Researchers have been closely tracking the decline of writing scores in elementary and middle school over the past 30 years. As of 2021, only 28% of fourth-graders and 27% of eighth-graders are at or above proficiency in writing (NAEP). While a lot has changed in education during this time, the widespread, drastic decline in writing performance aligns with big shifts in both reading and writing pedagogy. That’s right—some of the most popular approaches to teaching reading and writing skills are in fact less effective than the methods used in the 1980s and before. And one of the limitations preventing US educators from moving forward is the misconception that researchers just haven’t found the answers yet.
Today, students are encouraged to begin with writing about themselves or topics they are interested in with the assumption that, with a little guidance along the way, an understanding of language “rules” (which most students, but not all, already use to a degree in spoken English) will come naturally. Steve Graham’s 2019 review on how writing is taught compiled plenty of information from recent studies about what’s lacking in these approaches: we overemphasize basic writing skills (grammar, handwriting and spelling) while placing little emphasis on critical writing processes such as planning and revising. As we have seen, enthusiastic engagement supplemented with memorization of “rules” does not ultimately lead students to develop the syntax and grammar skills they need to be good writers.
It’s clear that elementary educators need to take decisive action to bring writing proficiency back to previous levels or higher, but going back to archaic methods is not the answer. So what gives? Where do we go from here?
See Writing as a Set of Executive Functioning Skills
When we conceptualize writing as one complex task, asking students to chase “main ideas” and fill in the details as they go, they often respond with blank stares and “I don’t know what to write.” If we can put aside the idea of teaching students to write for a moment and recognize the distinct skills it takes to organize thoughts into a system—the familiar building blocks of the writing process from handwriting and spelling to grammar, punctuation, organization of ideas, revision, subject matter knowledge and more—it becomes clear that what we are really teaching is executive function.
First studied in order to better understand neurodivergent conditions like ADD, ADHD, Autism and other disorders, executive function entails “the mental processes that enable us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully,” according to Harvard University.
These findings have great implications for writing pedagogy which have already shown great outcomes with children across the neurodiversity spectrum. What we’ve learned is that writing is a self-directed activity that requires the simultaneous application of several processes, knowledge and skills.
Teach Writing Like Math or Coding
For students who don’t yet understand the rules and processes of turning their thoughts into well-constructed writings, instructions to “elaborate” or “add detail” can be frustrating. The open-endedness of brainstorming and freewriting only leaves them scratching their heads, wanting to participate but not knowing how. Instead of asking them to add detail, we might instead ask them to add an ADJECTIVE + NOUN sequence followed by a VERB + ADVERB sequence. We begin with highly structured, visual sentence maps that work like training wheels and fall off gradually as students learn syntax and writing skills.
Try comparing this complex “order of operations” to systems like coding and mathematics, in which students have shown more proficiency. Syntax and paragraph structure are essentially the universal code of writing, yet so many students struggle with following a series of rules or applying simple “algorithms” (clauses) to solve a problem (write a sentence). Without an operational knowledge of the systems at play, writing into the empty void on the page feels like reinventing the wheel every time. Instead of giving students more room for trial and error, we have found that providing more explicit instructions (our research-based SQ Sentence Maps) and parameters in the earliest stages of learning to write is a more effective way to communicate expectations for “good writing.”
Avoid Labels and Assumptions
Our conversations about how writing should be taught are often bound by assumptions we make about children and how they think: if we decide that students’ thought processes as inferential or literal without studying what works on a granular level, all we have done is label our students and act according to what may be biased information. At SQ Thinking, we are much more interested in our responsibility to provide a systematic, functional knowledge of the systems our students can use as tools and guiding templates to approach writing. We know students want to learn this stuff, and they only get frustrated when they are not getting what they need.
The difficulty is not learning these various “systems,” but synthesizing new writings that meet specific goals while coordinating these many constraints and processes. We at SQ Thinking have seen great success with applying concepts borrowed from executive function, such as self-questioning, guiding maps, whole-to-part analysis, self-monitoring and working memory, to writing pedagogy. We don’t believe writers are good or bad, just students with full writing potential who simply require access to a full and well-organized research-based writing toolbox.
Click here to explore the SQ Sentence executive functioning sentence writing curriculum and contact us today with any questions. We’re busy providing live Zoom samplers and would love to schedule one with you! Reach out to info@SQThinking.com.