Content uploaded by Mustapha Chmarkh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mustapha Chmarkh on Jan 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.85
European Journal of Educational Research
Volume 10, Issue 1, 85 - 96.
ISSN: 2165-8714
http://www.eu-jer.com/
‘Writing to Learn’ Research: A Synthesis of Empirical Studies (2004-2019)
Mustapha Chmarkh *
The Ohio State University, USA
Received: October 12, 2020 ▪ Revised: December 8, 2020 ▪ Accepted: December 27, 2020
Abstract: This paper adds to writing to learn research by reporting on empirical and conceptual studies on the subject matter but
also by speculating on the learning virtues that writing offers besides its function as an assessment tool, namely that it can provide
students with an adequate avenue to reflect on their learning. For this purpose, I reviewed 17 studies spanning a 17-year period
(2004-2020) and representing both the L1 and L2 contexts. Reviewed studies examined writing to learn in different disciplines and
grade levels across countries, including the US, Canada, Turkey, Norway, Spain etc. Later in this paper, I set out to elaborate on
thematic patterns if these existed and identify areas where further research may be warranted. Findings indicated that writing to
learn is an effective instructional strategy across different grade-levels and disciplines both in the L1 and L2 teaching and learning
contexts. Finally, this paper overviews relevant pedagogical implications and future research directions.
Keywords: Writing to learn, learning to write, feedback, low-stakes writing tasks, content-areas, disciplines.
To cite this article: Chmarkh, M. (2021). ‘Writing to learn’ research: A synthesis of empirical studies (2004-2019). European Journal
of Educational Research, 10(1), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.85
Introduction
Writing remains one of the main components of language learning. It is, at the same time, an instrument of
communication and transmission of knowledge. In educational settings, especially in language education, writing has
mostly been viewed as an end product in itself. In this sense, pedagogical approaches to writing in language classrooms
focused more on the learning to write component rather than providing language learners with opportunities to learn
from their writing. Such approaches, unfortunately, emphasize fluency over coherence and assessment over learning.
While learning to write remains an integral component of language learning, writing to learn provides students with
adequate opportunities to engage in critical thinking and explore their own ideas and understandings of the materials
they encounter in different content and language courses (Langer & Applebee, 1987). In this view, writing should not
be used merely as an assessment tool through the implementation of high-stakes/graded assignments but also, and
most importantly, as a learning tool through the implementation of low-stakes/ungraded writing activities and
assignments (Manchón, 2011; Hyland, 2011).
In this sense, the significance of low-stakes writing activities, also called writing to learn activities, is to promote
exploratory, retrospective, and reflective learning environments where students test their understandings at the same
time as they are processing learned information and developing literacies relative to the language and content areas
(Lew & Schmidt, 2011; Driessens & Parr, 2019). In other words, when we consider writing as an activity in the language
and content area classrooms, we often associate it with assessment and grading. Concretely, students’ writings are
expected to display qualities such as fluency in the target language and understanding of what has been learned in
content area classes; however, it is high time that instructors and schools put greater emphasis on the learning
potential of writing namely through implementing writing to learn strategies and tasks that emphasize the unique
properties of writing as an instrument of learning (Emig, 1977). This assertion is consistent with the contention of
Deveci (2019) that writing ought to be viewed as being for and because of lifelong learning. In Learning-to-Write and
Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, the problem as Manchon (2011) viewed it consists in the fact that writing
to learn scholarship had mostly examined writing through cognitive and sociocultural lenses. As she readily noted, the
cognitive framework relies on input hypothesis and output hypothesis while the sociocultural framework lends itself to
the examination of the roles of social interaction and collaboration in Second Language Acquisition (Manchon, 2011).
*
Correspondence:
Mustapha Chmarkh, The Ohio State University, Department of Teaching and Learning, 1945 North High Street Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Chmarkh.1@osu.edu
© 2021 The Author(s). Open Access - This article is under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
86 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
Regarding the strands of research in writing-to-learn, Manchon (2011) distinguished between descriptive studies and
interventionist studies. The former tends to be process oriented and involved in collaborative writing while the latter
includes feedback and input/output studies.
Literature Review
Learning to Write
I take it to be axiomatic that writing is an essential component in second and foreign language teaching and learning.
The strand of research that empirically examines learning to write focuses on how L2 students learn to write in an
additional language. Broadly speaking, learning to write research is inspired primarily by a cognitive approach to
writing. The learning to write scholarship is, then, interested in investigating the complex processes of planning, editing,
evaluating, and revising involved in writing. Learning to write, moreover, has often been approached as a problem-
solving activity rather than an instrument that facilitates communication and learning (Hyland, 2011, p. 18).
Central to the learning to write scholarship is students’ cognitive processes and their reasoning during writing. The
cognitive processes involved in writing, however, remain complex and often inaccessible to research. What I am leading
to here is that these cognitive processes do not only involve the planning and thinking behind a learner’s writing, but
they also include other influences such as feedback from peers and teachers. It is also relevant to underscore that
writers are dependent on contextual factors that shape their writing process and production including individual
differences among learners (e.g., differences in language proficiency, motivation, personality) and the specific nature of
the writing task itself. Before I turn to the discussion of writing to learn research, I want to emphasize the three areas of
focus of learning to write research specifically as they relate to L2 writers. In this respect, Cumming (2001) indicated
that the learning to write scholarship focused on three major aspects (pp. 3-8).
a)
Text Features. That is, how L2 students’ writings develop in terms of syntax, morphology, and vocabulary. Central
to this inquiry is the increasing complexity and accuracy that L2 learners demonstrate with time.
b)
Composing Processes. Here, the focus is on L2 learners’ cognitive processes including planning, revising, editing,
decision making, and finding the right words/expressions to articulate their thoughts.
c)
Contexts of Writing. Writing is inherently situated and personal. In other words, when it comes to writing,
contextual factors matter. Accordingly, studies that examined writing contexts have been conducted in authentic
classroom settings and have mostly used ethnographic or case-study research designs to investigate the role of
contextual factors in the L2 writing experience.
Writing to Learn
Here, I return to my focus on this paper: writing to learn research. Perhaps I should point out first that research on
writing to learn can be traced back to the late 1970s. Specifically, back when Janet Emig wrote her seminal article
“Writing as a Mode of Learning” in which she argued that writing is a unique languaging process and, thus, holds a
unique value for learning. Indeed, Emig was the first scholar to claim that “Writing serves learning uniquely because
writing as process-and-product possesses a cluster of attributes that correspond uniquely to certain powerful learning
strategies” (Emig, 1977, p.122). What this means, moreover, is that writing to learn remains a type of instructional
intervention that promotes, in addition to writing development, students’ critical thinking skills through an exploration
of their own conceptions and conceptual changes during writing to learn processes and productions. And, I want to
argue, that unlike learning to write research which focuses primarily on the process of writing, how L2 students learn to
write in an additional language, writing to learn research explores the possibilities in which the act of composing and
producing a text leads to learning.
As its name suggests, writing to learn involves two multifaceted and complex activities: writing and learning. It is
helpful to see that in the case of writing to learn research, writing is viewed as an instrument of learning. It enables
students to learn a language and acquire knowledge in different content areas (Manchon, 2011). The premise of the
writing to learn potential as a teaching and learning strategy lies in the fact that the more learners engage with and
process course-related materials in writing the more information/knowledge they may potentially retain and,
eventually, internalize. This, in my view, involves teachers’ explicit attention to this matter by designing and
implementing writing to learn activities across language and content area classrooms. I certainly do not mean to
suggest that teachers must grade or provide feedback on every writing to learn task. Rather, I want teachers to consider
alternative options such as students’ self-assessment as well as collaborative and peer feedback both in class and
online.
There is, however, a few concerns to be taken into account when examining writing to learn research. Specifically,
Hirvela (2001) observed that writing to learn studies offer no clear explanation as to the specific role of writing in L2
learners’ negotiation to acquire richer content knowledge. In like manner, Newell (2006) emphasized another
problematic issue in writing to learn research which concerns its lack of specific and coherent definition of what counts
European Journal of Educational Research 87
as learning. Newell, then, explained that students’ knowledge of the topic along with the nature of the writing task itself
may play a significant role in the type of thinking and learning that takes place during writing. Most importantly, he
noted that summary writing, for instance, is factual and based on reporting information, and, thus, may not offer the
same potential for learning and critical thinking as analytical writing which requires students to critically interpret and
evaluate information. This particular inference leads one to believe that the type of writing matters when educators
design and implement writing to learn tasks.
Reflecting on the history of writing to learn research, Klein and Pietro Boscolo (2016) emphasized the major trends that
this strand of research has undergone since its beginnings in the late 1970s. In light of their description, it seems that
the first decades in writing to learn research had focused on the effects of writing on learning. That is, how the former is
personal and subject to learners’ own set of objectives and strategies. Furthermore, the emergence of other trends such
as Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) marked a notable milestone in the writing
to learn scholarship. In essence, WAC highlighted a general approach to writing across different disciplines by
encouraging students to write, often during low-stakes/ungraded assignments, in all courses, and across various
disciplines not only in English classes whereas WID focused on preparing students to write in different disciplines
while taking into consideration the composition peculiarities specific to each discipline. Finally, the social turn in
second language acquisition shifted the L2 writing research from predominantly cognitive approaches to embracing
social and cultural perspectives that inform writing practice.
By emphasizing the learning virtues of writing, writing to learn advocates make the case for teaching and learning
contexts where students engage in writing in the language and content area classrooms. In their view, the more
opportunities teachers provide their students to meaningfully negotiate and process what is being taught in writing, the
higher their chances are to engage with the content. Now, when I assert that, I do not mean to overlook what Newell
(2006) highlighted. That is, teachers should remain cognizant of the influence that the type of writing to learn task
might have on the overall value of this instructional intervention. Let me offer one concrete example to illustrate this
point. Informal, ungraded, writing activities such as learning journals, reflections, and online discussions are viable
avenues for students not only to negotiate and construct their understanding of content but also to develop their
critical thinking skills.
High-Stakes and Low-Stakes Writing Tasks
Now it is no doubt the case that writing remains an effective learning instrument that helps students achieve several
learning goals due in part to how writing provides students with invaluable time to process and reflect on what they
learn in the language and content area classrooms. More specifically, students may be able to approach learned
concepts through critical and analytical lenses especially through reflective and expository writing tasks. Likewise,
Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) illustrated how their L2 writer participants developed a sense of
multidimensionality and audience awareness as they intensively engaged in writing activities during an EAP class
(English for Academic Purposes). Their findings, moreover, indicated that students’ instances of meaning making
through writing helped them identify content areas they have not fully understood while providing them with
opportunities to attend to, reprocess, and reinforce areas they have ostensibly understood.
And this leads to my next point, namely, whether the nature of the task affects the learning potential of writing. To put
it otherwise, while writing may be an effective learning tool, some researchers and educators could argue that the
learning potential of writing depends on the nature of the writing task itself. What I want to call attention to is the
distinction between graded and ungraded writing tasks or what is also known as high-stakes and low-stakes writing. In
this view, McDermott (2010) distinguished between writing to earn tasks which are typically high-stakes and graded
writing assignments (e.g., exams, graded essays, and term papers) and writing-to-learn assignments which tend to be
informal, low-stakes/ungraded, writing tasks. According to McDermott, low stakes writing tasks should be what
instructors emphasize and value in their teaching to help students engage in learning in the content areas. What this
means, moreover, is that ungraded writing activities allow students ample opportunities to express their opinions, be
creative, and, most importantly, be reflective. I think we can put this vision further. I would like, for instance, to see
students not only revisit what has been learned in class but also question it. From my vintage point, writing to learn
could be a remarkable avenue for students to articulate their conceptual doubts, misunderstandings, and questions.
Such avenues may not be possible in high stakes writing assignments where stress over performance could minimize
the retrospective and reflective nature of writing as an instrument of learning.
Typically, low stakes writing consists of informal writing tasks that encourage students to engage with content they
have been introduced to in class. Since low stakes writing tasks focus more on meaning and coherence (clarity and
cogency of thoughts/ideas) rather than on correct use of language and vocabulary (language fluency), students have
more freedom to express their opinions and explore their reasoning. In this sense, the purpose of ungraded, low stakes,
writing assignments is not to produce well-structured and excellent written productions. Rather, low stakes writing
tasks prioritize students’ processing of content in a way that is less stressful and where they can engage with the
content and test their hypotheses/understandings.
88 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
Yet another reason for implementing low stakes writing tasks in my view remains their product-oriented nature. In
other words, such writing tasks like journals should, by definition, be non-punitive tasks that teachers do not
necessarily have to grade. In fact, such tasks remain an excellent way to introduce students and guide them to engage in
peer feedback to maximize the learning benefits of writing. The learning potential behind ungraded writing tasks lies,
then, in their capacity to actively involve the students in their own learning. As for the types of low stakes/ungraded
writing activities, instructors may choose from a myriad of writing tasks that could best address their instructional
objectives and their students’ learning needs. For instance, in addition to free writing activities and journals, Ackerman
(1993) provided a few examples of informal writing to learn tasks.
• Admit and exit slips (statements or questions as catalyzing and focusing exercises)
• Dialogs
• Dialectics (writing to record and to respond or explain)
• Unsent letters
• Brainstorming and listing (pp. 343-344).
In the same fashion, the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Waterloo in Canada recommends the
following writing activities.
• One-sentence summaries, directed paraphrasing, and explaining a concept
• Online discussion groups/forums
• Journals and personal/opinion-based responses
• Emailing an author to clarify a concept (The University of Waterloo, 2019).
Method
Purpose
This paper aimed at synthesizing research studies that examined writing to learn in different educational settings.
Based on the reviewed L1 and L2 writing literature, it might be concluded that writing remains an effective learning
tool; however, much needs to be examined in terms of the variables that could maximize or mitigate its learning
potential. At the same time, the type of writing tasks and writing strategies may also be decisive factors in shaping the
learning potential of writing. Because of its highly cognitive nature, investigating students and teachers’ perceptions of
writing to learn interventions remains ineluctable if we want to understand how learners and educators utilize writing
to learn across different content areas and grade levels.
What I want to call attention to in this paper besides synthesizing writing to learn research is a sense of pedagogical
relevancy of this instructional approach since it seems to offer viable avenues for teaching and learning practice in the
language and content area classrooms. To the best of my knowledge, moreover, up to this date, there has not been a
true synthesis or integrative review of writing to learn research; hence, the value and purpose of conducting this
research synthesis. It follows, therefore, that this paper sets forth to report on what binds the reviewed studies on
writing to learn. In so doing, the aim was to identify common themes as well as areas of convergence and divergence
within and across the reviewed empirical and conceptual writing to learn studies.
Search Procedures
This project started by conducting an iterative search of electronic databases, including, ERIC, Google Scholar, JSTOR,
PsycINFO, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and online library databases. Keywords used in searches included:
(“writing to learn”, “writing as a learning tool/strategy”, “writing to learn in the content areas”, “learning to write and
writing to learn”, “low-stakes writing tasks”, “high-stakes writing tasks”, “does writing promote language learning?”
“Does writing promote content knowledge/learning?”). Given the scant attention that writing to learn has received thus
far, I have also explored the topic using alternative search terms such as journal writing, reflective writing, and essay
writing and their respective roles in learning. Lastly, an attentive search of a few articles’ reference lists was also
employed in order to identify relevant research articles that had been cited by authors of the most recent writing to
learn studies. In this regard, I thoroughly examined the reference lists of the most recent research studies. That is, the
ones published in 2016 onward.
European Journal of Educational Research 89
Selection Criteria and Data Analysis
This review on writing to learn aimed at synthesizing recent studies on the subject matter. Thematically, the goal was to
select studies that took into consideration either teachers or students’ perceptions of writing to learn activities. In the
meantime, studies that specifically focused on activities that promote the learning potential of writing were included in
this paper. Because of the highly cognitive nature of writing to learn, empirical studies that approached this type of
writing through a cognitive lens were also included in this research synthesis. Another key element relates to whether
the studies were conducted in an L1 or L2 classroom setting. In this respect, I purposefully aimed at having studies that
represent the L1 and L2 contexts and that examined writing to learn in various disciplines, grade levels and countries.
Chronologically, this paper prioritized recent studies that were published in the last 17 years (2004-2020). As such,
writing to learn studies conducted earlier than 2004 were excluded. Studies were selected based on thematic and
research design parameters. To be included, each study needed to have a defined set of participants and a specific
setting, incorporate a specific qualitative/quantitative research design, and have a systematic data analysis and
interpretation process. Alternatively, studies that conceptually addressed how writing could serve as an instrument of
learning were also selected for inclusion. Initially, the search yielded 22 articles which were later narrowed down to 17
articles. I should note that for the five studies that were excluded, most of them lacked a systematic and comprehensive
data analysis or were promoting certain writing to learn strategies based strictly on instructional practices and
observations rather than on empirical research inquiry. After finalizing the list of articles, I conducted an inductive
content analysis to explore the empirical and conceptual writing to learn studies according to themes and categories if
these existed. It was noted that certain themes like writing to learn activities/strategies were recurrent. It is important
to note that by assigning a theme/category to a certain research study, I aimed at identifying the most important theme
rather than the only theme that the article discussed since some of the articles included in this paper examined more
than one writing to learn component. In so doing, I identified four main categories that I include in four tables as
appendices. (refer to appendices on pages 29-96).
Table 1. Studies by Theme/Category
Category/Theme
Number of studies
1- Studies with a focus on teachers’ perceptions of writing to learn.
4
2- Studies with a focus on students’ perceptions of writing to learn.
4
3- Studies that examined cognitive processes involved in writing to learn.
3
4- Studies that focused on the type of writing activities and strategies.
6
Research Questions
This review of writing to learn research aimed at answering the following research questions:
1)
What are the effects of writing when used as a learning tool?
2)
Is there a difference in the effectiveness of writing to learn activities across various disciplines and grade levels?
3)
What variable(s) might maximize or mitigate the learning potential of writing?
4)
What are students and teachers’ perceptions of writing to learn strategies/tasks?
Findings
RQ # 1: What are the effects of writing when used as a learning tool?
A close examination of the articles included in this research synthesis revealed that writing to learn interventions are
effective both in language learning and in amassing greater content knowledge in content area classrooms across the
disciplines. First, I am going to address the effects of writing to learn on students’ learning performance. For instance, in
their examination of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ perceptions of the learning potential of L2 writing,
Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) observed that after taking the EAP course, the participants shifted their focus from
being uniquely concerned with accuracy to a multidimensional focus that included attention to textual features,
audience, purpose, and content. In like manner, Lew & Schmidt (2011) emphasized the role of journal writing activities
in fostering students’ learning about critical reviews and text summaries. It has also been noted that students who
engaged in writing to learn activities enhanced their learning and academic performance in comparison to students
who received traditional instruction (İncirci & Parmaksiz, 2016). The same argument holds for (Cheng & Feyten, 2015;
Driessens & Parr, 2019) which respectively highlighted the role of providing students with ample writing opportunities
and the impact of teachers’ modeling and written feedback on the development of students’ reflective practices and
critical thinking literacies. This assertion is consistent with the contention of Wright et al. (2019) that instructional
interventions based on writing to learn strategies supported scientific literacy development among middle and high
90 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
school science class students. Along similar lines, Suhaimi et al. (2016) reported notable gains in mathematical concept
learning among tenth graders after they engaged in journal writing activities.
RQ # 2: Is there a difference in the effectiveness of writing to learn activities across various disciplines and grade levels?
The empirical studies included in this paper did not indicate any notable differences in the effectiveness of writing to
learn strategies across content areas and grade levels. In this sense, beneficial effects of writing to learn interventions
have been noted in different language and content area classrooms. To illustrate, Schmidt (2004) reported that the
implementation of writing to learn tasks resulted in a decreased apprehension of writing activities by students
attending a nursing program. Nevid et al. (2012) examined the effect of writing assignments on students attending an
introductory psychology course and reported a positive impact of writing to learn strategies. Furthermore, they noticed
that brief writing assignments whether generic or reflective in nature were effective in bolstering students’ content
knowledge. In terms of learning gains across different grade levels, the reviewed studies had examined writing to learn
in settings that ranged from elementary school to university. Most importantly, however, this variable had no
noticeable effect on the consistency of the findings in favor of the learning potential that writing to learn interventions
offer.
Another question relates to whether the difference between the L1 and L2 teaching and learning contexts resulted in
different findings as far as the efficacy of writing to learn interventions is concerned. Ostensibly, the L1 and L2 variable
had no bearing on the effects of writing to learn interventions. The fact of the matter is that the following ESL and EFL
based studies: (Cheng & Feyten, 2015; İncirci & Parmaksiz , 2016; Kieft et al, 2008; Lew & Schmidt, 2011; Lund, 2016;
Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2011; Suhaimi et al., 2016) had all underlined positive effects of writing to learn strategies
and tasks on students’ learning in the L2 context. In the same way, the L1 based studies included in this review: (Arnold
et al., 2017; Driessens & Parr, 2019; Nevid et al., 2012; Ray et al., 2016; Schmidt, 2004; Wright et al., 2019) highlighted
similar benefits of writing to learn interventions on students’ overall learning experiences in the L1 context in the US
and Canada.
RQ # 3: What variable(s) might maximize or mitigate the learning potential of writing?
To answer this question, let me start by referring to a meta-analysis on the effects of school-based writing to learn
interventions on students’ academic achievement where Bangert-Drowns et al. (2004) noted the role of certain
contextual factors in shaping the learning potential of writing to learn interventions. More specifically, Bangert-Drowns
et al. (2004) enumerated contextual variables related to “the intensity of the intervention, the nature of the writing
task, and the ability of the students to take best advantage of writing’s operation” and how these contextual elements
“moderate the influence of writing on learning” (p.53). Along similar lines, Table 2 overviews a few contextual variables
that could have a bearing on the efficacy and overall successful implementation of writing to learn interventions.
Table 2. Variables Maximizing or Mitigating the Efficacy of Writing to Learn Interventions.
Variable
Effect
Study/Studies
Explicit
instruction
Students who received instruction that specifically
addressed their writing needs showed notable learning
gains.
Manchón & Roca de Larios (2011)
İncirci & Parmaksiz (2016)
Intensive writing
Students reported learning benefits after engaging in
intensive English writing activities.
Manchón & Roca de Larios (2011)
Custom-made
instruction and
feedback
Expansion of students’ linguistic resources
Teachers’ constructive written feedback provided
learning opportunities to students to develop a greater
sense of academic literacy.
Cheng & Feyten (2015)
Manchón & Roca de Larios (2011)
Individual differences
Learners who showed effective structure building
ability benefited the most from writing to learn tasks.
Arnold et al. (2017)
Proficiency
Skilled writers produced organized essays while low-
skilled writers needed explicit instruction.
Arnold et al.(2017)
Handwriting
Writing by hand had positive effects on students’
concentration, creativity, and facilitated better
processing of content.
Lund (2016)
It is not surprising, actually, that explicit instruction and custom-made feedback figure among the variables that
maximize the effectiveness of writing to learn tasks. But the most intractable problem involved in trying to implement
these strategies lies in getting to know the students and their specific needs. This may not always be an easy task if we
take into consideration issues related to class size and relatively short semesters. Closely related is how individual
differences inform teachers’ understanding of students’ writing performance. Now, of course, individual differences
European Journal of Educational Research 91
encompass various components including proficiency, motivation, learning style, and so forth. To further emphasize my
previous point about the necessity of getting to know the students, let me offer this explanation. If effective, explicit,
instruction and custom-made feedback requires knowing the students, the same remark is valid when it comes to
assessing how individual differences shape and influence students’ writing. Additionally, it should come as no surprise
that variables like intensive writing and handwriting correlated with gains in students’ learning. Nevertheless, it is not
clear whether intensive writing tasks that do not offer explicit instruction and feedback would be as effective as the
intervention in (Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2011). As per the handwriting variable, Lund (2016) makes a solid case for
the benefits of students’ handwritten notetaking practices on their overall learning. To date, however, very little
research has been conducted on how handwriting impacts on learning. Future research should, therefore, shed more
light on this matter.
RQ# 4: What are students and teachers’ perceptions of writing to learn strategies/tasks?
This question aimed at shedding light on students and teachers’ perceptions and perspectives on writing to learn
strategies. On the one hand, three empirical studies have examined writing to learn through a teacher-perspective lens
(Sanchez & Lewis, 2014; Ozturk & Gunel, 2015; Ray et al., 2016). On the other hand, five other studies reported on how
students perceive and react to writing to learn interventions: (Wright et al., 2019; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2011;
Suhaimi et al., 2016; Schmidt, 2004; Lund, 2016). First, to my mind, in any teaching and learning setting, the teacher
remains an integral part of the educational process. Seen in this light, the teachers’ choices of writing tasks,
implementation of writing instruction, and, most importantly, their perceptions of the learning potential of writing
activities may influence the type of teaching and learning taking place in their classrooms. Reflecting on whether
writing helped preservice teachers improve their content learning and critical thinking skills, Sanchez and Lewis
(2014) observed positive effects in this regard. The same argument holds for in-service teachers. As such, in another
study that examined Turkish science teachers' perceptions of writing as a learning tool, Ozturk and Gunel (2015)
concluded that although the participant teachers were aware of the role of writing in learning and literacy
development, most of them did not use writing to learn tasks in their classrooms. Instead, writing in their classrooms
took the form of notetaking. In contrast, Ray et al. (2016) surveyed 159 middle school language arts, science, and social
studies teachers in the United States. Their survey data revealed that teachers reported regular use of various writing
to learn strategies in their classrooms including short answer responses (88.8 % of teachers), note-taking (86.3 % of
teachers), summary writing (81.5 % of teachers), graphic organizer or concept map (80.8 % of teachers), note taking
while listening (80.3 % of teachers), explanation (78 % of teachers), description (71.9 % of teachers), analysis (70.3 %
of teachers), writing answers to document based questions (66 % of teachers), compare/contrast (58.4 % of teachers),
list (55.1 % of teachers), cause and effect (54.1 % of teachers), journal (54 % of teachers), and writing to make personal
connections (52.76% of teachers). (p. 1062). Finally, I want to mention, at least briefly, the issue of students’
perceptions of the learning potential of writing. In this view, Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) specifically addressed
how their L2 student participants perceived the benefits of engaging in intensive and challenging writing tasks as part
of an EAP course. It is relevant to underscore, in this regard, that the L2 students in this study associated such positive
perceptions with two mediating factors: instruction and writing. The former involved custom-made instruction while
the latter was concerned with noticing and practice.
Along similar lines, but involving different content areas, both Schmidt (2004) and Suhaimi et al. (2016) respectively
reported on students’ positive perceptions of writing to learn tasks. Likewise, the first study indicated a decrease in
writing anxiety and a positive attitude toward low-stakes/writing-to-learn tasks among students attending a nursing
program at an American university whereas the second study revealed that tenth graders in Turkey had mostly shown
positive attitudes toward the learning gains resulting from journal writing in their Mathematics class. As the authors
made clear, the changes that occurred in students’ perceptions of writing to learn tasks could be due to the nature of
the writing prompts and the scores they received. In an interesting study, Lund (2011) found that Norwegian EFL
teacher trainees relied heavily on writing to learn strategies especially notetaking during course lectures. Of great
significance here is that the participants preferred to write by hand over typing their notes on electronic devices. Of
equal importance, participants referred to factors such as better concentration, creativity, and information processing
to explain their preference for handwriting over typing their notes on a computer/electronic device.
Discussion
As this research synthesis has shown, writing to learn interventions seem to be an effective way to support students’
learning in language and content area classrooms. As stated previously, this review did not identify significant
discrepancies in the effectiveness of writing to learn strategies across different grade-levels (from elementary school to
university levels), content areas (Math, Science, English, etc.), and disciplines (Nursing, Psychology, Teaching etc.). And
so, we see also that there was no notable differences in the effectiveness of writing to learn methods across the L1, ESL,
and EFL contexts. However, these findings need to be interpreted with caution since not all studies included a control
group. At the same time, much needs to be done in future research to ensure the validity and generalizability of these
findings. For instance, there is scope for future writing to learn research to focus more on EFL contexts since previous
studies have predominantly taken place in ESL settings. Furthermore, writing is a process; it is a process of discovery.
92 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
In other words, writing is thinking that takes shape in our texts. As Murray (1990) indicated, “The writing begins with
the collection of the raw material of writing, information that will be arranged into meaning by that act itself. Writing is
thinking” (p.60). On this account, Langer and Applebee (1987) reported similar conclusions. In How writing shapes
thinking: A study of teaching and learning, they emphasized the learning potential of writing and described how
different types of writing involve different learning processes.
There is clear evidence that activities involving writing lead to better learning than activities involving reading
and studying only. Writing assists learning. Beyond that, we learned that different kinds of writing activities
lead students to focus on different kinds of information, to think about that information in different ways. (p.
135).
What this means, moreover, is that writing to learn activities support students’ language learning, content learning, and
literacy development. In the meantime, writing to learn interventions seem to be effective in helping L2 learners, for
instance, develop a holistic and multidimensional approach to writing; one that incorporates text features, audience
awareness, purpose, and content as Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) observed; however, it is critical to provide
students with ample writing opportunities and adequate instructional support for them to be able to develop their
critical thinking skills and content area literacies. As for this argument, it is crucial for instructors to make it a habit to
implement as many low-stakes and ungraded writing to learn tasks as possible in both language and content area
classrooms.
Clearly, teachers have a vital role to play in this respect. Supporting their students’ writing efforts and providing a
purpose and incentive for their low-stakes, ungraded, writing assignments, teachers maintain students’ engagement
and motivation to learn. As much as possible teachers should foster a culture of peer feedback where students’ share
their writing with a peer or a group of students and exchange evaluations and suggestions about each other’s writing.
Along similar lines, the efficacy of writing to learn interventions has been correlated with adequate instructional
support. In this view, Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) emphasized the role of custom-made instructional support
especially as it relates to written feedback. Put more specifically, students benefit the most from feedback that takes
into consideration their unique learning trajectories and language proficiencies.
From another perspective, although not intended to be a study on the concept of writing to learn, Karapetian (2020)
found that implementing a flipped classroom approach had a positive impact on students’ writing, critical thinking, and
overall learning performance. It follows, therefore, that flipped classroom approaches could offer students the
opportunity to learn at their own pace as they have ample time to reflect on the materials and be actively involved in
their learning. It is also relevant to refer to Cheng and Feyten’s (2015) perspective. They argued that in providing
feedback to students on their writing to learn papers, teachers should not prioritize a focus on issues related to
mechanics, style, and grammar. Rather, the authors invite instructors to encourage their students to be more agentive
by taking active roles in their learning. Before confirming Manchón and Roca de Larios’ (2011) observation that
feedback ought to be tailored to each student, Cheng and Feyten (2015) elaborated on their conceptualization of
feedback to students’ writing to learn papers. On this account, the authors explained.
“The more effective feedback might be the one that engaged students in questioning, communicating,
researching, exploring, building networks, utilizing resources. In addition, the feedback should be tailored to
suit each student and consider the writer’s needs, ability, personality, and culture” (p. 20).
What is evident here is that feedback and instruction in general may facilitate and support the learning potential of
certain writing activities. However, much needs to be examined in this domain. There is scope for future research to
attend to matters related to the role of feedback and explicit instruction in designing and implementing effective
writing to learn interventions. Where research must move in the future is also toward investigating how students react,
interpret, and, eventually, implement the feedback they receive from their instructors and peers. This, I suppose,
cannot be achieved, unless similar attention is given to the role of student agency and individual differences in the
processes involved in writing to learn productions.
Admittedly, the findings confirm that certain variables reinforce and support the learning potential of writing to learn
tasks. This section overviews four of these variables. First, evidence from the reviewed studies suggests that explicit
instruction plays a critical role in the effective implementation of writing to learn activities. In other words, students
who received instruction that specifically addressed their writing and learning needs benefited the most from the
writing to learn tasks. Also relevant here is that feedback has been shown to support students’ learning and
development of greater sense of literacies and critical thinking skills. But let us be clear. The challenge remains in the
feasibility of this type of writing to learn intervention in the language and content area classrooms. While providing
feedback that is tailored to specific student needs is quite effective, it is also time consuming. Thirdly, the amount of
time spent in writing does make a difference. Clearly, instructors need to provide students with in-class and out-of-
class writing activities—including using online platforms—where students can reflect on course materials and engage
with their own ideas. Finally, individual differences remain another key factor in any teaching and learning context.
Although it has been noted that language proficiency and content knowledge have a direct effect on the benefits reaped
from writing to learn interventions, much is yet to be discovered about how individual differences in terms of
European Journal of Educational Research 93
motivation, personality, language proficiency, and learning styles affect the complex processes involved in writing to
learn tasks.
Recommendations
The examination of the writing to learn studies included in this paper revealed a few pedagogical implications. First, the
findings suggest that schools, teacher training institutes, and teacher education programs have an instrumental role in
preparing prospective teachers for an effective implementation of writing to learn strategies in the language and
content area classrooms. Indeed, there is a need to shift from the idea that writing serves first and foremost as an
assessment tool and that it is mostly up to English and ESL teachers to be in charge of writing instruction. Conversely,
instead of relying solely on English instructors to implement writing to learn interventions—and given the apparent
efficacy of these interventions—it would seem to make sense that more content area teachers across different disciples
and grade levels start including some form of writing to learn tasks into their curricula. But let me be clear. What I
propose here would necessarily touch on the issue of teacher training. In simple terms, prospective and in-service
teachers need adequate training that explicitly addresses how they should go about designing, evaluating, and
providing feedback on writing to learn tasks.
The findings also suggest that individual differences matter in writing to learn interventions. But there is still a need to
further elucidate how individual differences shape students’ engagement with writing tasks. At issue here, I would
argue, are three important constructs: motivation, personality, and language proficiency. Students tend to differ in such
constructs hence the need to investigate how these differences affect the writing to learn processes and productions.
What about the writing tasks themselves? Do different types of writing to learn activities achieve identical or similar
effects? The studies reviewed in this paper offer no clear answer to this question. However, it seems that different
writing tasks and genres operate differently. I think it is time for language and content area teachers to consider what
would be lost, and what could be gained, if they gave their students the freedom and flexibility to reflect on what and
how they learn. Students’ writings, then, could be valuable to teachers to get to know how their students think, process,
and engage with the materials.
Of the many other challenges to an effective implementation of writing to learn interventions, questions of type of
writing to learn tasks and feedback stand out as particularly problematic. As much as possible, teachers should opt for
writing to learn tasks that foster critical thinking. What I am leading to here is an explicit direction toward eliciting and
valuing students’ reflective and evaluative input through writing. Not only will such tasks inform teachers knowledge
about how students are taking up the course content, but, most importantly, reflective and evaluating writing to learn
tasks develop students’ reasoning and logic through engaging in earnest retrospection and reflection. As per the
feedback, at first glance, teachers might view writing to learn tasks as an additional burden to their already
overwhelming duties. However, teachers do not have to provide feedback on all these tasks. There is room for them to
make use of peer feedback both in-class and online; thus, allowing students further opportunities to engage with each
other’s writing. Eventually, teachers could join the peer feedback interactions when there is need to clarify concepts or
simply facilitate student exchanges.
Conclusion
This qualitative synthesis of writing to learn research revealed that implementing writing to learn tasks result in
notable learning benefits in language and content area classrooms. Although there is still much to be examined in terms
of the different processes that govern writing to learn interventions especially concerning the types of writing tasks,
their frequency, and feedback modes, there is reasonable evidence to believe that schools and instructors should
consider implementing writing to learn activities across all grade levels. That is, introducing writing to learn pedagogies
needs to be done both in the language and content area classrooms. Teacher training, however, remains a
steppingstone if schools want to move toward this goal. The line of argument this paper has been pursuing has
important implications for how writing can be used to further students’ learning and academic achievement rather
than being merely used for assessing students’ content knowledge. Specifically, as a means toward this objective, I
propose that instructors should implement informal (low stakes) writing tasks such as journals since these foster the
development of students’ literacies and critical thinking skills. The bottom line is that the more students write about
what they learn, the more opportunities they have to process and reflect on what has been learned.
Before concluding this paper, a few limitations must be noted. I should say, first of all, that given the paucity of writing
to learn research, this paper was informed by a fairly small number of studies. It follows, therefore, that caution is
needed when interpreting the findings this paper has reported. The reviewed studies, moreover, were conducted in
different language, content area, and grade-level contexts. Although the findings appear to lend support to the
effectiveness of writing to learn interventions, intricacies within and across the reviewed studies should be taken into
consideration. Finally, this study would have been enriched by adopting a deliberate critical stance toward the
literature. While this research synthesis attempted at times to evaluate writing to learn research, critiquing the latter
was not within the scope of this paper.
94 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
References
Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334– 370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010003002
Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive
processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000119
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions
on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001029
Cheng, R ., & Feyten, C. M. (2015). L2 students’ academic literacy development guided by teacher written feedback: A
writing-to-learn perspective. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 7-25.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English
Studies, 1(2), 1-23.
Deveci, T. (2019). Writing for and because of lifelong learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.1
Driessens, S., & Parr, M. (2019). Rewriting the wor(l)d: Quick writes as a space for critical literacy. The Reading Teacher,
73(4), 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1862
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
Faigley, L., & Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. College Composition and Communication, 36(2),
140-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/357434
Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and
writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37-59). John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-
write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 17-35). John Benjamins Publishing.
İncirci, A., & Parmaksiz, R. S., (2016). The effects of writing to learn (WTL) on academic achievement and attitude to
lesson in English classes. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 2163-2173.
Karapetian, A.O. (2020). Creating ESP-based language learning environment to foster critical thinking capabilities in
students’ papers. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 717-728. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-
jer.9.2.717
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H.V. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn.
Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn instruc.2007.07.004
Klein, P.D ., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3),
311-350.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. National Council of
Teachers of English.
Lew, D ., & Schmidt, H. (2011). Writing to learn: can reflection journals be used to promote self- reflection and learning?
Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512627
Lund, R. E. (2016). Handwriting as a tool for learning in ELT. ELT Journal, 70(1), 48–56.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv048
Manchón, R. (2011). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón
(Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 3-14). John Benjamins Publishing.
Manchón, R. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-
write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61-82). John Benjamins Publishing.
Manchón, R ., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing to learn in FL contexts Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language
learning potential of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional
language (pp. 181-207). John Benjamins Publishing.
McDermott, M. (2010). More than writing-to-learn. Science Teacher, 77, 32–36.
Murray, D. M. (1990). Write to learn (3rd ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
European Journal of Educational Research 95
Nevid, J. S., Pastva, A., & McClelland, N. (2012). Writing-to-Learn Assignments in Introductory Psychology: Is There a
Learning Benefit? Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 272-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456622
Newell, G. (2006). Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student
performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–246). The
Guilford Press.
Ozturk, B., & Gunel, M. (2015). Writing and its use as a learning tool from teachers' perspective: Instrument
development and a pilot implementation. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 713-733.
https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.60822
Ragnhild, E. L. (2016). Handwriting as a tool for learning in ELT. ELT Journal, 70(1), 48- 56,
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv048
Ray, A. B., Graham, S., Houston, J. D., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Teachers use of writing to support students’ learning in
middle school: A national survey in the United States. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 1039–1068.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9602-z
Sanchez, B ., & Lewis, K. D. (2014). Writing shapes thinking: Investigative study of preservice teachers’ reading, writing
to learn, and critical thinking. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 2(1), 55-68.
Schmidt, L. A. (2004). Evaluating the writing-to-learn strategy with undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Nursing
Education, 43(10), 466-473. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20041001-09
Suhaimi, Z., Shahrill, M., Tengah, K. A., & Haji Abbas, N. (2016). Incorporating the use of writing-to-learn Strategy in
grade 10 Mathematics lessons: The students’ perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College,
7(2), 10-20.
The University of Waterloo. (2019, March 4). Low-stakes writing assignments. https://shorturl.at/kwCEI
Wright, K. L., Hodges, T. S., Zimmer, W.K., & Erin M. M., (2019). Writing-to-learn in secondary science classes: For whom
is it effective? Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 35(4), 289–304.
https://doi.org/10.1080/105735692018.1541769
96 CHMARKH / ‘Writing to Learn’ Research (2004-2019)
Appendices
Appendix A: Studies with a Focus on Teachers’ Perceptions on Writing to Learn.
Article
Focus
Participants
Location
Sanchez & Lewis (2014)
Examining whether writing in the
content area help preservice teachers
learn new material and develop
critical thinking skills
88 bilingual preservice teachers
enrolled in two upper level Writing
Intensive courses
a southwestern Texas
university, United States
Ozturk & Gunel (2015)
Science teachers’ perceptions of
writing as a learning tool.
131 science teachers in
Public schools in Erzurum,
Turkey.
Cheng & Feyten (2015)
The examination of the role of
teachers’ written feedback on the
development of L2 students’
academic literacies.
Non-native English speaking graduate
students from South Korea and
Germany pursuing an MA Applied
Linguistics
A large public university in
southeastern United States.
Ray et al., (2016)
How middle school teachers use
writing to support students’ learning
159 sixth through ninth grades
language arts, science, and social
studies teachers.
Middle schools, United States
Appendix B: Studies with a Focus on Students’ Perceptions of Writing to Learn.
Article
Focus
Participants
Location
Manchón & Roca de
Larios (2011)
Examining EFL students’ perceptions of
the learning potential of writing.
18 EFL students and their EAP
teacher
The University of Murcia, Spain
Suhaimi et al., (2016)
Students’ perceptions of a Writing to
Learn strategy (writing journals).
43 students from two Grade 10
Math classes
A public school in Brunei
Wright et al., (2019)
What type of students benefits the most
from writing to learn interventions in a
science class?
A chemistry teacher, a physics
teacher, and their 54 Grade 6–
11 students
K-12 schools in United States
Karapetian
Students’ perceptions of the flipped
classroom teaching approach.
87 University students majoring
in Economics, Management, and
Marketing.
University in Ukraine
Appendix C: Studies that Examined the Cognitive Processes Involved in Writing to Learn.
Article
Focus
Participants
Location
Kieft, Rijlaarsdam &
Bergh (2008)
An aptitude lens to
writing to learn
220 eight grade students in a Writing
Argumentative Texts about Short Stories
class
3 high schools in the
Netherlands.
Lew & Schmidt (2011)
Investigating whether the practice of
reflection journal writing can
promote self-reflection and learning.
3460 freshmen engaging in problem-
based learning where students
collaborate in groups to investigate issues
of relevant to their studies
A polytechnic institution in
Singapore.
Arnold et al. (2017)
The cognitive processes involved in
writing to learn
Undergraduate students
Washington University,
United States.
Appendix D: Studies that Focused on the Type of Writing Activities and Strategies.
Article
Focus
Participants
Location
Schmidt (2004)
The effects and benefits of writing to learn
strategies.
Undergraduate nursing students
A private university in
United States.
Nevid et al. (2012)
The learning benefits of writing to learn
activities in Introductory Psychology classes
208 students in three psychology
classes where writing assignments
were a course requirement.
A large university in
United States
İncirci & Parmaksiz
(2016)
Effects of writing to learn interventions on
academic achievement and attitude toward
learning.
11th grade students taking an
English class
A public school in Turkey.
Lund (2016)
The role of handwritten texts in EFL student
teachers’ writing to learn practices.
19 Norwegian EFL teacher training
students’ practices and their
thoughts about writing to learn
activities.
Different Colleges of
Education in Norway
Driessens & Parr
(2019)
The role of quick writes in developing critical
literacy
Sixth graders
An elementary school in
Ontario, Canada.
Deveci (2018)
This study offers an epistemic perspective on
writing. The author makes the case for writing
as being for and because of lifelong learning
Not applicable
(Conceptual article)
Not applicable
(Conceptual article)
