Writing Instruction in Flanders: What's the Current State and How to Improve It?

• In Event: Research on Writing Instruction Around the World

Abstract

Objectives and theoretical framework

Writing education is found accountable for high-quality writing instruction so students can develop effective writing skills to participate and engage in today’s society. However, very little is known about the current practice of writing instruction. Prior research in the U.S. showed that students do not spend a lot of time on writing at school (i.e., 20-30 min on writing each day) (Cutler & Graham, 2008). In Flanders (Belgium), however, there are neither Flemish assessments nor teacher surveys to provide insights into the current state of writing instruction. Therefore, the first aim of this paper is to study how writing is taught in daily instructional practice (cf., study 1). Second, we investigate how writing education in Flanders can be optimized (cf., study 2). The present study focusses in particular on the distinct and combined effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction (e.g., Limpo & Alves, 2013) and peer-assisted writing (e.g., Yarrow & Topping, 2001).

Method
Study 1 – Cross-sectional survey study. 128 late-elementary teachers completed teacher questionnaires on the amount of time spent on writing (i.e., min/week) and their classroom writing practices (i.e., 5-point Likert-scale) (Cutler & Graham, 2008).

Study 2 – Experimental intervention study with pretest-posttest design. 11 teachers and their 206 fifth and sixth-grade students were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental (i.e., EI+IND: explicit instruction + individual writing, EI+PA: explicit instruction + writing with peer assistance, IND: matched individual practice comparison condition, and PA: matched peer-assisted practice comparison condition) or the business as usual condition (BAU). To assess students’ writing performance, a writing test (developed and tested in a prior large-scale study, Authors, 2016) was administered. Treatment fidelity was checked by means of classroom observations, teacher logbooks and students’ writing portfolios.

Results
Descriptive results showed that upper elementary school teachers spent only about 65 min each week on writing while primarily focusing on explicit instruction of writing skills (e.g., handwriting) (M = 4.16, SD = 0.35) and to a lesser extent on teaching writing strategies (e.g., planning) (M = 3.88, SD = 0.32).

Multilevel analyses showed that EI+IND, EI+PA, and PA students outperformed BAU students. As to the distinct impact of explicit instruction, EI+IND students outperformed IND students at posttest. As to the effect of peer-assisted writing, no significant differences were found between individual writing (EI+IND and IND) and peer-assisted conditions (EI+PA and PA respectively).

Conclusions and scientific significance
First, this study adds to the literature by providing insights on how writing is taught in Flanders. Second, the study provides teachers and schools with the following evidence-based guidelines: (1) students do not learn to write automatically; they need explicit instruction and guidance and (2) supportive writing environments in which students can apply what they have learned individually or collaboratively enables them to actively engage in their writing process.

Authors

• Fien De Smedt, Ghent University

• Hilde Van Keer, Ghent University