See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257643279

Writing: Importance, development, and instruction

Article  in  Reading and Writing · January 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2

CITATIONS READS

169 8,699

3 authors:

Steve Graham Amy Gillespie Rouse

Arizona State University Southern Methodist University
390 PUBLICATIONS   28,374 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   676 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Debra Mckeown
Texas A&M University
42 PUBLICATIONS   1,452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

National Survey: Writing to Learn in Middle School View project

Effectiveness of L1, L2 and FL writing instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Graham on 21 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Read Writ (2013) 26:1–15
DOI 10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2

Writing: importance, development, and instruction

Steve Graham • Amy Gillespie • Debra McKeown

Published online: 29 June 2012

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract In this article, we examine why writing is important, how it develops,

and effective writing practices. We situate the 5 articles in this special issue of
Reading and Writing in this literature, providing a context for the contribution of
each paper.

Keyword Reading and Writing
Writing
Composition
Reading

Writing development
Writing instruction

Introduction

In many countries, little time is devoted to teaching writing or using writing as a

tool to support learning (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010; National Commission on
Writing, 2003; Wyse, 2003). We think this is beginning to change, however,
especially in the United States (U.S.) where the development of the Common Core
Standards (CCSS, 2010) has made writing a central part of the school reform
movement (Graham, in press). CCSS provides benchmarks for a variety of writing
skills and applications that students are expected to master and apply at each grade
level in kindergarten through grade 12. Learning to write and writing to learn
receive considerable emphasis in CCSS. In the intermediate grades (i.e., grades
3–5), for instance, it is expected that students will learn to write for multiple

S. Graham (&)
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
e-mail: steve.graham@vanderbilt.edu

A. Gillespie
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

D. McKeown
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

123
2 S. Graham et al.

purposes (e.g., persuade, inform, and narrate) and will use writing to recall,
organize, analyze, interpret, and build knowledge about content and readings across
discipline-specific subjects.
These expectations differ considerably from current writing practices in the U.S.,
where little time is spent teaching writing to students beyond grade three, and
students do little writing in or out of school for academic purposes (Applebee &
Langer, 2011; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Kiuhara, Hawkens, & Graham, 2009). As a
result, the implementation of CCSS will require a broad and potentially systemic
overhaul in how writing is taught and used in most classrooms and schools. For
example, to meet CCSS writing benchmarks, teachers and schools must place
greater emphasis on learning how to write and how to use expository text, especially
persuasive and informational texts, to promote learning within and across
disciplines for a variety of purposes and audiences. The central role of thinking
in writing must also become more prominent, as CCSS stresses the role of analysis,
reflection, and research when using writing as a tool for learning. CCSS further
emphasizes students’ use of technology to produce, collaborate, publish, and share
writing with others. This emphasis on bringing twenty-first century writing tools
into the classroom is welcomed, but it presents a considerable challenge for schools
to make such tools available and to ensure that teachers and students know how to
use them effectively.
While CCSS should make writing and writing instruction more central to the
process of learning and schooling in the U.S., there are many factors that are likely
to limit its impact. This includes problems with the benchmarks as well as the
capacity of teachers to implement them (Graham, in press). The benchmarks are
mostly based on educated guesses about what students should be able to achieve at
particular grades. They lack precision and accuracy, and rely on the assumption that
all students should have the same goals at each grade. As a result, some goals will
be too easy and others too hard, depending upon the veracity of the benchmark and
the competence of the student. A slavish devotion to such benchmarks will result
in situations where students underachieve because the goal was too easy or fail to
achieve because the goal was unrealistic.
With regards to teacher capacity, many teachers report that they are ill-prepared
to teach writing. For example, in a recent survey conducted by Kiuhara et al. (2009),
one out of every two high school teachers indicated that they had little to no
preparation in how to teach writing. While CCSS provides teachers with a roadmap,
this map is of limited value if teachers do not possess the knowledge, skills, and
tools needed to achieve the outlined objectives. These objectives include having a
reasonable handle on why writing is important, how writing develops, and how to
teach writing. If teachers know why writing is important, they are more likely to
invest the energy and time needed to achieve the CCSS writing standards. If they
understand how writing develops, teachers are more likely to approach the CCSS
benchmarks in a flexible and reasonable manner, adjusting the benchmarks so that
they are more pertinent to individual students’ needs. If they possess effective tools
for teaching writing, they are more likely to achieve CCSS’s goals for writing.
The articles in this special issue of Reading and Writing address one or more
aspects of why writing is important, how it develops, and effective writing practices.

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 3

To properly situate each of these papers, we selectively review what is known in

each of these areas.

Why is writing important?

Writing is an extremely versatile tool that can be used to accomplish a variety of

goals (Graham, 2006). It provides a medium for maintaining personal links with
family, friends, and colleagues, even when we are unable to be with them. People
use writing to create imagined worlds, tell stories, share information, explore who
they are, combat loneliness, and chronicle their experiences. In fact, writing about
one’s feelings and experiences can be beneficial psychologically and physiologi-
cally (Smyth, 1998).
Writing provides a powerful tool for influencing others. Thomas Paine’s
pamphlet, Common Sense, inflamed revolutionary passions in colonial America,
while books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin provided a catalyst for anti-slavery beliefs in
nineteenth century America. The persuasive potential of writing is so great, that
many governments ban ‘‘subversive’’ documents and even jail the offending
authors.
Writing is also an indispensable tool for learning. We use it to gather, preserve
and transmit information widely. The permanence of writing makes ideas readily
available for review and evaluation; its explicitness encourages establishing
connections between ideas and its active nature fosters the exploration of
unexamined assumptions (Applebee, 1984). The impact of writing on learning
was captured in two meta-analyses (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004;
Graham & Perin, 2007a), which found that writing about content material enhanced
students’ learning.
Of particular importance to this special issue of Reading and Writing is the
impact of writing on reading. In a recent meta-analysis, Graham and Hebert (2010,
2011) reported that text comprehension improved when students in grades 2–12
wrote about the material they were reading. This was the case for students in general
and for students who were weaker readers/writers in particular. This also was the
case when students wrote about text in a various subjects (language arts, science,
social studies) or genres (expository and narrative). Four specific types of writing
activities were found to be effective: extended writing, summary writing, note
taking, and answering/generating questions. The meta-analysis by Hebert, Gillespie,
and Graham in this special issue of Reading and Writing extends Graham and
Hebert’s review by directly examining if any one of these four writing activities is
more effective than the other.
Two additional advantages of writing were identified in the Graham and Hebert
(2010, 2011) review. First, teaching writing had a positive impact on how well
students read. Multi-component writing instruction (e.g., process writing, skills
based writing programs) improved the reading comprehension of students in grades
4–12. Teaching spelling and sentence construction skills enhanced the reading
fluency of students in grades 1–7, whereas spelling instruction improved the word
reading skills of students in grades 1–5. Second, increasing how much students’

123
4 S. Graham et al.

wrote improved their ability to read text. Graham and Hebert (2010, 2011) found
that when students in grades 1–6 wrote more, there was a corresponding
improvement in their reading comprehension skills.

How does writing develop?

Our understanding of writing development is incomplete. It is like an unfinished

painting, with some parts of the canvas more completely realized than others.
Although writing development is not fully understood, the road from novice to
competent writer is clearly fueled by changes in the writer and changes in the
context within which the writer operates (Graham, 2006).
To understand writing development adequately, it is important to understand
what skilled writing entails. Writing is a goal directed and self-sustained cognitive
activity requiring the skillful management of: (a) the writing environment; (b) the
constraints imposed by the writing topic; (c) the intentions of the writer(s), and
(d) the processes, knowledge, and skills involved in composing (Zimmerman &
Reisemberg, 1997). It is also a social activity involving an implicit or explicit
dialogue between writer(s) and reader(s), which is further shaped by audience,
purpose, culture, society, and history (Schultz & Fecho, 2000). For instance, written
discourse differs considerably amongst a community of friends sharing ideas via
email versus texts written by researchers for other researchers (Nystrand, 2006).
Given its complexity, it is not surprising that writing development is not fully
understood. Presently, two basic approaches to conceptualizing writing have
dominated much of the discussion about writing development. One view focuses
mostly on the role of cognition and motivation in writing (Hayes, 1996). The other
concentrates on how context (e.g., social, historical, political, and institutional)
shapes writing development (Russell, 1997). While scholars of writing often align
themselves with one viewpoint or the other, we believe that the canvas of writing
development will never be complete until a rapprochement is achieved. Each of these
viewpoints clearly privilege different aspects of writing and writing development,
but neither is complete, as cognitive/motivational approaches pay relatively little
attention to context, and contextual views do not adequately address how individual
factors shape writing development.

Contextual views of writing development

The contextual view of writing is captured by Schultz and Fecho (2000) who
indicate that writing development: (a) reflects and contributes to the social,
historical, political, and institutional contexts in which it occurs; (b) varies across
school, home, and work contexts in which it occurs; (c) is shaped by the curriculum
and pedagogical decisions made by teachers and schools; (d) is tied to the social and
cultural identity of the writer(s), and (e) is greatly influenced by the social
interactions surrounding writing. This view of writing development is illustrated
through a model developed by Russell (1997). The model shows how macro-level
social and political forces influence micro-level writing actions and vice versa.

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 5

A basic unit in Russell’s model is the activity system, which examines how actors
(e.g., a student, pair of students, student and teacher, or class—perceived in social
terms and taking into account the history of their involvement in the activity system)
use concrete tools, such as paper and pencil, to accomplish an action leading to an
outcome, such as writing a description of a field trip. The outcome is accomplished
in a problem space where the actors use writing tools in an ongoing interaction with
others to shape the paper that is being produced over time in a shared direction.
Russell’s (1997) model also employs the concept of genre, ‘‘as typified ways of
purposefully interacting in and among some activity system(s),’’ (p. 513). These
typified ways of interacting become stabilized via regularized use of writing by and
among individuals, creating a generally predictable approach for writing within a
classroom. These are conceived as only temporarily stabilized structures, however,
because they are subject to change depending upon the context. For example, a new
student entering a classroom with an established activity system may appropriate
some of the routinized tools used by others in the class, such as using more
interesting words instead of more common ones when writing. In turn, the new
student may change typified ways of writing in a classroom, as other students in the
class adapt unfamiliar routines applied by their new classmate, such as beginning a
paper with an attention grabber.
The description of Russell’s (1997) model offered so far mostly focuses on how
writing development is shaped by the social and contextual interactions that occur
within the classroom, between students and with the teacher. Russell also
emphasized that macro-level activity systems involving culture, institution, and
society shape students’ writing development. To illustrate, many states require that
the writing of all students be tested at specific grades each year. While this
institutional action is likely to increase the amount of time devoted to teaching
writing (at least when writing is tested), Hillocks (2002) found that it restricted what
is taught to what is measured. Decisions such as this, made outside of the context of
the classroom, can foster or hinder students’ development as writers.

Cognitive/motivational views of writing development

The cognitive/motivational view of writing concentrates mostly on the individual

writer and the mental and affective processes involved in composing text. This
approach is exemplified in a model of skilled writing developed by Hayes (1996).
This model specifies the mental operations and motivational resources writers draw
on to carry out the act of composing. This includes the cognitive processes of text
interpretation, reflection, and text production which writers draw upon to: (a) form a
representation of the writing task, (b) devise a plan to complete it, (c) draw
conclusions about the audience and possible writing content, (d) use cues from the
writing plan or text produced so far to retrieve information from memory that is then
turned into written sentences, and (e) evaluate plans and text and modify them as
needed. It also includes long-term memory, which involves knowledge of the
writing topic and audience, as well as linguistic, vocabulary, and genre knowledge,
including task schemas that specify how to carry out particular writing tasks.
Additionally, the model includes working memory which serves as an interface

123
6 S. Graham et al.

between cognitive processes, motivation, and memory, providing a space for

holding information and ideas for writing as well as carrying out cognitive activities
that require the writer’s conscious attention; it also includes motivation, or the
goals, predispositions, beliefs, and attitudes that influence the writing process.
As this model illustrates, skilled writers are strategic, motivated, and knowl-
edgeable about the craft of writing. Not as explicitly specified in Hayes’s (1996)
model are more fundamental skills involving sentence construction, spelling,
handwriting, and typing. These are the skills writer must master to transform ideas
into acceptable sentences and transcribe these sentences onto paper (or a screen) via
handwriting, spelling, or typing.
Graham (2006) proposed that advances in novice writer’s strategic or self-
regulatory behaviors (e.g., becoming more sophisticated in planning), motivation
(e.g., heightened sense of efficacy about one’s writing capabilities), knowledge
(e.g., increased knowledge about the attributes and structures of different types of
writing), and skills (e.g., automatization of handwriting, typing, and spelling as well
as proficiency in sentence construction) propel their development as writers. He
reasoned that if these attributes (i.e., strategies, skills, knowledge, or motivation)
shape writing development, the following tenets should be supported by empirical
evidence: (1) skilled writers possess more of the attribute (e.g., knowledge about
writing) than less skilled writers, (2) developing writers increasingly possess the
attribute with age and schooling, (3) individual differences in the attribute predict
writing performance, and (4) instruction designed to increase the attribute improves
writing performance.
Graham (2006) found that the available evidence clearly supported the
importance of specific writing strategies, such as planning and revising, as well
as the importance of particular writing skills, including handwriting, spelling, and
sentence construction, in students’ development as writers. For planning and
revising, all four tenets were supported with one exception: revising behavior was
generally unrelated to overall writing performance until students reached high
school. Likewise, all four tenets were supported for handwriting and spelling, but
the evidence was thinnest for tenet 4 (instruction in these skills improves students’
general writing performance). For sentence construction, the picture was more
nuanced, as the evidence varied somewhat by genre and type of writer. For example,
individual differences in sentence skills were associated with writing performance
in some studies (tenet 3), but this was not always the case, as the findings varied
depending on the genre (e.g., Crowhurst, 1980).
Graham (2006) further reported that knowledge about writing (e.g., genre
knowledge) is an important ingredient in writing development, as all four tenets
were supported (even though the evidence was relatively thin at almost every point).
The role of motivation was generally supported, but the veracity of some of the
tenets was less certain. Although skilled writers were more motivated than less
skilled ones (tenet 1), some aspects of motivation declined over time (e.g., attitude
towards writing) and others like self-efficacy increased or declined depending on the
study (tenet 2). However, individual differences in motivation predicted writing
performance (tenet 3), and there were a small number of studies showing that efforts
to enhance motivation (i.e., self-efficacy) boosted writing performance (tenet 4).

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 7

Four of the five articles in this special issue of Reading and Writing provide
evidence that is directly relevant to two of the writing catalysts studied by Graham
(2006): strategies and knowledge. Yi and Ferretti as well as Zumbrunn and Bruning
examined the effectiveness of strategy instruction (tenet 4 for strategies). Troia,
Harbaugh, Shankland, Wolbers, and Lawrence explored the relationship between
measures of motivation and writing performance (tenet 3 for motivation), whereas
Olinghouse and Wilson determined the relationship between vocabulary and writing
quality across multiple genres (tenet 3 for knowledge).

What does effective writing instruction look like?

Louis L’Amour, the popular author of Western pulp novels, observed that the brain
of a writer is much like a magician’s hat—To get anything out of it, you first have to
put something in it (L’Amour 1990). While this may be true, this pithy quote
provides little guidance as to what needs to go in and how to get it there.
One possible source for advice on how to teach writing comes from professional
writers like Lamour, who rely on their own experiences and insights to make
recommendations (Graham, 2010). While these writers surely possess considerable
wisdom about writing, their advice is typically aimed at other skilled writers, who
often want to write professionally.
A second possible source for recommendations comes from teachers of writing.
For example, teachers may recommend the use of instructional procedures they
judged to be effective in their classroom (see for example Atwell, 1987). Those who
observe teachers in action may further champion specific instructional writing
practices they view as worthwhile (see Graves, 1983 for instance). Like professional
writers, teachers of writing possess considerable wisdom about how to teach writing
effectively. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence that many of the instructional
practices developed by teachers result in improvements in students’ writing. When
evidence is provided, it too often takes the form of testimonials (e.g., the
presentation of selected students’ writing), making it difficult to determine if the
evidence is representative. Further, if a recommended practice is based on the
experiences of just one teacher, regardless of how effective that teacher is, there is
no way to predict if it will be effective with other teachers.
A third source of information for how to teach writing can be drawn from the
scientific testing of specific instructional practices. This provides a more trustworthy
approach for identifying effective writing methods. Such testing provides evidence
on whether a procedure enhanced students’ writing, and it is possible to determine
how much confidence can be placed in the findings. Because scientific testing
allows researchers to quantify the observed impact of an intervention, the findings
from individual studies can further be converted into a common metric (i.e., effect
size), making it possible to determine the strength of a method’s impact across
multiple investigations.
As with other sources of information, the scientific testing of instructional
practices is not without its own problems. First, a scientifically-validated practice is
only as good as the evidence supporting it. Second, just because an instructional

123
8 S. Graham et al.

method was effective in one or more research studies does not guarantee it will be
effective in all other situations. There is rarely a perfect match between the
conditions under which the writing method was implemented in a scientific study
and the conditions in which it will subsequently be applied in a teacher’s classroom
(Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, in press).
We think that identification of effective writing practices must draw on scientific
testing of specific instructional methods as well as the study of exceptional literacy
teachers. The advantage of the former is that we can determine who the procedure
worked with as well as the strength and reliability of the instructional practice.
Obviously, we can place more faith in such findings when the positive impact of the
writing practice on a reliably measured writing outcome is observed in multiple
studies. The advantage of studying exceptional teachers is that it allows us to
examine what they do in the classroom, enriching our understanding of what
effective writing instruction looks like in situ. While such an analysis cannot
establish that a particular practice is responsible for improvements in students’
writing performance, it is reasonable to assume that practices commonly applied by
expert teachers are potentially more important than those applied idiosyncratically.
In the sections below, we draw upon both of these sources to create a
compendium of effective writing practices. Each practice presented produced a
positive and statistically significant effect on a reliably measured writing outcome in
four or more scientific studies (Graham et al., in press; Graham, Harris, & Hebert,
2011; Graham & Perin, 2007b; Rogers & Graham, 2008) or it was applied in most
studies examining exceptional literacy teachers (see Graham & Perin, 2007c). It
should be noted that these practices are also responsive to what we know about
writing development from a social/contextual as well as a cognitive/motivational
viewpoint. Once we present these effective practices, we will situate the
intervention studies in the current special issue of Reading and Writing into this
larger body of work. A word of caution is in order for practitioners who plan to
implement any of these procedures: Do not assume that these practices will
automatically work in your classroom. The safest course of action is to monitor that
the treatment is administered with fidelity and that it works with your students.

Require that students write frequently

The purpose of writing instruction is to teach students to write skillfully. We

contend that this can only be accomplished if students write frequently. This
viewpoint is evident in the classrooms of effective literacy teachers (Graham &
Perin, 2007c) where students:
– Write frequently across the curriculum.
– Write for many different purposes (e.g., entertain, inform, persuade).
There is also evidence from true- and quasi-experiments that increasing the
amount of time that elementary grade students write makes them better writers
(average weighted effect size for writing quality[ES] = 0.30, 5 studies, grades 2–6;
Graham, McKeown et al., in press). To intepret this, an ES greater than .80 is
considered a large effect, an ES greater than .50 is a moderate effect, and an

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 9

ES greater than .25 is a small effect. Extra time writing in these studies ranged from
writing about self-selected topics to providing daily time to write. It should be noted
that simply increasing how much students write did not result in improved writing
quality in Graham and Perin’s (2007b) meta-analysis with adolescent students. This
should not be interpreted to mean that it is not important for older students to write.
Rather, the writing program needs to do more than just have students write, whether
they are older or younger (see the next two sections).

Create a supportive classroom where students’ writing development can flourish

Learning to write is an extremely challenging and demanding task. Kellogg’s (1987,

1993) research examining the mental effort involved in writing (at least for college
students) showed that it approaches the level of effort expended by expert chess
players involved in move selections. As a result, we think that it is important to
develop a writing environment where students can be successful and their
development can prosper. This viewpoint is also evident in the classrooms of
effective literacy teachers (Graham & Perin, 2007c), where they commonly:
– Show enthusiasm for writing and create a positive environment, where students
are encouraged to try hard, believe that the writing skills and strategies they are
learning will permit them to write well, and attribute success to effort and the
tactics they are learning.
– Set high expectations for students, encouraging them to surpass previous efforts
or accomplishments.
– Adapt writing instruction and assignments to better meet the needs of individual
students.
– Keep students engaged by involving them in thoughtful activities, such as
planning their composition, versus activities require less thoughtfulness, such as
completing a workbook page that can be finished quickly, leaving many students
disengaged.
– Promote interaction among students by including small group instruction as part
of their classroom practices.
– Provide just enough support so students can make progress or carry out writing
tasks and processes, but encourage students to act in a self-regulated fashion,
doing as much as they can on their own.
Additional evidence on the importance of creating a writing environment where
students can flourish comes from both single-subject design studies and more
traditional experiments and quasi-experiments. Like true and quasi-experiments,
single subject designs test whether an intervention is responsible for observed
changes in performance (Horner et al., 2005). Major threats to internal validity are
controlled through within- and between-subject comparisons, and external validity
is enhanced through systematic replication. In such studies, each participant serves
as her/his own control, with performance prior to as well as during and/or after
intervention repeatedly measured to establish performance patterns before treatment
and comparison of performance patterns across experimental phases (e.g., baseline
versus treatment). To establish experimental control, the independent variable or

123
10 S. Graham et al.

treatment is actively manipulated to determine its effects on specific outcome

measures. One statistic that has been used to assess the effectiveness of single
subject design studies is percent of nonoverlapping data (PND) points between
baseline and treatment phases (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). PND greater than
90 % is a large effect, PND between 70.1 and 90 % is a moderate effect, and PND
between 50.1 and 70 % is a low or small effect.
In their review of the single-subject design writing intervention literature, Rogers
and Graham (2008) found that when teachers or instructors positively reinforced
aspects of students’ writing they liked, there was a positive impact on students’
writing (mean PND = 100 %, 4 studies, grades 3–6; Rogers & Graham, 2008).
Effective reinforcement practices included providing social praise, tangible
reinforcers, or both.
Another means for creating an environment where students’ writing development
can flourish is to scaffold or support students’ writing in various ways. Such
procedures were evident in the practices of effective literacy teachers above (e.g.,
adaptations, providing just enough support). The following scaffolds or supports
were also effective when tested via true-and quasi-experiments:
– Developing instructional arrangements where students work together to plan,
draft, revise, and edit their compositions (average weighted ES for writing
quality = 0.89, 4 studies, grades 2–6; Graham, McKeown et al., in press;
ES = 0.75, 7 studies, grades 4–12; Graham & Perin, 2007b). An example of this
procedure is students using a systematic procedure to plan a composition
together.
– Setting clear and specific goals for what students are to accomplish when writing
(average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.76, 7 studies, grades 4–6; Graham,
McKeown et al., in press; ES = 0.70, 5 studies, grades 4–12; Graham & Perin,
2007b).Examples of such goals include objectives for what students are to include
in their writing (e.g., reasons to support anargument, rebuttals of the counter-
argument) as well as goals for how to revise a paper (e.g., add three new ideas).
– Engaging students in activities that help them gather and organize ideas for their
composition before they write a first draft (average weighted ES for writing
quality = 0.54, 8 studies, grades 2–6; Graham, McKeown et al., in press;
ES = 0.32, 5 studies, grades 4–9; Graham & Perin, 2007b). This includes
reading to locate information, as well as generating and organizing possible
writing ideas using a graphic organizer.
– Involving students in activities designed to sharpen their skills of inquiry
(average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.32, 5 studies, grades 7–12; Graham
& Perin, 2007b). Such activities are characterized by a clearly specified goal
(e.g., describe the actions of people), analysis of concrete and immediate data
(e.g., observe one or more peers during specific activities), use of specific
strategies to conduct the analysis (e.g., retrospectively ask the person being
observed the reason for their action), and applying what was learned (e.g., write a
story where the insights from the inquiry are incorporated into the composition).
– Providing students with good models for the types of writing they are expected
to create (average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.25, 6 studies, grades

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 11

4–12; Graham & Perin, 2007b). This involves students analyzing model texts
and encouraging them to emulate the critical elements of each text in their own
writing.
– Making assessment and feedback an integral part of the classroom writing
program, with teachers giving students feedback about their progress, students
learning specific writing skills and strategies, and peers giving each other
feedback about their writing(average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.77, 16
studies, grades 2–9; Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011). Teaching students to self-
assess their writing also improves writing performance (average weighted ES for
writing quality = 0.46, 7 studies, grades 3–12; Graham, Harris, & Hebert,
2011).
– Allowing students to use word processing as their primary writing medium at
school (average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.47, 10 studies, grades 1–6;
Graham, McKeown et al., in press; ES = 0.55, 18 studies, grades 4–12; Graham
& Perin, 2007b). The effective use of word processing involves a variety of
different arrangements, ranging from students working collaboratively on
assignments using personal laptop computers, to learning how to use word-
processing through teacher guidance, to using sophisticated word processing
programs with a variety of supports (e.g., speech synthesis, planning software,
automated feedback).
Additional support for creating a supportive environment and scaffolding
students’ efforts comes from quasi-experiments examining the effectiveness of the
process approach to writing instruction (average weighted ES for writing
quality = 0.34, 29 studies, grades 1–12; Sandmel & Graham, 2011). This approach
involves many motivating and supporting practices, such as writing for real
audiences, encouraging personal responsibility and ownership of writing projects,
high levels of student interactions, creation of a pleasant and positive writing
environment, and self-reflection and evaluation.

Directly teach writing skills, strategies, and knowledge

Our earlier review of writing development from a cognitive/motivational perspec-

tive made it clear that improvements in writing skills, strategies, and knowledge
serve as catalysts to students’ overall writing development. Again, this is recognized
in the practices of highly effective literacy teachers (Graham & Perin, 2007c), as
they:
– Encourage students to treat writing as a process, and teach them how to plan,
draft, revise, edit, and share their written work.
– Teach students fundamental writing skills.
Additional support for directly teaching process, skills, and writing knowledge is
provided through true- and quasi-experiments showing that teaching:
– Spelling, handwriting, and typing enhance the quality of young students’ text
(average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.55, 8 studies, grades 1–3; Graham,

123
12 S. Graham et al.

McKeown et al., in press). These skills are taught through modeling and guided
practice.
– Sentence skills instruction results in students producing text of higher quality
(average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.50, 5 studies, grades 4–9; Graham
& Perin, 2007b). Specifically, such instruction involves how to combine simpler
sentences into more sophisticated ones. The teacher models how to combine two
or more sentences into a more complex one. Students practice combining similar
sentences to produce the same type of sentence the teacher did. Students then
apply the sentence combining skill in text they produce.
– Strategies for planning/drafting/revising/editing different types of text improves
the quality of what students write (average weighted ES for writing
quality = 1.02, 20 studies, grades 2–6; Graham, McKeown et al., in press;
ES = 0.82, 20 studies, grades 4–10; Graham & Perin, 2007b). Such instruction
involves teachers modeling how to use the target strategies and providing
students with assistance in applying them, until they can use them indepen-
dently. Strategies that are taught range from more general processes such as
brainstorming, which can be applied across genres, to strategies designed for
specific types of writing, such as writing an explanation or writing to persuade.
– Procedures for regulating the writing strategies students are taught improves the
quality of students’ writing (average weighted ES for writing quality = 0.50, 6
studies, grades 2–6; Graham, McKeown et al., in press). This includes teaching
students how to apply self-regulation procedures, such as goal setting and self-
assessment, to help them manage the writing strategies they were taught.
– Strategies for writing different types of paragraphs improves students’ paragraph
writing skills (PND for paragraph elements = 97 %, 4 studies, grades 8–9;
Rogers & Graham, 2008). An example of such a strategy involves procedures
for developing a paragraph that includes an opening sentence, sentences that
provide details related to the opening sentence, and a closing or passing sentence
to the next paragraph.
– Visual imagery and teaching creativity improves writing quality (average
weighted ES for writing quality = 0.70, 4 studies, grades 3–6; Graham,
McKeown et al., in press). For instance, visual imagery is taught by modeling
how to form visual images, followed by practice in applying this skill.
– Text structure results in compositions of higher quality (average weighted ES for
writing quality = 0.59, 9 studies, grades 2–6; Graham, McKeown et al., 2011).
This includes teaching students how narrative as well as expository texts are
structured.

How intervention studies in the current special issue extend knowledge

about effective writing practices

Two of the studies in this special issue are intervention studies. Yi and Ferretti
applied a true-experiment to assess the effectiveness of two revising strategies for
improving persuasive writing, whereas Zumbrunn and Bruning used a single-subject
design to test the impact of a strategy for planning and drafting stories. Even though

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 13

these two studies focus on different genres of writing and different processes, they
share a common characteristic. In both investigations, writing strategies were taught
via the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model (SRSD; Harris & Graham,
2006).
With SRSD, students are explicitly taught writing strategies (usually strategies
for planning, revising, or both), the knowledge needed to use these strategies, and
procedures for regulating these strategies, the writing process, and their behavior.
Instruction is designed to promote students’ ownership and independent use of
writing and self-regulation strategies. Students are treated as active collaborators in
the learning process, and the role of effort in learning is emphasized. The type and
level of feedback and instructional support provided during instruction are adjusted
to be responsive to students’ needs, gradually shifting responsibility for strategy use
from teacher to student. Harris and Graham (2006) stress that instruction should be
criterion- rather than time-based, as students move through each instructional stage
at their own pace, not proceeding to later stages until they have met initial criteria.
Such strategy instruction has been very effective in improving students’ writing.
In a met-analysis of 29 true- and quasi-experiments, Graham, Harris, and McKeown
(in press) reported an average weighted ES of 1.75 for writing quality, 2.24 for
structural writing elements, and 0.47 for composition length immediately following
SRSD instruction. In the same paper, they reported similarly positive PNDs of 86 %
for writing quality, 88 % for structural writing elements, and 68 % for composition
length. The two studies presented in this special edition advance the SRSD literature
(and the strategy instruction literature by extension) by examining the impact of this
approach with first grade students (Zumbrunn & Bruning) and college students (Yi
and Ferretti). These are the first controlled studies to do so with students this young
and old, producing positive effects in both studies.

Concluding comments

We hope you enjoy the papers in this special issue as much as we did. Any
comments you have about them would be greatly appreciated and should be sent to
Steve Graham.

References

Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle and high schools. English
Journal, 100, 14–27.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Reading, writing, and learning from adolescents. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based Writing-to-
Learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
74, 29–58.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers’ quality ratings of narrations and arguments.
Research and the Teaching of English, 14, 223–231.

123
14 S. Graham et al.

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4 to 6: A national
survey. Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–518.
Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing. In P. Hogan (Ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of language sciences
(pp. 848–851). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, S. (in press). Writing: Grades 3 to 5. In L. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & T. K. Wixson, (Eds.),
Teaching with the common core standards for English language arts: What educators need to know.
New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (in press). The writing of students with LD and a meta-
analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to reading: Evidence for how writing can improve reading.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing
instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.
Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (in press). A meta-analysis of writing instruction
for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007a). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent
middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007c). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to
write. Scientific Studies in Reading, 11, 313–336.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2006). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S.
Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications
(pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject
research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71,
165–180.
Kellogg, R. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to
writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–266.
Kellogg, R. (1993). Observations on the psychology of thinking and writing. Composition Studies, 21,
3–41.
Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national
survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.
L’Amour, L. (1990). The education of a wandering man. New York: Bantam.
National Commission on Writing (2003, April). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution.
Available at www.collegeboard.com.
Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In S. MacArthur, S. Graham,
& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford.
Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written
Communication, 14, 504–554.
Sandmel, K., & Graham, S. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Research, 104, 396–407.
Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society’s child: Social context and writing development. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 51–62.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. In
Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.

123
Writing: importance, development, and instruction 15

Smyth, J. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174–184.
Wyse, D. (2003). The national literacy strategy: A critical review of empirical evidence. British
Educational Research Journal, 29, 903–916.
Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

123
View publication stats