Indicator 1i

Indicator 2o Materials include a mix of both on-demand and process writing opportunities

that are appropriately-aligned in purpose, genre, and/or topic to the reading

of that unit.

Narrative Only Criteria (this information will be included in the narrative report but will not affect scoring):

● Materials reflect the distribution indicated by the standards for process writing (6-8 35/35/30, 9-12

40/40/20 persuade/explain/convey experience).

Scoring

2 points

Materials meet ALL of the

requirements of this indicator.

1 point

Materials DO NOT meet ALL of the

requirements of this indicator

0 points

Materials DO NOT meet ANY of

the requirements of this indicator.

● Materials include a mix of grade-appropriate on-demand and process writing.

● Writing opportunities are appropriately aligned to the purpose, genre, and/or topic of the unit’s reading.

About this indicator:

What is the purpose of this Indicator?

The purpose of this indicator is to ensure that materials provide students with varied writing experiences that

complement their reading activities. Materials should include both on-demand and process-writing opportunities

to ensure that students practice different types of writing. On-demand writing develops the ability to quickly

organize and articulate ideas, while process writing emphasizes planning, drafting, revising, and editing. By

engaging in a variety of writing tasks, students are better prepared to meet the diverse demands of academic

and real-world writing, enhancing their versatility as writers. To strengthen the connection between reading and

writing, writing tasks throughout the program should be directly linked in purpose, genre, and/or topic to the

reading of each unit. Aligning writing opportunities with the genre and topic of the reading unit reinforces

comprehension and critical thinking. It enables students to make connections between what they read and what

they write, enhancing their overall understanding of the content. Overall, this indicator emphasizes the

importance of integrating writing practice with reading instruction to create a cohesive and comprehensive

literacy experience that supports student growth as both readers and writers.

Research or Standards connection:

In the Introduction to the Writing Standards (pg. 42), the Common Core State Standards state, “Each year in their

writing, students should demonstrate increasing sophistication in all aspects of language use, from vocabulary

and syntax to the development and organization of ideas, and they should address increasingly demanding

content and sources.”

In “Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools,” Graham

and Perin (2007) present a critical analysis of adolescent writing instruction in the United States, highlighting a

significant crisis in writing proficiency. They argue that while reading instruction has shown progress, adolescent

writing skills have remained stagnant. The report uses meta-analysis to synthesize a large body of research on

writing instruction and identifies 11 key elements that are supported by evidence:

● Writing Strategies: Teaching students specific strategies for planning, revising, and editing.

● Summarization: Explicitly teaching students how to summarize texts.

● Collaborative Writing: Using instructional arrangements where students work together to write.

● Specific Product Goals: Assigning students specific, achievable goals for their writing.

● Word Processing: Using computers and word processors as instructional tools.

● Sentence Combining: Teaching students to construct more complex sentences.

● Prewriting: Engaging students in activities designed to generate or organize ideas for writing.

● Inquiry Activities: Engaging students in analyzing data to develop ideas for writing.

● Process Writing Approach: Interweaving a variety of writing activities in a workshop environment.

● Study of Models: Providing opportunities for students to read, analyze, and emulate good writing.

● Writing for Content Learning: Using writing as a tool for learning content material.

In “Reading and Writing Relationships and Their Development,” Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) examine the

intricate relationship between reading and writing, arguing that while they share a significant amount of

knowledge and rely on similar mental processes, they are not identical and their relationship evolves over time.

The authors discuss four categories of shared knowledge: metaknowledge, domain knowledge, text attributes,

and procedural knowledge. They advocate for an integrated approach to teaching reading and writing,

recognizing that focusing on their shared aspects can be more effective than teaching them separately.

Ultimately, the authors advocate for a more holistic understanding of literacy development, recognizing the

importance of both shared and distinct aspects of reading and writing in fostering successful learners.

In “Reading and Writing Relations Are Not Uniform: They Differ by the Linguistic Grain Size, Developmental

Phase, and Measurement,” Kim, Wolters, and Lee (2024) investigated the complex relationship between reading

and writing, examining how the relationship varies depending on linguistic grain size (word-level vs. text-level),

developmental stage (grade level), and measurement methods. A meta-analysis of 395 studies found that

overall, reading and writing were strongly related (r = .72). However, the strength of the relationship varied

depending on linguistic grain size, developmental phase, measurement, and language. The study emphasizes

the multifaceted nature of reading-writing relations and highlights the importance of considering these factors

when teaching and researching literacy. It suggests that integrating reading and writing instruction can be more

effective than teaching them separately. Additionally, the findings emphasize the importance of using multiple

measures of reading comprehension and written composition to gain a more complete understanding of the

complex relationship between these skills.

Resources:

● CCSS Anchor Writing Standards (p .41)

● CCSS Anchor Reading Standards (p. 35)

● CCSS Anchor Writing Standard 10 (p. 41)

● NAEP Writing Framework (2017)

● Introduction to the Writing Standards (pg. 19)

Indicator 2o Guiding Question:

Do the materials include a mix of both on-demand and process writing opportunities that are appropriately

aligned in purpose, genre, and/or topic to the reading of that unit?

Evidence Collection

Note:

● Writing with the purpose to persuade refers to argumentative writing.

● Writing with the purpose to explain refers to informative writing.

● Writing with the purpose to convey experience refers to narrative writing.

In the Instructional Materials being reviewed:

● Ensure that materials provide a balanced range of grade-appropriate on-demand and process writing

opportunities. On-demand writing might involve quick responses or timed essays, while process writing

should engage students in drafting, revising, and editing over more extended periods.

● Verify that the materials reflect the distribution of writing types as indicated by relevant educational

standards (e.g., 6-8: 35/35/30; 9-12: 40/40/20 persuade, explain, convey experience).

● Assess whether the materials offer sufficient variety in prompts and writing tasks.

● Check that writing opportunities are explicitly connected to the purpose, genre, and topic of the unit’s

reading. For example, if the reading includes persuasive texts, writing opportunities should encourage

students to practice persuasive writing techniques.

● Evaluate whether the materials provide clear prompts or frameworks that help students understand how

to relate their writing to the reading content, encouraging deeper engagement and comprehension.

● Assess whether the writing tasks are appropriately challenging for the grade level and support students’

development of both content knowledge and writing skills.

● Look for opportunities where writing tasks can enhance reading comprehension, such as writing

reflections, responses, or analyses related to the texts being studied.

● Ensure that the materials encourage students to draw connections between their reading and writing,

fostering a deeper understanding of both.

Cluster Meeting

Preparing for the cluster meeting:

● Do the materials provide a balanced range of grade-appropriate on-demand and process writing

opportunities, with on-demand writing involving quick responses or timed essays, and process writing

engaging students in drafting, revising, and editing over extended periods?

● Do the materials reflect the distribution of writing types as indicated by relevant educational standards

(e.g., 6-8: 35/35/30; 9-12: 40/40/20 for persuade, explain, convey experience)?

● Do the materials offer sufficient variety in prompts and writing tasks?

● Are writing opportunities explicitly connected to the purpose, genre, and topic of the unit’s reading? For

example, if the reading includes persuasive texts, do the writing opportunities encourage students to

practice persuasive writing techniques?

● Do the materials provide clear prompts or frameworks that help students understand how to relate their

writing to the reading content, thereby encouraging deeper engagement and comprehension?

● Are the writing tasks appropriately challenging for the grade level and supportive of students’

development of both content knowledge and writing skills?

● Do the materials include opportunities where writing tasks can enhance reading comprehension, such as

writing reflections, responses, or analyses related to the texts being studied?

● Do the materials encourage students to draw connections between their reading and writing, fostering a

deeper understanding of both?

During the cluster meeting:

● Share evidence of the indicator.

● Discuss whether the materials provide a balanced range of grade-appropriate on-demand and process

writing opportunities, with on-demand writing involving quick responses or timed essays, and process

writing engaging students in drafting, revising, and editing over extended periods.

● Discuss whether the materials reflect the distribution of writing types as indicated by relevant educational

standards (e.g., 6-8: 35/35/30; 9-12: 40/40/20 for persuade, explain, convey experience).

● Discuss whether the materials offer sufficient variety in prompts and writing tasks.

● Discuss whether there are writing opportunities explicitly connected to the purpose, genre, and topic of

the unit’s reading. For example, if the reading includes persuasive texts, the writing opportunities should

encourage students to practice persuasive writing techniques.

● Discuss whether the materials provide clear prompts or frameworks that help students understand how

to relate their writing to the reading content, thereby encouraging deeper engagement and

comprehension.

● Discuss whether the writing tasks are appropriately challenging for the grade level and supportive of

students’ development of both content knowledge and writing skills.

● Discuss whether the materials include opportunities where writing tasks can enhance reading

comprehension, such as writing reflections, responses, or analyses related to the texts being studied.

● Discuss whether the materials encourage students to draw connections between their reading and

writing, fostering a deeper understanding of both.

● Look for and discuss whether the indicator was met fully, partially, or did not meet any scoring bullet in

the scoring section.

● Agree on the final rating.

Gateway 2: Comprehension Through Texts,

Questions, and Tasks

Criterion 2.2 Materials include questions, tasks, and assignments that are meaningful,

evidence-based, and support students in making meaning and building

knowledge as they progress toward grade-level mastery of literacy skills.

Materials include clear, explicit instruction guidance for teachers across all

literacy skills.