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

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 56 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Process Writing Approach: A Meta-analysis

Graham, Steve, Sandmel, Karin·2011·The Journal of Educational Research
DOI 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis
  2. 2005, Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work?
  3. *Adams V. A., 1971, A study of the effects of two methods of teaching composition to twelfth graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
  4. Atwell N., 1987, In the middle: Reading, writing, and learning from adolescents
  5. *Beachem M. T., 1984, An investigation of two writing process interventions on the rhetorical effectiveness of sixth grade writers
  6. Breetvelt I., 1996, Theories, models and methodologies on writing research, 10
  7. Calkins L., 2008, Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum (K–2)
  8. *Croes M. J., 1990, The efficacy of employing a writing process approach for the instruction of language arts with learning disabled elementary students
  9. *Curry K. A., 1997, A comparison of the writing products of students with learning disabilities in inclusive and resource room settings using different writing approaches
  10. *Dougans J. Y., 1993, Teaching writing to fifth-grade children: The process/conference approach versus the traditional method
  11. *Eads V. A., 1989, A study of the effects of teacher training in writing on students’ writing abilities
  12. *Fleury B., 1988, Cumulative editing writing instruction: Implications for staff development
  13. *Ganong F. L., 1974, Teaching writing through the use of a program based on the work of Donald M. Murray
  14. *Gauntlett J. F., 1978, Project WRITE and its effect on the writing of high school students
  15. Goldring A., 2003, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1
  16. Graham, S. 2006. Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum
  17. *Green L. C., 1991, The effects of word processing and a process approach to writing on the reading and writing achievement, revision and editing strategies, and attitudes towards writing of third-grade Mexican American students
  18. Greene J., 2000, The cost of remedial education: How much Michigan pays when students fail to learn basic skills
  19. Greenwald E., 1999, National assessment of Educational progress: 1998 report card for the nation and the states
  20. Hammill D. D., 1996, Test of written language–3
  21. *Hansen T. L., 1989, A comparison of the effects of two process writing programs and a traditional program on the writing development of first-grade children
  22. *Hayes B. L., 1984, The effects of implementing process writing into a seventh grade English curriculum
  23. *Kelley K. R., 1984, The effect of writing instruction on reading comprehension and story writing ability
  24. MacArthur C., 1991, Learning Disability Research and Practice, 6, 201
  25. 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_9 · DOI
  26. *Marker E. S., 2000, The impact of the writer's conference on the writing achievement of at-risk fourth-grade students
  27. *Moore M. A., 1987, The effect of word processing technology in a developmental writing program on writing quality, attitude towards composing, and revision strategies of fourth and fifth grade students
  28. 2003, The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution
  29. *Pantier T. F., 1999, A comparison of writing performance of fifth-grade students using the process writing approach and the Shurley method
  30. Persky H. R., 2003, The nation's report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003–529)
  31. *Pollington M. F., 1999, Intermediate grade writers self-perception: A comparison of the effects of writing workshop and traditional instruction
  32. *Reimer M., 2001, The effect of a traditional, a process writing, and a combined talking and writing instructional approach on the quality of secondary English students’ written response
  33. Rijlaarsdam G., 2006, Handbook of writing research, 41
  34. *Roberts C. A., 2002, The influence of teachers’ professional development at the Tampa Bay Area Writing Project on student writing performance
  35. Rosenberg M., 2000, MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis (Version 2)
  36. Salahu-Din D., 2008, The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468)
  37. *Scannella A. M., 1982, A writing-as-process model as a means for improving compositions and attitudes toward composition in the high school
  38. Shadish W. R., 1999, ES: A computer program for effect size calculation
  39. *Umbach B. T., 1990, A comparison of two methods of teaching written language to low-performing fourth graders in two rural schools
  40. Van den Bergh H, 1996, The science of writing, 207
  41. 2007, Technical details of WWC-conducted computations
  42. Wienke J. W., 1981, Strategies for improving elementary school students’ writing skills
  43. Zaragoza N., 1992, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 184
  44. Zucker C., 1993, Reading Teacher, 46, 660

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 369

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
ORCID
Graham, Steve
Venue
The Journal of Educational Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-10
Volume
104
Issue
6
Pages
396-407
ISSN
  • 0022-0671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0675
DOI
10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
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