate metacognitive monitoring and control. However, reading comprehension and writing are skills moderated by many factors, proficiency among them. Thus, in the present study we examined the influence of reading comprehension proficiency (proficient, poor) on elementary school students' (N = 120) metacognitive monitoring accuracy in reading and writing tasks. Further, we investigated the predictive patterns of linguistic indices between proficient and poor readers on their metacognitive monitoring accuracy of a writing task. Findings revealed that proficient readers exhibited significantly better monitoring accuracy in both reading and writing tasks, and that unique predictive patterns of linguistic indices on writing skill monitoring accuracy emerged between proficient and poor readers. We discuss the implications of these findings for research, theory, and practice and propose recommendations for future research.
This study explored the extent to which an 18-day history and writing curriculum intervention, taught over the course of one year, helped culturally and academically diverse adolescents achieve important disciplinary literacy learning in history. Teachers used a cognitive apprenticeship form of instruction for the integration of historical reading and writing strategies and content learning with the goal of improving students' historical argument writing. The intervention had positive and significant results for each writing outcome. After controlling for variables associated with students' incoming abilities, the researchers found moderate to large effects for all participants. Relative to basic readers in the control condition, those participating in the intervention scored higher in historical writing and writing quality and wrote longer essays; these results translate into effect sizes of .45 on basic readers' historical writing, .32 on their overall writing quality, and .60 on the length of their papers. Teachers implemented the reading and writing curriculum intervention with high levels of implementation fidelity, leading the researchers to explore additional factors that contributed to students' success after accounting for teacher effectiveness. The results indicate further benefits dependent on the degree to which students completed the curriculum.
The purpose of this chapter is to present ideas and research findings on self and identity processes that are relevant to the study of students’ motivation, learning, and achievement in school. Towards the pragmatic end of initiating intellectual dialogue concerning self and identity processes in education, we pursue five basic aims. First, we discuss differing approaches to the study of self and identity in social science. Second, we clarify the meaning of the terms self and identity as used historically in the works of William James and Erik Erikson. Third, we update our understanding of these bodies of work in relation to developments in social-personality psychology and the learning, developmental, and brain-behavioral sciences. Fourth, we provide an integrative framework that may be useful to educational researchers who wish to study self and identity processes in educational settings. Fifth, we discuss the implications of these first four aims for contemporary educational research and practice.
A random sample of 1102 grade 4–6 Chinese language arts teachers in Beijing, Macao, and Taipei City were surveyed about their instructional writing practices. Seventy-eight percent (n = 857) of the teachers completed the survey. Teachers were generally positive about the usefulness of their college teacher preparation program. They slightly agreed that they liked to write, teach writing, and were effective writing teachers. Their beliefs about writing were related to the instructional practices they reportedly applied, and textbooks along with school guidelines played a prominent role in shaping their overall writing program. Teachers’ programs emphasized product-based instruction, but also placed considerable emphasis on writing process and content. They further indicated an average writing class lasted 69 min, but almost 80 % of teachers indicated they taught writing only once every 2–4 weeks, raising a concern about amount and timing of writing instruction. Consistent with social/cultural theory, Chinese writing teachers in these three urban locations evidenced differences on almost every variable studied. We expected such differences as macro-level features involving government and educational policy varied across locations. The observed differences were mostly a matter of degree (i.e., teachers applied certain practices more or less frequently) versus a more general difference in how writing was taught.
A brief retrospective is first provided on the study of reading and writing relations. Next, it is suggested that research has supported the theoretical contention that reading and writing rely on analogous mental processes and isomorphic knowledge. Four basic types of shared knowledge are delineated. Then, reasons are articulated about why it is also important to consider the separability of reading and writing. Further, over time, as reading and writing are learned, the nature of their relation changes. A description is then offered of a preliminary developmental outlook on the relation of reading and writing. The article concludes with theoretical and practical implications for use of a developmental model.
Reading is critical to students' success in and out of school. One potential means for improving students' reading is writing. In this meta-analysis of true and quasiexperiments, Graham and Herbert present evidence that writing about material read improves students' comprehension of it; that teaching students how to write improves their reading comprehension, reading fluency, and word reading; and that increasing how much students write enhances their reading comprehension. These findings provide empirical support for long-standing beliefs about the power of writing to facilitate reading.
This meta-analysis examined the influence of attributes related to the implementation of learning strategy instruction interventions on students’ academic performance, and also examined how the attributes related to the method of testing the intervention effects affected the actual effects measured. Using metaregression, we analyzed the influence of the subject domain in which the intervention was implemented, the implementer, its duration and intensity, student cooperation, and research method aspects (including measurement instrument). Most attributes moderated the intervention effect. Using forward regression analysis, we only needed four attributes to obtain the best model, however. This analysis showed that the intervention effect was lower when a standardized test was used for evaluation instead of an unstandardized test. Interventions implemented by assistants or researchers were more effective than those implemented by teachers or using computers. Cooperation had a negative, and session duration a positive, contribution. Together, these attributes explained 63.2% of the variance in effect, which stresses the importance of emphasizing not only the instructional focus of an intervention but also its other attributes.
Despite the importance of spelling for both writing and reading, there is considerable disagreement regarding how spelling skills are best acquired. During this and virtually all of the last century, some scholars have argued that spelling should not be directly or formally taught as such instruction is not effective or efficient. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies to address these claims. The corpus of 53 studies in this review included 6,037 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and yielded 58 effect sizes (ESs) that were used to answer eight research questions concerning the impact of formally teaching spelling on spelling, phonological awareness, reading, and writing performance. An average weighted ES was calculated for each question and the quality of included studies was systematically evaluated. Results provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling, as it improved spelling performance when compared to no/unrelated instruction (ES = 0.54) or informal/incidental approaches to improving spelling performance (ES = 0.43). Increasing the amount of formal spelling instruction also proved beneficial (ES = 0.70). Gains in spelling were maintained over time (ES = 0.53) and generalized to spelling when writing (ES = 0.94). Improvements in phonological awareness (ES = 0.51) and reading skills (ES = 0.44) were also found. The positive outcomes associated with formal spelling instruction were generally consistent, regardless of students’ grade level or literacy skills.
Relations between reading and writing have been studied extensively but the less is known about the developmental nature of their interrelations. This study applied latent change score modeling to investigate longitudinal relations between reading and writing skills at the word, sentence and text levels. Latent change score models were used to compare unidirectional pathways (reading-to-writing and writing-to-reading) and bidirectional pathways in a test of nested models. Participants included 316 boys and girls who were assessed annually in grades 1 through 4. Measures of reading included pseudo-word decoding, sentence reading efficiency, oral reading fluency and passage comprehension. Measures of writing included spelling, a sentence combining task and writing prompts. Findings suggest that a reading-to-writing model better described the data for the word and text levels of language, but a bidirectional model best fit the data at the sentence level.
In this study, the effects of a disciplinary reading and writing curriculum intervention with professional development are shared. We share our instructional approach and provide writing outcomes for struggling adolescent readers who read at or below basic proficiency levels, as well as writing outcomes for proficient and advanced readers. Findings indicate significant and meaningful growth of about 0.5 of 1 standard deviation in students’ abilities to write historical arguments and in the length of their essays for all participants, including struggling readers. Our study also considers teacher implementation of the curriculum intervention. We found that teachers who were most faithful to the underlying constructs of our curriculum intervention also made successful adaptations of the lesson materials.
Purpose:
This study examined dimensions of written composition by using multiple evaluative approaches such as an adapted 6 + 1 trait scoring, syntactic complexity measures, and productivity measures. It further examined unique relations of oral language and literacy skills to the identified dimensions of written composition.
Method:
A large sample of 1st-grade students (N = 527) was assessed on their language, reading, spelling, letter writing automaticity, and writing in the spring. Data were analyzed using a latent variable approach, including confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Results:
The seven traits in the 6 + 1 trait system were best described as two constructs: substantive quality and spelling and writing conventions. When the other evaluation procedures such as productivity and syntactic complexity indicators were included, four dimensions emerged: substantive quality, productivity, syntactic complexity, and spelling and writing conventions. Language and literacy predictors were differentially related to each dimension in written composition.
Conclusion:
These four dimensions may be a useful guideline for evaluating developing beginning writers' compositions.
In an effort to identify effective instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, we conducted a meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature, focusing our efforts on true and quasi-experiments. We located 115 documents that included the statistics for computing an effect size (ES). We calculated an average weighted ES for 13 writing interventions. To be included in the analysis, a writing intervention had to be tested in 4 studies. Six writing interventions involved explicitly teaching writing processes, skills, or knowledge. All but 1 of these interventions (grammar instruction) produced a statistically significant effect: strategy instruction (ES 1.02), adding self-regulation to strategy instruction (ES 0.50), text structure instruction (ES 0.59), creativity/imagery instruction (ES 0.70), and teaching transcription skills (ES 0.55). Four writing interventions involved procedures for scaffolding or supporting students’ writing. Each of these interventions produced statistically significant effects: prewriting activities (ES 0.54), peer assistance when writing (ES 0.89), product goals (ES 0.76), and assessing writing (0.42). We also found that word processing (ES 0.47), extra writing (ES 0.30), and comprehensive writing programs (ES 0.42) resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the quality of students’ writing. Moderator analyses revealed that the self-regulated strategy development model (ES 1.17) and process approach to writing instruction (ES 0.40) improved how well students wrote.
The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) studied the ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens. ICCS was based on the premise that preparing students for citizenship roles involves developing relevant knowledge and understanding as well as helping them form positive attitudes toward being a citizen and participating in activities related to civic and citizenship education. It also examined differences among countries in relation to these outcomes of civic and citizenship education, and it explored how differences among countries relate to student characteristics, school and community contexts, and national characteristics. This report is structured so as to provide technical detail about each aspect of ICCS. The chapters cover: test development, questionnaire development, development of regional instruments, translation and national adaptations of ICCS 2009 instruments, sampling design and implementation, sampling weights and participation rates, ICCS survey operations procedures, quality assurance in the ICCS data collection, data management and creation of the ICCS international database, scaling procedures for ICCS test items, scaling procedures for ICCS questionnaire items, and the reporting of ICCS results.
Meta-analysis collects and synthesizes results from individual studies to estimate an overall effect size. If published studies are chosen, say through a literature review, then an inherent selection bias may arise, because, for example, studies may tend to be published more readily if they are statistically significant, or deemed to be more “interesting” in terms of the impact of their outcomes. We develop a simple rank-based data augmentation technique, formalizing the use of funnel plots, to estimate and adjust for the numbers and outcomes of missing studies. Several nonparametric estimators are proposed for the number of missing studies, and their properties are developed analytically and through simulations. We apply the method to simulated and epidemiological datasets and show that it is both effective and consistent with other criteria in the literature.
In this article, the authors outline methods for using fixed and random effects power analysis in the context of meta-analysis. Like statistical power analysis for primary studies, power analysis for meta-analysis can be done either prospectively or retrospectively and requires assumptions about parameters that are unknown. The authors provide some suggestions for thinking about these parameters, in particular for the random effects variance component. The authors also show how the typically uninformative retrospective power analysis can be made more informative. The authors then discuss the value of confidence intervals, show how they could be used in addition to or instead of retrospective power analysis, and also demonstrate that confidence intervals can convey information more effectively in some situations than power analyses alone. Finally, the authors take up the question ‘‘How many studies do you need to do a meta-analysis?’’ and show that, given the need for a conclusion, the answer is ‘‘two studies,’’ because all other synthesis techniques are less transparent and/or are less likely to be valid. For systematic reviewers who choose not to conduct a quantitative synthesis, the authors provide suggestions for both highlighting the current limitations in the research base and for displaying the characteristics and results of studies that were found to meet inclusion criteria.
Multisite research designs involving cluster randomization are becoming increasingly important in educational and behavioral research. Researchers would like to compute effect size indexes based on the standardized mean difference to compare the results of cluster-randomized studies (and corresponding quasi-experiments) with other studies and to combine information across studies in meta-analyses. This article addresses the problem of defining effect sizes in multilevel designs and computing estimates of those effect sizes and their standard errors from information that is likely to be reported in journal articles. Three effect sizes are defined corresponding to different standardizations. Estimators of each effect size index are also presented along with their sampling distributions (including standard errors).
This article systematically reviews research on the achievement outcomes of four types of approaches to improving the reading success of children in the elementary grades: reading curricula, instructional technology, instructional process programs, and combinations of curricula and instructional process. Study inclusion criteria included use of randomized or matched control groups, a study duration of at least 12 weeks, valid achievement measures independent of the experimental treatments, and a final assessment at the end of Grade 1 or later. A total of 63 beginning reading (starting in Grades K or 1) and 79 upper elementary (Grades 2 through 5) reading studies met these criteria. The review concludes that instructional process programs designed to change daily teaching practices have substantially greater research support than programs that focus on curriculum or technology alone.
Experiments that assign intact groups to treatment conditions are increasingly common in social research. In educational research, the groups assigned are often schools. The design of group-randomized experiments requires knowledge of the intraclass correlation structure to compute statistical power and sample sizes required to achieve adequate power. This article provides a compilation of intraclass correlation values of academic achievement and related covariate effects that could be used for planning group-randomized experiments in education. It also provides variance component information that is useful in planning experiments involving covariates. The use of these values to compute the statistical power of group-randomized experiments is illustrated.
Considerations of audience awareness are receiving increased attention in composition theory and pedagogy. Sensitivity to audience characteristics exerts demonstrable effects on composing processes and products. Audience awareness is often conceived as a unitary, global construct, however. In fact, the distinctly identifiable dimensions of social cognition include (1) subskills, (2) coordination of perspectives, (3) content domain, (4) content stability, and (5) audience determinateness. These dimensions and their components are discussed along with their interaction with composing processes. This multidimensional conception of social cognition provides a framework for further composition research and teaching.
This meta-analysis examined if students’ writing performance is improved by reading interventions in studies (k = 54 experiments; 5,018 students) where students were taught how to read and studies (k = 36 investigations; 3,060 students) where students’ interaction with words or text was increased through reading or observing others read. Studies included in this review involved true- or quasi-experiments (with pretests) written in English that tested the impact of a reading intervention on the writing performance of students in preschool to Grade 12. Studies were not included if the control condition was a writing intervention, treatment students received writing instruction as part of the reading intervention (unless control students received equivalent writing instruction), control students received a reading intervention (unless treatment students received more reading instruction than controls), study attrition exceeded 20%, less than 10 students were included in any experimental condition, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, teaching reading strengthened writing, resulting in statistically significant effects for an overall measure of writing (effect size [ES] = 0.57) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.63), words written (ES = 0.37), or spelling (ES = 0.56). The impact of teaching reading on writing was maintained over time (ES = 0.37). Having students read text or observe others interact with text also enhanced writing performance, producing a statistically significant impact on an overall measure of writing (ES = 0.35) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.44) or spelling (ES = 0.28). These findings provide support that reading interventions can enhance students’ writing performance.
As evidence becomes increasingly important in educational policy, it is essential to understand how research design might contribute to reported effect sizes in experiments evaluating educational programs. A total of 645 studies from 12 recent reviews of evaluations of preschool, reading, mathematics, and science programs were studied. Effect sizes were roughly twice as large for published articles, small-scale trials, and experimenter-made measures, compared to unpublished documents, large-scale studies, and independent measures, respectively. Effect sizes were significantly higher in quasi-experiments than in randomized experiments. Excluding tutoring studies, there were no significant differences in effect sizes between elementary and middle/high studies. Regression analyses found that effects of all factors maintained after controlling for all other factors. Explanations for the effects of methodological features on effect sizes are discussed, as are implications for evidence-based policy.
The history of research on interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4 through 12 dates back to 19th-century case studies of seemingly intelligent children who were unable to learn to read. Physicians, psychologists, educators, and others were determined to help them. In the process, they launched a century of research on a wide variety of approaches to reading intervention. As shown in this systematic narrative review, much has changed over time in the conceptualization of reading interventions and the methods used to determine their efficacy in improving outcomes for struggling readers. Building on the knowledge gathered over the past 100 years, researchers and practitioners are well-poised to continue to make progress in developing and testing reading interventions over the next 100 years.
This study reports 2 years of findings from a randomized controlled trial designed to replicate and demonstrate the efficacy of an existing, successful professional development program, the Pathway Project, that uses a cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing. Building on an earlier randomized field trial in a large, urban, low socioeconomic status (SES) district in which 98% of the students were Latino and 88% were mainstreamed English learners (ELs) at the intermediate level of fluency, the project aimed to help secondary school students, specifically Latinos and mainstreamed ELs, in another large, urban, low-SES district to develop the academic writing skills called for in the rigorous Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts. The Pathway Project draws on well-documented instructional frameworks that support approaches that incorporate strategy instruction to enhance students' academic literacy. Ninety-five teachers in 16 secondary schools were stratified by school and grade and then randomly assigned to the Pathway or control group. Pathway teachers participated in 46 hr of training to help students write analytical essays. Difference-in-differences and regression analyses revealed significant effects on student writing outcomes in both years of the intervention (Year 1, d = 0.48; Year 2, d = 0.60). Additionally, Pathway students had higher odds than control students of passing the California High School Exit Exam in both years. (PsycINFO Database Record
This study reports a 24-week experiment testing the effects of a program in language development, including both reading while listening and lessons in syntactic manipulation, on students’ levels of syntactic maturity and reading achievement. Subjects were ninth grade disabled readers; four classes were divided into three experimental groups and one control group. Analysis of covariance was used to analyze results. None of the groups differed on any reading measure. Among the syntax measures, however, significant differences in favor of some or all experimental groups were found. Thus, it appears that the experimental treatments increased students’ syntactic maturity.
Much of the literature on meta-analysis deals with analyzing effect sizes obtained from k independent studies in each of which a single treatment is compared with a control (or with a standard treatment). Because the studies are statistically independent, so are the effect sizes. Studies, however, are not always so simple. For example, some may compare multiple variants of a type of treatment against a common control. Thus, in a study of the beneficial effects of exercise on blood pressure, independent groups of subjects may each be assigned one of several types of exercise: running for twenty minutes daily, running for forty minutes daily, running every other day, brisk walking, and so on. Each of these exercise groups is to be compared with a common sedentary control group. In consequence, such a study will yield more than one exercise versus control effect size. Because the effect sizes share a common control group, the estimates of these effect sizes will be correlated. Studies of this kind are called multiple-treatment studies. In other studies, the single-treatment, single-control paradigm may be followed, but multiple measures will be used as endpoints for each subject. Thus, in comparing exercise and lack of exercise on subjects' health, measurements of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, cholesterol concentration, and so on, may be taken for each subject. Similarly, studies of the use of carbon dioxide for storage of apples can include measures of flavor, appearance, firmness, and resistance to disease. A treatment versus control effect-size estimate may be calculated for each endpoint measure. Because measures on a common subject are likely to be correlated, corresponding estimated effect sizes for these measures will be correlated within studies. Studies of this type are called multiple-endpoint studies (for further discussions of multiple-endpoint studies, see Gleser and Olkin 1994; Raudenbush, Becker, and Kalaian 1988; Timm 1999). A special, but common, kind of multiple-endpoint study is that in which the measures (endpoints) used are sub-scales of a psychological test. For study-to-study comparisons, or to have a single effect size for treatment versus control, we may want to combine the effect sizes obtained from the subscales into an overall effect size. Because subscales have differing accuracies, it is well known that weighted averages of such effect sizes are required. Weighting by inverses of the variances of the estimated subscale effect sizes is appropriate when these effect sizes are independent, but may not produce the most precise estimates when the effect sizes are correlated. In each of these above situations, possible dependency among the estimated effect sizes needs to be accounted for in the analysis. To do so, additional information has to be obtained from the various studies. For example, in the multiple-endpoint studies, dependence among the end-point measures leads to dependence between the corresponding estimated effect sizes, and values for between-measures correlations will thus be needed for any analysis. Fortunately, as will be seen, in most cases this is all the extra information that will be needed. When the studies themselves fail to provide this information, the correlations can often be imputed from test manuals (when the measures are subscales of a test, for example) or from published literature on the measures used. When dealing with dependent estimated effect sizes, we need formulas for the covariances or correlations. Note that the dependency between estimated effect sizes in multiple-endpoint studies is intrinsic to such studies, arising from the relationships between the measures used, whereas the dependency between estimated effect sizes in multiple-treatment studies is an artifact of the design (the use of a common control). Consequently, formulas for the covariances between estimated effect sizes differ between the two types of studies, necessitating separate treatment of each type. On the other hand, the variances of the estimated effect sizes have the same form in both types of study - namely, that obtained from considering each effect size in isolation (see chapters 15 and 16, this volume). Recall that such variances depend on the true effect size, the sample sizes for treatment and control, and (possibly) the treatment-to-control variance ratio (when the variance of a given measurement is assumed to be affected by the treatment). As is often the case in analyses in other chapters in this volume, the results obtained are large sample (within studies) normality approximations based on use of the central limit theorem.
In this systematic review of literature that spans 1975-2015, integrated reading and writing interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) or students with academic difficulties were evaluated to understand the extant research, identify encouraging practices, and guide future research. Ten studies met inclusion criteria and each study was evaluated according to the relevant What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) design standards. Eight of the ten investigations were conducted with students in Grades 4-8. While only four of the ten studies met WWC design with or without reservations, results from these studies are encouraging. Study findings suggest several areas for immediate future research relating to methodological and treatment variables and considerations for classroom instruction in order to respond to advanced expectations for the successful integration of reading and writing across subjects. In addition to employing stronger experimental designs and additional replications of encouraging studies, future research should explore the utility of integrated reading and writing interventions with secondary students with who have academic difficulties.
My editorship of the Journal of Educational Psychology (JEP) begins with this issue. I am excited and pleased to start this journey, as I believe that JEP is without peer in the educational research world. It publishes the most important, highest quality research in educational psychology and education more broadly. I am joined by an outstanding group of associate editors that includes (in alphabetical order) Jill Fitzgerald, Pani Kendeou, Pui-Wa Lei, Dan Robinson, Cary Roseth, Tanya Santangelo, Gregg Shraw, Birgit Spinath, and Young Suk-Kim. We are joined by a highly talented, diverse, and international board of consulting editors and principal reviewers. We plan to make JEP even better. How do we plan to achieve this goal? At the most basic level, we want to make sure the work submitted and published in the journal is as good as it can be.
The author investigated the impact of a literature-based program on the literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes toward reading of children from minority backgrounds. Nine second-grade classes (N = 166) were assigned to one control group and two experimental: one in a school-based program only and one in a school- and home-based program. Standardized and informal written and oral tests of comprehension were used to determine growth in literacy. Use of literature was measured by child surveys concerning after-school activities and records of books read in school and checked out to read at home. Interviews with teachers and children determined attitudes toward the reading program. Children in the experimental groups did significantly better on all literacy measures except for the standardized test, where no differences were found. No differences were found in the performance of the children in the home- and school-based program and the school-based program alone. /// [French] L'auteur a examiné l'impact sur la réussite en lecture-écriture d'un programme reposant sur la littérature, sa fréquentation, et les attitudes envers la lecture d'enfants issus de minorités. Les enfants de neuf classes de seconde année d'école élémentaire (N = 166) ont été répartis pour former un groupe témoin et deux groupes expérimentaux: pour l'un le programme n'a lieu qu'à l'école, pour l'autre il a lieu à l'école et à la maison. Les progrès en lecture-écriture ont été évalués par des tests de compréhension orale et écrite, standardisés et informels, et la fréquentation de la littérature par des enquêtes sur les activités des enfants après l'école, le nombre de livres lus à l'école et le nombre pris pour être lus à la maison. Des entretiens individuels avec les enseignants et les enfants ont déterminé leurs attitudes envers ce programme. Les enfants des groupes expérimentaux ont réussi significativement mieux que ceux du groupe contrôle dans toutes les mesures de lecture-écriture, exception faite du test standardisé pour lequel nulle différence n'est apparue. On n'a pas trouvé de différence dans les résultats suivant que le programme se déroulait à l'école ou à l'école et à la maison. /// [Spanish] La autora investigó el impacto de un programa de literatura sobre los logros en alfabetización, el uso de la literatura y las actitudes hacia la lectura en niños provenientes de minorías. Nueve cursos de segundo grado (N = 166) fueron asignados a un grupo control y dos grupos experimentales: uno en un programa basado sólo en la escuela y otro en un programa basado en la escuela y el hogar. Para determinar el avance en alfabetización se usaron pruebas estandarizadas y informales de comprensión oral y escrita. El uso de la literatura se midió utilizando informes de los niños sobre sus actividades después de clase, registro de los libros leídos en la escuela y retirados para leer en el hogar. Entrevistas con maestros y niños determinaron las actitudes hacia el programa de lectura. Los niños de los grupos experimentales se desempeñaron significativamente mejor en todas las medidas de alfabetización excepto en la prueba estandarizada, en la que no se hallaron diferencias. No se hallaron diferencias en el desempeño de los niños entre el programa basado en la escuela y el hogar y el programa basado sólo en la escuela. /// [German] Die autorin untersuchte die Auswirkungen eines auf Literatur basierenden Programms auf die schriftsprachlichen Leistungen, den Gebrauch von Literatur und Einstellungen zum Lesen bei Kindern mit Minderheitenstatus. Neun Klassen der zweiten Stufe (N = 166) wurden einer Kontrollgruppe und zwei Experimentalgruppen zugeordnet: einer Gruppe mit lediglich schulbezogenem und einer mit schul- und familienbezogenem Programm. Anhand standardisierter und informeller schriftlicher und mündlicher Verstehenstests wurde die Leistungsverbesserung im Lesen und Schreiben erfaßt. Der Gebrauch von Literatur wurde in Befragungen der Kinder zu außerschulischen Aktivitäten und mit Verzeichnissen der in der Schule gelesenen und der für zuhause entliehenen Bücher erhoben. Einzelinterviews mit Lehrer/innen und Schüler/innen erfaßten Einstellungen zum Leseprogramm. Kinder der Experimentalgruppen waren den Kindern der Kontrollgruppe in allen schriftsprachlichen Indikatoren signifikant überlegen, mit Ausnahme der standardisierten Tests, in denen keine Unterschiede gefunden wurden. Keine Leistungsunterschiede wurden zwischen den Kindern des ausschließlich schul- und des schul-sowie familienbezogenen Programms gefunden.
READING RECOVERY(R) is an early instructional intervention for at-risk children. This article analyzes its effectiveness. Specifically, it considers whether Reading Recovery leads to learning and compares the amount of learning accomplished relative to the gains of average and low-achieving students. The analysis considers whether learning gains attributable to Reading Recovery can be maintained once special instruction is discontinued, and whether the program leads to other instructional changes in schools. Costs and benefits of the program are analyzed. It was found that Reading Recovery leads to learning. Students make greater than expected gains in reading, effects comparable to those accomplished by the most effective educational interventions. It is less effective and more costly than has been claimed, and does not lead to systemic changes in classroom instruction, making it difficult to maintain learning gains. This is discouraging given program claims and its great expense. Reading Recovery, like other effective interventions, merits continued support. Several recommendations are made for monitoring the program more effectively and for encouraging innovations that might lower costs while maintaining effectiveness.
Two complementary approaches to developing empirical benchmarks for achievement effect sizes in educational interventions are explored. The first approach characterizes the natural developmental progress in achievement made by students from one year to the next as effect sizes. Data for seven nationally standardized achievement tests show large annual gains in the early elementary grades followed by gradually declining gains in later grades. A given intervention effect will therefore look quite different when compared to the annual progress for different grade levels. The second approach explores achievement gaps for policy-relevant subgroups of students or schools. Data from national- and district-level achievement tests show that, when represented as effect sizes, student gaps are relatively small for gender and much larger for economic disadvantage and race/ethnicity. For schools, the differences between weak schools and average schools are surprisingly modest when expressed as student-level effect sizes. A given intervention effect viewed in terms of its potential for closing one of these performance gaps will therefore look very different depending on which gap is considered.
Two studies were conducted to evaluate a comprehensive cooperative learning approach to elementary reading and writing instruction: Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC). In CIRC, third- and fourth-grade students worked in heterogeneous learning teams for all reading, language arts, and writing activities. In reading, students worked with partners during follow-up times on partner reading, decoding, story structure, prediction, and story summary activities related to the basal stories. Students also received direct instruction on comprehension and metacomprehension activities, followed by team practice. In writing and language arts, students used a process approach to writing, and participated in peer conferences during planning, revising, and editing stages of the process. Students also received direct instruction followed by team practice on language mechanics and language expression activities, which were integrated with the students' writing activities. The authors found significant effects in favor of the CIRC students on standardized measures of reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, language mechanics, language expression, and spelling. The CIRC students also performed better on writing sample and oral reading measures. /// [French] On a effectué deux recherches en vue d'évaluer une démarche d'apprentissage coopératif de la lecture et de l'écriture au niveau du primaire: Lecture et Composition Coopératives Intégrées (Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, CIRC). Les élèves de troisième et quatrième années soumis au CIRC ont travaillé en équipes hétérogènes d'apprentissage pour toutes les activités de lecture, d'écriture et de savoir-faire linguistiques. En lecture, les élèves travaillaient en équipe pendant des périodes de surveillance chez le partenaire de la lecture, du décodage, de la structure de l'histoire, de la prédiction, et des activités de récapitulation des histoires présentées dans leur livre de lecture. Les élèves ont aussi reçu un enseignement direct portant sur les activités de compréhension et de métacompréhension, lequel fut suivi d'une mise en pratique en équipe. Pour l'écriture et le savoir-faire, les élèves ont suivi une démarche du procédé d'écriture et ont participé aux discussions de groupes pour la planification, la révision et la mise au point des différentes étapes du procédé. Les étudiants ont également reçu un enseignement direct suivi d'une mise en pratique en équipe portant sur les mécanismes de la langue et sur les activités d'expression, lesquels étaient intégrés aux activités d'écriture. Les auteurs ont démontré les effets considérables en faveur du CIRC sur les résultats des élèves aux tests standardisés de compréhension écrite, compréhension du vocabulaire écrit, mécanismes de la langue, expression orale et orthographe. Les élèves bénéficiant du CIRC ont aussi mieux réussi aux épreuves de lecture à voix haute et ont fourni de meilleurs échantillons d'écriture. /// [Spanish] Se condujeron dos estudios para evaluar una aproximación global de aprendizaje cooperativo a la instrucción de la escritura y lectura a nivel de educación elemental: Composición y Lectura Integrada Cooperativa (CLIC). En CLIC, estudiantes de tercero y cuarto grado trabajaron en equipos de aprendizaje heterogéneos para todas las actividades de lectura, artes del lenguaje, y escritura. En la lectura, los estudiantes trabajaron en grupos en sesiones en las que leían a los miembros del equipo, así como cumplían tareas de decodificar, aprender la estructura de las historias, hacer predicciones, y resumir las historias basales. Los estudiantes también recibieron instrucción directa en actividades de comprensión y metacomprensión, seguida de una práctica de equipo. En la escritura y artes del lenguaje, los estudiantes utilizaron una aproximación de proceso a la escritura, y participaron en conferencias con los miembros del equipo durante la planeación, revisión y edición del proceso. Los estudiantes también recibieron instrucción directa seguida de práctica de equipo sobre la mecánica del lenguaje y las actividades de expresión del lenguaje, las que fueron integradas con las actividades de composición de los estudiantes. Los autores demostraron efectos significativos en favor de los estudiantes de CLIC según evidenciaron las medidas estandarizadas de comprensión de la lectura, lectura de vocabulario, mecánica del lenguaje, expresión lingüística, y ortografía. Los estudiantes de CLIC también tuvieron mejores rendimientos en sus muestras de escritura y lectura oral. /// [German] Es wurden zwei Studien durchgeführt, um ein durchgreifendes, mitwirkendes Annähern an Grund-Lese-und-Schreib-Unterricht auszuwerten: Mitwirkendes, integriertes Lesen und Gestalten (CIRC). Im CIRC arbeiteten Dritt- und Viert-Klässler in heterogenen Lerngruppen für alle Lese-, Sprach- und Schreib-Aktivitäten. Im Leseunterricht arbeiteten die Schüler mit Partnern während ihrer Nachgreifzeit in Partner-Lesen, Entziffern, Erzählungsstruktur, Vorhersage und Erzählungsform mit Bezug auf grundsätzliche Geschichten. Schüler erhielten auch direkten Unterricht bezüglich Verständnis und Meta-Verständnis-Aktivitäten, von Team-Uebungen gefolgt. In Schreib- und Sprachkunst bedienten sich die Schüler einer Prozeßannäherung und nahmen an Klassenbesprechungen teil während der Planungs-, Umschreibe-, und Redigier-Stadien des Prozesses. Schüler erhielten auch direkten Unterricht, von Team-Uebungen gefolgt über Sprach-Mechanismen und Sprachausdrucks-Aktivitäten, die dann ergänzt wurden mit Schreib-Aktivitäten der Schüler. Die Autoren zeigten bedeutende Einflüsse zugunsten der CIRC-Schüler mit Bezug auf Standard-Maßstäbe von Leseverständnis, Lesewortschatz, Sprachmechanismen, Sprachausdruck und Buchstabieren. Die CIRC-Schüler waren ebenfalls besser beim Schreiben von Beispiel- und mündlichen Maßstäben.
IntroductionIndividual studiesThe summary effectHeterogeneity of effect sizesSummary points
This study compared the effects of two supplemental interventions on the beginning reading performance of kindergarten students identified as at risk of reading difficulty. Students (n = 206) were assigned randomly at the classroom level to either to an explicit/systematic commercial program or school-designed practice intervention taught 30 minutes per day in small groups for approximately 100 sessions. Multilevel hierarchical linear analyses revealed statistically significant effects favoring the explicit/systematic intervention on alphabetic, phonemic, and untimed decoding skills with substantive effect sizes on all measures except word identification and passage comprehension. Group performance did not differ statistically on more advanced reading and spelling skills. Findings support the efficacy of both supplemental interventions and suggest the benefit of the more explicit/systematic intervention for children who are most risk of reading difficulty.
This synthesis extends a report of research on extensive interventions in kindergarten through third grade (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007) to students in Grades 4 through 12, recognizing that many of the same questions about the effectiveness of reading interventions with younger students are important to address with older students, including (a) how effective are extensive interventions in improving reading outcomes for older students with reading difficulties or disabilities and (b) what features of extensive interventions (e.g., group size, duration, grade level) are associated with improved outcomes. Nineteen studies were synthesized. Ten studies met criteria for a meta-analysis, reporting on 22 distinct treatment/comparison differences. Mean effect sizes ranged from 0.10 to 0.16 for comprehension, word reading, word reading fluency, reading fluency, and spelling outcomes. No significant differences in student outcomes were noted among studies related to instructional group size, relative number of hours of intervention, or grade level of intervention.