SIWI improved written language accuracy and complexity outcomes, especially for personal narrative writing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i2 Personal narrative written language outcomes showed moderate to large treatment effects (0.46 to 1.20), with WER II, WER III, words per t-unit and percentage of complete sentences significantly favoring treatment; WER I (0.46) was not statistically significant (p = .26). → Wolbers 2018 q2 i? Persuasive written language outcomes showed substantial effects (0.38 to 1.06) but not all were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. → Wolbers 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Wolbers 2018¶

Wolbers, K., Dostal, H., Graham, S., Branum-Martin, L., Kilpatrick, J., & Saulsburry, R. (2018). Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction: An Efficacy Study in Grades 3-5. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v8n1p99

q2 · i2 · causal · r2

Multilevel regression of five personal narrative language measures (WER I-III, words per t-unit, % complete sentences) scored with the SAWL. The article prints effect sizes in the range 0.46 to 1.20, including 1.20 for WER II (t = 2.90, p = .01), 1.09 for WER III (p = .03), 1.13 for words per t-unit (t = 2.84, p = .02) and 1.09 for % complete sentences (p = .02); WER I's 0.46 was not statistically significant (t = 1.18, p = .26). The printed range supports impact 2.

"For the five personal narrative written language outcomes, the treatment effects were moderate to large (0.46 to 1.20)."

Wolbers 2018 (2)¶

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Multilevel regression of five persuasive language measures. The authors suspect "non-significance of persuasive writing language variables is an indication of small sample size" since effect sizes were comparable to personal narrative outcomes.

"For the five persuasive written language outcomes, treatment effects were also substantial (0.38 to 1.06), although not all were statistically significant at the 0.05 level."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Writing Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-01`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.