This meta-analysis examined if students' writing performance is improved by reading interventions in studies (k = 54 experiments; 5,018 students) where students were taught how to read and studies (k = 36 investigations; 3,060 students) where students' interaction with words or text was increased through reading or observing others read. Studies included in this review involved true-or quasi-experiments (with pretests) written in English that tested the impact of a reading intervention on the writing performance of students in preschool to Grade 12. Studies were not included if the control condition was a writing intervention, treatment students received writing 746927R ERXXX10.3102/0034654317746927Graham et al.Reading for Writing research-article2017 Graham et al. 244 instruction as part of the reading intervention (unless control students received equivalent writing instruction), control students received a reading intervention (unless treatment students received more reading instruction than controls), study attrition exceeded 20%, less than 10 students were included in any experimental condition, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, teaching reading strengthened writing, resulting in statistically significant effects for an overall measure of writing (effect size [ES] = 0.57) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.63), words written (ES = 0.37), or spelling (ES = 0.56). The impact of teaching reading on writing was maintained over time (ES = 0.37). Having students read text or observe others interact with text also enhanced writing performance, producing a statistically significant impact on an overall measure of writing (ES = 0.35) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.44) or spelling (ES = 0.28). These findings provide support that reading interventions can enhance students' writing performance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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.

This paper reported two studies investigating high school students' academic self-schemas in learning mathematics and their self-congruent learning engagement patterns. Using cluster analyses, Study 1 located two contrasting groups of students holding positive and negative self-schemas in learning mathematics among Chinese participants. MANOVA analyses showed that these two groups of Chinese schematic students differed from each other in the use of achievement goals, approaches to learning, and expected levels of performance. These findings were validated and extended in Study 2 using a culturally different sample, Australian students. Again, cluster analyses successfully classified Australian participants into positive and negative schematic clusters. It was also found that these two groups of schematic students approached learning mathematics in a selfcongruent manner similar to those found in Study 1. The converging results in both studies lent empirical support to the theoretical formulation of positive and negative schematic students and the validity of using the self-schema concept to investigate motivation and learning. The differences in their learning engagement patterns were discussed in terms of students' different academic self-schemas in learning mathematics.

No abstract