The Science and Research of Evidence-Based Writing
What is the science of evidence-based writing?
The science of evidence-based writing is the converging of best practices of what works and what matters in evidence-based writing instruction organized around models that describe how to convert theory into practice in a manner that achieves demonstrable results.
How does the science of evidence-based writing relate to the science of reading?
The reciprocal benefit of teaching the science of evidence-based writing in concert with teaching the science of reading takes advantage of the research proving that reading and writing instruction are interrelated disciplines that ought not be taught in isolation from one another but rather as complimentary vehicles of literacy instruction. To amplify writing competencies is to amplify reading comprehension abilities… and vice versa (Miller, B., McCardle, P. & Long, R., 2012).
How does the science of reading help us make sense of the science of evidence-based writing?
An important model in early reading research is the simple view of reading. It says that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of decoding (D) and language comprehension (LC).
RC = D x LC
Reading Comprehension (RC) = Decoding (D) x Language Comprehension (LC)
The science of evidence-based writing provides a simple model that says writing competency (WC) is the product of organized thinking (OT) and articulation (A*) via handwriting or keyboarding.
WC = OT x A*
*handwritten or keyboarding
Writing Competency (WC) = Organized Thinking (OT) x Articulation (A*)
*handwritten or keyboarding
What guidance does the science of evidence-based writing offer?
According to Steven Graham, after reviewing 28 studies examining how writing is taught in contemporary classrooms, some teachers are providing students with a solid writing program however writing instruction in most classrooms is inadequate. In each study reviewed (e.g., Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dockrell, Marshall, & Wyse, 2016; Hsiang & Graham, 2016l Shanahan, 2019), successful writing programs had two things in common: 1) teachers committed a considerable amount of time to teaching writing and 2) educators applied evidence-based practices to achieve positive results.
● Dedicating intentional and sufficient time to teach writing
The ratio of time spent teaching reading compared to time spent teaching writing is woefully out of balance.
● Teaching strategies for carrying out writing processes
Students need explicit instruction that overtly explains the tools strong writers apply to practice their craft.
● Bringing models of strong writing to the forefront of instruction
Students need to see examples of well-crafted writing and benefit greatly from the continued use of exemplars from which they can learn.
● Conducting formative assessments to guide writing instruction
Ongoing assessment with positive and immediate feedback that points out growth and builds a student’s confidence while remediating areas of challenge reaps better results than relying too heavily on summative assessments of competency
● Teaching students foundational writing skills
Focusing on the organization of ideas, appropriate sentence construction, and the use of proper writing conventions provide students with a core toolkit that enables them to advance to more sophisticated writing tasks
● Using writing as a way to support reading and learning
Research proves that to build strong writers is to commensurately build strong readers
In many classrooms across all grade levels (K–12), very little of the language arts block of instruction is dedicated to writing; this block of time is often used only for reading activities. Writing may be taught as a separate activity, outside the language arts block, or it may not be formally taught at all.
Becoming an adequate to excellent writer is a developmental process that takes time and occurs across the K–12 grade levels. Writing development generally requires explicit instruction in strategies, skills, and comprehension, including some instruction that is not done strictly in service of reading or combined with reading instruction (Applebee & Langer, 2015). Correlational and experimental evidence indicates that when sufficient time is set aside for writing, students’ writing abilities improve (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Graham & Perin, 2007; Moats, Foorman, & Taylor, 2006). Yet many teacher preparation institutions do not prepare future teachers to teach writing, or it is a very small unit within a course on reading/language arts/literacy instruction (Gilbert & Graham, 2010).
In conclusion
As NCTE states, “Writing is not just one practice or activity. A note to a cousin is not like a business report, which is different again from a poem. The processes and ways of thinking that lead to these varied kinds of texts can also vary widely, from the quick email to a friend to the careful drafting and redrafting of a legal contract. The different purposes and genres both grow out of and create varied relationships between the writers and the readers, and existing relationships are reflected in degrees of formality in language, as well as assumptions about what knowledge and experience are already shared, and what needs to be explained. Writing with certain purposes in mind, the writer focuses attention on what the audience is thinking or believing; other times, the writer focuses more on the information she or he is organizing, or on her or his own emergent thoughts and feelings. Therefore, the thinking, procedures, and physical format in writing are shaped in accord with the author’s purpose(s), the needs of the audience, and the conventions of the genre.”
Evidence based-writing has its own unique demands. Thus, instruction that is uniquely and specifically focused on the science of evidence-based writing is necessary to achieve sustainable improvement.
References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2015). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Cutler L., Graham S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919.
Dockrell J., Marshall C., Wyse D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching writing in England. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 409–434.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The elementary school journal, 110(4), 494-518.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 445.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next-effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools.
Graham, S. (2019). Changing How Writing Is Taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303.
Hsiang T. P., Graham S. (2016). Teaching writing in Grades 4–6 in urban schools in the Greater China Region. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 869–902.
Miller, B., McCardle, P., & Long, R. (2012). The reading-writing connection. International Reading Association.
Moats, L., Foorman, B., & Taylor, P. (2006). How quality of writing instruction impacts high-risk fourth graders’ writing. Reading and Writing, 19, 363-391.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. [Position Statement].
Shanahan, T. (2019). Reading-writing connections. Best practices in writing instruction, 3.
