A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades.
Graham S, McKeown D, Kiuhara S, Harris KR · 2012
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentreplicated
Sample
115 documents containing the statistics needed to compute an effect size; 13 treatments each tested in 4+ studies
Population
Elementary-grade students (Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4), 879-896)
Design
Companion meta-analysis to Graham & Perin (2007), applying the same procedures to the elementary grades. Same measure-type caveat: the outcomes are overwhelmingly researcher-scored writing quality and production measures, so METHODOLOGY's ~2x inflation for treatment-aligned measures applies. A published correction exists (Graham et al., 2012, Journal of Educational Psychology, doi 10.1037/a0029939).
Key findings
Average weighted effect sizes: strategy instruction 1.02; creativity/imagery instruction 0.70; text structure instruction 0.59; adding self-regulation to strategy instruction 0.50; transcription skills (handwriting, spelling, typing) 0.55; prewriting activities 0.54; peer assistance 0.89; setting product goals 0.76; assessing writing 0.42; word processing 0.47; extra writing 0.30; comprehensive writing programmes 0.42. GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THE 13 TREATMENTS THAT DID NOT PRODUCE A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. That replicates the pattern in the adolescent meta-analysis - grammar is the single dissenting entry in an otherwise uniformly positive table - at a younger age band, and it does so without the negative sign, so the elementary reading is "nothing" rather than "harm".
Genetic confound
Low for direction (experimental and quasi-experimental comparisons), medium for magnitude - the quasi-experimental fraction admits selection into treatment classrooms, and quality is scored by raters who are usually not blind to condition.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Writing quality, grammar instruction, elementary grades | average weighted ES | not statistically significant - the only one of 13 treatments to fail | researcher-designed | post-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Writing quality, strategy instruction, elementary grades | average weighted ES | 1.02 | researcher-designed | post-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Writing quality, adding self-regulation to strategy instruction | average weighted ES | 0.5 | researcher-designed | post-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Writing quality, transcription skills instruction (handwriting/spelling/typing) | average weighted ES | 0.55 | researcher-designed | post-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Writing quality, extra writing | average weighted ES | 0.3 | researcher-designed | post-treatment | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Does handwriting and transcription instruction matter, and should young children type instead?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: medium
- Does sentence combining improve writing?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
- Does strategy instruction (SRSD, the writing process) improve writing?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
- Does teaching grammar improve children's writing?negativeconf: mediumgc: low
- Does teaching spelling work, and what does it transfer to?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low