Process writing yields a meaningful but not statistically significant effect (g = 0.51) on US ELL students' writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Process writing yielded g = 0.51, described as meaningful but not statistically significant. → Aitken 2026

Evidence¶

Aitken 2026¶

Aitken, A. A., Graham, S., Cao, Y., & Nusrat, A. (2026). The Impact of Writing Instruction for English Language Learners in the United States: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10197-6

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Weighted mean effect size for the process writing approach, one of the two most frequently implemented instructional methods. The article reports process writing "yielded a meaningful but not statistically significant result" with g = 0.51; no significance test statistic is printed for this estimate.

"strategy instruction ( g = 0.36) was statistically significant, while process writ - ing (g = 0.51) yielded a meaningful but not statistically significant result."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Writing instruction produces a statistically significant positive overall effect on the writing performance of K-12 English language learners in the United States (g = 0.33) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Strategy instruction significantly improves the writing of US ELL students (g = 0.36) — related
• The pooled effect of writing instruction for US ELL students is robust to sensitivity analyses but funnel plot asymmetry suggests possible missing positive effect sizes — a broader claim this one bears on
• Writing interventions improve writing quality, the most frequently assessed outcome, with an effect of 0.33 for US ELL students — related