Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi:10.2307/356600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nixon, J., & Topping, K. (2001). Emergent writing: The impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 41–58. doi:10.1080/01443410020019821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ofsted. (2000). Teaching of writing in primary schools: Could do better. Manchester: Ofsted.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2009). MLwiN Version 2.1. Centre for Multilevel Modelling: University of Bristol.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1–30. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt295oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Fien De Smedt & Hilde Van Keer

Authors
  1. Fien De Smedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Van Keer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fien De Smedt.

Appendix

Appendix

Overview of the memory and strategy cards explaining the writing knowledge and writing strategies taught.

figure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H. Fostering writing in upper primary grades: a study into the distinct and combined impact of explicit instruction and peer assistance. Read Writ 31, 325–354 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9787-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9787-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation