This meta-analysis examined if students writing about content material in science, social studies, and mathematics facilitated learning (k = 56 experiments). Studies in this review were true or quasi-experiments (with pretests), written in English, and conducted with students in Grades 1 to 12 in which the writing-to-learn activity was part of instruction. Studies were not included if the control condition used writing to support learning (except when treatment students spent more time engaging in writing-to-learn activities), study attrition exceeded 20%, instructional time and content coverage differed between treatment and control conditions, pretest scores approached ceiling levels, letter grades were the learning outcome, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, writing about content reliably enhanced learning (effect size = 0.30). It was equally effective at improving learning in science, social studies, and mathematics as well as the learning of elementary, middle, and high school students. Writing-to-learn effects were not moderated by the features of writing activities, instruction, or assessment. Furthermore, variability in obtained effects were not related to features of study quality. Directions for future research and implications for practice are provided.

中文翻译：

---

写作对科学、社会研究和数学学习的影响：元分析

该元分析检查了学生撰写科学、社会研究和数学内容材料是否有助于学习（k = 56 个实验）。本综述中的研究是真实的或准实验（带预测试），用英语编写，并针对 1 至 12 年级的学生进行，其中写作学习活动是教学的一部分。如果对照条件使用写作来支持学习（除非治疗学生花更多时间从事写作学习活动），学习流失率超过 20%，治疗和对照条件之间的教学时间和内容覆盖率不同，预测试，则不包括研究分数接近上限，字母成绩是学习成果，学生就读于残疾学生的特殊学校。正如预测的那样，写内容可靠地增强了学习（效果大小 = 0.30）。它在改善科学、社会研究和数学的学习以及小学、初中和高中学生的学习方面同样有效。从写作到学习的效果不受写作活动、教学或评估的特征的影响。此外，获得的效果的可变性与研究质量的特征无关。提供了未来研究的方向和对实践的影响。获得的效果的可变性与研究质量的特征无关。提供了未来研究的方向和对实践的影响。获得的效果的可变性与研究质量的特征无关。提供了未来研究的方向和对实践的影响。