This systematic historical descriptive review was conducted to determine the trends and status of research using true and quasi-experiments (with pretests) to test the effectiveness of writing practices with students in kindergarten to grade 12. The analyses included 859 writing treatment/control comparisons, which were included in two previous meta-analyses ( Collins et al., 2025 ; Graham et al., 2023 ). The search for studies in these two reviews ended in September 2021 and December 2022, respectively. The use of true and quasi-experiments (with pretests) to test writing practices increased dramatically across the decades from the 1930s onward, with 290 treatment/control comparisons conducted in the 2010s. The expansion in the number of studies conducted was accompanied by an increase in study quality as measured by internal/external research design indicators. Research in this area moved from an exclusive study of teaching spelling and handwriting in the 1930s through the 1950s to the study of a diverse array of writing practices in the decades that followed. As the number of writing practices tested increased, so did the number of measures used to assess the effects of these instructional methods. Most of the writing treatment/control comparisons originated in the United States/Canada, but starting in the 1970s European researchers began to make significant contributions to testing the effectiveness of writing practices. The most prolific researchers from 1931 onward were Steve Graham, Karen Harris, Gert Rijlaarsdam, and Sue Del La Paz. Limitations and suggestions for future research are provided.

Against the backdrop of rapid developments of algorithm-based feedback tools — from older tools mainly providing feedback on grammar and spelling to advanced tools based on generative artificial intelligence offering more comprehensive writing support — our meta-analysis examines to what extent algorithm-based feedback improves not only surface- (e.g., grammar and spelling) but also deep-level (e.g., structure, content, coherence) writing outcomes for different learners at secondary school and university. We reviewed experimental and quasi-experimental studies published between 2011 and the end of 2024, covering five European languages. Results from the 33 included studies indicated that algorithm-based feedback was beneficial for improving writing in general ( g = 0.36). Specifically, positive effects were observed for surface-level outcomes at posttest ( g = 0.31), though no lasting effects were found at maintenance ( g = −0.02). In contrast, deep-level writing outcomes showed sustained improvement, with positive effects both at posttest ( g = 0.31) and maintenance ( g = 0.54). No significant differences between secondary and university students were observed. However, L2 learners, in general, seemed to profit most from algorithm-based feedback, showing gains in surface- ( g = 0.77, bordering on significance), and deep-level outcomes ( g = 0.46). While no significant differences were found between the effects of specific types of algorithm-based feedback tools, feedback from Grammarly and Pigai statistically enhanced students’ writing, but effects of ChatGPT feedback were non-significant. We discuss implications for future research and educational practice, also in light of the small transfer of learning to new writing tasks. • Small effects for surface- and deep-level outcomes at posttest. • L2 learners particularly benefit. • No effect for surface-level outcomes at maintenance. • No significant difference between tools. • Small transfer effect to new writing tasks.

Peer evaluation is widely recognized for its educational benefits; however, its reliability and validity, particularly among adolescent second-language (L2) writers at the early stages of English language and literacy development, remain insufficiently explored. This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study investigated the reliability and validity of peer evaluation in English argumentative writing among 35 Grade 10 and 37 Grade 12 students from a public high school in Beijing, China. Twelve of the participating students (six at each grade) were interviewed about the validity, reliability, and value of peer evaluation. The findings indicated that peer evaluations demonstrated high levels of reliability and validity, with peer-assessed writing scores closely aligning with inter-teacher assessments. Notably, variations were observed among Grade 10 students, particularly in the evaluation of lower-order writing skills, such as grammar and vocabulary, which exhibited reduced validity. These results underscore the potential of peer evaluation in assessing higher-order content-level writing across varying levels of L2 English writing proficiency. The study also highlights areas where adolescent L2 writers may require additional support to enhance the effectiveness of peer evaluation practices in English argumentative writing. Implications for improving English argumentative writing instruction and refining peer evaluation strategies in high school L2 English classrooms are discussed. • Peer evaluation shows high reliability, similar to inter-teacher rating. • Peer evaluation works well for higher-order skills in L2 argumentative writing. • 10th graders struggled with evaluating lower-order skills like grammar. • 12th graders evaluate lower- and higher-order skills with greater validity than 10th graders.

There is an assumption in education that allowing students to choose their writing topics and positions is beneficial; however, there is little research to support this belief, particularly from the students’ perspectives. In the present study, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with students at a large university in the Southwest of the United States after they completed two in-class argumentative writing assignments in a course on exceptional children, one where they chose their writing position and one where they were assigned their writing position. As a group, these 20 students (13 female, 7 male) were above average writers in their first to third year of study, and the majority of them were education majors (70%), followed by arts and sciences (25%), and design and the arts (5%). The interview protocol focused upon their shifting perspectives on the underlying motivational construct of choice related to this and other writing assignments. Taking a grounded theory approach to thematic analysis, findings indicated that having choice in writing was important because it allowed students to write about topics that they find easier, more interesting, and possess greater knowledge. Choice also allowed students to demonstrate their autonomy, which they believed, influenced their motivation and writing quality/grades. While the university students in this study generally preferred choice, a majority of them identified benefits of not choosing, including opportunities to improve writing tenacity, enhance their writing skills, and achieve new perspectives.

This article presents the design principles underlying the instruction provided in a Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) study that resulted in substantial improvements in the opinion writing of second and third grade students. The analysis focused on the SRSD instruction students received in the classroom as well as the practice-based professional development (PBPD) teachers received on how to implement SRSD for opinion writing. A newly developed model of writing that draws on both social/contextual and cognitive conceptualizations was used to identify the theoretical aims, instructional focuses, and corresponding instructional activities for (1) creating a PBPD community where teachers learned to apply SRSD for opinion writing, (2) reshaping teachers’ classrooms so that these writing communities were conducive to SRSD instruction, (3) strengthening the capabilities and motivations of teachers to provide SRSD instruction for opinion writing, and (4) improving the capabilities and motivations of students to compose more convincing opinion essays. This analysis is the most comprehensive examination of SRSD instruction presently available, providing greater clarity for researchers and practitioners on how this instructional approach operates and achieves its aims. Our analyses also demonstrated that there is a high degree of interconnectivity among the instructional activities underlying SRSD, as many of them are designed to meet multiple aims, cutting across professional development, classroom instruction, and student and teacher development.

Studies on writing development have grown in diversity and depth in recent decades, but remain fragmented along lines of theory, method, and age ranges or populations studied. Meaningful, competent writing performances that meet the demands of the moment rely on many kinds of well-practiced and deeply understood capacities working together; however, these capacities’ realization and developmental trajectories can vary from one individual to another. Without an integrated framework to understand lifespan development of writing abilities in its variation, high-stakes decisions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment are often made in unsystematic ways that may fail to support the development they are intended to facilitate; further, research may not consider the range of issues at stake in studying writing in any particular moment.To address this need and synthesize what is known about the various dimensions of writing development at different ages, the coauthors of this essay have engaged in sustained discussion, drawing on a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Drawing on research from different disciplinary perspectives, they propose eight principles upon which an account of writing development consistent with research findings could be founded. These principles are proposed as a basis for further lines of inquiry into how writing develops across the lifespan.

Writing intervention research can enhance our knowledge about writing, its development, and how to teach it effectively. Despite the importance of such research, many of the writing intervention studies conducted previously were of poor quality, as documented by Graham and colleagues in a series of meta-analyses (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008). In this article, we offer 12 recommendations for conducting high quality intervention research, recommendations that draw on those meta-analyses as well as previous work on improving the quality of intervention research (Pressley & Harris, 1994a, 1994b) and our experiences as writing intervention researchers and editors of journals that publish intervention research (including the Journal of Writing Research) . The recommendations address issues and actions involved in designing, conducting, and reporting such research.