The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades.
Abstract
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. Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.supp
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 25×
“Although the meta-analyses conducted by Hillocks (1986) and Graham and Perin (2007a, 2007c) were conducted almost 20 years apart and differed somewhat in terms of grade level, there was some overlap in their findings.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-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 · cited 3×
“Meta-analysis provides a useful tool for drawing “important insight from what might otherwise be a confused and disparate literature” (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004, p. 52).”
BackgroundMethodResultGraham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001 · Cited by 605 · cited 2×
“…(1987)a 6 FR 0.31 Welch (1992) 6 SW 1.72 Wong et al. (2008) SRSD 6 AVG 0.64 Adding self-regulation to strategy instruction Harris et al. (2006)a 2 SW 0.32 Graham et al. (2005)a 3 SW 0.13 Kurtz (1987) 3–6 SW 1.09 Brunstein & Glaser (2011)a 4 FR 0.86 Glaser & Brunstein (2007) 4 FR 0.87 Sawyer et…”
InfluentialSelf-citationEnglert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson Helene M. Anthony, L. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312028002337 · Cited by 383
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-citationContribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.669 · Cited by 299
Self-citationEffects of a Reciprocal Peer Revision Strategy in Special Education Classrooms
MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1177/093889829100600403 · Cited by 149 · cited 1×
“…(2007) SRSD 4 FR 1.19 Walser (2000)a 4 FR 0.67 Warrington (1999) 4 FR 0.52 Englert et al. (1991) 4–5 FR, SW 0.51 Troia & Graham (2002)a 4–5 SW 0.83 MacArthur et al. (1991) SRSD 4–6 SW 1.26 Anderson (1997)a SRSD 5 FR, SW 1.49 Sawyer et al. (1992) SRSD 5–6 SW 0.63 Torrance et al. (2007) SRSD 6…”
InfluentialSelf-citationMacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & Schafer, W. D. (1995) · Learning Disability Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1511234 · Cited by 99
Self-citation
Cited by
Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback of students’ writing
Steiss, J., Tate, T., Graham, S., Cruz, J., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., & Olson, C. B. (2024) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101894 · Cited by 509
Self-citationFormative Assessment and Writing: A Meta-Analysis
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/681947 · Cited by 340
Self-citationWilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004 · Cited by 297
Writing: importance, development, and instruction
Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2 · Cited by 270
Self-citationExplicit Instruction: Historical and Contemporary Contexts
Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1111/ldrp.12142 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 879-896
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W2010219476
- Cited by
- 826
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 34.93
- 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: A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0029185
- The paper
- Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185
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.