The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis examined if students writing about content material in science, social studies, and mathematics facilitated learning ( k = 56 experiments). Studies in this review were true or quasi-experiments (with pretests), written in English, and conducted with students in Grades 1 to 12 in which the writing-to-learn activity was part of instruction. Studies were not included if the control condition used writing to support learning (except when treatment students spent more time engaging in writing-to-learn activities), study attrition exceeded 20%, instructional time and content coverage differed between treatment and control conditions, pretest scores approached ceiling levels, letter grades were the learning outcome, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, writing about content reliably enhanced learning (effect size = 0.30). It was equally effective at improving learning in science, social studies, and mathematics as well as the learning of elementary, middle, and high school students. Writing-to-learn effects were not moderated by the features of writing activities, instruction, or assessment. Furthermore, variability in obtained effects were not related to features of study quality. Directions for future research and implications for practice are provided.
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
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
(1956) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,596
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Voices of the Mind: Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action
Wertsch, J. V. (1993) · doi:10.4159/9780674045101 · Cited by 4,099
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Beniger, J. R., & Tukey, J. W. (1978) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2065930 · Cited by 2,607
Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1963) · Comparative Studies in Society and History · doi:10.1017/s0010417500001730 · Cited by 1,376
Intraclass Correlation Values for Planning Group-Randomized Trials in Education
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373707299706 · Cited by 847
The 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 14×
“Second, Bangert-Drowns et al. (2004) indicated they did not include in their review any studies with fatal flaws, citing as examples studies with substantial attrition, significant differences between treatment and control students, and confounds with other factors that might explain treatment…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development
Graham, S., & R. Harris, K. (2000) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3501_2 · Cited by 671
Self-citation
Cited by
Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0 · Cited by 391
Automated feedback and writing: a multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students' performance
Fleckenstein, J., Liebenow, L. W., & Meyer, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1162454 · Cited by 145
“Shortcomings in writing skills can thus hinder personal, academic, and professional success (Freedman et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2020).”
BackgroundDiscourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources
Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2023) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5 · Cited by 61
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Mertens, U., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105163 · Cited by 36
Strategy Uptake in Writing Pal: Adaptive Feedback and Instruction
Butterfuss, R., Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211045304 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2020-03-19
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 179-226
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W3011616684
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 74
- FWCI
- 15.78
- 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: The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/0034654320914744
- The paper
- Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744
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.