Examining intentional writing decisions of eighth-grade students reading like writers Free

To improve as writers, students need instruction and frequent opportunities to write in school in a variety of genres for various audiences and purposes (Applebee & Langer, 2009, 2011; College Entrance Examination Board, 2003; Graves, 1983). Such opportunities require writers to make intentional writing decisions. Students must learn to “make choices, to self-assess, and to reflect on the wisdom of those choices they make” (NCTE, 2018). The more students write, the more comfortable and fluent they become with their writing skills, increasing the overall quality of their writing (Graham, 2018; Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2015).

Students generally do little writing in school. The lack of writing includes a lack of time spent writing, as well as a lack of robust opportunities for writing (Brindle, Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2016). When students do write, it is most often short (one paragraph or less), superficial or formulaic (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Hillocks, 2002). Writing in school relies heavily on fill in the blank, direct copying of notes or short-answer responses where the teacher has actually done most of the composing. These activities tend to require writing without the necessary thought processes and knowledge that encourage composing as a way of thinking and communicating. Additionally, the emphasis on the types of writing required for high-stakes standardized tests drives much of the writing and instruction in classrooms, resulting in a repetitive and formulaic approach (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Hillocks, 2002), which prevents exposure to authentic writing experiences and the kinds of thinking and knowledge about writing as a whole that students are likely to encounter in their lives.

While there is no one right way to teach writing, much has been learned about effective writing instruction (Graham, 2018; Graham & Harris, 2019; Graham et al., 2018; Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks, 1984, 1987; Langer, 2001). The Writing Next report (Graham & Perin, 2007), a meta-analysis of more than 130 studies examining the effects of specific types of writing instruction on adolescent writing proficiency, identified and recommended 11 elements effective for teaching adolescent writers. Two of the recommendations, the use of inquiry and the study of models, are integral components of RLW. In addition, several other recommendations align with and/or are supported by RLW, including a process writing approach in a workshop environment, providing time and activities for prewriting, teaching strategy instruction at all phases of the writing process, setting specific product goals and encouraging collaboration among student writers. These recommendations for adolescent writing instruction are intended to work flexibly together within the larger writing curriculum to help students learn to write well.

Authenticity is an important component of writing instruction. Students need experiences composing real-world writing, using processes that mirror the ways professional writers develop their craft (e.g., Fearn, 1989; Hansen, 2001; King, 2010). Classic and contemporary authors alike emphasize the importance of reading, not only for enjoyment but also to learn and hone writing skills. Zinsser (2016) asserted, “If anyone asked me how I learned to write, I'd say I learned by reading the men and women who were doing the kind of writing I wanted to do and trying to figure out how they did it” (p. 34). Ray (2006a) described RLW as teaching at two different levels: on one level, there is instruction about the particular genre or writing topic being studied, but on a second level, we are teaching students to use a habit of mind experienced writers use all the time. Professional writers are often able to attend to content and craft at the same time because they are trained to notice their craft and have developed an RLW habit of mind.

Like professional writers reading to improve their craft, continuously referring back to the work of writers in mentor texts shows students the value in authentic texts, providing them with a “life skill” rather than merely a “school skill” (Marchetti & O'Dell, 2021). Exposure to mentor texts and practice writing in a variety of genres and purposes helps students to produce writing like the kinds they see out of school, helping them to move away from formulaic writing to make independent decisions. Deep analysis of texts pushes students beyond simply noticing elements of structure and craft to thoughtful examinations of writers' decisions, leading to greater transfer and retention of learning (Coppola, 2020).

RLW is an instructional practice where students study mentor texts to learn about writing and intentionally apply what they have learned into their writing. RLW fosters connections between reading and writing, which research widely acknowledges as mutually beneficial (e.g., Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Graham & Hebert, 2011; Graves, 1978; Murray, 1993). Through RLW, students learn how quality writing looks and sounds so that they might incorporate what they have noticed in their own writing.

When reading a text for the first time, the reader is generally focused on understanding the content; it is upon rereading a text that the reader's concentration shifts to the writing (Kittle, 2013; Ray, 1999). Readerly noticings generally focus on understanding of the characters, settings and plot, while writerly noticings look at the decisions made by the author. Reading for comprehension and RLW often overlap and complement one another. Increased awareness of how texts are composed raises a writer's awareness of the possibilities within their own work. Helping writers understand that the writing process is a series of choices and how to recognize these choices offers opportunities to make independent decisions about what techniques to use themselves (Bunn, 2011). Over time, as students become adept at this way of reading, they begin to develop an RLW habit of mind, noticing more and more aspects of writing automatically during their initial reading (Ray, 1999).

The term “reading like a writer” was coined by psycholinguist Smith (1983), who credited RLW as a critical component for children to learn to write and develop their identities as writers. Smith argued children read like writers inherently through immersion and engagement with texts, naturally and subconsciously picking up writing skills such as vocabulary, spelling, general conventions and style.

In contrast to RLW as a natural occurrence, scholars and educators have built upon RLW to examine its use with intentional instruction through a variety of studies (Bunn, 2011; De Piero, 2019; Dollins, 2020; Fletcher, 2017; Griffith, 2010; Ray, 1999). Instruction must be intentional if students are expected to transfer their learning from reading into their writing across various genres and purposes (Stern et al., 2021). For instance, Griffith's (2010) case study of a fourth-grade classroom examined the role of the teacher using a gradual release of responsibility model to teach students to read like writers.

Few studies center on teaching students how to read like writers as the main focus. Most commonly, studies relating to RLW examine the use of mentor texts to investigate how elementary students’ writing is influenced by what they read, with most focusing on writing quality or the use of specific kinds of texts (Barrs, 2000; Corden, 2007; Dressel, 1990; Eichele, 2022; Eckhoff, 1984; Manak, 2009). Eichele's (2022) study, which included explicit RLW instruction using picture books as mentor texts, found that fourth-grade students' word choice improved in writing samples.

Studies of intentional RLW instruction raised students’ awareness of and ability to notice quality writing (Griffith, 2010; Ray, 1999). Additional studies showed positive effects on writing quality when teachers drew attention to the craft and structure of mentor texts and choices made by authors (Barrs, 2000; Corden, 2007; Lanza, 2009). Ray (1999) has done much to further the study of RLW to grow learners' knowledge of writing craft as they “gather ideas from text to text to text about what the possibilities are for writing” (p. 13). She refers to RLW as “organized inquiry,” consisting of five steps: (1) notice something about the writing of the text, (2) talk about it, (3) name the craft, (4) think of other texts where you may have seen this craft and (5) envision using this craft in your writing.

This study is informed by sociocultural theory situated within the constructivist research paradigm, where knowledge and reality are socially constructed from interactions between individuals and their environments (Gin & Hearn, 2019). Sociocultural theory emphasizes cooperative dialogues between novices and experts, similar to apprenticeship models, common in the RLW literature (Bunn, 2011; De Piero, 2019; Griffith, 2010; Ray, 1999; Smith, 1983). In such models, as well as in this study, students are novices learning from expert craftspersons – authors of the mentor texts. The teacher takes on the role of guide and/or co-collaborator in the learning.

RLW supports the two levels of learning and development described by Vygotsky (1978), where abilities emerge twice: first on the social level as learning develops through interaction with others in a collaborative environment, before moving to the individual level where students begin to internalize knowledge. RLW, as implemented in this study, offers students regular opportunities to read, write and share their knowledge and learning to develop on both of these levels. Interaction between the community of learners and mentor texts, along with practice, results in knowledge that is socially mediated and then individually constructed. The discussion surrounding the study of mentor texts allows for this social construction of knowledge. The study of writing through mentor texts serves as a tool that helps move learning from the social level to the individual level, resulting in internalization and, over time, a habit of mind.

The ultimate goal of qualitative inquiry is to understand the experiences of a study's participants (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Grenier, 2019) and the meanings attached to these experiences (Onwuegbuzie & Mallette, 2011). This study implemented a basic interpretive qualitative design. Since this study set out to investigate the decision-making of middle school students as they read like writers by examining the ways in which their learning was intentionally incorporated into their writing, a basic interpretive design was the appropriate research design to obtain a thorough description of the students’ lived experiences. The design allowed the author, as the researcher, to interpret the data collected through inductive analysis to identify recurring patterns and common themes across the data and to communicate them through thick description (Merriam, 2002).

Cochran-Smith and Lytle's (2009) concept of “inquiry as stance” places practitioners at the center of transforming teaching and learning. In qualitative research, the researcher is viewed as the primary research instrument, tasked with interpreting and making meaning of the experiences and understandings of the participants (Merriam, 2002). Within the basic interpretive design of this study, the author adopted the dual roles of researcher and teacher in a practitioner inquiry approach. Positioned as a researcher, this allowed for the attention of the study to focus on the experiences and thinking of the student participants. As a teacher, this attention heightened the author's awareness of the students' experiences and their needs as learners, while also allowing the author to learn with and from the students. These dual roles enabled participation in the inquiry process as an insider (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), which offers a unique perspective differing from much educational research where the practitioner is the focus of study by an outsider.

The study took place over approximately four months in the suburban Ohio school district where the author had been teaching for 17 years. The district campus consists of two neighboring buildings, a PK-8 building and a high school (Grades 9–12). The middle school, which has a population of approximately 400 students in Grades 5–8, is housed within the PK-8 building. Each grade level has approximately 100 students. Similar to the district's overall demographics, the middle school student body is primarily Caucasian (92.2%) with an economically disadvantaged population of 31.2%.

Participants were 19 eighth-grade students in the author's advanced English Language Arts (ELA) class. Students were placed in the class as a result of gifted learner identification (n = 11) or a history of high achievement in past ELA courses (n = 8). The class consisted of 9 males and 10 females; 95% were Caucasian and 5% Asian. All students in the class were invited via informed consent and agreed to participate in the study. Prior to the study, IRB approval was obtained from the research institution, along with approval from district administrators, parents and the students.

The instructional design implemented a unit of study framework, capitalizing on the reciprocity of reading and writing through an inquiry stance (Ray, 2006b). The framework organizes curriculum around units of study, most commonly a genre or writing topic. Each unit centers around the study of mentor texts through RLW to learn about and compose a piece of writing within the genre/topic through a predictable five-phase structure: gathering texts, setting the stage, immersion, close study and writing under the influence.

First, the teacher gathers an array of mentor texts to support the unit. Next, the teacher sets the stage by making the purpose of the unit clear and introducing students to the type of writing they will be expected to compose. Then the class is immersed in reading this type of writing. Along the way, mentor texts support learning, as students work together and independently, RLWs notice and discover how the writing looks and sounds. As they become familiar with the genre, the class works together to create a class chart called the Musts (qualities expected of the genre) and Mights List (decisions the author may choose to include in the genre). Once students have been immersed in the mentor texts, they dig deeper into a close study of several mentor texts to further examine writing craft and structure, preparing for their own writing in the final stage of the study, writing under the influence, where they refer back to mentor texts during their own composing processes. It is important to note that the unit of study approach, as implemented in this study, is different from Calkins's (2003) Units of Study series, which is a curriculum model focusing on the teaching of reading. The unit of study framework is not a prescriptive program or curriculum.

This study included 2 units in the genres of reviews and memoirs spanning approximately 12 weeks. The review unit spanned five weeks and the memoir seven weeks.  Appendix 1 lists the mentor texts studied for each unit. Mentor texts were chosen by the author as models of each genre and/or writing strategies to be studied. Students chose their own writing topics in both units. Prior to these units and the start of the study, students had completed a process unit of study where they were introduced to RLW. This put the participants in a position of understanding how to read like writers, so that this study could focus more on their application of RLW than initially learning how to read and write in this way. Table 1 provides an overview of each unit of study phase as explained by Ray (2006b), alongside a summary of the units within this study.

Data collected for this study included a finished and annotated piece of writing and written reflection per student per unit, for a total of 38 annotated writing pieces and 38 reflections. To illustrate thinking and use of RLW in their finished pieces and throughout the units, students annotated using the Google Docs comment feature, marking and explaining examples where they incorporated learning and noticings from RLW. At the end of each unit, students also completed reflections made up of two main parts to provide evidence of students' intentional use of RLW in their writing (See  Appendix 2). Students began with a mentor text–self-assessment, a visual checklist to help them reflect on their use of RLW with each mentor text. The self-assessment was set up as a table on a Google Doc listing each mentor text read as a class, with columns for students to mark whether each text helped them a lot, a little or not at all. This assessment was adapted from Marchetti and O'Dell (2021). One additional column allowed them to briefly describe how they used each of the texts they identified as helpful. Following the list of mentor texts, on the same Google Doc, students responded to questions related to their finished piece and their use of RLW. The specific questions varied slightly between units but focused on the following topics: use of RLW throughout the writing process, opinions of the finished piece, and learning and writing growth in the unit.

Each source of data was analyzed individually as well as across and in relation to the other data sources. Data analysis procedures were guided by constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which includes comparing data sources at all phases of collection and comparing data with existing findings as they emerge. The data were read multiple times upon collection and at various stages throughout the study. All data were analyzed and coded inductively to determine categories and patterns. Coding involved careful reading and rereading of each data source to determine categories through open coding, followed by axial coding to combine and group the open codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). With each source of data collected, coding required initial categories and multiple readings with revised codes and categories until the point of data saturation. Upon completion of data collection and coding, the research question guided the organization of the categories to develop themes and conceptualize potential findings and implications of the study.

Students reported a variety of intentional writing decisions, including multiple decisions per student, ranging from 5 to 33 across units. The quantities in these findings represent only those reported by the students through their annotations and/or reflections. Decisions were coded and categorized to describe the various types of decisions students made, in order of their frequency: (1) craft moves, (2) ideas, (3) structure, (4) revision and/or editing and (5) problem-solving. Table 2 illustrates the frequency of each decision type by individual students (pseudonyms used) with total frequencies within and across units at the bottom. Students reported a total of 387 decisions, with idea and craft move decisions most common.

Craft moves are choices made by authors about style, language use, word choice, conventions and literary devices. Craft moves were the most prominent decision type across units, reported by all 19 students and with the highest frequency (n = 188). Students made significantly more craft moves in the memoir unit (18 students, n = 123) than in the review unit (16 students, n = 65). Most students reported multiple craft moves, with up to 18 by a single student.

Students incorporated a variety of moves tying back to the genres' Must and Might lists and lessons from the units during this study, as well as lessons prior to the start of the study. Students used many of the same moves across units; however, some had not yet been learned in the review unit that were later learned during the memoir unit. The majority of students’ craft decisions from RLW were learned together through instruction and close study of mentor texts (n = 144), though students also noticed and incorporated moves independently as they read like writers, using RLW to make independent decisions beyond moves we learned together in class (15 students, n = 44).

All of the students reported from 1 up to 13 learned craft moves. Across units, students most frequently reported decisions to include creative use of punctuation (n = 34) and imagery (n = 20). Several moves used less frequently were also reported in both units, including intentional use of fragments (n = 11), intentional repetition (n = 8), analogies (n = 4) and strung-together words (n = 5).

Creative use of punctuation was most common across units, accounting for 34 of the moves, with students incorporating one or more of the punctuation types we had studied. Em dashes (n = 13) and colons (n = 11) were learned during reviews and used in both units, while exclamation points (n = 5) and ellipses (n = 5) were learned and used during the memoir unit. Alyssa used em dashes in both of her pieces. In her review, she wrote: “I'm no connoisseur – but I don't think people use Twitter for articles.” In her memoir: “Carlie and Jagger had been in a relationship for about five years – but it was long distance.”

Another popular move across units was imagery (n = 20), stemming from a close study of Wells's (2019) scathing review of the restaurant Peter Luger. Jillian liked how “[Wells] uses imagery in a positive spotlight then changes the tone quick to give a sense of disappointment.” She imitated this move for her own introduction to a review of the Kidz Bop music series:

Other moves were reported in only one of the units. Common in the review unit, students noticed critics frequently used plays on words, especially in the titles and last lines of mentor texts, so puns were added to the unit's Might List. Nearly half of the students (n = 8) incorporated puns into their reviews in similar ways. Two students reported punny titles, such as “Tui T. Sutherland Surely Has a ‘Dangerous Gift’ When It Comes to Writing,” which plays on the book's title, The Dangerous Gift, to describe the author's “dangerous gift” for writing. Several students used puns in their last lines to create what we named a “Mic Drop Ending,” comparing a powerful last line to a performer “dropping the mic” to signify the end of a strong performance. In his review of a restaurant named Top Notch Diner, Stewart ended with the line, “But one thing is for sure. It wasn't quite – Top Notch.”

Students commonly reported the use of three new moves learned during the memoir unit: restate a point (n = 13), dialogue (n = 13) and tone (n = 10). Students noticed how authors of mentor texts revisited the same points multiple times to emphasize ideas or to tie elements of the story together; they named this move “Restate a Point.” For example, Stewart's reflection described how he “restated a point to add emphasis on that point” early in his memoir about mischief. The following excerpt from Stewart's memoir shows his restated point in bold font.

As we studied dialogue in the midst of drafting memoirs, students noticed all but one of the 7 whole-class mentor texts included dialogue, influencing 13 students to do the same. Students were familiar with dialogue; however, in the past, they had not slowed down to study how writers use it in stories. One student explained, “I used dialogue to move along a story. I used RLW to see what strategies they used to make the dialogue sound more natural.” Another annotated her dialogue, showing her intent by explaining how her dialogue “adds to the setting” and the importance of a character, making her “more than just another person” in the story. In addition to decisions to include dialogue, two students described using RLW to study the mechanics of dialogue. One noted using the “grammar” of dialogue to “help form” his own.

Our Memoir Must List included the necessity of a clear tone. One mentor text influencing students' tone was the chapter “God of Cake” from the memoir Hyperbole and a Half (Brosh, 2013), which takes on an exaggerated tone, incorporating the use of images, humor and sarcasm to build drama. Brosh's chapter influenced several students (n = 10), with four mentioning their use of exaggeration and six pointing directly to Brosh's influence on their tone. For instance, Allie explained how Brosh's story helped her exaggerate the impact of a favorite childhood toy breaking. She wrote, “My memories. My hopes and dreams. All gone. Never to be seen again.”

In addition to the moves learned together in class, 15 students noticed and incorporated moves (n = 44) independently from RLWs; these reported decisions stemmed from students' own use of RLW rather than class instruction. In the review unit, “lifting words,” was common (n = 9), as students incorporated specific words they encountered while reading, such as “unsuspectingly,” “flabbergasted” and “flawlessness” to help their own reviews have a more “sophisticated vocabulary.” Other independent decisions in reviews included style choices (n = 3) and imitation of specific lines (n = 2). In the memoir unit, the most common decisions outside the moves we learned together in class related to style and/or voice (n = 5). New to the memoir unit, students (n = 3) noticed authors' change fonts to emphasize words or phrases, such as the use of italics, bold or capitalization. One student noticed the author of her book club memoir used italics to “show that they are important and to add detail and emphasis.” She went on to explain how this helped in her own memoir, recalling, “…this book inspired me to go through my story and italicize some of the important words in my story to add emphasis.”

Cecelia reported use of a “circle back ending.” She reflected, “The Outsiders started and ended with the same sentences, so I decided to do the same.” Though only one student reported this move, it is worth noting because she drew on our class reading of The Outsiders by Hinton (1967, 2016) at the start of the year, before we were regularly RLWs. When we discussed the end of the novel, whose first and last lines are identical, we discussed it as readers, noting the circular ending, which makes it apparent that the main character is actually writing the book as a school assignment. Even though we had not discussed this move in several months and had not studied or tried it out as writers, the student recalled and applied the craft move.

Mentor texts inspired ideas for students' writing in two main ways: ideas for their topics and content to incorporate. Idea decisions were reported in both units, with all 19 students reporting decisions in the review unit and all but one in their memoirs. Students reported 90 decisions in reviews and 35 in memoirs, with a total of 125 across units. Each student made multiple idea decisions, ranging from 2 up to 12.

Across units, 16 students credited RLW for sparking their writing topic ideas in one or both units. For example, Jillian's memoir told the story of a meltdown at her sixth birthday party when she realized the “mermaid” her parents hired was not an actual mermaid. She wrote, “The whole idea of my memoir came from this excerpt from Hyperbole and a Half.” She went on to explain, “I took the author's idea of birthdays and being a spiteful child to think about my own birthdays, where I remembered my mermaid meltdown.”

Content decisions gave students ideas to include specific information in their pieces. The majority of students made content decisions across units, with all 19 reporting decisions for reviews and 15 for memoirs. Students made significantly more content decisions in the review (n = 82) than in the memoir (n = 21). Across units, students reported 102 decisions ranging from 1 to 10 per student.

The majority of content decisions stemmed from the genres' Must and Might lists, accounting for 72% of content decisions in reviews and 86% in memoirs. Students explained their uses of the Must and Might List in various ways; eight acknowledged referencing the list as a guide. For example, one student said the list gave her “a better understanding of what information I needed to include for me to have a good review.” Most provided more detailed responses, pointing to specific items on the lists, with the most common from the review Might List: use of comparisons (n = 13). Students noticed that most mentor texts made comparisons to help readers relate to their topics. Maddie explained in her reflection that she noticed how Wells's (2019) restaurant review compared his experiences during past visits to his most recent. Similarly, she compared an earlier version of a video game to the most recent game in the saga.

Beyond the Must and Might Lists, students also reported decisions from ideas they noticed on their own (review n = 18, memoir n = 3). For their reviews, all but one student included independently noticed ideas, ranging from crediting actors and other important people related to their topics to recommendations and inclusion of outside research. Hannah described how a review by Andrew Lin (2021) of The Diary of a Wimpy Kid series's latest installment included “how many books there were” so she “did something similar” by researching the series and author to include the number of books in the series and information about the author.

Ray (2002) describes structure as “how the actual parts of the text work together” (p. 114). Students reported structure decisions, including their overall organization, specific sections within their piece, or how to move from one idea to the next. Across units, 18 students reported 48 decisions. Structure decisions were consistent across units, with 15 students reporting 23 review decisions and 13 students reporting 25 memoir decisions.

Of the structure decisions, 27% were general decisions referencing structure without specific details. For example, one student wrote of a review mentor text, “I studied its structure and organization of ideas, and found I liked it better than the way other mentor texts were structured, so I closely modeled mine after such.” Most were more explicit about their use of RLW in their decision-making. Several described consulting mentor texts to plan or outline before drafting. Three students provided examples of how they modeled sections of their reviews after the structure of specific mentor texts. In their memoirs, decisions most frequently centered around the overall organization after noticing most memoirs were either ordered chronologically or thematically. Six students reported using chronological order to tell their story. One student explained, “I decided to go with chronological order. We mentioned the order a few times, and I believe that this order makes the story flow better, and it's easier to understand.” Several mentor texts were organized thematically, weaving together multiple memories under a common theme. Three students shared their choices to organize their memoirs in this way.

Several students (n = 7) also picked up on structural noticings independently and incorporated them within specific parts of their story, such as the use of headings, how to “include a prologue” or how to transition from one paragraph to the next.

Some students looked to mentor texts to assist their revision and editing. Revision involves reshaping, adding, cutting and switching sections around; whereas, editing attends to mechanics such as grammar, spelling and punctuation (Fletcher, 2017). Across units, 10 students reported 16 decisions related to revision and/or editing.

Overall, most spoke in generalizations about their revision and editing. For example, one explained, “I was able to read and see clear examples of what I could do to make mine better.” Another student described how mentor texts helped her to edit even after she thought her review was finished. “While annotating my review, I found a few errors that I just quickly finished off and then I went through my mentor texts one more time just to make sure I included everything I can.” In the memoir unit, one student provided more specific insight into how a mentor text helped him revise various aspects of his piece. He reflected, “This [mentor text] showed me how I could add more suspense…And a way to hold the reader's attention. Also showed in detail word choice. How to cut out parts in my lead.”

When students struggled on a particular aspect of composing, they turned to mentor texts. Across the units, approximately one-third of the students (n = 6) reported 10 problem-solving decisions across units.

One student explained using mentor texts when she felt stuck writing her review: “I struggled a little with my introduction and my conclusion, but after I went through other reviews I found it easier.” During a writing conference, Willow mentioned her struggle to come up with a solid conclusion for her memoir. I pointed her back to two memoir mentor texts where the class had praised the endings. She took this advice and wrote in her reflection:

Marchetti and O'Dell (2021) describe independence as the “ultimate goal” of teaching students to study mentor texts. RLW supports students in becoming independent writers. The students in this study illustrated independence in three main ways: by carrying over moves learned in one genre to another, by including decisions from RLW that went beyond what we learned together and by turning to mentor texts for assistance with revision, editing and/or problem-solving.

Transfer of learning is an important step toward the goal of independence. Connecting the thinking and learning from one writing experience to the next helps students to generalize the conventions of one genre into all forms of writing (Gallagher & Kittle, 2018). In their reviews, students incorporated moves they had learned earlier in the school year, prior to the start of this study. Likewise, students continued to implement moves learned before and during the review unit into their memoirs. Such carryover was especially prevalent with craft moves on the students’ memoir pieces. Overall, the number of craft moves students used in their memoirs nearly doubled from those reported in the review unit. Of these, students drew heavily on moves from previous units, with three of the five most common moves carried over. This suggests that the more moves students are exposed to, the larger their toolboxes become, offering them a plethora of knowledge they can apply to their writing even when the genre, purpose or audience changes. Students' continued application of craft moves from one genre to the next suggests that students are both retaining and applying their learning from one context to another. Opportunities for deep analysis of texts, such as those of the students participating in this study, push learning toward thoughtful examinations of writers' decisions, supporting retention of learning and transfer across writing situations (Coppola, 2020; Stern et al., 2021). The students’ intentional decisions to draw on writing moves across genres make their learning visible and provide empirical evidence of their transfer of learning.

Students showed independence through decisions based on ideas or moves they learned on their own while RLWs. These students went beyond the noticing done together in class, to reading and noticing even more on their own, thus showing internalization of the concept of RLW and use to guide their writing decisions. The students' independent learning was most evident in their craft moves and idea decisions, especially in their reviews. While independent craft move decisions made up just under a quarter of the total craft moves reported, the fact that more than three-quarters of students included independent decisions speaks to their ability to read like writers and use it in ways beyond those studied in class.

Students also turned to mentor texts to support their individual writing needs. More than half reported use of mentor texts for problem-solving or to aid revision and/or editing. Even though students made fewer overall decisions of these types, they are important to illustrate the range of use and application of RLW for various purposes. More than half of the students were able to describe how they used mentor texts to assist their revision, suggesting they turned to mentor texts independently to solve issues in their writing. Angelillo (2005) expressed the importance of getting students to revise without dependence on the teacher, which is difficult because many students struggle to revise their writing and have a limited understanding of the complex process of revision (Morgan, Benko, Long, & Hauptman, 2015). Approximately one-third reported use of mentor texts to help solve issues encountered when writing. Rather than asking the teacher for help, students were able to help themselves by referring to mentor texts. In this sense, the mentor texts served as co-collaborators and additional teachers in the classroom. The students’ decisions show they are making progress toward the goal of becoming independent writers, supporting the argument that RLW teaches writers how to study writing (Pytash & Morgan, 2014; Ray, 2006a).

RLW offers a way of approaching writing instruction that has much to offer both students and teachers of writing. The students in this study were able to speak specifically about their decisions at the end of each unit in relation to their learning from RLWs. Students' voices, as important stakeholders in their education, provide a powerful glimpse into their learning about writing that should be taken into consideration when planning for instruction.

Writing instruction offered in schools has been of concern for decades (Graves, 1978), while receiving less attention than reading. Reports continue to show issues in both writing quality and the teaching of writing (e.g., Applebee & Langer, 2011; National Center for Educational National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). If the goal of writing instruction is to guide students toward independence, instruction must shift toward approaches that foster independence. RLW is a generative practice that may help accomplish this shift. Teachers can look to students’ independent use of RLW and writing decisions to assist them in planning instruction designed to move students ever closer toward independence. Teachers interested in shifting their instruction need not do it all at once. Changes can start small, perhaps by incorporating one unit of study into their existing curriculum or even building in the study of mentor texts to an existing unit.

Teaching students to read like writers and to seek out mentor texts hands over some of the responsibility to the students themselves. Marchetti and O'Dell (2021) argue that with “a little experience” mentor texts “multiply instructional power” (p. 9). Knowing how to approach learning ensures students always have a teacher with them, thus reducing reliance on the classroom teacher. As students become more adept, they can turn to RLW to learn about new genres of writing and to solve their own issues, thus making them more independent writers. No matter the genre or purpose, students can glean both inspiration and guidance from mentor texts at all stages of their writing process. RLW empowers students to write more confidently and independently beyond the classroom and on future writing tasks, knowing they can look to mentor texts as guides (Morgan, Clark, Paris, & Kozel, 2012; Pytash & Morgan, 2013; Ray, 2006b).

Other studies relating to RLW focus on writing quality (Barrs, 2000; Lanza, 2009), specific strategy instruction (Eichele, 2022; Premont, Young, Wilcox, Dean, & Morrison, 2017), the role of the teacher (Griffith, 2010), specific instructional methods (Corden, 2007; Dressel, 1990) or RLW as a finding within a study of reading and writing instruction (De Piero, 2019; Manak, 2009). This study expands on the work of previous researchers to examine how students apply this approach to learning about writing, and by highlighting the voices of the students through the intentional writing decisions they identified and described as resulting from RLW. To further this study, more research needs to be done on RLW. For example, how do students take on this practice? What does it look like at different grade levels? What does it look like with students of varying writing abilities? What does it look like in other genres? Rylak, Moses, Torrejón Capurro and Serafini (2022) called for additional long-term research studying students’ retention, learning and usage of crafting techniques over time. Longitudinal studies would help to better understand how students develop a habit of mind, writing growth over time when continuously using mentor texts and to better examine students' long-term use of learning from RLW.

The nature of qualitative inquiry seeks to understand the perspectives of its participants, recognizing the individual representations of the particular individuals or groups being studied (Merriam & Grenier, 2019). It is important to note that the participants were a sample of convenience since they were students in the author's class, which provided easy long-term access on a daily basis.

The small sample of convenience occurred in an advanced course of mainly Caucasian students, who were placed in the course as a result of gifted identification and/or a history of high achievement. All of the students had strong reading skills, which may have impacted the students' engagement with RLW in ways that might vary with struggling students. Further studies with a more diverse range of participants are needed to address these limitations.

Even after students leave middle school, they will need to know how to write. This may be for another class, their jobs or their personal lives. Ultimately, RLW teaches students a way of learning about writing that is not limited to a specific writing task or genre but one that can transfer from one writing experience to another (Stern et al., 2021), empowering students to write confidently no matter the genre or task. Teaching students to read like writers gives them a universal tool they can carry with them well beyond the classroom (Pytash & Morgan, 2014).

By focusing on the experiences of the students themselves, educators and researchers can better understand the ways in which RLW can contribute to teaching and learning about writing and guiding students toward independence as writers. These findings provide empirical evidence that students do incorporate learning from RLW into their writing. They are using what they have learned, and they are using it abundantly.

Whole class

1. “Book Review: The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton” by Hemma

2. “Two Against the World” (a review of Rainbow Rowell's Eleanor and Park) by John Green

3. “Cruella Review: A Disney Villain Gets a Backstory. It's Spotty” by A. Scott

4. “Peter Luger Used to Sizzle. Now It Sputters” by Peter Wells

5. “The Lion King Had the Perfect Villain Song. This Time ‘Be Prepared’ for Less” by Glen Weldon

6. Excerpt from “2021 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Stuns with Surprise Guests, Magical Performances” by Andy Green

7. “Diary of a Wimpy Kid: A Perpetual Nightmare” by Andrew Lin

Student choice

1. Students also chose one mentor text from The New York Times list of past contest winners that they thought would be helpful in composing their own review.

Whole class

1. “The God of Cake” from Hyperbole and a Half by Allie Brosh

2. “Brothers” by Jon Scieszka

3. Marley and Me excerpt by John Grogan (p. 97–102)

4. “Eleven” by Sandra Cisneros

5. “The Great Mouse Plot” from Boy by Roald Dahl (p. 35–37)

6. Cake Boss excerpt by Buddy Valastro (p. 45–47)

7. The Glass Castle excerpt by Jeannette Walls (p. 9–10)

Student choice

1. Book Club Memoirs: Students selected, read, studied and discussed a full-length memoir with a small group of peers.

   • Obsessed: A Memoir of My Life with OCD by Allison Britz (two groups)

   • We Should Hang Out Sometime by Josh Sundquist

   • I Am A SEaL Team Six Warrior: Memoirs of an American Soldier by Howard E. Wasdin and Stephen Templin

   • Navy SEaL Dogs: My Tale of Training Canines for Combat by Mike Ritland

2. Memoir Picture Books: Students chose one to two memoir picture books from our classroom library to read, study and discuss with a partner. Students had a wide variety of choices, including the following that students identified as helpful:

   • Billy's Booger by William Joyce

   • The Number on my Grandfather's Arm by David Adler with photographs by Rose Eichenbaum

   • The Buckeye Block Party by Roy Roychoudhury

   • A Place Where Hurricanes Happen written by Renee Watson and illustrated by Shadra Strickland. Tables A1 and A2 include the mentor text self-assessments used for each unit in the study.

1. For each mentor text listed below, explain how you used it in your writing. As you complete this assessment, refer back to your writer's notebook for each mentor text and the craft glossary.

2. For each mentor text that you used, go back to your final piece and add annotations that show where and how you used it in your writing or to make authorial decisions.

3. There are rows to add additional mentor texts you sought out yourself or in groups.

Reading like a writer

1. How did you use RLW for this piece throughout your writing process?

2. What was helpful? What was not helpful?

3. What writerly decisions in your piece were influenced by reading? Refer back to specific passages you highlighted within your writing that draw from your RLW experiences.

4. What material in your writer's notebook did you refer to aid your writing process? How did you use them? Please refer back to your notebook before responding to this prompt.

5. Did you seek out any mentor texts on your own (in addition to the ones in your notebook from the Mentor Text Weekly Challenge)? If so, please explain.

Take-away/writing growth

1. What did you learn from this writing experience that you will take-away as a writer? This should be something you can use in the future and not specific to this writing task.

2. How are you growing as a writer?

Additional thoughts

1. What else do you want me to know about this piece or your process as I read this piece?

Reading like a writer

1. How did you use RLW for this piece throughout your writing process?

2. What was helpful? What was not helpful?

3. What writerly decisions in your piece were influenced by reading? Refer back to specific passages you highlighted within your writing that draw from your RLW experiences.

4. What material in your writer's notebook did you refer to aid your writing process? How did you use them? Please refer back to your notebook before responding to this prompt.

5. Did you seek out any mentor texts on your own (in addition to the ones in your notebook from the Mentor Text Weekly Challenge)? If so, please explain.

New questions to the memoir unit that were not included in the review unit reflection

1. Before this unit, how familiar were you with the memoir genre? Had you read much in this genre? Had you ever written in this genre before?

2. When we were in the immersion stage of our memoir study (where we read a variety of memoirs), did any of the following happen? Choices:

   • Help you think about possible topics

   • Helped you decided on your specific topic

   • Helped you understand what to expect as a writer of memoirs

   • Give you an idea for: the lead, structure, other

3. What difficulties did you have writing this piece? How did you solve those difficulties? Did RLW help you work through any issues or struggles? If so, how?

Take-away/Writing growth

1. What did you learn from this writing experience that you will take-away as a writer? This should be something you can use in the future and not specific to this writing task.

2. How are you growing as a writer?

Additional thoughts

1. What else do you want me to know about this piece or your process as I read this piece?