A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades Steve Graham Arizona State University Debra McKeown Georgia State University Sharlene Kiuhara Westminister College Karen R. Harris Arizona State University In an effort to identify effective instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, we conducted a meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature, focusing our efforts on true and quasi-experiments. We located 115 documents that included the statistics for computing an effect size (ES). We calculated an average weighted ES for 13 writing interventions. To be included in the analysis, a writing intervention had to be tested in 4 studies. Six writing interventions involved explicitly teaching writing processes, skills, or knowledge. All but 1 of these interventions (grammar instruction) produced a statistically significant effect: strategy instruction (ES  1.02), adding self-regulation to strategy instruction (ES  0.50), text structure instruction (ES  0.59), creativity/imagery instruction (ES  0.70), and teaching transcription skills (ES  0.55). Four writing interventions involved procedures for scaffolding or supporting students’ writing. Each of these interventions produced statistically significant effects: prewriting activities (ES  0.54), peer assistance when writing (ES  0.89), product goals (ES  0.76), and assessing writing (0.42). We also found that word processing (ES  0.47), extra writing (ES  0.30), and comprehensive writing programs (ES  0.42) resulted in a statistically significant improve- ment in the quality of students’ writing. Moderator analyses revealed that the self-regulated strategy development model (ES  1.17) and process approach to writing instruction (ES  0.40) improved how well students wrote. Keywords: writing, composition, meta-analysis, instruction, elementary grades Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.supp The development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association & Council of Chief School Offi- cers, 2010) has made writing and the teaching of writing an integral part of the school reform movement in the United States (Graham, in press). Learning how to write and using writing as a tool for learning received considerable emphasis in CCSS. This document provided benchmarks for a variety of writing skills and applications students are expected to master at each grade and across grades. In the elementary grades, this includes spelling, handwriting, typing, sentence construction (including grammar skills), and strategies for planning and revising. It also includes writing different types of text (persuasive, narrative, and informa- tive), writing for different purposes (facilitate text comprehension and content learning), and using technology to support writing. If elementary grade teachers are to meet CCSS for writing, they need effective instructional tools. Purpose of the Current Review A useful approach for identifying instructional practices that have the power to transform students’ writing is to conduct sys- tematic reviews of writing intervention research. The systematic approach we applied in this review is meta-analysis. This method of review is used to summarize the magnitude and directions of the effects obtained in a set of empirical research studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). In this article, we present a comprehensive meta- analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental writing studies conducted with elementary grade students. The purpose of this review was to identify effective practices for teaching writing to these children. Meta-analysis is well suited to this purpose, as it provides an estimate of a “treatment’s effect under conditions that typify studies in the literature” (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004, p. 34). A review identifying effective writing practices at the elemen- tary level is needed for three reasons. First, studies of teachers’ This article was published Online First July 9, 2012. Steve Graham, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State Uni- versity; Debra McKeown, School of Education, Georgia State University; Sharlene Kiuhara, School of Education, Westminster College; Karen R. Harris, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Steve Graham and Karen R. Harris are authors of some of the studies reviewed in this meta-analysis. Harris developed the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model tested in 14 studies included in the review, and Harris and Graham developed a number of the strategies used in the SRSD studies. The lesson plans and instructional procedures used in SRSD studies are published in two books for teachers. Graham and Harris are authors of these two books. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steve Graham. E-mail: steve.graham@asu.edu Journal of Educational Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 104, No. 4, 879 – 896 0022-0663/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029185 879 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.