The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey.
Abstract
A random sample of primary grade teachers (N 178; 97 % female) from across the United States was surveyed about their classroom instructional practices in writing. Most of the participating teachers (72%) took an eclectic approach to writing instruction, combining elements from the 2 most common methods for teaching writing: process writing and skills instruction. Although 90 % of the teachers reported using most of the writing instructional practices that were included in the survey, there was considerable variability between teachers in how often they used specific practices. The study provides support for the following 7 recommendations for reforming primary grade writing instruction: (a) increase amount of time students spend writing; (b) increase time spent writing expository text; (c) provide better balance between time spent writing, learning writing strategies, and teaching writing skills; (d) place more emphasis on fostering students ’ motivation for writing; (e) develop stronger connections for writing between home and school; (f) make computers a more integral part of the writing program; and (g) improve professional development for writing instruction in teacher education programs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 · Cited by 1,609 · cited 6×
“E-mail: steve.graham@vanderbilt.edu Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 100, No. 4, 907–919 0022-0663/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012656 907 One barrier to evaluating and implementing these suggestions and other recent recommendations for improving the tea…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationThe Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001029 · Cited by 802
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001 · Cited by 605
Self-citation
Cited by
The process writing approach: a meta-analysis
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.488703 · Cited by 374
Self-citationAlmost 30 Years of Writing Research: Making Sense of it All with The Wrath of Khan
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.01277.x · Cited by 183
Self-citationUtami, S. P. T., Andayani, A., Winarni, R., & Sumarwati, S. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13419 · Cited by 124
Palermo, C., & Thomson, M. M. (2018) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.07.002 · Cited by 107
Crossley, S. (2019) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.01 · Cited by 58
“…which highlights the importance of these errors in explaining writing quality (Eckes, 2008; Santos, 1988; Zhu, 2003), teaching these rules to students (Graham, 1983; Morris, Blanton, L. Blanton, W., & Perney, 1995), and teacher beliefs about the importance of these rules (Cutler & Graham, 2008).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Cutler, L., & Graham, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 907-919
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W1979560617
- Cited by
- 520
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 54.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0012656
- The paper
- Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.