Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis

Michael Hebert, Amy Gillespie, Steve Graham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purposes of this review were to determine: (1) if different writing activities were more effective than others in improving students' reading comprehension, and (2) if obtained differences among writing activities was related to how reading comprehension was measured? Meta-analysis was used to examine these questions across studies involving students in grades 1-12. Nineteen studies were located that met inclusion criteria, resulting in 4 writing activities comparisons with 4 or more studies per comparison: summary writing versus answering questions (k = 5), summary writing versus note taking (k = 7), answering questions versus note taking (k = 4), and answering questions versus extended writing activities (k = 6). Effect sizes calculated for each writing activities comparison indicated there were no statistically significant differences for any of these comparisons when effects were averaged over all reading comprehension measures, excluding treatment-inherent measures. However, statistically significant differences were found for two of the comparisons on specific measures. Extended writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on measures where comprehension was assessed via an extended writing activity, whereas summary writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on a free recall measure. The results provide limited support for the theoretical viewpoint that writing activities are differentially effective in improving reading comprehension based on how closely the writing activities are aligned with a particular measure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-138
Number of pages28
JournalReading and Writing
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Reading
comprehension
Students
student
school grade
inclusion

Keywords

  • Meta-analysis
  • Reading
  • Writing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension : A meta-analysis. / Hebert, Michael; Gillespie, Amy; Graham, Steve.

In: Reading and Writing, Vol. 26, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 111-138.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f99557bef27a428ba4cd001daa5ab3dc,
title = "Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "The purposes of this review were to determine: (1) if different writing activities were more effective than others in improving students' reading comprehension, and (2) if obtained differences among writing activities was related to how reading comprehension was measured? Meta-analysis was used to examine these questions across studies involving students in grades 1-12. Nineteen studies were located that met inclusion criteria, resulting in 4 writing activities comparisons with 4 or more studies per comparison: summary writing versus answering questions (k = 5), summary writing versus note taking (k = 7), answering questions versus note taking (k = 4), and answering questions versus extended writing activities (k = 6). Effect sizes calculated for each writing activities comparison indicated there were no statistically significant differences for any of these comparisons when effects were averaged over all reading comprehension measures, excluding treatment-inherent measures. However, statistically significant differences were found for two of the comparisons on specific measures. Extended writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on measures where comprehension was assessed via an extended writing activity, whereas summary writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on a free recall measure. The results provide limited support for the theoretical viewpoint that writing activities are differentially effective in improving reading comprehension based on how closely the writing activities are aligned with a particular measure.",
keywords = "Meta-analysis, Reading, Writing",
author = "Michael Hebert and Amy Gillespie and Steve Graham",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "111--138",
journal = "Reading and Writing",
issn = "0922-4777",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Hebert, Michael

AU - Gillespie, Amy

AU - Graham, Steve

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - The purposes of this review were to determine: (1) if different writing activities were more effective than others in improving students' reading comprehension, and (2) if obtained differences among writing activities was related to how reading comprehension was measured? Meta-analysis was used to examine these questions across studies involving students in grades 1-12. Nineteen studies were located that met inclusion criteria, resulting in 4 writing activities comparisons with 4 or more studies per comparison: summary writing versus answering questions (k = 5), summary writing versus note taking (k = 7), answering questions versus note taking (k = 4), and answering questions versus extended writing activities (k = 6). Effect sizes calculated for each writing activities comparison indicated there were no statistically significant differences for any of these comparisons when effects were averaged over all reading comprehension measures, excluding treatment-inherent measures. However, statistically significant differences were found for two of the comparisons on specific measures. Extended writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on measures where comprehension was assessed via an extended writing activity, whereas summary writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on a free recall measure. The results provide limited support for the theoretical viewpoint that writing activities are differentially effective in improving reading comprehension based on how closely the writing activities are aligned with a particular measure.

AB - The purposes of this review were to determine: (1) if different writing activities were more effective than others in improving students' reading comprehension, and (2) if obtained differences among writing activities was related to how reading comprehension was measured? Meta-analysis was used to examine these questions across studies involving students in grades 1-12. Nineteen studies were located that met inclusion criteria, resulting in 4 writing activities comparisons with 4 or more studies per comparison: summary writing versus answering questions (k = 5), summary writing versus note taking (k = 7), answering questions versus note taking (k = 4), and answering questions versus extended writing activities (k = 6). Effect sizes calculated for each writing activities comparison indicated there were no statistically significant differences for any of these comparisons when effects were averaged over all reading comprehension measures, excluding treatment-inherent measures. However, statistically significant differences were found for two of the comparisons on specific measures. Extended writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on measures where comprehension was assessed via an extended writing activity, whereas summary writing enhanced reading comprehension better than question answering on a free recall measure. The results provide limited support for the theoretical viewpoint that writing activities are differentially effective in improving reading comprehension based on how closely the writing activities are aligned with a particular measure.

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Reading

KW - Writing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872612436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872612436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3

DO - 10.1007/s11145-012-9386-3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84872612436

VL - 26

SP - 111

EP - 138

JO - Reading and Writing

JF - Reading and Writing

SN - 0922-4777

IS - 1

ER -