Category: Literacy

For a long time, I thought “foundational literacy” belonged mostly to the primary grades, somewhere between tiny chairs, sound walls, and teachers with the patience of saints. The more I have learned, though, the more I have realised that literacy foundations do not vanish once students hit middle school. If anything, the middle years are where those foundations either start holding strong, or start showing cracks.

In my own practice, I have worked closely with Grade 8 and 9 students who are still developing phonics, decoding, spelling, and comprehension skills. That reality has forced me to rethink what a literacy foundation actually is. It is not just sounding out words, and in front of us. It is the full set of knowledge, language, habits, and strategies students need to read, write, understand, think, and learn across subjects (Shanahan, 2020).

Why this page matters

This page is meant to set the stage for the rest of this section of the blog. It introduces the big ideas underneath strong literacy instruction in the middle years, especially the idea that literacy is not one single skill; It is a network of skills, knowledge, and processes that work together. Later posts will dig more deeply into fluency, Scarborough’s Reading Rope, vocabulary, morphology, comprehension, discussion, and writing, but this page is the landing point: the “here’s the bigger picture” post.

What counts as a foundation?

One of the biggest shifts in my thinking has been realising that literacy foundations are much bigger than phonics alone. Phonics absolutely matter, and the evidence for explicit instruction is strong (Shanahan, 2020), but our students also need vocabulary, language comprehension, background knowledge, text structure awareness, inference, and the ability to notice when meaning breaks down to have fluency success (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Oakhill et al., 2015).

That is where this gets especially important for us middle years teachers. A student may read aloud smoothly and still have no idea what the text actually means. They may decode the words just fine but miss the pronoun reference, the connective, the cause-and-effect structure, or the bigger point entirely. In other words, reading the words is not the same thing as understanding the text. That distinction matters a lot, and it is one I will keep coming back to throughout this blog.

Reading is active, not automatic

One of the most useful ideas for me has come from Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading. Their work highlights that reading is not just about having skills, it is about actively using them. Readers rely on bridging processes, like inference and background knowledge, and on self-regulation, like noticing confusion, rereading, and choosing strategies when meaning slips away (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

That matters because many struggling readers are not simply “bad at reading.” Sometimes they can decode but do not know how to actively make meaning. Sometimes they do not notice confusion, and sometimes they notice it but do not know what to do next. When we understand reading as an active process, comprehension instruction stops looking optional and starts looking essential.

What teachers can do right now

For new teachers (like me), I think that it can actually be reassuring that foundational literacy instruction does not begin with having all the answers; it begins with making the reading process visible to students.  You do not need to fix every literacy gap by next Thursday. A strong place to start is by making reading visible. Think aloud. Pause during a text and say, “This part is confusing, so I’m going to reread,” or “This word helps me predict what is coming next.” Show students that skilled reading is not magic. It is active, strategic, and sometimes messy.

For experienced teachers, the challenge is often making the invisible more explicit. It is easy to assume older students already know how to infer, summarize, use context clues, or recognize text structures. Often, they do not. That might mean pre-teaching vocabulary, modelling pronoun resolution, naming signal words, using graphic organizers, or creating discussion routines that let more than the same four confident students do the talking and the thinking (Letchford & Rasinski, 2021; McElhone, 2019; Oakhill et al., 2015).

Literacy strands work together

Another big shift for me has been realising that literacy instruction works best when we stop treating everything like separate boxes. Vocabulary, morphology, fluency, comprehension, discussion, and writing all support one another. Students need to understand words, but they also need to understand how sentences work, how texts are organized, how ideas connect, and what to do when meaning slips away.

Why vocabulary and morphology belong here too

Vocabulary is part of the foundation, not an extra. Students cannot fully access a text if they do not understand the language it is built from. Graves emphasizes that vocabulary growth depends on rich language experiences, direct instruction, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness. Morphology matters too because roots, prefixes, and suffixes help students unlock meaning, especially in academic vocabulary (Apel & Werfel, 2014; Henry, 2019).

In middle years classrooms, that matters across the board. English, science, social studies, and even math all demand language that is more complex, more abstract, and more discipline-specific. If students do not have tools for working with that language, comprehension gets shaky very quickly.

What future posts will unpack

This post is not meant to say everything. It is meant to frame the bigger picture. The posts that follow will unpack those strands more closely: what fluency actually is, why the Reading Rope still matters, how morphology supports comprehension, why discussion belongs in literacy instruction, and why being able to read the words does not always mean a student understands the text.

In other words, this is the foundation post for the foundation posts!

The deeper I get into literacy research, the more I keep circling back to an idea that feels both obvious and strangely easy to overlook: reading and writing belong together.

And yet, in many classrooms, they are still taught as though they are neighbours rather than family. Reading happens in one block. Writing appears in another. Students are expected to quietly make the leap between the two, even though many of them are still trying to figure out one or the other in the first place. The more I read Graham(2020), the more I am convinced that this separation does not serve students particularly well. If reading and writing support one another, then our instruction should reflect that reality much more intentionally.

This matters in intermediate classrooms. By this point, students are not just being asked to decode words or write a tidy paragraph. They are being asked to think. They need to summarise, interpret, explain, question, compare, and argue across subject areas. They need to pull meaning from texts and then do something with that meaning. That kind of literacy learning asks for more than isolated reading tasks or disconnected writing assignments. It asks us to interweave the two.

How can writing enhance reading comprehension?

Writing enhances reading comprehension because it forces students to process what they have read rather than simply pass through it.

There is a big difference between a student who has read the words and a student who has understood the ideas. We have all seen students read aloud with decent fluency and then stare into the middle distance when asked what the passage meant. Writing helps expose that gap. It makes students slow down, sort ideas, connect details, and explain their understanding in a way that spoken responses sometimes do not.

Graham and Hebert (2011) found that writing about reading improves reading comprehension. Their meta-analysis showed positive effects for writing answers to questions, note-taking, summary writing, and extended written responses. Graham (2020) also notes that spending more time writing improves reading achievement and that explicit writing instruction has a positive effect on reading as well.

That feels very believable in practice. If a student writes a summary, they must figure out what matters most. If they take notes, they must sift, condense, and organize information. If they write a response, they must put their understanding into words and often return to the text for evidence. Those are all comprehension moves. Writing is not just what happens after reading; it is one of the ways understanding is built.

I also think writing gives students a chance to interact with a text in a more active and deliberate way. It turns reading into something visible. It asks students not only, “Did you read it?” but also, “What did you make of it?”

What instructional writing practices make better readers?

The research points to several instructional writing practices that help students become better readers.

One of the clearest is writing about text. Graham and Hebert (2011) found that written responses, note-taking, summaries, and extended writing tasks all supported reading comprehension. These practices push students beyond passive reading and into a more thoughtful engagement with ideas.

Another important practice is explicit writing instruction. Graham (2020) argues that teaching students how to write improves reading. That includes instruction in planning, drafting, revising, organizing ideas, constructing sentences, and understanding how texts are shaped. This is a useful reminder that writing instruction is not just about helping students produce cleaner final copies; it is also part of literacy development more broadly.

Sentence-level instruction also matters. Graham (2020) notes that spelling and sentence instruction improved reading fluency and word reading. That is important because it reminds us that sentence work is not some fussy little side quest. It is part of how students learn to control language and understand how meaning is built. If students are stronger with sentence structure in writing, they are often better positioned to process complex sentences in reading too.

Students also benefit from studying texts as writers. Graham (2020) explains that reading and writing rely on shared knowledge systems, including vocabulary, syntax, text structure, and background knowledge. When students study how a text works and then try similar structures in their own writing, they are building literacy knowledge that moves in both directions.

It is also worth noting that not all writing tasks do the same thing. Hebert et al. (2013) found that different writing activities support different reading outcomes. Summary writing may help with identifying main ideas and consolidating understanding, while extended responses may support deeper interpretation and application. That tells me students need range. They need more than one kind of written response if we want them to grow as readers.

How can these practices be improved?

The first way these practices can be improved is by making the reading-writing connection much more explicit.

Too often, reading and writing run alongside each other without truly meeting. Graham (2020) argues that reading instruction has often ignored writing practices that improve reading, while writing instruction has often ignored reading practices that improve writing. That is a bit like insisting students learn to ride a bicycle by only using one pedal. Weird plan. Limited results.

If we want these practices to improve, then reading and writing need to be designed together more often in classroom instruction. After reading a short article, students might write a summary, a reflection, or a short argument. After studying a mentor text, they might imitate its structure. In science or social studies, students might read to gather information and then write to explain, synthesize, or compare what they learned. These are not extras. They are efficient ways to strengthen literacy while also building knowledge.

A second improvement is to provide more explicit support for struggling learners. Graham (2020) notes that more research is needed on students with literacy difficulties and disabilities, but the practical implication is still important. Students who struggle are unlikely to benefit from vague hope and general exposure. They need clearer modelling, more guided practice, and more visible links between reading and writing. Kang et al. (2016) also suggest that integrated reading and writing interventions can support students with learning disabilities.

A third improvement is to give writing more time, space, and importance in the classroom. Graham (2020) points out that students often do not spend enough time writing or being taught how to write. That likely weakens the positive effects writing could have on reading. If writing only appears occasionally, students miss opportunities to deepen comprehension and practise the language structures that support reading.

Finally, teachers can improve these practices by using a variety of writing tasks. Quick writes, summaries, notes, written conversations, explanations, reflections, and longer responses all ask students to think in different ways. If we only ever ask one kind of question or one kind of written response, we flatten the possibilities. Different tasks give students different doors into understanding, and that matters.

Reading and writing are connected and mutually supportive. Engagement and instruction in one results in improvement in the other” – Graham, 2020.

Final Thoughts

The more I sit with this research, the more this feels less like a new instructional trick and more like a necessary correction. Reading and writing are not separate literacy outcomes that happen to share a classroom. They are interconnected processes that strengthen one another when we teach them intentionally.

Writing enhances reading comprehension because it asks students to process, organize, and explain meaning. Instructional writing practices such as note-taking, summary writing, written response, sentence work, and explicit writing instruction help students become better readers. These practices improve when they are intentionally connected to reading, woven across subject areas, and taught with enough time and support to actually matter.

For me, the takeaway is simple. If I want stronger readers, I need to give students meaningful opportunities to write. If I want stronger writers, I need to immerse them in purposeful reading. The two belong together, and our teaching should reflect that.

References

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35-S44.

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179-226.

Hebert, M., Simpson, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26, 111-138.

Kang, E. Y., McKenna, J. W., Arden, S., & Ciullo, S. (2016). Integrated reading and writing interventions for students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 22-33.

*all images sourced from Canva – artist unknown*