Structured opportunities to develop written language skills carry only minimal evidence, resting on two secondary-level studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only two studies met WWC standards for the writing recommendation, both at the secondary level, so the evidence level is minimal. → Baker 2014

Evidence¶

Baker 2014¶

Baker, S., Geva, E., Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N., Linan-Thompson, S., Morris, J., Proctor, C. P., & Russell, R. (2014). Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School. What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/19

q2 · i? · review · r?

The guide's evidence summary for Recommendation 3 states "Only two studies met WWC standards", one on writing-instruction professional development and one a complex academic vocabulary intervention, both secondary. The guide adds a broad research consensus that students have fewer opportunities to use language productively in academic settings.

"Only two studies met WWC standards – one study focused on improving writing instruction through PD – the other was a complex academic vocabulary intervention – both were at the secondary level"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Academic and Critical Literacy — outcome: instruction changes it
• Communication Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Integrating oral and written English language instruction into content-area teaching shows positive impacts on content-area acquisition in five RCTs — related
• Learning from fiction is a research area with both recommendations and areas of caution for education — related