There鈥檚 a lot one could write about Galileo, the Italian astronomer and physicist.

But on a snowy Friday morning in December, during a lesson helping students draft essays about outer space, teacher Julie Alexander was focused on just one specific piece of the scientist鈥檚 legacy: his study of the moon.

Projected on a smart board at the front of the room was a sample paragraph鈥檚 topic sentence: 鈥淕alileo used a telescope to observe the moon.鈥� Alexander wanted her 3rd graders to evaluate whether the evidence in the paragraph supported its main idea. What facts from the book they鈥檇 read about Galileo would fit here, and which wouldn鈥檛 make sense?

鈥淎re we going to talk about how Galileo ended up in lockdown?鈥� Alexander questioned, referencing his imprisonment by Catholic officials. 鈥淣o, we鈥檙e not, are we? It doesn鈥檛 match our topic statement.鈥�

The exercise required students to analyze the paragraph in painstaking detail. Students pored over their own copies of the excerpt, heads bent, highlighting sentences in different colors to demarcate different parts of the paragraph structure鈥攖he thesis and supporting details.

But the intense focus was in service of an often-elusive goal: to make explicit how good writing works鈥攁nd to equip students with the tools to do it themselves.

At Kegonsa Elementary School here, where Alexander teaches, teachers try to demystify how different styles of writing are structured, down to the sentence level. They work with students on mastering the building blocks of paragraphs and essays, and they introduce tools students use to craft their own writing.

All the while, kids are writing about the texts that they鈥檙e reading鈥攍inking together these two core components of English/language arts instruction.

These components are hallmarks of a specific approach to writing instruction, one that favors explicit instruction and lots of modeling. The method, and curricula that feature them, stand in contrast to the 鈥減rocess writing鈥� techniques that have dominated classrooms for the past few decades: exercises like free writing or journaling about personal experiences.

Teaching students the rules of writing鈥攖hings like how to write complex sentences or structure different types of text鈥攃an help them become better at the craft, said Steve Graham, a professor who studies writing instruction at Arizona State University鈥檚 Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College.

鈥淓xplicit instruction helps kids acquire the skills, the processes, and the knowledge they need to be successful as writers. There鈥檚 no doubt about that,鈥� he said.

But he cautioned that it鈥檚 important for students to have the opportunity to practice these skills in context鈥攖hat they鈥檙e not just filling in worksheets. 鈥淭hat would be like practicing basketball skills all the time and never playing a game,鈥� he said.

The connection of writing and structured literacy

Kegonsa is among the schools that have adopted this more structured approach to writing as they鈥檝e moved toward the 鈥渟cience of reading.鈥�

The phrase refers to the evidence base behind how students learn to read. Many refer to instruction based on this research as 鈥渟tructured literacy鈥濃�攁n approach that teaches the building blocks of reading in an explicit, systematic way.

Kegonsa began to adopt the approach in 2019, and the shift prompted Principal Erin Conrad and her district colleagues to examine their writing instruction, too. If explicit instruction had a place in reading, did it have a place in writing as well?

For some aspects of writing, the answer is a definitive yes, said Graham. Explicitly teaching handwriting and spelling can lead to improvements in those skills鈥攂ut also to writing ability overall. That鈥檚 because making those processes automatic 鈥渇rees up cognitive resources鈥� for students as they鈥檙e composing, he said.

Teaching other skills leads to stronger writing, too: Studies have shown that teaching students how to construct complex sentences helps them apply that knowledge to their writing. A similar effect has been found for lessons on text structure. Evidence also shows that it鈥檚 helpful to teach students strategies for planning, revising, and editing their own pieces.

鈥淚t鈥檚 about opening up the black box and making the processes that expert writers do explicit,鈥� said Leslie Laud, a researcher with thinkSRSD, which offers professional development for teachers in its structured-writing strategies.

Expert writers aren鈥檛 born knowing how to use these structures and skills鈥攖hey鈥檙e taught them, internalize them, and grow their abilities over time, said Diana Leddy, a co-founder of the Vermont Writing Collaborative, a group that provides professional development and teacher resources for another structured writing approach.

鈥淭he problem with leaving students to internalize these on their own is that only some of them will,鈥� she said.

Balancing explicit teaching with time to 鈥榗reate text鈥�

Still, some skills don鈥檛 always improve through explicit instruction. Grammar is one of them.

Graham and colleagues found in a 2012 review that teaching grammar didn鈥檛 improve students鈥� use of it in their writing. But a forthcoming meta-analysis, also by Graham, finds that it does. He thinks this could have to do with context: In most of the papers in the earlier analysis, grammar instruction was decontextualized. Students weren鈥檛 practicing it in their writing鈥攊nstead, their teachers used unrelated examples.

The finding underscores dual imperatives. Kids need to be taught the structures of writing, Graham said. But also, 鈥渨e need students to create text.鈥�

鈥淎t the elementary level, when you engage students, you ask them to write more, there鈥檚 a small positive effect on improving the overall quality of their writing. It鈥檚 not enough to move kids forward strongly as writers, but it鈥檚 not nothing,鈥� he said.

At Kegonsa Elementary, teachers are trying to do both. The curriculum they use aims to build students鈥� skills systematically, progressing from paragraphs to longer pieces. As they learn, though, students write their own compositions.

In one 2nd grade classroom at the school last month, students worked on a matching assignment, putting the pieces of a paragraph in order.

They drew supporting points from the story, working from an 鈥渆vidence organizer鈥� that the class had put together as a group. Spread throughout the room, clustered at desks, and sprawled on the rug, they drew lines between details on one side of the page to the spot on the other side of the page where they would fit into the paragraph structure.

Others who had already finished the organizer were writing out their paragraphs, modifying and adding to the sentences from the evidence organizer to put their own spin on the piece.

As these students progress through this year and the next, they are expected to take on more of the organizing and planning work themselves鈥攁nd eventually, write longer, multiparagraph pieces in 3rd grade.

Kegonsa doesn鈥檛 only do this work with expository writing. In 4th grade, for example, students learn how to structure a narrative story, sketching out the rise and fall of the plot and filling in organizers with details about their characters and setting.

Overall, the approach is much more regimented than what teachers at the school had previously done, said Alexander, the 3rd grade teacher. But more structure has helped students be more confident writers, she said.

鈥淵ears ago when we were teaching, you鈥檇 have the kids go, 鈥業鈥檓 not writing. I don鈥檛 know what to write, I don鈥檛 know how to write. I鈥檓 not doing it,鈥欌�� she said. 鈥淭he last couple of years, [that鈥檚 been] very minimal. There might be a kiddo who has a tricky day, but the next day, they鈥檙e picking right up where they left off鈥攁nd they鈥檒l write.鈥�

How structured approaches differ

Kegonsa鈥檚 approach is based on strategies from the Vermont Writing Collaborative, the organization that Leddy co-founded.

The group takes what Leddy calls a 鈥渨hole to part鈥� approach鈥攊dentifying the end product that students should be able to create, whether that鈥檚 a paragraph or an essay, and then teaching students how to master the component pieces so that they can write a 鈥渨hole鈥� themselves.

The goal is for students to learn how to structure their writing but also to develop a deeper understanding of the subject they鈥檙e writing about. The connection between reading and writing is key, Leddy said.

Teachers have to make sure that students have the background knowledge and vocabulary they need to write well. And they need to teach students how to pull out relevant pieces of the texts they read鈥攔ather than just regurgitating the whole thing in an essay format.

Other structured-writing approaches differ somewhat.

There鈥檚 Self-Regulated Strategy Development, or SRSD, a technique developed by writing researcher Karen Harris and Graham. It also explicitly teaches writing structures and centers writing to text.

In addition, the program aims to teach skills like goal-setting and self-monitoring, designed to help students apply these strategies on their own. Multiple of the approach that it鈥檚 . Other researchers and educators, including Laud, provide professional development and implementation support for schools to apply versions of the method.

And then there鈥檚 The Writing Revolution.

The system was developed by educator Judith Hochman to support students with language-based learning disabilities. It鈥檚 since spread to a national audience, with one state鈥擫ouisiana鈥攅mbedding the strategies into its homegrown materials for English/language arts.

If the Vermont Writing Collaborative takes a whole-to-part approach, The Writing Revolution takes a part-to-whole approach. It starts with the sentence.

鈥淵ou don鈥檛 build a house starting with the roof. You build a house starting with the foundation,鈥� Hochman said. 鈥淭he sentence level, for us, is where we feel it makes sense for everybody to be beginning.鈥�

Students learn how to use more complex sentence structures, employing words such as 鈥渂ecause,鈥� 鈥渂ut,鈥� and 鈥渟o.鈥� They practice constructions that skilled writers use but that don鈥檛 usually appear in speech, like appositive phrases: 鈥淪toughton, a city in Wisconsin, is home to Kegonsa Elementary School.鈥�

But even at the sentence level, Hochman said, 鈥渢he writing is in service of the content, period.鈥�

If students are learning about the Industrial Revolution, for example, they鈥檙e writing about it, like this:

• It was a seminal event because 鈥�,
• It was a seminal event but 鈥�,
• It was a seminal event, so 鈥�

The richer sentence structures push students to engage more deeply in the subject鈥攆illing in more details and nuances about the topic than they would in a sentence that simply stated, 鈥淭he Industrial Revolution was a seminal event.鈥�

The program has devoted fans. Serena White, the director of curriculum and instruction for the Monroe City schools, in Louisiana, said using The Writing Revolution has given students the tools they need to tackle challenging assignments鈥攖ools they didn鈥檛 have before.

鈥淲hen I would walk around in classrooms and observe when students were given a writing prompt in any content area, you would have so many students sitting there not knowing how to start,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e very rarely see that anymore.鈥�

ASU鈥檚 Graham said research supports the idea that teachers should help students learn how to craft strong sentences. But he worries that starting with sentences exclusively conveys the message that students can鈥檛 or shouldn鈥檛 be writing longer pieces until they鈥檝e mastered certain skills. This sentence-first approach differs from other structured methods, including SRSD, which Graham helped develop.

Writing instruction shouldn鈥檛 focus on just the whole, or just the parts, he said. It needs to integrate skills instruction with opportunities to apply those skills at length.

鈥楩lexing鈥� the framework

For her part, Hochman said The Writing Revolution does just that. Students also learn how to outline, take notes, and write full pieces at the same time as they鈥檙e drilling down into sentences. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 have to finish all the sentence work before they move to longer pieces of writing,鈥� she said.

Writing, as most teachers acknowledge, is tough, and challenges still emerge.

At Kegonsa, 3rd graders in Jessica Davis鈥� class have internalized the reading-writing connection. Ask students where to find the supporting evidence for their paragraphs, and they鈥檒l tell you: 鈥淵ou go into the book.鈥�

But not all paragraphs are structured the same way, even though the paragraph structure Davis teaches says that the first piece of supporting evidence comes after the topic statement. If pieces of the paragraph are out of order, students don鈥檛 always pick up on that, she said.

This is a place where teachers step in to correct misunderstandings, Davis said. They return to definitions鈥攁re you sure this is evidence? How do you know? Is it in the text? That kind of questioning puts students back on the right track, she said.

Teachers and school leaders are also still trying to figure out how to help students transfer their knowledge to other contexts鈥攖o use the writing structures they鈥檙e learning on state tests, for example, said Conrad, Kegonsa鈥檚 principal.

Students must come to understand that the structures they鈥檙e learning aren鈥檛 a rigid formula but a framework whose pieces each have a meaning and a purpose. And sometimes, the framework can be tweaked to enhance that meaning.

It鈥檚 a reminder that runs through classes at Kegonsa. In one 2nd grade classroom last month, a teacher showed an exemplar paragraph with five pieces of evidence. You need at least two, she told the students, but it鈥檚 also OK to have more. Sometimes, it helps to paint a better picture for the reader.

At heart, the structures are just teaching tools, said Leddy.

鈥淚f they鈥檙e used correctly, you鈥檙e using them to teach basic concepts of writing that they can flex easily,鈥� she said. 鈥淚f my students can鈥檛 do that by the end of the year, then I鈥檝e failed. My instruction has failed.鈥�