Table
Information on Individual Studies for Writing Treatments That Included Four or More Effect Sizes
Part
Study
Grade
type
n
Genre
Treatment
Qual
score
Pub
type
ES
Process writing versus instruction using modified
textbooks and worksheets
Process writing versus writing skills instruction
11%
D
0.34
33%
D
0.27
Process Approach
Croes (1990)
1-5
SW
168
NS
Eads (1989)
1-6
FR
115
N, E
Hamilton (1992)
2
FR
119
O
Process writing versus writing skills instruction
22%
D
0.75
Minns (1989)
2
AVG
43
E
56%
D
0.26
Weiss (1992)
2-3
SW
24
O
0%
D
1.08
Green (1991)
3
BLL
48
E, N
Process writing versus unspecified comparison
condition
Process writing versus adapted textbooks and
worksheets
Process writing versus grammar instruction
56%
D
-0.47
Fleury (1988)
3-5
FR
241
NS
Process writing versus writing skills instruction
22%
D
0.33
Roberts (2002)
3-5
FR
60
E
44%
D
0.42
Swain et al. (2007)
3-5
FR
652
NS
44%
O
0.53
Pritchard & Marshall
(1994)
Curry (1997)
3-6
FR
1284
NS
33%
J
0.39
4
SW
48
N
Process writing versus unspecified comparison
condition
Process writing versus unspecified comparison
condition
Process writing versus unspecified comparison
condition
Process writing versus writing skills instruction
44%
D
0.45
Umbach (1990)*
4
FR
60
NS
86%
D
-0.06
Clippard (1998)
4-5
SW
27
N
Process writing versus commercial writing skills
program
Process writing versus theme-based writing across
the curriculum
67%
J
0.37
Dougans (1993)
5
FR
86
N
Pantier (1999)
5
FR
33
N, E
Kelley (1984)
6
AVG
101
N
Process writing versus writing skills instruction
44%
D
0.26
Process writing versus grammar instruction
33%
D
-0.22
Process writing versus sustained silent reading
56%
D
1.64
86%
J
1.89
67%
O
1.11
100%
C
0.67
86%
J
0.68
100%
J
1.78
67%
J
0.25
44%
D
0.57
71%
O
1.31
89%
J
1.19
57%
D
0.67
Strategy Instruction
Harris et al. (2006)*
2
FR
44
N, P
Harris, Lane, et al.
(2011)
2-3
SW
56
N, P
Harris & Graham
(2004) *
Lane et al. (in press) *
2-3
SW
53
N
2-3
SW
44
N, P
Graham et al. (2005) *
3
SW
48
N, P
Tracey et al. (2009)
3
FR
127
N
Curry (1997)
4
SW
48
N
Glaser et al. (2011) *
4
FR
215
N
Glaser & Brunstein
(2007)
Walser (2000)*
4
FR
75
N
4
FR
41
N
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories and persuasive text versus process writing
SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
persuasive text versus planning/ drafting stories
SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus process writing SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories and persuasive text versus process writing
SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories and persuasive text versus process writing
SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus writing skills instruction SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus writing skills instruction SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus didactic writing instruction SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus didactic writing instruction SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ revising for
story writing versus direct instruction and journal
writing
Warrington (1999)
4
FR
92
NS
Englert et al. (1991)
4-5
FR
SW
119
E
Troia & Graham
(2002)*
MacArthur et al. (1991)
4-5
SW
20
N
4-6
SW
29
N
5
FR, SW
45
N
5-6
SW
21
N
Torrance et al. (2008)
6
FR
95
E
Fitzgerald & Markham
(1987)*
Welch (1992)
6
FR
30
N
6
SW
18
E
Wong et al. (2008)
6
AVE
57
P
Anderson (1997)*
Sawyer et al. (1992)
Students taught semantic webbing strategy versus
unspecified comparison condition
Students taught strategies for planning, drafting,
editing, and revising expository text versus
process writing
Students taught general planning strategies versus
process writing
Students taught general strategies for
revising/editing text versus process writing
SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus grammar and summarization
instruction SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
stories versus practice writing stories SRSD
Students taught strategies for planning, drafting,
and revising expository text versus writing skills
instruction SRSD
Students taught general strategies for revising
versus reading literature
Students taught strategies for planning/ drafting
paragraphs versus grammar and writing
mechanics
Students taught strategies for planning/ revising
persuasive writing versus direct skills instruction
SRSD
56%
D
0.52
33%
J
0.51
100%
J
0.83
78%
J
1.33
57%
D
1.49
89%
J
0.63
33%
J
3.19
86%
J
0.31
67%
J
1.72
67%
J
0.64
86%
J
0.32
Adding Self-Regulation to Strategy Instruction
Harris et al. (2006)*
2
SW
44
N, P
Students taught goal setting and self-evaluation
procedures as part of strategy instruction versus
strategy instruction alone
Graham et al. (2005)*
3
SW
48
N, P
3-6
SW
12
N
Brunstein & Glaser (in
press)*
4
FR
117
N
Glaser & Brunstein
(2007)
4
FR
75
N
Sawyer et al. (1992)
5-6
SW
22
N
Kurtz (1987)
Students taught goal setting and self-evaluation
procedures as part of strategy instruction versus
strategy instruction alone
Students taught self-evaluation as part of strategy
instruction versus strategy instruction alone
Students taught goal setting and self-evaluation
procedures as part of strategy instruction versus
strategy instruction alone
Students taught goal setting and self-evaluation
procedures as part of strategy instruction versus
strategy instruction alone
Students taught goal setting and self-evaluation
procedures as part of strategy instruction versus
strategy instruction alone
100%
J
0.13
0%
D
1.09
100%
J
0.86
89%
J
0.87
89%
J
-0.02
Story structure taught versus vocabulary and
summary instruction
Structure for academic writing text taught versus
unspecified comparison condition
Story structure taught versus process writing
33%
J
0.94
44%
D
0.33
56%
D
0.32
Story structure taught versus dictionary skills and
word study instruction
Compare and contrast text structure taught versus
free writing
Story structure taught versus exposure to story
elements
Story structure taught versus instruction in the
structure of poems
Multiple text structures taught versus no text
instruction
86%
J
0.17
56%
D
0.13
57%
J
0.90
43%
J
0.71
44%
O
0.34
Text Structure Instruction
Carr et al. (1991)
2
FR
60
N, E
Sinclair (2005)
3
FR
36
NS
3-5
FR
122
N
Fitzgerald & Teasley
(1986)*
Kaminski (1994)
4
SW
19
N
4
FR
50
E
Gambrell & Chasen
(1991)*
Gordon & Braun
(1986)*
Raphael et al. (1986)
4-5
SW
40
N
5
FR
54
N
5-6
FR
79
N, E,
O
Riley (1997)
Crowhurst (1991)*
6
FR
50
P
Persuasive text structure taught versus reading
29%
J
0.74
43%
J
0.82
33%
J
1.03
43%
J
0.84
56%
D
0.23
Handwriting instruction versus phonological
awareness instruction
Handwriting/spelling instruction versus
phonological awareness instruction
Professional development in handwriting
instruction versus professional development in
writing instruction (included some handwriting)
Handwriting instruction versus unspecified
comparison condition
Handwriting instruction versus orthographic and
fine motor instruction
Spelling instruction versus math instruction
100%
J
0.54
100%
C
0.21
78%
D
1.00
33%
J
2.40
67%
D
-0.12
78%
J
-0.12
Creativity/Imagery Instruction
Jampole et al. (1991)*
3-4
HA
37
N
Fortner (1986)
3-6
SW
49
O
Jampole et al. (1994)*
4-5
HA
82
N
Stoddard (1982)
5-6
HA
60
NS
Visualization imagery taught versus listening and
responding to stories
Instruction to enhance creativity versus unspecified
comparison condition
Visualization imagery taught versus reading and
writing activities
Instruction to enhance creativity versus unspecified
control condition
Teaching Transcription Skills
Graham et al. (2000)*
1
SW
36
N
Graham & Harris
(2005)*
Jones (2004)
1
SW
30
N
1
FR
371
NS
Jones & Christensen
(1999)
Rutberg (1998)
1
SW
38
E
1
SW
14
NS
Graham et al. (2002)*
2
SW
54
N
Berninger et al. (2002)*
3
SW
48
P, E
Spelling instruction versus typing practice
100%
J
0.35
Shorter (2001)
3
FR
89
NS
Keyboarding instruction versus unspecified
comparison condition
56%
D
0.38
Grammar Instruction
Green (1991)
3
BLL
48
E, N
Anderson (1997)*
5
FR, SW
45
N
Pantier (1999)
5
FR
33
N, E
Thibodeau, A.E. (1963)
6
FR
508
NA
Grammar instruction process writing
56%
D
0.47
Grammar instruction/summarization versus writing
strategy instruction
Grammar instruction versus process writing
57%
D
-1.49
33%
D
0.21
Grammar instruction versus regular classroom
program
33%
D
-0.38
Drawing and drama pre-planning activities versus
unspecified control condition
Drawing pre-planning activities versus writing only
86%
J
0.88
43%
J
0.56
Planning prior to composing versus writing skills
instruction
Semantic web activities versus listing ideas for
writing
Verbal discussion of writing topic versus no
discussion
Located information via the internet prior to
composing versus only composing
Planning prior to composing versus dictation only
0%
D
0.87
67%
D
0.44
44%
D
0.43
14%
D
0.37
71%
B
0.86
67%
D
0.38
67%
J
0.70
Prewriting Activities
Moore & Caldwell
(1993)*
Norris et al. (1997)*
2-3
FR
63
N, E
3
FR
119
N
Kurtz (1987)
3-6
SWD
12
N
Loader (1989)
4
FR
47
N
McNulty (1980)
4
FR
78
N
Doan (2008)*
4-5
FR
49
E
Reece & Cumming
(1996)*
Thibodeau, A. L. (1963)
5-6
FR
20
E
6
FR
234
O
Planning prior to composing versus grammar and
punctuation instruction
Peer Assistance
Paquette (2009)
2
FR
85
NS
Older and younger students worked together to
assess text versus students working with teacher
MacArthur et al. (1995)
4-6
SWD
29
N, E
Yarrow & Topping
(2001)
Olson (1990)
5-6
FR
28
N
6
FR
46
N
Peers helped each other revise/edit text versus
process writing
Students planned/drafted/revised text together
versus doing this individually
Peers revised text together versus revising
individually
44%
J
1.33
22%
J
0.76
11%
J
0.67
100%
C
0.28
43%
J
1.11
43%
J
0.35
57%
J
1.08
57%
J
0.58
86%
J
1.49
71%
J
0.75
67%
J
-0.02
56%
D
0.23
56%
J
-0.01
Product Goals
Graham & Harris
(2006)*
Ferretti et al. (2009)*
4
SW
22
N
4-6
FR
SW
96
P
Ferretti et al. (2000)*
4-6
FR
SW
128
P
Schunk & Swartz
(1993a, Exp 2)*
Midgette et al. (2007)*
4
FR
20
E
5
FR
74
P
Schunk & Swartz
(1993a, Exp 1)*
Graham et al. (1995)*
5
FR
30
E
5-6
SW
43
N
Students set specific goals for revising compared to
a general revising goal
Goal to write persuasive text plus explicit subgoals
to include argumentative elements versus just a
goal to write persuasive text
Goal to write persuasive text plus explicit subgoals
to include argumentative elements versus just a
goal to write persuasive text
Product goals for writing a paragraph versus a
general goal of working productively
Revising goals to improve reasons/evidence versus
general goal to make text better
Product goals for writing a paragraph versus a
general goal of working productively
Students given specific revising goal to add
information versus a general goal to revise text
Assessing Writing
Paquette (2009)
2
FR
35
NS
Rosenthal (2006)
3
FR
24
N
Collopy (2008)
4
FR
100
NS
Cross-aged tutoring plus 6+1 Writing Traits
instruction versus no treatment control
Teachers provide students with feedback on their
paper versus no
6+1 Writing Traits professional development
versus no professional development
Guastello (2001)
4
FR
167
N
Schunk & Swartz
(1993b)*
Schunk & Swartz
(1993a, Exp 1)*
Schunk & Swartz
(1993a, Exp 2)*
Young (2000)
4
HA
22
N, E
5
FR
30
E
4
FR
20
E
4
FR
161
NS
Meyer et al. (2010)
4-6
FR
296
N
Ross et al. (2000)
4-6
FR
296
N
Holliway (2004)*
5
FR
55
E
Olson (1990)
6
FR
46
N
Wolter (1975)*
6
FR
27
N
3-6
FR
72
N, E,
P
Kozlow & Bellamy
(2004)*
Students and parents taught to evaluate writing
versus no such instruction
Teachers provided students with feedback on their
learning progress versus no feedback
Teachers provided students with feedback on their
learning progress versus no feedback
Teachers provided students with feedback on their
learning progress versus no feedback
Students taught to self assess writing versus those
who were not
Teacher, peer, and self-assessment via electronic
portfolio system versus unspecified control
condition
Students taught to self assess writing versus those
were not
Students evaluated peers’ text versus no evaluation
56%
B
1.12
57%
J
.92
86%
J
.67
57%
J
.83
44%
D
0.82
22%
J
0.29
78%
J
0.17
71%
J
0.58
Students gave and received feedback from peers
versus no feedback condition
Teacher provided feedback to students on their
writing versus no feedback
6+1 Writing Traits professional development
versus no professional development
11%
J
0.24
57%
D
0.70
71%
O
0.10
44%
O
0.65
44%
D
-0.44
67%
J
0.71
Word Processing
Lanter et al. (1987)
Pearce-Burrows (1991)
Owston & Wideman
(1997)
1, 3,
6
3-4
FR
154
NS
FR
62
N
3-5
FR
269
N, E
Word processing for academic year 1 year versus
writing by hand
Word processing for 72 hours versus writing by
hand
Word processing for 3 years versus writing by hand
Zhang et al. (1995)*
3-5
SW
33
N
Stewart (1999)
4
AVG
119
NS
Cheever (1987)
4
FR
50
NS
4-5
FR
204
NS
Dybdahl et al. (1997)
5
FR
41
E
Grejda & Hannafin
(1992)*
Englert et al. (2007)
6
FR
66
N
NS
SW
35
E
Moore & Turner (1988)
Word processing and word processing with
vocabulary software and speech synthesis used
over 3 days versus writing by hand
Word processing for 60 days versus writing by
hand
Word processing for 34 days versus writing by
hand
Word processing for 1 year versus writing by hand
71%
J
1.05
44%
D
-0.30
33%
D
0.36
33%
J
0.43
Word processing for 140 days versus writing by
hand
Word processing for 10 days versus writing by
hand
Word processing plus software for
planning/drafting of text used over 4 days versus
writing by hand with written graphic organizers
for planning/drafting text
56%
J
-0.32
43%
J
0.45
33%
J
1.46
Students engaged in self-generated writing versus
unspecified comparison condition
Students engaged in daily writing practice with
feedback versus silent reading
Free writing versus copying and editing exercises
56%
D
0.33
71%
D
0.34
33%
J
-0.23
Writing versus unspecified control condition
44%
O
0.69
Free writing versus no additional writing
67%
D
0.35
22%
J
0.15
Extra Writing Time
Peters (1991)
Soundy (1987)*
Gomez & Gomez (1986)
Raphael et al. (1986)
Wienke (1981)
2
FR
45
O
3-6
FR
113
E, P
5
ELL
48
NS
5-6
FR
79
6
FR
157
E, N,
O
O
Comprehensive Writing Programs
Klesius et al. (1991)
1
FR
122
N
Whole language versus skills instruction
Wetzel (1985)
3-5
FR
183
N
Process writing and word processing versus
78%
D -0.18
conventional language arts instruction
Berninger et al. (2006,
4
FR
90
E, P Scaffolded writing plus handwriting and spelling
44%
J
0.38
Exp 4)
instruction versus district writing program
Kirby (1987)
4-5
ELL
48
N
Language experience approach versus conventional 67%
D
0.51
instruction
Kerchner & Kistinger
4-6
SW
37
NS
Process approach plus word processing versus
56%
J
0.24
(1984)
language experience/reading and spelling
instruction
Ginn et al. (2002)
5
HA
74
NS
Direct instruction commercial writing program
33%
J
2.20
versus theme-based instruction
Bui et al. (2006)
5
FR
127
N
Process writing approach plus strategy instruction
56%
J
0.28
SW
plus teaching text structure versus process
approach
Kelley (1984)
6
AVG
104
N
Sentence, paragraph, and text structure instruction
56%
D
1.61
versus sustained silent reading
MacArthur et al. (1995)
4-6
SW
207
N, E Process writing plus strategy instruction plus word
44%
J
0.44
processing versus unspecified comparison
condition
Note. Part type=participant type; FR=full range (regular full class); ELL=English language learner; BLL=Bilingual language learner;
SW=struggling writer; HA=high achieving students; AVG=average students; N=narrative; E=expository; P=persuasive; SRSD=selfregulated strategy development; Qual=quality; Pub=publication; J=journal article; D=dissertation or thesis; C=conference paper;
B=book chapter; O=other; NS=not specified; ES=effect size; * = true experimental design.
Table
Percent of Quality Indicators Met for Writing Treatments That Included Four or More Effect Sizes
Author(s)
Process Approach (N=16)
Dsgn
6%
(1/16)
Fidl
0%
(0/16)
Cdn
69%
(11/16)
Effs
13%
(2/16)
Att1
44%
(7/16)
Att2
38%
(6/16)
Pre- test
Equ
73%
(11/15)
Strategy Instruction (N=20)
45%
(9/20)
55%
(11/20)
75%
(15/20)
50%
(10/20)
75%
(15/20)
70%
(14/20)
91%
(10/11)
91%
(10/11)
100%
(20/20)
Adding Self-Regulation to
Strategy Instruction (N=6)
50%
(3/6)
83%
(5/6)
83%
(5/6)
67%
(4/6)
83%
(5/6)
83%
(5/6)
67%
(2/3)
67%
(2/3)
83%
(5/6)
Text Structure (N=9)
44%
(4/9)
0%
(0/9)
33%
(3/9)
67%
(6/9)
56%
(5/9)
44%
(4/9)
80%
(4/5)
60%
(3/5)
78%
(7/9)
Creativity/Imagery (N=4)
50%
(2/4)
0%
(0/4)
25%
(1/4)
0%
(0/4)
100%
(4/4)
50%
(2/4)
100%
(2/2)
50%
(1/2)
50%
(2/4)
Teaching Transcription (N=8)
75%
(6/8)
50%
(4/8)
88%
(7/8)
63%
(5/8)
88%
(7/8)
63%
(5/8)
75%
(3/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(8/8)
Grammar Instruction (N=4)
25%
(1/4)
0%
(0/4)
0%
(0/4)
0%
(0/4)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(4/4)
Prewriting Activities (N=8)
38%
(3/8)
0%
(0/8)
38%
(3/8)
63%
(5/8)
75%
(6/8)
75%
(6/8)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
38%
(3/8)
Peer Assistance (N=4)
0%
(0/4)
0%
(0/4)
75%
(3/4)
0%
(0/4)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
100%
(7/7)
29%
(2/7)
29%
(2/7)
43%
(3/7)
86%
(6/7)
86%
(6/7)
NA
NA
71%
(5/7)
Product Goals (N=7)
Pre- test
F/C
73%
(11/15)
Post-test
F/C
63%
(10/16)
Assessing Writing (N=14)
43%
(6/14)
7%
(1/14)
79%
(11/14)
36%
(5/14)
79%
(11/14)
57%
(8/14)
63%
(5/8)
75%
(6/8)
71%
(10/14)
Word Processing (N=10)
20%
(2/10)
0%
(0/10)
80%
(8/10)
0%
(0/10)
60%
(6/10)
60%
(6/10)
88%
(7/8)
100%
(8/8)
70%
(7/10)
Extra Writing Time (N=5)
20%
(1/5)
0%
(0/5)
80%
(4/5)
80%
(4/5)
100%
(5/5)
80%
(4/5)
50%
(2/4)
50%
(2/4)
40%
(2/5)
Comprehensive Writing
Programs (N=9)
0%
(0/9)
0%
(0/9)
56%
(5/9)
22%
(2/9)
78%
(7/9)
56%
(5/9)
100%
(9/9)
78%
(7/9)
67%
(6/9)
Total Score
36%
19%
63%
37%
71%
60%
78%
76%
73%
(45/124) (23/124) (78/124) (46/124) (88/124) 75/125 (62/80)
(61/80) (91/124)
Note. Dsgn=design; Fidl=fidelity; Cdtn=condition; Effs=effects; Att1=attrition; Att2=attrition 2; Pretest F/C=pretest floor/ceiling;
Posttest F/C=posttest floor/ceiling; NA= not applicable because studies were true experimental designs; Total Score=percentage of
quality indicators met presented in parenthesis.