Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 325–354 | Cite as

Fostering writing in upper primary grades: a study into the distinct and combined impact of explicit instruction and peer assistance

  • Fien De Smedt
  • Hilde Van Keer
Article
First Online:

Abstract

As writing is a complex and resource demanding task, high-quality writing instruction is indispensable from primary grades on to support beginning writers in developing effective writing skills. Writing research should therefore provide teachers and schools with evidence-based guidelines for teaching writing in daily practice. In this respect, the present study first investigates the distinct and combined effectiveness of two instructional writing practices (i.e., explicit instruction and writing with peer assistance). Second, the present study aims to examine differential effects for students with different background characteristics (i.e., gender and general achievement level). Eleven teachers and their 206 fifth and sixth-grade students participated in the study and were randomly assigned to either one of the four experimental conditions (i.e., EI + IND: explicit instruction + individual writing, EI + PA: explicit instruction + writing with peer assistance, IND: matched individual practice comparison condition, and PA: matched peer-assisted practice comparison condition) or the business as usual condition. Multilevel analyses showed that EI + IND, EI + PA, and PA students outperformed the business as usual students. As to the distinct impact of explicit instruction, EI + IND students outperformed IND students at posttest, revealing the effectiveness of explicit instruction. As to the effect of peer-assisted writing, there were no significant differences between the individual writing conditions (EI + IND and IND) and the peer-assisted conditions (EI + PA and PA respectively).

Keywords

Writing performance Upper primary grades Explicit instruction Peer assistance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abbuhl, R. (2011). Using models in writing instruction: A comparison with native and nonnative speakers of English. SAGE Open, 1(3), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2158244011426295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babayigit, S. (2015). The dimensions of written expression: Language group and gender differences. Learning and Instruction, 35, 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bean, T., & Steenwyk, F. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297–306. doi: 10.1080/10862968409547523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 193–218. doi: 10.1007/BF01464073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourke, L., & Adams, A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and the early learning goals in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 94–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01434.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & Van den Bergh, H. (2015). Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 32(1), 83–100. doi: 10.1177/0265532214542994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouwer, R., Koster, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (2017). Effects of a strategy-focused instructional program on the writing quality of upper elementary students in The Netherlands. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/edu0000206.Google Scholar
  9. Brunstein, J., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self-regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 922–938. doi: 10.1037/a0024622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, C. A., & Moshenko, B. (1996). Elicitation of knowledge transformational reports while children write narratives. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(4), 271–280. doi: 10.1037/0008-400X.28.4.271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charney, D., & Carlson, R. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(1), 88–125.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write. Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281–333. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 334–344. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1994.9941264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Smedt, F., Merchie, E., Barendse, M., Rosseel, Y., De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2017). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: Studying the relationship with writing performance across students’ gender and achievement level. Reading Research Quarterly. doi: 10.1002/rrq.193.Google Scholar
  16. De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher and class-level correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing performance. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 833–868. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9590-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dumas, J., Lynch, A., Laughlin, J., Smith, E., & Prinz, R. (2001). Promoting intervention fidelity: Conceptual issues, methods and preliminary results form the EARLY ALLIANCE prevention trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(1), 38–47. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00272-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fawcett, S. (1991). Social validity: A note on methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 235–239. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferretti, R., & Lewis, W. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 113–140). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Alvarez, M. (2015). Strategy-focused writing instruction: Just observing and reflecting on a model benefits 6th grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 37–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald, J., & Teasley, A. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children’s writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(6), 424–432. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.6.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flemish Ministry of Education and Training. (2008). Education in Flanders. The Flemish educational landscape in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://www.scholenbanden.be/files/onderwijsinvlaanderennotendopen.pdf.
  23. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi: 10.2307/356600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gomez, R., Parker, R., Lara-Alecio, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. Bilingual Research Journal, 20(2), 209–233. doi: 10.1080/15235882.1996.10668645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Chambers, A. B. (2016). Evidence-based practice and writing instruction: A review of reviews. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Analysis of presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Troia, G. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 879–896. doi: 10.1037/A0029185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. doi: 10.3102/00028312043002295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holliway, D. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 334–349. doi: 10.1080/02568540409595045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2010). Het onderwijs in het schrijven van teksten. De kwaliteit van het schrijfonderwijs in het basisonderwijs. Utrecht: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.Google Scholar
  36. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Buttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157–171. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koster, M., Tribushinina, E., de Jong, P., & van den Bergh, H. (2015). Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 299–324. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. (2013). Teaching planning or sentence-combining strategies: Effective SRSD interventions at different levels of written composition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 328–341. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lowry, P., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99. doi: 10.1177/0021943603259363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 256–266. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning, effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 667–676. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merchie, E., & Van Keer, H. (2016). Stimulating graphical summarization in late elementary education: The relationship between two instructional mind map approaches and student characteristics. Elementary School Journal, 116(3), 487–522. doi: 10.1086/684939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  45. Nixon, J., & Topping, K. (2001). Emergent writing: The impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 41–58. doi: 10.1080/01443410020019821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–48. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ofsted. (2000). Teaching of writing in primary schools: Could do better. Manchester: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  48. Paquette, K. (2009). Integrating the 6 + 1 writing traits model with cross-age tutoring: An investigation of elementary students’ writing development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 28–38. doi: 10.1080/19388070802226261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Pyschologist, 40(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2009). MLwiN Version 2.1. Centre for Multilevel Modelling: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  51. Rhoads, C. (2011). The implications of “contamination” for experimental design in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Studies, 36(1), 76–104. doi: 10.3102/1076998610379133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1–30. doi: 10.1191/0265532205lt295oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schultz, K. (1997). ‘Do you want to be in my story?’ Collaborative writing in an urban elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 253–287. doi: 10.1080/10862969709547958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schunk, D. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172. doi: 10.1080/10573560308219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgements of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. doi: 10.1037/a0027627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutherland, J., & Topping, K. (1999). Collaborative creative writing in eight-year-olds: Comparing cross-ability fixed role and same-ability reciprocal role pairing. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(2), 154–179. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tillema, M., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2012). Quantifying the quality difference between L1 and L2 essays: A rating procedure with bilingual raters and L1 and L2 benchmark essays. Language Testing, 30(1), 71–97. doi: 10.1177/0265532212442647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Troia, G., Harbaugh, A., Shankland, R., Wolbers, K., & Lawrence, A. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 17–44. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., Swanson, E., Boardman, A., Roberts, R., Mohammed, S., et al. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964. doi: 10.3102/0002831211410305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282. doi: 10.1348/000709901158514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writers: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options