TY - JOUR
T1 - The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics
T2 - A Meta-Analysis
AU - Graham, Steve
AU - Kiuhara, Sharlene A.
AU - MacKay, Meade
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 AERA.
PY - 2020/4/1
Y1 - 2020/4/1
N2 - This meta-analysis examined if students writing about content material in science, social studies, and mathematics facilitated learning (k = 56 experiments). Studies in this review were true or quasi-experiments (with pretests), written in English, and conducted with students in Grades 1 to 12 in which the writing-to-learn activity was part of instruction. Studies were not included if the control condition used writing to support learning (except when treatment students spent more time engaging in writing-to-learn activities), study attrition exceeded 20%, instructional time and content coverage differed between treatment and control conditions, pretest scores approached ceiling levels, letter grades were the learning outcome, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, writing about content reliably enhanced learning (effect size = 0.30). It was equally effective at improving learning in science, social studies, and mathematics as well as the learning of elementary, middle, and high school students. Writing-to-learn effects were not moderated by the features of writing activities, instruction, or assessment. Furthermore, variability in obtained effects were not related to features of study quality. Directions for future research and implications for practice are provided.
AB - This meta-analysis examined if students writing about content material in science, social studies, and mathematics facilitated learning (k = 56 experiments). Studies in this review were true or quasi-experiments (with pretests), written in English, and conducted with students in Grades 1 to 12 in which the writing-to-learn activity was part of instruction. Studies were not included if the control condition used writing to support learning (except when treatment students spent more time engaging in writing-to-learn activities), study attrition exceeded 20%, instructional time and content coverage differed between treatment and control conditions, pretest scores approached ceiling levels, letter grades were the learning outcome, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, writing about content reliably enhanced learning (effect size = 0.30). It was equally effective at improving learning in science, social studies, and mathematics as well as the learning of elementary, middle, and high school students. Writing-to-learn effects were not moderated by the features of writing activities, instruction, or assessment. Furthermore, variability in obtained effects were not related to features of study quality. Directions for future research and implications for practice are provided.
KW - instruction
KW - learning
KW - mathematics
KW - science
KW - social studies
KW - writing
KW - writing-to-learn
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082130011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85082130011&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3102/0034654320914744
DO - 10.3102/0034654320914744
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85082130011
SN - 0034-6543
VL - 90
SP - 179
EP - 226
JO - Review of Educational Research
JF - Review of Educational Research
IS - 2
ER -