Author: katie

The Impact of Strategies on Writing Skills

There’s a phrase I keep coming back to lately: green shoots.

It’s a quiet image. Nothing flashy. No grand announcements. Just small signs of life pushing up through the soil, often unnoticed at first. You don’t hear them growing. You don’t see them all at once. But once you recognize them, you can’t unsee them. And if you’ve been paying attention to writing instruction over the past several years, especially across the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, you can see those green shoots everywhere.

This is not a victory lap. It’s a personal reflection from someone who has spent years listening closely to teachers, coaches, school leaders, and researchers who all share the same quiet frustration: we know writing matters, but we’ve never been given a clear, usable way to teach it well.

What’s emerging now, slowly, unevenly, but unmistakably, is something different. A shared understanding. A common language. A research-based approach that respects teachers, integrates well with the curriculum, supports students, and treats writing as a skill that can be taught deliberately rather than hoped for.

That’s what Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) has become. Not a movement fueled by outrage or pressure, but one sustained by professional trust, evidence, and a growing sense of collective responsibility.

The Difference Between Mandates and Momentum

Educational change rarely happens because someone at the top demands it. Mandates can require compliance, but they don’t create belief. What I’m seeing with SRSD is the opposite. The momentum is rising from classrooms upward.

Teachers talk to one another, sharing feedback. Coaches compare notes. Schools quietly pilot a unit. A district notices that student writing is improving, not just in length or neatness, but also in clarity, structure, and independence. Then someone asks, “What are you doing differently?”

That question is the seed.

SRSD spreads not because it’s trendy, but because it effectively incorporates proven writing techniques to solve a real instructional problem. It gives teachers a way to teach writing explicitly while also helping students manage the cognitive load involved in the thinking, planning, and self-monitoring required by writing. It doesn’t ask teachers to abandon what they know. It helps them sharpen it by incorporating sound pedagogy.

And once teachers experience that, once they see students planning on their own, revising with purpose, and talking about their writing decisions, the roots go down deep.

When the Roots Hold: A Classroom Moment That Signals Real Growth

I hear many stories of SRSD quietly taking root in classrooms. This one stands out to me because it captures the green-shoots theme so clearly. It comes from Jeanne Doyel, a Literacy Interventionist in Waldron, Michigan.

January had been relentless.

Snow days stacked up. School closures outnumbered days in session. Testing windows tightened. Instruction felt fragmented, rushed, and reactive. For many schools, this is the point in the year where writing quietly slips to the margins.

And then something unexpected happened.

During a 5^th-grade social studies lesson, students stopped mid-discussion. As they worked through a passage, several hands went up. They said the text “felt familiar.” One student finally named it: “This is like TIDE.” (TIDE is a writing strategy for the informative genre: Topic sentence, Important idea, Details, Ending)

Their teacher paused and leaned in. Together, the class went back to the passage. They identified the topic. They pulled out the information and details. They noticed how the ending wrapped up the ideas. Every part was there. The room changed.

This wasn’t a high-performing class. More than half of the students had IEPs. Many were struggling readers. Writing had long felt out of reach. But in that moment, the strategy no longer belonged to the teacher. It belonged to the students. They weren’t guessing. They weren’t being prompted. They were applying what they knew. Confidently, collaboratively, and with visible excitement.

The teacher was stunned.

What made the moment even more powerful was what happened next.

A brand-new middle school ELA teacher (new not just to the school, but to teaching itself) had quietly shared the TIDE organizer with the social studies teacher. No one had coached her through it yet. No one had formally supported her this year. With a business degree and only months in the classroom, she still saw the value immediately and passed it on, saying, “Please teach me this so I understand why it is so powerful.”

That’s how this work spreads.

Not through mandates. Not through programs dropped from above. But through teachers noticing something that works and choosing to share it.

In a month filled with interruptions and pressure, that moment became a reminder of why this matters. When students begin to recognize structure on their own, when teachers across content areas use a shared language, and when even new educators feel confident enough to lead with it, something real is taking root.

These are the moments that don’t show up on pacing guides or test reports.

But they change everything.

The United States: From Isolation to Shared Language

In the U.S., writing instruction has long lived in isolation. Reading comprehension had frameworks. Math had programs. Writing often had… expectations.

What I’m seeing now is a meaningful shift. Writing is entering the same conversation as reading and math. Not as an add-on, but as a core instructional responsibility within literacy. SRSD fits naturally into that shift because it aligns with what teachers already know about explicit instruction, modeling, guided practice, and gradual release.

The green shoots in the U.S. look like this:

• Instructional coaches using shared strategy language across grade levels
• Special education and general education teachers working from the same writing framework
• Administrators asking about the SRSD writing process, not just test scores
• Teachers planning writing lessons with the same intentionality they bring to reading instruction

None of this happens overnight. But once a school or district experiences coherence, once writing stops being everyone’s problem and no one’s plan, it’s hard to go back.

“When they took the English semester exams in eighth grade, they were able to pull evidence from the texts, defend it, and include all the parts of a good essay. There are solid thesis statements and solid conclusions. I wasn’t writing like this in high school.”

Whitney Ruf, English Department Chair, Nashville, TN

Canada: Precision, Equity, and Professional Trust

In Canada, especially across provinces that have invested heavily in structured literacy for reading, there’s a growing recognition that writing deserves the same level of clarity and care.

What stands out to me in Canadian contexts is the seriousness with which educators approach instructional integrity. Teachers want to understand why something works, not just that it works. SRSD resonates because it’s transparent, promoting literacy and composition development through its clear strategies. The strategies are explicit, which aligns well with retrieval practice principles. The stages are clear. The self-regulation components are intentional, not decorative.

The green shoots here often emerge through equity conversations. When educators see that students who have historically struggled, students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students who avoid writing altogether, begin to participate more fully, belief follows.

SRSD doesn’t lower expectations. It gives students access to literacy skills and elevates their potential. And when teachers see that access expands, they don’t need convincing. They need support to keep growing.

“After just three months, our students could write topic sentences, preview ideas, use hooks, and link ideas together. And we’re seeing this kind of growth across classes.”

Heather McKay, Principal, Alberta, Canada

New Zealand: Alignment with Learner Agency

In New Zealand, the conversation around learner agency is strong, and rightly so. What sometimes gets lost is the idea that agency grows from competence. Students don’t become independent writers by being left alone. They become independent by learning how to plan, monitor, and adjust their work.

That’s where SRSD fits naturally.

What I’ve observed is a thoughtful integration of strategy instruction with reflective practice. Teachers value student voice, but they also recognize that voice needs structure and skills to be expressed clearly. SRSD provides that structure without scripting students’ thinking.

The green shoots here show up in:

• Students articulating their writing goals
• Teachers using think-alouds to make invisible processes visible
• Classrooms where reflection is tied directly to strategy use

This isn’t about control. It’s about clarity. And clarity gives students confidence.

“Self-regulation is the key. When students know the strategies so well they can use them automatically, that’s when you see confidence, calm, and real independence in writing.”

Olwyn Johnston, Deputy Principal, Tawa, New Zealand

Australia: A Growing Demand for Writing Clarity

Australia is perhaps where the green shoots feel most visible right now. There is increasing national attention on writing outcomes, assessment demands, and teacher workload. Teachers are being asked to do more with less time, and vague guidance simply isn’t enough.

SRSD enters that space as a relief, not another burden. Teachers aren’t looking for novelty. They’re looking for usability. What I hear repeatedly is this: “This finally shows me how to teach writing, not just assign it.”

That matters.

The green shoots in Australia include:

• Teachers are asking for shared scope and sequence
• Schools seeking alignment across year levels
• Professional learning focused on practice, not theory alone

Once teachers experience lessons that actually work, complete with a clear sentence structure, where students know what to do and why, they don’t want to return to guesswork.

“There’s this gap between research and classroom practice. Teachers are handed a task like, ‘Write me a story,’ and the cognitive load is just so intense. There’s no structure. SRSD shifts that narrative, and teachers can suddenly see how to teach writing in a way that actually works. It has changed their lives as educators.”

Julie-Anne Scali, Literacy Intervention Consultant, Perth, Australia

Why These Green Shoots Matter

It’s tempting to want faster growth. Bigger headlines. Immediate scale. But big change doesn’t work that way.

Trees grow from roots. And roots take time.

What encourages me most is not how widely SRSD is spreading, but how it’s spreading. Through professional conversations. Through classroom evidence. Through teachers supporting teachers. Through a shared commitment to doing right by students.

This is not pressure imposed from the outside. It’s pressure generated from within the profession. A collective insistence that writing instruction can, and should, be better.

We’re Still Early

Let’s be clear: these green shoots are not yet forests.

There are still schools without writing frameworks. Teachers are still left to figure out effective writing on their own. Students are still struggling without guidance. We have a long way to go before coherent, evidence-based writing instruction is the norm rather than the exception.

But something has shifted.

Beneath the surface, the roots are spreading across borders. The language of writing instruction is becoming shared. The belief is growing that writing is teachable, learnable, and worth the time it requires.

And once that belief takes hold, it’s remarkably hard to uproot.

A Personal Closing Thought

I’ve been around long enough to know the difference between a passing trend and a genuine shift. This feels like the latter. Not because SRSD is loud. Just the opposite. The spread of SRSD is steady. Because it respects teachers. Because it helps students think about their thinking. Because it works.

Green shoots don’t announce themselves. They simply grow.

And right now, across classrooms in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, they are unmistakably pushing through the soil.

---

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?

---

From Ideology to Evidence: Lessons from a New Zealand Literacy Leader

If you work in writing instruction long enough, you start to recognize a familiar pattern.

Teachers care deeply.
Students try hard.
Writing time happens regularly.

And yet progress feels uneven, fragile, and inconsistent.

That is why Olwyn Johnston’s journey from long-held ideology to evidence-aligned writing instruction matters so much. Not because it is dramatic or trendy, but because it is honest. Her story mirrors what many educators across New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. have experienced: a slow, thoughtful reckoning with what felt right versus what actually works.

In her recent ZoomSide Chat webinar, Olwyn provides a case study on anchoring writing instruction in the Science of Writing. And it is worth your time. It’s a 20-minute presentation that offers a realistic roadmap for moving past “shiny” new practices towards meaningful systemic change. You can watch the 20-minute presentation here.

Moving Beyond “Belief Based” Instruction

“There was all of this ideology that was driving us. It wasn’t evidence-based.”

Olwyn begins where many literacy leaders must begin: with context.

For decades, New Zealand embraced a proudly constructivist approach to literacy and curriculum: Whole language reading, heavy student choice, and discovery-based learning. The intent was noble. They were grounded in a sincere belief that children would naturally learn to read and write if placed in rich environments.

But belief is not evidence.

As Olwyn explains, practices like using levelled readers, guessing strategies, open-ended writing workshops, and “hamburger paragraphs” became embedded without empirical grounding. Teachers were expected to confer endlessly, hoping feedback and quality would emerge through exposure and encouragement alone.

What stands out in her reflection is not criticism, it’s clarity. She names the problem precisely:

• Writing instruction lacked a systematic structure
• Expectations varied widely between classrooms
• Teachers were encouraged to “magpie” strategies without coherence
• When students struggled, it was interpreted as motivation or effort issues rather than instructional gaps

This is not unique to New Zealand. Many systems build writing instruction on ideology rather than on how the brain actually learns to write.

“We magpied shiny things, but there was no systematic, sequential, explicit way to teach writing.”

The Missing Piece in the Science of Reading Conversation

“It’s not just the ladder of reading. It’s the ladder of reading and writing.”

As structured literacy gained traction, professional development understandably focused on reading, yet education systems often overlooked the importance of integrating writing instruction effectively. Decoding. Phonics. Orthographic mapping. These shifts were necessary for improving reading comprehension.

But writing lagged behind.

Olwyn makes an important observation that aligns with current research: reading and writing are not separable skills. They are reciprocal, cognitively linked processes. The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) model has always made this clear, yet writing often remained the “neglected sibling” of literacy.

Effective writing is not just harder; it requires a multitude of skills and is the most cognitively demanding task we ask students to do. It requires idea generation, language formulation, transcription, organization, and self-regulation all at once.

If we do not teach the writing process explicitly, we overload working memory and misinterpret failure as inability.

That is where SRSD comes in.

Building the Foundation: Teacher Knowledge First

“Teacher knowledge matters hugely. We were never taught this ourselves.”

One of the most powerful aspects of Olwyn’s journey is that she did not jump straight to SRSD.

She and her team built teacher knowledge first.

They explored:

• Oral language development
• Sentence combining
• Colorful Semantics
• Syntax and sentence expansion
• Explicit grammar instruction

This matters.

SRSD is not a shortcut around teacher knowledge. It depends on it. The research is clear: when teachers understand sentence structure, clauses, conjunctions, pedagogy, and language function, students benefit.

What Olwyn explicitly and bravely names is that many teachers were never taught these concepts themselves. Without that knowledge, writing instruction becomes guesswork.

This layered preparation reflects what we know from SRSD research: strategy instruction works best when teachers understand the components they are modeling.

Why SRSD Was Different

“Having students write a lot is not teaching writing. Finally, someone taught me how to teach writing.”

When Olwyn encountered SRSD, she did not adopt it because it was new. She adopted it because it explained why previous approaches fell short.

Her description of SRSD aligns almost perfectly with the research literature:

• Explicit strategy instruction
• Deliberate skill practice
• Gradual release of responsibility
• Self-regulation as a core feature, not an add-on
• Modeling that externalizes thinking
• Routines that reduce cognitive load

This is not “skill and drill.” It is strategic instruction.

One of the most important shifts Olwyn describes is the reframing of self-talk as part of the broader concept of retrieval practice. In SRSD, self-talk is not motivational fluff—it is a mechanism for self-regulation and neuroplasticity. Students learn to manage things like avoidance, frustration, and task initiation explicitly.

That is evidence-based.

Hyping the Genre: Motivation Through Structure

“Teachers don’t fear change. They fear not being supported when asked to change.”

A standout moment in the webinar is Olwyn’s discussion of “hyping the genre.”

This is a perfect example of how SRSD balances structure and engagement.

Students are not told to “just write.” They are invited into a genre with purpose, audience, and energy. Whether it’s an “alien” audience, Santa’s elves, or persuasive speeches, the motivation is intentional and tied to the writing strategy.

SRSD research consistently shows that motivation increases when students feel competent. Structure does not kill creativity, it enables it.

Olwyn’s examples show this clearly. Once students know how to organize ideas, creativity flourishes.

Modeling Matters More Than Materials

“Self-regulation is the key.”

Another critical insight from Olwyn’s journey: teacher modeling is the intervention.

Not worksheets.
Not printables.
Not programs.

SRSD demands that teachers model:

• Planning
• Self-talk
• Strategy use
• Revision decisions
• Emotional regulation during writing

This aligns directly with decades of SRSD research showing that modeling, especially think-aloud modeling, is essential for transfer.

Olwyn’s emphasis on modeling self-talk across process, content, and affective domains reflects the heart of SRSD.

Students are not just learning to write; they are learning writing techniques that teach them how writers think about composition.
They are learning how writers think.

Differentiation Without Chaos

“It’s safe. It’s consistent. And it’s fun.”

One of the most compelling parts of Olwyn’s presentation is how SRSD supported students with diverse needs, including non-verbal autistic students and students with significant writing disabilities.

Instead of lowering expectations or creating separate “lower ability” groups, SRSD uses flexible entry points:

• Cut-up sentences
• Partially completed organizers
• Reduced strategy components
• Scaffolded explanations
• Disappearing supports as students gain confidence and skills

This is differentiation with guardrails.

Research consistently shows that SRSD is effective across learner profiles because it teaches strategies explicitly and adapts the level of support, not the integrity of the instruction.

Evidence of Impact That Actually Matters

“Think about it as a percentage increase.”

Olwyn does not oversell outcomes. She shares what educators care about:

• Increased student confidence
• Improved organization
• Stronger oral and written language
• Teachers who feel capable and calm
• Students who want to write

She also shares data responsibly. A student moving from zero words to six words in a timed writing task may sound modest until you understand growth trajectories and percentage change.

This is exactly how SRSD researchers interpret impact: meaningful growth at the student’s level.

Closing the “Matthew Effect” in Writing

“Matthew effects exist in writing, too. SRSD closes that gap.”

 In education, the “Matthew Effect” describes how early advantages (or disadvantages) compound over time. One of Olwyn’s strongest statements is also one of the most research-aligned: these effects also exist in writing.

In writing, students who struggle early on tend to fall further behind when instruction relies on exposure rather than explicit teaching. SRSD interrupts that pattern.

Meta-analyses consistently show that SRSD produces large effect sizes for students with and without disabilities. It does not just raise the ceiling; it raises the floor.

Olwyn’s classroom examples make that research visible.

Why Olwyn’s Journey Matters

“The perfect teacher, the perfect curriculum, and the perfect lesson don’t exist. We are all works in progress.”

What makes this webinar powerful is not just SRSD.

It is Olwyn’s willingness to say: I believed something. I learned more. I changed.

That is professional courage.

Her journey models what effective instructional leadership looks like in the Science of Writing era: reflective, evidence-seeking, and student-centered.

If you are watching this webinar, you are not just learning about SRSD. When we move from ideology to evidence in writing instruction, we stop guessing and start teaching. And that is how real change happens.

---

What David Share’s Theory Can Teach Us about Writing: A Personal Look

I’ve been spending some time thinking about the science of reading and a theory from reading research that I find genuinely interesting: David Share’s work on the “Universal Theory” of learning to read. I want to be clear up front. This is not an endorsement, a claim of alignment, or a new research position for SRSD writing, but rather an exploration of the skills involved in reading development. It’s simply my professional curiosity as someone who spends every day thinking about how students learn about reading and writing.

That curiosity comes from a familiar place. When something works well in classrooms, I want to understand why. Not just at the surface level, but at the level of learning and cognition.

Share’s theory gave me one of those “this helps explain something I already see” moments, particularly in how it intersects with literacy development. For a detailed articulation of Share’s model of reading development, see Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model, which describes how learners progress from decoding elements into fluent processing by combining and unitizing meaningful units across contexts.

A quick summary of Share’s idea

In simple terms, Share argues that learning to read isn’t just about memorizing words; it’s about developing a “self-teaching” mechanism. Students expand their vocabulary by combiningsmall, initially meaningless elements like letters or characters into meaningful units. Over time, this process becomes more efficient and automatic. Readers move from effortful decoding to fluent, independent reading through dedicated practice.

He describes this as a “combinatorial process,” kind of like a developmental “tree,” where learning and reading comprehension grow:

• vertically, from basic letter-sound units to more complex multisyllabic words, and
• outward, as knowledge becomes more refined and flexible.

This theory draws on decades of research across languages and writing systems, reflecting the science of reading principles and various educational theories. It helps explain why certain patterns of reading development are consistently observed, even across very different orthographies.

Importantly, this is a theoretical model, not an instructional program.

Why this caught my attention as someone who works with SRSD and writing

What struck me was not that Share’s theory “matches” SRSD, but that it helps explain comprehension and learning principles we already rely on with student writing.

In SRSD, we don’t overwhelm students with all the grammar rules or every possible way to write all at once. We teach a small number of powerful strategies and routines. Students practice them with support, then gradually internalize them. Over time, those strategies become tools students can use flexibly across writing tasks.

That pattern (small elements, deliberately taught, combined, and recombined over time) feels conceptually similar to what Share describes in reading development.

Again, this is not a theoretical claim. It’s an observation.

Where the Ideas Feel Aligned and What Educators Can Take from Them

From my perspective, the value in David Share’s theory is not that it “matches” SRSD, but that it helps explain learning principles that many effective instructional frameworks already rely on. When those principles show up across both reading theory and writing instruction, they are worth paying attention to.

1. Learning builds from small, teachable units

Share’s combinatorial model emphasizes that reading fluency develops as students learn to combine small, initially meaningless units into increasingly complex structures. Growth depends on teaching those units deliberately and giving learners opportunities to recombine them independently.

SRSD approaches writing in a similar way. Strategies, self-regulation routines, and explicit planning structures are not content to be memorized; they are tools students use to generate meaning. When we teach a student to use a graphic organizer or set a goal, we are giving them “units” of composition. For educators, the takeaway is this: instruction works best when we focus less on producing finished writing products and more on teaching students the component actions that allow them to produce meaning in their own writing.

2. Automaticity is a prerequisite for higher-level thinking

Share underscores that fluent reading and comprehension emerge only when lower-level processes, like decoding, become automatic, freeing cognitive resources for meaning-making. SRSD operates on the same assumption in writing. When students no longer struggle to remember what to do next, they can focus on ideas, organization, and audience.

For teachers, this reframes automaticity. It is not a reward for mastery or a skill students “pick up” on their own. It is an instructional outcome that must be deliberately supported. Practice, repetition, and explicit modeling are not remedial moves; they are essential conditions for independence.

3. Development is recursive, not linear

Neither Share’s work nor SRSD for writing assumes that literacy development moves in a straight line. Growth involves refinement, revisiting earlier skills, and applying them in new contexts. Earlier units of learning do not disappear; they are reorganized and reused in increasingly complex ways.

This matters for instructional decision-making. It normalizes revisiting foundational skills without framing that work as regression. It also explains why struggling readers and writers often need instruction that reconnects them to earlier units of learning, rather than simply more exposure to grade-level tasks.

Taken together, these shared principles point to an important instructional stance: explicit instruction and independence are not opposites. Teaching students how the system works, whether in reading or writing, enables them to operate independently within it.

Where the differences matter and why they matter

As much as I find these parallels exciting, the differences between Share’s theory and SRSD are just as important as the similarities.

SRSD is an instructional framework. Share’s work is not.

SRSD is supported by decades of writing intervention research, including experimental and quasi-experimental studies that examine instructional effects on student writing outcomes. Share’s theory does not test instruction. It explains learning.

That distinction matters. We should not treat learning theories as interchangeable with instructional evidence.

SRSD makes causal claims. Share’s theory does not.

SRSD research asks, “What happens when teachers teach writing this way?” Share’s work asks, “How does learning unfold over time?” Those are different scientific purposes.

SRSD is designed for classroom use. Share’s theory is explanatory.

Teachers can implement SRSD tomorrow to enhance their writing instruction. Share’s theory helps us think more clearly about why certain instructional choices make sense, but it does not tell teachers what to do.

Why I still find Share’s work validating

Even with those key differences, I find Share’s work validating. Not because it “proves” SRSD, but because it sits comfortably alongside it.

Good instructional frameworks tend to align with well-established learning principles. When a theory from the science of reading helps explain why explicit, strategic instruction supports independence and fluency, incorporating reading strategies, that’s reassuring. It suggests we’re not working against how learning happens, especially in writing.

I also think this kind of theoretical work helps bridge conversations between reading and writing. Teachers often experience these as separate worlds. Research like Share’s reminds us that literacy development, whether reading or writing, depends on cumulative learning, automaticity, and strategic control.

A final word of caution (and respect)

This is, of course, a professional opinion, not a formal position statement. SRSD does not require external theories to justify its effectiveness in the classroom. Its decades of peer-reviewed evidence on writing outcomes stand firmly on its own.

But as someone who cares deeply about teaching writing well, I appreciate thoughtful theories that help explain learning in ways that feel consistent with what we see in classrooms. Share’s work on the science of reading does that for me, as it is compared to the science of writing.

I’m impressed by the care of his thinking. I’m encouraged by how much it aligns with core learning principles. And I’m confident that keeping these ideas in dialogue, without blurring boundaries, only strengthens our understanding of reading and literacy instruction.

If you’re interested in exploring more about how these “reading-writing” bridges work in practice, I suggest these other blogs:

• Reading and Writing Relationships: What Decades of Research Reveal
• Reading Comprehension Strategies: How Writing Helps
• The Science of Writing: Integrating Reading and Writing for Enhanced Literacy
• Using Writing as a Tool for Improving Reading and Learning

---

How a Coherent Writing System Can Transform Teaching Writing

Across schools and districts, the same quiet story plays out every year.

A reading specialist, interventionist, or MTSS team member steps into a new role and is immediately handed “the writing problem.” Writing scores are flat, struggling writers are falling through the cracks, and pressure for quick results is mounting. Teachers are asking for help. Administrators want results.

And yet, when these specialists look for the tools they need to solve it, they often find a void. There is no writing intervention system waiting for them.

No shared framework.
No common language.
No instructional blueprint.

Just the expectation that somehow, they will figure it out.

This is not a failure of effort or intelligence. It is a structural gap in how writing instruction is supported in schools. One that thousands of educators are asked to navigate every day without a compass.

The Invisible Job Too Many Educators Are Doing

Writing interventions often become “invisible assignments.” Unlike reading, it is rarely defined clearly or with high-quality instructional materials. But someone is still expected to “move the needle.”

That “someone” is usually a literacy expert, often deeply trained in the science of reading, who is now suddenly responsible for writing outcomes without the equivalent preparation or tools.

In practice, this means educators are quietly expected to:

• Build a writing intervention approach from scratch
• Decide who requires  Tier 2 versus Tier 3 supports
• Support “bubble students” without neglecting those with significant needs
• Provide growth data administrators can trust
• Support classroom teachers who feel unsure about teaching writing

All while maintaining credibility and confidence.

What makes this especially difficult is that writing struggles look different from reading struggles. Students may decode well but freeze when asked to write. They may have ideas, but no structure. They may avoid writing altogether because they do not know how or where to begin.

Without a system, writing intervention becomes high-stakes guesswork.

Why Writing Feels Harder to Fix Than Reading

Reading has benefited from decades of shared research on language and system-level coherence. Writing instruction has not experienced the same clarity.

As a result, writing instruction is often fragmented. Teachers assign writing, but are unsure how to teach writing effectively or model it. They may offer a prompt, but they aren’t always sure how to model the thinking behind it. This leads to interventions focused on fixing drafts rather than teaching composition. Planning and organization are assumed rather than taught. Struggling writers receive more help, not better instruction.

Interventionists know explicit instruction matters. They know strategy instruction matters. But too often, they are left to invent or adapt approaches on their own.

Writing intervention, rooted in a strong foundation of written language, becomes something educators merely manage rather than something they feel confident leading.

What Educators Are Actually Searching For

When educators seek help with writing interventions, they are rarely seeking inspiration or novelty. They are looking for relief.

They want clear answers to practical questions:

• What does a writing lesson actually look like for struggling writers?
• What do I say out loud when I model?
• How do I help students who “have nothing” when they start?
• How do I teach a student to plan and edit their work instead of just waiting for me to fix their mistakes?
• How do I show growth in a way administrators trust?

They are searching for certainty. They want research they can stand behind and tools they can use immediately, without having to invent, adapt, or justify every decision.

Why SRSD Fits the Writing Intervention Reality

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) was built to address this exact gap.

It did not begin as a general classroom framework. It began as a writing intervention model, developed to support students who struggled most with planning, organizing, and sustaining writing independently.

Grounded in the Science of Writing, SRSD pairs explicit strategy instruction with self-regulation. Students learn both what to do and how to manage the task. Planning is taught directly. Organization is made visible. Independence is intentionally developed.

For educators, this means writing instruction becomes teachable, repeatable, and explainable, not dependent on a teacher’s instinct or improvisation.

What Makes SRSD Feel Like a System, Not Just Training

SRSD answers the question educators rarely ask out loud: “What does this actually look like with real students?”

Instead of abstract guidance, SRSD provides an explicit instructional sequence and detailed meta-scripts that educators can rely on to teach writing effectively. Lessons follow a predictable sequence. Modeling is explicit. Expectations are visible. Cognitive load is reduced.

Educators do not have to invent instruction. They can focus on teaching it.

This shift from inventing instruction to delivering it with fidelity is often the turning point for interventionists who have spent years trying to bridge the gap on their own.

How SRSD Online Turns Writing Training into a System That Lasts

Even the most inspired training can fade without a system to sustain it. Many schools experience what is often called the implementation trap: a burst of initial momentum followed by a slow erosion of practice as the year gets busy.

SRSD Online was designed to prevent that pattern.

Rather than offering isolated professional development, SRSD Online functions as a writing instruction training system that caters to diverse learning needs. Schools begin by identifying their instructional starting point and aligning writing goals with existing structures. Instruction is introduced with intention, not urgency.

Support is differentiated by role:

• Teachers receive classroom-ready guidance focused on explicit modeling and gradual release.
• Instructional coaches learn how to facilitate practice and provide meaningful feedback over time.
• Administrators gain clarity on what to effective writing looks like, allowing them to protect and support instructional time.

Most importantly, SRSD Online emphasizes sustainability. Writing instruction is supported through student work, coaching conversations, and leadership reflection. Schools adjust and strengthen practice rather than abandon it.

This is how writing training becomes a writing system and how schools avoid repeating the same cycle.

Watch the video: SRSD Writing Instruction Training System

The Relief of Not Having to Guess

When educators move from piecing together writing support to working within a coherent writing system, a shift occurs.

They stop wondering whether they are doing enough or teaching the right thing. They begin to see writing instruction as something they can explain, model, and refine, focusing on teaching writing structure and style, much as they develop a comprehensive understanding of written language.

That clarity builds professional confidence. Educators can speak with authority—to teachers, administrators, and families. Writing intervention becomes intentional rather than reactive, with educators using scripts to guide effective teaching. Instead of “putting out fires,” teachers are building a foundation of written language that students can carry with them for years.

What Interventionists Expect from a Writing System

Educators responsible for writing interventions are not asking for perfection. They are asking for support that respects the complexity of their role.

They expect a system that:

• Provides a research-backed writing intervention framework
• Shows exactly how to teach struggling writers
• Clarifies Tier 2 and Tier 3 decision-making
• Includes tools to demonstrate growth
• Supports differentiation without fragmentation
• Helps them support classroom teachers consistently

These expectations are reasonable. Writing intervention is high-stakes work.

From Interventionist to Writing Leader

Over time, many educators experience another shift:

With a strong writing system in place, interventionists become writing leaders. They develop shared language. They gain confidence in modeling and coaching. They become the person others turn to with writing questions.

This matters because writing expertise is rare in schools, and administrators value it deeply.

A strong writing intervention system does more than improve outcomes. It builds internal capacity and creates a pathway from intervention to classroom instruction to schoolwide practice.

Writing Intervention Should Not Be Trial and Error

Too many educators are asked to solve writing problems solely through persistence. Writing intervention deserves the same structural support that reading has received.

SRSD provides that structure.

It offers a clear, research-aligned roadmap that makes writing instruction visible, supports student independence, and grows with both students and educators.

If you are being asked to fix writing without a system, SRSD Online provides an evidence-based writing intervention framework, giving educators the clarity, tools, and support they need to lead this work with confidence.

---

Bridging Theory and Practice: Solutions for Success

Across elementary classrooms, you can find graphic organizers taped to desks, acronyms written on anchor charts posted on walls, and checklists clipped to student folders. Teachers are working hard to improve writing instruction, yet many still report the same outcome: despite these effective tools, student writing does not improve in lasting or meaningful ways.

This creates a painful question for teachers: If I’m using research-based strategies, why isn’t it working?

The answer matters, especially for educators responsible for teaching writing, selecting a writing curriculum, or supporting a school’s curriculum for writing. The problem is not that teachers are doing the wrong thing. The problem is that writing strategies, by themselves, are not enough.

Recent research on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) helps explain why.

Why Evidence-based Strategies Aren’t a Guarantee

Teachers are often told what strategies to use, but not how to teach them.

A strategy may be evidence-based, but strategy use does not automatically translate into effective writing instruction. Students must learn how to apply the strategy, when to use it, and how to regulate themselves while writing. That requires instruction that goes far beyond handing out an organizer or naming an acronym.

This gap between strategy and instruction shows up in classrooms as:

• Students who know the acronym but don’t know how to start
• Plans that look fine, followed by weak drafts
• Heavy teacher support that never fades
• Writing improvement that disappears once scaffolds are removed

Teachers sense that something is missing, but they are rarely given language or support to name it.

The research identifies this missing piece as multicomponent, strategy-focused writing instruction. While teachers often experience the gap as “I tried the strategy, but it didn’t stick,” the reality is that the strategy lacked the necessary instructional supports, like self-regulation, to make it a permanent part of the student’s writing process.

What “Multicomponent” Actually Means for Teaching Writing

In research terms, SRSD is described as a multicomponent, strategy-focused approach to writing instruction. While that phrase sounds abstract, the meaning is practical: it means you aren’t just handing students a tool; you are teaching them the mental processes required to use it.

Multicomponent writing instruction means that effectively teaching writing includes all of the following working together:

• Explicit strategy instruction
• Clear genre expectations
• Teacher modeling with think-alouds
• Guided practice with feedback
• Self-regulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-talk)
• Gradual release to independence

When any of these components are missing, writing instruction becomes fragile.

Students may appear successful while supports are present, but they do not develop independence. Teachers then conclude that the strategy “didn’t work,” when the real issue is that the strategy was never fully taught.

This distinction matters deeply for anyone responsible for teaching writing or evaluating best practices in writing instruction.

Why Strategies Alone Don’t Improve Writing

The Ray and FitzPatrick study on practice-based professional development makes this point clearly: writing strategies are powerful only when teachers are supported to teach them well.

In the study, teachers did not simply learn about SRSD strategies. They learned how to teach them through:

• Modeling complete lessons
• Practicing instruction with peers
• Receiving feedback on instructional moves
• Using the same materials they would use with students
• Reflecting on student responses

This matters because teaching writing is not a static skill; it involves various techniques that must be mastered. It is a performance skill. Teachers must make thinking visible in real time. That is not something most educators were trained to do in their training programs.

Without structured support, even strong teachers revert to shortcuts:

• Explaining instead of modeling
• Helping instead of guiding
• Fixing student writing instead of teaching students how to fix it

The research does not blame teachers for this. It explains why it happens.

The Professional Learning Problem Beneath the Writing Problem

Many writing initiatives fail not because the approach is flawed, but because professional learning stops at explanation.

Teachers attend a workshop. They see slides. They receive materials. Then they are expected to implement complex writing instruction independently or with limited supports.

A recent article by Amber Ray and Erin FitzPatrick shows that one-shot professional development is not enough for writing instruction. Teachers need opportunities to rehearse instruction, make mistakes, receive feedback, and refine their practice before stepping into the classroom.

This finding aligns with what teachers already know:

• Writing instruction is cognitively demanding
• Modeling writing live is uncomfortable
• Self-regulation language does not come naturally at first
• Feedback during writing requires precision

Effective writing instruction depends on teacher confidence, creativity, and clarity. Those develop through practice, honing skills and implementing effective writing strategies, not through exposure.

Why This Matters for Any Writing Curriculum

This is where an important clarification matters for schools evaluating a curriculum for writing.

SRSD is not a writing curriculum.

It does not replace your writing curriculum. It does not dictate topics, texts, or pacing. Instead, SRSD functions as a framework that strengthens how your writing curriculum is taught.

Think of it this way:

• A writing curriculum defines what students write
• SRSD supports how students learn to write

This distinction allows SRSD to work within many existing curricula for writing decisions. Teachers can apply SRSD strategies to narrative, informational, and argumentative tasks already required by standards and through adopted programs.

For teachers, this matters because it reduces initiative overload. SRSD does not ask them to abandon what they are teaching. It helps them teach it more effectively.

Teaching Writing Requires Teaching Thinking

One of the most consistent findings in SRSD research is that students improve when teachers model their thinking aloud. This is not a small instructional move. It is central to how students learn to write.

When teachers say:

• “Here’s how I decide what goes in my plan”
• “I’m checking whether I included all parts of the genre”
• “I’m stuck, so I’m telling myself what to do next”

They reveal processes that strong writers use automatically. Students who struggle with writing do not lack ideas. They lack access to these processes.

Teaching writing means teaching thinking. That is a core principle of best practices in writing instruction, yet it is rarely supported explicitly in professional learning.

The Role of Self-Regulation in Writing Instruction

Writing places heavy demands on attention, memory, and motivation. Students must manage ideas, language, organization, and time simultaneously.

SRSD addresses this through explicit instruction in self-regulation strategies. Students learn to:

• Set goals for their writing
• Monitor progress while drafting
• Use self-talk to persist
• Evaluate their work against the criteria

The Ray and FitzPatrick article highlights that this component is not optional. When teachers skip self-regulation instruction, student gains are smaller and less durable.

For teachers learning how to teach writing, this explains why some students fall apart during independent work. They were never taught how to manage the task.

Why Fidelity Matters (And How It Empowers Teachers)

The word fidelity often raises concern. Teachers worry it means rigid scripting or loss of professional autonomy. However, Ray and FitzPatrick reframe this: fidelity is not about compliance; it’s about instructional integrity.

In SRSD research, fidelity does not mean rigidity. It means ensuring that essential instructional components (“active ingredients”) are present, even as teachers adapt language, pacing, and examples in a concise manner. The article describes how teachers used fidelity checklists not as evaluation tools, but as supports for self-reflection and growth

This reframes fidelity as a teacher support, not a compliance mechanism.

Teachers are encouraged to adapt instruction, but not to skip critical elements such as modeling, guided practice, or self-regulation.

What Teachers Say Changes When Instruction Improves

Across SRSD studies, teachers report similar shifts once instruction becomes fully implemented:

• Students start writing more quickly
• Planning improves before drafting
• Writing becomes more organized
• Students rely less on teacher help
• Confidence increases

These changes do not happen overnight. They emerge as teachers refine how they teach writing, applying effective writing tips rather than just what they assign.

This is a crucial message for anyone evaluating how to teach writing effectively. Improvement comes from instructional practice, not from materials alone.

Reframing the Question

Teachers often ask: What is the best writing curriculum?

A more useful question may be: What instructional framework helps my writing curriculum work better?

The research suggests that best practices in writing instruction depend less on the specific program and more on how instruction is delivered. Explicit teaching, modeling, self-regulation, and guided practice matter regardless of the curriculum for writing in use.

These reframing respects teacher expertise. It acknowledges that strong teaching writing is complex work and that teachers deserve structures that make that work manageable.

What This Means for Schools and Instructional Leaders

For schools committed to improving writing instruction, several implications follow:

• Professional learning must include practice, rehearsal and feedback
• Writing strategies must be taught, not just introduced
• Self-regulation deserves explicit instructional time
• Writing instruction improves when teachers are supported over time
• Frameworks like SRSD strengthen, rather than replace, existing writing curriculum choices

None of these requires abandoning current materials. They require rethinking how teachers are supported to use them.

Erin FitzPatrick’s Role in Advancing This Work

The research discussed here reflects years of work by scholars deeply involved in writing instruction and teacher development. Erin FitzPatrick has contributed extensively to SRSD research, particularly in understanding how teachers learn to implement evidence-based writing instruction through practice-based professional development. Her work consistently emphasizes that teacher learning must mirror student learning: explicit, supported, and iterative. In addition to her research contributions, she currently serves as an SRSD Online mentor, supporting educators as they strengthen writing instruction in real classrooms. This connection between research and practice is not incidental. It reflects a core principle of SRSD: instructional improvement depends on sustained support, not isolated training.

A Final Thought

When writing strategies fail in classrooms, it is rarely because teachers chose poorly. More often, teachers were never given the conditions needed to succeed.

Effective teaching writing depends on explicit instruction, supported practice, and time to refine craft. The research is clear on this point. Teachers already sense it. What they need is alignment between what research says and how professional learning is designed.

That alignment is where real improvement in writing instruction begins.

Reference

Ray, A. B., & FitzPatrick, E. (2024). Instructional Coaches in Elementary Settings: Writing the Wave to Success with Self-Regulated Strategy Development for the Informational Genre. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 39(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/15405826231218251

---

Moving from Traditional PD to Sustained Classroom Support

Writing instruction is one of the most complex tasks we ask of teachers. While literacy demands are higher than ever, many educators find themselves in the difficult position of navigating this complexity without a consistent, evidence-based framework or the specific training needed to support diverse learners. This lack of a schoolwide approach and the absence of sustained professional support leaves students with learning disabilities particularly vulnerable, as writing instruction often becomes fragmented across grade levels.

This is where instructional coaches become essential, not as occasional support, but as implementation leaders. These coaches are positioned to translate research into daily classroom practice, align instruction across grade levels, and support teachers as they take on one of the most complex instructional tasks we ask of students: writing.

A recent peer-reviewed article by Amber Ray and Erin FitzPatrick (2024) makes this clear, outlining how instructional coaches can lead effective, schoolwide implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). Their research shows how schools can bridge the research-to-practice gap, leading to measurable gains for students and meaningful professional growth for teachers

For instructional coaches, this research provides a blueprint for leading systemic change. Ray and FitzPatrick outline the steps for instructional coaches to use practice-based professional development to ensure evidence-based writing instruction is implemented with high fidelity across all grade levels.

The Writing Problems Coaches See Every Day

Most instructional coaches don’t need another report to tell them writing instruction is inconsistent. They see the “research-to-practice gap” firsthand:

• Teachers vary widely in how they teach writing, even within the same grade.
• Writing time gets squeezed by other priorities.
• Students struggle to use graphic organizers to plan, organize, and sustain writing.
• Teachers feel underprepared to teach writing explicitly.
• Students with learning disabilities receive fragmented support.

The research confirms what most coaches already know. National surveys show that many elementary teachers receive little preparation in writing instruction, and students, both with and without disabilities, underperform on writing assessments. Students with learning disabilities are especially vulnerable because most receive writing instruction primarily in general education classrooms without systematic support.

For instructional coaches, the core issue is not a lack of teacher effort, but that necessary systems are missing.

SRSD offers a framework that addresses this gap, but only when implemented well.

Why SRSD Changes the Coaching Conversation

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) was originally designed to support students with learning disabilities, but decades of research now show its effectiveness across diverse student populations and grade levels. Meta-analyses consistently report large effect sizes for SRSD compared to other writing interventions.

What makes SRSD different from many writing initiatives is not just what it teaches, but how it structures learning:

• Explicit instruction in genre knowledge
• Clear strategies for planning, drafting, and revising
• Embedded self-regulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-talk)
• Gradual release toward independent writing
• Instruction that honors mastery rather than pacing guides

For instructional coaches, SRSD is a natural fit because it creates the systemic coherence necessary for schoolwide success. However, moving this framework from research into the classroom requires more than just high-quality materials; it requires intentional, guided leadership of a coach to ensure it takes root.

The Instructional Coach as Implementation Leader

Ray and FitzPatrick argue that instructional coaches are uniquely positioned to oversee schoolwide SRSD implementation because of their cross-grade visibility, instructional expertise, and daily contact with teachers.

From a coaching perspective, this research reframes a coach’s role in three important ways:

1. From PD provider to implementation leader
2. From classroom support to system coherence
3. From short-term initiative to sustained instructional change

This shift matters. Writing instruction often fails when it becomes a one-year rollout or a “binder on a shelf,” lacking comprehensive curriculum development. SRSD succeeds when coaches treat implementation as a developmental process, one that supports the growth of teachers and students alike.

Building Teacher Buy-In Without Overselling

Experienced coaches know that buy-in cannot be forced. Ray and FitzPatrick emphasize starting with interested teachers rather than mandating immediate schoolwide adoption.

Effective coaches:

• Share student writing samples, not just effect sizes
• Connect SRSD to existing teacher practices
• Highlight alignment with standards teachers already teach
• Acknowledge the complexity of the writing process and instruction, incorporating diverse writing techniques
• Emphasize that SRSD is a framework, not a script

Teachers respond when they see SRSD as a way to organize and strengthen the skills they already possess, not as a replacement for their professional judgment.

This is where mentors such as Erin FitzPatrick bring credibility. Her work consistently bridges research and classroom reality, showing teachers how SRSD plays out in inclusive elementary settings. That credibility matters deeply when coaches ask teachers to try something new.

Practice-Based Professional Development: A Coach’s Most Powerful Lever for Instructional Change

One of the article’s strongest contributions is its emphasis on Practice-Based Professional Development (PBPD). Coaches do not simply explain SRSD; they teach teachers how to teach it by practicing together.

Effective PBPD aims to enhance teachers’ writing skills and includes:

• Modeling complete SRSD lessons
• Practicing lessons with peers
• Using the same materials that teachers will use with students
• Providing feedback focused on instruction, not compliance
• Revisiting challenging lessons multiple times

This approach mirrors SRSD itself, enhancing student engagement through modeling, guided practice, feedback, and independence.

Importantly, PBPD respects teachers as adult learners. Coaches create a safe space for practice, mistakes, and growth before teachers ever step into the classroom with students.

Modeling Matters, Especially in Writing

One of the most powerful moves a coach can make is  providing authentic modeling. The research is clear: teachers (and students) need to see writing happen in real time.

When coaches model SRSD lessons, they do not present polished essays. They write live. They think aloud. They show hesitation, revision, and decision-making. They model self-talk.

This matters because the writing process is invisible unless we make thinking visible.

Coaches who model writing well give teachers permission to slow down, narrate their thinking, and teach writing as a process—not a product.

Supporting Teachers During Classroom Implementation

Even strong practice-based professional development is not enough on its own. The article outlines several coaching supports that matter once instruction begins:

1. In-Class Modeling
Coaches teach SRSD lessons in teachers’ classrooms when needed, especially lessons involving modeling and self-regulation. This allows teachers to see how think-alouds, scaffolds, and student responses unfold in real time with their own students.

2. Co-Teaching
Coaches and teachers plan lessons together, divide instructional roles, and develop skills to differentiate support for students who need additional scaffolding. This shared responsibility reduces instructional risk while helping teachers build confidence and fluency with SRSD practices.

3. Observation and Feedback
Coaches observe SRSD lessons using structured tools and guide reflective conversations focused on instructional moves. Feedback centers on what students are doing and how teacher actions support strategy use, rather than on compliance or performance ratings.

4. Peer Observation
Coaches coordinate opportunities for teachers to observe one another teaching SRSD, strengthening collective expertise. These observations normalize problem-solving and accelerate learning by making effective practice visible across classrooms.

Each of these moves reinforces the idea that implementation is iterative, not evaluative.

Differentiation: Where Coaches Add Real Value

Differentiation is where SRSD shines and where coaches provide essential guidance.

The article highlights how coaches help teachers differentiate:

• Genre strategies (e.g., TIDE across grade levels)
• Self-regulation strategies (personalized self-talk)
• Writing goals (individual and group targets)
• Instructional grouping (intentional and random)
• Expectations aligned to grade-level standards

Because SRSD uses consistent strategies across grades, differentiation becomes additive rather than fragmented. Students do not relearn writing from scratch each year; they build on a shared framework that emphasizes the writing process.

This continuity is one of SRSD’s greatest strengths and one that only coaches can protect at the system level.

Tracking Student Growth Without Overburdening Teachers

Assessment often derails writing initiatives. Coaches help prevent that.

The article describes flexible checklists aligned to standards that allow teachers to:

• Collect pre- and post-writing samples
• Identify specific skill growth
• Set meaningful goals
• Track progress for IEP documentation
• Monitor maintenance across content areas

Crucially, coaches help teachers understand that early SRSD stages focus on knowledge building rather than immediate writing output. Progress can and should be measured before students draft independently.

This protects instructional integrity and prevents premature judgments about effectiveness.

Why This Matters for Students with Learning Disabilities

SRSD was designed with students with learning disabilities in mind, and schoolwide implementation benefits these students most when coaches lead with intention.

Students with learning disabilities gain access to:

• Explicit instruction in planning and organization
• Clear genre expectations
• Scaffolded self-regulation strategies
• Consistent instruction across classrooms
• Opportunities to succeed before being asked to perform independently

For coaches committed to equity, SRSD offers a way to reduce variability without lowering expectations.

A Final Word to Instructional Coaches

Elementary writing instruction does not improve because teachers try harder. It improves when systems support strong teaching.

This research makes one thing clear: instructional coaches are the engine of systemic change. When coaches lead practice-based professional development, align instruction across grades, support differentiation, and protect instructional time, writing instruction changes measurably and sustainably.

SRSD gives coaches a research-validated framework. Your leadership gives it life.

And that combination is what moves writing instruction forward.

Reference:

Ray, A. B., & FitzPatrick, E. (2024). Instructional Coaches in Elementary Settings: Writing the Wave to Success with Self-Regulated Strategy Development for the Informational Genre. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 39(1), 37-52.

---

How SRSD Researcher Barbara Friedlander Shows Teachers What Strong Writing Instruction Really Looks Like

When teachers talk about teaching writing, the conversation often centers on what students produce: sentences, paragraphs, essays. But experienced educators know that strong writing instruction is not just about outcomes. It is about teaching students how writers think.

That is why modeling, specifically modeling through think-aloud writing strategies, sits at the heart of SRSD writing instruction.

In a recent SRSD ZoomSide Chat™, SRSD researcher and practitioner Barbara Friedlander walked teachers through one small part of Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD): modeling. While it is just one stage of the framework, Barbara makes a compelling case that it is often the most impactful.

As she explains, even when teachers understand SRSD strategies, student growth accelerates when teachers make their thinking visible, showing students not just what to write, but how to approach writing as skilled writers do.

This blog unpacks the core principles of SRSD modeling as Barbara teaches them, helping educators understand what modeling looks like in practice and why it works so powerfully for students across grades and content areas.

Watch the video here: Barbara Friedlander SRSD ZoomSide Chat™: Modeling

Writing Is Still a Life Skill, Even Now

In today’s classrooms, teachers are navigating rapid change. AI tools can generate text. Students can dictate ideas. Technology can support drafting.

Yet writing remains essential.

Students still need to plan ideas, organize information, and communicate clearly for a specific audience. As Barbara notes, students will need writing skills for “a proposal, a grant, a brief, or Google Slides.” They also write daily emails, texts, and social media posts, often without realizing they are practicing writing.

The question is not whether writing still matters. The question is how to teach writing in a way that truly works for students.

Self-Regulated Strategy Development offers an answer because it teaches students writing strategies for students that mirror what skilled writers already do. Modeling is how students gain access to those strategies.

Why Students Get Stuck Before They Ever Write

Many students struggle with writing long before they put words on the page.

Teachers see this every day:

• Students freeze when asked to write
• They avoid starting
• They wait for help or answers
• They shut down emotionally

Barbara describes years of working with students who had learned that if they waited long enough, “the teacher will just tell me what to do.” By the time many students receive additional support, they have become dependent rather than independent.

SRSD addresses this directly through explicit writing instruction and gradual release writing instruction. Modeling is where that release begins.

What Modeling Means in SRSD

Modeling in SRSD is not simply showing students a finished piece of writing. It is a deliberate, intentional think-aloud in which the teacher writes in front of students and verbalizes the thoughts, decisions, struggles, and strategies that occur while writing.

Barbara describes modeling as “a way to expose your thoughts and what good writers do.” Skilled writers talk to themselves constantly as they write. Students rarely hear that internal dialogue unless teachers make it visible.

This practice is not anecdotal. The What Works Clearinghouse identifies modeling and think-alouds as a core component of SRSD because they allow teachers to explicitly demonstrate strategy use, self-regulation, and goal setting, key elements of evidence-based writing strategies.

Modeling Is About Self-Regulation, Not Just Mnemonics

Many teachers associate SRSD with mnemonics like POW, TREE, or TIDE. These tools matter, especially for students with working-memory or language-processing challenges.

But Barbara is clear: “The mnemonic is not actually the secret to SRSD.”

The real power lies in self-regulation in writing. Teaching students how expert writers set writing goals, plan, and monitor progress:

• Plan
• Monitor progress
• Encourage themselves
• Manage frustration
• Adjust strategies based on the task

Modeling is where students learn these behaviors, which are essential for developing strong writing skills.

The Gradual Release Begins With Modeling

SRSD follows a gradual release of responsibility model. Teachers begin by doing most of the cognitive work, then gradually shift responsibility to students.

Barbara explains that this release starts with:

1. Building background knowledge
2. Understanding the genre
3. Seeing examples and non-examples
4. Watching the teacher model the writing process

Only after this foundation and receiving initial feedback do students move into collaborative writing, peer practice, and independent writing.

Modeling gives students a roadmap before they are asked to drive on their own.

Five Core Components of Effective SRSD Modeling

Barbara designs her modeling carefully, often planning or scripting what she will say. Over time, teachers internalize the process, but early precision matters.

She consistently focuses on five key areas.

1. Modeling How Writers Get Started

Getting started is one of the biggest barriers for struggling writers.

Barbara intentionally voices that struggle: “This might be too much work. I don’t know how to get started.”

Then she models the recovery: “Oh wait—I remember POW and TREE.”

Students learn that uncertainty is normal and that strategies exist to move forward.

2. Modeling Strategy Use in Real Time

Modeling shows students how to use strategies to enhance their writing skills, not just name them.

Barbara writes “POW” at the top of the page and “TREE” down the side, explaining that these tools help her stay organized and focused during the writing process.

This is critical for explicit writing instruction. Students see strategies as thinking tools, not worksheets.

3. Modeling Positive Self-Talk

Many students engage in constant negative self-talk:

• “I can’t do this.”
• “Writing is too hard.”
• “Everyone else is better than me.”

Barbara models productive self-statements: “I can do this.” “This is hard, but I have a plan.”

She also discusses intentionally modeling negative thoughts, then analyzing why they are unhelpful. This teaches students to replace them with more productive language.

4. Modeling Goal Setting and Monitoring

Goal setting is often overlooked in teaching writing, but Barbara emphasizes that it is a life skill.

During modeling, she pauses to check progress: “I said I was going to have eight parts. Let me count.”

Students learn how expert writers monitor their work as they write, not just after they finish.

5. Modeling How Writers Handle Distraction and Frustration

One of the most powerful aspects of Barbara’s modeling is her handling of interruptions and emotional derailments.

In one example, she becomes distracted mid-writing, then redirects herself: “I cannot think about that right now. I won’t get all the points if I do that.”

Students learn that distraction happens and that writers can regain control.

Modeling Is Interactive and Flexible

Barbara emphasizes that modeling does not have to be one uninterrupted performance.

Some classes benefit from stopping frequently to discuss what they noticed. Others can sustain longer models. Teachers can pause, analyze self-statements, then continue.

This flexibility allows modeling to remain high-engagement, even for students with limited attention spans.

When Modeling Works, Students Generalize

One of Barbara’s most powerful examples comes from students who transferred self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) strategies years later without prompting.

Middle school teachers noticed that students who could write independently all shared one experience: SRSD.

They didn’t need reminders. They knew what to do when given an assignment.

That transfer is the goal of SRSD writing instruction. Modeling makes it possible.

Modeling Improves Motivation and Independence

Barbara consistently sees changes in student motivation after SRSD instruction.

Students want to write because they finally understand how writing works. Research confirms that SRSD improves planning, organization, revision, motivation, and independence.

Modeling removes the mystery from writing. Confidence grows when students know what expert writers do.

Modeling Works Across the Curriculum

SRSD modeling is not limited to ELA classes.

Barbara describes supporting a science teacher who struggled with lab writing. After modeling his own thinking (planning, organizing, and self-talk) student writing improved.

Writing is thinking. Modeling teaches thinking in any subject.

Modeling Supports Teachers, Too

Teacher confidence matters for retention.

Barbara notes that when teachers know exactly how to teach writing and see student results, they stay engaged in the profession. SRSD modeling gives teachers clarity and direction.

It shows them how to teach writing, not just what to assign.

There Is No Fixed Timeline. And That’s the Point

Teachers often ask how long to stay in each SRSD stage.

Barbara’s answer is consistent:
It depends on the students.

Some students need extended modeling. Others move quickly into collaboration. SRSD is flexible, responsive, and student-centered.

Final Takeaway for Teachers

From our experience, some teachers think SRSD Modeling is an extra step in writing instruction. Others think SRSD modeling is too tricky. What does Barbara think? SRSD modeling is the heart of the framework.

When teachers model:

• Students learn how writers think
• Self-regulation replaces avoidance
• Strategies become usable tools
• Independence becomes achievable

As Barbara says, modeling lets students “see into your brain.”

That is how students learn to write—and why modeling remains one of the most powerful evidence-based writing strategies teachers can use.

About Barbara Friedlander

Barbara’s leadership as an Inclusion Instructor in Maryland and a Nationally Board-Certified Special Education teacher has been instrumental in incorporating SRSD into classroom practice. With over two decades of experience in special education, she has co-authored influential SRSD books, including the widely acclaimed Powerful Writing Strategies for All Students. Her contributions have earned her recognition, including the Learning Disabilities Association Sam Kirk Educator of the Year award for 2024. As an SRSD training and educational policy leader, Friedlander’s influence shapes inclusive educational practices and co-teaching strategies.

Our favorite study featuring Barbara Friedlander is: Bring Powerful Writing Strategies Into Your Classroom! Why and How (2013)

---

What Practice-Based Professional Development Reveals About SRSD

For decades, writing research has wrestled with a persistent and deeply consequential assumption: complex writing instruction works only when researchers teach it. According to this view, large effect sizes are only achieved under ideal conditions, such as small groups, expert instructors, and tight controls, but inevitably diminish once responsibility shifts to classroom teachers.

This assumption has shaped district decision-making, professional development models, and even skepticism toward evidence-based writing frameworks and effective writing techniques. It has also slowed the scaling of approaches that show enormous promise for students.

The evidence now tells a different story.

A comprehensive review by Harris, Camping, and McKeown (2023) demonstrates that when teachers receive practice-based professional development (PBPD),they implement Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) with high fidelity and produce student writing outcomes that are comparable to, and sometimes stronger than, those achieved in researcher-led studies.

This finding is not incremental. It directly challenges one of the most entrenched beliefs in writing instruction and reshapes what is possible for schools committed to improving writing at scale.

Why Writing Instruction Requires a Different Kind of Professional Development

Teaching writing is not a single skill. It is a complex, self-regulated problem-solving process that draws simultaneously on various elements of the writing process:

• Genre knowledge
• Strategic planning
• Sentence construction
• Audience awareness
• Goal setting and self-monitoring
• Motivation and persistence

Effective writing instruction must address all of these components. Teaching writing well requires far more than assigning prompts or providing feedback after the fact. It requires explicit instruction in strategies and in the self-regulation processes that allow students to use those strategies independently.

Yet for decades, teacher preparation and professional learning have largely sidelined writing. Many teachers report limited preparation in teaching writing instruction, low confidence in their own writing abilities, and uncertainty about how to teach writing explicitly, especially across genres.

Traditional professional development has not solved this problem. One-day workshops, curriculum overviews, and passive presentations rarely change classroom practice, particularly for an instructional domain as complex as writing.

The chapter reviewed here makes a critical point: if teaching writing is multicomponent and complex, professional development must be equally robust.

What Is Practice-Based Professional Development?

Practice-based professional development (PBPD) emerged from the recognition that teaching expertise develops through doing rather than listening. Rather than focusing solely on abstract principles, PBPD centers learning on the real work of instruction.

Across the broader PD literature, and across the studies reviewed in this chapter, PBPD consistently includes:

• Active learning and rehearsal of instructional practices
• Expert modeling of lessons and teacher talk
• Use of classroom-ready materials identical to those used with students
• Structured opportunities for reflection and feedback
• Collaboration among teachers with shared instructional goals
• Ongoing support during classroom implementation

PBPD treats teachers as learners who need time, feedback, and guided practice to develop complex skills, just like their students.

Importantly, PBPD does not aim for rigid replication. Instead, it emphasizes high-fidelity implementation of core instructional components, while allowing teachers to adapt instruction to their students, contexts, and curricula.

Why SRSD Aligns So Well with Practice-Based PD

SRSD is not a script. It is a flexible, research-validated framework built around explicit strategy instruction, gradual release, and self-regulation. Teachers model strategies using think-alouds, support guided practice, and gradually transfer responsibility to students.

Because SRSD relies on teacher judgment and responsiveness, it cannot be learned through passive exposure. Teachers must practice modeling, guiding discussion, managing scaffolds, and responding to students’ writing in real time.

This makes SRSD an especially strong fit for PBPD.

The chapter reviews 27 studies examining professional development for multicomponent strategy-focused writing instruction. Twenty-one of these studies involved SRSD, making it the most extensively researched model in this context.

These studies span:

• Grades 1–9
• Multiple countries (U.S., Portugal, Spain, Netherlands)
• Diverse student populations and socioeconomic contexts
• General and special education settings

Across this body of research, PBPD for SRSD consistently produced strong teacher implementation and meaningful student outcomes.

The Claim That “Teachers Can’t Replicate Research” Falls Apart

One of the central aims of the Harris, Camping, and McKeown review was to compare outcomes from teacher-led instruction following PBPD with outcomes from researcher-led instruction reported in prior meta-analyses.

The results were clear.

Across SRSD studies examining student outcomes from teacher instruction after PBPD:

• Student writing quality and genre elements improved at moderate to very large effect sizes
• Outcomes were comparable to those typically found in researcher-led studies
• Gains were observed across multiple genres, including opinion, informative, narrative, and persuasive writing

In other words, the feared drop-off did not occur.

This finding is especially notable given that teacher-led instruction occurs under less controlled, more demanding conditions: full classrooms, diverse learners, competing curricular demands, and limited instructional time.

Why Teacher-Led SRSD Sometimes Produces Even Stronger Effects

The review does more than show equivalence. It helps explain why teacher-led instruction can sometimes outperform researcher-led instruction.

1. Teachers Sustain Instruction Over Time

Researchers typically teach a single unit or short intervention. Teachers, however, can revisit strategies, reinforce expectations, and embed writing instruction across weeks, months, and content areas.

This extended exposure supports consolidation, maintenance, and transfer.

2. Teachers Integrate Writing Across the Curriculum

Teachers are uniquely positioned to help students apply writing strategies and composition skills in science, social studies, and other subjects, thereby effectively teaching creative writing and other types of writing across various disciplines. This cross-context use strengthens students’ strategic control and deepens learning.

3. Teachers Respond Dynamically to Students

PBPD prepares teachers to adjust pacing, scaffolding, and feedback based on student performance. As students grow, instruction evolves.

This responsiveness is difficult to replicate in tightly controlled research designs but is a strength of classroom teaching.

Fidelity Without Rigidity: A Key Finding

A common concern about scaling instructional models is the issue of fidelity. Will teachers implement the approach “correctly”?

Across the SRSD studies reviewed:

• Fidelity of implementation averaged around 90%
• Most studies reported fidelity rates between 74% and 98%
• Teachers maintained high fidelity while adapting instruction to meet student needs

Crucially, fidelity focused on implementing SRSD’s core components rather than following scripts word-for-word. Teachers were encouraged to differentiate instruction as long as the “active ingredients” remained intact.

This balance of high fidelity with professional autonomy is one reason PBPD works so well with SRSD.

PBPD Builds Teacher Confidence and Commitment

Another powerful pattern in the reviewed studies involves social validity—teachers’ perceptions of the value and usability of SRSD.

Where measured, teachers consistently reported:

• High satisfaction with SRSD
• Increased confidence in teaching writing
• Strong belief in the approach’s impact on students

These perceptions matter. Teachers who see real gains in student writing are more likely to persist, refine their instruction, and advocate for sustained implementation.

PBPD supports this process by ensuring that teachers experience early success, receive feedback, and learn alongside colleagues.

Time Matters but Quality Matters More

The studies reviewed varied widely in duration, ranging from brief PD sessions to more extended PBPD models lasting 12–30 hours, often with follow-up support.

Despite this variation, many studies produced positive outcomes. This suggests that time alone does not guarantee effectiveness. What matters is how professional learning is designed and enacted.

PBPD works because it:

• Focuses on instruction that teachers will actually teach
• Includes rehearsal and feedback
• Connects learning directly to student outcomes

The review emphasizes that future research should continue to refine the understanding of how much time is needed under different conditions. Still, the overall conclusion is clear: investing in high-quality PBPD for SRSD is warranted, given the outcomes achieved.

What This Means for Scaling Writing Instruction

For district leaders, instructional coaches, and policymakers, this body of research carries profound implications.

First, it dispels the myth that writing instruction cannot scale without losing effectiveness, prompting a revision in current educational strategies. When teachers receive PBPD aligned with the complexity of the instruction, student outcomes remain strong.

Second, it reframes professional development as capacity building, not program delivery. PBPD develops teachers’ instructional decision-making, not just procedural compliance.

Third, it positions teachers as the primary agents of sustained change. Rather than relying on external experts indefinitely, PBPD builds internal expertise that endures.

Why This Moment Matters

Teaching writing remains one of the most significant unmet needs in literacy education worldwide. Students struggle to express ideas, demonstrate knowledge, and engage deeply with content across subjects.

The research review by Harris, Camping, and McKeown offers a clear path forward.

• SRSD works.
• Teachers can implement it effectively.
• Engaging in practice-based professional development makes the difference.

What many believed would never be possible, teachers achieving research-level outcomes in real classrooms, is not only possible. It is already happening.

The remaining challenge is not whether this approach works, but whether educational systems are willing to invest in professional learning that respects the complexity of teaching and the expertise of teachers.

Reference

Harris, K. R., Camping, A., & McKeown, D. (2023). A review of research on professional development for multicomponent strategy-focused writing instruction. Knowledge gained and challenges remaining. In F. DeSmedt, R. Bouwer, T. Limpo, & S. Graham (Eds). Conceptualizing, designing, implementing, and evaluating writing interventions. Brill Publishing.

---

What Steve Graham Wants Educators to Understand about the Reading-Writing Connection

When teachers plan literacy instruction, they often treat reading and writing as separate areas. One block focuses on reading comprehension, decoding, and vocabulary. Another block focuses on organizing ideas, drafting, revising, and producing text. Yet, as Steve Graham emphasized during our recent webinar with SRSD Online, this separation does not reflect how students’ literacy skills develop.

In practice, reading and writing draw on shared knowledge, shared language processes, and shared meaning-making systems. Students do not turn one set of cognitive skills off to activate another. Instead, reading and writing develop together, influence each other, and strengthen one another over time.

Decades of research, including multiple meta-analyses conducted by Steve Graham and his colleagues, support a consistent conclusion: students benefit when reading and writing are taught as connected skills rather than isolated subjects. This blog highlights the core ideas Steve emphasized, explains why they matter for teaching and instruction, and shows how integrated literacy practices align with what research consistently finds. 

Why Reading and Writing Interact: Three Foundational Ideas

Steve began by grounding the discussion in theory. If reading and writing influence each other, theory should help explain how and why. He described three complementary perspectives that help make sense of the research.

1. Reading and writing draw from shared knowledge

Reading and writing rely on overlapping language resources, including vocabulary, background knowledge, spelling patterns, and understanding of text. When students learn spelling patterns, they often become more effective decoders. When they build knowledge about a topic through reading, they draw on that same information when they write.

Even though reading and writing remain distinct skills, growth in one area strengthens the foundation for the other.

2. Both are meaning-making processes

Reading and writing are acts of communication. Readers make meaning by interpreting how authors structure ideas, arguments, and prose. Writers make meaning by anticipating what a reader needs to understand their ideas clearly.

In classrooms, this relationship becomes especially powerful when instruction encourages students to analyze how texts work and to consider audience, clarity, and purpose in their own writing. Reading can model craft and structure. Writing requires students to apply those insights intentionally.

3. They function as tools for accomplishing goals

In school settings, reading and writing often serve functional purposes. Students read to gather information for writing tasks. They write to explain, summarize, or respond to what they have read. Writing can also deepen comprehension by requiring students to organize, interpret, and integrate ideas from text.

These perspectives help explain why research consistently shows reciprocal effects between reading and writing instruction.

How Writing Supports Reading Development

One of Steve’s central messages was clear: writing is not only a way to assess learning; it actively supports learning. When students write during or after reading, they often understand the text more deeply.

Writing regularly supports reading comprehension

Research shows that students who write several times per week demonstrate gains in reading comprehension, particularly when writing has a clear purpose or instructional support. Writing requires students to identify important ideas, clarify meaning, and use language precisely.

Writing about text strengthens understanding

Across studies, several types of writing about reading reliably improve comprehension:

• taking notes
• generating and answering questions in writing
• summarizing text
• writing extended responses, explanations, or arguments

The latter approaches often show stronger effects because they require students to interpret, organize, and apply information rather than simply restate it.

Teaching spelling supports reading skills

Explicit spelling instruction improves decoding skills and can also support reading comprehension. As students recognize spelling patterns more efficiently, word recognition becomes more automatic, freeing cognitive resources for understanding text.

Teaching text structure supports comprehension

Instruction in story grammar and informational text structure helps students organize and track ideas while reading. These structures act as internal frameworks that support comprehension across genres.

Engaging students in the writing process supports reading

When students plan, draft, revise, and reflect, they develop metacognitive habits that transfer to reading. Monitoring clarity and meaning while writing supports comprehension monitoring during reading.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that strengthening writing instruction can support growth in reading comprehension and related literacy skills.

How Reading Supports Writing Development

Steve also emphasized that the relationship works in the opposite direction: reading strengthens writing in several well-documented ways.

Increased reading supports writing quality

When students read more, they encounter a wider range of vocabulary, syntax, text structures, and prose styles. These models influence their own writing, including creative writing, often without direct instruction.

Observing reader responses builds audience awareness

When students see how others respond to their writing, or to directions or explanations they wrote, they become more aware of audience needs. This awareness often leads to clearer, more intentional writing.

Analyzing text builds internal criteria for quality

Reading and analyzing texts, including peer writing and mentor texts, helps students internalize expectations for strong writing. These criteria then guide their own drafting and revision decisions.

Reading supports spelling development

Students learn to spell far more words than they are ever taught directly. Much of this orthographic knowledge develops through exposure to written language during reading. Even struggling readers and writers acquire spelling knowledge through repeated encounters with words in text.

Across these findings, research consistently shows that reading supports writing development across grade levels.

Balanced Instructional Time Matters

Steve highlighted the importance of how instructional time is allocated. Classrooms that devote substantial time to both reading and writing, often in a roughly balanced way, show stronger outcomes in reading comprehension, writing quality, writing mechanics, and overall literacy skills.

In many classrooms, writing is limited, reducing opportunities for students to benefit from the reciprocal relationship between reading and writing. The key issue is not a precise ratio but ensuring that writing receives sufficient instructional time.

Writing as a Tool for Learning Across Content Areas

Beyond literacy outcomes, writing also supports learning in science, social studies, and mathematics.

Writing helps students:

• identify important information
• clarify and elaborate ideas
• connect new information to prior knowledge
• revisit and refine understanding through rereading and revision

Because writing is permanent, students can reflect on their thinking, revise it, and deepen comprehension. Research shows that when students write about content-area learning, they retain and apply information more effectively.

Instructional Practices That Support Integrated Literacy

Steve shared several instructional practices with strong research support that connect reading and writing.

Sentence combining

Sentence combining teaches students to construct more complex sentences by joining simpler ones. This practice improves sentence construction and often supports reading fluency by helping students recognize syntactic structures more efficiently, without requiring heavy use of grammar terminology.

Pattern-based spelling instruction

When students analyze spelling patterns and test hypotheses, they naturally connect spelling, decoding, and writing. This approach supports the simultaneous development of reading, writing, and language.

Strategic use of notes, plans, and organizers

Tools such as notes, plans, and graphic organizers support deeper processing of text and ideas. These tools help students manage information, whether they are reading for understanding or preparing to write.

How Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Aligns with the Research

Near the end of the webinar, Steve pointed to Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) as an example of instruction that naturally integrates reading and writing.

SRSD supports the reading–writing connection by:

• teaching explicit, task-specific writing strategies
• modeling thinking aloud to make cognitive processes visible
• guiding students through supported practice and gradual release
• embedding self-regulation (goal setting, monitoring, self-talk) into instruction

One example Steve highlighted involves pairing reading and writing strategies:

• Students use TWA (Think Before, Think While, Think After) to read source material strategically.
• Students use POW + TREE to organize and write an opinion text based on what they learned from reading.

In this approach, reading supplies ideas for writing, and writing deepens comprehension of the text. SRSD does not replace reading instruction. It complements it by providing structured strategies that support both comprehension and composition.

The Core Message from the Research

Steve closed with a clear takeaway supported by decades of research:

When reading and writing are taught as connected parts of literacy instruction, students are more likely to develop strong comprehension, language skills, and written expression.

Students benefit from meaningful opportunities to write, including writing in a journal, responding to text, and practicing structured writing strategies. They benefit from instruction that treats literacy as an interconnected system rather than isolated components.

The research is consistent.
The theory is clear.
The instructional implications are well supported.

Reading and writing grow best when they grow together.

---