Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology 2013 (ICEEPSY 2013)

A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary

education
Fien De Smedt*, Hilde Van Keer
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

Abstract
Effective writing skills are considered to be indispensable to participate in contemporary society. Despite its importance, there
is considerable concern about writing instruction and the writing skills of primary school children. Based on this research
synthesis, we recommend future studies to blend strategy instruction with a structured form of collaborative writing and to
investigate its impact on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. To maximise writing performances, ICT needs to be
integrated with instructional practices combining strategy instruction and collaborative writing. Consequently, writing
practices are properly attuned to the twenty-first century for which children are ought to be prepared.

2013 The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier
Ltd.
2013
Elsevier
Ltd.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection
andpeer-review
peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility
responsibility
of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.
Selection and
of Cognitive-counselling,
research and conference services (c-crcs).
Keywords: Strategy instruction, collaborative writing, ICT

1. Introduction
Effective writing skills are considered to be indispensable to participate and communicate in contemporary
society. Therefore, education is found accountable for preparing children to be socially active by giving them
high quality writing instruction and by doing so, supporting them to develop essential writing skills. Despite its
importance, there is considerable concern about the writing instruction (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007) and the
writing skills of primary school children (Graham & Perin, 2007; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006b;
Rogers & Graham, 2008).
Based on the social cognitive model of writing (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), Graham, Gillespie, and
McKeown (2013) define writing as a goal directed and self-sustained cognitive activity requiring the skillful
management of (a) the writing environment; (b) the constraints imposed by the writing topic; (c) the intentions of
the writer(s); and (d) the processes, knowledge, and skills involved in composing (p.4). In this respect, writing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32(0)9 3310317; fax: +32(0)9 3310320.

E-mail address: Fien.DeSmedt@UGent.be

1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Cognitive-counselling, research and conference services (c-crcs).
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1219

694

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

requires high levels of self-regulation (e.g. planning, revision, and composition strategies) (Graham & Harris,
2000; Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) as well as low-level
transcription skills (e.g. handwriting) (Graham & Harris, 2000). Consequently, research indicates that writing is a
complex activity (Flower & Hayes, 1981), involving cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes (Hidi &
Boscolo, 2006) and demanding the mastery of different types of knowledge (Hillocks, 1987). Bruning and Horn
(2000) suggest that this complex process creates motivational challenges for writers. Especially novice writers
experience cognitive constraints while composing texts (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987), therefore planning,
revision, and fluent text production processes barely occur (McCutchen, 2006; McCutchen, Teske, & Bankston,
2008).
Previous meta-analyses revealed various effective instructional practices for teaching writing to children
(Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Rogers & Graham, 2008) and adolescents (Graham & Perin,
2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008). It, therefore, is worthwhile to zoom in on these instructional practices in order to
reveal possible gaps in current research and to build bridges between these evidence-based writing practices. In
this respect, the present study focusses particularly on strategy instruction, collaborative writing, and the
integration of ICT in primary writing education. These instructional practices are not randomly selected, but
consciously chosen considering current research trends on writing and taking into account the challenges of
twenty-first century communication. Finally, we try to relate the presented instructional practices by offering an
integrated perspective.
2. Method
The present research synthesis applied a snowball-technique, taking meta-analyses and handbooks of research
on writing as starting points, in order to locate relevant theoretical and empirical research studies. The Handbook
of Writing Research (MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006a) and the Handbook of Research on Writing
(Bazerman, 2008) formed our starting point. Additionally, we examined meta-analyses comprising the following
topics: (a) effective writing practices (including strategy instruction, collaborative writing, and/or ICT) (Graham
et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008), (b) strategy instruction in particular (Graham,
2006), (c) the use of computers (Goldberg, Russel, & Cook, 2003), and (d) the use of word processing (BangertDrowns, 1993). Finally, Web Of Knowledge was consulted in order to take into account recent research studies
that are not yet included in the meta-analyses and handbooks of research on writing.
3. Results
3.1. Strategy instruction
Graham (2006) defines strategy instruction as explicitly and systematically teaching students strategies for
planning, revising, and/or editing text (p. 188). The Self-Regulated Strategy Development model (SRSD) is an
influential approach to teach struggling writers strategies for planning, revising, and composing texts (Graham &
Harris, 1993; Graham, Harris, & Troia, 2000; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Saddler, 2002).
An extensive body of evidence points to the effectiveness of strategy instruction to optimise writing skills and
writing performance of school-age children (See meta-analyses Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007;
Rogers & Graham, 2008). Teaching children strategies to plan, write, and revise is effective for different types of
students: (a) students with learning disabilities (e.g. De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Sexton, Harris, & Graham,
1998), (b) struggling writers (e.g. Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006), and (c)
normal writers (e.g. Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Torrance, Fidalgo, & Garcia, 2007). In addition, the effect of
strategy instruction is significant across different text genres: (a) stories (e.g. Graham & Harris, 1989a; Sawyer,
Graham, & Harris, 1992), (b) persuasions (e.g. Graham & Harris, 1989b; Graham, Macarthur, Schwartz, &
Pagevoth, 1992), and (c) expository texts (e.g. Torrance et al., 2007). Although the majority of research on

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

695

strategy instruction is conducted in upper-primary grades (e.g. Wong, Hoskyn, Jai, Ellis, & Watson, 2008),
strategy instruction also seems effective in lower grades (e.g. Lane et al., 2008; Zumbrunn & Bruning, 2013).
Further, research indicates that when self-regulation (e.g. goal setting, self-monitoring) is added to strategy
instruction, the quality of students writing improved (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007; Graham et al., 2005; Harris et
al., 2006; Sawyer et al., 1992).
Studies investigating the impact of strategy instruction on motivation are less conclusive and produce mixed
results. Motivation comprises different areas and is therefore a broad and complex research field (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2002). In comparison with other areas of motivation (e.g. attitude, attribution, ), self-efficacy has
received most attention in research on writing (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Some studies supply evidence
that strategy instruction enhances self-efficacy for writing (e.g. Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b), whereas others
fail to confirm the impact of strategy instruction on self-efficacy for writing (e.g. Danoff, Harris, & Graham,
1993) or writing motivation (e.g. Harris et al., 2006).
Despite increasing empirical evidence on strategy instruction, teachers barely adopt this evidence-based
practice to teach writing (Graham, 2006; Kistner et al., 2010). On the other hand, the process approach to writing
is widespread. Although it is not quite clear what the process approach exactly entails (Pritchard & Honeycutt,
2006), Graham and Perin (2007) indicate a number of underlying principles: a supportive writing environment
where students engage in cycles of planning, translating, and reviewing while they interact with each other, write
for real audiences, and feel responsible for their writing projects. Contrary to the process approach to writing
(Graham & Sandmel, 2011), strategy instruction is sometimes erroneously regarded as not in line with
constructivist thinking (Graham & Harris, 1997a; Harris & Pressley, 1991). Nevertheless, good strategy
instruction can be considered as scaffolded teaching, wherein both teachers and students play an active role in
constructing knowledge (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992). Moreover, meta-analyses
reveal that the process approach is effective (Graham & Sandmel, 2011), but compared to strategy instruction not
so powerful in teaching children to write (Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008).
3.2. Collaborative writing
According to the social cultural theory, writing can no longer be seen as a solitary endeavour. Writing is rather
conceived as a social activity in which coparticipation and guided instruction are essential (Boscolo, 2008;
Englert, 1992; Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006; Nolen, 2007; Prior, 2006).
Lowry, Curtis, and Lowry (2004) define collaborative writing as an iterative and social process that involves
a team on a common objective that negotiates, coordinates, and communicates during the creation of a common
product (p.72). Schultz (1997), however, argues for multiple definitions of collaborative writing that reflect a
variety of collaboration practices, including working in pairs or groups on individual or joint writings, but also
including writing alone for others.
In order to be effective, research indicates that collaborative writing practices have to meet important
conditions. Dale (1994) indicates the following factors affecting the success of collaborative writing groups: (a)
the group members have to be engaged with each other, the topic, and the writing process, (b) there has to be a
certain level of cognitive conflict, so the members need to reach a consensus, and (c) the group members have to
trust each other. Finally, a collaborative writing practice has to be structured. The use of different roles (e.g.
writer, consultant, editor, reviewer, team leader, facilitator,) can encourage writers to explore and experience
the writing process from different viewpoints and mediating practices can help students to coordinate their
collaborative activities (Englert, Berry, & Dunsmore, 2001; Lowry, Curtis, & Lowry, 2004).
Meta-analyses suggest that instructional arrangements, in which students work together and assist each other
during the writing process, have a strong impact on the quality of students writing (Graham et al., 2012; Graham
& Perin, 2007). Quantitative and qualitative studies have operationalised collaborative writing in different
ways, but results show that various forms of collaborative writing are effective: (a) paired writing (e.g. Nixon &
Topping, 2001; Yarrow & Topping, 2001), (b) cross-age peer tutoring (e.g. Paquette, 2009), (c) peer feedback

696

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

(e.g. Olson, 1990), (d) peer collaboration (e.g. Daiute & Dalton, 1993), and (e) group discussions (e.g. De
Bernardi & Antolini, 2007).
It is important to optimise the writing performance of school-age children, but motivating students to write is
of equal importance. Boscolo and Hidi (2007) acknowledge that collaborative writing can have motivational
effects on students. Empirical studies indicate that collaborative writing, besides its positive impact on writing
performance, significantly influences several non-cognitive aspects such as: (a) motivation (e.g. De Bernardi &
Antolini, 2007; Schultz, 1997), (b) self-efficacy (e.g. De Bernardi & Antolini, 2007; Paquette, 2009), (c) attitude
towards writing (De Bernardi & Antolini, 2007; Nixon & Topping, 2001), (d) self-perception (e.g. Yarrow &
Topping, 2001), (e) enjoyment (e.g. Nixon & Topping, 2001; Paquette, 2009), (f) group interactions (e.g. Daiute
& Dalton, 1993), (g) active engagement (e.g. Englert et al., 2001; Schultz, 1997), (h) ownership (e.g. Schultz,
1997), and finally it seems that collaborative writing reduces anxiety to write (e.g. De Bernardi & Antolini,
2007).
Despite the positive influence of collaborative writing practices on cognitive as well as non-cognitive
outcomes, it is not commonly used in primary classrooms (Dale, 1994).
3.3. ICT
Neither educational practice, neither educational research can remain blind for the immense impact of ICT on
communication and writing processes of children (Cutler & Graham, 2008; MacArthur, 2006). Writing has
undertaken a shift from a paper-pencil activity to a technology-driven endeavour (Peterson-Karlan, 2011).
Wollak and Koppenhaver (2011) acknowledge the increased complexity of reading and writing as a result of the
technology-boom. They insist on the integration of these technologies in schools, to guarantee that primary
school children are well-prepared to participate in a technology-infused world.
MacArthur (2006) distinguishes research on the use of technology to support traditional writing outcomes (e.g.
word processor, computer support for the writing process, and assistive technology) from research on new forms
and contexts for writing (e.g. hypermedia and computer-mediated communication). The integration of technology
with writing practices can adopt different forms: (a) technology can support writing (e.g. word processor), (b)
technology-enabled writing (e.g. new sources and tools that enhance sharing and editing), and (c) multimedia
writing (e.g. hypermedia) (Peterson-Karlan, 2011). In addition, Bangert-Drowns (1993) makes a distinction
between several tools, ranging from tools substituting lower order tasks (e.g. word processor) to tools explicitly
stimulating higher order thinking (e.g. tools that explicitly prompt metacognition).
An extensive body of research has focused on the effectiveness of word processing (MacArthur, 2006). Metaanalyses show that the use of word processors has a moderate positive influence on the writing performance of
children (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Goldberg et al., 2003; Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers &
Graham, 2008). Bangert-Drowns (1993) acknowledges the ease in which writers can add, delete, and revise their
text, which in turn allows writers to target higher order decisions. Simultaneously, the researcher recognises that
a typical word processor is not an intelligent tool (i.e., it does not explicitly stimulate metacognitive processes),
therefore he suggests the use of word processors as instructional tools (e.g. by adding metacognitive prompts).
Research on technology-enabled writing and multimedia writing is limited (MacArthur, 2006). More
specifically, in comparison to research on the integration of web 2.0 technologies in secondary and higher
education, research in primary education remains a blind spot. Although, the available research conducted in
primary education seems promising. Liu, Liu, Chen, Lin, and Chen (2011) indicate that a hypermedia approach
facilitates the collaborative process, enhances peer support and ensures a sense of authorship during collaborative
storytelling activities in social media environments.
Considering the social cultural theory, ICT can provide applications that facilitate collaborative work (Daiute
& Dalton, 1993; Schwartz, Van Der Geest, & Smit-Kreuzen, 1992). Additionally, Goldberg et al. (2003) suggest
that the writing process is more collaborative and social when students write in computer classrooms, than when
they write in traditional paper-pen conditions. Students who write on the computer participate more in peerediting work and they share their work more easily with each other. Finally, research indicates the positive

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

697

impact of integrating ICT with writing practices on the motivation of students. Students seem to be more engaged
and motivated when they can use the computer to write (Boscolo & Hidi, 2007; Goldberg et al., 2003).
Despite its potential added value, ICT does not yet comprise an integral part of teaching writing (Cutler &
Graham, 2008).
4. Discussion
Pritchard and Honeycutt (2006) state that there is a continuous need to test theories of teaching writing.
Furthermore, Graham et al. (2013) warn for the inferior quality of much of the intervention research. In this
discussion we will systematically tackle the presented instructional approaches and point out potential research
gaps which future research should consider to investigate further. Finally, we build bridges between the presented
evidence-based instructional approaches by offering an integrated point of view.
The research on the effectiveness of strategy instruction is a well-documented area. However, there are still
some important blind spots in this research literature. First, the majority of the studies particularly focus on the
effectiveness of SRSD (Graham & Harris, 1993; Graham et al., 2000; Harris et al., 2002). Within this model,
students with learning disabilities are the main target group. Although some researchers have examined the
impact of strategy instruction on average and good writers, there is a continuous need to investigate the latter
target groups (Graham, 2006; Graham & Harris, 1997b). Second, the results on the impact of strategy instruction
on motivation are mixed. Despite these inconclusive findings, the area of self-efficacy is particularly well studied,
whereas other areas of motivation have received little research attention (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Third,
the majority of the intervention research employs multiple probes (post, maintenance, and sometimes
generalisation tests) planted within a single school year to examine the effectiveness of strategy instruction.
However, there is an urgent need to record the long-term effects of strategy instruction (Harris, Santangelo, &
Graham, 2008). Finally, regarding the discrepancy between the effectiveness of strategy instruction and its
exceptional implementation in the classroom, we follow the point of view, offered by Harris et al. (2008). In this
view, practitioners and researchers should focus their (research on) instruction on blending different evidencebased practices.
Researchers commonly reject the idea that writing is a solitary endeavour and therefore they accept the
inherently social nature of writing. Nevertheless, the cognitive research studies on writing largely outnumber
the social cultural studies (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006). Therefore additional research on the social
aspects of writing is recommended (Daiute & Dalton, 1993; Englert et al., 2006; Hidi & Boscolo, 2006). In
addition, there is some concern about the quality of the conducted research on collaborative writing (Graham et
al., 2013). Sutherland and Topping (1999) state that the few satisfying studies are particularly conducted with
older writers and therefore the results are not automatically applicable to younger writers. Finally, intervention
studies investigating collaborative writing mainly apply a pre-posttest design, without considering whether the
effects are maintained over a longer period of time and/or generalised across different writing genres.
An extensive body of research has focused on the effectiveness of word processing, however ICT holds
greater potential than the use of technology-supporting tools. We belief that research on ICT and writing has
certainly not fully reached its boundaries and therefore there are many unexplored research areas. Following
MacArthur (2006), we first recommend additional research to explore the possibilities to integrate new forms and
contexts of writing into writing education. In this respect, there is a critical need for research on technologyenabled writing and multimedia writing. Peterson-Karlan (2011) argues that it absolutely essential to investigate
current technologies that support students with learning disabilities in their writing. In addition, we suggest that
this necessity also applies to normally achieving students. Second, MacArthur (2006) recommends further
empirical research on the cognitive and social effects of ICT on writing.

698

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

To tie the abovementioned research areas on writing instruction together, we recommend future research to
focus on blending the presented instructional practices (strategy instruction, collaborative writing, and ICT)
and to investigate its combined effectiveness. Moreover, prominent researchers on strategy instruction argue to
combine strategy instruction with other instructional writing practices, such as the process approach (e.g. Danoff
et al., 1993) or peer assistance (e.g. Harris et al., 2006), to optimise students writing performance (Graham,
2006; Graham et al., 2000).
Based on the results of the present research synthesis, we now put forward a productive combination of the
evidence-based practices. Several reasons for this integrated view are indicated.
First, we suggest to combine strategy instruction with collaborative writing because of their
complementary nature. Strategy instruction is imperative for students to take in new knowledge or to refine
existing knowledge, whereas peer collaboration is especially preferable to exercise, integrate, and reflect upon the
knowledge students have gained from experts (Daiute & Dalton, 1993). Therefore, a blend of both writing
practices will enhance knowledge transmission as well as knowledge construction.
Second, the present study reveals the effectiveness of strategy instruction on students writing performances,
whereas research on the influence of strategy instruction on motivation shows mixed results. Furthermore,
research on collaborative writing indicates significant influences on non-cognitive outcomes such as motivation.
In this respect, a combination of strategy instruction and collaborative writing seems a productive attempt to
increase the quality of students writing as well as the motivation of students to write.
Third, previous attempts to combine strategy instruction and peer assistance offer a rather weak application of
peer assistance (e.g. Graham et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2006). The peer assistance condition is quite unstructured.
For example, students are not positioned in different roles (Englert et al., 2006). What is more, the researchers in
question, acknowledge the need for further research on combining strategy instruction and collaborative writing
(Harris et al., 2006; Harris et al., 2008). Consequently, we contend for the combined action of strategy instruction
and a powerful and structured application of collaborative writing.
Fourth, we put forward the need to integrate ICT with instructional approaches combining strategy
instruction and collaborative writing. Peterson-Karlan (2011) has already indicated the urgency to integrate
emerging technologies with evidence-based writing interventions. In this view, a great deal of research evidence
on strategy instruction is yet established, suggesting that the integration of ICT is a next step in research on the
effectiveness of this writing approach. Furthermore, ICT is of substantial importance to facilitate collaborative
work (Daiute & Dalton, 1993; Goldberg et al., 2003; Schwartz et al., 1992). Consequently, the integration of ICT
with instructional approaches is not only a logical outcome considering the current knowledge society
(MacArthur, 2006), but it also holds a great potential to enhance writing practices such as strategy instruction
and collaborative writing.
In our opinion, this study reveals important avenues for future research, considering previous research on
writing and taking the influence of the twenty-first century on communication into account. Therefore, we finish
this study by proposing our final conclusion.
In sum, we claim that it would be interesting for future intervention studies, to combine strategy instruction
with a structured form of collaborative writing and investigate its impact on cognitive as well as non-cognitive
outcomes. In addition, we highlight the urge to integrate ICT with instructional practices combining strategy
instruction and collaborative writing in order to maximise students writing performances. Simultaneously, by
integrating ICT, writing practices are properly attuned to the twenty-first century for which todays children are
ought to be prepared.
References
Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

699

Bazerman, C. (2008). Handbook of research on writing. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007) The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing. Writing and
Motivation (pp. 1-16). Oxford: Elsevier.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37. doi: 10.1207/S15326985ep3501_4
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
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: a national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919.
doi: 10.1037/A0012656
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
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
Danoff, B., Harris, K., & 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 Reading Behavior, 25(3), 295-324. doi:
10.1080/10862969009547819
De Bernardi, B., & Antolini, E. (2007) Fostering studentswillingness and interest in argumentative writing: an intervention study. In G.
Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing. Writing and Motivation (pp. 183-202). Oxford: Elsevier.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and
learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 203-222. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.203
Englert, C., Berry, R., & Dunsmore, K. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process: another perspective on the apprentice and the
scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 152-171. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400205
Englert, C., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham
& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 208-221). New York: The Guilford Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills: effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation
procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 297-310. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297
Goldberg, A., Russel, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The
Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 3-51.
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.
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
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989a). Components-analysis of cognitive strategy instruction - effects on learning-disabled students' compositions
and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353-361. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.353
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students skills at composing essays: self-instructional strategy training.
Exceptional Children, 56(3), 201-214.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers.
Elementary School Journal 94(2), 169-181. doi: 10.1086/461758
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997a). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School
Psychology Review, 26(3), 414-424.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997b). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1),
102-114. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0920
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational
Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2

700

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

Graham, S., Harris, K., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers:
the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
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.
Graham, S., Macarthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Pagevoth, V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a
strategy involving product and process goal-setting. Exceptional Children, 58(4), 322-334.
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
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
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
Harris, K., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., & Mason, L. (2011). Self-regulated learning processes and children's writing. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187-202). New York:
Routledge.
Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: effects of selfregulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340. doi:
10.3102/00028312043002295
Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 110-115. doi:
10.1207/s15430421tip4102_7
Harris, K., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction - interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5),
392-404.
Harris, K., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: going beyond NLEs to a more balanced
approach. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 395-408. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9062-9
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research
(pp. 144-157). New York: The Guilford Press.
Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 44(8), 71-82.
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), 157171. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9055-3
Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the
writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 234253. doi: 10.1177/0022466907310370
Liu, CC., Liu, KP., Chen, WH., Lin, CP., & Chen, GD. (2011). Collaborative storytelling experiences in social media: Influence of peerassistance mechanisms. Computers & Education, 57, 1544-1556. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.002
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
MacArthur, C. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 248-262). New York: Guilford Press.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006a). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006b). Introduction. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
writing research (pp. 1-10). New York: The Guilford Press.
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children's writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 115-130). New York: The Guilford Press.
McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and cognition: implications of the cognitive architecture for learning to write and
writing to learn. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 451-470). New York: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Fien De Smedt and Hilde Van Keer / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112 (2014) 693 701

701

Nixon, J., & Topping, K. (2001). Emergent writing: the impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 41-58. doi:
10.1080/01443410020019821
Olson, V. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 2229.
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
Peterson-Karlan, G. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic disabilities: resent research trends and
findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 39-62.
Pressley, M., Harris, K., & Marks, M. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review, 4(1), 3-31.
doi: 10.1007/Bf01322393
Pritchard, R., & Honeycutt, R. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction: examining its effectiveness. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham
& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 275-290). New York: The Guilford Press.
Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(4), 879-906. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879
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-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3),
340-352. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.340
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
Schwartz, H., Van Der Geest, T., & Smit-Kreuzen, M. (1992). Computers in writing instruction. International Journal of Educational
Research, 17(1), 37-50. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(92)90040-D
Sexton, M., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: effects on essay writing and
attributions. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 295-311.
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
Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & Garcia, J. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning
and Instruction, 17(3), 265-285. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.003
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood
through adolescence. The development of achievement motivation (pp. 91-120). New York: Academic Press.
Wollak, B., & Koppenhaver, D. (2011). Developing technology-supported, evidence-based writing instruction for adolescents with significant
writing disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 1-23.
Wong, B., Hoskyn, M., Jai, D., Ellis, P., & Watson, K. (2008). The comparative efficacy of two approaches to teaching sixth graders opinion
essay writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 757-784. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.004
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
Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2007) A writer's discipline: the development of self-regulatory skills. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.),
Studies in Writing: Vol. 19. Writing and Motivation (1 ed., pp. 51-69). Oxford: Elsevier.
Zimmerman, B., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writers: a social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 73-101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
Zumbrunn, S., & Bruning, R. (2013). Improving the writing and knowledge of emergent writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy
development. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 91-110. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9384-5