EDUCATORS PRACTICE GUIDE WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Teaching Elementary School

Students to Be Effective Writers
NCEE 2012-4058
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education to bring the best
available evidence and expertise to bear on current challenges in education. Authors of practice
guides combine their expertise with the fndings of rigorous research, when available, to develop
specifc recommendations for addressing these challenges. The authors rate the strength of the
research evidence supporting each of their recommendations. See Appendix A for a full description
of practice guides.
The goal of this practice guide is to offer educators specifc, evidence-based recommendations
that address the challenge of teaching writing in elementary school. The guide provides practical,
clear information on critical topics related to teaching writing and is based on the best available
evidence as judged by the authors.
Practice guides published by IES are available on our website by selecting the Practice Guides
tab at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
IES Practice Guide
Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Efective Writers
June 2012
Panel
Steve Graham (Chair)
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Alisha Bollinger
NORRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, NORRIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEBRASKA
Carol Booth Olson
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
Catherine DAoust
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
Charles MacArthur
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
Deborah McCutchen
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Natalie Olinghouse
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
Staf
M. C. Bradley
Virginia Knechtel
Bryce Onaran
Cassandra Pickens Jewell
MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH
Project Ofcer
Joy Lesnick
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES
NCEE 2012-4058
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-07-CO-0062 by the What Works Clearinghouse,
which is operated by Mathematica Policy Research.
Disclaimer
The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the
U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed and applied according to
the specifc needs of the educators and education agency using it, and with full realization that
it represents the judgments of the review panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice,
based on the research that was available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be
used as a tool to assist in decisionmaking rather than as a cookbook. Any references within the
document to specifc education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these
products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced.
U.S. Department of Education
Arne Duncan
Secretary
Institute of Education Sciences
John Q. Easton
Director
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Rebecca A. Maynard
Commissioner
June 2012
This report is in the public domain. Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary,
the citation should be:
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., DAoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse,
N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-
4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Insti-
tute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
What Works Clearinghouse practice guide citations begin with the panel chair, followed by the
names of the panelists listed in alphabetical order.
This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
Alternate Formats
On request, this publication can be made available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or
CD. For more information, contact the Alternate Format Center at (202) 2600852 or (202) 2600818.
Contents
( iii )
Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers
Table of Contents
Review of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Institute of Education Sciences Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides . . . . . . . 3
Introduction to the Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers Practice Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recommendation 1. Provide daily time for students to write . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Recommendation 2. Teach students to use the writing process for a variety of purposes . . . 12
Understanding the Writing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recommendation 2a. Teach students the writing process . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendation 2b. Teach students to write for a variety of purposes . . . . . . 20
Recommendation 3. Teach students to become fuent with handwriting, spelling,
sentence construction, typing, and word processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Recommendation 4. Create an engaged community of writers . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix B. About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C. Disclosure of Potential Conficts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix D. Rationale for Evidence Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
( iv )
Table of Contents (continued)
( iv )
List of Tables
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Examples of writing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 4. Purposes for writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5. Examples of techniques within the four purposes of writing . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 6. Spelling skills by grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 7. Activities for sentence-structure development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table D.1. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 1 . . . . . 51
Table D.2. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 1 . . . 52
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 . . . . . 54
Table D.4. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 2 . . . 64
Table D.5. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 3 . . . . . 73
Table D.6. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 3 . . . 74
Table D.7. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 4 . . . . . 78
Table D.8. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 4 . . . 79
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gradual release of responsibility to students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2. Handwriting-practice diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Examples
Example 1. Applying the writing process in an upper elementary classroom . . . . . . . 20
Example 2. Story emulation of Rosies Walk with 1st-grade students . . . . . . . . . . 23
Example 3. Using text as a model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Example 4. The Westward Movement prompt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Example 5. Star of the Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Example 6. Authors Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
( 1 )
Review of Recommendations
Recommendation 1.
Provide daily time for students to write.
Recommendation 2.
Teach students to use the writing process for a variety of purposes.
Recommendation 2a.
Teach students the writing process.
1. Teach students strategies for the various components of the writing process.
2. Gradually release writing responsibility from the teacher to the student.
3. Guide students to select and use appropriate writing strategies.
4. Encourage students to be fexible in their use of the components of the writing process.
Recommendation 2b.
Teach students to write for a variety of purposes.
1. Help students understand the different purposes of writing.
2. Expand students concept of audience.
3. Teach students to emulate the features of good writing.
4. Teach students techniques for writing effectively for different purposes.
Recommendation 3.
Teach students to become fuent with handwriting, spelling, sentence construction, typing, and
word processing.
1. Teach very young writers how to hold a pencil correctly and form letters fuently and effciently.
2. Teach students to spell words correctly.
3. Teach students to construct sentences for fuency, meaning, and style.
4. Teach students to type fuently and to use a word processor to compose.
Recommendation 4.
Create an engaged community of writers.
1. Teachers should participate as members of the community by writing and sharing their writing.
2. Give students writing choices.
3. Encourage students to collaborate as writers.
4. Provide students with opportunities to give and receive feedback throughout the writing process.
5. Publish students writing, and extend the community beyond the classroom.
( 2 )
Acknowledgments
T
he panel appreciates the efforts of Virginia Knechtel, M. C. Cay Bradley, Bryce Onaran, and
Cassie Pickens Jewell, staff from Mathematica Policy Research who participated in the panel
meetings, described the research fndings, and drafted the guide. We also thank Scott Cody, Kristin
Hallgren, David Hill, Claudia Gentile, Brian Gill, and Shannon Monahan for helpful feedback and
reviews of drafts of the guide.
Steve Graham
Alisha Bollinger
Carol Booth Olson
Catherine DAoust
Charles MacArthur
Deborah McCutchen
Natalie Olinghouse
( 3 )
Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides
Institute of Education Sciences Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides
T
his section provides information about the role of evidence in Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) practice guides. It describes how practice guide panels
determine the level of evidence for each recommendation and explains the criteria for each of the
three levels of evidence (strong evidence, moderate evidence, and minimal evidence).
The level of evidence assigned to each recom-
mendation in this practice guide represents the
panels judgment of the quality of the existing
research to support a claim that, when these
practices were implemented in past research,
positive effects were observed on student
outcomes. After careful review of the studies
supporting each recommendation, panelists
determine the level of evidence for each recom-
mendation using the criteria in Table 1. The
panel frst considers the relevance of individ-
ual studies to the recommendation and then
discusses the entire evidence base, taking the
following into consideration:
the number of studies
the design of the studies
the quality of the studies
whether the studies represent the range
of participants and settings on which the
recommendation is focused
whether fndings from the studies can be
attributed to the recommended practice
whether fndings in the studies are consis-
tently positive
A rating of strong evidence refers to consistent
evidence that the recommended strategies,
programs, or practices improve student
outcomes for a wide population of students.
1

In other words, there is strong causal and
generalizable evidence.
A rating of moderate evidence refers either to
evidence from studies that allow strong causal
conclusions but cannot be generalized with
assurance to the population on which a recom-
mendation is focused (perhaps because the
fndings have not been widely replicated) or to
evidence from studies that are generalizable
but have some causal ambiguity. It also might
be that the studies that exist do not specif-
cally examine the outcomes of interest in the
practice guide, although they may be related.
A rating of minimal evidence suggests that the
panel cannot point to a body of research that
demonstrates the practices positive effect on
student achievement. In some cases, this simply
means that the recommended practices would
be diffcult to study in a rigorous, experimental
fashion;
2
in other cases, it means that research-
ers have not yet studied this practice, or that
there is weak or conficting evidence of effec-
tiveness. A minimal evidence rating does not
indicate that the recommendation is any less
important than other recommendations with
a strong evidence or moderate evidence rating.
In developing the levels of evidence, the panel
considers each of the criteria in Table 1. The
level of evidence rating is determined as the
lowest rating achieved for any individual cri-
terion. Thus, for a recommendation to get a
strong rating, the research must be rated as
strong on each criterion. If at least one criterion
receives a rating of moderate and none receive
a rating of minimal, then the level of evidence
is determined to be moderate. If one or more
criteria receive a rating of minimal, then the
level of evidence is determined to be minimal.
( 4 )
Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides (continued)
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides
Criteria
STRONG
Evidence Base
MODERATE
Evidence Base
MINIMAL
Evidence Base
Validity High internal validity (high-
quality causal designs).
Studies must meet WWC
standards with or without
reservations.
3

AND
High external validity
(requires multiple studies
with high-quality causal
designs that represent the
population on which the
recommendation is focused).
Studies must meet WWC
standards with or without
reservations.
High internal validity but
moderate external validity
(i.e., studies that support
strong causal conclusions but
generalization is uncertain).
OR
High external validity but
moderate internal validity
(i.e., studies that support the
generality of a relation but
4
the causality is uncertain).
The research may include
evidence from studies that
do not meet the criteria
for moderate or strong
evidence (e.g., case studies,
qualitative research).
Effects on
relevant
outcomes
Consistent positive effects
without contradictory
evidence (i.e., no statisti-
cally signifcant negative
effects) in studies with high
internal validity.
A preponderance of evidence
of positive effects. Contradic-
tory evidence (i.e., statisti-
cally signifcant negative
effects) must be discussed
by the panel and considered
with regard to relevance to
the scope of the guide and
intensity of the recommenda-
tion as a component of the
intervention evaluated.
There may be weak or
contradictory evidence
of effects.
Relevance to
scope
Direct relevance to scope
(i.e., ecological validity)
relevant context (e.g.,
classroom vs. laboratory),
sample (e.g., age and char-
acteristics), and outcomes
evaluated.
Relevance to scope (ecologi-
cal validity) may vary, includ-
ing relevant context (e.g.,
classroom vs. laboratory),
sample (e.g., age and char-
acteristics), and outcomes
evaluated. At least some
research is directly relevant
to scope (but the research
that is relevant to scope does
not qualify as strong with
respect to validity).
The research may be
out of the scope of the
practice guide.
Relationship
between
research and
recommendations
Direct test of the recom-
mendation in the studies
or the recommendation
is a major component of
the intervention tested in
the studies.
Intensity of the recommen-
dation as a component of
the interventions evaluated
in the studies may vary.
Studies for which the
intensity of the recommen-
dation as a component of
the interventions evaluated
in the studies is low; and/or
the recommendation
refects expert opinion
based on reasonable extrapo-
lations from research.
(continued)
( 5 )
Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides (continued)
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides (continued)
Criteria
STRONG
Evidence Base
MODERATE
Evidence Base
MINIMAL
Evidence Base
Panel confdence Panel has a high degree of
confdence that this practice
is effective.
The panel determines that
the research does not rise
to the level of strong but
is more compelling than a
minimal level of evidence.
Panel may not be confdent
about whether the research
has effectively controlled
for other explanations or
whether the practice would
be effective in most or all
contexts.
In the panels opinion, the
recommendation must be
addressed as part of the
practice guide; however, the
panel cannot point to a body
of research that rises to the
level of moderate or strong.
Role of expert
opinion
Not applicable Not applicable Expert opinion based on
defensible interpretations
of theory (theories). (In some
cases, this simply means
that the recommended
practices would be diff-
cult to study in a rigorous,
experimental fashion; in
other cases, it means that
researchers have not yet
studied this practice.)
When assess-
ment is the
focus of the
recommendation
For assessments, meets the
standards of The Standards
for Educational and Psycho-
5
logical Testing.
For assessments, evidence
of reliability that meets The
Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing
but with evidence of valid-
ity from samples not ad-
equately representative of
the population on which the
recommendation is focused.
Not applicable
The panel relied on WWC evidence standards to assess the quality of evidence supporting educa-
tional programs and practices. The WWC evaluates evidence for the causal validity of instructional
programs and practices according to WWC standards. Information about these standards is available
at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19. Eligible studies that meet WWC evidence
standards for group designs or meet evidence standards with reservations are indicated by bold text
in the endnotes and references pages.
( 6 )
Introduction
Introduction to the Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers Practice Guide
T
his section provides an overview of the importance of teaching writing and explains key
parameters considered by the panel in developing the practice guide. It also summarizes the
recommendations for readers and concludes with a discussion of the research supporting the
practice guide.
Writing today is not a frill for the few, but an essential skill for the many.
6
Writing is a fundamental part of engaging
in professional, social, community, and civic
activities. Nearly 70 percent of salaried employ-
ees have at least some responsibility for writing,
7

and the ability to write well is a critical compo-
nent of being able to communicate effectively
to a variety of audiences. Because writing is
a valuable tool for communication, learning,
and self-expression,
8
people who do not have
adequate writing skills may be at a disadvan-
tage and may face restricted opportunities for
education and employment.
Students should develop an early foundation
in writing in order to communicate their ideas
effectively and effcientlyyet many Ameri-
can students are not strong writers. In fact,
less than one-third of all students performed
at or above the profcient level in writing on
the 2007 National Assessment of Educational
Progress Writing Assessment.
9
The authors believe that students who
develop strong writing skills at an early age
acquire a valuable tool for learning, communi-
cation, and self-expression. Such skills can be
developed through effective writing instruc-
tion practices that provide adequate time for
students to write.
10
This guide, developed by
a panel of experts, presents four recommen-
dations that educators can use to increase
writing achievement for elementary students
and help them succeed in school and society.
These recommendations are based on the
best available research evidence, as well as
the combined experience and expertise of the
panel members.
Scope of the practice guide
Audience. This guide is intended for use by
teachers, literacy coaches, and other educa-
tors. The recommendations focus on activities
and strategies teachers can implement in their
classrooms to increase their students writing
achievement. Principals, districts, and curricu-
lum developers may also fnd the guide useful.
Grade level. The recommendations provide
strategies for teaching writing to students in
elementary school. The panel acknowledges
that instructional practices in kindergarten
and 1st grade, when students are just begin-
ning to learn letters and to write, can and will
differ from practices in later grades. Writing,
like reading, is defned from a developmental
standpoint, which begins with the acquisition
of foundational skills and then leads to the
application of more sophisticated techniques.
For younger students, for example, writing
activities could include interpretive draw-
ing, invented spelling, or interactive writ-
ing. Although these activities are not often
considered traditional writing experiences,
they accomplish the same goals: helping
students communicate thoughts and ideas
to others, encouraging them to engage with
the text to deepen their understanding of the
content, and drawing connections to prior
learning experiences. The panel recommends
that teachers adapt the recommendations as
appropriate for the range of grades addressed
in this guide, and examples of such adapta-
tions are included in the guide.
( 7 )
Introduction (continued)
Populations who are at risk for writing
diffculties. Learning to write can be par-
ticularly challenging for students with learn-
ing disabilities; those who fnd it diffcult to
regulate their behavior when they become
frustrated; or those who struggle with related
skills such as reading, spelling, or handwrit-
ing. While the recommendations in this guide
are primarily intended for teachers to use
with typically developing students, most
teachers serve at least a few students with
special needs in their classrooms; in some
general education classrooms, these students
comprise the majority. Research evidence
reviewed for this guide indicates that the rec-
ommendations are appropriate for use with
students with special needs when accompa-
nied by appropriate modifcations.
Common themes
Underlying this guide are three common
themes about the concept of writing, the role
of technology, and the role of assessment.
The writing process. Writing is a process
through which people communicate thoughts
and ideas. It is a highly complex, cognitive,
self-directed activity, driven by the goals writ-
ers set for what they want to do and say and
the audience(s) for whom they are writing.
To meet these goals, writers must skillfully
and fexibly coordinate their writing process
from conception to the completion of a text.
Components of the writing process include
planning; drafting; sharing; revising; editing;
evaluating; and, for some writing pieces,
publishing. (See Recommendation 2 for more
information.)
Technology. Increasingly, the ability to use
technology is vital for success in school and
contemporary life. This requires that students
learn to type and use a word processor, use
the Internet to collect information, navigate
computer- and web-based testing tools, and
understand how different writing conventions
apply to different media. The panel believes
that integrating the use of technology into
writing instruction is critically important. For
this reason, examples of how to do so are
included in technology tip call-out boxes in
this guide.
Assessment. Good instruction in any subject
area requires that teachers continually assess
the needs and skills of their students and
modify their instruction to suit those needs.
The panel encourages teachers to use assess-
ment to guide their instruction and to deter-
mine when students are ready to move on to
more challenging instruction.
Summary of the recommendations
The recommendations in this guide cover
teaching the writing process, teaching funda-
mental writing skills, encouraging students
to develop essential writing knowledge, and
developing a supportive writing environment.
All of these practices are aimed at achieving a
single goal: enabling students to use writing
fexibly and effectively to help them learn and
communicate their ideas.
A central tenet of this guide is that students
learn by doing. Indeed, to become effective
writers, students need daily opportunities to
learn and practice writing skills, strategies,
and techniques (Recommendation 1). Writing
practice also can be integrated into instruc-
tion in other content areas to provide stu-
dents with additional time to write.
Students need to think carefully about their pur-
pose for writing, planning what to say and how
to say it (Recommendation 2). While evidence
supports Recommendation 2 as a whole, the
steps to carry out this recommendation can
be grouped into two categories. First, to help
students think critically about writing, teachers
should focus their writing instruction on teach-
ing students to carry out the writing process
effectively and fexibly (Recommendation 2a).
This includes helping students learn how to
engage in the writing process to meet their writ-
ing goals, as well as teaching students multiple
strategies for carrying out the components of
( 8 )
Introduction (continued)
the writing process. Second, because writing
also is a form of communication with many pur-
poses, teachers should help students develop
an understanding of these purposes and learn
to write well for a variety of real-life purposes
and audiences (Recommendation 2b).
Writing places multiple simultaneous demands
on the writer. Mastering the foundational skills
of good writing, including handwriting, spell-
ing, sentence construction, and typing, allows
students to devote more of their attention to
composing written texts by utilizing the strate-
gies and techniques associated with the writing
process. For this reason, it is important to teach
students foundational skills (Recommendation 3).
When students are part of a community of writ-
ers, they collaborate with other writers, make
decisions about what to write and how to write
about it, and receive constructive feedback
from peers and teachers. Teachers should cre-
ate a supportive and motivating environment
so that young writers feel safe engaging fully in
the writing process (Recommendation 4).
Defning and assessing
good writing
Writing instruction is ultimately geared toward
teaching students to produce high-quality
writing for a variety of purposes. To assess
whether the practices in this guide were
effective, the panel considered their impact
on overall writing quality. However, given that
the students targeted by this guide are in the
early stages of their writing development,
and that the cost of administering and scor-
ing assessments of overall writing quality can
be prohibitive, the panel also considered the
impact of practices on intermediary out-
comesincluding genre elements, ideation,
mechanics, sentence structure, organization,
output, vocabulary, and voice (see the glos-
sary for descriptions and examples of each
outcome). When measures of overall writing
quality and measures of intermediary out-
comes were both available, the panel priori-
tized evidence on overall writing quality.
Measures of overall writing quality assess
the effectiveness of a piece of writing. These
measures may take into account assessments
of intermediary outcome categoriesinclud-
ing writing output, mechanics, vocabulary,
sentence structure, organization, ideation,
voice, and genre (or text) elementsin a
single assessment of the quality of a piece
of writing.
One challenge for teachers and researchers
alike is identifying what constitutes good
writing. Unlike instruction in basic mathemat-
ics, where there typically is a correct answer
and an incorrect answer, what constitutes
good writing in one context is not always
good writing in another. Assessing writing
is a fundamentally subjective judgment and
depends at least in part on the framework the
reader brings to the task. Despite the subjec-
tive nature of writing assessment, there are
some features that many can agree contrib-
ute to effective writing (e.g., following basic
language conventions so a reader is able to
interpret the texts meaning or developing a
clear focus for the reader). In order to address
some of the inherent subjectivity of writing
measures, the panel included only outcomes
for which the researchers demonstrated
that multiple raters could evaluate the same
students work consistently. Exceptions were
given to norm-referenced standardized tests
and a small number of measures that were
more objective (e.g., word count).
Use of research
The literature used to create and support
the recommendations ranges from rigorous
experimental studies to expert reviews of
practices and strategies in writing; however,
the evidence ratings are based solely on high-
quality experimental and quasi-experimental
design studies that met What Works Clear-
inghouse (WWC) standards. These studies
include both national and international
studies of strategies for teaching writing to
students in kindergarten through 6th grade.
( 9 )
Introduction (continued)
Single-case design (SCD) studies that meet the
WWC pilot standards for well-designed SCD
research are also described, but these cannot
raise the level of evidence above minimal.
The research base for this guide was identifed
through a comprehensive search for studies
evaluating instructional practices for improving
students writing skills and techniques. An initial
search for literature related to writing instruc-
tion and strategies in the past 20 years, supple-
mented with recommendations by the panel
(including important studies conducted in 1970
or later), yielded more than 1,500 citations.
Of these studies, 118 used experimental and
group quasi-experimental designs to examine
whether components of writing instruction
increased students writing achievement. From
this subset, 41 met the causal validity standards
of the WWC, and 34 were relevant to the panels
recommendations and were included as sup-
port or supplemental evidence for the recom-
mendations in this practice guide.
11
The strength of the evidence supporting each
recommendation in this guide varies; one
recommendation was supported by strong
evidence, one by moderate evidence, and
the remaining two recommendations by
minimal evidence. Despite the varying levels
of evidence, the panel believes that all of the
recommendations in this guide are important
for promoting students writing achievement.
A rating of minimal evidence does not indicate
that the practices described in a recommenda-
tion are ineffective or that the recommendation
is any less important than the recommenda-
tions with ratings of strong or moderate
evidence. Instead, it may indicate that little
research has been conducted on the practices
(or the combination of practices) described in
the recommendation. Some of the evidence
used to supplement the evidence of the effec-
tiveness of the recommendations on typically
achieving students comes from interventions
administered to students who have been identi-
fed for special education services or who score
below average on assessments of related skills.
Although all of the recommendations in this
guide are primarily based on evidence from
studies with rigorous designs, the panel mem-
bers supplemented their explanation of how
to execute the recommendations based on
their expert judgment and experience apply-
ing the recommendations. Throughout the
guide, statements not cited with studies are
based on the panels judgment.
Table 2 shows each recommendation and the
strength of the evidence that supports it as
determined by the panel. Following the rec-
ommendations and suggestions for carrying
out the recommendations, Appendix D pres-
ents more information on the research evi-
dence that supports each recommendation.
Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence
Levels of Evidence
Recommendation
Strong
Evidence
Moderate
Evidence
Minimal
Evidence
1. Provide daily time for students to write.

2. Teach students to use the writing process for a variety
of purposes.
2a. Teach students the writing process.
2b. Teach students to write for a variety of purposes.

3. Teach students to become fuent with handwriting, spelling,

sentence construction, typing, and word processing.

4. Create an engaged community of writers.

( 10 )
Recommendation 1
Provide daily time for students to write.
Providing adequate time for students to write is one essential element of an effective writing
instruction program.
12
However, recent surveys of elementary teachers indicate that students
spend little time writing during the school day.
13
Students need dedicated instructional time to
learn the skills and strategies necessary to become effective writers, as well as time to practice
what they learn. Time for writing practice can help students gain confdence in their writing
abilities. As teachers observe the way students write, they can identify diffculties and assist
students with learning and applying the writing process.
Summary of evidence: Minimal Evidence
While the panel believes it is critical to allo-
cate suffcient time to writing instruction and
practice, research has not explicitly examined
whether providing daily opportunities to
write leads to better writing outcomes than
providing less frequent writing opportunities.
One study did conclude that students who
were given extra instructional time in writing
had improved writing quality relative to stu-
dents who did not receive extra instruction.
14

In addition to this study, the research sup-
porting the practices recommended in the
remainder of this guide implies that the
practices required considerable time to imple-
ment.
15
Merely providing time for writing is
insuffcient, however; the time for writing
must include instruction aligned with the
recommendations that follow.
The panel next describes how to carry out
this recommendation.
( 11 )
Recommendation 1 (continued)
How to carry out the recommendation
The panel recommends a minimum of one hour
a day devoted to writing for students, begin-
ning in 1st grade. The hour should include
at least 30 minutes dedicated to teaching a
variety of writing strategies, techniques, and
skills appropriate to students levels, as detailed
in Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 of this guide.
The remaining 30 minutes should be spent on
writing practice, where students apply the skills
they learned from writing-skills instruction.
Time for writing practice can occur in the
context of other content-area instruction.
In science, for example, lab reports require
detailed procedural writing and clear descrip-
tions of observations. Students also can write
For students in kindergarten, at least 30
minutes each day should be devoted to
writing and developing writing skills.
imaginary diary entries of people from the
time period they are studying in social stud-
ies. Additionally, students can write before,
during, and/or after reading, to articulate
what they already know, what they want to
know, and what they learned. When teachers
integrate writing tasks with other content-area
lessons, students may think more critically
about the content-area material.
16

Potential roadblocks and solutions
Roadblock 1.1. There is not enough time in
the school day to devote an hour each day to
writing instruction.
Suggested Approach. Teachers should
integrate writing and content-area instruc-
tion wherever possible in order to maximize
instructional time and give students more
writing practice. The panel recognizes that
educators face limited time and a number of
conficting priorities in each school day; how-
ever, it is important for teachers to provide as
much time as possible for writing instruction
and in-class composing. In fact, teachers can
use writing to augment instruction in other
subject areas. For example, if students are
learning to interpret graphs in math, teach-
ers can present students with a graph from
a recent newspaper and ask them to write a
paragraph about what the graph is trying to
convey. This exercise encourages students to
think carefully about how effectively the graph
conveys information, and at the same time,
it gives students an opportunity to apply and
practice writing strategies and skills.
( 12 )
Recommendation 2
Teach students to use
the writing process for
a variety of purposes.
Writing well involves more than simply
documenting ideas as they come to mind.
It is a process that requires that the writer
think carefully about the purpose for writing,
plan what to say, plan how to say it, and
understand what the reader needs to know.
Teachers can help students become effective
writers by teaching a variety of strategies for
carrying out each component of the writing
process
17
and by supporting students in
applying the strategies until they are able to
do so independently.
18
Over time, students will
develop a repertoire of strategies for writing.
Teachers should explain and model the fuid
nature in which the components of the writing
process work together, so that students can
learn to apply strategies fexiblyseparately
or in combinationwhen they write.
19
Students also should learn that writing is used
for a variety of purposes, such as conveying
information, making an argument, providing a
means for self-refection, sharing an experience,
enhancing understanding of reading, or
providing entertainment. Learning how to write
well for different purposes is important not
only for success in school, but also for active
participation in professional and social life.
Teachers should begin by teaching students the
different purposes for writing
20
and how specifc
genres, or forms of writing defned by specifc features, can help students achieve their
writing goals. When students understand the connection between different genres and writing
purposes, they may be more likely to use different genres and think more critically about how
to structure their writing. Students also must learn to adjust their writing to be most effective
for their intended readers.
21
Examples of good writing and techniques for writing in specifc
genres can help students write more effectively for different purposes and audiences.
22
Because writing is a complex process, the steps needed to carry out this recommendation
are numerous. For that reason, the individual how-to steps are separated into two sections.
Recommendation 2a discusses teaching students how to apply the writing process;
Recommendation 2b addresses teaching students to write for a variety of purposes. Because
research has examined all of these steps combined, we summarize and rate the evidence
supporting all of Recommendation 2 below.
Genres are forms of writing with specifc fea-
tures that provide context and structure for a
purpose. For example, a student might want
to describe a warm summer day. To achieve
this purpose, the student might choose to
write a poem or a journal entry. Both genres
(poem and journal entry) enable the student
to communicate the purpose, but they do
so in different ways. Writers use genres to
achieve a wide variety of writing purposes.
( 13 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Summary of evidence: Strong Evidence
The panel determined that there was strong
evidence supporting this recommendation.
Twenty-fve studies that met WWC evidence
standards tested the practices in this recom-
mendation on diverse populations of students
across a wide variety of settings and found
positive effects on a variety of outcomes,
including overall writing quality.
23
The outcomes for typically achieving students on
measures administered in a whole-class setting
are the focus of this summary, but more details
on the impacts on other groups and settings
can be found in Appendix D. The studies can be
placed into four categories, based on the prac-
tices they examine. The frst two categories of
studies evaluated specifc interventions that were
addressed by a large number of studies. The
remaining studies examined a range of interven-
tions with varied components and are therefore
grouped by the degree of alignment between the
studied practices and the recommendation:
Self-regulated strategy development
(SRSD).
24
The frst set of studies examined
SRSD, an approach to writing instruction,
which typically contains more than 70
percent of the specifc practices detailed
in this recommendation In the SRSD
approach, students are taught different
strategies and techniques using a gradual
release of responsibility to help them navi-
gate the writing process and to regulate
their writing behavior.
25
Studies of SRSD
showed uniformly positive effects on writ-
ing outcomes, including the overall quality
of students writing.
26
Goal setting. These studies examined an
approach whereby students receive a vari-
ety of concrete goals to help them improve
the quality of their writing.
27
Typically,
goal-setting interventions contained fewer
than 30 percent of the components of
Recommendation 2. No studies examined
the effectiveness of goal setting among
typically achieving students in a whole-
class setting. The effects of goal setting
on overall writing quality were positive
when administered to typically achieving
students in small groups, although the
effects on the quality of the sentences that
students wrote were less clear.
28
Moderately or closely aligned to the
recommendation. These studies did not
fall in either of the previous categories but
examined interventions that contained
at least 30 percent of the components
of Recommendation 2.
29
The practices in
these studies produced positive effects on
the overall quality of students writing, as
well as the number of genre elements that
students included in their stories.
30
Partially aligned to the recommenda-
tion. The fnal category of studies exam-
ined interventions that contained fewer
than 30 percent of the components of
Recommendation 2.
31
The study of a typi-
cally achieving population found positive
impacts on students overall writing quality
and the number of elements they included
in their stories.
32
A majority of studies examined SRSD and
goal-setting interventions. The studies also
showed that the practices in this recommen-
dation are effective when tested on students
with characteristics that make them at risk for
writing diffculties or students who have been
labeled as gifted. Interventions delivered to
students in a whole-class setting sometimes
led to smaller gains in students' writing; how-
ever, the practices proved to be effective
regardless of the mode of delivery.
The panel describes the four components of
Recommendation 2a and the four components
of Recommendation 2b after explaining the
writing process on the next page.
( 14 )
Recommendation 2 (continued) Recommendation 2 (continued)
Understanding the Writing Process
The writing process is the means through
which a writer composes text. Writing is not a
linear process, like following a recipe to bake
a cake. It is fexible; writers should learn to
move easily back and forth between compo-
nents of the writing process, often altering
their plans and revising their text along the
way. Components of the writing process
include planning, drafting, sharing, evalu-
ating, revising, and editing. An additional
component, publishing, may be included to
develop and share a fnal product.
Planning often involves developing goals
and generating ideas; gathering information
from reading, prior knowledge, and discus-
sions with others; and organizing ideas for
writing based on the purpose of the text
(see Recommendation 2b for more informa-
tion about writing for a variety of purposes).
Students should write down these goals and
ideas so that they can refer to and modify
them throughout the writing process.
Drafting focuses on creating a preliminary
version of a text. When drafting, students
must select the words and construct the
sentences that most accurately convey their
ideas, and then transcribe those words and
sentences into written language. Skills such
as spelling, handwriting, and capitalization
and punctuation also are important when
drafting, but these skills should not be the
focus of students effort at this stage (see
Recommendation 3 for more information
about these skills).
Sharing ideas or drafts with teachers, other
adults, and peers throughout the writing pro-
cess enables students to obtain feedback and
suggestions for improving their writing.
Evaluating can be carried out by individual
writers as they reread all or part of their
text and carefully consider whether they are
meeting their original writing goals. Evalua-
tion also can be conducted by teachers and
peers who provide the writer with feedback
Technology Tip
Word processing can make it easier for
many students to carry out the writing
process. For instance, text can be added,
moved, deleted, or rewritten easily, encour-
aging students to move fexibly between
components of the writing process. Some
software programs help students organize
their ideas for writing, provide feedback
on what they write, and allow students to
publish their writing in a variety of forms
and formats.
(see Recommendation 4 for more information
about providing students with opportunities
to give and receive feedback throughout the
writing process).
Revising and editing require that writers make
changes to their text based on evaluations
of their writing. Revising involves making
content changes after students frst have
evaluated problems within their text that
obscure their intended meaning. Students
should make changes to clarify or enhance
their meaning. These changes may include
reorganizing their ideas, adding or remov-
ing whole sections of text, and refning their
word choice and sentence structure.
Editing involves making changes to ensure
that a text correctly adheres to the conven-
tions of written English. Students should be
particularly concerned with reviewing their
spelling and grammar and making any neces-
sary corrections. Editing changes make a text
readable for external audiences and can make
the writers intended meaning clearer.
Publishing typically occurs at the end of
the writing process, as students produce a
fnal product that is shared publicly in written
form, oral form, or both. Not all student
writing needs to be published, but students
should be given opportunities to publish their
writing and celebrate their accomplishments
(see Recommendation 4 for more information
about publishing students writing).
( 15 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Recommendation 2a. Teach students the writing process.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Teach students strategies for the various components of the writing process.
Students need to acquire specifc strategies for
each component of the writing process.
33
Table
3 shows 10 examples of writing strategies
and the grades for which they are appropri-
ate. Students should learn basic strategies,
such as POW (Pick ideas, Organize their notes,
Write and say more), in 1st or 2nd grade. More
complicated strategies, such as peer revising,
should be introduced in 2nd grade or later.
Many strategies can be used to assist students
with more than one component of the writ-
ing process. For example, as students plan to
write a persuasive essay, they may set goals
for their writing, such as providing three or
more reasons for their beliefs. Students should
A strategy is a series of actions (mental,
physical, or both) that writers undertake to
achieve their goals. Strategies are tools that
can help students generate content and carry
out components of the writing process.
then devise a plan for periodically assessing
their progress toward meeting these goals as
they write. As students evaluate their draft
text, they may reread their paper to determine
whether they have met the goals they articu-
lated during planning. If not, students may
revise their writing to better meet their goals.
( 16 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Table 3. Examples of writing strategies
34
Component of the
Writing Process
Writing
Strategy How Students Can Use the Strategy
Grade
Range
Planning POW Pick ideas (i.e., decide what to write about).
Organize their notes (i.e., brainstorm and organize possible
writing ideas into a writing plan).
Write and say more (i.e., continue to modify the plan while writing).
16
Ordering
ideas/outlining
Brainstorm/generate ideas for their paper.
Review their ideas and place a number by what will go frst,
second, third, and so on.
12
Brainstorm/generate ideas for their paper.
Decide which are main ideas and which are supporting ideas.
Create an outline that shows the order of the main ideas and
the supporting details for each main idea.
36
Drafting Imitation Select a sentence, paragraph, or text excerpt and imitate the
authors form (see Recommendation 2b, examples 2 and 3).
16
Sentence
generation
Try out sentences orally before writing them on paper.
Try multiple sentences and choose the best one.
Use transition words to develop different sentence structures.
Practice writing good topic sentences.
36
Sharing Peer sharing
35
In pairs, listen and read along as the author reads aloud.
Share feedback with their writing partner, starting with what
they liked.
26
Authors
Chair
Sit in a special chair in front of peers and read their writing
(see Recommendation 4, example 6, for more detail).
K6
Evaluating Self-evaluating Reread and ask these questions:
Are the ideas clear?
Is there a clear beginning, middle, and end?
Does the writing connect with the reader?
Are sentence types varied?
26
Self-monitoring Self-assess and ask these questions, either out loud or
internally:
Did I meet the goals I developed for my writing? If not, what
changes should I make to meet my goals?
Did I correctly use strategies that were appropriate for this
task? If not, what should I change?
Record their answers to self-assessment questions on a chart or
teacher-provided questionnaire in order to track their progress
toward writing goals and strategy use.
Congratulate themselves, and inform their teacher, when they
meet their goals.
36
Revising
and editing
Peer revising
36
Place a question mark (?) by anything they do not understand
in their writing partners paper.
Place a carat (^) anywhere it would be useful to have the author
include more information.
26
COPS (editing) Ask the COPS editing questions:
Did I Capitalize the frst word in sentences and proper names?
How is the Overall appearance of my paper?
Did I use commas and end-of-sentence Punctuation?
Did I Spell each word correctly?
26
( 17 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
2. Gradually release writing responsibility from the teacher to the student.
Writing strategies should be taught explic-
itly and directly through a gradual release
of responsibility from teacher to student.
37

Teachers should ensure that students have
the background knowledge and skills they
need to understand and use a writing strat-
egy. Then, teachers should describe the
strategy and model its use. Teachers also
should articulate the purpose of the strategy,
clearly stating why students might choose
to use it as a way of improving their writing.
Teachers then should guide students to col-
laborate in small groups to practice applying
the strategy.
Once students demonstrate an understanding
of the strategy, the teacher should encourage
students to practice applying it as they write
independently. Teachers should make sure
they do not release responsibility to students
too early. In some cases, this may mean
having students spend more time in activities
that are teacher directed until they develop
the knowledge and skills to become more
independent. Conversely, if some students
are particularly strong in understanding and
applying a new strategy, teachers can cre-
ate collaborative peer groups in which more
adept students help peers better understand,
use, and apply new strategies.
Figure 1 illustrates the gradual release of
responsibility from teacher to student. In this
scenario, the teacher uses brainstorming, a
planning strategy. Brainstorming can be used
with any grade level; students may brainstorm
by writing words or drawing pictures to repre-
sent their ideas.
To adapt writing strategy instruction to individ-
ual students, teachers should assess students
as they acquire new strategies, determining
where instruction needs to be reinforced.
Teachers may need to model an entire strategy
or parts of a strategy again before students
can work independently. Some students may
need more time, practice, and assistance to
master a strategy. While the amount of guided
practice that individual students need will vary,
practice is necessary for all students. In other
words, it is not enough to simply describe the
strategy and show how to use it.
For students who acquire a strategy easily and
more quickly than their peers, teachers should
consider increasing the complexity of the
strategy. For example, teachers can increase
the complexity of the brainstorming activity by
additionally requiring students to research their
topic online. Students also can explore using
the strategy in new ways and with new tasks.
( 18 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Figure 1. Gradual release of responsibility to students
38
Sharing Responsibility for the Task
student responsibility teacher responsibility
Teach
background
knowledge
Describe the
strategy
Model the
strategy
Collaborative
use
Guided
practice
Independent
use
-
-
Gradual Release of the Brainstorming Strategy
The teacher provides background knowledge, including why
students should use the strategy and how it will help them:
What you write will be more interesting for others to read
if you have a lot of good ideas, so you should take the time
to write down all your ideas before you get started. One way
to do this is to use a strategy called brainstorming. In brain-
storming, you write down as many ideas as you can think
of without worrying about whether they are good or bad.
The teacher describes the strategy: Brainstorming helps
you think about what you already know. You write down
as many ideas as you can think of. You do not think about
whether they are good or bad ideas while you do this. When
you write down a lot of ideas, you may fnd some ideas that
you didnt think about before. This is a good strategy to use
when you dont have many ideas or when you arent sure
what you want to include in your writing.
The teacher models how to use the strategy, soliciting ideas
from students: I am going to show you how to brainstorm
before writing a story on your topic. First, I will write down
any idea that I think of about this topic. If I get stuck, I will
keep thinking. I will not ask myself if an idea is a good one
until I am done brainstorming. I will just write down any
idea that pops into my head. The teacher thinks aloud while
modeling brainstorming, then asks: Does anyone else have
any ideas to add to my list?
Students collaborate in small groups to practice applying the
strategy. The teacher explains: I want each of you to pair up
with another student. Before you start to write your story,
the two of you should brainstorm as many ideas as you
can for your paper on this topic. Remember not to worry
about whether the ideas are good or bad. Right now, I just
want you to focus on writing down as many ideas as you
can. While students practice using the strategy, the teacher
checks to see that students are using the strategy properly
and returns to earlier steps as needed.
Students practice the strategy, with assistance from the
teacher as needed. The teacher says: Remember to brain-
storm as many ideas as you can before you actually start
writing your own paper. While students generate their lists,
the teacher walks around and assists students in applying
the strategy.
Students apply the strategy independently. The teacher re-
minds them: Before you start to write, you should stop and
ask if it will be helpful for you to use brainstorming to think
about ideas for writing. Remember that brainstorming works
well when you dont have many ideas or you arent sure what
you want to include in your writing. If, in future lessons or
on future topics, the teacher notices that students are having
a hard time planning, he or she can remind students to use
the brainstorming strategy.
( 19 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
3. Guide students to select and use appropriate writing strategies.
When students initially learn to use writing
strategies, teachers frequently should discuss
when and how to use the strategies through-
out the writing process, as well as why the
strategies are helpful.
39
Once students learn
to use a variety of strategies independently,
through the gradual release process, teachers
should help them understand how to select
appropriate strategies and use them across a
range of writing tasks.
To help students select the appropriate writ-
ing strategy, teachers might consider posting
strategies on a wall chart in the classroom.
One column of the chart might include a list of
all the strategies, and another column might
provide a list of situations in which these strat-
egies could be used. Once students are able to
use a strategy effectively and independently,
they can identify and add situations to the
chart. Students also can identify opportunities
to apply strategies in different content areas.
Beyond knowing when and how to use a
strategy, students must actually use it as
they write. This can be facilitated by having
students set a goal to use the strategy in one
or more identifed situations, followed by a
discussion (and/or instruction) on how the
strategy needs to be modifed.
40
For example,
planning strategies may vary based on the
purpose of students writing. Ordering ideas
and outlining strategies lend themselves to
report writing; brainstorming strategies can
be useful for narrating; and setting goals,
particularly audience goals, can help students
improve their persuasive writing (see Recom-
mendation 2b for information about teaching
students to write for a variety of purposes).
Students should evaluate their success in
applying the strategy to the new situation
and should consider how they can make the
strategy work even better.
41
4. Encourage students to be fexible in their use of the components of the writing process.
Writing requires fexibility and change. Once
students have acquired a set of strategies to
carry out the components of the writing pro-
cess, they need to be purposeful in selecting
strategies that help them meet their writing
goals. They also need to learn to apply these
strategies in a fexible manner,
42
moving back
and forth between different components of
the writing process as they develop text and
think critically about their writing goals. For
example, plans and already written text may
need to be revised and edited numerous
times to communicate more effectively, and
writing must be polished to make it suitable
for publication.
Teachers should engage students in writing
activities in which the writing process does
not move in a lockstep fashion from planning
to drafting to revising to editing to publishing.
Rather, teachers should design activities in
which students are encouraged to move back
and forth between the components of the
writing process as their text takes shape (see
Example 1).
( 20 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Example 1. Applying the writing process in an upper elementary classroom
Operation Robot
Students in grades 4 through 6 wrote about robots as part of a class project.
43
Process of Writing
The class discussed robots and what robots could do if they had certain specialty parts,
such as telescopes on their heads to see great distances. Prompts such as toy robots and
pictures of robots were used to spark discussion (planning).
Students created robot diagrams with vivid pictures and written descriptions of their
robots (drafting). Students then wrote stories about their robots, explaining how they
became friends and what they do together (drafting). They used their diagrams to help
them describe their robots in the stories.
Each student shared his or her story with another student (sharing), who provided posi-
tive and constructive feedback (evaluating). The students then revised their stories using
the feedback, along with their own evaluation of their texts (revising and evaluating).
Students read their stories aloud in class (sharing). The class commented on what they
liked and asked questions about anything that was unclear (evaluating). Students again
revised their stories and were invited to publish them in a class book about robots.
Recommendation 2b. Teach students to write for a variety of purposes.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Help students understand the different purposes of writing.
Students should understand the purpose of
each genre so that they can select the genre
best suited to their writing task.
44
In teaching
a particular genre, teachers should emphasize
the purpose of that genre and how its features
are related to the purpose. Teachers also
should relate genres to real-world scenarios.
For example, the purpose of a persuasive
letter is to convince the reader to agree with
the writer. To achieve this purpose, writers
should think of compelling reasons for readers
who might not agree, then state those reasons
clearly and support them with appropriate
evidence. In class, teachers might provide
a real-world scenario of students writing a
persuasive letter to convince their parents
that a friend should be allowed to spend the
night, or a letter to the principal asking for
permission to go on a special feld trip. Table
4 provides examples of specifc genres within
four purposes: describe, narrate, inform, and
persuade/analyze. Although the table links
genres to specifc purposes, teachers should
note that many genres can be used for various
purposes. For example, a letter can be written
to persuade someone to do something, to nar-
rate an event to a friend, or to inform a family
member about an upcoming event.
( 21 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Table 4. Purposes for writing
Purpose Explanation
45
Examples of Genres
Describe to describe something, such as a person,
place, process, or experience, in vivid detail
descriptions (e.g., people, places, or events)
character sketches
nature writing
brochures (personal, travel, and so on)
Narrate to tell a story of an experience, event,
or sequence of events while holding the
readers interest
diary entries (real or fctional)
folktales, fairy tales, fables
short stories
poems
eyewitness accounts
Inform to examine previously learned information
or provide new information
summaries of new or previously learned
information
instructions or directions
letters
newspaper articles
science reports
Persuade/analyze to give an opinion in an attempt to convince
the reader that this point of view is valid or to
persuade the reader to take a specifc action
(writing to express an opinion or make an
argument has a similar purpose); to analyze
ideas in text, for example, by considering their
veracity or comparing them to one another
persuasive essays
editorials
compare-and-contrast essays
reviews (e.g., of books and movies)
literary analysis
2. Expand students concept of audience
Writing for different purposes often means
writing for different audiences.
46
To help
students understand the role of audience
in writing, it is important to design writing
activities that naturally lend themselves to
different audiences. Otherwise, students may
view writing in school as writing only for their
teacher. When discussing writing purposes,
teachers and students can generate a list of
potential audiences for a given writing assign-
ment. Students then can choose the audience
that best fts their writing topic. For example,
when writing persuasive letters, students
could write for parents, friends, companies,
or newspapers, depending on their chosen
topic. When working on narratives, students
could write a fable to read to preschool stu-
dents. It is important that students writing is
shared with their intended audience.
Students should learn to adjust their tone and
word choice to better convey their meaning
Technology Tip
Find examples of exemplary texts online
from the American Library Associations
list of Newbery Medal award winners, the
Database of Award-Winning Childrens Liter-
ature (http://dawcl.com/introduction.html),
or state department of education websites
(e.g., http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/ll).
and suit their audience. To develop this skill,
students might write about the same topic for
different audiences. For example, students
could write a description of their favorite video
game for a friend who also plays the game.
Then, they could write a description for an
adult, such as the school principal, who is
unfamiliar with the game. Allowing students to
write for a range of audiences enables them to
think of writing as an authentic means of com-
munication to accomplish a variety of goals.
( 22 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
3. Teach students to emulate the features of good writing.
Students should be exposed to exemplary
texts from a variety of sources, including
published or professional texts, books and
textbooks, the teachers own writing, and peer
samples.
47
Teachers should select texts that
support the instructional goals of the lesson
are appropriate for the students reading
levels and abilities
provide exemplary models of what students
will write
Exemplary texts can illustrate a number of fea-
tures, including text structure; use of graphs,
charts, and pictures; effective word choice;
and varied sentence structure. For example,
if the instructional goal is to teach 4th-grade
students to describe a setting using concrete,
sensory details, the teacher could read a chap-
ter from E. B. Whites Charlottes Web in which
the author uses sensory details, such as sights,
sounds, smells, and movements, to bring a
barn to life. Students then can apply what they
learn to compose a rich, sensory description of
their own setting.
Teachers should either read exemplary texts
out loud or direct students to read and reread
selected exemplary texts, paying close atten-
tion to the authors word choice, overall
structure, or other style elements, based on
the instructional goals of the lesson. Teachers
should explain and students should discuss
how each text demonstrates characteristics
of effective writing in that particular genre.
Students will then be prepared to emulate
characteristics of exemplary texts at the word,
sentence, and/or text level (see Example 2),
or they can use the text as a springboard for
writing (see Example 3).
Students of all ages can participate in emulat-
ing text activities. The closeness with which
students will emulate the text, as well as
the complexity and length of the text itself,
will depend on the instructional goals of the
lesson and on students abilities. At the word
level, for example, after reading Rosies Walk
(Example 2), teachers could introduce a variety
of synonyms for the word walk and physically
demonstrate the examples in front of the
class. Students could then arrange the words
in order from slow to fast (e.g., trudge, amble,
stroll, walk, stride, scurry, and run). Students
also could emulate sentences from the text,
replacing synonyms in the sentences.
Struggling writers or students in lower grades
may specifcally focus on emulating sentence
patterns or identifying and substituting words
in appropriate places. Students should read
a story, or have a story read to them, and
then complete a story frame to create a story
emulation (see Example 2).
In middle and upper elementary grades, stu-
dents may use concepts in exemplary texts
as a springboard for developing their own
writing. In Example 3, 6th-grade students
read the poem Where Im From, by George
Ella Lyon. Using the structure of the text, they
applied knowledge from a recent science les-
son to create a poem about earthquakes.
Text emulating exercises can vary in length
based on available instructional time, be
assigned as homework, and/or be incorpo-
rated into activities across the curriculum.
Once students are comfortable analyzing and
emulating writing styles, they may be better
able to enhance their own writing style, think-
ing critically about the meaning they wish to
convey and the words they choose to convey
that meaning.
( 23 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Example 2. Story emulation of Rosies Walk with 1st-grade students
Original text of Rosies Walk,
by Pat Hutchins
48
Rosie the hen went for a walk
across the yard
around the pond
over the haystack
past the mill
through the fence
under the beehives
and got back in time for dinner.
Frame of Rosies Walk, provided
as a worksheet by the teacher
____________________________ went for a _________
across the ______________________________________
around the _____________________________________
over the ________________________________________
past the ________________________________________
through the ____________________________________
under the _______________________________________
and got back in time for _______________________ .
Text developed by a
1st-grade student
Ms. Foster the teacher went for a stroll
across the playground
around the jungle gym
over the jump rope
past the swings
through the bicycle racks
under the basketball hoop
and got back in time for the morning message.
( 24 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Example 3. Using text as a model
Original text of Where Im From,
by George Ella Lyon
49
I am from clothespins,
from Clorox and carbon-tetrachloride.
I am from the dirt under the back porch.
(Black, glistening,
it tasted like beets.)
I am from the forsythia bush
the Dutch elm
whose long-gone limbs I remember
as if they were my own.
Im from fudge and eyeglasses,
from Imogene and Alafair.
Im from the know-it-alls
and the pass-it-ons,
from Perk up! and Pipe down!
Im from He restoreth my soul
with a cottonball lamb
and ten verses I can say myself.
Im from Artemus and Billies Branch,
fried corn and strong cofee.
From the fnger my grandfather lost
to the auger,
the eye my father shut to keep his sight.
Under my bed was a dress box
spilling old pictures,
a sift of lost faces
to drift beneath my dreams.
I am from those moments
snapped before I budded
leaf-fall from the family tree.
Text developed by a
6th-grade classroom
50
I am from elastic strain, from
the focus and the epicenter.
I am from the destructive surface
waves that run through the
40200 kilometer fault zones.
I am from the Ring of Fire, the
tectonic and lithospheric plates.
I can cause tsunamis and fres.
I am from convergent, divergent,
and transform plate boundaries.
I am from seismographs that
determine my strength.
I am from speedy but weak
p-waves, from slow and hardy
s-waves, but I do not reach.
Seismic waves are caused by me.
Who am I? An earthquake.
( 25 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
4. Teach students techniques for writing effectively for different purposes.
Students also must learn to use techniques
that are specifc to a purpose of writing.
51

Table 5 shows fve examples of techniques
specifc to the four purposes for writing,
accompanied by the grade levels for which the
technique is appropriate. These techniques
help students frame their writing for a specifc
purpose. When developing a persuasive essay,
for example, students can use the TREE (Topic
sentence, Reasonsthree or more, Ending,
Examine) technique, whereby they make a plan
for their paper that includes what they believe,
reasons to support their beliefs, examples for
each reason, and an ending.
52
Techniques should be taught explicitly
and directly through a gradual release of
responsibility from teacher to student until
students are able to apply the techniques
independently (see Recommendation 2a,
Figure 1). Teachers should describe the tech-
nique, articulate how it relates to specifc
writing purposes, and model its use. Students
should learn to select techniques that help
them achieve their writing purpose and reach
their target audience. Teachers should encour-
age students to practice applying the tech-
niques as they fexibly use the components of
the writing process. (See Recommendation 2a
for more information on gradually releasing
writing responsibility from the teacher to the
student, teaching students to select and use
techniques, and teaching students to use the
components of the writing process fexibly.)
Potential roadblocks and solutions
Roadblock 2.1. Students use strategies and
techniques when they are frst taught them,
but over time, they stop using the strategies
and techniques.
Suggested Approach. When students
transition to using strategies and techniques
independently, teachers should continue to
monitor student use of the strategies and
techniques and assess whether students are
appropriately applying them to components
of the writing process and/or specifc writ-
ing purposes. After teaching a strategy for
planning, for example, teachers should check
to see if students are using the strategy
and if their planning skills are improving. If
students are no longer using the strategy,
but their planning skills have improved, it
may mean they no longer need the strategy.
Alternatively, if students continue to struggle
with planning components of the writing
process, the teacher may need to reteach the
strategy to the whole class or provide more
opportunities for collaborative practice for a
small group of struggling students. Teachers
also can ask students to monitor and report
what strategies and techniques they used to
develop and complete their text.
Roadblock 2.2. State assessments ask stu-
dents to write in only one or two genres, so
time spent on other genres may not help them
meet the assessment requirements.
Suggested Approach. Regardless of current
assessment practices in a particular state,
it is important for students to learn to write
for varied purposes. Writing for multiple pur-
poses encourages preparation for high-stakes
assessments, even if those assessments
defne the purposes of writing more narrowly.
In fact, writing in one genre often calls on
expertise from other types of writing. Writing
a persuasive essay, for example, can involve
providing a narrative example, drawing a
comparison, or explaining a scientifc concept
in order to support a point. As teachers intro-
duce new genres of writing, they can point
out writing strategies or elements of writing
that also transfer to other kinds of writing,
including the types of writing required for the
state writing assessment.
( 26 )
Recommendation 2 (continued)
Table 5. Examples of techniques within the four purposes of writing
Purpose
Specifc
Technique How Students Can Use the Technique
Grade
Range
Describe Sensory
details
Use their fve senses, as applicable:
What did you see? How did it look?
What sounds did you hear?
What did you touch? How did it feel?
What could you smell?
What did you taste?
K3
Narrate Story
grammar
Consider the following questions when developing their story:
Who are the main characters?
When does the story take place?
Where does the story take place?
What do the main characters want to do?
What happens when the main characters try to do it?
How does the story end?
How does the main character feel?
13
In older grades, expand the strategy in the following ways:
Tell the story from the point of view of a character other than the main character.
Add an interesting or surprising twist to the story.
46
Inform Report
writing
Complete a K-W-L chart:
What I Know
What I Want to know
What I Learned
In the K-W-L chart, gather appropriate information:
Brainstorm. (What do I know about the topic?)
Extend brainstorming. (What do I want to know about the topic?
What other information would be helpful to learn about the topic?)
Gather additional information and add to the chart. (What have I learned?
Did I list anything during brainstorming that was inaccurate and needs to
be crossed off the chart?)
Review the K-W-L chart and circle the most important ideas to include in the report.
Develop an outline, showing which ideas will be included in the report and
the order in which they will be presented.
Continue planning while writing, gathering new information, and adding to
the outline as needed.
Be sure to implement each aspect of the plan as they write.
26
Persuade/
analyze
STOP
DARE
53

Before they write, STOP and:
Suspend judgment.
Take sides.
Organize ideas.
Plan to adjust as they write.
DARE to check their paper to be sure they have:
Developed their thesis.
Added ideas to support their ideas.
Rejected arguments on the other side.
Ended with a strong conclusion.
46
TREE As they write:
Tell what they believe. (State a topic sentence.)
Provide three or more Reasons. (Why do I believe this?)
End it. (Wrap it up right.)
Examine. (Do I have all my parts?)
23
In older grades, expand the strategy as follows:
Replace the Examine step with Explain reasons. (Say more about each reason.)
46
( 27 )
Recommendation 3 Recommendation 3
Teach students to become
fuent with handwriting,
spelling, sentence
construction, typing,
and word processing.
When basic writing skills become relatively
effortless for students, they can focus less
on these basic writing skills and more on
developing and communicating their ideas.
54

However, younger writers must typically
devote considerable attention to acquiring
and polishing these skills before they become
profcient.
55
Problems with basic writing skills
have an impact on the quality of a persons
writing.
56
Spelling skills can affect the words
students choose because they may be less likely
to use words they cannot spell.
57
Students also
need to be able to generate strong, interesting
sentences that vary in length and complexity
in order to convey their intended meaning and
engage readers.
When a students writing contains spelling
mistakes and poor handwriting, it can be
diffcult for the reader to understand what the
student is trying to convey. Word-processing
programs can make many aspects of the
writing process easier for students, including
assisting students with spelling and handwriting
diffculties to write more fuently. Teaching typing can help students compose more easily on
a computer, a skill that is increasingly necessary as computer-based technologies are used
throughout daily life.
Handwriting, spelling, and sentence con-
struction are all basic writing skills that
students must draw upon to translate their
thoughts and ideas into writing. Students
also draw on typing and word processing
skills when composing electronically.
Summary of evidence: Moderate Evidence
The panel determined that there is moderate
evidence to support this recommendation.
This evidence is drawn from nine studies of
instruction in handwriting, spelling, sentence
construction, and word processing.
58
The
practices in the studies were closely related to
those recommended by the panel. Three stud-
ies tested handwriting instructionin which
students were taught how to form letters and
practiced writing the letters repeatedly in
short sessions.
59
Three studies tested explicit
instruction in phonological awareness, spell-
ing phonics, morphological spelling, and
word study.
60
Two studies tested sentence-
construction interventions and examined the
effectiveness of sentence-combining instruc-
tion and teaching students to apply standard
writing conventions to their own writing;
61

and one study tested the effectiveness of
practice using a word processor.
62
At least
( 28 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
fve of the studies involved opportunities to
apply the skills as students drafted original
text (authentic writing).
63
Eight of the nine studies found generally
positive effects on outcomes such as spelling,
handwriting, sentence structure, the quantity
of text produced, and the overall quality of
student writing.
64
However, in some of these
studies, positive effects on one outcome were
mixed with no effects or negative effects on
another.
65
In the ninth study, which examined
spelling instruction, no effects were found.
66

Seven of the studies were conducted on popu-
lations the panel determined were at risk for
writing diffculties,
67
and all but two
68
involved
interventions delivered to pairs or small groups
of students. The panel believes it is critical
that teachers carefully match instruction in
these skills to areas of student need. The panel
cannot confrm that whole-class instruction
without regard to varying student abilities will
produce effects of the same magnitude.
The panel describes the four components of
this recommendation below.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Teach very young writers how to hold a pencil correctly and form letters fuently
and effciently.
Early writing instruction should begin with dem-
onstrations of how to hold a pencil comfortably
between the thumb and forefnger, resting on
the middle fnger.
69
Although many students
will alter this grip over time,
70
a comfortable
pencil grip is necessary in order to avoid fatigue,
which can discourage students from writing.
Teachers also should show young writers the
most effcient and legible ways to form each
letter, regardless of whether print or cursive
script is used.
71
Younger students may have
a tendency to draw rather than to write
letters, using more strokes than necessary
to replicate the letter. Guided practice can be
helpful, using letters with numbered arrows
depicting the order and direction of each
stroke. Handwriting-practice diagrams, such
as the one depicted in Figure 2, can be down-
loaded for free from the Internet.
Students also should practice writing letters
from memory. To do this, the teacher can
show students the letter with numbered
arrows and then cover the letter while the
students practice writing it from memory. To
help students commit the letter to memory,
teachers gradually should increase the length
of time the letter is covered before students
write it.
72
Many handwriting curricula include
Figure 2. Handwriting-practice diagram
1 2
such diagrams and practice sheets for print
and cursive, and some curricula may be
available for little or no cost on the Internet.
The specifc curriculum is less important than
teaching fuent, effortless letter formation.
Because handwriting is a motor skill, it works
best to practice in multiple short sessions.
73

Students might practice a specifc letter only
fve to eight times before moving to another
activity. However, writing letters in isolation is
insuffcient; students also should apply their
handwriting skills in sentences and in authen-
tic writing activities.
( 29 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
2. Teach students to spell words correctly.
A relatively small number of words (850)
account for 80 percent of the words elemen-
tary-grade students use in their writing.
74

Teachers should help students learn to spell
words they commonly use.
75
Although many
elementary schools have an explicit spelling
curriculum, teachers should connect spelling
instruction with writing as much as possible.
Students should be encouraged to learn
words they frequently misspell, as well as
words they wish to include in their writing.
Teachers also should help students acquire the
skills they need to generate and check plausible
spellings for words.
76
Table 6 provides exam-
ples of lessons for developing spelling skills.
When drafting, students should learn skills for
applying spelling rules to words they wish to
include, such as invented spelling or spelling by
analogy. These skills allow students to generate
an approximation of the spelling with minimal
disruption to the generation of ideas.
77
When
editing, students can also use spelling by anal-
ogy to check for correct spelling, or they can
use a dictionary for this purpose.
Table 6. Spelling skills by grade level
Spelling Skill Explanation Example Lesson
Grade
Range
Phonological
awareness
Awareness of the
sound structure of
spoken words
The teacher shows students two cards with pictures repre-
senting words that illustrate target features (e.g., hat and bed
to differentiate two types of vowel-consonant word-ending
patterns). The teacher pronounces the words with extra
emphasis on the target feature. Students sort additional cards
by matching based on the target feature (e.g., red and sled
with bed; cat and bat with hat).
78
K2
Spelling
phonics
Knowledge of how
to connect the
sounds of spoken
English with letters
or groups of letters
The teacher shows students a card with a picture (e.g., a ship),
pronounces the word, and describes the targeted sound (in
this example, /sh/). The teacher then names the letters in the
associated spelling unit (s, h) and writes them on the board.
The students repeat the example by chanting along with the
teacher and writing the sound or word down on paper. The
teacher continues with additional words that contain the
sound (e.g., fsh, shape).
79

K3
Morphological
spelling
Understanding of
the meaning of the
parts (e.g., prefxes
and suffxes) of
words.
The teacher shows students a card with three written words
(e.g., walked, wagged, wanted) and points out that although
the part (in this case, the ed on the end of each word)
sounds different (/t/, /d/, /ed/), in all cases the spellings
signal the same thing (that the action happened in the past).
26
Very young children may not have the spell-
ing skills to correctly spell words. However,
teachers can encourage children to write by
allowing them to use invented spelling while
they learn spelling skills. When using invented
spelling, students attempt to spell a word
using their existing knowledge about letter
sounds and patterns. Invented spelling should
become less prevalent as students gain
more complex spelling skills and are able to
correctly spell more words. Teachers can use
a process such as the following:
Beginning in kindergarten, encourage stu-
dents to invent spellings for words they do
not know, or to spell a word phonetically
(e.g., wuz for was).
By 2nd grade, students should be review-
ing the spelling they generated to see if
( 30 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
it looks correct (i.e., whether it follows
the spelling patterns of words the student
knows). If not, students should try a differ-
ent spelling and determine how the second
spelling looks.
As students move into the 3rd and 4th
grades, encourage them to consider how
many syllables are in a word before gener-
ating and checking a plausible spelling.
Students also should learn to spell words by
analogy as they draft.
80
This involves using the
spelling of a known word to generate a plausible
spelling for an unknown word (e.g., If I can spell
lamp, I can fgure out how to spell stamp.).
Like invented spelling, spelling by analogy can
prevent disruptions during drafting by allow-
ing students to focus on the writing process.
Starting in 2nd grade and continuing through
6th grade, teachers should demonstrate how to
spell words by analogy, and students should use
the strategy when writing.
81
As part of the editing process, students
should learn how to use a dictionary. Starting
in 2nd grade, students should begin using
a dictionary to determine the spelling of the
A Reminder:
Connect Spelling and Writing
Starting in 2nd grade, teachers should help
students develop proofreading strategies to
check their spelling. Teachers should begin
with basic skills such as reading aloud,
which forces the student to focus on each
word and draws attention to errors. Teach-
ers then can move on to more targeted
skills throughout the year, such as tailor-
ing proofreading for specific problems.
Students should be encouraged to identify
areas in which they often make mistakes
(e.g., possessives, ant versus ent, and
so on) and develop proofreading skills
designed to target those mistakes.
frst few letters in a word, fnd the word in an
alphabetical listing, and recognize the word
once the search is narrowed. For younger
students, teachers could provide students
with a personal dictionary that contains an
alphabetical listing of the correct spelling of
words the student has previously misspelled.
Students also can add words from their writ-
ing to their personal dictionary.
3. Teach students to construct sentences for fuency, meaning, and style.
Students should learn to write strong sentences
that convey their intended meaning and engage
readers. Teachers should focus sentence-level
instruction on sentence construction, encour-
aging students to consider the meaning and
syntax of the sentences they develop.
82
Teach-
ers also should explicitly demonstrate how
sentence construction and sentence mechanics,
such as punctuation and capitalization, interact
to form strong sentences.
Beginning in kindergarten, students should
develop an understanding of what sentences
are and should learn the basic principles of
capitalization and punctuation. Teachers can
use students oral language skills to support
written language skills. As students convey
their ideas orally, the teacher can put those
ideas in writing while explaining sentences
and demonstrating how to write them.
83
In
1st and 2nd grades, the teacher can model
how to identify run-on ideas and break them
into shorter sentences. Students then can
independently practice writing their ideas in
complete sentences, using invented spelling
if necessary. Once students understand the
concept of a sentence, they then need instruc-
tion in how to apply standard conventions
for sentence writing, including punctuation
and capitalization. Teachers should explicitly
teach the conventions of written English,
embedding instruction as much as possible in
students own compositions.
84
Students also need instruction on how to use a
variety of sentence structures in their writing.
85

Sentence instruction moves students from
writing with a series of simple sentences
( 31 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
to including more complex and interesting
sentences in their compositions (i.e., com-
pound, complex, and compound-complex
sentences). Sentence instruction, therefore,
should include teaching students a variety of
sentence types and demonstrating how to use
them.
86
The instructional activities described
in Table 7 can be used to develop students
sentence-construction skills. Each activity
can be used for any sentence structure
type, depending on the grade and skills
of the students. Teachers can create sentence-
construction exercises from books in the
classroom, activities in the lives of students,
school events, newspaper or magazine arti-
cles, or students own writing.
87
Table 7. Activities for sentence-structure development
Activity Description Examples
How the Teacher Can
Implement the Activity
Sentence
framing
Teachers provide sen-
tence frames to guide
students sentence
writing. Frames can
range from simple to
complex.
I like _______________________________ .

I like to ____________and ____________ .

My ________________is ______________.

When I ____________, I like to _______ .

She didnt go to ______________________
because ____________________________ .
1. Develop a sentence frame for students
to use.
2. Model the use of the sentence frame.
3. Have students use the sentence
frame to construct their own
sentences.
4. Have students share their sentences
with peers and discuss their word
choices.
5. Slowly fade the use of the sentence
frame during instruction until
students can write sentences
independently.
Sentence
expanding
88
The teacher provides
a short sentence.
Students expand the
sentence using differ-
ent parts of speech.
The dog napped.

The brown dog napped.

The brown dog napped on
the couch.

The lazy, brown dog napped
on the couch.

The lazy, brown dog napped
on the couch while I read a book.
1. Introduce a short sentence.
2. Model how to add to the sentence
using different parts of speech, and
demonstrate appropriate capital-
ization and punctuation as the sen-
tence is expanded.
3. Have students provide suggestions
for different parts of speech (e.g.,
subjects and predicates) to add to
the short sentences.
4. Have students work independently
or in pairs to expand a sentence.
5. Encourage students to share their
expanded sentences in small groups,
providing feedback to their peers.
Sentence
combining
89
Students combine
two or more sen-
tences into one
simple, compound,
complex, or com-
pound-complex
sentence.
My dog is brown. My dog is big.

My brown dog is big.
1. Choose sentences for combining.
2. Model how to combine the sen-
tences using several examples; with
older students, introduce moving,
deleting, and adding words or parts.
3. Have students rate the quality of the
new sentence, provide alternatives to
the new sentence, and discuss which
sentences sound better and why.
4. Encourage students to work in pairs
to combine sentences, creating sev-
eral new possibilities and rating the
quality of their new sentences.
The boy was riding his bike. The boy
was careless. The boy ran into a tree.

The boy was careless while riding his
bike, so he ran into a tree.
( 32 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
As students practice sentence construction,
teachers and students should evaluate sen-
tences based on meaning, style, and gram-
matical correctness.
90
Evaluation criteria could
include clarity (Does this make sense? Is it easy
to read?) and intended audience (Is it appropri-
ate for the audience?).
91
If the answer is no
to any of the questions, teachers can demon-
strate how to revise the sentence. This could
include identifying missing parts, incorrect
punctuation, wordiness, or words that are too
simple or complex for the intended audience.
Teachers should model how to use sentence-
construction skills during drafting and revis-
ing.
92
During the revision process, students
should be encouraged to revise their original
sentences for clarity and meaning. Revising
helps students apply their skills in authentic
settings, as opposed to editing language
on a generic worksheet. As students revise
their drafts, they can use their newly learned
sentence-construction skills to improve their
compositions. Older students also can review
or edit one anothers work.
93
4. Teach students to type fuently and to use a word processor to compose.
Students should learn how to type fuently,
preferably without looking at the keyboard.
94

Typing-instruction software is one way to
teach students to use correct fngering and
monitor their speed and accuracy. Teachers
should monitor students use of typing soft-
ware to encourage the use of correct fnger-
ing. As with handwriting instruction, typing
lessons should occur regularly but be short
and focused.
Students should be introduced to typing in
1st grade. By 2nd grade, students should
begin regular typing practice. By the end of
2nd or 3rd grade, students should be able to
type as fast as they can write by hand.
Instruction in typing should be accompanied by
instruction in how to use a word processor.
96

Teachers should guide students through the
basic skills involved in using a word processor,
such as launching the program; opening and
saving fles; and adding, moving, and deleting
text. Instruction should include guidance about
how word-processing programs are part of the
writing process (see Recommendation 2a). For
example, teachers can demonstrate that editing
features of word-processing programs, such as
spelling and grammar checkers, can be turned
off during the brainstorming and drafting
phase so that students are not distracted by
basic writing skills; instead, they can focus
on conveying their ideas. Students can begin
learning to use a word processor in 1st grade.
National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP)
The 2013 administration of the NAEP will re-
quire 4th-grade students to complete the writ-
ing assessment using a computer. Therefore,
students must learn to use word processing
and related software in the early grades in
order to adequately demonstrate their writing
skills on this important national test.
95
By the end of 2nd grade, students should be
able to use a word processor to produce and
revise text.
Spell checkers are helpful tools for writers at
all levels, but students need to understand the
limitations of the software, as well as skills to
compensate for those limitations. First, teach
students that spell checkers do not fag spell-
ing errors that are real words (e.g., sad for said
or there for their). Second, spell checkers do
not always suggest the correct spelling. One
skill to deal with this problem is to spell the
word phonetically (i.e., using the invented
spelling skill described previously), which will
usually prompt the correct spelling. Finally,
spell checkers will often incorrectly fag proper
nouns as errors. Use these and other spell-
check limitations to demonstrate to students
that proofreading and editing are still neces-
sary, even with the computer.
( 33 )
Recommendation 3 (continued)
Potential roadblocks and solutions
Roadblock 3.1. Students struggle to develop
handwriting and spelling skills, making writing
a frustrating experience.
Suggested Approach. If a student has dif-
fculty with handwriting or spelling, consider
having the student switch to typing as the
primary mode of composing. If the move to
typing is part of an Individualized Educational
Plan (IEP), many schools may be able to fnd
additional resources for the technological
support. Teachers will need to provide these
students with extra instruction in typing and
using the word processor and spell checker.
Roadblock 3.2. Students do not consistently
transfer words they have learned success-
fully in their spelling lessons to their written
compositions.
Suggested Approach. Misspellings may occur
in initial drafts, when the writers focus is on
getting ideas on paper. Teach proofreading as
part of the editing process. Additional strate-
gies to connect spelling instruction to authentic
writing activities could include the following:
encouraging students to write sentences
or short texts using as many of their
spelling words as possible, then having
students review their writing, circle the
new spelling words, and check that they
used the correct spelling
developing a bulletin board on which
students post creative examples of spelling
words used correctly in context
reviewing students compositions to identify
repeated errors and including those spelling
patterns as part of spelling instruction
having students set specifc goals targeted
toward identifying spelling errors during
the editing process, then monitor and
track progress toward spelling goals
Roadblock 3.3. The schools writing or
English language arts curriculum includes
only isolated grammar instruction using
worksheets or copying tasks to teach sentence-
writing skills.
Suggested Approach. Grammar instruction
that relies on worksheets or copying tasks to
teach sentence-writing skills can be discon-
nected from students actual writing. Students
may be able to correctly circle parts of speech
or identify and correct errors in punctuation,
but they often do not develop the ability to use
these skills in their own work. One approach is
to follow the grammar curriculums scope and
sequence but modify the method of teaching.
For example, teachers can use the sentences
in the program as models, but teach using
the modeling and gradual release methods
described in Recommendation 2. Most impor-
tantly, teachers should have students practice
these skills while drafting, revising, and editing
their own writing.
( 34 )
Recommendation 4 Recommendation 4
Create an engaged community of writers.
Students need both the skill and the will to develop as writers.
97
Teachers should establish a
supportive environment in their classroom to foster a community of writers who are motivated
to write well. In a supportive writing environment, teachers participate as writers, not simply
instructors, to demonstrate the importance of writing. By taking part in writing lessons and
activities, teachers convey the message that writing is important, valued, and rewarding.
To further develop students motivation to write, teachers should include opportunities for
students to choose their own topics and/or modify teacher-selected prompts related to the
purposes and genres being taught. When students choose their own topics, they may become
more engaged and motivated to write. Such engagement and motivation could potentially lead
students to write more frequently and become more involved in the writing process and the
writing community.
Students and teachers also should have regular and structured opportunities to interact
through giving and receiving feedback as well as collaborating on writing activities.
Collaboration can increase the sense of community in a classroom, as well as encourage
students to become engaged in the writing process with their peers. When students feel
connected to one another and to the teacher, they may feel safe participating in the writing
process and sharing their writing with peers. Publishing students work also can help them feel
valued in their community.
( 35 )
Recommendation 4 (continued)
Summary of evidence: Minimal Evidence
The level of evidence for this recommendation
is based on fve studies that examined interven-
tions related to creating an engaged community
of writers.
98
The panel cautions that the studies
varied with respect to how closely they were
aligned to the recommendation. While all the
studies examined practices that are related to
the recommendation, some were only partially
aligned to the recommendation (they exam-
ined interventions that contain fewer than 30
percent of the components of the recommenda-
tion). In addition, many of the studies examined
the effectiveness of practices designed to
engage students when combined with other
practices that were not related to this recom-
mendationfor example, instruction in the
structure and elements of stories and persua-
sive essays (Recommendation 2). In these cases,
it was impossible to assess whether the effects
resulted from the engaging practices or from
other practices included in the intervention.
Furthermore, though the majority of practices
led to positive effects on the quality of students
writing, one of the studies produced mixed
effects on overall writing quality.
99
The panel
believes, however, that the practices described
in this recommendation are an integral compo-
nent of effective writing instruction.
The practices tested in the studies included
teachers writing with their class,
100
students
choosing their topic,
101
peers brainstorming
or editing together or writing interactively,
102

teachers or peers providing structured feedback
on writing,
103
and publication of student writ-
ing.
104
Researchers conducted the studies in
classrooms for students in grades 36, and two
of the studies took place in countries other than
the United States.
105
Four studies found positive
effects on writing quality and writing output;
106

however, one study found negative effects as
well as positive effects,
107
and one study found
no evidence of an effect.
108
The panel describes the fve components of
this recommendation below.
How to carry out the recommendation
1. Teachers should participate as members of the community by writing and sharing
their writing.
Teachers should model how the ability to
write affects their daily lives, demonstrate
the importance of writing to communicate,
model the perseverance required to create
a good piece of writing, and express the
satisfaction that can come from creating a
meaningful text.
109
For example, a teacher
could draft a letter or an email to a friend in
front of students, thinking out loud to make
the invisible act of composingwhich occurs
internally for experienced writersmore
visible to students. A teacher also could col-
laborate with all students on a writing project,
such as composing a how-to guide for carv-
ing a Halloween pumpkin or writing a class
newsletter. Teachers also should take part in
writing assignments. For instance, if students
are asked to describe a favorite family tradi-
tion, the teacher could offer his or her own
example, actively conveying how selecting a
topic one is interested in can generate excite-
ment about writing.
2. Give students writing choices.
Teachers should provide opportunities for
student choice in writing assignmentsfor
example, choice in selecting writing topics
or the freedom to modify a teacher-selected
prompt.
110
One way to foster choice is for
students to keep a notebook in which they
record topics for writing, such as memories,
pets, vacations, frsts (e.g., frst time riding
( 36 )
Recommendation 4 (continued)
a bike, frst soccer goal, frst day at camp),
and favorite holidays.
111
Students should add
topics often and consult their notebooks
throughout the school year. Teachers also can
encourage students to write for themselves;
their peers; an imaginary audience (e.g., a
character in a story); adults (e.g., their parents
or an author); or a wider, unknown audience.
Teachers need to provide instruction and
opportunities for students to practice writing
to prompts. A prompt should inspire students
to write while ensuring that students prac-
tice writing skills aligned with the teachers
instructional purpose (e.g., a specifc genre or
a specifc purpose). The prompt should clearly
state expectations with regard to content and
writing skills, while still giving students room
to express themselves. For example, students
might be prompted to write about a historical
fgure or a character from a story (see Exam-
ple 4). Prompts enable teachers to emphasize
specifc content standards as well as promote
engagement and community-building.
Example 4. The Westward Movement prompt
For grades 5 and 6
Choose a group of people who interested you during our study of the Westward Movement.
These people might be settlers, pioneers, or explorers. Consider the challenges these people
faced in moving West.
Write a multi-paragraph paper that describes two or three difculties or problems encoun-
tered by these people. Describe how they solved, or attempted to solve, these problems and
whether or not their solutions worked. You are writing an explanation, not telling a story.
Your paper will be used as the opening article in our class book on the Westward Movement
and will be followed by frst-hand accounts from settlers and explorers.
In your explanatory paper:
write in the third person (the they point of view)
identify and explain their challenges/problems
describe how they solved or tried to solve their problems
explain whether or not their solutions worked
choose vocabulary words that clearly illustrate the problems and solutions
use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar
Adapted for early elementary use (grades 2 and 3)
Choose a character from a story you read or a story read to you. Describe a problem that
this character had. Describe how this character solved, or tried to solve, this problem. Explain
whether the solution worked.
Examples of a character and a problem to be solved:
Ramona Quimby having to give a speech
little pig protecting himself from the hungry wolf
( 37 )
Recommendation 4 (continued)
3. Encourage students to collaborate as writers.
Teachers can encourage students to collabo-
rate throughout the writing process by brain-
storming ideas about a topic, responding to
drafts in a writing group, or helping peers
edit or revise their work.
112
Collaboration also
can take the form of collaborative writing,
whereby students jointly develop a single
text. Younger students, for example, can take
turns sharing the pen as they create a mes-
sage on chart paper. Older students can col-
laborate by publishing a class newspaper or
composing stories to share with their friends
or classmates. One collaborative activity that
helps build a community of writers is Star of
the Day (see Example 5).
Example 5. Star of the Day
In the Star of the Day activity, each stu-
dent is celebrated on his or her own day.
Seated at the front of the classroom, the
Star of the Day answers interview ques-
tions from peers using a pretend mi-
crophone. After the interview, students
compose one sentence about the Star of
the Day. These sentences are shared and
combined into a class paragraph, which
is then displayed on the class bulletin
board, as demonstrated by this example
from a 1st-grade classroom:
Jordan is the Star of the Day.
He likes the color blue. He
loves to eat ice cream. His
favorite animal is a tiger.
Jordan lives in Irvine. Its
his birthday today!
113
J
ord
a
n
4. Provide students with opportunities to give and receive feedback throughout the
writing process.
Students need to know whether their writing
is accurately and appropriately conveying its
message. One way students can determine
this is by sharing their writing and respond-
ing to written and verbal feedback from the
teacher and their peers.
114
Although teach-
ers should provide feedback to students
through teacher-student conferences and
rubrics, peers also should be encouraged to
participate in the feedback process. Students
may be able to identify problems in other
peoples writing more easily than they can
identify issues in their own work. Addition-
ally, when students provide written feedback
and assessment to peers, their comments and
observations may enhance their understand-
ing of their own writing.
Students need to be taught strategies and
appropriate language for written feedback.
Without explicit instruction in how to provide
and receive feedback, students may focus
solely on the conventions of writing. For
example, if teachers focus only on spelling
errors as they grade writing assignments,
student writers will likely point to similar
mistakes when providing feedback to peers.
Therefore, teachers should develop rules and
procedures for providing and sharing feed-
back on writing.
115
When teachers emphasize
meaning over form and correctness in early
drafts, students may learn to do the same.
Teachers also should model and provide
sample language to encourage appropriate
verbal feedback. During Authors Chair, for
example, teachers can encourage students to
practice giving kind commentsconstruc-
tive comments and positive statements about
peers writing (see Example 6).
( 38 )
Recommendation 4 (continued)
Example 6. Authors Chair
During the Authors Chair activity, one student, sitting in a special
chair, reads his or her work to peers as they sit on the rug. The teacher
then models and facilitates giving kind verbal comments,
such as the following:
I really like _____________________________ .
A standout line in your text for me is
______________________ because _________________________________________________________ .
I could really picture ___________________ because _____________________________________ .
5. Publish students writing, and extend the community beyond the classroom.
Students may begin to see themselves as
writers if they have opportunities to publish
their writing.
116
Publishing can take a variety
of forms, including displaying student work
prominently in the classroom. For example,
teachers can create a Wall of Fame featuring
the best excerpts from students writing on a
bulletin board in the classroom.
Teachers also can use publishing to extend
the community beyond the classroom.
Students can publish stories in books that
include an About the Author page. These
books can be made available in the school
or classroom library. Students work also can
be displayed in the hallway or administration
building, and teachers can have students
participate in a Gallery Walk. In this activ-
ity, students frame their poems or stories on
Technology Tip
With appropriate safeguards and permis-
sion, teachers can create class blogs for stu-
dents to post their work online or encourage
them to submit their work to online sites
that publish student writing.
poster board, decorate them, and hang them
around the school or classroom to simulate
an art gallery. Students then circulate around
the gallery, reading one anothers pieces,
writing kind comments on sticky notes, and
attaching the notes to the work on display.
Publishing student work in this manner
celebrates writing and helps create a physical
environment that is conducive to learning.
( 39 )
Recommendation 4 (continued)
Potential roadblocks and solutions
Roadblock 4.1. Teachers may be uncomfort-
able with their own writing and therefore
hesitant to share their writing and discuss the
writing process with their students.
Suggested Approach. Part of creating a
community of writers involves establishing
a supportive environment in which every
member of the community has room to grow
and it is acceptable to take risks and make
mistakes. Writing is a lifelong skill, and it is
important for students to understand that
writing requires effort even when you are
older and have been writing for many years.
Making mistakes, demonstrating how to
recognize those mistakes, and then correcting
mistakes or revising word choice or sentence
structure to make the writing more compel-
ling can be a powerful model and learning
experience for all members of the class.
Roadblock 4.2. If students are allowed to
choose their own topics for writing, teachers
may not be able to focus on the content stan-
dards adequately.
Suggested Approach. Teachers can expose
students to the genres of writing required in
the content standards and still allow students
an element of choice. For example, when
teaching the personal narrative, teachers can
have students select a photograph of a vaca-
tion, favorite place, or important event and
use their writing to dramatize what happened.
When teaching persuasive writing, teachers
can allow students to select an issue, or select
which side of an argument to defend.
Roadblock 4.3. Providing feedback on all
student writing is overwhelming and time
consuming.
Suggested Approach. It is not necessary for
the teacher to provide feedback on all student
writing; teachers should share the respon-
sibility of providing feedback with students
through student self-evaluation and peer
evaluations. In fact, students should be able
to write without expecting that every piece
of writing will be assessed by the teacher.
When students do complete writing pieces for
teacher review and feedback, teachers should
focus on specifc elements, and they should
discuss these expectations with students in
advance. In this way, teachers can focus their
comments on specifc elements, such as a
compelling opening, descriptive language, or
effective use of transition words. Providing
targeted feedback will help students better
understand how to improve their writing.
( 40 )
Glossary Glossary
A
Audience refers to the reader for whom a piece of writing is intended. Audience can range from the
writer who produces the text (e.g., a diary entry) to peers, teachers, parents, or other trusted adults.
B
Students draw upon basic writing skills, such as handwriting, spelling, and sentence construction,
to translate their thoughts and ideas into writing. Students also draw on typing and word-processing
skills when composing electronically.
C
Collaborative writing is a process whereby students jointly develop a single text. Examples include
younger students sharing a pen to draft a message on chart paper, or older students publishing a
class newspaper or composing stories to share with their friends or classmates.
E
Exemplary text is a written piece used as an example of quality writing. This text is commonly a
published piece of writing, but it also can be writing created by a student or teacher. The exemplary
text demonstrates specifc ideas and/or structure. The writer can emulate exemplary text in his or her
own writing. Exemplary text is sometimes referred to as model text or touchstone text.
F
Fluency is the ability to communicate ideas in writing accurately and quickly with relatively little
effort. Fluency is an important factor in a writers ability to manipulate sentence structures to produce
comprehensible text. Writing fuency also requires automatic or relatively effortless handwriting, typ-
ing, and spelling skills.
G
Genre is a form of writing with specifc features that provides context and structure for a particular
purpose and audience. For example, the narrative genre includes personal or made-up stories and
typically includes elements such as characters and plot, whereas the persuasive genre can include
letters and essays that incorporate features such as an introduction, thesis statement, supporting
material, and conclusions.
Genre elements, sometimes referred to as text elements, refer to specifc features typical of a par-
ticular genre. For example, the elements of a story include place, a starting event, action, and ending.
Gradual release of responsibility is an instructional model whereby a teacher teaches a strategy
explicitly and then gradually decreases the level of support to the student, ultimately releasing the
student to use the strategy independently.
117
( 41 )
Glossary (continued) Glossary (continued)
I
Ideation refers to the development and quality of ideas students include in their writing. Qualitative
measures of ideation include the overall richness and number of ideas in a composition. Quantitative
measures include the number of different ideas.
Invented spelling is a students attempt to produce a plausible spelling for an unknown word. This
can range from using one letter to represent an entire word (e.g., b for bed), using the frst and last
sounds of a word (e.g., gl for girl), or spelling a word phonetically (e.g., wuz for was).
M
Mechanics refers to assessments of handwriting, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. The term
usage also may be applied and typically refers to the combination of capitalization and punctuation.
O
Measures of organization assess the structure of a composition. This can include the connection
between ideas in the text, as well as how well individual ideas are organized or connected to meet a
writers purpose (often referred to as cohesiveness).
Measures of overall writing quality assess the overall effectiveness of a piece of writing. These
measures may take into account assessments of intermediary outcome categoriesincluding ide-
ation, genre (or text) elements, mechanics, organization, output, sentence structure, vocabulary,
and voicein a single assessment of the quality of a piece of writing. Overall writing quality may be
assessed either analytically or holistically. Analytic writing quality is measured using scales for which
multiple attributes of writing (e.g., mechanics, vocabulary, sentence structure, organization, ideation,
and voice) are each judged separately and then summed to obtain a single score. To measure holistic
writing quality, the assessor makes a single judgment about overall quality, considering a variety of
attributes at the same time. Although different elements of writing qualityfor example, organization,
ideation, or mechanicsmay contribute to the overall quality of the piece, these different elements
are not evaluated separately in holistic writing quality measures.
P
Purpose refers to the objective a writer is trying to achieve with a particular piece of writing. There
are four general purposes for writing (describe, narrate, inform, and persuade/analyze), and each
purpose has a variety of genres that can help provide context and structure for a particular pur-
pose and audience.
R
A rubric is an assessment tool. Rubrics typically include a set of criteria for assessing performance
on written assignments, allowing for standardized evaluation according to the specifed criteria.
Rubrics can be used by teachers to evaluate student work, or by students for self-evaluation and/or
peer review.
( 42 )
Glossary (continued) Glossary (continued)
S
Measures of sentence structure typically assess sentence correctness or sentence complexity. For
example, a sentence-structure measurement might count the number of sentences in a composition
that are syntactically correct.
A strategy is a series of actions (mental, physical, or both) that writers undertake to achieve their goals.
Strategies are tools that can help students generate content and carry out components of the writing process.
For example, students can use peer-sharing strategies to give and receive feedback with a writing partner.
T
A technique is a specifc tool that students can use to generate content and frame their writing for a
specifc genre. Whereas a strategy can be applied to all genres, techniques are specifc to a particular
genre and the features that provide context and structure for the genre. For example, students can
use the TREE technique (described in Recommendation 2b) to plan and draft a persuasive essay.
Text structure refers to the way in which a text is organized to convey meaning to the reader. It encompasses
how the main point is conveyed (e.g., sequence of events, comparison, or cause and effect) and the vocabu-
lary the author selects to convey meaning to the reader. In text-structure instruction, students are taught
to identify common text structures and use them to organize the information they are reading or writing.
V
Vocabulary refers to the types of words used by the student in his or her writing. Vocabulary may
be assessed by counting specifc types of words (e.g., the number of different words or the inclusion
of content-specifc words), or by examining the complexity of words (e.g., number of syllables).
Voice often is referred to as tone, mood, or style, and it tells the reader about the writers per-
sonality in the composition. Voice typically is assessed by rating how well the student establishes
mood, tone, style, or his or her individual personality in writing.
W
Writing is the process through which people communicate thoughts and ideas. Writing can include
beginning scribbles, drawings, random letter strings, single-letter spellings, invented spelling, or complete
sentences and paragraphs. Writing also can include students dictating ideas to an adult or peer for tran-
scription. Writing can be done through paper and pencil, typing, audio recording, or speech synthesis.
Authentic writing involves student generation of original text, including sentences, paragraphs, or longer
pieces. For example, students might develop a paragraph in response to a writing prompt. Writing from
dictation, correcting grammatical errors on a worksheet, and combining two sentences generated by a
teacher do not qualify as authentic writing, because students are not generating the content themselves.
Measures of writing output refer to the actual quantity of text produced. Some examples of output
measures include the number of sentences or the number of words in a composition.
The writing process is the approach a writer uses to compose text. Components of the writing process
include planning, drafting, sharing, revising, editing, and evaluating. These components are recursive.
They can occur at any point during the writing process, and students should learn to skillfully and fex-
ibly move back and forth between the components while composing text. On occasion, an additional
component, publishing, is added to the process as a fnal product to conclude the writing process.
( 43 )
Appendix A Appendix A
Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences
What is a practice guide?
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides to share rigorous evidence and
expert guidance on addressing education-related challenges not solved with a single program,
policy, or practice. Each practice guides panel of experts develops recommendations for a coherent
approach to a multifaceted problem. Each recommendation is explicitly connected to supporting
evidence. Using standards for rigorous research, the supporting evidence is rated to refect how
well the research demonstrates that the recommended practices are effective. Strong evidence
means positive fndings are demonstrated in multiple well-designed, well-executed studies, leav-
ing little or no doubt that the positive effects are caused by the recommended practice. Moderate
evidence means well-designed studies show positive impacts, but some questions remain about
whether the fndings can be generalized or whether the studies defnitively show the practice is
effective. Minimal evidence means data may suggest a relationship between the recommended
practice and positive outcomes, but research has not demonstrated that the practice is the cause
of positive outcomes. (See Table 1 for more details on levels of evidence.)
How are practice guides developed?
To produce a practice guide, IES frst selects a
topic. Topic selection is informed by inquiries
and requests to the What Works Clearinghouse
Help Desk, formal surveys of practitioners,
and a limited literature search of the topics
research base. Next, IES recruits a panel chair
who has a national reputation and expertise
in the topic. The chair, working with IES, then
selects panelists to coauthor the guide. Panel-
ists are selected based on their expertise in the
topic area and the belief that they can work
together to develop relevant, evidence-based
recommendations. IES recommends that the
panel include at least one practitioner with
relevant experience.
The panel receives a general template for
developing a practice guide, as well as exam-
ples of published practice guides. Panelists
identify the most important research with
respect to their recommendations and aug-
ment this literature with a search of recent
publications to ensure that supporting evi-
dence is current. The search is designed to
fnd all studies assessing the effectiveness of
a particular program or practice. These stud-
ies then are reviewed against the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) standards by certifed
reviewers who rate each effectiveness study.
WWC staff assist the panelists in compiling
and summarizing the research and in produc-
ing the practice guide.
IES practice guides then are subjected to
rigorous external peer review. This review
is done independently of the IES staff who
supported the development of the guide. A
critical task of the peer reviewers of a practice
guide is to determine whether the evidence
cited in support of particular recommenda-
tions is up-to-date and that studies of similar
or better quality that point in a different direc-
tion have not been overlooked. Peer reviewers
also evaluate whether the level of evidence
category assigned to each recommendation is
appropriate. After the review, a practice guide
is revised to meet any concerns of the review-
ers and to gain the approval of the standards
and review staff at IES.
A fnal note about IES practice guides
In policy and other arenas, expert panels
typically try to build a consensus, forging
statements that all their members endorse.
Practice guides do more than fnd common
ground; they create a list of actionable recom-
mendations. When research clearly shows
which practices are effective, the panelists
use this evidence to guide their recommen-
dations. However, in some cases, research
does not provide a clear indication of what
( 44 )
Appendix A (continued) Appendix A (continued)
works, and panelists interpretation of the
existing (but incomplete) evidence plays
an important role in guiding the recom-
mendations. As a result, it is possible that
two teams of recognized experts working
independently to produce a practice guide
on the same topic would come to very differ-
ent conclusions. Those who use the guides
should recognize that the recommendations
represent, in effect, the advice of consultants.
However, the advice might be better than
what a school or district could obtain on its
own. Practice guide authors are nationally
recognized experts who collectively endorse
the recommendations, justify their choices
with supporting evidence, and face rigorous
independent peer review of their conclusions.
Schools and districts would likely not fnd
such a comprehensive approach when seek-
ing the advice of individual consultants.
Institute of Education Sciences
( 45 )
Appendix B Appendix B
About the Authors
Panel
Steve Graham, Ph.D., is the Warner Professor
of Special Education at Arizona State University.
His research focuses on identifying the factors
that contribute to writing development and
writing diffculties, as well as developing and
validating effective instructional procedures for
teaching writing. He is the author of the Hand-
book of Writing Research, Handbook of Learn-
ing Disabilities, Writing Better, Best Practices in
Writing Instruction, APA Educational Psychology
Handbook, and Powerful Writing Strategies for
All Students. Dr. Graham also authored Writing
Next, Writing to Read, and Informing Writing for
the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He is a
former editor of Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology and Exceptional Children. He currently
serves as the senior editor of the What Works
for Special Needs Learners series published by
Guilford Press.
Alisha Bollinger, M.Ed., received her B.A.
from Benedictine College and her M.Ed. from
the University of Nebraska at Kearney. She
has 10 years of experience as an elementary
teacher and special education teacher. Ms. Bol-
linger has served as a mentor for new teachers,
a staff development facilitator, and a curriculum
leader, in addition to participating in professional
learning communities. She also has worked on
both building- and district-wide teams to develop
writing curricula and has worked as a teacher
leader in the implementation of those plans.
Ms. Bollinger currently teaches 4th grade at
Norris Elementary School in Firth, Nebraska.
Carol Booth Olson, Ph.D., is an associate
professor in the Department of Education at
the University of California, Irvine (UCI), and
director of the UCI site of the National Writing
Project. Her research focuses on the impact of
cognitive strategiesbased professional devel-
opment and curriculum design on the read-
ing, thinking, and writing ability of students
in grades K12, with special emphasis on the
academic literacy of mainstreamed English
language learners in middle and high school.
Dr. Olson received the Alan C. Purves Award
in 2007 and the Richard A. Meade Award in
2009 from the National Council of Teachers
of English for outstanding research in the
feld of English education. She is the author
of The Reading/Writing Connection: Strategies
for Teaching and Learning in the Secondary
Classroom, 3rd edition, published by Allyn &
Bacon/Pearson.
Catherine DAoust is the coordinator of
English language arts, K12, in the Saddleback
Valley Unifed School District in Mission Viejo,
California, where she is responsible for imple-
menting and monitoring a comprehensive
district language arts program focusing on
instruction in reading and writing in language
arts and across content areas. She is the codirec-
tor of the University of California, Irvine (UCI)
site of the National Writing Project, where she
assists teachers in fostering their writing abilities
and enhancing their teaching practice in writing.
Ms. DAoust is a contributing author to books
on writing, including Practical Ideas for Teaching
Writing as a Process, Thinking Writing, and Port-
folios in the Writing Classroom: An Introduction.
Charles MacArthur, Ph.D., is a professor in
the School of Education at the University of
Delaware. Dr. MacArthur received his Ph.D.
from American University. His research interests
include writing development and instruc-
tion with struggling writers, technology and
literacy, and development of self-regulated
strategies. His signifcant research projects
have involved the development of a writing
curriculum for students with learning disabili-
ties, writing-strategy instruction in classroom
settings, development of multimedia tools to
support reading in content areas, speech rec-
ognition as a writing accommodation, project-
based learning in social studies in inclusive
classrooms, and adult literacy. He currently
is principal investigator of a research project
developing a writing curriculum for basic writ-
ing courses in community colleges. In addition
to publishing his own research, Dr. MacArthur
has served as editor of The Journal of Special
Education and coedited the Handbook of Writing
Research and Best Practices in Writing Instruction.
( 46 )
Appendix B (continued) Appendix B (continued)
Deborah McCutchen, Ph.D., is a professor
of education at the University of Washington.
Dr. McCutchens teaching and research inter-
ests include the psychology of reading and
writing, teacher knowledge, and classroom
learning. Her work, supported by the National
Institutes of Health and more recently by the
Institute of Education Sciences, examines the
linguistic bases of reading and writing skills.
Her research has ranged from basic research
on cognitive processes supporting literacy
to studies of the subject-matter knowledge
needed by teachers of reading. She is a
former coeditor of Cognition and Instruc-
tion and contributor to volumes such as the
Handbook of Writing Research, the Handbook
of Research on Learning and Instruction, and
the Handbook of Research on Writing.
Natalie Olinghouse, Ph.D., is an assistant
professor of educational psychology and a
research scientist in the Center for Behavioral
Education and Research at the University of
Connecticut. Dr. Olinghouse earned her doctor-
ate in learning disabilities at Vanderbilt Uni-
versity. Her research interests include writing
assessment, relations between reading and
writing, and vocabulary in writing. Dr. Oling-
houses recent research, funded by the Institute
of Education Sciences, seeks to identify key
aspects of states writing content standards and
assessments that are related to students writ-
ing achievement. She has published numerous
journal articles and book chapters on writing
assessment and instruction for both research
and K12 educator communities. Dr. Olinghouse
also is a former elementary special education
teacher with 12 years of experience.
Staff
M. C. Bradley, Ph.D., is a researcher at
Mathematica Policy Research and a former
high school science teacher. She has both
delivered and evaluated education and social
work programs. Dr. Bradley supported the
panel in the review and documentation of
evidence. She has reviewed evidence for previ-
ous What Works Clearinghouse practice guides
and topic areas. Dr. Bradley also conducted or
participated in other meta-analyses and syn-
theses focused on paraprofessional home-vis-
iting programs, interventions for oppositional
defant disorder, and mathematics education.
Virginia Knechtel, M.P.P., is a researcher
at Mathematica Policy Research and a former
special education teacher. Ms. Knechtel has
served as a reviewer for What Works Clearing-
house topic areas and practice guides and as
a practice coordinator for two practice guides,
including Improving Reading Comprehension
in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade. She sup-
ported the panel in analyzing the evidence for
effective writing practices that was reviewed
for this practice guide. Ms. Knechtel has expe-
rience on a range of evaluations, primarily in
the area of education.
Bryce Onaran, M.P.A., is a program analyst
at Mathematica Policy Research. He has served
as staffng coordinator for the What Works
Clearinghouse, where he managed the plan-
ning and operation of the project. Mr. Onaran
provided logistical support to the panel and
assisted with efforts to translate research fnd-
ings into practitioner-friendly text. In addition
to his work on the What Works Clearinghouse,
Mr. Onaran also worked on data collection
efforts to evaluate teachers who have entered
teaching through highly selective routes to
alternative certifcation for the Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Cassandra Pickens Jewell, M.S.Ed., is
a research analyst for Mathematica Policy
Research. She has served as project analyst
for the What Works Clearinghouse, as well as
coordinator in several areas of the Clearing-
house, including practice guides and outreach
and development. She also served as practice
coordinator for the Using Student Achievement
Data to Support Instructional Decision Making
practice guide. Ms. Pickens Jewell supported
the panel in translating research fndings
into practitioner-friendly text. In addition to
her work on the Clearinghouse, she works
on data collection and program evaluation
design and analysis efforts, primarily in the
area of education.
( 47 )
Appendix C Appendix C
Disclosure of Potential Conficts of Interest
Practice guide panels are composed of individuals who are nationally recognized experts on the
topics about which they are making recommendations. IES expects the experts to be involved pro-
fessionally in a variety of matters that relate to their work as a panel. Panel members are asked to
disclose these professional activities and institute deliberative processes that encourage critical exam-
ination of their views as they relate to the content of the practice guide. The potential infuence of
the panel members professional activities is further muted by the requirement that they ground their
recommendations in evidence that is documented in the practice guide. In addition, before all practice
guides are published, they undergo an independent external peer review focusing on whether the
evidence related to the recommendations in the guide has been presented appropriately.
Strategies for Composition and Self Regulation
(Brookline Books); Powerful Writing Strategies
for All Students (Brookes); and Writing Better:
The professional activities reported by each
panel member that appear to be most closely
associated with the panel recommendations
are noted below.
Steve Graham receives royalties as an author
of SRA/McGraw-Hill Imagine It, a reading/writ-
ing program for students in kindergarten
through 6th grade, and Zaner-Bloser Spell
It Write, a spelling program for students in
kindergarten through 8th grade. He also is
a consulting author on Zaner-Bloser Hand-
writing, a handwriting program for students
in kindergarten through 8th grade. These
programs are not mentioned in the guide.
Dr. Graham also receives royalties on the sale
of the following textbooks he has authored
on instruction in writing strategies, that are
discussed in this guide: Best Practices in Writ-
ing Instruction (Guilford); Helping Young Writ-
ers Master the Craft: Strategy Instruction and
Self Regulation in the Writing Process (Brook-
line Books); Making the Writing Process Work:
Teaching Writing Processes and Self-Regulation
to Students with Learning Problems (Brookes).
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) is
an approach to writing instruction comprised
of a set of practices, not a branded curriculum
that can be purchased. Dr. Grahams wife, Dr.
Karen Harris, developed SRSD. Dr. Grahams
work on SRSD includes developing strategies
and testing their effectiveness.
Carol Booth Olson receives royalties as a
senior program consultant on Houghton-Miff-
lin McDougal Littell Literature, a language arts
textbook, and The Reading/Writing Connec-
tion: Strategies for Teaching and Learning in
the Secondary Classroom (Pearson), a profes-
sional book for teachers. These publications
are not mentioned in the guide.
( 48 )
Appendix D Appendix D
Rationale for Evidence Ratings
a
The research used in this practice guide was identifed through a search for research on practices for
improving students writing. The search focused on studies published between 1989 and 2009 that
examined practices for teaching writing to students in elementary school settings.
118
In addition to
identifying intervention studies conducted with typically developing students, the search included
studies of students with diagnosed learning disabilities or designated as English language learners.
Studies examined students in both the United States and other countries. The search was supple-
mented with studies recommended by the panel based on its expertise in the area of writing research.
The search identifed more than 1,575 studies, including 118 with designs that could be reviewed
against What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and
group quasi-experimental designs (QEDs). From this subset, 41 met the WWC evidence standards,
and 34 were relevant to the panels recommendations and were included as support or supplemen-
tal evidence for the recommendations in this practice guide. Twenty studies were eligible for review
against the WWC pilot standards for well-designed single-case design (SCD) research. Of these, 13
met the pilot standards and 11 were included as supplemental evidence for the recommendations
in this guide. While group design studies (RCTs and QEDs) contribute to the level of evidence rating
for a recommendation, SCD studies cannot raise the level of evidence above minimal.
In this practice guide, a group design study
result is classifed as having a positive or
negative effect when it meets either of the
following criteria:
the result is statistically signifcant
(p 0.05)
119

the result is substantively important as
defned by the WWC (effect sizes greater
than 0.25 or less than 0.25, regardless of
statistical signifcance)
120

SCD studies are classifed as having a posi-
tive effect if visual analysis fnds at least three
demonstrations of an effect (for more informa-
tion on the pilot WWC standards for single-case
design or visual analysis, please see the WWC
Procedures and Standards Handbook, available
on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19).
When a result meets none of these criteria, it
is classifed as having no effect.
Some studies meet WWC standards (with or
without reservations) for causal designs but
do not adjust statistical signifcance for mul-
tiple comparisons or student clusters where
the unit of assignment is different from the
unit of analysis (e.g., classrooms are assigned
to conditions, but student test scores are
analyzed). When full information is available,
the WWC adjusts for clustering and multiple
comparisons within an outcome category.
121
Eligible outcomes. The guide focuses on
nine outcome categories. In general, the panel
only considered measures of student ability
based on original, student-written products
(or authentic writing), because it is not clear
whether students translate skills practiced on
worksheets and spelling tests into improve-
ments in authentic writing. For example,
students who correctly identify grammatical
errors in a worksheet may not transfer that skill
to their authentic writing.
122
The panel made
one exception to this rule: norm-referenced
standardized tests of writing achievement.
This exception was made because teachers
are increasingly called upon to demonstrate
improvement on these tests and are likely
to be interested in interventions that have
demonstrated impacts on these types of
a
Eligible studies that meet WWC evidence standards or meet evidence standards with reservations are indicated by bold text in the
endnotes and references pages.
( 49 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
assessments. The nine outcome categories for
this practice guide follow:
Overall writing quality measures
the effectiveness of a piece of writing.
These measures may take into account
assessments of intermediary outcome
categoriesincluding ideation, genre (or
text) elements, mechanics, organization,
output, sentence structure, vocabulary,
and voicein a single assessment of the
quality of a piece of writing. Overall writ-
ing quality may be assessed either analyti-
cally or holistically. Analytic writing quality
is measured using scales for which mul-
tiple attributes of writing (e.g., mechanics,
vocabulary, sentence structure, organiza-
tion, ideation, and voice) are each judged
separately and then summed to obtain a
single score. To measure holistic writing
quality, the scorer makes a single judg-
ment about overall quality, considering
a variety of attributes at the same time.
Though different elements of writing qual-
ityfor example, organization, ideation,
or mechanicsmay contribute to the
overall quality of the piece, these different
elements are not evaluated separately in
holistic writing quality measures.
Writing output refers to the actual quantity
of text produced. Some examples of output
measures include the number of sentences
or the number of words in a composition.
Genre elements, sometimes referred
to as text elements, measure whether
features typical of a particular genre are
present. For example, one might assess
whether elements of a story, such as char-
acters, place, a starting event, action, and
ending, are present in students writing.
Ideation assesses the development and
quality of ideas students include in their
writing. Qualitative measures of ideation
include the overall richness and number of
ideas in a composition. Quantitative mea-
sures include the number of different ideas.
Mechanics refers to assessments of
handwriting, spelling, capitalization, and
punctuation. The term usage also may be
applied and typically refers to the combi-
nation of capitalization and punctuation.
Organization assesses the structure of
a composition. This can include the con-
nection between ideas in the text, as well
as how well individual ideas are organized
or connected to meet a writers purpose
(often referred to as cohesiveness).
Sentence structure typically assesses
sentence correctness or sentence complexity.
For example, a sentence structure measure-
ment might count the number of sentences
in a composition that are syntactically correct.
Vocabulary refers to the types of words
used by the student in his or her writing.
Vocabulary may be assessed by counting
specifc types of words (e.g., the number of
different words or the inclusion of content-
specifc words), or by examining the com-
plexity of words (e.g., number of syllables).
Voice is often referred to as tone,
mood, or style, and it tells the reader
about the writers personality in the com-
position. Voice is typically assessed by
rating how well the student establishes
mood, tone, style, or his or her individual
personality in writing.
The panel was most interested in interven-
tions that demonstrate improvements in over-
all writing quality, since teaching students
to write effectively is the ultimate objective
of writing instruction. However, particularly
because this guide focuses on students in
the early stages of writing development, the
panel believes that improvements on interme-
diary outcome categoriesincluding writing
output, mechanics, vocabulary, sentence
structure, organization, ideation, voice, and
genre elementsare relevant and important.
As a result, the panel accepted outcomes in
any of these categories.
( 50 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Finally, given the subjective nature of many
writing assessments, the panel felt strongly
that minimum thresholds of inter-rater reliabil-
ity must be documented on the study sample
for subjective writing assessments included
as evidence of a practices effectiveness. One
common measure of inter-rater reliability is
Pearson correlation, for which a minimum
correlation of 0.70 was required; however, the
panel accepted a variety of different measures
of inter-rater reliability, and the minimum
thresholds varied across these measures.
Norm-referenced standardized tests were
exempted from this requirement.
To facilitate comparisons, the panel focused on
the outcome closest to the end of the interven-
tion; these are labeled posttests. All outcome
measures administered after the posttest are
labeled maintenance in appendix tables. Mea-
sures the panel believes require students to
apply knowledge or skills in a new context are
labeled transfer outcomes in appendix tables.
When studies have multiple posttest outcome
measures administered within the same
category, effect sizes for each measure are
averaged, and the overall average is reported.
Multicomponent interventions. Many of
the studies that contributed to the evidence
ratings for this guide examined the effective-
ness of several instructional practices tested
together. For example, one study tested
the effectiveness of an after-school writing
club for struggling writers. The intervention
included instruction in a process approach
to writing (Recommendation 2), but it also
included providing extra time for writing
instruction (Recommendation 1). In these
cases, it was not possible for the panel to
determine which of the practices included in
the intervention caused any observed effects
on writing outcomes; however, they provided
evidence of the effectiveness of the practice
of interest, when implemented with the other
practices in the multicomponent intervention.
Classifying the comparison condition.
The studies cited as evidence for this guide
compared the writing of students who were
exposed to a particular intervention (treat-
ment condition) to the writing of students
who were not exposed to the intervention
of interest (comparison condition). The panel
refers to the comparison condition in studies
for which the interventions were provided as
a supplement to students typical classroom
instruction or as a replacement for some por-
tion of students typical classroom instruction
as regular classroom instruction. In other
cases, students exposed to the intervention
were compared to students receiving a dif-
ferent, well-defned intervention, which the
panel refers to as a treated comparison.
Writers who are at risk. While the rec-
ommendations in this guide are primarily
intended for teachers to use with typically
developing students, some of the studies
used to support the recommendation were
conducted on populations of students at
greater risk of experiencing diffculty learning
to write, including students with identifed
learning disabilities; students with low base-
line scores on assessments of handwriting,
spelling, or writing ability; or students strug-
gling with behavior. In the appendices, at
risk refers to cases in which more than 50
percent of the sample in a study met one of
these criteria. In some cases, exactly 50 per-
cent of the student population was at risk for
writing diffculties, in which case the sample
is referred to as half at risk.
Recommendation 1. Provide daily time
for students to write.
Level of evidence: Minimal Evidence
The panel judged the level of evidence for this
recommendation to be minimal evidence. While
a considerable amount of time is required
to implement the practices in this guide, no
studies that met WWC evidence standards
explicitly examined whether providing stu-
dents with daily opportunities to write leads
to better writing outcomes than providing
less frequent writing opportunities. Nonethe-
less, in light of recent surveys of elementary
( 51 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
teachers indicating that students spend very
little time writing during the school day,
123
the
panel believes it is important to acknowledge
the time required to implement the practices in
this guide by making daily writing instruction
and practice its own recommendation. The
panel cautions that time for writing is neces-
sary, but not suffcient on its own; additional
time for writing will improve students writ-
ing achievement only when aligned with the
recommendations in this guide.
Limited support for this recommendation
comes from one study of additional writing
instruction and time for writing practice that
meets WWC evidence standards for group
designs.
124
Table D.1 summarizes the character-
istics of the study that contributes to the level
of evidence rating for this recommendation. In
the study, students who were at risk for writing
diffculties attended a before- or after-school
writing club, which involved additional time
for writing instruction and practice twice a
week for an hour over seven months, in addi-
tion to their regular instruction in writing.
125

The study found that students assigned to the
writing clubs demonstrated improvement on
a standardized measure of sentence structure
relative to comparison group members who
did not attend the writing clubs. The additional
instructional time included instruction in genre-
specifc writing strategies aligned with the
practices described in Recommendation 2b.
Supplemental evidence comes from two stud-
ies, both SCDs, in which the total additional
time for writing instruction was more limited
and was delivered over a shorter period of
time.
126
Both studies examined the effective-
ness of additional instructional time, provided
as a supplement to students regular class-
room instruction, using self-regulated strategy
development (SRSD, described in greater detail
in the description of the evidence supporting
Recommendation 2). The characteristics of
supplemental studies are included in Table
D.2. Both studies led to positive effects on
the number of elements students included in
their writing (persuasive or story). Though the
interventions were short in duration, the panel
believes that sustained additional instructional
time could lead to continued improvements in
and maintenance of the promising results.
Table D.1. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 1
Study Details
Study Citation
and Design
127
Analytic Sample
Size
128
and
Population
Intervention Group (Dosage)
129
Comparison Group
131
Outcome, Effect Size
130
Berninger et al.
(2006)
Study 4
RCT
90 students in 4th
grade who were at risk
after-school writing clubs
whole class in addition to regular instruction
(64 sessions, 60 minutes each)
sentence structure,
0.63 (ns)
regular classroom instruction
( 52 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.2. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 1
Study Details
Analytic Sample
Size
133
and
Population
Intervention Group (Dosage)
134
Study Citation
and Design
132
Comparison Group
136
Outcome, Effect Size
135
Mason and Shriner
(2008)
SCD
6 students in 2nd
through 5th grade
who were at risk
SRSD instruction with minor modifcations
for students with behavioral challenges in
addition to regular instruction
individual
(1113 sessions, 30 minutes each)
Persuasive:
genre elements,
positive effects
regular classroom instruction
Saddler et al. (2004)
SCD
6 students in 2nd
grade who were at risk
SRSD instruction in addition to regular
instruction
pairs
(912 sessions, 25 minutes each)
Story:
genre elements,
positive effects
regular classroom instruction
All of the studies cited as evidence of the
effectiveness of the practices recommended
in this guide noted the provision of time for
quality writing instruction, writing practice,
or both. The time required to implement the
interventions varied (see Tables D.3, D.4,
D.5, D.6, D.7, and D.8, which summarize the
evidence for Recommendations 2, 3, and 4).
Dedicated writing time is needed in order
to implement the recommendations in this
guide, and the panel believes this should be
at least 30 minutes per day for students in
kindergarten and at least an hour per day for
all other students in elementary school.
Recommendation 2. Teach students
to use the writing process for a variety
of purposes.
The individual how-to steps are separated
into two sections because writing is a com-
plex process and the steps needed to carry
out this recommendation are numerous. Rec-
ommendation 2a discusses teaching students
how to apply the writing process, while Rec-
ommendation 2b addresses teaching students
to write for a variety of purposes. Because
research has examined all of these steps in
combination, we describe the evidence sup-
porting all of Recommendation 2 below.
Level of evidence: Strong Evidence
The panel judged the level of evidence for
Recommendation 2a and Recommendation
2b, when implemented together, as strong
evidence. Altogether, 25 studies that meet WWC
evidence standards provide causal support for
this multipart recommendation.
137
The interven-
tions tested in the studies were closely related
to those recommended by the panel, including
eight studies that tested an intervention contain-
ing at least six of the eight practices in Recom-
mendation 2.
138
The studies found predominantly
positive effects on a range of outcomes; 18
studies found positive effects on overall writing
quality.
139
One study reported mixed effects in
the overall writing quality domain, including
a substantively important negative effect at
posttest.
140
The panel cautions against drawing
strong conclusions from this study because the
study itself tested only a minor modifcation to
a comprehensive set of practices recommended
by the panel. Both the treatment and comparison
groups received most of the practices recom-
mended by the panel, and both the treatment
and comparison groups improved at posttest.
Overall, this study demonstrates mixed effects
for only one practice, explicit self-regulation
strategies. The studies were conducted in set-
tings and among populations that mirror the
variety of settings and populations for which
( 53 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
this guide is intended, including a wide range
of achievement levels, grades, and regional
settings. The panel is confdent that when
implemented together, the practices described
in Recommendation 2a and Recommendation
2b can be effective in improving a variety of
student writing outcomes, including the overall
quality of students writing. Supplemental
evidence comes from nine SCD studies.
141
Studies testing the effectiveness
of instruction in strategies
As a result of the large number of studies that
provide support for this recommendation, the
panel grouped the studies into four categories
for discussion:
The frst broad category of studies tested the
effectiveness of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment (SRSD), an intervention that typically
includes more than 70 percent of the com-
ponents of the panels recommendation, and
minor modifcations to this intervention.
142
The studies in the second category exam-
ined the effectiveness of interventions
focused strictly on various types of goal
setting, a component of the panels recom-
mendation that has demonstrated consid-
erable promise for improving students
writing. Typically, goal-setting interven-
tions contain fewer than 30 percent of the
components of Recommendation 2.
The third category consists of studies that
fall in neither of the frst two categories but
examine interventions that are moderately
or closely aligned with the recommenda-
tion. Studies that are moderately aligned
are those that contain at least 30 percent,
but fewer than 80 percent, of the com-
ponents of the panels recommendation;
studies that are closely aligned are those
that contain at least 80 percent of the com-
ponents of the panels recommendation.
143
Similarly, the fnal category contains stud-
ies that are not of SRSD or goal setting and
are only partially aligned with the panels
recommendation (containing fewer than
30 percent components of the panels
recommendation).
All of the studies examined interventions that
contained one or more practices described in
Recommendation 2.
For each group of studies, this section frst
describes the general nature of the intervention
and then provides an example or two of the
studies that tested it, focusing on those that
tested the intervention among a population of
typically achieving students in a whole-class
instructional setting. Next, this section sum-
marizes the effectiveness of all the studies in
that category, focusing primarily on measures
of overall writing quality. When appropriate,
this section discusses how the effectiveness of
the intervention varied when administered to a
population that was at risk or when delivered
outside of a whole-class setting. Finally, this
section describes how minor variations in the
intervention impacted its effectiveness.
The panel believes it is important to implement
the practices in Recommendations 2a and 2b in
combination but notes that the studies varied
in terms of how closely the intervention studied
aligns to the panels recommendation. Table D.3
summarizes the characteristics of the studies
that contribute to the level of evidence rating
for this recommendation and the components
that are included in the intervention(s) tested
within each study.
The characteristics of supplemental studies
are included in Table D.4. These studies were
rated using the WWC pilot standards for well-
designed SCD research. SCD studies alone
cannot raise the level of evidence above mini-
mal; however, they do provide supplemental
support for this recommendation, which is
rated as strong evidence based on the group
design studies that appear in Table D.3. The
panel used the descriptions of the interventions
in the studies to identify the components of the
recommendations included in each intervention,
relying on its expert knowledge of the inter-
ventions and the research to supplement the
descriptions when appropriate.
( 54 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Comparison
Group
149
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
G
e
n
r
e

E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Studies testing the effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) on typically achieving students
Whole-class setting
Tracy, Reid,
and Graham
(2009)
RCT
120 students in
3rd grade
SRSD instruction
whole class
(time unknown)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.35 (ns)
genre elements, 0.70 (ns)
output, 0.54 (ns)
Transfer effects,
narrative posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.52 (ns)
genre elements, 0.72 (ns)
output, 0.52 (ns)
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Small-group or paired setting
Glaser and
Brunstein
(2007)
RCT
69 to 72
students in
4th grade in
Germany
150
SRSD instruction
(full model)
151
small groups
(4 sessions, 90
minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.20 (ns)
genre elements, 2.14*
Maintenance effects
(5 weeks):
overall writing quality,
1.62*
genre elements, 2.35*
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Glaser and
Brunstein
(2007)
RCT
69 to 72
students in
4th grade in
Germany
152
SRSD instruction
(full model)
small groups
(4 sessions, 90
minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.86 (ns)
genre elements, 1.49*
Maintenance effects
(5 weeks):
overall writing quality,
1.07 (ns)
genre elements, 2.28*
X
153
SRSD instruction
without self-regula-
tion components
Studies testing the effectiveness of SRSD on students who were at risk
Whole-class setting
Curry (1997)
QED
30 students in
4th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction in
an inclusive
setting
154
whole class
(32 sessions; 45
minutes each)
overall writing quality,
0.87 (ns)
X X X X X X
Writers Workshop
in an inclusive
setting
(continued)
( 55 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Small-group, paired, or individual setting
Garcia-
Sanchez
and Fidalgo-
Redondo
(2006)
RCT
80 students
in 5th and 6th
grade in Spain
who were
at risk
SRSD instruction
155

small groups
(25 sessions, 4555
minutes each)
output, 2.49 (unknown)
156
X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Graham,
Harris, and
Mason (2005)
RCT
24 pairs of
students in
3rd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
plus peer support
157

pairs
(60 sessions, 20
minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.74*
genre elements, 2.04*
output, 1.78*
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.75*
genre elements,
0.89 (ns)
output, 1.02 (ns)
Transfer effects,
narrative posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.20 (ns)
genre elements, 1.38*
output, 0.19 (ns)
Transfer effects,
informative posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.82 (ns)
output, 0.97 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(10 weeks), story:
overall writing quality,
1.09*
genre elements, 1.42*
output, 0.54 (ns)
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 56 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Graham,
Harris, and
Mason (2005)
RCT
24 pairs of
students in
3rd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
plus peer support
pairs
(60 sessions,
20 minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.22 (ns)
genre elements,
0.69 (ns)
output, 0.39 (ns)
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.57 (ns)
genre elements, 1.17*
output, 0.82 (ns)
Transfer effects,
narrative posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.42 (ns)
genre elements,
0.86 (ns)
output, 0.46 (ns)
Transfer effects,
informative posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.38 (ns)
output, 0.24 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(10 weeks), story:
overall writing quality,
0.22 (ns)
genre elements, 0.08 (ns)
output, 0.14 (ns)
X
SRSD instruction
only
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 57 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Harris,
Graham, and
Mason (2006)
RCT
22 pairs of
students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
plus peer support
158

pairs
(2733 sessions,
20 minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.91 (ns)
output, 1.01 (ns)
genre elements, 4.94*
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.58* to 2.77*
genre elements, 1.14*
to 2.83*
output, 0.50 (ns) to 1.56*
Transfer effects, narrative
posttest:
overall writing quality, 0.20 (ns)
genre elements, 2.19*
output, 0.51 (ns)
Transfer effects, informative
posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.22*
output, 1.92*
Maintenance effects
(6 months), story:
overall writing quality, 1.21*
genre elements, 1.96*
output, 1.22*
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Harris,
Graham, and
Mason (2006)
RCT
22 pairs of
students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
plus peer support
pairs
(2733 sessions,
20 minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality, 0.14 (ns)
genre elements, 0.46 (ns)
output, 0.36 (ns)
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.38 (ns) to 0.44 (ns)
genre elements, 0.63 (ns)
to 0.87 (ns)
output, 0.19 (ns) to 0.06 (ns)
Transfer effects, narrative
posttest:
overall writing quality, 0.11 (ns)
genre elements, 0.89 (ns)
output, 0.12 (ns)
Transfer effects, informative
posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.64 (ns)
output, 0.05 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(6 months), story:
overall writing quality,
0.40 (ns)
genre elements, 0.23 (ns)
output, 0.21 (ns)
X
SRSD instruction
only
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 58 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Sawyer,
Graham, and
Harris (1992)
RCT
8 groups of stu-
dents in 5th and
6th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
(full model)
159
small groups
(average of 8
sessions, averaging
40 minutes each)
Posttest:
160

overall writing quality,
0.00 (ns) to 0.63 (ns)
genre elements, 0.84 (ns)
to 1.37 (ns)
Maintenance effects (2 weeks):
overall writing quality,
0.46 (ns)
genre elements, 0.40 (ns)
Maintenance effects (4 weeks):
overall writing quality,
0.34 (ns)
genre elements, 0.22 (ns)
X X
161
X X X X X
direct instruction
in strategies
Sawyer,
Graham, and
Harris (1992)
RCT
8 groups of stu-
dents in 5th and
6th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
(full model)
small groups
(average of 8
sessions, averaging
40 minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.35 (ns) to 0.18 (ns)
genre elements, 0.01 (ns)
to 0.54 (ns)
Maintenance effects (2 weeks):
overall writing quality, 0.17 (ns)
genre elements, 0.71 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(4 weeks):
overall writing quality,
0.81 (ns)
genre elements, 0.28 (ns)
X
162
SRSD instruction
(partial model)
without self-regula-
tion component
Studies testing the effectiveness of goal-setting interventions on typically achieving students
Small-group or individual setting
Ferretti,
Lewis, and
Andrews-
Weckerly
(2009)
RCT
24 students in
4th grade and
24 students in
6th grade
163
writing in response
to a prompt with
specifc goals
related to the char-
acteristics of good
persuasive writing
individual
(1 session,
45 minutes)
4th grade:
164

overall writing quality,
0.88*
genre elements (average),
0.10 (ns)
165
6th grade:
166

overall writing quality,
1.11*
genre elements
(average), 0.41 (ns)
167

X X
writing in response
to a prompt with-
out specifc goals
(continued)
( 59 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Schunk
and Swartz
(1993)
168

Study 1
RCT
30 students in
5th grade
product goals to
supplement instruc-
tion in a general
planning strategy
small groups
(20 sessions,
45 minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.49*
sentence structure, 0.21 (ns)
X
general goal to sup-
plement instruction
in a general plan-
ning strategy
Schunk and
Swartz (1993)
Study 1
RCT
30 students in
5th grade
process goals to
supplement instruc-
tion in a general
planning strategy
small groups
(20 sessions,
45 minutes each)
Posttest:
169

overall writing quality,
2.48*
sentence structure, 0.00 (ns)
X
general goal to sup-
plement instruction
in a general plan-
ning strategy
Schunk and
Swartz (1993)
Study 2
RCT
20 students in
4th grade
product goals to
supplement instruc-
tion in a general
planning strategy
small groups
(20 sessions,
45 minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
1.08*
sentence structure, 0.56
(ns)
Maintenance effects
(6 weeks):
170

overall writing quality,
1.19 (ns)
sentence structure, 0.16 (ns)
X
general goal to sup-
plement instruction
in a general plan-
ning strategy
Schunk and
Swartz (1993)
Study 2
RCT
20 students in
4th grade
process goals to
supplement instruc-
tion in a general
planning strategy
small groups
(20 sessions,
45 minutes each)
Posttest:
171

overall writing quality,
2.62*
sentence structure, 2.72*
Maintenance (6 weeks):
172

overall writing quality,
1.74*
sentence structure, 2.47*
X
general goal
to supplement
instruction in a
general planning
strategy
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 60 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Studies testing the effectiveness of goal-setting interventions on students who were at risk
Whole-class setting
Ferretti,
MacArthur,
and Dowdy
(2000)
RCT
57 students in
4th grade and
61 students in
6th grade, half
of whom were
at risk
173
writing in response
to a prompt with
specifc goals re-
lated to the char-
acteristics of good
persuasive writing
whole class
(2 sessions, 45
minutes each)
4th grade:
174

overall writing quality,
0.05 (ns) to 0.12 (ns)
6th grade:
175

overall writing quality,
0.62* to 0.73*
X
writing in response
to a prompt with-
out specifc goals
Midgette,
Haria, and
MacArthur
(2008)
RCT
49 students in
5th grade who
were at risk
content goals
for revising
176
whole class
(2 sessions;
minutes unknown)
overall writing quality,
0.50 (ns)
genre elements (average),
0.05 (ns)
X
general goals
for revising
Midgette,
Haria, and
MacArthur
(2008)
RCT
49 students in
5th grade who
were at risk
audience goals
for revising
whole class
(2 sessions;
minutes unknown)
overall writing quality,
0.54 (ns)
genre elements
(average), 0.48 (ns)
X X X
general goals
for revising
Midgette,
Haria, and
MacArthur
(2008)
RCT
49 students in
5th grade who
were at risk
audience goals
for revising
whole class
(2 sessions;
minutes unknown)
overall writing quality,
0.09 (ns)
genre elements
(average), 0.52 (ns)
X X X
177
content goals for
revising
Individual setting
Graham,
MacArthur,
and Schwartz
(1995)
RCT
39 students in
4th through
6th grade who
were at risk
goal to add
information
178

individual
(2 sessions, no
time restrictions)
overall writing quality,
0.75*
output, 0.51 (ns)
X
goal to make
papers better
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 61 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Studies testing the effectiveness of moderately or closely aligned interventions on typically achieving students
Whole-class setting
Gordon and
Braun (1986)
RCT
54 students in
5th grade in
Canada
instruction in
narrative text
structure
whole class
(15 sessions,
60 minutes each)
Posttest:
genre elements, 0.28 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(6 weeks):
genre elements, 0.06 (ns)
X X X
instruction in
poetry structure
Guastello
(2001)
RCT
167 students in
4th grade
179
instruction and
practice using
rubrics to evaluate
writing
whole class
(time unknown)
overall writing quality,
1.27*
X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Pritchard
and Marshall
(1994)
QED
1,284 students
in 3rd through
6th grade
National Writing
Project tiered
staff-development
model
whole class
(time unknown)
overall writing quality,
0.39 (unknown)
180

X X
181
X X
regular classroom
instruction
Studies testing the effectiveness of moderately or closely aligned interventions on students who were at risk
Whole-class setting
MacArthur,
Schwartz,
and Graham
(1991)
29 students in
4th through
6th grade who
were at risk
student-editor
strategy within
a process writing
approach
whole class
(2432 sessions,
3045 minutes each)
overall writing quality,
1.42*
mechanics (average),
0.43
182
X X X X
183
X X
RCT
process writing
approach only
Riley (1997)
RCT
114 students
in 3rd through
5th grade who
were at risk
story grammar
instruction
184

whole class
(18 sessions,
2030 minutes each)
output, 1.03* X X X
process writing
approach
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 62 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Small-group or paired setting
Gambrell
and Chasen,
(1991)
RCT
40 students
in 4th and 5th
grade who
were at risk
explicit story
structure instruction
small groups of
812 students
(3 sessions;
minutes unknown)
Story posttest:
genre elements, 0.86*
organization, 0.90*
X
185
X
186
X
187
story structure
awareness
instruction
Garcia and de
Caso-Fuertes
(2007)
RCT
99 students
in 5th and 6th
grade in Spain
who were at
risk
refexive writing
process with
strategies
small groups of
68 students
(25 sessions,
50 minutes each)
Descriptive:
output, 0.59*
Narrative:
output, 0.64*
Essay:
output, 0.57*
X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Troia and
Graham
(2002)
RCT
20 students
in 4th and 5th
grade who
were at risk
highly explicit
strategy instruction
pairs
(7 sessions,
averaging 75
minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.83 (ns)
output, 0.09 (ns)
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.48 (ns)
output, 0.16 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(4 weeks), story:
188

overall writing quality, 1.71*
output, 1.19 (ns)
X X
189
X X X
190
X
191
X
192
process writing
instruction with pre-
instruction in the
elements of a good
story and essay,
including identify-
ing parts in a model
text
193

(7 sessions,
averaging 77
minutes each)
Studies testing the effectiveness of partially aligned interventions on typically achieving students
Dressel
(1990)
RCT
48 students in
5th grade
high-quality
literature
whole class
(49 sessions, 4560
minutes each)
overall writing quality,
0.48*
genre elements, 0.55*
194
X
lesser-quality
literature
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
(continued)
( 63 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
144
Analytic
Sample Size
145

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
146
Outcome,
Effect Size
147
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
8
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
149
Studies testing the effectiveness of partially aligned interventions on students who were at risk and gifted
Whole-class setting
Berninger
et al. (2006)
Study 4
RCT
90 students in
4th grade who
were at risk
after-school writing
clubs
whole class in
addition to regular
instruction
(64 sessions,
60 minutes each)
sentence structure,
0.63 (ns)
X X
195
regular classroom
instruction
Small-group or paired setting
Berninger
et al. (2002)
RCT
24 pairs of
students in
3rd grade who
were at risk
composing
instruction
196
pairs
(24 sessions,
20 minutes each)
Informative:
overall writing quality,
0.40 (ns)
Persuasive:
overall writing quality,
0.18 (ns)
mechanics, 0.12 (ns)
sentence structure, 0.14 (ns)
X
keyboarding and
writing practice
Jampole,
Mathers, and
Konopak
(1994)
RCT
87 students
in 3rd and 4th
grade who
were gifted
imagery training
197
small groups
(8 sessions,
45 minutes each)
Posttest:
overall writing quality,
0.93*
ideation, 0.68*
Maintenance effects (1 month):
overall writing quality,
0.41 (ns)
ideation, 0.20 (ns)
X
writing practice
( 64 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.4. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 2
(continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
198
Analytic
Sample Size
199

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
200
Comparison
Group
203
Outcome,
Effect Size
201
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
2
0
2
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Studies testing the effectiveness of self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) on typically achieving students
Whole-class setting
Danoff,
Harris, and
Graham
(1993)
SCD
3 students in
4th and 5th
grade
204
SRSD instruction
whole class
205
(911 lessons;
minutes unknown)
genre elements,
positive effects
206
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Small-group or paired setting
Zumbrunn
(2010)
SCD
6 students in
1st grade
SRSD instruction
pairs
(1012 sessions,
2030 minutes each)
output,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Studies testing the effectiveness of SRSD on students who were at risk
Small-group, paired, or individual setting
Graham and
Harris (1989)
SCD
3 students in
6th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
small groups
(58 sessions,
40 minutes each)
Persuasive:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Graham et al.
(1992)
SCD
4 students in
5th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
individual
(68 sessions,
40 minutes each)
Persuasive:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X
207
preteaching in using
a word processor
and typing as well
as the elements of
a good story and
essay, including
identifying parts in
a model text
Lane et al.
(2008)
SCD
6 students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
with minor modif-
cations for students
with behavioral
challenges
individual
(1015 sessions,
30 minutes each)
Story:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
( 65 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Study Details
2a. Teach
Students the
Writing Process
2b. Teach
Students to Write
for a Variety
of Purposes
Study Citation
and Design
198
Analytic
Sample Size
199

and
Population
Intervention
Group (Dosage)
200
Outcome,
Effect Size
201
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
l

R
e
l
e
a
s
e
S
e
l
e
c
t

a
n
d

U
s
e

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

U
s
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
2
0
2
E
x
e
m
p
l
a
r
y

T
e
x
t
s
G
e
n
r
e

T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
Comparison
Group
203
Lienemann
et al. (2006)
SCD
6 students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
individual
(68 sessions,
3045 minutes each)
Story:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Mason and
Shriner (2008)
SCD
6 students in
2nd through
5th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
with minor modif-
cations for students
with behavioral
challenges in ad-
dition to regular
instruction
individual
(1113 sessions,
30 minutes each)
Persuasive:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Saddler
(2006)
SCD
6 students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
pairs
(1011 sessions,
30 minutes each)
Story:
overall writing quality,
positive effects
genre elements,
positive effects
output, positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Saddler et al.
(2004)
SCD
6 students in
2nd grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction in
addition to regular
instruction
pairs
(912 sessions,
25 minutes each)
Story:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Troia,
Graham, and
Harris (1999)
SCD
3 students in
5th grade who
were at risk
SRSD instruction
individual
(7 sessions, 6090
minutes each)
Story:
genre elements,
positive effects
X X X X X X
208
X
preteaching in the
elements of a good
story and essay,
including identify-
ing parts in a model
text and techniques
for story and essay
writing
(time unknown)
Table D.4. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 2 (continued)
( 66 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Studies testing the effectiveness of self-
regulated strategy development (SRSD).
Seventeen of the studies examined interven-
tions labeled as SRSD.
209
SRSD is an interven-
tion that was originally developed to improve
the writing performance of struggling writers
and has since been tested in a wide variety of
instructional settings among a variety of differ-
ent student populations. The intervention typi-
cally includes all of the separate components
recommended by the panel, with the excep-
tion of encouraging students to use strategies
fexibly. The intervention also emphasizes
teaching students the background knowledge
they need to use the strategies targeted for
instruction (one step in the gradual-release
process). Students often are taught general
strategies as well as techniques for writing
in one or more genres. In some studies, this
has involved teaching a general strategy for
planning writing, called POW, as well as spe-
cifc techniques to frame writing for different
purposes, including WWW, TREE, or STOP and
DARE (the POW strategy and these techniques
are described in Recommendation 2).
Throughout the instructional sequence, stu-
dents are taught different strategies to help
them navigate the writing process and to
regulate their writing behavior. For example,
when writing a story, students often are taught
to set goals for their writing (i.e., I will include
all seven story parts in my text or I will write
a story that is fun to read). The intervention
also can include teaching self-instruction or
things students can say to themselves to help
them write, including for self-evaluation (Does
what I wrote make sense?) and self-reinforce-
ment (I used a great word!). Students practice
monitoring their performance by counting and
graphing the number of parts they include in
their writing.
The strategies and techniques usually are
taught using gradual release of responsibility
until the students are able to write well for a
specifc purpose without support from their
teacher, peers, or the graphic organizers and
charts supplied to help them internalize the
strategy. During instruction, exemplary texts
often are used to model the elements of strong
stories and persuasive pieces for students.
Students often read and respond to the writ-
ing of their peers to provide an audience for
their writing. The instruction usually includes
a component in which students discuss how
they can select a strategy or technique to use
in particular contexts, or how to adapt the
strategy for use in other settings. In some
cases, peers provide support to assist students
with applying the strategies in other settings.
Studies of SRSD instruction, delivered to
typically achieving students in a whole-class
setting, showed uniformly positive effects on
writing outcomes, including overall writing
quality.
210
For example, in one study, typically
achieving 3rd-grade students in a rural loca-
tion received SRSD instruction in story writing
in a whole-class setting.
211
The SRSD instruc-
tion entailed instruction in a general strategy
(POW) for planning, organizing, and expanding
student ideas, as well as a technique (WWW)
for including the seven parts of a good story in
their writing. First, students practiced identify-
ing the parts of an exemplary story (included in
the WWW strategy) and were explicitly taught
how to apply the POW and WWW strategies
together. Students were taught when and
how to use the strategies, and they were told
that these strategies could be transferred to
other contexts. Teachers modeled how to use
the strategies, and students practiced using
the strategies collaboratively and later inde-
pendently. Throughout the instruction, the
teacher modeled and explained self-regulation
strategies, including setting a goal to include
all seven parts of a story in their writing and
graphing their progress toward meeting this
goal. Students receiving SRSD instruction wrote
stories with higher overall quality relative to
a comparison group that received regular
classroom instruction. Students who received
instruction in SRSD also included more story
elements in their writing and produced more
text. The intervention also produced positive
effects on the overall quality of students nar-
rative writing, a similar but uninstructed genre,
as well as the number of narrative elements
and the quantity of text produced in this genre.
( 67 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Another study examined the effectiveness of
SRSD instruction for typically achieving sub-
urban 4th- and 5th-grade students.
212
Instruc-
tion covered the same strategies, techniques,
and instructional components as the previous
study. The intervention was associated with
students including more story elements in
their writing than they did prior to receiving
the intervention.
Two other studies examined the effectiveness
of SRSD instruction delivered to pairs or small
groups of typically achieving students.
213
In
one study of 4th-graders in Germany, small-
group instruction in SRSD produced positive
effects on the overall quality of students
writing, as well as the number of story ele-
ments they included in their writing, relative to
students regular instruction.
214
The study also
showed positive effects on students overall
writing quality and the number of story ele-
ments included on a maintenance test fve
weeks later.
215
The other study took place in
a predominantly middle-class midwestern
elementary school in the United States and
produced positive effects on the quantity of
text students produced.
216
The effects of SRSD
instruction were larger when it was delivered
to small groups or pairs of students.
Other studies tested the effectiveness of
instruction in SRSD on students with learning
disabilities or otherwise at risk for writing
diffculties.
217
For example, in one study, an
instructor taught individual students general
strategies and a technique for persuasive
writing (TREE) using gradual release of
responsibility until students could apply the
technique independently.
218
Participants also
were taught to think about their audience and
purpose for writing, self-regulation strategies
(such as self-evaluation and self-reinforce-
ment) to improve their writing of exemplary
texts, and how the technique could be
modifed for use in other writing projects. All
participants were identifed as students with
learning disabilities. The intervention led stu-
dents to include more persuasive elements in
their writing. A similar intervention for story
writing (using the WWW technique instead
of TREE) found positive effects on students
overall writing quality, the number of story
elements they included in their writing, and
the quantity of text they produced.
219
The remaining studies that tested SRSD inter-
ventions on students at risk for writing dif-
fculties varied in the specifc combination of
strategies taught and contained minor varia-
tions in instruction, but the basic instructional
model followed a similar pattern.
220
They pro-
duced almost universally positive effects on
measures of overall writing quality as well as
genre elements and output. Across 13 studies
of SRSD interventions among students with
learning disabilities, 10 showed consistently
positive effects on all posttest outcomes that
met standards including overall writing qual-
ity,
221
genre elements,
222
and quantity of text
produced,
223
as well as maintenance out-
comes
224
and outcomes that tested transfer to
other, uninstructed, genres of writing.
225
Two more studies tested the effectiveness
of SRSD with an added peer-support compo-
nent relative to students regular classroom
instruction.
226
The peer-support component
was designed to help students apply SRSD to
writing in other contexts. It involved students
discussing with the instructor when the
strategy could be applied and how it could be
adapted to a different context, setting goals
and reminding their partner to use the strat-
egy in another class, and discussing diffcul-
ties they encountered applying the strategies
in different contexts (these practices are
described in Recommendation 2a, action step
3). The studies showed positive effects on
overall writing quality, genre elements, and
output in two genres (story and persuasive),
as well as on the same measures (story only)
at a maintenance test 10 weeks later, relative
to students who received their regular instruc-
tion in writing. However, positive effects on
measures of transfer to other, uninstructed,
genres were mixed with some instances of
no effects. A fnal study examined the effec-
tiveness of instruction in SRSD compared
to direct instruction in strategies and found
positive effects on genre elements and no
( 68 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
effects on overall writing quality.
227
The panel
cautions that although the comparison group
in this study did not receive the full SRSD
intervention, it did receive instruction in the
strategies and techniques associated with
SRSD; therefore, smaller differences between
the two groups are expected.
Four studies examined how small variations
impacted the effectiveness of SRSD in addi-
tion to testing the effectiveness of the broader
intervention and found mixed effects on a vari-
ety of outcomes.
228
Because, for the most part,
these studies were small and tested only minor
modifcations to the panels recommendation,
the panel cautions against drawing strong
conclusions from this group of studies.
229
For example, two studies tested the effective-
ness of an SRSD instruction model plus a
peer-support component (described above)
relative to SRSD alone.
230
The peer-support
component was designed to help students
apply the writing strategies they learned to
other settings and contexts. The modifca-
tions (tested once on 3rd-graders and once on
2nd-graders) showed mixed effects on writing
outcomes.
In the frst study with a peer-support com-
ponent, there were positive effects on the
number of story elements students included
in students writing as well as the length of the
stories they wrote; however, the peer-support
components did not produce additional
effects on story-writing quality and produced
signifcant negative effects on students
persuasive writing.
231
The intervention also
produced positive effects on the quality of
students writing in two uninstructed genres:
narrative and informative writing.
The other peer-support study again found pos-
itive effects on the number of story elements
and the length of students stories, combined
with no additional effects on story-writing
quality; however, this study found positive
effects on the quality of students persuasive
writing as well as the number of persuasive
elements they included in their writing.
232
In
addition, the study found a mix of positive
effects and no effects on measures of transfer
to uninstructed genres. In short, the variation
in peer support shows some promising results
for teaching students to apply these strategies
and techniques to uninstructed genres of writ-
ing; however, the inconsistent fndings suggest
that more study is needed to assess whether
these variations in peer support do indeed
improve writing quality.
In another example of small variation to SRSD,
researchers compared the effectiveness of
teaching strategies using the full SRSD model
relative to the effectiveness of teaching strate-
gies using only a partial, gradual release of
responsibility for which the teacher did not
fully relinquish control of the strategies.
233

Both interventions were delivered in small
groups to 5th- and 6th-grade students. The
full model produced negative effects on the
overall quality of students writing at posttest,
mixed with positive effects and no effects on
other outcomes measured at posttest and two
different maintenance points.
Finally, one study examined the effectiveness
of the full SRSD model compared to instruction
in strategies without self-regulation strategies,
among 4th-grade students in Germany.
234

Students who received the full model wrote
higher quality stories with more story parts at
posttest and at a maintenance test fve weeks
later. Thus, the panel believes it is important to
teach students both the strategies for specifc
elements of the writing process and strategies
such as goal setting and self-assessment for
regulating their own writing.
Studies of goal setting. Another cluster of
studies examined interventions that tested
strategies and techniques related to goal
setting.
235
These studies did not emphasize
the other components of SRSD, although the
SRSD interventions often included a goal-
setting component. Generally, the effects of
goal-setting interventions on overall writing
quality were positive, though effects on other
outcomes produced a mix of positive effects
and no effects.
( 69 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
The interventions tested a variety of different
types of goals. For example, some studies
tested setting goals for students to learn a spe-
cifc strategy (learning goals),
236
while others
involved goals for students to include certain
elements of a particular genre of writing in
their pieces (specifc goals).
237
Some of the stud-
ies of specifc goals also included components
designed to prompt students to consider the
audience for whom they were writing (audience
goals).
238
In all of the studies, students given
learning or specifc goals were compared with
students given more general goals (e.g., a goal
to write a good piece). The panel believes that
goal setting is a powerful instructional tool to
help students regulate their writing progress
and focus on the concrete things they can do
to write more effectively.
In one study, typically achieving 5th-grade
students were taught a general planning
strategy and given two different types
of goals designed to help them learn and
apply the strategy to their writing (learning
goals).
239
One group was told, While youre
working, it helps to keep in mind what youre
trying to do. Youll be trying to learn how to
use these steps to write a descriptive para-
graph.
240
The other group was told, While
youre working, it helps to keep in mind what
youre trying to do. Youll be trying to write
a descriptive paragraph.
241
Both types of
goals helped students produce higher qual-
ity writing than students who received just
a general goal to do their best in addition to
instruction in the planning strategy; however,
neither had an impact on the sentence quality
of participating students. Though both types
of goals had an impact on students writing
quality, the frst goal was more effective at
improving students overall writing quality.
This study was replicated among a group of
4th-grade students, and the authors contin-
ued to fnd positive effects of both types of
goals on students overall writing quality at
posttest and at a maintenance test six weeks
later. In this case, the goals also showed
mostly positive effects on students sentence
structure, with the exception of the second
goal at a six-week maintenance test.
Students in another study were tested individu-
ally using a prompt, which required students to
write a persuasive letter.
242
The prompt included
a set of goals for making students writing more
persuasive, such as You have to remember that
other people have different opinions about this
issue, so you need to mention that other people
have a different opinion. Students in 4th and
6th grade receiving the specifc goals wrote
higher quality text, relative to students who
received the same prompt without the specifc
goals for making their writing more persuasive.
The 6th-graders also included more elements of
persuasive writing in their work.
Three other studies examined the effective-
ness of setting specifc goals for students at
risk for writing diffculties, and these goals
sometimes included specifc prompts to help
students consider the audience for their writ-
ing.
243
Two of these studies tested goals for
revision of preliminary drafts.
244
In one study, the same intervention produced
positive effects on 6th-graders overall writ-
ing quality, but the intervention produced no
effects for 4th-graders.
245
Still another study
tested specifc goals with and without audi-
ence components and found that both had
positive effects on students overall writing
quality.
246
However, students in the group with
specifc goals related to audience were more
effective at increasing the number of genre ele-
ments included in their writing than students
with the specifc goal without an audience
component. A fnal study found that a goal
to add three things to their papers to make
them better when they revised their writing
led students to write higher quality and longer
pieces, relative to students who were given a
general goal to make their papers better.
247
The panel cautions that authentic writing
experiences do not typically come with
specifc, predetermined goals. Thus, although
initially providing specifc goals for students
can be a useful instructional technique, stu-
dents eventually will need to learn to set their
own goals for their writing, with instructional
supports removed.
( 70 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Studies of moderately or closely aligned
interventions. Other studies examined
interventions that contained three or more
components of Recommendations 2a and 2b
(moderately or closely aligned) but did not fall
into one of the previous large clusters of stud-
ies.
248
Studies of moderately aligned interven-
tions delivered to typically achieving students
in a whole-class setting produced positive
effects on the overall quality of students writ-
ing and the number of elements they included
in their stories at posttest.
249
For example, in
one study, classes of students learned how to
use a rubric to self-evaluate their writing.
250

Students and teachers frst discussed the six
criteria assessed by the rubric (topic focus,
organization, content, sentence structure,
language, and mechanics) and practiced
evaluating sample compositions on the dif-
ferent criteria. Some elements of the rubric
prompted students to think about their audi-
ence and purpose for writing. These students
wrote higher quality texts as assessed by the
same rubric, compared to students who were
not taught how to use the rubric.
In another study, 5th-grade students in Canada
received instruction in narrative structure;
instructional components included a teacher
modeling the composition of a narrative while
describing his or her thought processes.
251
The
instructor then guided the students through
discussion of a few narratives, including iden-
tifcation of the story parts and fexibility of
the story categories. Students practiced writ-
ing collaboratively as a class and generated
ideas in small groups. This was followed by
practice composing narratives independently.
Students who received instruction in narra-
tive structure produced stories containing
more story elements compared to students
who received instruction in poetry following
parallel procedures. At a maintenance test six
weeks later, there were no longer differences
between the two groups. Though both groups
were instructed using a gradual release of
responsibility and exemplary texts, the study
isolates the effectiveness of instruction in a
particular technique on the quality of writing in
that particular genre.
Five more studies examined moderately or
closely aligned interventions among students
at risk for writing diffculties.
252
All but one
253

showed consistently positive effects on all
writing outcomes, including writing qual-
ity. For example, one study examined the
effectiveness of a student-editor strategy for
revision and editing embedded in a process
writing approach.
254
As part of the interven-
tion, 4th- through 6th-grade students in a
suburban school district met with their peers
and used a revising strategy to suggest
and discuss possible improvements to one
anothers papers. Following revisions, student
pairs met again and used a checklist tool to
suggest mechanical improvements. The strat-
egies were taught using a gradual release of
responsibility, and teachers also modeled how
students could use the strategy to revise and
edit their own writing. The intervention led to
positive effects on the overall quality of stu-
dents writing relative to a comparison group
that received regular instruction in process
writing. Both groups practiced using a word
processor to type. The intervention also con-
tained engaging elements aligned with Rec-
ommendation 4; the panel cannot determine
whether the intervention would have had the
same effects without those components.
A fnal study of a closely aligned intervention
on students who were at risk, discussed in
greater detail in the later section on Recom-
mendation 4, produced positive effects on
the overall quality of students story writing
at posttest, as well as the quality and quan-
tity of their writing at a maintenance test four
weeks later, but there were negative effects
on the quality of students persuasive writing
at posttest and no effects on two measures
of writing output (story and persuasive)
at posttest.
255
The intervention condition
involved several components of the panels
recommendation; however, the comparison
condition also featured elements of Recom-
mendations 2 and 4. The mixed effects are
not surprising, given that the effectiveness of
some components of the panels recommen-
dations is being compared to the effective-
ness of others.
( 71 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Studies of partially aligned interventions.
A fnal group of studies examined interven-
tions that were only partially related to the
recommendations in this practice guide: those
interventions with fewer than 30 percent of
the components of the panels recommenda-
tions that did not fall into one of the previous
large clusters of studies.
256
One study exam-
ined the effectiveness of using high-quality
exemplary texts compared to using low-
quality texts as a model for student writing.
257

Before the pretest, the teacher discussed the
15 traits of high-quality literature (as defned
by the criteria for the selection of ALSC New-
bery Medal winners and traits of the classical
detective genre) with students and applied
these traits to examples from stories and tele-
vision. During the frst half of each session,
5th-grade students assigned to the interven-
tion group listened to high-quality literature
as defned by the 15 traits, while students
in the comparison group listened to lesser
quality literature. Classroom discussions for
both groups centered on how authors devel-
oped the 15 traits. Students practiced brain-
storming and developing their own detective
stories, but they were not explicitly told to
use the stories that had been read aloud as
models for their own writing. The interven-
tion produced positive effects on the overall
quality of students writing and the number
of elements they included in their stories.
Three more studies examined the effective-
ness of partially aligned interventions on
populations of students at risk for writing
diffculties or on gifted students.
258
The stud-
ies produced generally positive effects on a
variety of measures, including overall writ-
ing quality. However, in some cases, positive
effects were mixed with no effects.
259
For
example, in one study, gifted 3rd- and 4th-
grade students learned to close their eyes
and listen to passages with rich descriptions
of sensory details.
260
Students then visualized
what the passages were about and discussed
their mental images with the class. After listen-
ing to the passages, the students practiced
composing their own passages. The students
who learned the strategy for visualizing wrote
higher quality pieces with descriptions of
more sensory categories (e.g., auditory, tactile)
compared to a group that practiced listening to
and discussing short stories and then practiced
composing. The intervention did not produce
effects in ideation.
Recommendation 3. Teach students
to become fuent with handwriting,
spelling, sentence construction, typing,
and word processing.
Level of evidence: Moderate Evidence
The panel determined the level of evidence for
this recommendation to be moderate evidence.
The nine studies that contribute to the evi-
dence rating for this recommendation included
populations of students in 1st through 4th
grade.
261
Seven of the nine studies that pro-
vide support for this recommendation were
conducted with students who were at risk for
writing diffculties,
262
and all but two of the
studies involved instruction provided to pairs
or small groups of students.
263
Supplemental
evidence comes from one additional SCD
study.
264
The panel cautions that the effects
seen in these studies may not be replicated
when the intervention is provided to a whole
class or if the instruction is not tailored to
areas of individual student need. However, the
panel believes similar effects would be seen in
whole-class instruction with some tailoring of
instruction for individual students, such as pro-
viding handwriting instruction only to students
struggling with handwriting.
Studies of the handwriting and spelling
practices described in this recommendation
showed generally positive effects on students
handwriting and spelling skills.
265
The instruc-
tion led students to write better sentences and
sometimes to produce longer texts, providing
preliminary evidence that as students focus
less attention on handwriting and spelling,
they are able to concentrate on conveying
more of their ideas more effectively.
266
How-
ever, few studies tested the effect of these
practices on the panels primary outcome,
( 72 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
overall quality of students writing, and those
that did found no evidence that handwriting
and spelling practices led to improvements.
Moreover, the panels decision to limit eligible
outcomes to those that included the pro-
duction of original text or norm-referenced
standardized tests meant that there were few
eligible measures of spelling and handwriting.
Yet the panel believes instruction in handwrit-
ing and spelling will help students produce
higher quality writing, because as basic writ-
ing skills become second nature, students can
focus more of their attention on conveying
their intended meaning.
Immediate effects of spelling and handwrit-
ing on overall writing quality are unlikely for
two reasons. First, though the panel believes
that instruction in these skills makes it easier
for students to get their ideas written down,
elementary students are likely to continue
to face considerable challenges in spelling,
handwriting, and word processing following
a brief intervention. As students progress
from kindergarten to 6th grade, these skills
will gradually become more automatic, and
students will increasingly focus on the qual-
ity of their writing. Moreover, freeing up
students attention to focus on the quality
of their writing is likely to be ineffective in
increasing writing quality without instruction
and practice in the strategies and techniques
they can use to convey their ideas more
effectively. Thus, instruction in basic writing
skills should be accompanied by instruction in
tools for effective writing (Recommendation
2), as well as time allotted to practice such
skills and tools (Recommendation 1), in order
to produce gains in overall writing quality.
There was evidence that instruction in sen-
tence-construction skills, focused on teaching
students to craft clear sentences based on
the conventions of Standard English, does
lead to improvements in the overall quality
of students writing.
267
Because sentence-
construction instruction emphasizes crafting
strong sentences for the purpose of more
effectively communicating the writers mean-
ing to his or her audience, the panel views
the relation between sentence-construction
instruction and overall writing quality as more
direct than the relation between handwriting
and overall writing quality.
Studies of word processing and typing inter-
ventions on eligible outcomes were limited.
One study found that practicing writing using
a word processor led students to produce
longer texts, but no other eligible measures
were assessed in the study.
268
Table D.5 summarizes the studies cited to
document the effectiveness of this recom-
mendation. The characteristics of one study
that provides supplemental evidence for this
recommendation are included in Table D.6.
The effects in these tables are separated into
direct effects, defned as effects on the spe-
cifc writing skill targeted by the intervention,
and generalization effects, defned as effects
on writing skills related to, but not directly
targeted by, the intervention. The panel sepa-
rately examined the research on the effective-
ness of instruction in handwriting, spelling,
sentence construction, and typing and word
processing for this recommendation.
( 73 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.5. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 3
Study Details
Study Citation
and Design
269
Analytic
Sample Size
270

and Population
Intervention Group (Dosage)
271
Comparison Group
274
Direct Effects:
Outcome,
Effect Size
272
Generalization
Effects: Outcome,
Effect Size
273
Studies testing the effectiveness of handwriting interventions
Berninger
et al. (1997)
RCT
40 students in 1st
grade who were at
risk
visual cue and memory retrieval
training
small groups (3)
(24 sessions, 20 minutes each)
275
no eligible measures sentence structure,
0.89*
phonological awareness training
Denton, Cope,
and Moser
(2006)
RCT
38 students in 1st
through 4th grade
who were at risk
therapeutic practice in addition
to regular instruction
276
small groups (up to 3)
(20 sessions, 30 minutes each)
Memory:
handwriting
(mechanics), 0.17 (ns)
Dictated:
handwriting
(mechanics),
0.44 (ns)
Copied:
handwriting
(mechanics), 0.08 (ns)
no eligible measures
regular classroom instruction
Graham,
Harris, and
Fink (2000)
RCT
36 students in 1st
grade who were at
risk
277
supplemental handwriting program
in addition to regular handwriting
instruction
individual
(27 sessions, 15 minutes each)
no eligible measures Posttest:
overall writing
quality, 0.04 (ns)
output, 1.29*
sentence structure,
0.62 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(6 months):
sentence structure,
0.84*
phonological awareness training
in addition to regular handwriting
instruction
Studies testing the effectiveness of spelling interventions
Berninger
et al. (2000)
Study 2
RCT
47 students in 3rd
grade who were at
risk
training on alphabetic principle and
syllable awareness
individual
(24 sessions, 20 minutes each)
no eligible measures output, 0.34*
278
keyboard training and training on
alphabetic principle only
Berninger
et al. (2002)
RCT
24 students in 3rd
grade who were at
risk
spelling instruction
279
pairs
(24 sessions, 20 minutes each)
spelling (mechanics),
0.21 (ns)
Informational:
overall writing
quality, 0.08 (ns)
Persuasive:
overall writing
quality, 0.11 (ns)
Other:
sentence structure,
0.21 (ns)
keyboard training and writing
practice
Graham,
Harris,
and Fink-
Chorzempa
(2002)
RCT
30 pairs of students in
2nd grade who were
at risk
280
spelling instruction in addition to
regular spelling instruction
pairs
(48 sessions, 20 minutes each)
no eligible measures Posttest:
output, 0.42 (ns)
sentence structure,
0.77 (ns)
Maintenance effects
(6 months):
output, 0.06 (ns)
sentence structure,
0.58 (ns)
math instruction in addition to regular
handwriting instruction
(continued)
( 74 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.5. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 3 (continued)
Study Details
Study Citation
and Design
269
Analytic
Sample Size
270

and Population
Intervention Group (Dosage)
271
Direct Effects:
Outcome,
Effect Size
272
Generalization
Effects: Outcome,
Effect Size
273
Comparison Group
274
Studies testing the effectiveness of sentence-construction interventions
Fogel and Ehri
(2000)
RCT
59 students in 3rd and
4th grade who were
at risk
exposure to text, explicit instruction
in Standard English conventions,
guided practice, and feedback
281
whole class
282
(2 sessions, total of 60 minutes)
no eligible measures output, 0.27 (ns)
exposure to text only
Saddler and
Graham
(2005)
RCT
21 to 22 pairs of stu-
dents in 4th grade
283
sentence-combining instruction
pairs
(30 sessions, 25 minutes each)
sentence structure,
1.80* (MSW),
1.45* (LSW)
284
overall writing
quality,
0.52 (ns, MSW),
0.51 (ns, LSW)
output, 0.65
(ns, MSW), 0.13
(ns, LSW)
285
traditional grammar instruction
pairs
Studies testing the effectiveness of typing/word-processing interventions
Jones (1994)
RCT
20 students in 2nd
grade
magic slate word processor
large groups (10)
(4 weeks; time unknown)
no measures output, 0.48*
286
regular classroom instruction
Table D.6. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 3
Study Details
Study Citation
Analytic
Sample Size
288

Intervention Group (Dosage)
289
Direct Effects:
Outcome,
Generalization
Effects: Outcome,
and Design
287
and Population Comparison Group
292
Effect Size
290
Effect Size
291
Studies testing the effectiveness of spelling interventions
Gettinger
(1993)
SCD
4 students in 2nd
grade, half of whom
were at risk and half
of whom were above
average
direct instruction
individual
(24 sessions, 15 minutes each)
spelling, mixed
effects
293
no eligible measures
invented spelling
Studies testing the effectiveness of sentence-construction interventions
Saddler,
Behforooz,
and Asaro
(2008)
SCD
6 students in 4th
grade who were at
risk
sentence-combining instruction
pairs
(18 sessions, 25 minutes each)
sentence structure,
no effects
overall writing
quality, positive
effects
regular classroom instruction
( 75 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Handwriting. Handwriting instructionspe-
cifcally instruction whereby students are
taught how to form letters, given opportunities
for repeated practice in short sessions, and
practice handwriting in the context of authen-
tic writing opportunitiescan lead to improve-
ments in spelling, sentence structure, and
writing output. Three studies provide causal
evidence for this component of the panels
recommendation.
294
In the frst, urban and
suburban 1st-grade students who were at risk
met individually with tutors, who administered
lessons in the alphabet and modeled letter
formation.
295
This was followed by student
practice forming letters, sentence-copying and
progress-tracking activities, and handwriting
fun, whereby students incorporated target
letters into pictures or wrote letters in unusual
ways. Students in the comparison condition
received instruction in phonological aware-
ness. The intervention led to positive effects
on students sentence construction and writ-
ing output, but it produced no effects on the
overall quality of students writing. The posi-
tive effects on sentence construction persisted
at maintenance, six months later.
In a similar study, suburban 1st-grade students
who were at risk for writing diffculties practiced
viewing letters marked with numbered arrows
and then covering them up and writing the
letters from memory.
296
Gradually, graduate
student tutors increased the length of time the
letters were covered before the students wrote
them from memory. Handwriting instruction
took place for 10 minutes twice a week in small
groups. Students in the comparison group
received instruction in phonological awareness.
Instruction in both groups was supplemented
with practice composing and sharing work,
along with graphing progress throughout the
intervention. Students in the intervention group
outperformed students in the comparison group
on measures of sentence construction. The panel
believes that the effects reported for this study
and the previous study may underestimate
the true impact of the intervention since the
phonological awareness training provided to
the comparison group also would be expected
to improve writing outcomes for students.
Researchers in a third study examined the
effectiveness of individual or small-group
handwriting instruction that included work-
sheets to practice handwriting by copying, in
response to dictation, and from memory, as
well as practice applying handwriting skills
to real-life writing and writing for fun.
297

Participants in the study were 1st- through
4th-grade students who were at risk for
writing diffculties. Meanwhile, students in
the comparison group received their regular
in-class instruction. The intervention led to
positive effects on a dictated scale of hand-
writing ability but no effects on memory or
copied scales.
Spelling. Explicit instruction in the under-
lying patterns of words (e.g., phonological
awareness, spelling phonics, and morpho-
logical spelling) can lead to achievement
gains in spelling that transfer to other writing
outcomes.
298
Three studies examined inter-
ventions in which students were taught the
underlying patterns of words.
299
In one study,
3rd-grade students who were at risk for spell-
ing diffculties received paired instruction in
morphological spelling, supplemented with
instruction in spelling phonics.
300
The study
found large positive effects on students
composition length compared to a compari-
son group that received only instruction in
spelling phonics. The authors reported that
students in the treatment condition outper-
formed students in the comparison condition
on a measure of writing output.
In another study, 3rd-grade students who
were at risk in an urban region received
paired, explicit instruction in phonological
awareness and spelling phonics.
301
The con-
trol group practiced writing and typing. The
intervention produced no effects on two mea-
sures of overall writing quality. Standardized
measures of spelling and sentence structure
favored the treatment group but did not reach
signifcance or substantive importance.
In a third study, 2nd-graders who were at risk
in an urban region received paired instruction
in phonological awareness, spelling phonics,
( 76 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
and morphological spelling using a variety of
activities including word sorting, word hunt-
ing, word spelling, phonics warm-up, and
word building.
302
Students in the comparison
group received math instruction. The inter-
vention led to positive effects on a measure
of sentence structure at posttest and at
maintenance; however, it also found negative
effects on writing output at posttest. By the
maintenance test, there were no effects on
writing output.
The panel also believes that instruction in
the spelling of specifc words can lead to
improvements in writing quality. One study,
described earlier, examined instruction in
commonly used words, in addition to instruc-
tion in spelling skills including phonological
awareness, spelling phonics, and morpho-
logical spelling.
303
The results suggest that
a spelling-instruction program that includes
instruction in spelling skills and word study
can produce positive effects on students writ-
ing output and sentence structure. However,
the effectiveness of the word-study compo-
nent alone cannot be isolated. Another study
alternated individualized direct instruction
in the spelling of specifc words with instruc-
tion in invented spelling and found no effects
on spelling for three students and positive
effects for the direct instruction condition for
one student.
304
The panel cautions against
drawing conclusions from this study because
it compares the effectiveness of one inter-
vention recommended by the panel to the
effectiveness of another. The panel believes
that both interventions are likely to improve
students spelling outcomes and therefore
that the mixed effects are not surprising.
No studies that met WWC evidence standards
tested the effectiveness of instruction in using
a dictionary, or spelling by analogy. However,
the panel believes instruction in these skills
will help students when they are uncertain
about how to spell specifc words, and that
teachers should build on a strong foundation
in phonological awareness, spelling phonics,
and morphological spelling skills to develop
these strategies.
Sentence construction. Explicit instruction
in sentence constructionalong with oppor-
tunities to practice sentence-construction
skills within authentic writing experiences
can produce positive effects on sentence
structure, writing output, and overall writing
quality.
305
Two studies provide causal sup-
port for this practice.
306
One study provides
supplemental evidence for this practice.
307

Two of the studies tested sentence-combining
interventions similar to those recommended
by the panel.
308
The frst compared the effec-
tiveness of explicit instruction in sentence
combining, along with practice applying
sentence-combining skills to authentic writ-
ing, to traditional grammar instruction, pri-
marily in parts of speech.
309
Instruction was
delivered to pairs of 4th-grade students in an
urban location. Each pair included a more-
skilled writer and a less-skilled writer. At the
conclusion of the study, there were positive
effects favoring the intervention condition on
a standardized test of sentence construction
and on overall writing quality for both more-
and less-skilled writers. There were negative
effects on writing output for the more-skilled
writers; however, the panel did not view
these as problematic, because the purpose of
combining sentences is to say the same thing
in fewer sentences.
The second study examined the effectiveness
of sentence-combining instruction that was
similar to the instruction in the frst study
but included a peer-support component for
urban 4th-graders who were at risk.
310
Writing
samples collected following the intervention
showed positive effects on writing quality but
no effects on sentence structure.
A third study also supports the panels rec-
ommendation that instruction in applying
standard conventions for sentence writing be
embedded in students own compositions.
311

In the study, 3rd- and 4th-graders were
exposed to stories modeling Standard English
features, provided exposure and instruc-
tion on the rules of Standard English, and
given guided practice in applying the rules
of Standard English to their writing. Students
( 77 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
in the comparison condition received only
story exposure. Though the instruction was
delivered to the whole class, the researchers
examined only the effects on African Ameri-
can students who displayed characteristics
of Black English Vernacular in their writing.
The group receiving the full intervention
wrote longer stories at posttest than stu-
dents exposed to stories only. Though this
study involved a very specifc population
and type of sentence-construction instruc-
tion, the panel believes that the instructional
techniques could be adapted easily to other
sentence-construction lessons.
Typing and using a word processor.
Practice using a word processor can lead
to an increase in writing output over using
pencil and paper.
312
Second-grade students
practiced writing on a word processor, while a
comparison group of students from the same
elementary school practiced using pencil and
paper.
313
After four weeks of practice, both
groups were assessed using pencil and paper,
and the intervention group produced more
text. No studies that meet WWC evidence
standards examined the impacts of typing
practice on writing outcomes.
Recommendation 4: Create an engaged
community of writers.
Level of evidence: Minimal Evidence
The panel assigned a rating of minimal evi-
dence to this recommendation based on fve
studies that meet WWC standards with or
without reservations and include components
of Recommendation 4 (see Tables D.7 and
D.8).
314
Though the majority of the fndings
were positive,
315
one study found negative
effects as well as positive effects,
316
and one
SCD study found no effect.
317
The outcomes
included overall writing quality and writing
output. Researchers conducted the studies in
3rd- through 6th-grade classrooms, with two
of the studies taking place in countries other
than the United States.
318
The interventions
tested in the studies varied in how closely
they were aligned to the recommendation.
One study contained fewer than 30 percent of
the components the panel believes contribute
to the creation of an engaged community of
writers (partially aligned). Three contained at
least 30 percent, but fewer than 80 percent,
of the components (moderately aligned),
and two of the studies contained at least 80
percent of the components (closely aligned).
319
The panel cautions that although the studies
meet WWC standards and primarily were deliv-
ered to the whole class, the fndings may not
be replicated in all settings. Because strategy
instruction was combined with practices con-
tributing to an engaged community of writers
in four of the six studies, it is not possible to
determine how much of the effect is due to
the strategy instruction and how much of the
effect is due to the building of a community of
engaged writers.
320
One of the studies that did
not include strategy instruction found positive
effects on overall writing quality.
321
Writers
who were at risk were the focus of three of
the studies;
322
however, the effects are similar
in magnitude for studies that did not focus on
writers who were at risk.
323
( 78 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.7. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 4
Study Details Action Steps Tested
Intervention Group
(Dosage)
326
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
W
r
i
t
i
n
g

C
h
o
i
c
e
s
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

2
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

T
h
a
t


S
t
u
d
y

T
e
s
t
e
d

a
n


F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Analytic
Sample Size
325

and Population
Study Citation
and Design
324
Comparison
Group
328
Outcome,
Effect Size
327
Curry (1997)
QED
56 students in
4th grade who
were at risk
Writers Workshop
focused on process
of writing in an
inclusive setting
whole class
(32 sessions,
45 minutes each)
overall writing
quality, 0.44 (ns)
329
X X X X X X
skills-based direct
instruction
MacArthur,
Schwartz, and
Graham (1991)
RCT
29 students in
4th through 6th
grade who were
at risk
student-editor
strategy
whole class
(68 weeks, no addi-
tional information on
dosage)
overall writing
quality, 1.42*
330
X X X X
Writers Workshop
Pritchard and
Marshall (1994)
QED
1,292 students
in 3rd through
6th grade
staff development by
teacher consultants
in National Writing
Project
whole class
(no dosage
information)
overall writing
quality, 0.39
(unknown)
331
X X X
regular classroom
instruction
Troia and
Graham (2002)
RCT
20 students in
4th through 5th
grade who were
at risk
process writing
instruction
whole class
(7 sessions, averaging
77 minutes each)
Story posttest:
overall writing
quality, 0.83 (ns)
output, 0.09 (ns)
Persuasive posttest:
overall writing
quality, 0.48 (ns)
output, 0.16 (ns)
Maintenance effects,
story (4 weeks):
332

overall writing
quality, 1.71*
output, 1.19 (ns)
X X X X X
highly explicit strategy
instruction
pairs
(7 sessions, averaging
75 minutes each)
Yarrow and
Topping (2001)
RCT
28 students who
were 10 and
11 years old in
Scotland
paired writing process:
more-able writers tu-
tored less-able writers
whole class
(24 sessions, no addi-
tional information on
dosage)
overall writing
quality, 0.58 (ns)
X X X
individual writing
process
( 79 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Table D.8. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 4
Study Details Action Steps Tested
Intervention Group
(Dosage)
335
T
e
a
c
h
e
r

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
W
r
i
t
i
n
g

C
h
o
i
c
e
s
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

2
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

T
h
a
t


S
t
u
d
y

T
e
s
t
e
d

a
n


P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
Analytic
Sample Size
334

and Population
Study Citation
and Design
333
Comparison
Group
337
Outcome,
Effect Size
336
Jerram, Glynn,
and Tuck
(1988)
SCD
24 students in
5th grade in
New Zealand
handwritten feedback
from the teacher,
focusing on content
whole class
(116 sessions,
15 minutes each)
writing output,
no effects
X
no written feedback
on content
Studies of interventions closely aligned
with the panels recommendation
Two studies examined interventions closely
aligned with the panels recommendation,
fnding both positive and negative effects.
338

The frst study examined the effect of a
Writers Workshop compared to skills-based
instruction for writers who were at risk in
4th grade in an urban school district.
339
A
Writers Workshop typically involves teacher
participation in writing; student choice of top-
ics; students review of one anothers work,
providing opportunities for feedback and
collaboration; and publishing of writing. The
intervention tested included teacher participa-
tion, student choice of topics, peer editing,
teacher conferencinga form of feedback
and publishing of class books. Compared to
students receiving skills-based direct instruc-
tion, a program that emphasized spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and grammar, the
Writers Workshop students produced higher
quality writing. However, the intervention also
involved the use of a process approach to
writing whereby students moved through the
elements of the writing process fexibly, a key
component of Recommendation 2.
The second study estimated the impact of
a process writing approach compared to
highly explicit strategy instruction delivered
in pairs.
340
Students were writers in grade 4
or grade 5 who were at risk in a suburban
elementary school. Students in both the
process writing and strategy instruction
groups received pre-instruction to familiar-
ize them with the structure and elements of
stories and persuasive essays. Students in the
process writing group reviewed and received
direct instruction in the four steps of writing:
drafting, revising, proofreading and editing,
and publishing. The teacher modeled using
the four steps to write a story. Each student
collaborated with the teacher to write a story,
which was shared with a partner for feedback,
revised, and ultimately published in a bound
portfolio. The researchers found positive
effects on overall writing quality for persuasive
essays immediately following the interven-
tion. Negative effects were found for overall
story-writing quality immediately following the
intervention and four weeks later for overall
story-writing quality and story output. The
panel cautions that the negative effects were
observed when the engaging practices were
compared to instruction in specifc writing
strategies, an approach that is closely aligned
to practices addressed in Recommendation 2
and that also included some engaging ele-
ments. The panel recommends providing an
engaged community of writers in addition to,
not instead of, practices in Recommendation 2.
( 80 )
Appendix D (continued) Appendix D (continued)
Studies of interventions
moderately aligned with the panels
recommendation
Researchers examined interventions mod-
erately aligned with the panels recommen-
dation in three studies and found positive
effects on overall writing quality.
341
Students
identifed as writers who were at risk in
suburban 4th-grade through 6th-grade class-
rooms learned to use structured peer meetings
within a Writers Workshop classroom.
342
The
intervention included opportunities for student
choice of topics, collaboration, and feedback.
Pairs of students held two meetings. The frst
meeting focused on substantive revisions that
could be made in their work. Students were
given specifc instructions to do the follow-
ing: listen and read along as the author read
aloud, discuss what the paper was about and
what the editor/listener liked best, reread the
paper quietly and make notes about revision
questions, and discuss the editors sugges-
tions with the author. In the second meeting,
students focused on correction of mechani-
cal errors in the writing. Teachers provided
a checklist focusing on four common errors:
complete sentences, capitalization, punc-
tuation, and spelling. The students in this
student-editor group produced higher quality
papers than students who participated in the
Writers Workshop without these structured
opportunities for collaboration.
343
Another study examined the effect of teacher
professional development on the writing of
students attending grade 3 through grade 6
in urban, suburban, and rural districts.
344
The
intervention involved teachers training other
teachers in writing techniques associated
with the National Writing Project. A year after
the professional development, the research-
ers reported that students taught by trained
intervention teachers had higher quality
writing than students taught by teachers who
were not trained. At that time, the teachers
completed a survey that focused on whether
they used the practices emphasized in the
training in their classrooms; researchers
reported statistically signifcant differences in
the frequency of the use of 9 of 13 practices
between the trained and nontrained teach-
ers, including that trained teachers used peer
groups and published student writing more
often. However, only 40 percent of trained
teachers and 19 percent of untrained teachers
responded to the survey, and the WWC could
not confrm that differences were statisti-
cally signifcant. The panel cautions that the
emphasis on engaging practices was only
part of a broad intervention; therefore, it is
impossible to determine whether the differ-
ences between the two groups resulted from
the engaging practices emphasized by the
National Writing Project.
Researchers in Scotland examined the effec-
tiveness of paired writing with structured
interaction and paired writing without interac-
tion for 10- and 11-year-old students.
345
Both
groups of students were trained in paired
writing, including specifc roles to facilitate
peer-assisted learning through prompting.
Students in the intervention group were paired
and assigned specifc roles. The control group
worked in pairs only for the training sessions
and practiced writing individually. Follow-
ing the intervention, students were assessed
individually; students who practiced writing
in pairs wrote higher quality pieces than their
peers who practiced writing individually.
Studies of interventions partially aligned
with the panels recommendation
Researchers conducted a study in which the
amount of teacher feedback varied for 5th-
grade students in suburban New Zealand.
346

The intervention tested the impact on writing
output when the teacher provided detailed
written comments on the students writing
nightly, compared to writing output when
the teacher told students she was too busy to
provide comments on their writing. The study
showed no evidence of an effect.
( 81 )
Endnotes Endnotes
a
1. Following WWC guidelines, improved out-
comes are indicated by either a positive
statistically signifcant effect or a positive,
substantively important effect size. The
WWC defnes substantively important, or
large, effects on outcomes to be those
with effect sizes greater than 0.25 stan-
dard deviations. See the WWC guidelines at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.
aspx?sid=19.
2. For more information, see the WWC Fre-
quently Asked Questions page for practice
guides, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docu-
ment.aspx?sid=15.
3. Studies include randomized controlled tri-
als (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs
(QEDs). Studies not contributing to levels of
evidence include single-case designs (SCDs)
evaluated with WWC pilot SCD standards
and regression discontinuity designs (RDDs)
evaluated with pilot RDD standards.
4. The research may include studies generally
meeting WWC standards and supporting
the effectiveness of a program, practice, or
approach with small sample sizes and/or
other conditions of implementation or analy-
sis that limit generalizability. The research
may include studies that support the gen-
erality of a relation but do not meet WWC
standards; however, they have no major
faws related to internal validity other than
lack of demonstrated equivalence at pretest
for QEDs. QEDs without equivalence must
include a pretest covariate as a statistical
control for selection bias. These studies
must be accompanied by at least one rel-
evant study meeting WWC standards.
5. American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, and
National Council on Measurement in Educa-
tion (1999).
6. National Commission on Writing (2003), p. 11.
7. National Commission on Writing (2004).
8. Graham (1982).
9. Salahu-Din, Persky, and Miller (2008).
10. National Commission on Writing (2003).
11. Reviews of studies for this practice guide
applied WWC Version 2.0 standards. See
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.
aspx?sid=19. Twenty studies were eligible
for review against the WWC pilot standards
for well-designed SCD research. Thirteen
of these studies met the pilot standards for
well-designed SCD research, and 11 were
included as supplemental evidence for the
recommendations in this guide. While group
design studies (RCTs and QEDs) contribute
to the level of evidence rating for a recom-
mendation, SCD studies cannot raise the
level of evidence above minimal.
12. National Commission on Writing (2003).
For an example of a study that includes the
provision of additional time for writing, see
Berninger et al. (2006), experiment 4.
13. Cutler and Graham (2008); Graham et al.
(2003).
14. Berninger et al. (2006) reported the
results of four experiments; the evidence
related to this recommendation comes from
experiment 4. Mason and Shriner (2008)
and Saddler et al. (2004), reviewed with the
WWC pilot standards for well-designed SCD
research, provide supplemental evidence for
this recommendation.
15. The time required to implement the interven-
tions is noted in Tables D.3, D.4, D.5, D.6,
D.7, and D.8 which summarize the evidence
for Recommendations 2, 3, and 4.
16. Tierney and Shanahan (1991).
17. Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris, and Gra-
ham (1993); Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes
(2007); Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006); Glaser and Brunstein
(2007); Graham and Harris (1989); Graham,
Harris, and Mason (2005); Graham,
MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995); Graham
et al. (1992); Guastello (2001); Harris,
Graham, and Mason (2006); Jampole,
Mathers, and Konopak (1994); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Mason
and Shriner (2008); Pritchard and Mar-
shall (1994); Riley (1997); Saddler (2006);
Saddler et al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham,
and Harris (1992); Schunk and Swartz
(1993); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
a
Eligible studies that meet WWC evidence standards or meet evidence standards with reservations are indicated by bold text in the
endnotes and references pages. For more information about these studies, please see Appendix D.
( 82 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
18. Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris, and Gra-
ham (1993); Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006); Gambrell and Chasen
(1991); Glaser and Brunstein (2007);
Gordon and Braun (1986); Graham and
Harris (1989); Graham, Harris, and Mason
(2005); Graham et al. (1992); Harris, Gra-
ham, and Mason (2006); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
19. Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Garcia
and de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Garcia-
Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006);
Glaser and Brunstein (2007); Graham
and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris, and
Mason (2005); Graham et al. (1992); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006); Lane et
al. (2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); MacAr-
thur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Mason and Shriner (2008); Pritchard and
Marshall (1994); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
20. Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris, and Gra-
ham (1993); Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes
(2007); Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006); Glaser and Brunstein
(2007); Graham and Harris (1989); Gra-
ham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Graham
et al. (1992); Guastello (2001); Harris,
Graham, and Mason (2006); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Mason
and Shriner (2008); Midgette, Haria, and
MacArthur (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler
et al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
21. Berninger et al. (2006); Curry (1997);
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Ferretti,
Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly (2009);
Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes (2007);
Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo
(2006); Glaser and Brunstein (2007);
Graham and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Graham et al. (1992);
Guastello (2001); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Lane et al. (2008); Liene-
mann et al. (2006); MacArthur, Schwartz,
and Graham (1991); Mason and Shriner
(2008); Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur
(2008); Pritchard and Marshall (1994);
Saddler (2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Saw-
yer, Graham, and Harris (1992); Tracy,
Reid, and Graham (2009); Troia and
Graham (2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris
(1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
22. Berninger et al. (2002); Berninger et al.
(2006); Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris, and
Graham (1993); Dressel (1990); Ferretti,
Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly (2009);
Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy (2000);
Gambrell and Chasen (1991); Garcia and
de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Garcia-Sanchez
and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser and
Brunstein (2007); Gordon and Braun
(1986); Graham and Harris (1989); Graham,
Harris, and Mason (2005); Graham et
al. (1992); Harris, Graham, and Mason
(2006); Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et al.
(2006); Mason and Shriner (2008); Midgette,
Haria, and MacArthur (2008); Pritchard
and Marshall (1994); Riley (1997); Sad-
dler (2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Sawyer,
Graham, and Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid,
and Graham (2009); Troia and Graham
(2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999);
Zumbrunn (2010).
23. Berninger et al. (2002); Berninger et al.
(2006); Curry (1997); Dressel (1990);
Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy
(2000); Gambrell and Chasen (1991);
Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes (2007);
Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo
(2006); Glaser and Brunstein (2007)
[two tests]; Gordon and Braun (1986);
Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005) [two
tests]; Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz
(1995); Guastello (2001); Harris, Gra-
ham, and Mason (2006) [two tests]; Jam-
pole, Mathers, and Konopak (1994);
( 83 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008)
[three tests]; Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Riley (1997); Sawyer, Graham,
and Harris (1992) [two tests]; Schunk
and Swartz (1993) [article summarizes two
studies, each with two tests]; Tracy, Reid,
and Graham (2009); Troia and Graham
(2002). Supplemental evidence comes from
10 studies that tested the practices in this
recommendation and met the WWC pilot
standards for well-designed SCD research:
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Graham
and Harris (1989); Graham et al. (1992); Lane
et al. (2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason
and Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler
et al. (2004); Troia, Graham, and Harris
(1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
24. Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD)
is an approach to writing instruction consist-
ing of a set of practices. While SRSD is not a
branded product that can be purchased, it
should be noted that Dr. Graham has authored
books that provide guidance for teachers on
implementing SRSD, and he receives royalties
from the sale of those books. Furthermore,
Dr. Grahams wife, Karen Harris, developed
SRSD, and Dr. Graham has authored evalua-
tions of SRSD. See Appendix C for disclosure
of potential conficts of interest.
25. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Curry (1997); Garcia-Sanchez and
Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser and
Brunstein (2007); Graham, Harris, and
Mason (2005); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Sawyer, Graham, and
Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham
(2009). Supplemental evidence: Danoff,
Harris, and Graham (1993); Graham and Har-
ris (1989); Graham et al. (1992); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999);
Zumbrunn (2010).
26. Study that contributes to the level of evi-
dence: Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009).
Supplemental evidence: Danoff, Harris, and
Graham (1993).
27. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy
(2000); Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz
(1995); Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur
(2008); Schunk and Swartz (1993).
28. Schunk and Swartz (1993).
29. Gambrell and Chasen (1991); Garcia and
de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Gordon and
Braun (1986); Guastello (2001); MacAr-
thur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Riley
(1997); Troia and Graham (2002).
30. Gordon and Braun (1996); Guastello
(2001); Pritchard and Marshall (1994).
31. Berninger et al. (2002); Berninger et
al. (2006); Dressel (1990); Jampole,
Mathers, and Konopak (1994).
32. Dressel (1990).
33. For examples of studies that include practices
recommended for teaching strategies, see
Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris, and Graham
(1993); Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes (2007);
Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo
(2006); Glaser and Brunstein (2007);
Graham and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Graham, MacArthur,
and Schwartz (1995); Graham et al. (1992);
Guastello (2001); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Jampole, Mathers, and
Konopak (1994); Lane et al. (2008); Liene-
mann et al. (2006); MacArthur, Schwartz,
and Graham (1991); Mason and Shriner
(2008); Pritchard and Marshall (1994);
Riley (1997); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Schunk and Swartz (1993); Tracy,
Reid, and Graham (2009); Troia and
Graham (2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris
(1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
34. Unless otherwise indicated, many of these
strategies are taken or adapted from Graham
and Harris (2005).
35. Adapted from MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991).
36. Adapted from MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991).
37. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for using a gradual
release of responsibility, see Curry (1997);
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Garcia-
Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006);
Gambrell and Chasen (1991); Glaser and
Brunstein (2007); Gordon and Braun
( 84 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
(1986); Graham and Harris (1989); Graham,
Harris, and Mason (2005); Graham et al.
(1992); Harris, Graham, and Mason (2006);
Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et al. (2006);
MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Mason and Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006);
Saddler et al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and
Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham
(2009); Troia and Graham (2002); Troia,
Graham, and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
38. Graphic adapted from Duke and Pearson
(2002) in Shanahan et al. (2010).
39. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for discussing when
and how to use strategies, see Danoff, Har-
ris, and Graham (1993); Garcia-Sanchez
and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser
and Brunstein (2007); Graham and Har-
ris (1989); Graham, Harris, and Mason
(2005); Graham et al. (1992); Harris,
Graham, and Mason (2006); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
40. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for setting goals to
use strategies in different contexts, see
Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006); Saddler
(2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999).
41. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for teaching students
to evaluate their success using strategies
in other contexts, see Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Troia,
Graham, and Harris (1999).
42. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for teaching students
to use the components of the writing pro-
cess flexibly, see Garcia-Sanchez and
Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Pritchard
and Marshall (1994).
43. Adapted from Gatlin and Krebs (1992).
44. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for teaching different
purposes of writing, see Curry (1997);
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Garcia
and de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Garcia-
Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006);
Glaser and Brunstein, (2007); Graham
and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris, and
Mason (2005); Graham et al. (1992); Guas-
tello (2001); Harris, Graham, and Mason
(2006); Lane et al (2008); Lienemann et
al. (2006); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Mason and Shriner (2008);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008);
Saddler (2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Saw-
yer, Graham, and Harris (1992); Tracy,
Reid, and Graham (2009); Troia and
Graham (2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris
(1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
45. Purposes from The Writing Site (2008).
46. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for teaching students
the concept of audience, see Berninger et
al. (2006); Curry (1997); Danoff, Harris,
and Graham (1993); Ferretti, Lewis, and
Andrews-Weckerly (2009); Garcia and
de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Garcia-Sanchez
and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser
and Brunstein (2007); Graham and Har-
ris (1989); Graham, Harris, and Mason
(2005); Graham et al. (1992); Guastello
(2001); Harris, Graham, and Mason
(2006); Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et
al. (2006); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Mason and Shriner (2008);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008);
Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Saddler
(2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Sawyer, Gra-
ham, and Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid,
and Graham (2009); Troia and Graham
(2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999);
Zumbrunn (2010).
47. For examples of studies that include the
use of exemplary texts, see Curry (1997);
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Dressel
(1990); Gambrell and Chasen (1991);
Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-Redondo
(2006); Glaser and Brunstein (2007);
Gordon and Braun (1986); Graham
and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris, and
Mason (2005); Graham et al. (1992); Harris,
( 85 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
Graham, and Mason (2006); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Riley (1997); Saddler (2006); Saddler
et al. (2004); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
48. Hutchins (1968).
49. Lyon (1999), p. 3.
50. Reprinted with permission from Pipp (2010).
51. For examples of studies that include prac-
tices recommended for teaching genre
techniques, see Berninger et al. (2002);
Berninger et al. (2006); Curry (1997);
Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993); Fer-
retti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy
(2000); Gambrell and Chasen (1991);
Garcia and de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Gla-
ser and Brunstein (2007); Gordon and
Braun (1986); Graham and Harris (1989);
Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006); Lane et
al. (2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason
and Shriner (2008); Midgette, Haria, and
MacArthur (2008); Riley (1997); Sad-
dler (2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Sawyer,
Graham, and Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid,
and Graham (2009); Troia and Graham
(2002); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999);
Zumbrunn (2010).
52. Graham and Harris (1989); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Mason and Shriner (2008).
53. Troia and Graham (2002); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999).
54. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et
al. (2000); Fogel and Ehri (2000); Get-
tinger (1993); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000); Jones (1994); McCutcheon
(1995); Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008);
Saddler and Graham (2005).
55. Graham and Harris (2000); McCutchen,
Covill, Hoyne, and Mildes (1994).
56. Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and
Whittaker (1997).
57. Graham (1999).
58. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Berninger et al. (2002); Denton,
Cope, and Moser (2006); Fogel and
Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris,
and Fink (2000); Jones (1994); Saddler
and Graham (2005). Supplemental evi-
dence comes from Gettinger (1993) and
Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008), both
of which meet the WWC pilot standards
for well-designed SCD research. The frst
study compared the effectiveness of direct
instruction in spelling specific words to
instruction in invented spelling and found
mixed effects. The second study tested
sentence construction interventions and
demonstrated positive effects mixed with
no effects.
59. Berninger et al. (1997); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
60. Berninger et al. (2000); Berninger et
al. (2002); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002).
61. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler and
Graham (2005).
62. Jones (1994).
63. Berninger et al. (2000); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006); Fogel and Ehri (2000);
Jones (1994); Saddler and Graham (2005).
64. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Denton, Cope, and Moser (2006);
Fogel and Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris,
and Fink-Chorzempa (2002); Graham,
Harris, and Fink (2000); Jones (1994);
Saddler and Graham (2005).
65. Positive effects mixed with no effects: Den-
ton, Cope, and Moser (2006); Graham,
Harris, and Fink (2000). Positive effects
mixed with negative effects: Graham, Har-
ris, and Fink-Chorzempa (2002); Saddler
and Graham (2005).
66. Berninger et al. (2002).
67. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Berninger et al. (2002); Denton,
Cope, and Moser (2006); Fogel and
Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
68. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Jones (1994).
( 86 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
69. Graham and Weintraub (1996).
70. Ibid.
71. Berninger et al. (1997); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
72. Berninger et al. (1997); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006).
73. Berninger et al. (1997); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
74. Graham, Harris, and Loynachan (1993) con-
tains a list of the words most frequently
used by elementary-grade students. For
a longer list of words frequently used by
elementary-grade students, see Farr, Kelleher,
Lee, and Beverstock (1989).
75. Graham, Harris, and Fink-Chorzempa
(2002).
76. Berninger et al. (2000); Berninger et
al. (2002); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002).
77. Gettinger (1993).
78. Graham, Harris, and Fink-Chorzempa
(2002).
79. Berninger et al. (2002).
80. Englert, Hiebert, and Stewart (1985).
81. Graham (1999).
82. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler, Behforooz,
and Asaro (2008); Saddler and Graham
(2005).
83. Saddler and Graham (2005).
84. Fogel and Ehri (2000).
85. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler, Behforooz,
and Asaro (2008); Saddler and Graham
(2005).
86. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008); Saddler
and Graham (2005).
87. Saddler and Asaro-Saddler (2009).
88. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
89. Saddler (2005); Saddler and Graham (2005).
90. Saddler and Graham (2005).
91. Neman (1995).
92. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008); Saddler
and Graham (2005).
93. Ibid.
94. Burke and Cizek (2006).
95. Institute of Education Sciences (2010).
96. Jones (1994).
97. Gambrell, Malloy, and Mazzoni (2007).
98. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Troia and Graham (2002); Yar-
row and Topping (2001). Supplemental
evidence for this recommendation also
comes from Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988),
reviewed with the WWC pilot standards for
well-designed SCD research.
99. Mixed effects: Troia and Graham (2002).
One SCD study demonstrated no effects
on writing output: Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck
(1988).
100. Curry (1997); Troia and Graham (2002).
101. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991).
102. Curry (1997); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Troia and Graham (2002); Yar-
row and Topping (2001).
103. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988) included
teacher feedback. Curry (1997); MacAr-
thur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Troia
and Graham (2002); and Yarrow and
Topping (2001) included peer feedback.
104. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz,
and Graham (1991); Troia and Graham
(2002); Yarrow and Topping (2001).
105. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988) took place in
New Zealand; Yarrow and Topping (2001)
took place in Scotland.
106. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Yarrow and Topping (2001).
107. Troia and Graham (2002) found positive
effects on writing quality immediately after
the intervention; negative effects on writ-
ing quality were found four weeks after the
initial post-intervention assessment.
108. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988).
109. For an example of a study that include
teachers participating as members of the
community, see Curry (1997).
110. For an example of a study that includes
student choice in writing assignments, see
Curry (1997).
111. For an example, see Atwell (1998).
( 87 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
112. For examples of studies that include student
collaboration while writing, see MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Pritchard
and Marshall (1994); Yarrow and Top-
ping (2001).
113. Reprinted with permission from Ramirez
(2006).
114. For examples of studies that include stu-
dents sharing their work, see Curry (1997);
Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Yarrow
and Topping (2001).
115. Pritchard and Marshall (1994).
116. For examples of studies that include the
publication of students work, see Curry
(1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and Gra-
ham (1991).
117. The gradual release of responsibility model
was coined by Pearson and Gallagher (1983).
118. Acknowledging that 6th-graders are some-
times included in an elementary setting, the
evidence base for this guide includes studies
of 6th-grade students when these students
were receiving instruction in an elementary
school setting (e.g., in schools with kindergar-
ten through 6th grade, 4th through 6th grade,
or kindergarten through 8th grade).
119. For a defnition of statistical signifcance, see
the WWC glossary at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/glossary.aspx.
120. Recognizing that some studies lack the sta-
tistical power to classify practically impor-
tant effects as statistically signifcant, the
panel also accepts substantively important
effects as evidence of effectiveness. For
a definition of effect size, see the WWC
glossary at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
glossary.aspx.
121. For multiple comparison adjustments and
cluster corrections, see the WWC Handbook
at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_pro-
cedures_v2_standards_ handbook.pdf.
122. Graham (1999).
123. Cutler and Graham (2008); Graham et al.
(2003).
124. Berninger et al. (2006) reported the results
of four experiments; the evidence related to
this recommendation comes from experi-
ment 4. In other studies, it often was unclear
whether the intervention was provided in
addition to regular writing instruction (thus
providing additional time for writing) or in
place of regular writing instruction. In other
studies that examined interventions that
reported providing additional time for writing
instruction, the additional instruction was
limited to instruction in writing skills such as
handwriting and spelling and did not provide
a comprehensive curriculum aligned with the
panels recommendations [see, e.g., Denton,
Cope, and Moser (2006); Graham, Harris,
and Fink-Chorzempa (2002)].
125. Berninger et al. (2006).
126. Mason and Shriner (2008) and Saddler et al.
(2004) meet WWC pilot standards for well-
designed SCD research. SCD studies cannot
raise the level of evidence above minimal.
127. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
128. Note that sample sizes are presented in
the units that the authors selected for their
analyses. For example, if the author ana-
lyzed pairs rather than individual students,
the sample size presented is of pairs. In
some cases, the unit of analysis does not
match the unit in which the intervention was
delivered. For example, the analysis was
conducted at the student level even though
the intervention was delivered to pairs of
students.
129. The components of the intervention most
relevant to the recommendation are the
focus of the description. Dosage for the
comparison group is the same as the inter-
vention group, except where noted. If it is
clear from the study that the intervention
was delivered in place of typical instruc-
tion, that is noted in the description of the
intervention.
130. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes dif-
fer from author-reported results due to
WWC adjustments for baseline differences,
clustering, or multiple comparisons. Effect
sizes that were signifcant by WWC calcula-
tions or author calculations where no WWC
adjustments were required (p 0.05) are
marked with an asterisk (*); ns refers to
effects that were not signifcant. Outcomes
( 88 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
listed in bold are statistically signifcant
or substantively important as defned by
the WWC. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
131. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
132. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
133. Note that sample sizes are presented in the
units that the authors selected for their analy-
ses. For example, if the author analyzed pairs
rather than individual students, the sample
size presented is of pairs. In some cases, the
unit of analysis does not match the unit in
which the intervention was delivered. For
example, the analysis was conducted at the
student level even though the intervention
was delivered to pairs of students.
134. The components of the intervention most rel-
evant to the recommendation are the focus of
the description. Dosage for the comparison
group is the same as the intervention group,
except where noted. If it is clear from the
study that the intervention was delivered in
place of typical instruction, that is noted in
the description of the intervention.
135. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, clus-
tering, or multiple comparisons. Effect sizes
that were signifcant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
136. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
137. In some cases, individual studies tested the
effectiveness of more than one intervention,
or multiple studies were described in the
same article. Berninger et al. (2002); Ber-
ninger et al. (2006) [experiment 4]; Curry
(1997); Dressel (1990); Ferretti, Lewis,
and Andrews-Weckerly (2009); Ferretti,
MacArthur, and Dowdy (2000); Gram-
brell and Chasen (1991); Garcia and de
Caso-Fuertes (2007); Garcia-Sanchez
and Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser
and Brunstein (2007) [two tests]; Gor-
don and Braun (1986); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005) [two tests]; Graham,
MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995); Guas-
tello (2001); Harris, Graham, and Mason
(2006) [two tests]; Jampole, Mathers, and
Konopak (1994); MacArthur, Schwartz,
and Graham (1991); Midgette, Haria, and
MacArthur (2008) [three tests]; Pritchard
and Marshall (1994); Riley (1997); Saw-
yer, Graham, and Harris (1992) [two
tests]; Schunk and Swartz (1993) [article
summarizes two studies, each with two
tests]; Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002).
138. Curry (1997); Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006); Glaser and Brunstein
(2007); Graham, Harris, and Mason
(2005); Harris, Graham, and Mason
(2006); Sawyer, Graham, and Harris
(1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009);
Troia and Graham (2002).
139. Berninger et al. (2002); Curry (1997);
Dressel (1990); Ferretti, Lewis, and
Andrews-Weckerly (2009); Ferretti,
MacArthur, and Dowdy (2000); Glaser
and Brunstein (2007); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Graham, MacArthur,
and Schwartz (1995); Guastello (2001);
Harris, Graham, and Mason (2006); Jam-
pole, Mathers, and Konopak (1994);
MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008);
Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Sawyer,
Graham, and Harris (1992); Schunk and
Swartz (1993); Tracy, Reid, and Graham
(2009); Troia and Graham (2002).
140. Sawyer, Graham, and Harris (1992).
141. Graham and Harris (1989); Graham et al.
(1992); Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et al.
(2006); Mason and Shriner (2008); Saddler
(2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999); Zumbrunn (2010).
142. Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD)
is an approach to writing instruction consist-
ing of a set of practices. While SRSD is not
a branded product that can be purchased,
( 89 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
it should be noted that Dr. Graham has
authored books that provide guidance for
teachers on implementing SRSD, and he
receives royalties from the sale of those
books. Furthermore, Dr. Grahams wife,
Karen Harris, developed SRSD, and Dr. Gra-
ham has authored evaluations of SRSD.
See Appendix C for disclosure of potential
conficts of interest.
143. In discussing evidence for this recommen-
dation, we group together studies that are
moderately and closely aligned because only
one study met the criteria for being closely
aligned.
144. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
145. Note that sample sizes are presented in the
units that the authors selected for their analy-
ses. For example, if the author analyzed pairs
rather than individual students, the sample
size presented is of pairs. In some cases, the
unit of analysis does not match the unit in
which the intervention was delivered. For
example, the analysis was conducted at the
student level even though the intervention
was delivered to pairs of students.
146. The components of the intervention most rel-
evant to the recommendation are the focus of
the description. Dosage for the comparison
group is the same as the intervention group,
except where noted. If it is clear from the
study that the intervention was delivered in
place of typical instruction, that is noted in
the description of the intervention.
147. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, clus-
tering, or multiple comparisons. Effect sizes
that were signifcant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important as defined by the WWC. Only
outcomes that meet WWC evidence standards
are listed here.
148. The panel considered activities to have an
implied audience component if students
shared their writing with other students or
published their writing for others to read.
149. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
150. A range of sample sizes is presented because
the study reported the attrition of three
participants; however, it was not clear from
which group(s) the attrition occurred.
151. This study contained two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparisons between the full
SRSD treatment (strategy and self-regulation
instruction) and the comparison group and
between the full SRSD treatment and the
SRSD treatment without the self-regulation
components were the most relevant to this
recommendation.
152. A range of sample sizes is presented because
the study reported the attrition of three
participants; however, it was not clear from
which group(s) the attrition occurred.
153. This modifcation tested the effectiveness
of explicit self-regulation strategies. Both
treatment groups received the remaining
components of the SRSD model.
154. This study compared two delivery mod-
els (resource pull-out and in-class direct),
and four treatments within each delivery
model. The panel focused its review on
the comparisons between treatments deliv-
ered in the in-class direct model, because
the panel determined this model to be the
most relevant to the broad population for
which this guide is intended. Among the
in-class model treatment comparisons,
only the comparisons between SRSD and
Writers Workshop and between Writers
Workshop and skills-based instruction met
evidence standards (the others did not meet
baseline-equivalence minimums). The panel
determined that the comparison between
SRSD and Writers Workshop was the most
relevant to this recommendation.
155. This study contained two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the SRSD
treatment and the comparison group was
the most relevant to this recommendation.
( 90 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
156. The number of groups assigned to condi-
tions was not clear. As a result, the WWC was
unable to compute adjustments for clustering.
157. This study contained two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparisons between the
SRSD-including-peer-support treatment and
the comparison condition and between the
SRSD-including-peer-support treatment and
the SRSD-only treatment were the most
relevant to this recommendation.
158. This study contained two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparisons between the
SRSD-including-peer-support treatment and
the comparison condition and between the
SRSD-including-peer-support treatment and
the SRSD-only treatment were the most
relevant to this recommendation.
159. This study contained three treatment groups.
The panel determined that the comparisons
between the full-SRSD treatment and the
direct-instruction-in-strategies treatment
and between the full-SRSD treatment and
the partial-SRSD treatment (without the
self-regulation component) were the most
relevant to this recommendation.
160. Two posttests were administered: the frst
in the same setting as the intervention, and
the second in the students classroom by
their regular special education teacher.
161. Some components of the gradual-release
model were present, but participants were
not instructed to full independence.
162. This modifcation tested the effectiveness
of explicit self-regulation strategies. Both
treatment groups received the remaining
components of the SRSD model.
163. This study separately examined results for
typically achieving students and students with
learning disabilities. Only the results for typi-
cally achieving students are presented here.
164. There were substantively important differ-
ences between the intervention and com-
parison groups at baseline, favoring the
comparison group.
165. No pretest data were reported for this out-
come category, so the WWC could not adjust
for any baseline differences.
166. There were substantively important differ-
ences between the intervention and com-
parison groups at baseline, favoring the
comparison group.
167. No pretest data were reported for this out-
come category, so the WWC could not adjust
for any baseline differences.
168. This article summarizes the results of two
studies, each with three treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparisons between the
product-goal treatment and the general-goal
treatment and between the process-goal treat-
ment and the general-goal treatment were
the most relevant to this recommendation.
169. The panel cautions that the process-goal
treatment also produced positive effects on
overall writing quality (1.54*) and sentence
structure (0.21, ns) relative to the product-
goal treatment; however, they do not include
that comparison here as the panel does not
offer recommendations on which type of
goals would be more appropriate for instruc-
tion in this recommendation.
170. The researchers also reported another
maintenance test at seven weeks. This test
required students to verbalize their thoughts
to the assessor while writing and therefore
may have been less refective of students
authentic writing; however, the effects were
similar for overall writing quality (0.53, ns)
and sentence structure (0.22, ns).
171. The panel cautions that the process-goal
treatment also produced positive effects on
overall writing quality (0.39, ns) and sentence
structure (2.33*) relative to the product-goal
treatment; however, the panel does not
include that comparison here as the panel
does not offer recommendations on which
type of goals would be more appropriate for
instruction in this recommendation.
172. The researchers also reported another
maintenance test at seven weeks. This test
required students to verbalize their thoughts
to the assessor while writing and therefore
may have been less refective of students
authentic writing; however, the effects were
similar for overall writing quality (0.59, ns)
and sentence structure (1.14*).
( 91 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
173. This study provided separate results for typi-
cally achieving students and students with
learning disabilities. The results for the full
sample are reported here, because the WWC
was unable to confrm that attrition from the
typically achieving sample was low enough
to meet WWC evidence standards.
174. No pretest data were reported for this outcome
category, so the WWC could not adjust for any
baseline differences. The authors also reported
outcomes in the genre-elements category;
however, they were unable to confirm low
attrition for these outcomes, and no measure
of baseline equivalence was collected.
175. No pretest data were reported for this outcome
category, so the WWC could not adjust for any
baseline differences. The authors also reported
outcomes in the genre-elements category;
however, they were unable to confirm low
attrition for these outcomes, and no measure
of baseline equivalence was collected.
176. This study contained two treatment groups and
a comparison group. The panel determined
that the comparisons between all three condi-
tions were relevant to this recommendation.
177. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
178. This study contained two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the
goal-to-add-information treatment and the
general-goal group was the most relevant
to this recommendation.
179. It was not clear from the text whether there
was any attrition in this study; however, the
two groups met WWC standards for equiva-
lence at baseline. The study was conducted in
three phases. The panel determined that the
practices implemented in phase 2 were the
most relevant to this recommendation; thus,
this row shows student growth from phase
1 to the end of phase 2 of the intervention.
180. Statistical signifcance of WWC-calculated
effect sizes could not be determined
because of missing information on the num-
ber of teachers per district. The effects dis-
played here are for the elementary school
sample only.
181. The panel inferred that students were
encouraged to use the components of the
writing process fexibly in this model, given
the date and the practices of the National
Writing Panel; however, this could not be
confrmed based on the text of the study.
182. Mechanics outcomes were mixed. Students in
the intervention group reduced the frequency
of their spelling errors in their third draft
relative to students in the comparison condi-
tion; however, the intervention produced no
changes on students punctuation errors.
183. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
184. This study contained three treatment groups.
The panel determined that the comparison
between the story-grammar treatment and
the comparison group was the most relevant
to this recommendation.
185. Some components of the gradual release
model were present, but participants were
not instructed to full independence.
186. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
187. Students in both groups were taught the
background knowledge, but only the stu-
dents in the explicit-story-structure-instruc-
tion group were taught the procedures
required to apply the strategy.
188. Only 10 of 20 participants were included in
the maintenance test at four weeks following
the intervention.
189. Some components of the gradual release
model were present, but participants were
not instructed to full independence.
190. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
191. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
192. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
( 92 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
193. The comparison condition included back-
ground instruction on techniques, instruc-
tion in components of the writing process,
identifying other settings in which to use
the process approach, and components of
Recommendation 4.
194. Signifcance level is reported by the author;
no WWC adjustments were required.
195. The text is not explicit as to whether or not
the graphic organizers were genre specifc,
but the panel believed this to be a reason-
able assumption given that the students
were learning to write for select purposes
and the lead author used genre-specific
graphic organizers in the other study exam-
ined for this guide.
196. This study contained three treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the
composition-only (p. 296) treatment and
the treated comparison group was the most
relevant to this recommendation.
197. This study contained three treatment groups.
The panel determined that the comparison
between the imagery-training treatment and
the writing-practice treatment was the most
relevant to this recommendation.
198. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
199. Note that sample sizes are presented in the
units that the authors selected for their analy-
ses. For example, if the author analyzed pairs
rather than individual students, the sample
size presented is of pairs. In some cases, the
unit of analysis does not match the unit in
which the intervention was delivered. For
example, the analysis was conducted at the
student level even though the intervention
was delivered to pairs of students.
200. The components of the intervention most rel-
evant to the recommendation are the focus of
the description. Dosage for the comparison
group is the same as the intervention group,
except where noted. If it is clear from the
study that the intervention was delivered in
place of typical instruction, that is noted in
the description of the intervention.
201. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, clus-
tering, or multiple comparisons. Effect sizes
that were signifcant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
202. The panel considered activities to have an
implied audience component if students
shared their writing with other students or
published their writing for others to read.
203. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
204. This study reported results for typically
achieving students and students with learn-
ing disabilities. Only the results for typically
achieving students are presented here.
205. Instruction was delivered to the whole
class; however, data were collected for only
six students, half of whom were typically
achieving students.
206. This study provided results for three typi-
cally achieving students and three students
with learning disabilities. Only the results
for typically achieving students are pre-
sented here; however, there were also posi-
tive effects for the students with learning
disabilities.
207. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
208. This component was present in both the
treatment condition and the comparison
condition; however, the panel viewed it as
an essential component of the intervention.
209. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Curry (1997); Garcia-Sanchez and
Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Glaser and
Brunstein (2007); Graham, Harris, and
Mason (2005); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Sawyer, Graham, and
Harris (1992); Tracy, Reid, and Graham
( 93 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
(2009). Supplemental evidence: Danoff,
Harris, and Graham (1993); Graham and Har-
ris (1989); Graham et al. (1992); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler et
al. (2004); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999);
Zumbrunn (2010).
210. Study that contributes to the level of evi-
dence: Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009).
Supplemental evidence: Danoff, Harris, and
Graham (1993).
211. Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009).
212. Danoff, Harris, and Graham (1993). Instruc-
tion was delivered to the whole class;
however, data were collected for only six
students, half of whom were typically
achieving students. This is a SCD study that
provides supplemental evidence.
213. Study that contributes to the level of evi-
dence: Glaser and Brunstein (2007).
Supplemental evidence: Zumbrunn (2010).
214. Glaser and Brunstein (2007). This study
contained two treatment groups and a com-
parison group. The comparison between
the full SRSD treatment and the comparison
group is discussed here. The comparison
between the full SRSD treatment and the
SRSD treatment without self-regulation
instruction is discussed in the section exam-
ining the impact of minor variations in the
intervention on the effectiveness of SRSD.
215. Glaser and Brunstein (2007).
216. Zumbrunn (2010). This is a SCD study that
provides supplemental evidence.
217. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Curry (1997); Garcia-Sanchez and
Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Graham, Har-
ris, and Mason (2005); Harris, Graham,
and Mason (2006); Sawyer, Graham,
and Harris (1992). Supplemental evidence:
Graham and Harris (1989); Graham et al.
(1992); Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et al.
(2006); Mason and Shriner (2008); Saddler
(2006); Saddler et al. (2004); Troia, Graham,
and Harris (1999).
218. Graham and Harris (1989). This is a SCD
study that provides supplemental evidence.
219. Saddler (2006). This is a SCD study that
provides supplemental evidence.
220. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Curry (1997); Garcia-Sanchez and
Fidalgo-Redondo (2006); Graham, Harris,
and Mason (2005); Harris, Graham, and
Mason (2006); Sawyer, Graham, and Har-
ris (1992). Supplemental evidence: Graham
et al. (1992); Lane et al. (2008); Lienemann et
al. (2006); Mason and Shriner (2008); Saddler
et al. (2004); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999).
221. Study that contributes to the level of evidence:
Curry (1997). Supplemental evidence: Sad-
dler (2006).
222. Supplemental evidence: Graham and Har-
ris (1989); Graham et al. (1992); Lane et al.
(2008); Lienemann et al. (2006); Mason and
Shriner (2008); Saddler (2006); Saddler et al.
(2004); Troia, Graham, and Harris (1999).
223. Study that contributes to the level of evi-
dence: Garcia-Sanchez and Fidalgo-
Redondo (2006). Supplemental evidence:
Saddler (2006).
224. Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006); Sawyer,
Graham, and Harris (1992).
225. Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006).
226. Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006). Com-
parisons were between SRSD plus an added
peer-support component and a business-as-
usual comparison group.
227. Sawyer, Graham, and Harris (1992).
The comparison was between the full SRSD
instructional model and direct instruction
in strategies.
228. Glaser and Brunstein (2007); Graham,
Harris, and Mason (2005); Harris, Gra-
ham, and Mason (2006); Sawyer, Gra-
ham, and Harris (1992).
229. The only exception is Glaser and Brunstein
(2007), which had a larger sample.
230. Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005); Har-
ris, Graham, and Mason (2006).
231. Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005).
232. Harris, Graham, and Mason (2006).
233. Sawyer, Graham, and Harris (1992).
234. Glaser and Brunstein (2007).
235. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy
( 94 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
(2000); Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz
(1995); Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur
(2008); Schunk and Swartz (1993).
236. Schunk and Swartz (1993) [article summa-
rizes two studies].
237. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weck-
erly (2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and
Dowdy (2000); Graham, MacArthur, and
Schwartz (1995); Midgette, Haria, and
MacArthur (2008).
238. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009); Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy
(2000); Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur
(2008) examined comparisons between
audience goals and general goals and audi-
ence goals and content goals.
239. Schunk and Swartz (1993).
240. Ibid., p. 342.
241. Ibid., p. 342.
242. Ferretti, Lewis, and Andrews-Weckerly
(2009). This study separately examined
results for typically achieving students and
students with learning disabilities. Only the
results for typically achieving students are
presented here.
243. Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy (2000);
Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008).
244. Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995);
Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008).
245. Ferretti, MacArthur, and Dowdy (2000).
246. Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur (2008).
247. Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995).
248. Gambrell and Chasen (1991); Garcia and
de Caso-Fuertes (2007); Gordon and
Braun (1986); Guastello (2001); MacAr-
thur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991);
Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Riley
(1997); Troia and Graham (2002).
249. Gordon and Braun (1996); Guastello
(2001); Pritchard and Marshall (1994).
250. Guastello (2001).
251. Gordon and Braun (1986).
252. Gambrell and Chasen (1991); Garcia
and de Caso-Fuertes (2007); MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Riley
(1997); Troia and Graham (2002).
253. Troia and Graham (2002).
254. MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991).
255. Troia and Graham (2002).
256. Berninger et al. (2002); Berninger et al.
(2006); Dressel (1990); Jampole, Mathers,
and Konopak (1994).
257. Dressel (1990).
258. Berninger et al. (2002); Berninger et al.
(2006); Jampole, Mathers, and Konopak
(1994).
259. Berninger et al. (2002); Jampole, Mathers,
and Konopak (1994).
260. Jampole, Mathers, and Konopak (1994).
261. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Berninger et al. (2002); Denton,
Cope, and Moser (2006); Fogel and
Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000); Jones (1994); Saddler and
Graham (2005).
262. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Berninger et al. (2002); Denton,
Cope, and Moser (2006); Fogel and
Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
263. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Jones (1994).
264. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
265. Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger et al.
(2000); Berninger et al. (2002); Graham,
Harris, and Fink (2000); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006).
266. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Berninger et al. (1997); Berninger
et al. (2000); Berninger et al. (2002);
Denton, Cope, and Moser (2006); Fogel
and Ehri (2000); Graham, Harris, and
Fink-Chorzempa (2002); Graham, Harris,
and Fink (2000); Saddler and Graham
(2005). Supplemental evidence: Saddler,
Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
267. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler
and Graham (2005). Supplemental evi-
dence: Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
268. Jones (1994).
269. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
270. Note that sample sizes are presented in
the units that the authors selected for their
( 95 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
analyses. For example, if the author ana-
lyzed pairs rather than individual students,
the sample size presented is of pairs. In
some cases, the unit of analysis does not
match the unit in which the intervention was
delivered. For example, the analysis was
conducted at the student level even though
the intervention was delivered to pairs of
students.
271. The components of the intervention most
relevant to the recommendation are the
focus of the description. Dosage for the
comparison group is the same as the inter-
vention group except where noted. Where
it was clear from the study that the inter-
vention was delivered in place of typical
instruction, that is noted in the description
of the intervention.
272. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, cluster-
ing, or multiple comparisons. Direct effects
refer to measures of the same skill on which
students were instructed. Effect sizes that
were significant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
273. Generalization effects refer to measures in
the categories of sentence structure, writing
output, or overall writing quality.
274. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
275. This study contains fve treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the
visual-cue and memory-retrieval treatment
and the treated comparison condition was
the most relevant to this recommendation.
276. This study contains two treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the
therapeutic-practice treatment and the com-
parison condition was the most relevant to
this recommendation.
277. The sample size at the six-month mainte-
nance test was 32.
278. Effect sizes are calculated by WWC, and
significance is based on author-reported
effects.
279. This study contains three treatment groups
and a comparison group. The panel deter-
mined that the comparison between the
spelling-only treatment and the treated
comparison condition was the most relevant
to this recommendation.
280. Only 27 pairs of students were included in
the analysis at maintenance.
281. This study contains two treatments and a
comparison group. The panel determined
that the comparison between the full inter-
vention and the exposure-to-text-only com-
parison condition was the most relevant to
this recommendation.
282. The whole class received the intervention;
however, only African American students
who exhibited Black English Vernacular syn-
tactic forms were included in the analysis.
283. The number of students in the analytic sam-
ple varied by outcome.
284. MSW = more-skilled writers; LSW = less-
skilled writers.
285. Sentence-combining is a skill students
employ when revising their writing. Only
the outcomes for the revised draft are
reported here, since the panel would expect
to observe the impacts of sentence combin-
ing instruction on students work only after
they employ sentence combining to revise.
286. Signifcance level is reported by the author;
no WWC adjustments were required.
287. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
288. Note that sample sizes are presented in
the units that the authors selected for their
analyses. For example, if the author ana-
lyzed pairs rather than individual students,
the sample size presented is of pairs. In
some cases, the unit of analysis does not
match the unit in which the intervention was
delivered. For example, the analysis was
conducted at the student level even though
the intervention was delivered to pairs of
students.
( 96 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
289. The components of the intervention most rel-
evant to the recommendation are the focus of
the description. Dosage for the comparison
group is the same as the intervention group
except where noted. Where it was clear from
the study that the intervention was delivered
in place of typical instruction, that is noted in
the description of the intervention.
290. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, cluster-
ing, or multiple comparisons. Direct effects
refer to measures of the same skill on which
students were instructed. Effect sizes that
were significant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
291. Generalization effects refer to measures in
the categories of sentence structure, writing
output, or overall writing quality.
292. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
293. No effects were found for three students;
positive effects were found for one student.
294. Berninger et al. (1997); Denton, Cope,
and Moser (2006); Graham, Harris, and
Fink (2000).
295. Graham, Harris, and Fink (2000).
296. Berninger et al. (1997).
297. Denton, Cope, and Moser (2006).
298. Berninger et al. (2000); Berninger et
al. (2002); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002).
299. Berninger et al. (2000); Berninger et
al. (2002); Graham, Harris, and Fink-
Chorzempa (2002).
300. Berninger et al. (2000), study 2.
301. Berninger et al. (2002). The panel cau-
tions that it is rare to achieve large gains on
standardized measures, and the small size
of the study sample makes it unsuitable to
capture any smaller effects that may have
been present.
302. Graham, Harris, and Fink-Chorzempa
(2002).
303. Graham, Harris, and Fink-Chorzempa
(2002).
304. Gettinger (1993).
305. Studies that contribute to the level of evi-
dence: Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler
and Graham (2005). Supplemental evi-
dence: Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
306. Fogel and Ehri (2000); Saddler and
Graham (2005).
307. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
308. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008); Sad-
dler and Graham (2005).
309. Saddler and Graham (2005).
310. Saddler, Behforooz, and Asaro (2008).
311. Fogel and Ehri (2000).
312. Jones (1994).
313. Jones (1994). No additional adjustments for
multiple comparisons, clustering, or baseline
equivalence were required, so the author-
reported signifcance level is presented here.
314. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Troia and Graham (2002); Yar-
row and Topping (2001).
315. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Yarrow and Topping (2001).
316. Troia and Graham (2002) found posi-
tive effects on persuasive writing quality
immediately after the intervention; negative
effects on story-writing quality were found
at posttest and four weeks after the initial
post-intervention assessment.
317. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988). This is a SCD
study and cannot raise the level of evidence
above minimal,
318. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988); Yarrow and
Topping (2001).
319. Partial alignment: Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck
(1988). Moderate alignment: MacArthur,
Schwartz, and Graham (1991); Pritchard
and Marshall (1994); Yarrow and Top-
ping (2001). Close alignment: Curry
(1997); Troia and Graham (2002). Some
of the studies discussed in Recommenda-
tion 2 incorporated feedback or publishing,
which may be considered components of an
( 97 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
engaged community of writers. The panel
determined that these studies focused on
strategy instruction and not on the charac-
teristics of an engaged community of writ-
ers; therefore, they are not considered in the
evidence level for this recommendation.
320. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Pritchard and Marshall
(1994); Troia and Graham (2002).
321. Yarrow and Topping (2001).
322. Curry (1997); MacArthur, Schwartz, and
Graham (1991); Troia and Graham (2002).
323. Pritchard and Marshall (1994); Yarrow
and Topping (2001).
324. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
325. Note that sample sizes are presented in the
units that the authors selected for their analy-
ses. For example, if the author analyzed pairs
rather than individual students, the sample
size presented is of pairs. In some cases, the
unit of analysis does not match the unit in
which the intervention was delivered. For
example, the analysis was conducted at the
student level even though the intervention
was delivered to pairs of students.
326. The components of the intervention most
relevant to the recommendation are the
focus of the description. Dosage for the
comparison group is the same as the inter-
vention group except where noted. Where
it was clear from the study that the inter-
vention was delivered in place of typical
instruction, that is noted in the description
of the intervention.
327. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, clus-
tering, or multiple comparisons. Effect sizes
that were signifcant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
328. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
329. This study compared two delivery models
(resource pull-out and in-class direct), and
four treatments within each delivery model.
The panel focused its review on the com-
parisons between treatments delivered in
the in-class direct model, because the panel
determined that this model is most relevant
to the broad population for which this guide
is intended. Among the in-class model treat-
ment comparisons, only the comparisons
between SRSD and Writers Workshop and
between Writers Workshop and skills-based
instruction met evidence standards (the
others did not meet baseline equivalence
minimums). The panel determined that the
comparison between Writers Workshop
and skills-based instruction was the most
relevant to this recommendation.
330. Mechanics outcomes were mixed. Students in
the intervention group reduced the frequency
of their spelling errors in their third draft
relative to students in the comparison condi-
tion; however, the intervention produced no
changes on students punctuation errors.
331. Statistical significance of WWC-calculated
effect sizes could not be determined due to
missing information on the number of teach-
ers per district. The effects displayed here are
for the elementary school sample only.
332. Data were collected for only 10 students at
maintenance.
333. RCT = randomized controlled trial; QED =
quasi-experimental design; SCD = single-
case design.
334. Note that sample sizes are presented in
the units that the authors selected for their
analyses. For example, if the author ana-
lyzed pairs rather than individual students,
the sample size presented is of pairs. In
some cases, the unit of analysis does not
match the unit in which the intervention was
delivered. For example, the analysis was
conducted at the student level even though
the intervention was delivered to pairs of
students.
335. The components of the intervention most
relevant to the recommendation are the
focus of the description. Dosage for the
( 98 )
Endnotes (continued) Endnotes (continued)
comparison group is the same as the inter-
vention group except where noted. Where
it was clear from the study that the inter-
vention was delivered in place of typical
instruction, that is noted in the description
of the intervention.
336. All effect sizes and signifcance levels are
calculated by the WWC unless otherwise
noted. WWC calculations sometimes differ
from author-reported results due to WWC
adjustments for baseline differences, clus-
tering, or multiple comparisons. Effect sizes
that were signifcant by WWC calculations or
author calculations where no WWC adjust-
ments were required (p 0.05) are marked
with an asterisk (*); ns refers to effects that
were not signifcant. Outcomes listed in bold
are statistically signifcant or substantively
important. Only outcomes that meet WWC
evidence standards are listed here.
337. Regular classroom instruction or a descrip-
tion of a treated comparison group.
338. Curry (1997); Troia and Graham (2002).
339. Curry (1997).
340. Troia and Graham (2002).
341. MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham
(1991); Pritchard and Marshall (1994);
and Yarrow and Topping (2001) found
positive effects on overall writing quality.
342. MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991).
343. MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991)
also found negative effects on the number
of spelling errors and a positive effect on
punctuation errors.
344. Pritchard and Marshall (1994).
345. Yarrow and Topping (1994).
346. Jerram, Glynn, and Tuck (1988). This is a SCD
study and cannot raise the level of evidence
above minimal.
( 99 )
References References
a
American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, &
National Council on Measurement in Educa-
tion. (1999). The standards for educational
and psychological testing. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association
Publications.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understand-
ings about writing, reading, and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R.,
Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M.,
Brooks, A., & Fulton, C. (2006). Tier 1
and tier 2 early intervention for hand-
writing and composing. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(1), 330.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R.,
Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Brooks, A., . . .
Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of hand-
writing problems in beginning writers:
Transfer from handwriting to composi-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(4), 652666.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbot, R., Begay,
K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., . . . Graham,
S. (2002). Teaching spelling and compo-
sition alone and together: Implications
for the simple view of writing. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291304.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R.,
Brooks, A., Begay, K., Curtin, G., . . .
Graham, S. (2000). Language-based
spelling instruction: Teaching children
to make multiple connections between
spoken and written words. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 117135.
Burke, J., & Cizek, G. J. (2006). Effects of com-
position mode and self-perceived computer
skills on essay scores of sixth graders.
Assessing Writing, 11(3), 148166.
Curry, K. A. (1997). A comparison of the
writing products of students with learn-
ing disabilities in inclusive and resource
room settings using different writing
instruction approaches (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade
writing instruction: A national survey. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907919.
Danoff, B., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1993).
Incorporating strategy instruction within the
writing process in the regular classroom:
Effects on the writing of students with and
without learning disabilities. Journal of Read-
ing Behavior, 25(3), 295322.
Denton, P., Cope, S., & Moser, C. (2006).
The effects of sensorimotor-based inter-
vention versus therapeutic practice on
improving handwriting performance in 6-
to 11-year-old children. American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 60(1), 1627.
Dressel, J. (1990). The effects of listening
to and discussing different qualities
of childrens literature on the narrative
writing of ffth graders. Research in the
Teaching of English, 24(4), 397414.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective prac-
tices for developing reading comprehension.
In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction
(pp. 205242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Englert, C., Hiebert, E., & Stewart, S. (1985).
Spelling unfamiliar words by an analogy
strategy. The Journal of Special Education,
19(3), 291306.
Farr, R., Kelleher, C., Lee, K., & Beverstock, C.
(1989). An analysis of the spelling patterns of
children in grades two through eight: A study
of a national sample of childrens writing.
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Ferretti, R., Lewis, W., & Andrews-Weckerly,
S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure
of students argumentative writing strat-
egies? Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 101(3), 577589.
Ferretti, R., MacArthur, C., & Dowdy, N.
(2000). The effects of an elaborated
goal on the persuasive writing of stu-
dents with learning disabilities and their
normally achieving peers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 694702.
a
Eligible studies that meet WWC evidence standards or meet evidence standards with reservations are indicated by bold text in the
endnotes and references pages. For more information about these studies, please see Appendix D.
( 100 )
References (continued) References (continued)
Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. (2000). Teaching
elementary students who speak Black
English Vernacular to write in Standard
English: Effects of dialect transforma-
tion practice. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 25(2), 212235.
Gambrell, L., & Chasen, S. (1991). Explicit
story structure instruction and the
narrative writing of fourth- and ffth-
grade below-average readers. Reading
Research and Instruction, 31(1), 5462.
Gambrell, L. Malloy, J. & Mazzoni, S. (2007).
Evidence-based best practices for compre-
hensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell,
L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best prac-
tices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 129).
New York: Guilford.
Garcia, J., & de Caso-Fuertes, A. (2007).
Effectiveness of an improvement writ-
ing program according to students
refexivity levels. The Spanish Journal
of Psychology, 10(2), 303313.
Garcia-Sanchez, J., & Fidalgo-Redondo,
R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-
regulatory instruction programs on
students with learning disabilities in
writing products, processes, and self-
effcacy. Learning Disability Quarterly,
29(3), 181211.
Gatlin, P., & Krebs, E. (1992). Operation robot:
Or how we make thinking/writing our own.
In C. B. Olson (Ed.), Thinking/writing: Foster-
ing critical thinking through writing (pp.
411417). New York: HarperCollins.
Gettinger, M. (1993). Effects of invented
spelling and direct instruction on spell-
ing performance of second-grade boys.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26(3), 281291.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improv-
ing fourth-grade students composition
skills: Effects of strategy instruction and
self-regulation procedures. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 297310.
Gordon, C., & Braun, C. (1986). Mental pro-
cesses in reading and writing: A critical
look at self-reports as supportive data.
Journal of Educational Research, 79(5),
292301.
Graham, S. (1982). Measurement of handwriting
skills: A critical review. Diagnostique, 8(1),
3242.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling
instruction for students with learning dis-
abilities: A review. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 22(2), 7898.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S.,
& Whittaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics
in the composing of elementary school stu-
dents: A new methodological approach. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170182.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989). Improving
learning disabled students skills at
composing essays: Self-instructional
strategy training. Exceptional Children,
56(3), 201214.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-
regulation and transcription skills in writing
and writing development. Educational Psy-
chologist, 35, 312.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better:
Teaching writing processes and self-regu-
lation to students with learning problems.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Fink, B. (2000). Is
handwriting causally related to learning
to write? Treatment of handwriting prob-
lems in beginning writers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 620633.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Fink-Chorzempa,
B. (2002). Contribution of spelling
instruction to the spelling, writing, and
reading of poor spellers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669686.
Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink-Chorzempa, B., &
MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary grade teach-
ers instructional adaptations for struggling
writers: A national survey. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 95(2), 279292.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Loynachan, C. (1993).
The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of
Educational Research, 86(6), 363368.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Mason, L. (2005).
Improving the writing performance,
knowledge, and self-effcacy of strug-
gling young writers: The effects of
self-regulated strategy development.
Contemporary Educational Psychology,
30(2), 207241.
( 101 )
References (continued) References (continued)
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz,
S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and
procedural facilitation on the revising
behavior and writing performance of
students with writing and learning prob-
lems. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(2), 230240.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S.,
& Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving the
compositions of students with learning
disabilities using a strategy involving
product and process goal setting. Excep-
tional Children, 58(4), 322334.
Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review
of handwriting research: Progress and pros-
pects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 8(1), 787.
Guastello, E. F. (2001). Parents as partners:
Improving childrens writing. In W. M.
Linke, E. G. Sturtevant, J. A. R. Dugan, &
P. E. Linder (Eds.), Celebrating the voices
of literacy: Yearbook of the college read-
ing association (pp. 279295). Ready-
ville, TN: College Reading Association.
Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006).
Improving the writing, knowledge, and
motivation of struggling young writers:
Effects of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment with and without peer support.
American Educational Research Journal,
43(2), 295337.
Hutchins, P. (1968). Rosies Walk. New York: Simon
& Schuster Childrens Publishing Division.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Retrieved from the Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences website: http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/
Jampole, E., Mathews, F., & Konopak, B.
(1994). Academically gifted students use
of imagery for creative writing. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 28(1), 115.
Jerram, H., Glynn, T., & Tuck, B. (1988).
Responding to the message: Providing
a social context for children learning to
write. Educational Psychology, 8(1), 3140.
Jones, I. (1994). The effect of the word
processor on the written composition of
second-grade pupils. Computers in the
Schools, 11(2), 4354.
Kratochwill, T., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R., Levin,
J., Odom, S., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W.
(2010). Single-case designs technical docu-
mentation. Retrieved from the What Works
Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/
ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Weisenbach,
J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The
effects of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment on the writing performance of
second-grade students with behavioral
and writing diffculties. The Journal of
Special Education, 41(4), 234253.
Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen,
B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the writ-
ing performance of struggling writers
in second grade. The Journal of Special
Education, 40(2), 6678.
Lyon, G. E. (1999). Where Im from: Where poems
come from. Spring, TX: Absey & Company.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S.
(1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revi-
sion strategy in special education class-
rooms. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 6(4), 201210.
Mason, L., & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-regulated
strategy development instruction for
writing an opinion essay: Effects for six
students with emotional/behavior dis-
orders. Reading and Writing, 21, 7193.
McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S., & Mildes,
K. (1994). Individual differences in writing:
Implications of translating fuency. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 86, 256266.
Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C.
(2008). The effects of content and audi-
ence awareness goals for revision on the
persuasive essays of ffth- and eighth-
grade students. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 131151.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The
neglected R: The need for a writing revolu-
tion. Retrieved from the College Entrance
Examination Board website: http://www.
collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writing-
com/neglectedr.pdf
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writ-
ing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out: A
survey of business leaders. Retrieved from
the College Entrance Examination Board
( 102 )
References (continued) References (continued)
website: http://www.collegeboard.com/
prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-
to-work.pdf
Neman, B. (1995). Teaching students to write.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruc-
tion of reading comprehension. Contempo-
rary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317344.
Pipp, L. (2010). Earthquake. Unpublished stu-
dent manuscript, 6th grade. Bonita Canyon
Elementary, Irvine Unifed School District,
Irvine, CA.
Pritchard, R., & Marshall, J. (1994). Evalu-
ation of a tiered model for staff devel-
opment in writing. Research in the
Teaching of English, 28(3), 259285.
Riley, V. (1997). The effects of repeated
writing and story grammar instruction
on the writing performance of third,
fourth and ffth grade students (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). University
of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Ramirez, B. (2006). Star of the Day: Jordan.
Unpublished student manuscript, 1st grade.
Myford Elementary, Tustin Unifed School
District, Irvine, CA.
Saddler, B. (2005). Sentence combining: A sen-
tence-level writing intervention. Reading
Teacher, 58, 468471.
Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing
ability through self-regulated strategy
development: Effects on young writers
with learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 29(4), 291305.
Saddler, B., & Asaro-Saddler, K. (2009). Writ-
ing better sentences: Sentence-combining
instruction in the classroom. Preventing
School Failure, 54(3), 159163.
Saddler, B., Behforooz, B., & Asaro, K.
(2008). The effects of sentence-combin-
ing instruction on the writing of fourth-
grade students with writing diffculties.
The Journal of Special Education, 42(2),
7990.
Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects
of peer-assisted sentence-combining
instruction on the writing performance
of more and less skilled young writ-
ers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
97(1), 4354.
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris,
K. (2004). Preventing writing diffculties:
The effects of planning strategy instruc-
tion on the writing performance of strug-
gling writers. Exceptionality, 12(1), 317.
Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The
nations report card: Writing 2007 (NCES#2008-
468). Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
the National Center for Education Statistics
website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
pubs/main2007/2008468.asp
Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1992). Direct
teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy
instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects
on the composition skills and self-effcacy of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340352.
Schunk, D., & Swartz, C. (1993). Goals
and progress feedback: Effects on self-
effcacy and writing achievement. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 18,
337354.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N.
K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torge-
sen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehen-
sion in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A
practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
publications_reviews.aspx
The Writing Site. (2008). Writing genres.
Retrieved from http://www.thewritingsite.
org/resources/genre/default.asp (website no
longer available).
Tierney, R., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on
the reading-writing relationship: Interactions,
transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 246280).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tracy, B., Reid, R., & Graham, S. (2009).
Teaching young students strategies
for planning and drafting stories:
The impact of self-regulated strategy
development. Journal of Educational
Research, 102(5), 323331.
( 103 )
References (continued) References (continued)
Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effec-
tiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-
directed strategy instruction routine:
Changing the writing performance of
students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4),
290305.
Troia, G., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1999).
Teaching students with learning dis-
abilities to mindfully plan when writing.
Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235252.
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collabora-
tive writing: The effects of metacogni-
tive prompting and structured peer
interaction. British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 71, 261282.
Zumbrunn, S. (2010). Nurturing your stu-
dents writing knowledge, self-regula-
tion, attitudes, and self-effcacy: The
effects of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.