Reading the Research: A Meta-Analysis about Writing

I mentioned a PLC I'm part of in a previous post. We meet monthly and discuss a piece of research (selected by one of the members) at each meeting. The study I'm writing about today was discussed by my PLC.

I'm sharing it simply to give access to how I process research when I read - how I organize my thinking before, during, and after reading research. This post is not intended to be an endorsement of the research or its conclusions.

The article is available for free for WI educators through BadgerLink.

Research Questions:

1. Are writing interventions, in general, effective for students with LD (learning disabilities)?
2. Which specific writing interventions are effective?

Methods:

• Meta-analysis (searched literature through December 2011) that included 53 effect sizes (collected from 43 studies)
• Only included studies that "involved a true-experiment with randomization, a quasi-experiment with pretest data, or a within subjects group design" (p. 456)
• Only included studies that "included students in Grades 1 to 12 identified as LD with appropriate supporting information" (p. 456)
• Authors defined writing as content generation or sharing of ideas (rather than the physical act of writing)

Findings:

43 Studies were organized in six subgroups containing four or more studies each with an average weighted mean effect size (ES) calculated for each subgroup

• Writing interventions for students with LD (ES = 0.74)
• Significant positive effect sizes:
• Strategy instruction (ES = 1.09)
• Dictation (ES = 0.55)
• Goal setting (ES = 0.57)
• Process writing (ES = 0.43)
• Not statistically different from zero: procedural facilitation (ES=0.24), prewriting (ES = 0.33)

Limitations:

• Results cannot be generalized beyond the specific population studied (students with an identified learning disability in grades 1 - 12)
• Must fully understand each subgroup (strategy instruction, dictation, goal setting, process writing, procedural facilitation, and prewriting) before applying conclusions of the meta-analysis
• Studied content generation - not mechanics of writing (such as spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation)
• Does not discuss new literacies or digital writing (or the use of assistive technology)

Questions:

• Both goal setting and process writing had statistically significant effect sizes. How are these the same and different? Isn't goal setting part of the writing process?
• What conclusions do other types of studies (such as case studies, interviews, observations, etc.) draw about writing interventions for students with learning disabilities?
• What types of writing interventions are effective for other populations (such as students without disabilities, English language learners, or students with disabilities other than LD)?

Connections to Other Work and Studies:

• WI DPI resources about writing instruction
• Writing Next

Complete citation:

Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 80(4), p. 454-473. DOI: 10.1177/0014402914527238