Situated within the historical and current state of writing and adolescent literacy research, we conducted a systematic literature review in which we screened 2,871 articles to determine the prevalent themes in current research on writing tasks in content-area classrooms. Each of the 37 final studies was evaluated and coded using seven methodological quality indicators. In this article, we further explore the quality analysis step of the review. Specifically, we critique the relative strengths and weaknesses of the current research in the area of content-area writing. Additionally, we identify exemplars for each of our primary recommendations for rigorous literacy research.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic literature review.
2.
AcostaS.GarzaT. (2011). The podcasting playbook: A typology of evidence-based pedagogy for pre-K classrooms with English language learners. Research in the Schools, 18, 40–57.
3.
*AkkusR.GunelM.HandB. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.
4.
AlbertM.LabergeS.McGuireW. (2012). Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: The views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 64, 661–676.
5.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35, 33–40.
6.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.HurleyM. M.WilkinsonB. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.
7.
BartelsN. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 737–753. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.06.001
8.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
9.
BoardmanA. G.RobertsG.VaughnS.WexlerJ.MurrayC. S.KosanovichM. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
10.
BrozoW. G.MoormanG.MeyerC.StewartT. (2013). Content area reading and disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 353–357. doi:10.1002/JAAL.153
11.
*BuxtonC. A.Allexsaht-SniderM.SurielR.KayumovaS.ChoiY.BoutonB.BakerM. (2013). Using educative assessments to support science teaching for middle school English-language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 347–366.
12.
CainK.ParrilaR. (2014). Introduction to the special issue. Theories of reading: What we have learned from two decades of scientific research. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 1–4.
13.
*ConnerL. N. (2007). Cueing metacognition to improve researching and essay writing in a final year high school biology class. Research in Science Education, 37, 1–16.
14.
*GloggerI.SchwonkeR.HolzapfelL.NücklesM.RenklA. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468.
15.
GoatleyV. (2012). Slicing and dicing the ELA Common Core Standards. Principal, 18, 16–18.
16.
GoldmanS. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22, 89–116.
17.
GrahamS. (2008). Research on writing development, practice, instruction, and assessment: Introduction to a special issue of reading and writing. Reading and Writing, 21, 1–2. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9069-7
18.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
19.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007b). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 313–335. doi:10.1080/10888430701530664
20.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007c). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
21.
*GrimbergB. I.HandB. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 503–521.
22.
HallL. A. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21, 403–414.
23.
*HandB.HohenshellL.PrainV. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210.
24.
*HandB.WallaceC. W.YangE. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149.
25.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1999). Programmatic intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution of self-regulated strategy development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 251–262.
26.
*HaugwitzM.NesbitJ. C.SandmannA. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536–543. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.004
27.
Hemsley-BrownJ.SharpC. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: A systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29, 449–471.
28.
*HohenshellL. M.HandB. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289.
29.
*KleinP. D.RoseM. A. (2010). Teaching argument and explanation to prepare junior students for writing to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 433–461.
30.
*McDermottM. A.HandB. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9225-6
31.
MetrosS. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into Practice, 47, 102–109. doi:10.1080/00405840801992264
32.
MillerD.McTigueE. M.ScottC. E. (under review). Writing tasks in content-area instruction: A systematic review of the literature.
33.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, 1–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
34.
*Monte-SanoC. (2008). Qualities of historical writing instruction: A comparative case study of two teachers’ practices. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1045–1079. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831208319733
35.
*Monte-SanoC. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41, 212–249.
36.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006). Reading at risk: How states can respond to the crisis in adolescent reading. Alexandria, VA: Author.
37.
National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
38.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: Author.
39.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education: Committee on scientific principles for education research. In ShavelsonR. J.TowneL. (Eds.), Center for Education: Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
NelsonT. (2011). Critiquing scholarship as formal review: The role and responsibilities of readers for academic journals. Issues in Teacher Education, 20, 5–15.
RiskoV. J.RollerC. M.CumminsC.BeanR. M.BlockC. C.AndersP. L.FloodJ. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252–288.
43.
*RivardL. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers?Science Education, 88, 420–442.
44.
RobertsT. J.ShambrookJ. (2012). Academic excellence: A commentary and reflections on the inherent value of peer review. Journal of Research Administration, 43, 33–38.
45.
RuthL. P. (2003). Who has the power? Policymaking and politics in the English language arts. In FloodJ.LappD.SquireJ. R.JensenJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
46.
ScottC. E. (2013). Every teacher a teacher of reading?: A systematic literature review of content-area literacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
SlavinR. E.CheungA.GroffC.LakeC.SlavinR. E.CheungA.…LakeC. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best- evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290–322.
49.
SquireJ. R. (2003). The history of the profession. In FloodJ.LappD.SquireJ. R.JensenJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
50.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57, 12–16.
