S

Steve Graham

Arizona State University

ORCID: 0000-0002-6702-5865

Publishes on Writing and Handwriting Education, Reading and Literacy Development, Discourse Analysis in Language Studies. 445 papers and 36.2k citations.

445Publications
36.2kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Splintering Urbanism
Cited by 2.5k

Splintering Urbanism makes an international and interdisciplinary analysis of the complex interactions between infrastructure networks and urban spaces. It delivers a new and powerful way of understanding contemporary urban change, bringing together discussions about:*globalization and the city*technology and society*urban space and urban networks*infrastructure and the built environment*developed, developing and post-communist worlds.With a range of case studies, illustrations and boxed examples, from New York to Jakarta, Johannesberg to Manila and Sao Paolo to Melbourne, Splintering Urbanism demonstrates the latest social, urban and technological theories, which give us an understanding of our contemporary metropolis.

A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Steve Graham, Dolores Perin|Journal of Educational Psychology|2007
Cited by 1.6k

There is considerable concern that the majority of adolescents do not develop the competence in writing they need to be successful in school, the workplace, or their personal lives. A common explanation for why youngsters do not write well is that schools do not do a good job of teaching this complex skill. In an effort to identify effective instructional practices for teaching writing to adolescents, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature (Grades 4–12), focusing their efforts on experimental and quasi-experimental studies. They located 123 documents that yielded 154 effect sizes for quality of writing. The authors calculated an average weighted effect size (presented in parentheses) for the following 11 interventions: strategy instruction (0.82), summarization (0.82), peer assistance (0.75), setting product goals (0.70), word processing (0.55), sentence combining (0.50), inquiry (0.32), prewriting activities (0.32), process writing approach (0.32), study of models (0.25), grammar instruction (–0.32).

A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades.
Steve Graham, Debra McKeown, Sharlene A. Kiuhara et al.|Journal of Educational Psychology|2012
Cited by 808

In an effort to identify effective instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, we conducted a meta-analysis of the writing intervention literature, focusing our efforts on true and quasi-experiments. We located 115 documents that included the statistics for computing an effect size (ES). We calculated an average weighted ES for 13 writing interventions. To be included in the analysis, a writing intervention had to be tested in 4 studies. Six writing interventions involved explicitly teaching writing processes, skills, or knowledge. All but 1 of these interventions (grammar instruction) produced a statistically significant effect: strategy instruction (ES = 1.02), adding self-regulation to strategy instruction (ES = 0.50), text structure instruction (ES = 0.59), creativity/imagery instruction (ES = 0.70), and teaching transcription skills (ES = 0.55). Four writing interventions involved procedures for scaffolding or supporting students' writing. Each of these interventions produced statistically significant effects: prewriting activities (ES = 0.54), peer assistance when writing (ES = 0.89), product goals (ES = 0.76), and assessing writing (0.42). We also found that word processing (ES = 0.47), extra writing (ES = 0.30), and comprehensive writing programs (ES = 0.42) resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the quality of students' writing. Moderator analyses revealed that the self-regulated strategy development model (ES = 1.17) and process approach to writing instruction (ES = 0.40) improved how well students wrote. Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029185.supp

The Role of Self-Regulation and Transcription Skills in Writing and Writing Development
Steve Graham, Karen R. Harris|Educational Psychologist|2000
Cited by 668

AbstractIt is proposed that the development of writing competence depends on high levels of self-regulation and the mastery of low-level transcription skills. Predictions consistent with each of these claims are identified and evaluated. Although the available data are incomplete and many key findings require further replication, the accumulated evidence generally supports both of these propositions.