Reading Writing Connection¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 mixed) · 4 studies (1 causal, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q3 · 1 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

The reading writing connection treats reading and writing as mutually reinforcing acts of composing and comprehending meaning rather than separate subjects. In practice, learners read mentor texts to study how authors achieve effects, then write in those genres; or they write about what they read (summarizing, analyzing, responding) to deepen comprehension. The strategy rests on shared knowledge theory: both activities draw on common knowledge of text structure, vocabulary, syntax, and rhetorical purpose (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000) [+M].

Design Implications¶

Reading and writing instruction produce stronger outcomes when integrated than when taught in isolation: writing about read material improves comprehension of that material, and reading instruction improves writing quality [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [+S]. The connection works because composing forces learners to make genre conventions and text structures explicit — knowledge they can then use as readers, and vice versa [Shanahan, 2006] [~M]. Integration is not automatic; it requires deliberate tasks that make the transfer visible, such as analyzing a mentor text's structure before drafting in the same form.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Mentor texts of the genre students will write, selected for analyzable craft moves
• Explicit comparison tasks that connect what a text does to how it was written (Comparing Cases, Annotating)
• Writing tasks with a genuine communicative purpose (Authentic Audiences & Purposes)
• Time for both extended reading and extended writing — brief exposure to either limits the effect [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [+M]

Constraints¶

• Writing about text does not improve comprehension when the writing task is copying or answering low-level recall questions; the effect depends on generative writing such as summarizing and responding [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [~S]
• Weak decoding or transcription skills consume working memory, leaving few resources for the higher-level connection between reading and composing Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension. [~M]
• Studying mentor texts without drafting produces shallow gains; the connection requires production, not just analysis Collaborative writing improves text quality. [~M]
• Genre mismatch (reading narrative, writing exposition) weakens transfer; shared-structure benefits are strongest within the same genre (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000) [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Writing to read: summaries, response journals, note-taking, and analytic writing about assigned reading
• Reading to write: mentor-text study, genre immersion, author's-craft analysis before composing
• Simultaneous cycles: read–analyze–draft–revise loops within one unit, as in writing workshop models
• Collaborative forms: joint text construction and peer review, which add discussion to the connection Collaborative writing improves text quality. [+M]

Target Learners¶

• Adolescent and upper-elementary learners, where integrated instruction shows the largest comprehension gains [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [+S]
• Struggling readers, who benefit from approaching text through composing and from explicit genre structure
• Less effective as a substitute for foundational decoding and transcription instruction in early literacy Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension: deepening understanding of read material through written response [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [+S]
• Writing quality: improving text structure, genre knowledge, and craft through mentor-text study (Graham & Perin, 2007) [+S]
• Metatextual awareness: understanding how texts are constructed for readers

Instructions¶

1. Select a mentor text in the target genre and have students read it for comprehension first.
2. Re-read analytically: students annotate the author's craft moves and text structure (Annotating), comparing the text against other examples (Comparing Cases).
3. Make the connection explicit: name the structures and moves students will borrow, using an Advance Organizer for the genre.
4. Have students draft their own text applying the observed moves (Argument Construction for analytic genres).
5. Close the loop: students revise by re-reading their draft as a reader, checking whether it communicates the intended meaning to a peer.

Related Strategies¶

• 5-Minute Writing Conferences — individualized feedback that sustains the writing side of the connection
• Activating Prior Knowledge — prepares learners to link what they read to what they will write
• Annotating — the bridge activity connecting analytic reading to composing

Examples¶

• Writing Next (Graham & Perin, 2007) — meta-analysis of adolescent writing instruction whose recommendations (strategy instruction, summarization, collaborative writing) operationalize the reading–writing connection.
• Reading & Writing Project workshop model — units of study in which students read stacks of mentor texts in a genre, chart the authors' techniques, then draft and revise their own pieces in that genre.
• Writing-about-reading journals — students write weekly analytic responses to independent reading, a format shown to improve comprehension more than answering questions [Graham & Hebert, 2010] [+M].

Key Sources¶

• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
• Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
• Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3501_5
• Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–183). Guilford Press.
• Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277-303. doi:10.3102/0091732x18821125