No abstract

Since the early 1970s, many educators have touted writing as a means of enhancing learning. Several reasons have been suggested for this purported enhancement: that writing is a form of learning, that writing approximates human speech, that writing supports learning strategies. Alternatively, some researchers have cautioned that the educative effects of writing may be contingent on the contexts in which it occurs. The research on writing’s effects on learning is ambiguous. This meta-analysis of 48 school-based writing-to-learn programs shows that writing can have a small, positive impact on conventional measures of academic achievement. Two factors predicted enhanced effects: the use of metacognitive prompts and increased treatment length. Two factors predicted reduced effects: implementation in Grades 6–8 and longer writing assignments

Feedback is an essential construct for many theories of learning and instruction, and an understanding of the conditions for effective feedback should facilitate both theoretical development and instructional practice. In an early review of feedback effects in written instruction, Kulhavy (1977) proposed that feedback’s chief instructional significance is to correct errors. This error-correcting action was thought to be a function of presentation timing, response certainty, and whether students could merely copy answers from feedback without having to generate their own. The present meta-analysis reviewed 58 effect sizes from 40 reports. Feedback effects were found to vary with control for presearch availability, type of feedback, use of pretests, and type of instruction and could be quite large under optimal conditions. Mediated intentional feedback for retrieval and application of specific knowledge appears to stimulate the correction of erroneous responses in situations where its mindful ( Salomon & Globerson, 1987 ) reception is encouraged.