teaching of writing research

• Career Center

Position Statements

• Submit a Resolution
• All Position Statements
• NCTE Process for Adopting Official Guidelines and Short Documents

Understanding and Teaching Writing: Guiding Principles

This statement, formerly known as Teaching Composition: A Position Statement (1985), was revised in November 2018 with the new title Understanding and Teaching Writing: Guiding Principles.

The statement is organized into three sections that outline, in broad strokes, what the research literature tells us about writing and the teaching of writing. Each section of this statement provides a brief definition of principles for understanding and teaching writing and provides resources for additional information. The statement concludes with implications for teachers of writing (and writers) based on the principles.

Part 1: What Is “Writing”?

“Writing” refers to the act of creating composed knowledge. Composition takes place across a range of contexts and for a variety of purposes. A writer might compose a blog entry to share news about an important event to an audience of readers whom she has never seen; alternatively, she might write about this event for herself in a private notebook that only she reads. A student might compose a series of equations to think through a difficult mathematical problem for herself as part of an exam; the same student might compose these equations in a lab notebook for others to understand a complex reaction. A community might collaboratively compose a document to convey their position on an issue, like this statement; other writers might use collaboratively composed documents to create their own compositions. As composed knowledge, writing thus serves multiple purposes: to help writers develop and document their ideas for a range of purposes and audiences in a variety of contexts; to distribute ideas to other audiences so that they can be revised or recirculated; to help an individual or a community to define, clarify, or even reify its ideas. As composed knowledge, “writing” ranges broadly from written language (such as that used in this statement), to graphics, to mathematical notation.

The focus of this statement is on teaching written language to students, largely in school, from pre-kindergarten through graduate school. This document outlines a set of principles for the teaching of writing—of composed knowledge. While teaching is conventionally associated with classroom or school settings, this statement acknowledges that teaching and learning happen across the range of a learner’s experience—in school and in the classroom, but also at home, in their communities, with colleagues and friends. As a document intended for use primarily (but not exclusively) by formal educators, the principles here may serve to guide courses, assignments, activities, and work with writers and writing (or composed knowledge) within and beyond the formalized curriculum.

Principle 1.1: Writing is social and rhetorical.

The first parts of this principle—writing is social and rhetorical—focus on external factors and writing (Roozen). Writing is produced by people, in specific situations and contexts, and often (but not always) circulates among people. Writing is thus social—it is intended to speak to audiences for particular purposes. Even when a writer writes “for themselves” (e.g., in a personal blog or diary), they are their own audience (Bawarshi). When it is effective, writing is rhetorical, i.e., it takes into account the values, ideologies, interests, needs, and commitments of the people, the audiences, for whom it is intended.

When writers produce writing, they take into consideration purposes, audiences, and contexts. This leads them to make intentional choices about the elements that go into writing:

• content (the subject or focus of the writing);
• form (the shape of the writing, including its organization, structure, flow, and composition elements like words, symbols, images, etc.);
• style/register (the choice of discourse and syntax used for the writing, chosen from among the vast array of language systems [often called “dialects”] that are available for the writer); and mechanics (punctuation, citational style, etc.).

When writing reflects the expectations that audiences have for each of these elements, it is considered good; when it does not, it is considered less than good—and often the writers who produce it are judged accordingly.

Principle 1.2: Writing serves a variety of purposes.

Writing can serve a wide variety of purposes, and it happens in and out of school, as well. Sometimes, writing can be utilitarian: it is produced to achieve a specific purpose that can be quite disassociated from the writers’ identity or ideas—for instance, a manual for how to operate a digital projector. At other times, writing can be enormously personal, as when a writer is composing a document—film, poem, rap—that reflects deeply held beliefs or ideas. In each of these instances and regardless of purpose, what writers produce reflects their own assessment of the purpose, audience, context, and value of the writing—for themselves and/or for others.

Importantly, writing happens far beyond the walls of a classroom or school—and for school-aged writers, lately more often out of school than in (Applebee and Langer; Lenhart et al). When writers compose—texts to friends, Instagram posts, fan fiction, blogs, or any one of a myriad of sites where they can create identities—they are writing. However, writers increasingly do not recognize these acts as writing, seeing them as distinct from what they are asked to do in school (Lenhart et al). There, analyses have shown that when writing is taught, it is often linked to standards or expectations that writers perceive to be slightly removed or even quite distinct from their experiences, identities, and interests.

Part 2: Who Are Writers?

In teaching writing, it is important to understand who writers are. Students must learn how writing works, and to help them achieve this, recognizing who writers are is essential. Four principles provide an overview of characteristics and concepts that contribute to the formation and development of writers.

Principle 2.1: Everyone is a writer.  

Everyone has the capacity to write. Writers are not static. They develop skills and enhance their writing skills throughout their writing lives; thus, writers grow continually. Becoming a better writer requires practice. The more writers write, the more familiar it becomes. As writers, sometimes they feel confident; at other times, they may feel afraid and insecure. Therefore, students learn to write by writing.

Writers can be beginning or advanced writers in different situations. Just because they may be advanced in one situation, it does not make them advanced in all situations. Writers are researchers too, and they should develop the critical ability to evaluate their own work. They may collaborate with each other in different stages of writing, from drafting to revision to publication. Thus, writers learn how writing is a social act when they consider audiences and contexts and when they work with other writers as they compose.

Writers have varied experiences. They employ different strategies when composing in different situations, for different purposes and audiences, and when using different technologies and tools. Writers also make ethical choices, and writers always have more to learn.

Principle 2.2: Writers bring multiliteracies, and they bring cultural and linguistic assets to whatever they do.  

Because writing is linked to identity, writers represent different ideologies, values, and identities. Thus, writers’ cultures and languages influence their writing. Recognizing that students are language users with multiple literacies will help the writing instructor engage students in writing. Writers also bring their past writing and reading practices with them whenever they write or read. In short, everything they have experienced, who they are, where they have been, and what they have done impact their writing practices, literacies, and language attitudes.

Second-language, or multilingual, writers have become an integral part of writing courses and programs. They take part in these courses and programs at all grades (K–graduate level) and content areas. The language practices and linguistic backgrounds vary among these writers; thus, these writers should not be treated as one and the same. For example, some second-language writers may be native speakers of languages without ever having to learn and practice the written form of such languages. This may include their first language.

Because discourse, audience, and rhetorical appeals often differ across cultural, linguistic, and educational contexts, second-language writers may find it difficult to understand and/or apply the discursive strategies taught in a US writing classroom. Thus, second-language writers’ literacy and linguistic practices should be valued and recognized as assets in the writing classroom and not be viewed as weaknesses and as language interference problems. On the contrary, instructors should identify the strengths second-language writers bring to the classroom and seek opportunities to use these writers’ literacy and linguistic practices as a foundation.

Principle 2.3: Writers compose using different modes and technologies.

With 21st-century technologies, writers compose both print and digital texts. As technologies become more advanced and sophisticated, writers learn the possibilities afforded by these tools. They learn about the potential that various technologies have for the production, consumption, and distribution of forms of composed knowledge. This includes not only writing, but also the composition of other types of texts, such as videos and podcasts. Thus, writers may compose multimodal and digital texts.

With technology, writers are now engaged in multiple discourses, such as texting, blogging, posting on social media sites, and instant messaging, thus using language and writing on a daily basis. It is crucial for writers to be exposed to and gain access to a wide range of technologies and tools and learn about the possibilities of composing with them.

Principle 2.4: Writers compose in and outside the classroom.  

Because writing takes place in different contexts, writers compose for different readers, with varied purposes, and in diverse situations and places. Writers should develop the critical ability to evaluate their own work so that they can become effective, independent writers in the world beyond school. Writers grow by envisioning and learning to write for a variety of audiences. They reflect on the readers’ needs within particular social contexts, often including the readers’ values. As such, writers may engage with their communities and make their writing and composing public. Thus, writers may compose about, with, and for their communities.

Part 3: Essential Principles for Teaching Writing

As teachers of writers, our goal is for writers to emerge as better writers with each new writing experience. This means that as teachers we must consider how writers learn and how we can create conditions in our classroom so that learning can take place. The following four principles can help teachers as we lead classroom communities of writers, as we design curricula and instruction, as we assess learning and evaluate students’ performance, and as we inquire and talk with one another about what we are learning from our experience of leading individual writers and groups of writers. In the principles below, we use the metaphor of “grow” to remind us of our overarching goal of writers emerging from each writing experience with a better understanding of writing, with a clearer sense of who they are as writers, and with a refined and expanded repertoire of conceptual and practical tools that allows them to see possibilities and choices in their future writing experiences.

Principle 3.1: Writers grow within a context / culture / community of feedback.

To emerge as better writers from a writing experience, learners need feedback, and this feedback should fuel revision. In a community of feedback, teachers become learners too, because they inquire with learners about why writers make the choices they do. In a community of feedback, teachers and writers talk together about both products and processes, which means they share criteria, discuss challenges and choices, and offer feedback on how helpful feedback is in helping writers see new possibilities and options in steps they might take next.

Principle 3.2: Writers grow when they broaden their repertoire, and when they refine their judgment in making choices with their repertoire.

Writers need models and strategies—to find topics, issues, and questions to write about, to revise, to contextualize and connect their piece with others, to give and receive feedback. However, collecting those strategies is not enough; writers need practice not only in choosing a strategy to fit a particular purpose and context, but they also need practice in explaining why they made the choices they did.

Principle 3.3: Assessment should be transparent and contextual, and it should provide opportunities for writers to take risks and grow.

Writers need assessments that make audiences, purposes, and expectations clear, and they need multiple opportunities to practice meeting those criteria. When writers have multiple opportunities to practice, to try something new, to take risks or make mistakes, they know that not every writing experience is a high-stakes or evaluative one. For teachers of writers, this means that we can liken the practice of assessment to driving a car—we will see some fixed data (e.g., fuel tank, odometer, speedometer), and we will see some contextual data (what other cars are doing, road conditions, weather conditions). As drivers, we make decisions based on both kinds of data, and the same idea holds true for both writers and teachers of writers. The assessment tools and the way teachers use them create a set of values and purposes in which student writers respond to their experiences of trying to improve as writers. Thus, assessment provides opportunities and occasions for writers to know where they might be headed in a piece of writing.

Principle 3.4: Writers grow when they have a range of writing experiences and in-depth writing experiences.

In practice, writers need to write for multiple purposes, audiences, and contexts. When learners have a range of writing experiences, it offers opportunities for them to make choices, to self-assess, and to reflect on the wisdom of those choices they make as the write for those different purposes, audiences, and contexts. When learners have in-depth writing experiences, they have opportunities to spend time, work from multiple drafts, and see how their writing and thinking have changed over time. In both broad and deep writing experiences, writers grow when they have opportunities to expand upon—and not merely transmit—content knowledge.

Suggested Resources and Readings

Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Elizabeth Wardle, editors. Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts in Writing Studies. Utah State UP, 2015.

Anson, Ian G., and Chris M. Anson. “Assessing Peer and Instructor Response to Writing: A Corpus Analysis from an Expert Survey.” Assessing Writing, vol. 33 , 2017, pp. 12–24.

Applebee, Arthur, and Judith Langer. The State of Writing Instruction in America’s Schools: What Existing Data Tell Us . Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement, 2006.

Baca, Isabel, Yndalecio Isaac Hinojosa, and Susan Wolff-Murphy. Bordered Writers: Latinx Identities and Literacy Practices at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. SUNY Press, forthcoming 2019.

Bawarshi, Anis. Genre and the Invention of the Writer . Utah State UP, 2003.

Bruce, Shanti, and Ben Rafoth, editors. ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed., Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 2009.

CCCC Position Statement on Community-Engaged Projects in Rhetoric and Composition. Conference on College Composition and Communication, April 2016, http://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/community-engaged .

CCCC Position Statement on Students’ Right to Their Own Language. Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2014, https://www2.ncte.org/statement/secondlangwriting/ .

Cox, Michelle, Jay Jordan, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, and Gwen Gray Schwartz, editors. Reinventing Identities in Second Language Writing. NCTE, 2010.

Deans, Thomas, Barbara Roswell, and Adrian J. Wurr, editors. Writing and Community Engagement: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010.

Drew, Sally Valentino, Natalie G. Olinghouse, Michael Faggella-Luby, and Megan E. Welsh. “Framework for Disciplinary Writing in Science Grades 6–12: A National Survey.” Journal of Educational Psychology , vol. 109, no. 7, 2017, pp. 935–955.

Fidalgo, Raquel, Mark Torrance, Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh, and M. Lourdes Alvarez. “Strategy-Focused Writing Instruction: Just Observing and Reflecting on a Model Benefits 6th Grade Students.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 41, 2015, pp. 37–50.

Foltz, P. W., K. E. Lochbaum, and M. B. Rosenstein. “Analysis of Student ELA Writing Performance for a Large Scale Implementation of Formative Assessment.” In Annual Meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education , New Orleans, LA. 2011.

Grabill, Jeffrey T. Writing Community Change: Designing Technologies for Citizen Action. Hampton Press, 2007.

Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research , vol. 77, no. 1, 2007, pp. 81–112.

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, and Paul Kei Matsuda, editors. Cross-Language Relations in Composition. Southern Illinois UP, 2010.

Jeffery, Jill V., and Kristen Wilcox. “‘How Do I Do It if I Don’t Like Writing?’: Adolescents’ Stances toward Writing across Disciplines.” Reading and Writing, vol. 27, no. 6, 2014, pp. 1095–1117.

Kellogg, Ronald T., and Alison P. Whiteford. “Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for Deliberate Practice.” Educational Psychologist, vol. 44, no. 4, 2009, pp. 250–266.

Kirklighter, Cristina, Diana Cardenas, and Susan Wolff-Murphy, editors. Teaching Writing with Latino/a Students: Lessons Learned at Hispanic Serving Institutions . SUNY Press, 2007.

Koster, Monica, Elena Tribushinina, Peter F. de Jong, and Huub van den Bergh. (2015). “Teaching Children to Write: A Meta-analysis of Writing Intervention Research.” Journal of Writing Research, vol. 7, no. 2, 2015, pp. 299–324.

Lenhart, Amanda, et al. Writing, Technology, and Teens . Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2008.

Moore, Jessie L., et al. “Revisualizing Composition: How First-Year Writers Use Composing Technologies.” Computers and Composition , vol. 39, 2016, pp. 1–13.

NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies. National Council of Teachers of English, February 2013, https://www2.ncte.org/statement/21stcentdefinition/ .

NCTE Position Statement on Professional Knowledge for the Teaching of Writing. National Council of Teachers of English, February 2016, https://www2.ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/ .

Parks, Steve. Writing Communities: A Handbook with Readings. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017.

Philippakos, Zoi A., and Charles A. MacArthur. “The Effects of Giving Feedback on the Persuasive Writing of Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students.” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 4, 2016, pp. 419–433.

Ray, Amber B., Steve Graham, Julia D. Houston, and Karen R. Harris. “Teachers’ Use of Writing to Support Students’ Learning in Middle School: A National Survey in the United States.” Reading and Writing, vol. 29, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1039–1068.

Roozen, Kevin. “Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies , edited by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, Utah State UP, 2015, pp. 17–19.

Ryan, Mary E. “Reflexive Writers: Re-thinking Writing Development and Assessment in Schools.” Assessing Writing, vol. 22, 2014, pp. 60–74.

Stock, Patricia L., editor. Composition’s Roots in English Education. Heinemann, 2011.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake, Liana Robertson, and Kara Taczak, editors. Writing Across Contexts: Transfer, Composition, and Sites of Writing. Utah State UP, 2014.

Statement Authors

This document was revised by an NCTE working committee comprising the following:

Linda Adler-Kassner, University of California Santa Barbara

Isabel Baca, University of Texas–El Paso

Jim Fredricksen, Boise State University

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education

• ScholarWorks

ScholarWorks > Arts & Sciences > English > Teaching/Writing

Current Issue: Volume 12, Issue 1 (2024) Summer 2024

“Without Boundaries, Something Great Might Just Be Created”: Examining Preservice Teachers’ Radical Imagination Through Becoming Writers and Teachers of Writing Erica Holyoke and Susan Tily

The Embedded Scaffolded Writing Mini-Course (TESWMC): An Approach to Improve Teacher Candidates’ Writing Skills and Attitudes Vicky Giouroukakis Ph.D. and Laurie Bocca

Five Secondary Teachers’ Developing Identities as Teachers of Digital Writing Brad Jacobson

Critical Media Literacy: Taking Steps to Understand and Implement (in First-Year Composition Courses) Kevin Shank and Lara Searcy

Writing as (Self) Service and Witness: Exploring the Experience of a Teacher Educator Writing Group Sarah Donovan, Amy Vetter, and Eileen Shanahan PhD

It Takes a Community: One NWP Site's Approach to Establishing and Sustaining a Writing Community H. Michelle Kreamer

• Journal Home
• About This Journal
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

4th Edition

Teaching and Researching Writing

• Taylor & Francis eBooks (Institutional Purchase) Opens in new tab or window

Description

The new edition of Ken Hyland’s text provides an authoritative guide to writing theory, research, and teaching. Emphasising the dynamic relationship between scholarship and pedagogy, it shows how research feeds into teaching practice. Teaching and Researching Writing  introduces readers to key conceptual issues in the field today and reinforces their understanding with detailed cases, then offers tools for further investigating areas of interest. This is the essential resource for students of applied linguistics and language education to acquire and operationalise writing research theories, methods, findings, and practices––as well as for scholars and practitioners looking to learn more about writing and literacy. New to the fourth edition: Added or expanded coverage of important topics such as translingualism, digital literacies and technologies, multimodal and social media writing, action research, teacher reflection, curriculum design, teaching young learners, and discipline-specific and profession-specific writing. Updated throughout––including revision to case studies and classroom practices––and discussion of Rhetorical Genre Studies, intercultural rhetoric, and expertise. Reorganised References and Resources section for ease of use for students, researchers, and teachers.

Table of Contents

Ken Hyland is Professor of Applied Linguistics in Education at the University of East Anglia, UK.

About VitalSource eBooks

VitalSource is a leading provider of eBooks.

• Access your materials anywhere, at anytime.
• Customer preferences like text size, font type, page color and more.
• Take annotations in line as you read.

Multiple eBook Copies

This eBook is already in your shopping cart. If you would like to replace it with a different purchasing option please remove the current eBook option from your cart.

Book Preview

The country you have selected will result in the following:

• Product pricing will be adjusted to match the corresponding currency.
• The title Perception will be removed from your cart because it is not available in this region.

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

• Utility Menu

• Writing Center
• Writing Program
• Guides to Teaching Writing

The Harvard Writing Project publishes resource guides for faculty and teaching fellows that help them integrate writing into their courses more effectively — for example, by providing ideas about effective assignment design and strategies for responding to student writing.

A list of current HWP publications for faculty and teaching fellows is provided below. Most of the publications are available for download as PDF files. If you would like to be added to the Bulletin mailing list or to receive printed copies of any of the guides listed below, email James Herron at  [email protected].

HARVARD WRITING PROJECT BRIEF GUIDES TO TEACHING WRITING

OTHER HARVARD WRITING PROJECT TEACHING GUIDES

• Pedagogy Workshops
• Advice for Teaching Fellows
• HarvardWrites Instructor Toolkit
• Additional Resources for Teaching Fellows

4 Ways Reading and Writing Interlock: What the Research Says

• Share article

In putting together this special report on how writing instruction can and should build on the science of reading, Education Week reporters read through dozens of studies and spoke to leading researchers in the field.

From this reporting, we landed on four main research takeaways, each of which are worth reiterating here and consulting as school districts assess the strength of their own writing programs.

1. Reading and writing are intimately connected.

Research on the connections between the two disciplines began in the early 1980s and has grown more robust with time. Although there are elements specific to each, like handwriting, that need to be practiced on their own, reading and writing instruction appear to be effective when combined.

Among the newest and most important additions are three research syntheses conducted by Steve Graham, a professor at the University of Arizona, and his research partners. One of them examined whether writing instruction also led to improvements in students’ reading ability; a second examined the inverse question. Both found significant positive effects for reading and writing.

A third meta-analysis gets one step closer to classroom instruction. Graham and partners examined 47 studies of instructional programs that balanced both reading and writing —no program could feature more than 60 percent of one or the other. The results showed generally positive effects on both reading and writing measures.

2. Writing matters even at the earliest grades, when students are learning to read.

Studies show that the prewriting students do in early education carries meaningful signals about their decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension later on.

Reading experts say that students should be supported in writing almost as soon as they begin reading, and evidence suggests that both spelling and handwriting are linked to the ability to connect speech to print—a process known as encoding —and to oral language development.

3. Like reading, writing must be taught explicitly.

Writing is a complex task that demands much of students’ cognitive resources. Researchers generally agree that writing must be explicitly taught—rather than left up to students to “figure out” the rules on their own. That way, they can spend more time focusing on what they want to say, rather than trying to determine how to say it effectively.

There isn’t as much research about how precisely to do this. One 2019 review, in fact, found significant overlap among the dozen writing programs studied , and concluded that all showed signs of boosting learning. Debates abound about the amount of structure students need and in what sequence, such as whether they need to master sentence construction before moving onto paragraphs and lengthier texts.

But in general, students should be guided on how to construct sentences and paragraphs, and they should have access to models and exemplars, the research suggests. They also need to understand the iterative nature of writing, including how to draft and revise.

A number of different writing frameworks incorporating various degrees of structure and modeling are available, though most of them have not been studied empirically.

4. Writing can help students learn content—and make sense of it.

Much of reading comprehension depends on helping students absorb “world knowledge”—think arts, ancient cultures, literature, and science—so that they can make sense of increasingly sophisticated texts and ideas as their reading improves. Writing can enhance students’ absorption of this background knowledge, and should be emphasized rather than taking a back seat to the more commonly taught exercises, such as stories and personal reflections.

Graham and colleagues conducted another meta-analysis of nearly 60 studies looking at this idea of “writing to learn” in mathematics, science, and social studies. The studies included a mix of higher-order assignments, like analyses and argumentative writing, and lower-level ones, like summarizing and explaining.

This bibliography is by no means comprehensive, but it includes some of the studies and commentaries that we found most helpful in putting together this special report.

Berninger V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham S., & Richards T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Special Issue: The Language of Written Language, 35(1), 39–56 Berninger, Virginia, Robert D. Abbott, Janine Jones, Beverly J. Wolf, Laura Gould, Marci Anderson-Younstrom, Shirley Shimada, Kenn Apel. (2006) “Early development of language by hand: composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling.” Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), pp. 61-92 Cabell, Sonia Q, Laura S. Tortorelli, and Hope K. Gerde (2013). “How Do I Write…? Scaffolding Preschoolers’ Early Writing Skills.” The Reading Teacher, 66(8), pp. 650-659. Gerde, H.K., Bingham, G.E. & Wasik, B.A. (2012). “Writing in Early Childhood Classrooms: Guidance for Best Practices.” Early Childhood Education Journal 40, 351–359 (2012) Gilbert, Jennifer, and Steve Graham. (2010). “Teaching Writing to Elementary Students in Grades 4–6: A National Survey.” The Elementary School Journal 110(44) Graham, Steve, et al. (2017). “Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3) pp. 279–304 Graham, Steve, and Michael Hebert. (2011). “Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading.” Harvard Educational Review (2011) 81(4): 710–744. Graham, Steve. (2020). “The Sciences of Reading and Writing Must Become More Fully Integrated.” Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1) pp. S35–S44 Graham, Steve, Sharlene A. Kiuhara, and Meade MacKay. (2020).”The Effects of Writing on Learning in Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational Research April 2020, Vol 90, No. 2, pp. 179–226 Shanahan, Timothy. “History of Writing and Reading Connections.” in Shanahan, Timothy. (2016). “Relationships between reading and writing development.” In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). New York, NY: Guilford. Slavin, Robert, Lake, C., Inns, A., Baye, A., Dachet, D., & Haslam, J. (2019). “A quantitative synthesis of research on writing approaches in grades 2 to 12.” London: Education Endowment Foundation. Troia, Gary. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/ Troia, Gary, and Steve Graham. (2016).“Common Core Writing and Language Standards and Aligned State Assessments: A National Survey of Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes.” Reading and Writing 29(9).

A version of this article appeared in the January 25, 2023 edition of Education Week as 4 Key Things to Know About How Reading and Writing Interlock

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Teaching Research

Main navigation.

As part of PWR’s charge related to the WR 1 and WR 2 requirements, PWR 1 and PWR 2 classes (in collaboration with the library) teach first and second-year students research strategies that provide an introduction to important research practices that they will likely use in their coursework at Stanford and then in future academic and professional work.

This charge accepts as a premise that student research at Stanford still focuses in many disciplines on scholarly texts (journal articles and books), though given the evolving communication landscapes, many student research projects might draw on additional sources, such as websites, podcasts, born-digital texts, etc. 

More specifically, in PWR 1, the learning objectives related to research are:

• Students will develop research skills, including the ability to craft a focused research question and to locate, analyze, and evaluate relevant sources, including both print-based and digital sources.
• Students will develop the ability, in research and in writing, to engage a range of sources and perspectives that illuminate a wider conversation about the topic
• (see the complete list of PWR 1 learning objectives here)

In PWR 2, the learning objectives related to research are:

• Students will continue to develop their ability to construct research-based arguments, including collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing data and scholarly and public articles and texts.
• (see the complete list of PWR 2 learning objectives here)

PWR 2, in particular, with its more advanced conversation about research-based arguments, is an appropriate site for inviting students to explore a range of research methods and sources.

In incorporating these research-focused objectives into the foundations of our PWR 1 and PWR 2 curricula, we intend to help students develop an understanding of and experience with research as a means of accessing and analyzing a wide range of sources that will orient them to scholarly and public conversations and ultimately help them create knowledge and contribute to those conversations.  In short, we are helping to guide students to conducting research effectively in the context of an R1 university.

That said, PWR classes are not “sources and methods” classes, such as you might find in other departments and programs across campus that foreground specific disciplinary modes of research.  As PWR courses teach students from across the disciplines, our goal is not to teach discipline-specific research methodologies.  We can certainly encourage students to explore different methodologies and provide context for disciplinary conventions that they will encounter in greater depth later in their studies, but PWR courses are not charged with doing the work of Writing in the Major courses.  Our charge is to provide them with an introduction to college-level research and to the ethics of research practice as well as a rhetorical perspective that will help them analyze a wide range of texts.

In keeping with this approach, PWR instructors should be mindful of how they scaffold and encourage research methods in their classrooms.  As a program, we are committed to fostering student curiosity, intellectual growth, and purposeful agency in their research process. However, at times students might want to incorporate research methods into their PWR 1 or PWR 2 projects that either do not actually align with the type of project or question under consideration or that present ethical challenges.  In most cases, the more problematic methods are associated with research on human subjects.   For this reason, we ask instructors to adhere to certain guidelines in teaching research methodologies:

• Teaching strategy: if a student is interested in a topic related to vulnerable populations, steer them toward data sets or interviews conducted by others.  That way they can still have access to some of the primary research on these individuals without conducting it themselves.
• Teaching strategy: Ask your students what they would gain from this sort of method that wouldn’t be gained from finding similar information – probably from a longer-term study with a larger sample size – in secondary research. Ask them to carefully consider and revise their research question to ensure that this methodology best supports generating a productive answer for that question.
• Teaching strategy: You might have students who want to conduct interviews or surveys complete the CITI training tutorial . 
• Teaching strategy: Review drafts of all surveys and interview questions; if not everyone in your class is engaged in this sort of primary research, set up peer consultation groups or special out-of-class group conferences to promote feedback and revision, asking students in these groups to serve as beta-testers/focus groups about the survey and interview questions.
• Teaching strategy:  Work with students to identify the target demographic and a sample size goal that is appropriate to the scope of the research, the research process timeline, and the resources available.

If you have any questions about a proposed student research topic or methods, please set up an appointment to talk with the Associate Director or one of the Directors for guidance as early in the research process as possible.

Additional resources to help students who are interested in conducting this sort of primary research will be available on Teaching Writing soon.  

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Teaching and Researching Writing

DOI link for Teaching and Researching Writing

Get Citation

This third edition of Teaching and Researching Writing continues to build upon the previous editions’ work of providing educators and practitioners in applied linguistics with a clearly written and complete guide to writing research and teaching. The text explores both theoretical and conceptual questions, grapples with key issues in the field today, and demonstrates the dynamic relationship between research and teaching methods and practice. This revised third edition has been reorganized to incorporate new topics, including discussions of technology, identity, and error correction, as well as new chapters to address the innovative directions the field has taken since the previous edition’s publication. Boxes throughout, including "Concepts" and "Quotes", help to both reinforce readers’ understanding of the topics covered by highlighting key ideas and figures in the field, while the updated glossary and resource sections allow readers to further investigate areas of interest. This updated edition of Teaching and Researching Writing is the ideal resource for language teachers, practitioners, and researchers to better understand and apply writing research theories, methods, and practices.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part | 2  pages, section i understanding writing, chapter 1 | 29  pages, an overview of writing, chapter 2 | 20  pages, key issues in writing, chapter 3 | 19  pages, quandaries and possibilities, section ii researching writing, chapter 4 | 24  pages, research practices and issues, chapter 5 | 23  pages, research cases: observing and reporting, chapter 6 | 23  pages, research cases: texts and contexts, section iii teaching writing, chapter 7 | 23  pages, approaches to teaching writing, chapter 8 | 28  pages, teaching writing: classes and courses, chapter 9 | 31  pages, teaching writing: materials and practices, section iv references and resources, chapter 10 | 19  pages, significant areas and key texts, chapter 11 | 17  pages, key sources on writing.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Teaching Writing

• First Online: 23 August 2016

Cite this chapter

• Yin Ling Cheung 5  

Part of the book series: English Language Education ((ELED,volume 5))

8002 Accesses

1 Citations

Writing is a complex activity. Understanding this complexity is the key to effective teaching of writing. In this chapter, I will present a brief historical overview of various approaches to teaching writing, including the controlled approach, process approach, and genre approach. Essential to implementing these approaches is understanding the recursive nature of the writing process and knowing what constitutes competent writing. Indeed, writing competence encompasses not only word choices, sentence variations, punctuation choices, and other linguistic tools for cohesion and coherence, but also ways to structure and develop arguments at the micro and macro levels. It is important to adopt a writing pedagogy that explicitly trains students in the kinds of thinking processes that are conducive to good writing. To this end, this chapter presents the socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing. I will discuss guiding principles and pedagogical implications of the approach. I will also highlight strategies for enhancing the quality of second language writing, drawing upon insights from the literature of writing research.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Teaching Writing through Genres and Language

Second Language Writing Instruction

Development, Teaching, and Learning of Writing: From Word to Text

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written communication . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26 , 197–218.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chandrasegaran, A. (2001). Think your way to effective writing (2nd ed.). Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Chandrasegaran, A. (2013). The effect of a socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing on stance support moves and topicality in students’ expository essays. Linguistics and Education, 24 , 101–111.

Chandrasegaran, A., Kong, C. K. M., & Chua, D. F. (2007). Intervention in the teaching of expository writing. Unpublished research report . Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education.

Chandrasegaran, A., & Schaetzel, K. (2004). Think your way to effective writing (3rd ed.). Singapore: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Chandrasegaran, A., & Yeo, S. C. (2006). Teaching character depiction in narrative writing. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Language teacher research in Asia (pp. 7–20). Alexandria: TESOL.

Cheung, Y. L. (2011). Teacher training for effective writing instruction: Recent trends and future directions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, 15 (1), 531–534.

Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1991). Consciousness-raising about the writing process. In C. James & P. Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 168–185). London: Longman.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). Introduction: How a genre approach to literacy can transform the way writing is taught. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 1–21). Bristol: Falmer Press.

Criterion. (2016). Educational testing service . Available at https://www.ets.org/criterion

Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication, 31 , 184–214.

Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28 , 282–311.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders . Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26 , 473–488.

Ferris, D. R. (2014). Language power: Tutorials for writers . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, B. K. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective . New York: Longman.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy-development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30 , 207–241.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing . Harlow: Pearson.

Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hyon, S. (1996). Genres in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30 , 693–722.

Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20 , 247–265.

Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11 , 135–159.

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69–85.

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers . Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45 , 499–515.

Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers. (2009). The regents of the University of Michigan . Available at http://micusp.elicorpora.info

Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 , 118–141.

Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsh, D., Shen, H. Z., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching academic writing: An introduction for teachers of second language writers . Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Peerceptiv. (2013). The University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research and Development Center. Available at http://www.peerceptiv.com

Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (1989). Further questions on genre. English in Australia, 90 (1), 27–42.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18 , 433–449.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weebly. (2015). Weebly, Inc. Available at http://education.weebly.com

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). New starts and different kinds of failure. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language . New York: Longman.

Wikipedia. (2014). The Wikimedia Foundation. Available at http://www.wikipedia.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Yin Ling Cheung

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yin Ling Cheung .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of English Language & Literature, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Willy A. Renandya

Department of English, Politeknik Negeri Jember, Jember, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

Handoyo Puji Widodo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cheung, Y.L. (2016). Teaching Writing. In: Renandya, W., Widodo, H. (eds) English Language Teaching Today. English Language Education, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38834-2_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38834-2_13

Published : 23 August 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-38832-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-38834-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

School of Education

Educators are liberators because knowledge is transformative.

Research and Writing Support Center

Soe research and writing support.

The School of Education (SOE) Research and Writing Support Center is dedicated to empowering SOE graduate and undergraduate (ESHD) students by providing personalized writing and research assistance tailored to their unique academic and professional goals. We believe that strong writing and research skills are essential for success and offer one-on-one tutoring, workshops, and resources to help students at all levels. Our mission is to foster a supportive environment where students can develop their writing and research abilities, gain confidence, and use these skills as tools for self-expression and change. We are committed to inclusivity, recognizing the diverse backgrounds of our students and helping them navigate their academic journeys. We believe in the power of research and writing for change—to raise marginalized voices, bring awareness to social issues, and participate in civic engagement.

Meet Our Team

Research and writing support center director.

Bryan Asdel is the Research and Writing Support Center Director for the School of Education at UC Riverside. Previously, he was Associate Dean of Academic Support Services at Barstow Community College. Bryan holds an MFA in Creative Writing with a concentration in poetry from Arizona State University. He has taught at community colleges, universities, and the Arizona State Prison Complex. He serves as a poetry editor for  Iron City Magazine , a literary journal dedicated to creative expressions by and for the incarcerated. Passionate about making writing education engaging, accessible, and equitable, Bryan is committed to helping students of all backgrounds realize their potential and make meaningful contributions to their communities through the transformative power of language. 

Graduate Writing Mentor

Eric Davidson is the Graduate Writing Mentor at the SOE Research and Writing Support Center. He is a Ph.D. candidate at UCR studying Higher Education Administration and Policy, and earned his M.A. in Higher Education and B.A. in Political Science - International Relations from the University of Arizona. His scholarship examines the philosophy and political economy of higher education through the lenses of sport, alternative culture, internationalization, and postcolonial thought. He is also an Instructor for SOE courses and a Research Associate at the UCR Center for Athletes' Rights and Equity. In his work with the Writing Center, he aims to foster each student’s intellectual growth by providing them with a collaborative space to advance their agency and voice through writing.

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• American Folklife Center

Folklife and Creative Writing: Resources in the American Folklife Center

Cowboy poetry.

• Introduction
• Veterans poetry
• Living Nations, Living Words
• Brazilian Chapbooks
• Veteran Memoirs
• Plays and Novels
• Non-Fiction
• Library Blog Posts and Podcasts
• Additional Resources
• Searching the Collection

In 2000, Congress designated the annual cowboy poetry gathering in Elko, Nevada, as the National Cowboy Poetry Gathering. The gathering had taken place since 1985 and grown into a week-long event that drew participants from around the country. The popularity of the gathering emphasizes the prevalence of cowboy poetry and the importance poetry plays within the community. Cowboy poetry has existed since the late nineteenth century and cites a variety of influences, including the Bible, Shakespeare, and cowboy films and novels. Though the cowboy may exist in popular imagination as an old timer, cowboys continue to adapt to current circumstances, and their poetry reflects contemporary social, environmental, and political issues. Cowboy poetry is one of the most popular forms of occupational poetry. Several examples from our collections are featured here. Others can be found online or through the American Folklife Center's reading room.

Selected Collections

Public Programs: Cowboy Poetry

A working cowboy, D. W. Groethe performed his own compositions as well as traditional songs in this concert at the Library of Congress on July 20, 2005. Groethe was born and grew up in western North Dakota, the third generation descendant of Norwegian immigrants. He talks about the region locally known as "MonDak" that spans the border of Montana and North Dakota. 

• << Previous: Poetry
• Next: Veterans poetry >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 3:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/folklife-creative-writing

Breaking Down the Writing Process with AI

• View Departments
• IT Services and Support
• Teaching and Learning Technologies
• Teach \ Tech

The instructional practices shared in this article are ideas for exploration, not requirements for any instructor. They were developed by Northwestern IT Teaching and Learning Technologies in partnership with the Provost’s Generative AI Advisory Committee . Please note:

• Accessing Copilot via your Northwestern credentials is the recommended path for accessing a generative AI tool. Questions about whether a risk assessment has been performed or an institutional contract exists for a specific AI tool can be directed to the Northwestern IT Information Security Office ( [email protected] ). Procurement of new AI tools should follow university processes and policies regarding licensing and third-party risk assessments.
• Output from large language models (LLMs) can include false or incorrect information. Verifying accuracy via other sources is a critical practice for instructors, students, and staff to engage in when using LLMs.

For students and instructors, the introduction of generative AI via chatbots like ChatGPT in late 2022 introduced significant and complex challenges to core aspects of teaching and learning in higher education. Currently, the Northwestern Office of the Provost supports instructors in choosing their own level in which to integrate generative AI into their courses and includes it in the University’s Principles Regarding Academic Integrity . For many, involving generative AI in skills like writing is, at best, an uncomfortable position. For some, exploring generative AI with their students or asking them to critique ChatGPT output has been a productive way to engage students in examining the impact it can have on their writing.

When we think about generative AI and writing, a great place to start is with this short video featuring Elizabeth Lenaghan , director of The Cook Family Writing Program and associate professor of instruction, where she reiterates the importance of teaching writing in the generative AI age via a process model. The Cook Family Writing Program has created specific resources on generative AI and writing , which are referenced throughout this article. This article looks at four distinct parts of the writing process and offers step-by-step instructions on how to incorporate generative AI in ways that can help grow students’ understanding of generative AI and their own writing skills.

Through the University’s Microsoft license, Northwestern students, faculty, and staff have access to Microsoft’s implementation of the GPT 4.0 large language model through Microsoft Copilot (available only through a smartphone app or internet browser). Access to Copilot is important because when you are signed in with your Northwestern account, any data you put into the chat is covered by Northwestern’s contract with Microsoft for data protection so that Microsoft does not use it for product improvement or to train their AI models. This is the closest interface to ChatGPT, but only provides data protections when signed in with a Northwestern Microsoft Account.

Growing Critical Generative AI Users  

As fall quarter starts, understanding the basics of how large language models work is critical for instructors and students, regardless of the extent to which you do or do not allow students to use generative AI in your class. We recommend watching and sharing the videos created by the Center for Advancing Safety of Machine Intelligence included below to build a common language and understanding with your students about how generative AI works and its potential impact when used in their writing. To use generative AI tools well, students need to employ critical thinking, information literacy, and writing skills.

Writing Activities  

Activity 1: brainstorming with generative ai  .

Description:

Many students find it challenging to select a topic to write about. AI can assist by suggesting and refining ideas, much like guidance from a friend or instructor.

• Without using generative AI, students brainstorm ideas related to a given topic, generating lists of ideas.
• Students review their lists to identify common themes and core concepts. For each core concept, they write a summary sentence explaining its significance.
• Students pick one summary to enter as a prompt in Copilot to explore new angles and extend their initial ideas. Be specific in the prompt about what kind of output you want to see. For example, "I am sharing an idea for an essay I will write. Give me a list of five points I should cover. Here's the idea: [Summary sentence]."
• Have students discuss these new perspectives in pairs, small groups, or larger group discussions to gain insights. (Source: Leon Furze )

AI Learning Objectives:

Students will:

• Generate and refine ideas and articulate core concepts.
• Use generative AI tools to enhance their understanding.
• Engage in discussion to develop critical thinking and communication skills.
• Begin to understand limits of generative AI LLM tools.

Additional Resource: Brainstorming with (and without AI)

Activity 2: Crafting Thesis Statements with AI  

A clear thesis statement is crucial in writing as it provides direction and focus, guiding the structure and content of the entire piece. While creating a thesis can be challenging, generative AI can assist by offering suggestions and alternatives to help refine and articulate a compelling argument.

• Students start by selecting a topic related to the course content that interests them.
• Students draft a thesis statement focusing on their main argument and its significance.
• Pair students to share their statements, providing feedback to each other on clarity, argument strength, and potential improvements, with constructive criticism and specific suggestions.
• Have students input their thesis statements into a generative AI tool using the prompt, "I wrote a thesis statement, and I want you to provide me with feedback on clarity, argument strength, and potential improvements to the statement. Here is my thesis statement: [THESIS STATEMENT]"
• Have students compare the AI's suggestions with their partner's feedback, noting any unique differences.
• Conclude with a class discussion on their experiences, exploring the value of human versus AI feedback in enhancing writing. (Source: Crystal Camargo)
• Refine their thesis statements by integrating feedback from peers and generative AI.
• Improve their ability to critically evaluate and enhance their arguments.

Additional Resource : Creating a Thesis statement with (and without AI)

Activity 3: Reverse Outlining with AI  

Outlining is a critical step in the writing process that helps students understand the structure and flow of their work. By using a reverse outline with traditional outlining methods and generative AI tools, students can ensure that each paragraph contributes effectively to the overall argument.

• Students select one of their own previously written papers or essays and review it to understand its main points and overall structure.
• Students create a reverse outline by condensing each paragraph into a brief statement capturing its main idea, considering how it contributes to the paper's overall argument or narrative.
• Next, students use a generative AI tool to produce a reverse outline of the same paper and compare it with their own to discover any differences or similarities. Use the prompt, “Create a reverse outline of this document that includes a one- to two- sentence summary of each paragraph. Each summary should include the main idea of the paragraph and how it contributes to the paper's overall argument or narrative. Here is the document: [DOCUMENT TEXT]"
• Encourage reflection on whether the AI highlights points they missed or suggests a different structure and how both outlines align or not with the original intentions for their paper.
• Facilitate a class discussion where students share insights gained. (Source: Ohio College Teaching Consortium )
• Use AI tools to create reverse outlines of their work, comparing AI interpretations with their own.
• Improve their understanding of structure and clarity in writing.

Additional Resource: Outlining with (and without AI)

Activity 4: Draft Feedback with AI Integration  

Students can utilize AI to "read" their draft and receive feedback on missing components, potential counterarguments, and structural improvements.

• Ask students to bring a draft of a paragraph or two to class for feedback.
• Students exchange drafts in small groups, providing and receiving peer feedback focused on structure, clarity, and argument strength.
• Students input their draft into Copilot to receive additional feedback.
• Students compare Copilot’s suggestions with the feedback they received from peers and the instructor.
• After reviewing insights from all sources, students can develop a revision plan.
• Conclude with a class discussion on how AI can complement traditional feedback methods, enhancing students' understanding of their strengths and areas for improvements.

(Source: Ethan Mollick and Lilach Mollick )

• Integrate feedback from peers, instructors, and generative AI to improve their writing.
• Enhance clarity, coherence, and argument strength in their drafts.
• Understand the role of AI in the feedback process.

Final Thoughts  

When exploring generative AI in your courses, keep the generative AI portion opt-in and share with students how they complete the activity without using generative AI. No matter if or how you utilize generative AI in your course, be explicit with your students about your policies and expectations.

Connect with your community through colleagues, Northwestern writing experts , or request a consultation to talk through any questions you have about using generative AI in the writing process.

Videos to Share with Students     This video describes how LLMs use predictions to create output and how hallucinations can occur.         This video outlines what’s happening when it looks like LLMs are “thinking.”  From Northwestern Center for Advancing Safety of Machine Intelligence .

Continue Exploring this Topic

• Generative AI and Teaching for Fall 2024
• Generative AI on Your Terms: Data and Privacy 101
• AI Study Buddy

• Skip to Guides Search
• Skip to breadcrumb
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer
• Skip to chat link
• Report accessibility issues and get help
• Go to Penn Libraries Home
• Go to Franklin catalog

Critical Writing Program: AI in Education Fall 2024: Researching the White Paper

• Getting started
• News and Opinion Sites
• Academic Sources
• Grey Literature
• Substantive News Sources
• What to Do When You Are Stuck
• Understanding a citation
• Examples of Quotation
• Examples of Paraphrase
• Chicago Manual of Style: Citing Images
• Researching the Op-Ed
• Researching Prospective Employers
• Resume Resources
• Cover Letter Resources

Research the White Paper

Researching the white paper:.

The process of researching and composing a white paper shares some similarities with the kind of research and writing one does for a high school or college research paper. What’s important for writers of white papers to grasp, however, is how much this genre differs from a research paper.  First, the author of a white paper already recognizes that there is a problem to be solved, a decision to be made, and the job of the author is to provide readers with substantive information to help them make some kind of decision--which may include a decision to do more research because major gaps remain. 

Thus, a white paper author would not “brainstorm” a topic. Instead, the white paper author would get busy figuring out how the problem is defined by those who are experiencing it as a problem. Typically that research begins in popular culture--social media, surveys, interviews, newspapers. Once the author has a handle on how the problem is being defined and experienced, its history and its impact, what people in the trenches believe might be the best or worst ways of addressing it, the author then will turn to academic scholarship as well as “grey” literature (more about that later).  Unlike a school research paper, the author does not set out to argue for or against a particular position, and then devote the majority of effort to finding sources to support the selected position.  Instead, the author sets out in good faith to do as much fact-finding as possible, and thus research is likely to present multiple, conflicting, and overlapping perspectives. When people research out of a genuine desire to understand and solve a problem, they listen to every source that may offer helpful information. They will thus have to do much more analysis, synthesis, and sorting of that information, which will often not fall neatly into a “pro” or “con” camp:  Solution A may, for example, solve one part of the problem but exacerbate another part of the problem. Solution C may sound like what everyone wants, but what if it’s built on a set of data that have been criticized by another reliable source?  And so it goes. 

For example, if you are trying to write a white paper on the opioid crisis, you may focus on the value of  providing free, sterilized needles--which do indeed reduce disease, and also provide an opportunity for the health care provider distributing them to offer addiction treatment to the user. However, the free needles are sometimes discarded on the ground, posing a danger to others; or they may be shared; or they may encourage more drug usage. All of those things can be true at once; a reader will want to know about all of these considerations in order to make an informed decision. That is the challenging job of the white paper author.     
 The research you do for your white paper will require that you identify a specific problem, seek popular culture sources to help define the problem, its history, its significance and impact for people affected by it.  You will then delve into academic and grey literature to learn about the way scholars and others with professional expertise answer these same questions. In this way, you will create creating a layered, complex portrait that provides readers with a substantive exploration useful for deliberating and decision-making. You will also likely need to find or create images, including tables, figures, illustrations or photographs, and you will document all of your sources. 

Librarian for Classical Studies, Ancient History

Connect to a Librarian Live Chat or "Ask a Question"

• Librarians staff live chat from 9-5 Monday through Friday . You can also text to chat: 215-543-7674
• You can submit a question 24 hours a day and we aim to respond within 24 hours 
• You can click the "Schedule Appointment" button above in librarian's profile box (to the left), to schedule a consultation with her in person or by video conference.  
• You can also make an appointment with a  Librarian by subject specialization . 
• Connect by email with a subject librarian

Find more easy contacts at our Quick Start Guide

• Next: Getting started >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 2:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.upenn.edu/c.php?g=1422088

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

MFL actionable writing feedback sheet

Subject: Spanish

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

1 September 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This concise and actionable writing feedback sheet is crafted to help students identify their strengths and areas for improvement.

The target section provides a clear pathway for immediate enhancement, allowing students to quickly record their responses and make necessary improvements.

Creative Commons "Sharealike"

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have downloaded this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: