During my thirty-four-year career as an elementary school teacher, I taught at seven schools in four school districts in three states. The districts ranged from rural to suburban to inner city, each with a prescribed curriculum—usually an adopted textbook series—for reading, math, science, social studies, spelling, and handwriting. What was the one exception? Writing. For most of my years in the classroom, not one school or school district had a required writing curriculum or a uniform approach to teaching writing.
My experience is not atypical. Teachers have always been required to teach writing, but until the advent of state standards in the mid 1990s, most were given free rein to decide what—and how—to teach the subject. When standards began to dictate the “What,” the “How” was still left primarily to teachers to figure out for themselves. Teachers’ reports to and data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that despite an increased emphasis on writing, there remained considerable variation in how writing was taught (Applebee and Langer). By 2016 most teachers were still teaching writing using materials they had created themselves (Will). This laissez-faire approach to writing instruction did not serve students—or teachers—well. Now nearly a decade later, teachers are well versed in the elements of their state’s writing standards but may lack a clear understanding of the research-based strategies necessary to meet those standards and teach their students to write proficiently.
Joan Sedita identifies a set of teaching principles to incorporate into writing instruction based on the current research (15):
- Gradual release of responsibility when teaching a skill, using an I do it, we do it, you do it approach.
- Explicit instruction of writing strategies, using a think-aloud approach.
- Differentiated instruction to meet individual needs.
- Scaffolding to support the learning of new skills.
- Opportunities for collaboration with peers.
- Use of mentor text as models for writing.
- More writing in all subject areas.
These principles are not new to IEW. In the Teaching Writing: Structure and Style® Seminar Workbook (5), Andrew Pudewa describes the philosophic tenets of Anna Ingham’s Blended Sound-Sight Program of Learning that “underscore the Structure and Style methodology.” Andrew recommends teachers follow these guidelines to ensure success:
- Teachers must give structural guidelines and specific requirements so that students will develop competency, independence, and creativity.
- Teachers should introduce one concept at a time, model it extensively, and give numerous examples before requiring independence.
- As students become competent at applying one concept, teachers may introduce another but should continue to require that each student use in every composition every technique learned so far.
- For a high level of ability to develop, students must practice writing daily. Shorter assignments given more frequently allow for faster progress.
Andrew describes additional approaches in the Structure and Style method, which, along with IEW’s EZ+1 philosophy, help teachers differentiate instruction, provide scaffolding, and meet students at their point of need (6). These include investing time to practice the process before teaching it to students (modeling), teaching groups with mixed abilities (filtering and adjusting the checklist), and using additional source texts from the content areas of study to write across the curriculum.
When it comes to teaching a complex skill like writing, consistency in method develops and enhances consistency in quality. When teachers are left to “do their own thing,” students learn different approaches, use different methods, and hear different terminology in each classroom. In some middle and high schools, students may be expected to use one writing method in English class and something entirely different in social studies. While variety may be the spice of life, it is not the most effective way to teach students to write well. Such inconsistency impedes progress.
Imagine instead a school where every teacher uses a writing process that offers a consistent method of core instruction in every classroom, at each grade level, and across subject matter. When schools choose IEW’s Structure and Style for Students or theme-based writing courses, students progress from class to class, teacher to teacher, and year to year, practicing a common process, hearing and using a common language, and meeting a common set of expectations. Schools have many educational choices for writing instruction. The comprehensive, systematic, and consistent instruction furnished by IEW’s Structure and Style method creates schools where students thrive and writing skills soar.
by Jean Nichols
Works Cited
Applebee, Arthur N., and Judith A. Langer. “The State of Writing Instruction in America’s Schools: What Existing Data Tells Us.”
Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany, 2006,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.4136&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Pudewa, Andrew. Teaching Writing: Structure and Style® Seminar Workbook, Second Edition.
Institute for Excellence in Writing, 2015.
Sedita, Joan. The Writing Rope: A Framework for Explicit Writing Instruction in All Subjects. Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2023.
Will, Madeline. “As Teachers Tackle New Student-Writing Expectations, Support Is Lacking.” Education Week Spotlight,
20 June 2016, www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2016/06/20/as-teachers-tackle-new-student-writing-expectations-support.html.
