A Science of Writing Lens on McGraw-Hill’s “What’s Next for the Science of Reading”

Bridging the Gap: Writing and Reading Insights

Below is a re-visioning of the McGraw-Hill / Inspired Ideas article, “What’s Next for the Science of Reading: Focus on the Science of Writing,” from an SRSD-informed lens. I read the article as a helpful step toward elevating writing in literacy conversations and as a reminder that teachers need more than advocacy. They need clear instructional routines and implementation supports that work in real classrooms.

Why this article matters

Many schools have rightly focused on the Science of Reading because students need strong decoding, phonics, vocabulary, grammar, and comprehension, and a solid foundation of knowledge to enhance their learning experience. At the same time, writing often gets treated as a “later” priority or a separate strand. The McGraw-Hill article argues that reading and writing should be intentionally woven together. This aligns well with research on reading–writing connections and SRSD’s long-standing emphasis on explicit, strategy-based writing instruction. SRSD is the science of writing. 

What I appreciate most is that the article centers writing within the literacy conversation, especially through practices drawn from Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading (Graham & Hebert, 2010). Where I’d add clarity is in the “how”: what makes these practices effective, what guardrails teachers need, and what conditions are required for high-quality implementation to stay strong over time.

Summary of the article’s claims and evidence

The article organizes its argument around three “best practices” (drawn from the Writing to Read report) and then calls for more integrated research, better teacher training, and attention to equity in writing instruction.

1) Writing about reading: Have students write responses, summaries, notes, or questions about texts they read, including in science and social studies. The idea is that writing requires students to process meaning, organize thinking, and translate ideas into their own words—supporting comprehension.

2) Explicit instruction in writing skills and processes: Teach the writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing), text structure, sentence/paragraph construction, grammar, and spelling, along with the composition skills necessary to articulate thoughts clearly. The article suggests that because reading and writing draw on overlapping knowledge (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, discourse), integrating the creative process into writing instruction can further support reading comprehension and fluency.

3) More frequent writing Increase time spent writing (the report’s findings were specific to grades 1–7). The article suggests that more writing time provides more opportunities for practice and strengthens comprehension, ultimately enhancing students’ writing skills.

Beyond classroom practices, the article highlights two systemic components needed for success:

• stronger training and support so teachers can implement writing practices with integrity, and
• additional research that integrates reading and writing instruction, including in schools serving students with greater needs.

The article reinforced this by citing work suggesting that combined reading + writing instruction can outperform reading-only approaches in some contexts (e.g., Collins et al., 2017).

Where the article aligns with the science of writing and SRSD

Alignment: writing instruction should be explicit and structured

The article’s strongest alignment with SRSD is its clear message: writing improves when it is taught explicitly. In SRSD, explicit instruction means more than assigning writing or “covering the process.” Teachers model a strategy, guide students through supported practice, and gradually release responsibility so students can plan, draft, and revise with increasing independence.

Where teachers often need more guidance is in the difference between:

• naming the writing process (prewrite/draft/revise/edit), and
• teaching students how to execute that process strategically with cognitive tools, routines, and self-regulation supports.

SRSD adds that missing layer: strategy instruction plus self-regulation, so students learn not only what to do, but how to manage themselves as writers.

Alignment: reading and writing are reciprocal processes

The article explains that writing can deepen reading comprehension because students must analyze, interpret, and organize ideas when they write about text, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of their understanding. That fits what many teachers see: writing is a way to externalize thinking and make comprehension visible.

From an SRSD lens, the most useful move is to make those connections teachable and repeatable. When teachers help students notice text structure, use it to organize ideas, and check their work against clear criteria, they engage in cognitive skills and processes that students can apply to similar thinking when reading and when writing.

Alignment (with an important guardrail): More writing time helps when it is structured

The article’s recommendation to increase writing time is reasonable, but it needs an important guardrail: time alone is not enough. Writing time must be organized so students learn how to write, not simply spend time writing.

For many students, especially those who struggle, additional writing time without explicit support can turn into longer periods of confusion. SRSD treats practice as deliberate: students write often, but within scaffolded routines that gradually fade as independence grows.

Where I’d add SRSD-informed guardrails (to reduce misinterpretation)

Self-regulation: The Missing Link to Independence

The article supports explicit writing instruction but does not highlight self-regulation as a core component of the science of writing. SRSD centers on self-regulation because it connects instruction to independence. Students learn to set goals, monitor progress, use self-talk, and evaluate whether their writing meets the target.

Without self-regulation, teachers may provide strong scaffolds, but students may not internalize the strategies. SRSD helps students become writers who can manage the process rather than just follow directions.

“Writing instruction” needs genre-specific structure

The article speaks broadly about writing skills and processes, but does not specifically address how developing oral language and understanding the science of writing can enhance writing and comprehension. Teachers often need more specificity: different genres within the curriculum demand different planning and organizing strategies. In SRSD, teachers commonly use genre-specific strategies (e.g., POW + TREE for opinion/argument, narrative planning strategies, informative structures). Genre-specific tools make writing more manageable, especially for students who do not intuit structure.

This is also a practical implementation point: when teachers have clear, teachable strategies for a specific genre, instruction becomes more consistent across classrooms.

Equity requires more than a reminder to “consider context”

The article nods to equity and the need to consider socioeconomic and cultural factors. That’s important, but teachers also need concrete supports that make writing accessible.

From an SRSD lens, equity shows up in:

• differentiated scaffolds (sentence starters, planning frames, vocabulary supports),
• intentional fading so students gain independence,
• and classroom routines that support motivation, identity, and productive risk-taking in writing.

The key is not lowering expectations, but increasing access through explicit instruction, language supports, and structured practice.

Implementation succeeds when coaching is built in

The article mentions teacher training and fidelity, but it does not linger on what teachers actually need to implement well over time. SRSD work repeatedly shows that training and follow-up matter. Teachers benefit when they can see models, practice instructional moves, get feedback, and troubleshoot in real time.

This matters because writing initiatives commonly fail in predictable ways: inconsistent routines, uneven expectations, and low-confidence instruction. Coaching, practice-based professional learning, and shared tools reduce that drift.

“Integration” should mean a planned instructional loop

I agree with the article’s call to integrate reading and writing, and I’d tighten what that looks like. Teachers can plan units where students:

1. read a mentor text,
2. notice structure and key moves,
3. plan and write using a related structure,
4. revise using explicit criteria, and
5. read again with a sharper lens.

This creates a purposeful cycle that fosters creativity rather than a loose pairing of “read, then write something.” The cycle makes the reading–writing connection teachable and visible to students.

What a practical SRSD-aligned companion to the article might include

If a teacher wants to act on the article tomorrow, here are three SRSD-aligned routines that integrate the science of writing to keep the intent but add needed structure:

1) Writing about reading (structured routine)

• Use a simple response frame (claim → evidence → explanation, or main idea → key details → summary).
• Model a short example (“I do”), then co-write (“we do”), then guide students to try (“you do”).
• Add a brief self-check: “Did I answer the prompt? Did I use evidence? Did my explanation make sense and include a clear expression of my ideas?”

2) Teaching writing (strategy + self-regulation)

• Teach one genre strategy explicitly over multiple lessons.
• Use a checklist students can internalize (plan, write, check, revise).
• Teach self-regulation: goal-setting (“Today I will add two strong reasons”), self-talk (“I can do this step-by-step”), or self-evaluation (“Did I include my evidence?”).

3) Increasing writing frequency (deliberate practice)

• Add short daily writing tied to content or reading (5–10 minutes) using a familiar structure.
• Schedule periodic full writing cycles (plan → draft → revise) so students practice the whole process.
• Keep supports consistent, so practice builds competence rather than randomness.

Concluding thoughts

The McGraw-Hill article makes an important point: the science of writing belongs at the center of literacy instruction, not on the margins, as it builds essential knowledge for students. Its recommended practices such as writing about texts, teaching writing explicitly, and increasing writing opportunities align with research on reading–writing connections.

The risk is misinterpretation. If teachers only hear “write more” without hearing the “teach explicitly,” or if they hear “teach the process” but skip the genre strategies and self-regulation, implementation can become uneven, and outcomes can disappoint.

A stronger “Science of Writing” conversation should pair advocacy with usable routines: explicit strategy instruction, cognitive and self-regulation supports, communication tools, genre-specific tools, and coaching structures that help teachers implement with integrity.

Questions worth asking as you apply the article’s ideas on writing techniques:

• When I ask students to write about reading, what structure will I provide, and how will I fade it?
• How will I teach writing strategy use and self-regulation, not only assignments and products?
• What scaffolds will help multilingual learners and struggling writers access grade-level writing tasks?
• What feedback and coaching supports will keep implementation consistent over time?

---