No abstract

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children identified with reading difficulties (RD) evidence writing difficulties. We included studies comparing children with RD with (a) typically developing peers matched on age (k ϭ 87 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar reading capabilities (k ϭ 24 studies). Children identified with RD scored lower on measures of writing than their same age peers (g ϭ Ϫ1.25) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality (g ϭ Ϫ0.95), output (g ϭ Ϫ0.66), organization (g ϭ Ϫ0.72), sentence skills (g ϭ Ϫ0.78), vocabulary (g ϭ Ϫ1.17), syntax (g ϭ Ϫ1.07), handwriting (g ϭ Ϫ0.64), and spelling (g ϭ Ϫ1.42). Differences in the writing scores of children identified with RD and same age peers were moderated by whether the writing assessment was a norm-referenced or researcher-designed measure when all writing measures or just spelling were included in the analyses. Depth of orthography for studies involving European languages also moderated differences in the spelling scores of children identified with RD and same age peers. Finally, children identified with RD scored lower on writing than younger peers with similar reading capabilities (g ϭ Ϫ0.94) and more specifically on spelling (Ϫ0.93). We concluded that children with RD experience difficulties with writing, providing support for theoretical propositions of reading and writing connections as well as the importance of writing instruction for these students. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThis meta-analysis of 95 studies found that children with reading difficulties also experience difficulties with writing when compared with their same-aged peers and younger-peers matched on reading capabilities. These findings demonstrate that reading and writing performance are connected, and students with reading difficulties are likely to have writing difficulties. As a result, literacy instruction needs to focus on both of these critical skills.

No abstract

This study examined the intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-regulatory motives for writing and writing achievement of three groups of third- to fifth-grade students in an urban school district: (a) 189 emergent bilingual students receiving services for English language development (ELD); (b) 374 reclassified bilingual students who had exited ELD programs; and (c) 563 native English-speaking students. Intrinsic and self-regulatory writing motives were significantly higher for emergent bilingual students and reclassified bilingual students than their native English-speaking peers. Extrinsic writing motives were significantly higher for reclassified bilingual students than both emergent bilingual and native English-speaking students. Native English-speaking students scored significantly higher on a district standardized writing achievement test than both reclassified and emergent bilingual students, with reclassified bilingual students scoring significantly higher than emergent bilingual students. Finally, after controlling for variance related to student language status (e.g., emergent bilingual), gender, and grade, motives for writing predicted a small but statistically detectable amount of variance in writing achievement. Implications for practice and research are provided.

With more recognition being given to the diverse and changing demographics in education, there is a need to understand how well computer science education is meeting the needs of all learners as it starts to infiltrate K-12 schools. The CAPE framework is a newer model for assessing the equitable delivery of computer science education and can be used to understand a school’s capacity to offer equitable computer science (CS) education, equitable student access to CS education, equitable student participation in CS, and equitable experiences of students taking CS. Since the CAPE framework is a new way to research CS education through an equity-lens, there are few, if any, frameworks that can be leveraged to explore research questions in a complex, multi-school intervention. To address this gap, we used a design-based research approach to create and determine the feasibility of a new model, Theory of Impacts, informed by the CAPE framework (the ToI-CAPE model), for evaluating a multi-school intervention. In this article, we provide a detailed explanation of creating and using the ToI-CAPE model for a specific intervention and the feasibility of using ToI-CAPE across factors based in experiences and how to use this model in other research and evaluation projects. Overall, the use of the ToI-CAPE model can be used to shed light on the critical subcomponents and agents at work in the intervention and the actions necessary across these components and agents to support intended outcomes.

No abstract

Writing is especially challenging for students with disabilities, as 19 out of every 20 of these students experience difficulty learning to write. In order to maximize writing growth, effective instructional practices need to be applied in the general education classroom where many students with special needs are educated. This should minimize special education referrals and maximize the progress of these students as writers. Evidence-based writing practices for the general education classroom include ensuring that students write frequently for varying purposes; creating a pleasant and motivating writing environment; supporting students as they compose; teaching critical skills, processes, and knowledge; and using 21st-century writing tools. It is also important to be sure that practices specifically effective for enhancing the writing growth of students with special needs are applied in both general and special education settings (where some students with disabilities may receive part or all of their writing instruction). This includes methods for preventing writing disabilities, tailoring instruction to meet individual student needs, addressing roadblocks that can impede writing growth, and using specialized writing technology that allows these students to circumvent one or more of their writing challenges.

No abstract