Evidence-Based Writing Instruction: Why Explicit Teaching Still Matters for Writing

Understanding Explicit Teaching in Writing

Education researcher Carl Hendrick releases a monthly roundup of new studies in the field of learning science. His posts are short and dense, packed with data that remind us what really works for students and teachers’ professional learning. This month’s research brief begins with a report from the Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (GEEAP) that deserves the attention of every teacher.

The panel reviewed more than 120 studies on how children learn to read in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs, per the report), emphasizing the importance of evidence-based practices in education. Their conclusion was clear: the global literacy crisis is not a problem of access but of instruction. According to the authors, children aren’t learning to read because many classrooms are not using explicit, structured methods that teach language, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and writing.

That conclusion highlights the necessity of evidence-based writing instruction as a component of effective literacy instruction. It directly addresses how we teach writing, as well as why frameworks like Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) are essential. The same principles (explicit modeling, guided practice, and strategic self-regulation) are the foundation for both reading and writing success.

The crisis isn’t about access. It’s about instruction.

Around the world, 70 percent of ten-year-olds in low- and middle-income countries are unable to read and understand a short passage. The GEEAP report refers to this as a “crisis of instruction.” Too often, children are asked to figure out literacy independently, as though reading and writing will emerge naturally from exposure to books.

The evidence says otherwise. Speaking develops naturally; reading and writing do not. They must be taught directly, in a planned sequence, and practiced repeatedly with feedback.

The GEEAP report outlines six skills that need explicit attention:

1. Oral language – building vocabulary and syntax.
2. Phonological awareness – manipulating sounds in words.
3. Systematic phonics – connecting letters to sounds.
4. Reading fluency – developing automatic word recognition.
5. Comprehension – making sense of connected text.
6. Writing – producing language to express and reinforce understanding.

The key word is explicit. Students need to see what good reading and writing look like, hear the thinking behind the process, and practice under guidance until those skills become internalized.

That is precisely what SRSD provides for writing. It is similar to the principles of the “science of reading,” which include structure, sequence, and direct modeling, and applies these principles to composition. Students learn how to plan, write, evaluate, and regulate their own learning, instead of guessing what good writing looks like.

Writing is a core literacy skill, not an afterthought.

The GEEAP report names writing alongside oral language, phonics, and comprehension. That’s rare in global literacy policy, and it’s essential. Writing isn’t just a product of reading; it’s one of the six engines that drive literacy.

When students write, they rehearse text structure, deepen vocabulary, and consolidate what they’ve read. This is the “reading–writing connection” shown in Steve Graham and Michael Hebert’s Writing to Read report and confirmed again in the 2018 meta-analysis Reading for Writing. Teaching reading and writing together multiplies learning effects. SRSD supports this connection by guiding students to plan and organize their ideas before writing, as skilled readers do when planning and monitoring comprehension.

Explicit teaching produces equity.

Discovery-based approaches often give an advantage to students who already possess the skills to navigate literacy tasks. Explicit strategy instruction levels the field. When a teacher models thinking aloud, “Here’s how I decide what my topic sentence should say”, every student gains access to expert reasoning.

In SRSD, teachers model not just what to write but how to think about writing: how to set goals, how to use self-talk, how to check for clarity, and how to revise with purpose. Those self-regulation skills transfer to other learning domains, improving motivation and persistence long after the writing lesson ends.

Structure doesn’t mean rigidity.

Explicit teaching is sometimes criticized as mechanical or scripted. But structured instruction means lessons follow a logical sequence; it doesn’t mean students have no creativity. We have to lay a foundation first. In SRSD classrooms, structure becomes a scaffold. Once students internalize the strategy, they flex it to fit their ideas.

Teachers often describe this shift beautifully: first, students absorb and learn from  the cognitive model, then they set their own learning goals and begin scaffolded practice with gradual release. Structure becomes freedom. A freedom that motivates students to write, read, and learn more.

SRSD Online materials provide teachers with clear, detailed guidance through unit plans for the six stages of SRSD, known as meta scripts. These are not rigid scripts but adaptable guides that support teacher training and respect each teacher’s knowledge of their students, culture, and classroom context. Teachers can modify the language, examples, or pacing to meet their students’ learning needs and preferences. In doing so, they make the scripts their own by feeling confident, motivated, and empowered to deliver explicit instruction that truly fits their classrooms.

Retrieval practice only works when followed by feedback.

Hendrick’s review also highlights several other studies that reinforce what we know about effective learning, and each one has implications for writing instruction. In a recent meta-analysis, authors evaluated research comparing retrieval practice (quizzing and recall) to other active learning strategies, such as concept mapping and self-explanation. The advantage of retrieval was small, and it disappeared entirely without corrective feedback.

The lesson is simple: feedback completes the loop. In evidence-based writing instruction, that means students must get specific, actionable responses to their drafts, not just grades or generic praise. SRSD incorporates this into the process: students compare their work to goals, checklists, mentor texts, and exemplars, and revise it based on self-evaluation and feedback from teachers or peers. Reflection is not optional; it’s part of the learning process.

Handwriting builds early letter recognition more effectively than typing.

In a study of prereaders, children who practiced writing letters by hand or tracing them learned them more accurately and recognized them more quickly than their peers who typed. The physical act of forming letters strengthened the brain’s link between sound, symbol, and movement.

For early writing teachers, this is a reminder to keep handwriting in the mix. Digital tools are powerful, but fine-motor writing helps children internalize the alphabetic principle. Students who physically write their sentences engage memory and attention differently than those who only drag and drop letters on a screen.

Fluency improves with challenge, not comfort.

Another study found that fourth graders who practiced fluency using challenging texts improved more than their peers who used leveled readers matched to their ability. Students read the same passage multiple times with teacher modeling, partner reading, and performance practice.

The same applies to writing. When we consistently lower expectations, we slow growth. SRSD encourages teachers to set attainable goals: students may start by finding parts and progress to short, scaffolded sentences, but the ultimate target is independent, extended writing that challenges their thinking.

Emotional intelligence matters more for stories than for information texts.

A longitudinal study in China found that emotional intelligence predicted growth in narrative reading comprehension, but not in informational reading.

When students write narratives, they imagine characters’ feelings, motivations, and relationships, skills that depend on emotional understanding. In doing so, they draw on empathy, personal experience, and background knowledge. This concept is directly related to the idea that retrieving what we already know enhances new learning. It’s a lesson that extends beyond writing: in every subject, students learn best when they connect new ideas to what they already understand.

Explicit Instruction Supports Metacognition and Motivation

Across these studies, one principle repeats: students learn best when they know what to do, why they’re doing it, and how to check their own progress. That’s the essence of metacognition.

This three-part loop transforms writing from a mysterious talent into a learnable process. When students can explain their thinking, they begin to believe in their ability to control their learning. The belief in self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of academic success.

Research supports this. Decades of studies show that SRSD increases writing quality and motivation across grades and populations. In meta-analyses, effect sizes exceed those of other approaches to writing instruction, placing SRSD among the most powerful interventions in all education research. The GEEAP reports call for explicit, structured, and comprehensive instruction, which echoes what SRSD teachers have practiced for years.

Why Universal SEL Alone Doesn’t Move the Needle

One of the studies Hendrick highlighted tested a whole-class social-emotional learning program in 62 English primary schools. Teachers delivered 18 weekly lessons on emotions, relationships, fairness, and change. The results were statistically zero, with no measurable improvement in mood or well-being.

SRSD integrates emotion and cognition where they naturally belong. Students use self-talk to manage frustration (“I can do hard things”), set personal goals (“I’ll use at least three reasons”), and celebrate progress (“I’m proud of my plan”). These are genuine emotional-regulation skills, practiced in context, not scripted “feelings lessons.”

Reclaiming Instructional Time for What Works

Another dataset in Hendrick’s review, the OECD TALIS 2024 State of Teaching report, paints a familiar picture: teachers are overworked, lacking support, and swamped by administrative tasks. The report recommends freeing instructional time for high-value activities, explicit teaching, collaboration, and feedback.

Another key takeaway is that high-quality PD must feel relevant, practical, and immediately useful to teachers in order to meaningfully improve instructional practice.

This, too, is connected to SRSD implementation. When teachers learn and then adopt SRSD, lessons become more focused. Time once spent managing aimless writing sessions is redirected toward modelling strategies, guiding practice, and providing feedback. Teachers often report that classroom behavior improves because expectations are clear and students feel capable.

Effective instruction doesn’t require more time; it requires better use of the time we already have, with a focus on evidence-based writing instruction.

The Deeper Message: Evidence for Explicit Instruction and Effective PD

The research reveals that effective teaching is intentional. This principle applies to every subject area. SRSD embodies this idea. It helps students learn specific writing strategies and transfer those self-regulation and problem-solving skills to new topics and contexts.

Students do not magically absorb complex skills. Whether we’re teaching decoding, multiplication, or persuasive writing, they need us to make our thinking visible, model the process, and coach them toward independence.

The “science of reading” movement has made this explicit in the context of early literacy. The next frontier is the science of writing. SRSD operationalizes decades of research into a classroom practice any teacher can learn and any student can master.

What Teachers Can Do Right Now

Here are four practical ways to bring these findings to life:

1. Model your thinking daily. Narrate your decisions aloud: “I’m choosing this transition word because it connects my ideas.” Students can’t imitate what they can’t see.
2. Embed feedback loops. Don’t wait until the final draft. Pause for reflection and feedback after each stage (planning, drafting, revising). SRSD checklists make this easy.
3. Keep handwriting alive in the early grades. For K-1 students, combine oral rehearsal with physical writing. Trace, copy, and write to strengthen sound-symbol connections.
4. Teach self-regulation explicitly. Establish routines that allow students to set goals, track progress, and celebrate improvements. These moments fuel motivation more than any sticker chart.

A Closing Thought

Carl Hendrick’s monthly brief reminds us that good teaching is both art and evidence-based practice. The studies change, but the message stays the same: when we teach explicitly, support self-regulation, and align instruction to how the mind learns, students thrive.

This is refreshing clarity at a time when schools face crushing workloads, shifting curricula, social media influence, and policy noise. The literacy crisis isn’t destiny; it’s an opportunity to emphasize evidence-based writing instruction. By choosing evidence-based frameworks like SRSD, we can rewrite that story with one lesson, one strategy, and one confident young writer at a time.

References

• Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel (2024). Improving Learning through Structured Pedagogy. World Bank & FCDO.
• Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
• Graham, S., Liu, K., Bartlett, B., et al. (2018). Reading for Writing: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Reading and Reading Instruction on Writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243-284.
• Hendrick, C. (2025). The Research Brief: What’s New in Learning Science. carlhendrick.substack.com.
• Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Writing: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 363-384.

---