Cited by 374Writing and Handwriting EducationEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningReading and Literacy Development

The process writing approach: a meta-analysis

Graham, Steve, Sandmel, Karin·2011·The Journal of Educational Research

Abstract

The process approach to writing instruction is one of the most popular methods for teaching writing. The authors conducted meta-analysis of 29 experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted with students in Grades 1–12 to examine if process writing instruction improves the quality of students’ writing and motivation to write. For students in general education classes, process writing instruction resulted in a statistically significant, but relatively modest improvement in the overall quality of writing (average weighted effect size [ES] = 0.34). Variation in ES was not related to grade, reliability of the writing quality measure, professional development, genre assessed, or quality of study. The process writing approach neither resulted in a statistically significant improvement in students’ motivation nor enhanced the quality of struggling writers’ compositions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Educational Research
Published
2011-10
Volume
104
Issue
6
Pages
396-407
ISSN
  • 0022-0671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0675
OpenAlex
W1970391825
Cited by
374
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
process writing, writing instruction, writing quality, writing motivation, struggling writers, middle and high school students, writing genres, teacher professional development

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