New research highlights that when it comes to writing instruction for middle and high school students, it's important to understand, Wellgood.
“He does “It doesn't matter what you do when you teach writing, because some things don't seem to work as well,” says Steve Graham, lead author of a new analysis of writing interventions (or “treatments”) for students in grades 6 to 12. th degree.
The meta-analysis was published in it Journal of Educational Psychology and used data from 406 previous experiments involving 52,529 students. Although none of the interventions studied in this analysis had a negative effect on writing outcomes, some interventions did not have significant positive effects. For example, “simply increasing the amount of writing students do in middle or high school does not improve their writing,” Graham says.
However, the positive side is that many interventions helped students improve their writing, and writing practice combined with improved instruction could make a significant difference.
In their analysis, Graham and his co-authors identified 16 categories of writing interventions that had a positive impact on students' writing and can serve as a guide for writing teachers. However, Graham cautions that while such an analysis provides teachers with tools with a proven track record, there are no guarantees that these strategies will work in all cases.
“Just because a writing practice worked in eight other teachers' classrooms and had a positive effect doesn't mean it will certainly work in your classroom,” she says. “Because the conditions under which research studies are carried out are different than those that may exist in an individual teacher's classroom.”
That's why Graham advises instructors to use these 16 writing interventions as inspiration and to continue monitoring and adjusting their own practices based on what's working and what's not. his students.
Note: This study, like most education studies, measured effect sizes in standard deviation, which is the average deviation from the mean score of a group of students studied. In education research, effect sizes are notoriously small, so anything close to a standard deviation of 1 is significant. For example, a student scoring 1.5 below average would require significant intervention.
1. Comprehensive writing programs
Standard deviation: 0.47
These programs include those based on the process approach to writing, or what is sometimes called a writers' workshop. Graham and her co-authors note that this includes “increased opportunities to write; write for real audiences; participate in planning, translation and revision cycles; personal responsibility and ownership of writing projects; high levels of student interaction and creation of a supportive writing environment; self-reflection and evaluation; personalized individual assistance and instruction; and, in some cases, systematic instruction.”
2. Strategy instruction
Standard deviation: 0.76
This method of writing instruction involves explicitly teaching strategies for planning, revising, self-evaluating, and/or editing text, the study's authors note. Writing strategies range from processes, such as semantic networks, to strategies designed for specific types of writing, such as stories.
Standard deviation: 0.31
When students eventually switched from using pencil and paper to writing with the help of a traditional word processor, there was noticeable improvement, Graham says. “The reasons are quite obvious,” she adds. It's easier to self-edit and move words around, and grammar and spelling checkers also help with the process. Even greater improvement was seen among students who had access to more advanced word processors, which could include the ability to add images and sound, or have gamified elements to help students learn to write.
4. Transcription instruction
Standard deviation: 0.71
This positive effect was observed in lessons that included teaching spelling, handwriting or keyboarding.
5. Computer Aided Instruction
Standard deviation: 0.32
This included teaching writing, spelling and other lessons with the help of a computer program, as well as personalized instruction provided by technology. However, computer-generated feedback on writing, in and of itself, provided no benefit, Graham says. This research predates rapid advances in generative ai over the past year, so the benefits and limitations of computer-aided technology will need to be updated in the future.
6. Teach critical/creative thinking skills for writing
Standard deviation: 0.27
Teaching students critical thinking strategies improved writing as did teaching them how to add more creativity to their work. “Creativity could be exemplified in a study in which students were taught to use metaphors, similes, etc., and critical thinking could be demonstrated in a study in which students analyzed their texts using questions that help them think. critically about the veracity and value of the content they are viewing,” Graham says.
7. Emulating good writing models
Standard deviation: 0.46
Graham and his co-authors defined this as “examining one or more examples of model texts or models for carrying out writing processes and attempting to emulate these models in writing.” This is something that many professional writers do intuitively, so it makes sense that it would help student writers.
8. Comments
Standard deviation: 0.34
“We found that feedback makes a difference,” Graham says. This included instructor feedback as well as peer and group feedback, but notably not self-assessment/feedback or computer-generated feedback, at least in the studies analyzed for this analysis.
9. Goal setting
Standard deviation: 0.44
Whether assigned by the teacher or based on students' own goals for writing or learning writing skills and processes, goal setting appeared to have a measurable impact on writing success.
10. Pre-writing activities
Standard deviation: 0.49
“If you engage students in pre-writing activities to gather or organize information (so this might involve a discussion or using some type of organizer to generate and organize their ideas), writing improves,” Graham says.
11. Grammar Instruction
Standard deviation: 0.77
This positive association was much stronger than in some previous research on the impact of grammar on writing, including work Graham has been involved in. He says the change is likely due to better methodology that eliminated less well-designed grammatical interventions, as well as other factors. Most studies involve teaching grammar in context, he adds. Therefore, it was not the old way of teaching grammar that involved fill-in-the-blank exercises and decontextualized practice in specific contexts.
12. Prayer Instruction
Standard deviation: 0.73
“We found that teaching students to create more complex sentences had a positive effect on their writing,” he says. “When you write, a lot of your efforts and cognitive resources go into taking your ideas, images, etc., and translating them into an acceptable sentence that conveys the intended meaning and is understandable to the reader. So when you teach children to be more skilled with construction, there is a positive effect on your writing.”
13. Consultation
Standard deviation: 0.92
“We don't have as much data on this, but the idea behind the research is that you're collecting information that you're analyzing, which will help you in terms of your writing tasks,” Graham says. The study notes that this could include comparing and contrasting cases or collecting and evaluating evidence.
14. Observation of writers/readers, peer assistance
Standard deviation: 0.41
Simply observing other writers, readers of writing, or teachers/peers as they model how to carry out a writing process or skill can also improve writing outcomes.
15. Summary Instruction
Standard deviation: 0.49
This can take the form of sharing summary strategies or direct instruction in which you present a summary, discuss it, your students practice, and you receive feedback, Graham says.
16. Text structure instruction
Standard deviation: 0.39
Graham and his coauthors defined this as strategies in which teachers explicitly teach students knowledge about the purpose and/or structure of specific types of text, such as stories or persuasive texts. Again, few writing teachers will be surprised that this is an effective method.
