Changing How Writing Is Taught” (Graham)Start Assignment Read the attached research article and answer the following questions. Include the title of the article, the question stems and your answers i

Changing How Writing Is Taught” (Graham)Start Assignment Read the attached research article and answer the following questions. Include the title of the article, the question stems and your answers i
Check for updates Chapter 10 Changing How^^iting Is Taught Steve Graham Arizona State University If students are to be succesful in school^ at work, and in their personal lives, they must learn to write. This requires that they receive adequate practice and instruction in writing, as this complex skill does not develop naturally. A basic goal of schooling then is to teach students to use this versatile tool effectively and flexibly. Many schools across the world do not achieve this objective, as an inordinate number of students do not acquire the writing skills needed for success in society today. One reason why this is the case is that many students do not receive the writing instruction they need or deserve. This chapter identifies factors that inhibit good writing instruction, including instructional time; teachers* preparation and beliefs about writing national, state, district, and school policies; and historical, social, cultural, and political influences. It then examines how we can address these factors and change classrbom writing practices for the better across the world by increasing pertinent stakeholders* knowledge about writing, with the goal of developing and actualizing visions for writing instruction at the polity, school, and classroom levels. This includes specific recommendations for helping politicians, school administrators, teachers, and the public acquire the needed know-how to make this a reality. Hting is a fundamental skill. More than 85% of the population of the world can now write (Swedlow, 1999). Writers use this versatile skill to learn new ideas, persuade others, record information, create imaginary worlds, express feelings, entertain others, heal psychological wounds, chronicle experiences, and explore the meaning of events and situations (Graham, 2018a). In school, students write about the materials read or presented in class to enhance their understanding (Bangert- Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2011). At work, white- and blue-collar workers commonly use writing to perform their jobs (Light, 2001). W: Review of Research in Education March 2019, Vol. 43, pp. 277-303 DOI: 10.3102/0091732X18821125 Chapter reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions © 2019 AERA. http://rre.aera.net 277 Review of Research in Education, 43 278 At home, writing provides a means for initiating and maintaining personal connec tions, as we tweet, text, email, and “friend” each other using a variety of social net works and media (Freedman, Hull, Higgs, & Booten, 2016). The importance, versatility, and pervasiveness of writing exacts a toll on those who do not learn to write well, as this can limit academic, occupational, and personal attainments (Graham, 2006). While children typically begin learning how to write at home (Tolchinsky, 2016), a basic aim of schooling is to teach students to become competent writers. Do schools successfully meet this obligation? The available evi dence indicates that this objective is met for some students but not all. Take, for instance, the United States, where approximately two thirds of 8th- and 12th-grade students scored at or below the basic level (denoting only partial mastery of grade- level writing skills) on the most recent Writing Test administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). The relatively poor performance over time on this and other indicators of students’ writing skills led the National Commission on Writing (NCOW, 2003) to label writing a neglected skill in American schools. Unfortunately, concerns about students’ writing development are not limited to the United States but are common across the globe (see Graham & Rijlaarsdam, 2016). While there are many factors that influence children’s development as writers, including poverty, genetics, and biological functioning (Graham, 2018a), many chil dren do not receive the writing instruction at school that they deserve or need. The current chapter examines how this situation can be productively changed. We begin this exploration by examining how writing is currently taught in elementary and secondary schools. Without such background information, it is difficult to craft effective solutions. We then consider how writing practices in schools can be changed to make them more effective. WRITING INSTRUCTION AT SCHOOL: HOW IS WRITING TAUGHT? Most of what we know about how writing is currently taught in school settings comes from surveys asking teachers about their instructional practices in writing (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Tse & Hui, 2016), observational studies designed to describe how writing is taught at school (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 2011; Rietdijk, van Weijen, Jassen, van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam, 2018), and mixed method inves tigations designed to provide a rich description of writing instruction through both interviews and observations (e.g., Hertzberg & Roe, 2016; McCarthy & Ro, 2011). Findings from 28 survey, observation, and mixed method studies involving the writ ing practices of more than 7,000 teachers are summarized in this section.^ While two thirds of these studies were conducted in the United States, the other investigations provided information on writing instruction in Europe (e.g., De Smedt, van Keer, & Merchie, 2016), China (e.g., Hsiang, Graham, & Wong, 2018), South America (Margarida, Simao, Malpique, Frison, & Marques, 2016), and New Zealand (Parr & Jesson, 2016). Even though the findings from these studies do not cover all aspects of Graham: Chan^ng Writing Instruction 279 writing instruction in schools across the globe, they do provide an up-to-date (if incomplete) picture of how writing is now taught in schools (all the studies were published in the past 15 years). There were two basic overall fi ndings from the 28 studies that examined how writ ing is taught in contemporary classrooms. One, some teachers provide students with a solid writing program, and in some classrooms this instruction is exemplary (e.g., Wilcox, Jeffrey, & Gardner-Bixler, 2016). Two, this is not typically the case, as writ ing and writing instruction in most classrooms are inadequate. These fi ndings were generally universal, applying across countries and grades. In terms of providing students with a solid writing program, it was consistently the case that in each study reviewed (e.g., Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dockrell, Marshall, & Wyse, 2016; Hsiang & Graham, 2016), there were teachers who com mitted a considerable amount of time to teaching writing. This included elementary grade teachers who devoted 1 hour a day to writing and writing instruction (as rec ommended by the What Works Practice Guide for elementary writing instruction; Graham et al., 2012) and who used a variety of instructional practices to promote students’ writing success and growth, including applying evidence-based practices. In the elementary grades, these evidence-based practices included writing for different purposes, teaching strategies for carrying out writing processes such as planning and revising, conducting formative assessments to guide writing instruction, and teaching students foundational writing skills like handwriting, spelling, and sentence con struction. At the secondary level, this included the same instructional practices (except that handwriting and spelling were not typically taught) as well as using writ ing as a way to support reading and learning. As Applebee and Langer (2011) observed, some teachers create rich and engaging writing programs, using instruc tional practices with a proven record of success (as identified in recent reports and meta-analyses: Graham, Bruch, et al., 2016; Graham & Perin, 2007). It is also important to note that there were several studies (e.g.. Cutler & Graham, 2008; Parr & Jesson, 2016) where the majority of teachers devoted considerable time to writing instruction and used a variety of evidence-based and other instructional practices to teach writing (e.g., conferencing). Likewise, several survey studies found that (a) middle and high school teachers across disciplines reported using writing to support student learning (Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, &: Hebert, 2014; Ray, Graham, Houston, & Harris, 2016), (b) primary grade teachers indicated that they taught handwriting or spelling using evidence-based practices (Graham, Harris, et al., 2008; Graham, Morphy, et al., 2008), and (c) elementary and middle school teachers commonly made a variety of adaptations for struggling writers in their class (Troia & Graham, 2017). Some of the positive fi ndings from these studies must be tempered by other issues that emerged in these and other investigations. For example, in Parr and Jesson (2016), teachers placed little emphasis on two important types of writing: persuasive and expository writing. Primary grade teachers in the Cutler and Graham (2008) study overemphasized teaching basic writing skills (grammar, handwriting, and Review of Research in Education, 43 280 spelling) while placing little emphasis on teaching students how to carry out critical writing processes such as planning and revising. This lack of attention to teaching students how to plan and revise was also a common theme in other studies (e.g., Dockrell et al., 2016; Rietdijk et al., 2018). While a majority of the middle and high school teachers in the investigations conducted by Gillespie et al. (2014) and Ray et al. (2016) frequently used writing to support learning across the disciplines, most of the writing activities applied for this purpose involved writing without composing (e.g., filling in blanks on a work sheet, note taking, and one-sentence responses to questions). Writing without composing was also quite common in other studies examining writing practices in both English and content classes at the secondary level (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham, Cappizi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014; Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009). While it is essential to recognize that many teachers provide their students with strong, even exemplary writing instruction, it is equally important to draw a picture of common classroom practices. Unfortunately, the overall picture that emerged from the 28 studies reviewed was that writing instruction in most classrooms is not suffi cient. One indicator of this inadequacy was that a majority of teachers did not devote enough time to teaching writing (e.g., Brindle, Harris, Graham, & Hebert, 2016; Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009). Writing is a complex and challenging task, requiring a considerable amount of instructional time to master (Graham, 2018a). At both the elementary and the secondary level, the typical teacher devoted much less than 1 hour a day to teaching writing (e.g., Coker et al, 2016; Drew, Olinghouse, Luby-Faggella, & Welsh, 2017). In some instances, the amount of time committed to teaching writing was severely limited. Typical elementary grade teach ers in the Netherlands, for example, reported that they conducted a writing lesson once a week or less often (Rietdijk et al., 2018). In China, elementary and middle school teachers held a writing lesson just once every 2 to 3 weeks (e.g., Hsiang et al., 2018; Hsiang & Graham, 2016). A second indicator of insufficient writing instruction was that students in a typical class did not write frequently. While teachers commonly assigned a variety of differ ent types of writing over the course of a year, students engaged in most of these activi ties no more than once or twice during the year (e.g., Brindle et al., 2016; Kiuhara et al., 2009; Koko, 2016). The writing activities most commonly assigned to students involved very little extended writing, as students were seldom asked to write text that was a paragraph or longer (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010). A third indicator of insufficient writing instruction involved the use of teaching procedures. While the typical teacher applied a variety of different instructional prac tices (e.g., McCarthy & Ro, 2011; Tse & Hu, 2016) and made many different instructional adaptations over the course of the school year (e.g., Troia & Graham, 2017), most of these teaching procedures were applied infrequently, often less than once a month (e.g., Graham et al., 2014; Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Fink- Chorzempa, 2003; Hertzberg & Roe, 2016). This included teachers’ use of evidence- based practices for teaching writing (e.g.. Drew et al., 2017; Gilbert & Graham, Graham: Changing Writing Instruction 281 2010). Undoubtedly, how frequently teachers applied specific instructional practices, made particular instructional adaptations, or assigned different types of writing was related to the time they devoted to teaching writing. Even so, these findings draw into question the depth and intensity of writing instruction in the typical classroom. A fourth indicator of the insufficiency of writing instruction in the typical class room was the notable absence of the use of digital tools for writing. While most writ ing outside of school today is done digitally (Freedman et al., 2016), the use of digital tools for writing or writing instruction was notably absent in the typical classroom (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 2011; Coker et ah, 2016; Simmerman et al., 2012). Finally, a variety of specific issues involving classroom writing practices emerged within the context of individual studies. This included concerns that the primary audience for students’ writing was the teacher (Applebee & Langer, 2011), writing involved little collaboration among students (De Smedt et al., 2016), the time spent in preparing for high-stakes writing tests was excessive (Applebee & Langer, 2011), classroom resources for teaching writing were inadequate (Dockrell et al., 2016), formative evaluation occurred infrequently (Rietdijk et al., 2018), motivation for writing was largely ignored (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Wilcox et al., 2016), and the writing needs of students with a disability or who were learning a second language were not sufficiently addressed (Dockrell et al., 2016). It is possible that these issues are prevalent in most classrooms, but they were not widely examined in the studies reviewed. In summary, it is evident that teachers can, and some do, devote considerable time and effort to teaching writing. Most teachers are also familiar with a broad array of instructional methods, activities for composing, and possible adaptations for strug gling writers. Nevertheless, the typical teacher does not devote enough time to writ ing and writing instruction. Students do not write often enough, and they are seldom asked to write longer papers that involve analysis and interpretation. Teachers apply the instructional procedures they are familiar with infrequently, including evidence- based practices and adaptations for struggling writers. Digital technology, including word processors and computers, are not an integral part of most writing instruction in schools. For many students worldwide, the NCOW (2003) report was correct: Writing is a neglected skill. CHANGING WRITING PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS If writing practices in schools are to change, it is important to identify the factors that inhibit good writing instruction. One critical contributor to quality writing instruction is time. Writing is an extremely complex skill (Hayes, 2012), and learning how to write requires time and good instruction (Graham et al., 2012). Concerns about how much time is devoted to teaching writing led the NCOW (2003) report to assert that “in today’s schools, writing is a prisoner of time” (p. 20). This position is supported Review of Research in Education, 43 282 by the consistently replicated finding that teachers who devote more time to teaching writing apply more instructional writing practices more often (e.g., Coker et al., 2016; Hsiang et al., 2018; Koko, 2016). The composition of the classroom is also a contributing factor in how writing is taught. As NCOW (2003) noted, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide writing instruction responsive to students’ needs as the number of students in a classroom increases. I am not implying that teachers do not try to meet such challenges, as illustrated by findings that they apply more writing instructional practices when their class contains more students experiencing difficulties learning to write (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Gillespie et al., 2014). Classroom writing practices are further influenced by teachers’ beliefs and knowl edge (Graham & Harris, 2018). Teachers devote more time and attention to teaching writing if they are better prepared to teach it, feel more confident in their capabilities to teach it, derive greater pleasure from teaching it, and consider it an important skill (e.g., Brindle et al., 2016; De Smedt et al., 2016; Hsiang & Graham, 2016; Kiuhara et al., 2009; Rietdijk et al., 2018; Troia & Graham, 2016). They are also more likely to apply specific writing practices they view as acceptable (e.g., Troia & Graham, 2017). Factors that contribute to how writing is taught go well beyond the classroom and teacher determinants identified above. For instance, how much time is devoted to writing and the number and type of students in a classroom are related to national, state, district, and school policies. In the Netherlands, for instance, teachers can meet the expectations established by the Dutch Inspectorate by teaching writing just two times a month (Rietdijk et al., 2018). Similarly, the importance placed on teaching writing and preparing teachers to do so depends on a complex mix of historical, social, cultural, political, and institutional influences (Graham, 2018a). For example, writing and reading are both valued historically, socially, and culturally in China, but reading enjoys primacy over writing in schools because reading is valued more than writing and it is commonly believed that students learn to write through reading (see Hsiang et al., 2018). Moreover, writing instruction in schools involves a complex interaction between teachers and factors outside their control. Take, for instance, preparation to teach writing. Teachers can and do learn how to teach writing through their own efforts and experiences, but their preparation also rests on institutional programs such as the preservice and in-service training they receive at college and as a teacher, respec tively. Such institutional preparation is often viewed by teachers and those who deliver such instruction as inadequate (e.g., Brindle et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2016), poten tially undercutting teachers’ own personal efforts to become good writing teachers. Consequently, changing classroom writing practices involves more than changing teachers. As Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage (2005) argued, dramatic edu cational change is not possible without addressing “both sides of the reform coin: better teachers and better systems” (p. 38). I suggest that efforts to change writing instruction in the United States and beyond need to be even broader. If writing and writing instruction are not valued and understood by society at large, as well as Graham: Changing Writing Instruction 283 policymakers and school personnel more specifically, the potential impact of chang ing writing instruction for the better will be restricted. Particularly important to changing classroom writing practices is to enhance teachers’, principals’, and policymakers’ knowledge about writing. Each of these stakeholders need to acquire specific know-how, which includes knowledge about writing, a vision for teaching writing, and professional commitment. In addition, the success of efforts to increase their know-how rests in part on society’s knowledge about writing, its importance, and the need to teach it. A pertinent question at this point is why I am emphasizing knowledge about writ ing as a lever for changing classroom writing practices. In terms of teaching writing, good instruction requires rich and interconnected knowledge about subject matter and content, students’ learning and diversity, and subject-specific as well as general pedagogical methods (Feltovich, Prietula, & Ericsson, 2018; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Russ, Sherin, & Sherin, 2016; Schoenfeld, 1998; Shulman, 1987); a profes sional vision of teaching as well as adaptive skills for applying this knowledge produc tively, strategically, and effectively (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Stigler & Miller, 2018); and a professional commitment to ensure that this knowledge and needed actions are applied day in and day out (Bransford et al., 2005). If teachers acquire the needed knowledge, vision, and commitment, they are more likely to become masterful, effi cacious, and motivated writing teachers, devoting more time to teaching it. This is a necessary but not a sufficient solution for improving writing instruction in class rooms worldwide. Policymakers, district personnel, and principals also need to acquire specific know-how about writing in order to make writing instruction an educational priority so that teachers’ efforts are valued and supported. In addition, society needs to view writing as valuable, as this lays the framework for more general expectations that writing must be emphasized and taught. In the next section, I examine the types of knowledge needed to change how writ ing is typically taught worldwide. The most critical aspects of knowledge in this sec tion are italicized. Once these different forms of knowledge are presented, I consider how this knowledge can be actualized through the development and actualization of visions for writing instruction, emphasizing that it is advantageous if visions for teaching writing are coherent, well constructed, and consistent across all levels (i.e., national, state, district, school, and classroom) or as many levels as possible. To change how writing is taught, either locally or more broadly, pertinent stakeholders need to acquire the needed knowledge about writing, so recommendations for help ing policymakers, school administrators, teachers, and the public to acquire the needed know-how are offered. WRITING KNOWLEDGE Knowledge includes all mental structures in long-term memory, including facts, opinions, concepts, theories, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations (Graham, 2018b). If teaching practices in elementary and secondary schools are to be transformed, relevant 284 Review of Research in Education, 43 stakeholders need to acquire knowledge about the subject of writing, how students learn and develop as writers, and effective practices for teaching writing. Knowledge About Writing Writing instruction may receive little emphasis in most schools because it is not valued. In a school curriculum that is overcrowded, those subjects that are viewed as most important to students’ current and future success are likely to receive the great est attention. As a result, society, policymakers, school administrators, and teachers need to know why writing is important and why it must be included as a central and prized component of the school curriculum (NCOW, 2003). One reason why schools need to place more emphasis on writing is that it enhances students’ performance in other important school subjects. Students understand and retain material read or presented in science, social studies, and mathematics when they are asked to write about it (Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004; Graham & Hebert, 2011; Graham & Perin, 2007). Increasing how much they write and teaching writing improves reading skills (Graham & Hebert, 2011). Making writing a part of reading instruction further enhances how well students read (Graham, Liu, Aitken, et ah, 2018). In essence, students are unlikely to maximize their growth in other school subjects if writing is notably absent. Writing is equally important to students’future success. Students who graduate from high school with weak writing skills are at a disadvantage in college and the world of work. For instance, writing competence is used by employers to make decisions about hiring and promotion in white-collar jobs, and approximately 90% of blue-collar jobs require some form of writing (NCOW, 2004, 2005). Furthermore, writing is now a central feature of social life, as it is used to communicate, share ideas, persuade, chronicle experiences, and entertain others (Freedman et al., 2016). The value attributed to writing depends on understanding not only why it is important but also how writing achieves its effects. For example, writing about some thing read can facilitate comprehension because writing “provides students with a tool for visibly and permanently recording, connecting, analyzing, personalizing, and manipulating key ideas in text” (Graham & Hebert, 2011, p. 712). Likewise, writing instruction enhances students’ skills as readers because writing and reading share a close and reciprocal relation, relying on common knowledge and processes (Shanahan, 2006). Instruction that improves writing skills and processes should improve reading skills and processes, and vice versa. As this discussion implies, knowledge of writing involves knowing about other related skills. This includes how writing and reading are connected (see Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). For instance, writing and reading can be used together to accom plish specific learning goals (e.g., reading source material to write a paper about the impact of plastics on wildlife), and engaging in the act of writing can provide insight into reading, and vice versa (e.g., writers need to make premises explicit and observe the rules of logic when composing text, so this should make them aware of the same Graham: Changing Writing Instruction 285 issues when reading). In addition to reading, it is important to know how writing and language are connected, because oral language serves as writers draw on their knowledge of phonological awareness, vocabulary, syntactic structures, discourse organizations and structures, and pragmatics (Shanahan, 2006). Although writing draws on knowledge gained through language development, writ- ingiequires the development of specialized knowledge too (Graham, 2018b). Writers must learn the purposes and features of different types of texts (e.g., how writing is used to accomplish different purposes, the features of different types of text, attributes of strong writing, specialized vocabulary for specific types of text, and rhetorical devices for creat ing a specific mood) as well as how to transcribe ideas into text (e.g., spelling, handwrit ing, typing, and keyboarding), construct written sentences (e.g., punctuation, capitalization, more frequent use of subordinate clauses when writing specific types of text), carry out processes for creating and revising text (e.g., schemas for text construc tion and strategies for setting goals, gathering and organizing possible writing content, and drafting text, as well as monitoring, evaluating, and revising plans and text), use the tools of writing (e.g., paper and pencil, word processing), and respond to an absent audience (e.g., consider what an audience knows about the topic). Four other forms of knowledge about writing are important to designing better writing instruction. One, it is important to realize that writing is not a single unitary skill (Bazerman et al., 2017). It involves many different forms, and how well a student writes varies across forms (Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012). Even within a single form of writing, the quality of students’ writing may differ from one assignment to the next depending on a variety of factors, including their knowledge of the topic (Olinghouse, Graham, & Gillespie, 2015) or their motivation to write (Knudson, 1995). Two, a basic assumption behind school-based writing instruction is that it pre pares students for the writing they will do outside school. This assumption has been challenged repeatedly (e.g., Hull 8c Schultz, 2001), and consequently, knowing what types of writing students do at home, in college, and at work is important to deciding what types of writing should be emphasized in school. In addition, knowing what types of writing students do outside school is essential if such writing is to be inte grated into school activities. This may increase the value of school-based writing in students’ views (Freedman et al., 2016). Three, one’s belief about writing can foster or hinder writing in various ways. Such beliefs influence whether one engages in writing, how much effort is committed, and what resources are applied (Graham, 2018a). They include judgments about the value and utility of writing, the attractiveness of writing as an activity, why one engages in writing, one’s competence as a writer, and why one is or is not successful when writing. They also include beliefs about one’s identity as a writer, which can differ from one writing community to the next. Four, writing is a social activity, situated within specific contexts (Bazerman, 2016; Graham, 2018a), such as classrooms, places ofwork, or online communities. Within these communities, what is written is accomplished by writers (and possibly a foundation for writing, as 286 Review of Research in Education, 43 collaborators) for specific audiences. As a result, writing involves an interaction between the context in which it occurs and the mental and physical resources writers and their collaborators (including teachers and mentors) bring to the task of writing (Graham, 2018b). Efforts to change writing instruction in schools must take into account both the social and the individual aspects of writing. The importance of knowledge about how to write, as represented by a teacher’s capabilities as a writer, to changing school-based writing practices is unclear. While skilled writers can describe some of the things they do when writing, their descrip tions are incomplete (Hayes & Flower, 1980). It is probably more important for rel evant stakeholders to have a positive identity as a writer (Woodward, 2013). This increases the likelihood that they will write, enjoy writing, and see the value of writ ing and teaching it. Knowledge About How Writing Develops Earlier it was established that many students spend litde time writing or learning how to write in school. This situation is inconsistent with what we know about how writing develops. Writing develops across the life span, some forms of writing take many years to master, and writing growth is a consequence of writing and deliberate practice (Bazerman et al., 2017; Graham, Harris, & Chambers, 2016; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009). The factors that shape writing development are multifaceted and overlapping. For example, writing development is shaped by participation in various writing communities (Bazerman, 2016; Graham, 2018b). For instance, as students participate in a 10th- grade English class, they acquire one or more identities as a writer, learn more about the audiences and the particular purposes for writing in that context (including goals, norms, values, and stances), and obtain typified actions (routines or schemas) for carrying out writing tasks. In many instances, learning acquired in one writing com munity can be useful in other writing communities, as when young children use writing skills learned at home in school. Writing development is further shaped by a variety of processes operating at the indi vidual level (see Graham, 2018b). It includes learning as a consequence of action. Students acquire knowledge and beliefs about the cognitive and physical actions they use when writing by evaluating the effectiveness of these operations. It involves learn ing by expansion. Students acquire writing knowledge and confidence through non writing activities, as when insight into writing is obtained through reading (e.g., Graham, Liu, Bartlett, et al., 2018). It entails learning by observing. Students acquire knowledge and specific dispositions by observing others engage in the act of writing. It includes learning through deliberate agency. Students make conscious decisions to apply a previously learned writing skill to new situations. It involves learning through accumulated capital. Writing growth serves as a catalyst for additional growth (e.g., increased knowledge about how to write enhances motivation to write). Writing development is also shaped through instruction (Graham, Harris, et al., 2016). Students acquire knowledge and beliefs about how to write through Graham: Chatting Writing Instruction 287 mentoring, feedback, collaboration, and instruction. This can be provided by a teacher, another adult such as a parent or peer, or even a machine (Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2015; Graham, Hebert, & Harris, 2015). Moreover, teachers can arrange the writing environment to facilitate student growth, as happens when stu dents are asked to evaluate what actions worked best while writing (learning as a consequence of action). Regardless of the processes that shape students’ growth as writers, writing develop ment is variable, with no single path or end point (Bazerman et al., 2017). It is uneven, as students are better at some writing tasks than at others (Graham, Hebert, Sandbank, & Harris, 2016). It does not follow a steady progression from point A to point B, as students’ growth can accelerate, plateau, or regress. It varies from one student to the next, because students’ experiences as writers differ, as does their genetic and neurological makeup (Graham, 2018a). There is no prespecified sequence of normal development in writing, just social norms of what might be expected, as is the case with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association & Council of Chief School Officers, 2010). Even though students’ path to writing competence is variable and uncertain, this does not mean that it is without form. For example, instruction designed to enhance specific aspects of writing (e.g., writing knowledge, strategies, and motivation) results in students’ writing growth (Graham, 2006). Increasing young writers’ facility with foundational writing skills such as handwriting, spelling, typing, and sentence con struction reduces cognitive overload, freeing up mental resources for other important aspects of writing. Additionally, growth does not occur in a vacuum; writing develop ment influences and is influenced by development in speech, reading, learning, emotions, identity, a sense of efficacy, and collective actions (Bazerman et al., 2017). Finally, writing development is influenced by gender, family wealth, culture, neuro logical functioning, and genetic factors (Graham, 2018a). This does not mean that an individual child’s future growth as a writer is somehow fixed and nothing can be done to change this path. For instance, students with disabilities experience difficulty learning to write, but there is evidence that their writing development can be acceler ated through explicit and systematic instruction (e.g., Gillespie & Graham, 2014). If the writing development of all students is to be maximized, knowledge is needed about the writing experiences, interests, characteristics, and development of students whose backgrounds differ by gender, class, culture, race, ethnicity, language, and dis ability status. Equally important is the belief that all children can learn to write well. Knowledge About Teaching Writing At the most basic level, effective writing instruction depends on time (NCOW, 2003). Teachers who devote more time to writing instruction apply multiple meth ods more often to promote writing growth (e.g., Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Hsiang et al., 2018). In effect, quality writing instruction cannot occur if sufficient time is not available. Review of Research in Education, 43 288 Time alone is not sufficient to ensure that students receive strong writing instruc tion. In addition, goals for instruction must be identified, the curriculum content speci fi ed, and effective instructional practices applied (Bransford et al., 2005). If high-stakes assessments used to measure students’ writing were used as a guide, the primary goal for writing at national, state, and local levels would be to capably write specific kinds of text, lor no real audience or purpose (other than testing), using information held in long-term memory (Mo &cTroia, 2017). If writing instruction is to be changed for the better, goals for writing need to focus on using writing for real purposes and writing in a more realistic fashion (e.g., access to source material, engaging in critical think ing). Moreover, goals need to address motivation (e.g., writers who are efficacious, value writing, and develop a positive identity as a writer), knowledge (e.g., writers who know how to use a variety of writing tools to meet their writing objectives), process (e.g., writers who can fl exibly use writing skills and strategies to meet differ ent writing demands), and social contexts (e.g., writers who can adjust their writing to fi t the context). In terms of writing curriculum, there is no single agreed-on set of skills, knowledge, processes, or dispositions for teaching writing. Recent efforts like the CCSS (National Governors Association & Council of Chief School Officers, 2010) represent an ambitious attempt to identify what needs to be taught at a minimal level, but they do not address all of the goals for writing identified above, nor do they align well with many procedures shown to improve students’ writing (Troia et al., 2015). ‘Writing instruction is likely to be more effective when goals, curriculum, instructional methods, and assessment are aligned. Recent work by Graham and his colleagues to identify evidence-based practices in writing (Graham, Harris, et al., 2016; Graham, Harris, et al, 2015; Graham, Hebert, et al., 2015; Graham, Liu, Aitken, et al, 2018; Graham, Liu, Bartlett, et al., 2018) provides insight into writing curriculum and instruction. Their work draws on empirical intervention studies and qualitative investigations with exceptional literacy teachers. At a macro-level, they found that effective writing instruction involves (a) writing frequently for real and different purposes; (b) supporting students as they write; (c) teaching the needed writing skills, knowledge, and processes; (4) creating a supportive and motivating writing environment; and (5) connecting writing, reading, and learning. At a more micro-level, this work provides a partial (not complete) frame for identifying curricular objectives in writing (and instructional procedures for addressing them). Based on this framework, curricular objectives should address basic foundational skills (handwriting, spelling, and typing), sentence construction skills, knowledge about different types of text, the characteristics of good writing, vocabulary for writ ing, and processes for planning, drafting, evaluating, and revising text. Curricular objectives should further focus on establishing classroom routines where students’ writing is supported (e.g., peers work together, students receive useful and timely feedback), students act in a self-regulated fashion (e.g., taking ownership of their writing, doing as much as they can on their own), writing is used to support students’ learning and reading in multiple disciplines, and students learn to apply traditional Graham: Changing Writing Instruction 289 as well as 21st-century writing tools (e.g., digital tools that allow for multimodal writing). Beyond the principles established by Graham and colleagues above, instructional practices in writing need to address the following: applying effective strategies for managing the classroom and student behavior (Bransford et al., 2005), connecting writing within and outside school (Freedman et al., 2016), using formative assess ment to improve learning and instruction (Graham, Hebert, et al., 2015), and imple menting experiences that help students grow as writers. In addition, attention needs to be aimed at ensuring that students use correct grammar and usage in their writing. A meta-analysis by Graham, Harris, and Hebert (2011) found that grammar miscues negatively influence readers’ perceptions about the writer’s message. While many of the instructional procedures in writing that are effective with stu dents in general are also effective for students whose backgrounds differ by gender, class, culture, race, ethnicity, language, and disability status (e.g., Gillespie &C Graham, 2014; Graham, Harris, & Beard, in press), improving how writing is taught in schools requires that instruction is differentiated to meet students needs. This includes designing instructional lessons so that they are tailored to address the needs of different students (e.g., incorporating culturally responsive instruction), using instructional methods that are particularly effective with these students (e.g., feedback and progress moni toring, cooperative learning, and tutoring students of low socioeconomic status; Dietrichson, Bog, Filges, & Jorgensen, 2017), making adaptations in writing assign ments and instruction for particular students (e.g., providing additional time for writing), providing accommodations to address particular challenges (e.g., allowing a student with a physical disability to use a word prediction word processor program), identifying and addressing roadblocks to learning (e.g., frequent absences), and expecting that each child will learn to write well (Graham, Harris, & Larsen, 2001). Finally, teachers disposition toward teaching writing is an important ingredient in delivering high-quality writing instruction. Teachers who are more self-efficacious about their instructional capabilities, enjoy teaching writing, and view instructional practices as acceptable are more likely to teach writing (e.g., Brindle et al., 2016; Troia & Graham, 2016, 2017). DEVELOPMENT AND ACTUALIZATION OF VISIONS FOR TEACHING WRITING Developing a Vision for Teaching Writing Imagine asking teachers, principals, district superintendents, or policymakers involved in crafting educational goals for writing to describe their vision for teaching writing, and they were unable to answer this question or each had different answers! If students are to receive the writing instruction they need and deserve, there must be a coherent vision for how writing is taught in the classroom, across classrooms and grades in a school, within the district and across districts within a state, across states, and within the nation. While I realize that this may not be possible in all situations.