teaching writing research article

Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education

• ScholarWorks

ScholarWorks > Arts & Sciences > English > Teaching/Writing

Current Issue: Volume 11, Issue 3 (2022) Fall/Winter 2022

A Pen, A Pencil, or a Keyboard: Writing Center Tutors’ Perceptions Mirta Ramirez-Espinola

Partnering Pre-Service Teachers with First-Grade Writers: An Exploration of Giving Effective Feedback Kelly N. Tracy and Lydia J. Foust

“I Think Writing is…” A Multi-State Study of Teacher Candidates’ Changing Beliefs about Writing Jenn Raskauskas, Sonia M. Kline, Amanda Wall, Grace Y. Kang, Chinwe H. Ikpeze, Joy Myers, Roya Q. Scales, Linda D. Smetana, and Kelly Tracy

Writing Without Audiences: A Comprehensive Survey of State-Mandated Standards and Assessments James E. Warren

Creating Communities of Practice Focused on Writing Instruction Katie Schrodt, Brandi Nunnery, Brian Kissel, and Melissa Knapp

Unpacking Writer Identity: How Beliefs and Practices Inform Writing Instruction David Premont

Interventions to Improve Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Writing and Writing Instruction: Lessons Learned and Areas for Exploration Jadelyn Abbott, Tracey Hodges, Sherry Dismuke, Katherine Landau Wright, and Claire Schweiker

On Parallel Paths: Learning through Case Studies in the Writing Pedagogy Course Alyssa Devey, Christina Saidy, Mohammed S. Iddrisu, Seher Shah, and Marlene A. Tovar

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Evidence-based approaches to teaching writing: the TC Reading & Writing Project

Teaching writing: evidence-based approaches are needed, says forbes . the tc reading & writing project’s method is one.

“Writing is much harder than reading,” notes Forbes magazine writer Natalie Wexler, adding that only about a quarter of students score as “proficient” or above on national tests. Yet there has been little research to establish which methods of teaching writing work best.   

One exception, says Wexler in her recent article, “The Puzzling Gap In Research On Writing Instruction,”   is “a hugely popular curriculum developed by literacy guru Lucy Calkins ,” Robinson Professor in Children’s Literature and founding Director of the Teachers College Reading & Writing Project (TCRWP).

Recently, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), a not-for-profit, independent research firm based in the greater Washington, D.C., area, completed the first objective, rigorous, quasi-experimental study of the TCRWP’s reading and writing workshop and Units of Study curriculum .

“Beginning in the 2nd year following TCRWP implementation…we observed statistically significant increases in ELA scores among TCRWP-implementing schools, as compared with the matched comparison schools,” write the study’s authors. “Between 5 and 7 years following adoption, ELA scores in TCRWP schools were higher by 0.22–0.38 standard deviations, suggesting cumulative effects of use of the TCRWP approach.”

Beginning in the 2nd year following TCRWP implementation…we observed statistically significant increases in ELA scores among TCRWP-implementing schools, as compared with the matched comparison schools.  — from a study of a writing curriculum developed by the Teachers College Reading & Writing Project

There were also gains for students from lower-income families and other vulnerable groups, though those gains were smaller.

Wexler says that further studies are needed to establish why a “multi-component approach” like TCRWP’s is successful: Is it “the peer editing?” she asks. “The focus on drafting? Both?”

Noting that writing places a huge burden on “working memory,” Wexler also calls for research on writing instruction begun at the sentence level.

“Some may object, if students are just combining sentences, they aren’t leveraging the power of writing to build and deepen their knowledge,” she acknowledges. “To be sure, there’s evidence that when students write about the content they’re learning, their comprehension improves; that’s the basis of an approach called ‘writing to learn.’ And it’s true that sentence combining—and some other sentence-level activities—probably won’t have that effect. But  some  sentence-level activities can provide powerful boosts to learning if they’re grounded in the content of the curriculum.”

Tags: Curriculum Literacy

Programs: Literacy Specialist

Departments: Curriculum & Teaching

Published Wednesday, Feb 3, 2021

Teachers College Newsroom

Address: Institutional Advancement 193-197 Grace Dodge Hall

Box: 306 Phone: (212) 678-3231 Email: views@tc.columbia.edu

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

Four Strategies for Effective Writing Instruction

• Share article

(This is the first post in a two-part series.)

The new question-of-the-week is:

What is the single most effective instructional strategy you have used to teach writing?

Teaching and learning good writing can be a challenge to educators and students alike.

The topic is no stranger to this column—you can see many previous related posts at Writing Instruction .

But I don’t think any of us can get too much good instructional advice in this area.

Today, Jenny Vo, Michele Morgan, and Joy Hamm share wisdom gained from their teaching experience.

Before I turn over the column to them, though, I’d like to share my favorite tool(s).

Graphic organizers, including writing frames (which are basically more expansive sentence starters) and writing structures (which function more as guides and less as “fill-in-the-blanks”) are critical elements of my writing instruction.

You can see an example of how I incorporate them in my seven-week story-writing unit and in the adaptations I made in it for concurrent teaching.

You might also be interested in The Best Scaffolded Writing Frames For Students .

Now, to today’s guests:

‘Shared Writing’

Jenny Vo earned her B.A. in English from Rice University and her M.Ed. in educational leadership from Lamar University. She has worked with English-learners during all of her 24 years in education and is currently an ESL ISST in Katy ISD in Katy, Texas. Jenny is the president-elect of TexTESOL IV and works to advocate for all ELs:

The single most effective instructional strategy that I have used to teach writing is shared writing. Shared writing is when the teacher and students write collaboratively. In shared writing, the teacher is the primary holder of the pen, even though the process is a collaborative one. The teacher serves as the scribe, while also questioning and prompting the students.

The students engage in discussions with the teacher and their peers on what should be included in the text. Shared writing can be done with the whole class or as a small-group activity.

There are two reasons why I love using shared writing. One, it is a great opportunity for the teacher to model the structures and functions of different types of writing while also weaving in lessons on spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

It is a perfect activity to do at the beginning of the unit for a new genre. Use shared writing to introduce the students to the purpose of the genre. Model the writing process from beginning to end, taking the students from idea generation to planning to drafting to revising to publishing. As you are writing, make sure you refrain from making errors, as you want your finished product to serve as a high-quality model for the students to refer back to as they write independently.

Another reason why I love using shared writing is that it connects the writing process with oral language. As the students co-construct the writing piece with the teacher, they are orally expressing their ideas and listening to the ideas of their classmates. It gives them the opportunity to practice rehearsing what they are going to say before it is written down on paper. Shared writing gives the teacher many opportunities to encourage their quieter or more reluctant students to engage in the discussion with the types of questions the teacher asks.

Writing well is a skill that is developed over time with much practice. Shared writing allows students to engage in the writing process while observing the construction of a high-quality sample. It is a very effective instructional strategy used to teach writing.

‘Four Square’

Michele Morgan has been writing IEPs and behavior plans to help students be more successful for 17 years. She is a national-board-certified teacher, Utah Teacher Fellow with Hope Street Group, and a special education elementary new-teacher specialist with the Granite school district. Follow her @MicheleTMorgan1:

For many students, writing is the most dreaded part of the school day. Writing involves many complex processes that students have to engage in before they produce a product—they must determine what they will write about, they must organize their thoughts into a logical sequence, and they must do the actual writing, whether on a computer or by hand. Still they are not done—they must edit their writing and revise mistakes. With all of that, it’s no wonder that students struggle with writing assignments.

In my years working with elementary special education students, I have found that writing is the most difficult subject to teach. Not only do my students struggle with the writing process, but they often have the added difficulties of not knowing how to spell words and not understanding how to use punctuation correctly. That is why the single most effective strategy I use when teaching writing is the Four Square graphic organizer.

The Four Square instructional strategy was developed in 1999 by Judith S. Gould and Evan Jay Gould. When I first started teaching, a colleague allowed me to borrow the Goulds’ book about using the Four Square method, and I have used it ever since. The Four Square is a graphic organizer that students can make themselves when given a blank sheet of paper. They fold it into four squares and draw a box in the middle of the page. The genius of this instructional strategy is that it can be used by any student, in any grade level, for any writing assignment. These are some of the ways I have used this strategy successfully with my students:

* Writing sentences: Students can write the topic for the sentence in the middle box, and in each square, they can draw pictures of details they want to add to their writing.

* Writing paragraphs: Students write the topic sentence in the middle box. They write a sentence containing a supporting detail in three of the squares and they write a concluding sentence in the last square.

* Writing short essays: Students write what information goes in the topic paragraph in the middle box, then list details to include in supporting paragraphs in the squares.

When I gave students writing assignments, the first thing I had them do was create a Four Square. We did this so often that it became automatic. After filling in the Four Square, they wrote rough drafts by copying their work off of the graphic organizer and into the correct format, either on lined paper or in a Word document. This worked for all of my special education students!

I was able to modify tasks using the Four Square so that all of my students could participate, regardless of their disabilities. Even if they did not know what to write about, they knew how to start the assignment (which is often the hardest part of getting it done!) and they grew to be more confident in their writing abilities.

In addition, when it was time to take the high-stakes state writing tests at the end of the year, this was a strategy my students could use to help them do well on the tests. I was able to give them a sheet of blank paper, and they knew what to do with it. I have used many different curriculum materials and programs to teach writing in the last 16 years, but the Four Square is the one strategy that I have used with every writing assignment, no matter the grade level, because it is so effective.

‘Swift Structures’

Joy Hamm has taught 11 years in a variety of English-language settings, ranging from kindergarten to adult learners. The last few years working with middle and high school Newcomers and completing her M.Ed in TESOL have fostered stronger advocacy in her district and beyond:

A majority of secondary content assessments include open-ended essay questions. Many students falter (not just ELs) because they are unaware of how to quickly organize their thoughts into a cohesive argument. In fact, the WIDA CAN DO Descriptors list level 5 writing proficiency as “organizing details logically and cohesively.” Thus, the most effective cross-curricular secondary writing strategy I use with my intermediate LTELs (long-term English-learners) is what I call “Swift Structures.” This term simply means reading a prompt across any content area and quickly jotting down an outline to organize a strong response.

To implement Swift Structures, begin by displaying a prompt and modeling how to swiftly create a bubble map or outline beginning with a thesis/opinion, then connecting the three main topics, which are each supported by at least three details. Emphasize this is NOT the time for complete sentences, just bulleted words or phrases.

Once the outline is completed, show your ELs how easy it is to plug in transitions, expand the bullets into detailed sentences, and add a brief introduction and conclusion. After modeling and guided practice, set a 5-10 minute timer and have students practice independently. Swift Structures is one of my weekly bell ringers, so students build confidence and skill over time. It is best to start with easy prompts where students have preformed opinions and knowledge in order to focus their attention on the thesis-topics-supporting-details outline, not struggling with the rigor of a content prompt.

Here is one easy prompt example: “Should students be allowed to use their cellphones in class?”

Swift Structure outline:

Thesis - Students should be allowed to use cellphones because (1) higher engagement (2) learning tools/apps (3) gain 21st-century skills

Topic 1. Cellphones create higher engagement in students...

Details A. interactive (Flipgrid, Kahoot)

B. less tempted by distractions

C. teaches responsibility

Topic 2. Furthermore,...access to learning tools...

A. Google Translate description

B. language practice (Duolingo)

C. content tutorials (Kahn Academy)

Topic 3. In addition,...practice 21st-century skills…

Details A. prep for workforce

B. access to information

C. time-management support

This bare-bones outline is like the frame of a house. Get the structure right, and it’s easier to fill in the interior decorating (style, grammar), roof (introduction) and driveway (conclusion). Without the frame, the roof and walls will fall apart, and the reader is left confused by circuitous rubble.

Once LTELs have mastered creating simple Swift Structures in less than 10 minutes, it is time to introduce complex questions similar to prompts found on content assessments or essays. Students need to gain assurance that they can quickly and logically explain and justify their opinions on multiple content essays without freezing under pressure.

Thanks to Jenny, Michele, and Joy for their contributions!

Please feel free to leave a comment with your reactions to the topic or directly to anything that has been said in this post.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Education Week has published a collection of posts from this blog, along with new material, in an e-book form. It’s titled Classroom Management Q&As: Expert Strategies for Teaching .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email (The RSS feed for this blog, and for all Ed Week articles, has been changed by the new redesign—new ones are not yet available). And if you missed any of the highlights from the first nine years of this blog, you can see a categorized list below.

• This Year’s Most Popular Q&A Posts
• Race & Racism in Schools
• School Closures & the Coronavirus Crisis
• Classroom-Management Advice
• Best Ways to Begin the School Year
• Best Ways to End the School Year
• Student Motivation & Social-Emotional Learning
• Implementing the Common Core
• Facing Gender Challenges in Education
• Teaching Social Studies
• Cooperative & Collaborative Learning
• Using Tech in the Classroom
• Student Voices
• Parent Engagement in Schools
• Teaching English-Language Learners
• Reading Instruction
• Writing Instruction
• Education Policy Issues
• Differentiating Instruction
• Math Instruction
• Science Instruction
• Advice for New Teachers
• Author Interviews
• Entering the Teaching Profession
• The Inclusive Classroom
• Learning & the Brain
• Administrator Leadership
• Teacher Leadership
• Relationships in Schools
• Professional Development
• Instructional Strategies
• Best of Classroom Q&A
• Professional Collaboration
• Classroom Organization
• Mistakes in Education
• Project-Based Learning

I am also creating a Twitter list including all contributors to this column .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Case Research, Writing and Teaching: The Unbroken Circle

• William Naumes The University of New Hampshire Author
• Michael Merenda The University of New Hampshire Author
• Margaret Naumes The University of New Hampshire Author

Case writing in business and academic settings has been used primarily as a pedagogical technique to help students understand administrative practices in real-world settings. This same technique, however, can be effective for developing as well as testing theory. Case-based research typically is not translated into case writing and teaching, other than through its impact on theory. The authors propose that trainers, researchers, and teachers should participate in case-writing activities to understand as well as teach more effectively the concepts of administrative disciplines. In this manner, they may connect the duties that comprise their profession, their research, and their teaching.

• Requires Subscription PDF

Access Agreement Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Before proceeding you must agree to the terms and conditions of usage as outlined below by clicking on the Accept button and/or by both parties’ signatures below. You will have to do this only once. After agreement, you will be redirected back to the main Journal page. A pdf copy of the terms is available for download.

This Access Agreement (the "Agreement") is effective upon processing of payment ("Effective Date") and is entered into by and between the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching (“JECT”) and the Customer (“Customer").

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes and voids all prior communications, understandings, and agreements relating to the Product(s), including any terms of use displayed to Authorized Users via the online site of the Product(s). Alterations to the Agreement and to any Addendum to the Agreement are only valid and binding if they are recorded in writing and signed by both parties

. I. Definitions

"Authorized Users" shall mean individuals who are authorized by the Customer (which shall include those individuals authorized by the Institutions hereunder) to access the Customer's information services whether on-site or off-site via secure authentication and who are affiliated with the Customer as a student (undergraduates and postgraduates), employee (whether on a permanent or temporary basis), or a contractor of the Customer. Individuals who are not a current student, employee, or a contractor of the Customer, but who are permitted to access the Customer's information services from computer terminals within the physical premises of the Customer ("Walk-In Users"), are also deemed to be Authorized Users, but only for the time they are within the physical premises of the Customer. Walk-In Users may not be given means to access the Product(s) when they are not within the physical premises of the Customer.

"Commercial Use" shall mean use for the purpose of monetary reward (whether by or for the Customer or an Authorized User) by means of the sale, resale, loan, transfer, hire, or other form of exploitation of the Product(s). For the avoidance of doubt, neither recovery of direct cost by the Customer from Authorized Users, nor use by the Customer or Authorized Users of the Product(s) in the course of research funded by a commercial organization, shall be deemed to constitute Commercial Use.

"Educational Purposes" shall mean for the purpose of education, teaching, distance learning, private study and/or research as described in Section II below.

"Institutions" shall mean the Customer's participating institutions, if applicable.

"License" shall mean the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and use the Product(s) pursuant to the specific terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

"Product(s)" shall mean the products, materials and/or information contained therein that are subject to this Agreement. Product(s) include the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching and the archive of the Learning Communities Journal.

"Reasonable Amount" shall be determined based on guidelines set forth by 17 U.S. Code § 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights, Fair use).

"Secure Authentication" shall mean access to the Product(s) by Internet Protocol ("IP") ranges or by another means of authentication agreed between the Publisher and Customer or Institutions (if applicable) from time to time.

II. Authorized Use of Product(s)

Customer, the Institutions (if applicable), and Authorized Users may use the Product(s) for Educational Purposes as follows:

Analysis . Authorized Users shall be permitted to extract or use information contained in the Product(s) for Educational Purposes, including, but not limited to, text and data mining, extraction and manipulation of information for the purposes of illustration, explanation, example, comment, criticism, teaching, research, or analysis.

Course Packs . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s) in the preparation of course packs or other educational materials.

Digital Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may download and digitally copy a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Display . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users shall have the right to electronically display the Product(s) to the extent necessary to further the intent and purpose of this Agreement.

Electronic Reserve . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of each of the Product(s) in connection with specific courses of instruction offered by Customer.

Interlibrary Loan . The Customer and the Institutions shall be permitted to use Reasonable Amounts of the Content to fulfill occasional requests from other, non-participating institutions, a practice commonly called Interlibrary Loan ("ILL"). Customer and the Institutions shall fulfill such requests in compliance with Section 108 of the United States Copyright Law (17 USC S108, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives") and the Guidelines for the Proviso of Subsection 108(2g)(2) prepared by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU).

The electronic form of the Product(s) may be used as a source for ILL. Customer and the Institutions shall include copyright notices on all ILL transmissions. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any non-secure electronic transmission of files be permitted.

Print Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may print a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Recover Copying Costs . Customer and the Institutions may charge a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying or printing portions of Product(s) for Authorized Users.

Scholarly Sharing . Authorized Users may transmit to a third party colleague in hard copy or electronically, Reasonable Amounts of the Product(s) for personal use, professional use, or Educational Purposes but in no event for Commercial Use. In addition, Authorized Users have the right to use, with appropriate credit, figures, tables, and brief excerpts from the Product(s) in the Authorized User's own scientific, scholarly, and educational works.

Text Mining . Authorized Users may use the licensed material to perform and engage in text mining/data mining activities for legitimate academic research and other Educational Purposes. Those uses beyond educational use shall require permission from the Publisher.

III. Restrictions

Except as provided herein, the institution shall make reasonable efforts to inform its authorized users not to use, alter, decompile, modify, display, or distribute the Product(s) as follows:

Alter Identification . Remove, obscure, or modify copyright notices, text acknowledging, attributions, or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear. Alter Product(s).

Alter, decompile, adapt, or modify the Product(s), except to the extent necessary to make it perceptible on a computer screen, or as otherwise permitted in this Agreement. Alteration of words or their order is strictly prohibited.

Commercial Use . No Commercial Use of the Product(s) shall be permitted unless the Customer or an Authorized User has been granted prior written consent by an authorized representative of the Product(s). Use of all or any part of the Product(s) for any Commercial Use or for any purpose other than Educational Purposes.

Distribution . Display or distribute any part of the Product(s) on any electronic network, including without limitation, the Internet, and any other distribution medium now in existence or hereinafter created, other than by a Secure Authentication; print and distribute any portion(s) of the Product(s)s to persons or entities other than the Customer or Authorized Users, except as provided in Section II.

JECT acknowledges that the Customer cannot police or control the actions of its students, faculty, and other Authorized Users with respect to their use of the Product(s). In the event of abuse, the institution shall make prompt and reasonable efforts to heal the breach and notify the publisher.

IV. Term and Termination

This agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect unless and until terminated as permitted herein (the "Term"). There is no perpetual electronic access to content made available during the term of the agreement.

JECT may terminate this Agreement if Customer violates any of the terms and conditions set forth herein. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer of the basis for termination.

The Customer may terminate this Agreement if sufficient funds are not provided or allotted in future government-approved budgets of the Customer (or reasonably available or expected to become available from other sources at the time the Customer’s payment obligation attaches) to permit the Subscriber, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue this Agreement.

In the event of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) by an Authorized User, Customer shall cooperate with JECT in the investigation of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) of which it is made aware and shall use reasonable efforts to remedy such unauthorized use and prevent its recurrence. JECT may terminate such Authorized User's access to the Product(s) after first providing reasonable notice to the Customer (in no event less than two (2) weeks) and cooperating with the Customer to avoid recurrence of any unauthorized use. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer

. V. Refunds

In the event that a subscription is canceled by the Customer prior to the subscription end date, the following will be used as guidelines for refunds.

Electronic subscriptions . The Customer shall be entitled to a full refund within 14 days of the start of the most recent subscription term. Refunds requested after 14 days but no later than 60 days from the start of the most recent subscription term will be allowed, minus a 30% processing fee. Refunds will not be granted if requested more than 60 days after the start of the most recent subscription term.

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching Center for Teaching Excellence Miami University 317 Laws Hall Oxford, Ohio 45056

All rights reserved | Miami University | The Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Writing the Introduction/Background of a Research Article

Writing the introduction and background of a research article can be daunting. Where do you start? What information should you include?

A great place to start is creating an argument structure for why your research topic is relevant and important. This structure should clearly walk the reader through current, relevant literature and lead them to the gap in the literature that your topic fills. To do this I use the following 4-step argument creation structure.

• Create argument funnel questions/statements
• Harvest article quotes that explain/backup each of the argument funnel questions/statements
• Organize article quotes to best support each section of the argument funnel
• Write prose that utilizes the article quotes to progress your argument from most well known to your specific topic

1. Argument Funnel Creation

Create an argument funnel with statements that take the reader form the most well known and widely accepted knowledge connected to my topic down to your specific research topic.

Completed Argument Funnel Example

When creating your funnel statements think about what research exists related to your topic. Where are the gaps in the existing literature? How do you know those are the gaps? If you get stuck, think about the 50,000 ft view of your topic and how you would explain the necessity of your research to people not in your field.

2. Harvesting Article Quotes

Find research articles that pertain to each of your funnel statements to back them up with evidence. As you find the articles put them into a citation manager (e.g., Zotero) now to save yourself time later. While reading the articles, pull (copy and paste) article quotes/excerpts that MAY be relevant. Pull more than you think you need, especially duplicates of the same idea by different authors to strengthen your argument. Store your quotes/excerpts in a document organized by your funnel statements with in-text citations with the page number you pulled it from. The National Academy of Engineering reports can be valuable top of funnel resources.

3. Organizing Article Quotes

Once you have harvested many article quotes for each of your funnel statements, organized them in an order that walks your reader through the literature landscape in a logical way. As you do this assume the reader doesn’t know anything about your topic so start at the beginning. Chronological order is a good place to start but may not always fit your argument. Think about your quotes/excerpts as puzzle pieces, where do they logically fit together?

4. Writing Prose

Now that your article quotes are organized, summarize the quotes in your own voice with appropriate citations. This is the time to begin including transition/connecting words and phrases between summarized quotes to bring your reader through your argument. Don’t forget to include “so what?” sentences and phrases after summarized quotes. In other words don’t only report what other authors said or found, tell the reader why that is important to your argument.

How Can Teacher Preparation Stay Relevant?

Eleonora Villegas-Reimers and Meagan Comb explore the ways programs are adapting to today’s challenges

Finn gardiner.

Traditional teacher preparation programs housed in institutions of higher education are finding themselves having to adapt to the new reality that fewer people are studying to become teachers. As a result, these programs are building new partnerships, changing their curriculum, and adopting new recruitment methods to keep themselves relevant.

For this Conversations with the Dean session, Dean David Chard is joined by Meagan Comb , assistant dean of Executive Affairs and executive director of the Wheelock Educational Policy Center, and clinical professor Eleonora Villegas-Reimers , chair of the Teaching & Learning Department, to discuss the role that traditional teacher preparation plays in a continually changing landscape—and how higher education institutions can improve their methods to encourage a new generation of students to join the profession.

Highlights from the Conversation

The changing landscape of teacher prep.

There’s been a significant decline in teacher prep enrollment over the last decade. . . . It used to be that, in most states, to become a teacher, you had to complete a teacher prep program from an institution of higher education. [But because of the] shortages, alongside concerns and questions about the quality of training meeting the needs of the current classroom environment, new avenues began to open up. Meagan Comb

Keys to teacher retention

It’s fascinating to have conversations both with recent graduates who are choosing to stay, but also with teachers who have been in the field for 20, 25 years and are choosing to still stay. In talking with the younger teachers, how well prepared they feel has an impact on their decision to stay. They feel that they know what they are doing. They feel that they can do things even when they don’t feel totally supported by their administration, their district, or by the parents in their school. Eleonora Villegas-Reimers

The impact of contemporary research

When I became a teacher, we didn’t know about the impact of social and emotional learning. We didn’t know how the brain works to facilitate learning, and the conditions that we need to create so that learning can happen. . . . So now we have research that says, “You have an ethical responsibility to change the way you prepare teachers to respond to what we know about the way we can facilitate learning and teaching.” Eleonora Villegas-Reimers

Conversations with the Dean are a series of webinars hosted by Dean Chard that explore some of the most pressing topics in education. Learn more about Conversations with the Dean .

Explore Related Topics:

• Eleonora Villegas-Reimers
• Meagan Comb
• Wheelock Educational Policy Center
• Share this story
• 0 Comments Add

Share this:

Digital communications specialist.

Finn Gardiner Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Russian programmers play 'cat and mouse' game to outsmart censors

• Medium Text

• Russian programmers coordinate in chats, at hackathons to outfox censors
• Moscow has banned foreign social media sites, opposition media outlets
• Programmers build on anti-censorship tools developed in China, US
• Restrictions have been ramped up since invasion of Ukraine

FOOLING THE CENSORS

Sharing code for greater good, risks for russia.

Sign up here.

Reporting and writing by Lucy Papachristou; Editing by Mike Collett-White and Daniel Flynn

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

The Russian Defence Ministry said on Saturday that its forces had carried out 35 strikes in the last week against Ukrainian energy facilities, defence factories, railway infrastructure, air defences, and ammunition stocks.

World Chevron

Chile's President Boric declares national mourning period after 3 police officers killed

Three police officers were killed on Saturday in southern Chile during what President Gabriel Boric called a cowardly attack that led him to declare three days of national mourning.

A tornado that struck the city of Guangzhou in southern China killed five people and left 33 injured, state news agency Xinhua said on Saturday, citing local authorities.

Advertisement

Teaching Early Writing: Supporting Early Writers from Preschool to Elementary School

• Published: 29 June 2022
• Volume 51 , pages 1227–1239, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Rebecca Rohloff   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4548-4996 1 ,
• Laura Tortorelli 2 ,
• Hope K. Gerde 3 &
• Gary E. Bingham 1  

1545 Accesses

3 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Writing skills grow along a predictable developmental trajectory, yet what is considered “writing” can look very different in preschool and early elementary classrooms. The way in which writing may look in each setting reflects that teachers are working with different sets of learning standards, with different conceptualizations of writing to inform their pedagogical decisions (Tortorelli et al., Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 729–752, 2021). These differences translate into varied expectations for what young children are capable of and how these skills should be supported (Tortorelli et al., Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 729–752, 2021). We recommend that across the 3–6 age band teachers provide meaningful writing experiences that link composing with writing concepts and transcription skills. This article provides concrete instructional strategies to support an integrative approach to writing and includes guidance for writing concepts, handwriting, spelling, and composing to support a successful preschool to kindergarten writing transition for children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Write this way: examining teachers’ supportive strategies to facilitate children’s early writing in preschool

Who writes what when?: Examining children’s early composing

Examining teachers’ early writing knowledge and practices

Bauer, E. B., Presiado, V., & Colomer, S. (2017). Writing through partnership: Fostering translanguaging in children who are emergent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research , 49 (1), 10–37

Article   Google Scholar  

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. R. (2020). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Google Scholar  

Bingham, G. E., Quinn, M. F., & Gerde, H. K. (2017). Examining early childhood teachers’ writing practices: Associations between pedagogical supports and children’s writing skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 39 (4), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/681130 .

Bingham, G. E., Quinn, M. F., McRoy, K., Zhang, X., & Gerde, H. K. (2018). Integrating writing into the early childhood curriculum: A frame for intentional and meaningful writing experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal , 37 (6), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0894-x

Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom , 6 (2), ix–xi

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Development of dramatic play in young children and its effects on self-regulation: The Vygotskian approach. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education , 19 (2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163638980190204

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Bracken, B. A., & Crawford, E. (2010). Basic concepts in early childhood educational standards: A 50-state review. Early Childhood Education Journal , 37 (5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0363-7

Cabell, S. Q., Tortorelli, L. S., & Gerde, H. K. (2013). How do I write… ? Scaffolding preschoolers’ early writing skills. The Reading Teacher , 66 (8), 650–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1173

Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing, and phonology. Harvard Educational Review , 40 (2), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.2.y7u0242x76w05624

Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development . Heinemann.

Crisp, T., Knezek, S. M., Quinn, M., Bingham, G. E., Girardeau, K., & Starks, F. (2016). What’s on our bookshelves? The diversity of children’s literature in early childhood classroom libraries. Journal of Children’s Literature , 42 (2), 29–42

DeBruin, P. A., & Slutzky, C. (2016). Exploring pre-K age 4 learning standards and their role in early childhood education: Research and policy implications . ETS Research Reports Series , 2016 (1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12099

Diamond, K. E., Gerde, H. K., & Powell, D. R. (2008). Development in early literacy skills during the pre-kindergarten year in Head Start: Relations between growth in children’s writing and understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 23 (4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.05.002

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling . Heinemann.

Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice , 59 (1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411

Gerde, H. K., Bingham, G. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2012a). Writing in early childhood classrooms: Guidelines for best practice. Early Childhood Education Journal , 40 , 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0531-z

Gerde, H. K., Goetsch, M. E., & Bingham, G. E. (2016). Using print in the environment to promote early writing. The Reading Teacher , 70 (3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1508

Gerde, H. K., Skibbe, L. E., Bowles, R. P., & Martoccio, T. L. (2012b). Child and home predictors of children’s name writing. Child Development Research , 12 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/748532

Gerde, H. K., Skibbe, L. E., Wright, T. S., & Douglas, S. N. (2019a). Evaluation of Head Start curricula for standards-based writing instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal , 47 (1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0906-x

Gerde, H. K., Wright, T. S., & Bingham, G. E. (2019b). Preschool teachers’ beliefs about and instruction for writing. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education , 40 (4), 326–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2019.1593899

Gillanders, C., & Soltero-González, L. (2019). Discovering how writing works in different languages: Lessons from dual language learners. Young Children , 74 (2), 32–39

Gort, M. (2006). Strategic codeswitching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of emergent bilingual writing: Lessons from first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy , 6 (3), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798406069796

Gort, M. (2012). Code-switching patterns in the writing-related talk of young emergent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research , 44 (1), 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11431626

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (1), S35–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading . Alliance for Excellent Education.

Hall, A. H., Simpson, A., Guo, Y., & Wang, S. (2015). Examining the effects of preschool writing instruction on emergent literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Literacy Research and Instruction , 54 (2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.991883

Hall, A. H., White, K. M., Guo, Y., & Emerson, A. (2019). Who counts as a writer? Examining child, teacher, and parent perceptions of writing. Early Child Development and Care , 189 (3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1399884

Hayes, J. R., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2015). Can cognitive writing models inform the design of the Common Core State Standards? The Elementary School Journal , 115 (4), 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1086/681909

Helman, L. A. (2004). Building on the sound system of Spanish: Insights from the alphabetic spellings of English-language learners. The Reading Teacher , 57 (5), 452–460. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205383

Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental-spelling research: A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly , 39 (2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.4

Kaderavek, J. N., Cabell, S. Q., & Justice, L. M. (2009). Early writing and spelling development. In P. M. Rhyner (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language development: Promoting learning in early childhood (pp. 104–152). The Guilford Press.

Kim, Y., Otaiba, A., S., & Wanzek, J. (2015). Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences , 37 , 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009

Kim, Y. S., Otaiba, A., Folsom, S., Greulich, J. S., L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research , 57 (1), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152)

Manfra, L., Squires, C., Dinehart, L. H. B., Bleiker, C., Hartman, S. C., & Winsler, A. (2017). Preschool writing and premathematics predict grade 3 achievement for low-income, ethnically diverse children. Journal of Educational Research , 110 (5), 528–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1145095

Medina, C. (2010). Reading across communities in biliteracy prac-tices: Examining translocal discourses and cultural flows in literature discussions. Reading Research Quarterly , 45 (1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1598/R RQ.45.1.3

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Cham: National Institute for Literacy.

Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2017). Invented spelling in kindergarten as a predictor of reading and spelling in Grade 1: A new pathway to literacy, or just the same road, less known? Developmental Psychology , 53 (1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000179

Pacheco, M. B., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Making meaning through translanguaging in the literacy classroom. The Reading Teacher , 69 (5), 533–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1390

Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing , 24 (5), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9220-8

Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly , 49 (4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.79

Quinn, M. F., Gerde, H. K., & Bingham, G. E. (2016). Help me where I am: Scaffolding writing in preschool classrooms. The Reading Teacher , 70 (3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1512

Ray, K. W., & Glover, M. (2008). Already reading: Nurturing writers in preschool and kindergarten . Heinemann.

Raynolds, L. B., & Uhry, J. K. (2010). The invented spellings of non-Spanish phonemes by Spanish–English bilingual and English monolingual kindergarteners. Reading & Writing , 23 , 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9169-7

Raynolds, L. B., Uhry, J. K., & Brunner, J. (2013). Vowel representations in the invented spellings of Spanish–English bilingual kindergartners. Reading and Writing , 26 , 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9380-9

Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy , 6 (3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798406069801

Reyes, I. (2012). Biliteracy among children and youths. Reading Research Quarterly , 47 (3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.022

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2011). The classroom environment: First, last, and always. The Reading Teacher , 65 (2), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01021

Rowe, D., & Fain, J. G. (2013). The family backpack project: Responding to dual-language texts through family journals. Language Arts , 90 (6), 402–416

Rowe, D. W. (2003). The nature of young children’s authoring. In N. Hall, J. Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 258–270). Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Rowe, D. W. (2008). ​​The social construction of intentionality: Two- year-olds’ and adults’ participation at a preschool writing center. Research in the Teaching of English , 42 (4), 387–434. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171810

Rowe, D. W., & Neitzel, C. (2010). Interest and agency in 2- and 3-year-olds’ participation in emergent writing. Reading Research Quarterly , 45 (2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.2

​​Rowe, D. W., Shimizu, A. Y., & Davis, Z. G. (2022). Essential practices for engaging young children as writers: Lessons from expert early writing teachers. Reading Teacher , 75 (4), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2066

Rowe, D. W., & Wilson, S. (2015). The development of a descriptive measure of early childhood writing: Results from the Write Start! Writing Assessment. Journal of Literacy Research , 47 (2), 245–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619723

Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2006). Conceptualization of readiness and the content of early learning standards: The intersection of policy and research? Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 21 , 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.003

Shanahan, T. (2015). Common Core State Standards: A new role for writing. The Elementary School Journal , 115 (4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/681130

Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 194–210). The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T. (2019). Reading-writing connections. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction 3 (pp. 309–332). The Guilford Press.

Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2018 (NCES 2020-009) . National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Soltero-González, L., & Butvilofsky, S. (2016). The early Spanish and English writing development of simultaneous bilingual preschoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy , 16 (4), 473–497

Thomas, L. J., Gerde, H. K., Piasta, S. B., Logan, J. A. R., Bailet, L., & Zettler-Greeley, C. (2020). The early writing skills of children identified as at risk for literacy difficulty. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 51 , 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.01.003

Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 83–95). Guilford Press.

Tortorelli, L., Gerde, H. K., Rohloff, R., & Bingham, G. E. (2021). Ready, set, write: Early learning standards for writing in the common core era. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 729–752. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.436

Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2022). Statistical learning in word reading and spelling across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading , 26 (2), 139–149

Vasquez, V. M. (2014). So the boys won’t bother us: Kindergarten students as researchers. Language Arts , 92 (1), 52–58

Velasco, P., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal , 37 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893270

Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2022). Universals in learning to read across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading , 26 (2), 150–164

Zhang, C., & Quinn, M. F. (2020). Preschool children’s interest in early writing activities island perceptions of writing experience. The Elementary School Journal, 121 (1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/709979 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Rebecca Rohloff & Gary E. Bingham

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Laura Tortorelli

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Hope K. Gerde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Rohloff .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rohloff, R., Tortorelli, L., Gerde, H.K. et al. Teaching Early Writing: Supporting Early Writers from Preschool to Elementary School. Early Childhood Educ J 51 , 1227–1239 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01365-8

Download citation

Accepted : 24 May 2022

Published : 29 June 2022

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01365-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Kindergarten
• Writing standards
• Teaching strategies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research