Reading and Writing

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 555–576 | Cite as

Writing in the content areas: a Norwegian case study

  • Frøydis HertzbergEmail author
  • Astrid Roe


Since 2006, literacy skills have been mandated as an integral part of all subject areas at all levels (grades 1–13) in Norwegian schools. With the exception of reading, evaluation reports show that teaching in general seems to be little affected by this reform. During the last few years, however, there has been a noticeable growth in interest in writing in the content areas. The article presents quantitative and qualitative data from a network of secondary schools that have established cross-curricular school-based writing projects. Teachers in these schools meet regularly, sharing experiences about students’ writing and ways of organizing writing sessions. While they had to deal with differences in subject-specific text norms, they discovered similarities across subject areas they could work collectively on. A major effect for the participants was the development of a broader instruction repertoire and more goal-related use of scaffolding strategies in the classroom, most of which was in accordance with a process approach to writing. We discuss these data in the light of similar studies in Norway and abroad, and we highlight some reflections about implications for practice.


Writing in the content areas Cross-curricular cooperation Teacher learning communities 


  1. Aasen, P., Møller, J., Rye, E., Ottesen, E., Prøitz, T., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform—et løft eller et løfte? [The Knowledge Promotion as a Steering Reform—A Lift or a Promise?] Report 20. Oslo: NIFU/Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleforskning, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  2. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. (2006). The State of Writing Instruction in America’s Schools: What Existing Data Tell Us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning & Achievement, University of Albany. Accessed 25 April 2015.
  3. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman, D. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference Guide to Writing Across the Curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: The WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  7. Britton, J. (1978). The Composing Process and the Functions of Writing. Research on Composing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  8. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities 11–18. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Britton, J., Martin, N., & Rosen, H. (1966). Multiple Marking of Compositions. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  10. CCSE. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Accessed 30 October 2015.
  11. CEFR Common European Framework for reference for languages. (2015). Accessed 27 April 2015.
  12. Childers, P. B., & Lowry, M. L. (2012). Introduction to Writing Across the Curriculum in secondary schools. Special issue of Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, December 8. Accessed 27 April 2015.
  13. Christie, F., & Simpson, S. (Eds.). (2010). Literacy and Social Responsibility: Multiple Perspectives. London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, M., & Gimbel, P. (2012). Conversations among teachers on student writing: WAC/Secondary education partnerships at BSU [Special issue on Writing Across the Secondary School Curriculum]. Across the Disciplines. Accessed 30 October 2015.
  15. Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 153–177.Google Scholar
  16. Deane, M., & O’Neill, P. (2011). Writing in the Disciplines. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. DeSeCo. (2005). Definition and Selection of Competencies. Executive summary. Accessed 27 April 2015.
  18. Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13(39), 385–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., Krogh, E., & Brorsson, B. N. (in press). Writing in the content areas—A Scandinavian perspective combining macro, meso and micro levels. In S. Plane, C. Bazerman, & C. Donahue (Eds.), Recherches en écriture: regards pluriels [Title of online book will be Writing Research From Multiple Perspectives]. Lorraine, France: Fabienne Rondelli Collection, Recherches Textuelles Publisher, Centre de Recherche sur les médiations, Université de Lorraine.Google Scholar
  20. Elmore, R. F. (2006). School Reform From the Inside Out. Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  21. Flyum, K. H. (2011). Forberedende øvelser i skisseskriving, kildebruk og drøfting—en verktøymakers verktøy til fagskriving [Preparation exercises in drafting, use of sources and argumentation—A tool maker’s tool for content writing]. In K. H. Flyum, & F. Hertzberg (Eds.), Skriv i alle fag! Argumentasjon og kildebruk i videregående skole (pp. 33–76). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  22. Flyum, K. H., & Hertzberg, F. (Eds.). (2011). Skriv i alle fag! Argumentasjon og kildebruk i videregående skole [Write in all Subjects! Argumentation and Use of Sources in Upper Secondary School]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  23. Framework for Basic Skills. (2013). The Norwegian Directorate for Education. Accessed 27 April 2015.
  24. Friedrich, L., Swain, S., LeMahieu, P., Fessehaie, S., & Mieles, T. (2008). Making a difference: The National Writing Project’s inculcation of leadership over 30 years. Paper presented to the American Educational Association Annual Meeting, April 9–13, 2007, Revised 2008. Accessed 29 March 2015.
  25. Fulwiler, T. (1987). Teaching with Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  26. Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers use of writing to support students’ learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1043–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (2012). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S., & Voolworth, S. (2001). Towards a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science. Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helstad, K., & Lund, A. (2012). Teachers’ talk on students’ writing: Negotiating students’ texts in interdisciplinary teacher teams. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helstad, K., & Møller, J. (2013). Leadership as relational work: Risks and opportunities. Journal of Leadership in Education, 16, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Klein, P. D., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klette, K. (2002). Reform policy and teacher professionalism in four Nordic countries. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3/4), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knain, E. (2015). Scientific Literacy for Participation. A Systemic Functional Approach to Analysis of School Science Discourses. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. KP. (2006). Kunnskapsløftet [The Knowledge Promotion].The Norwegian Directorate for Education (revised in 2013). Accessed 27 April 2015.
  41. Lieberman, A. (2002). From network learning to classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3/4), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project. Connecting Network Learning and Classroom Teaching. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  43. Lillge, D. (2012). Illuminating possibilities: Secondary Writing Across the Curriculum as a resource for navigating Common Core State Standards. Special issue of Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, December 8. Accessed 27 April 2015.
  44. Little, J. W. (2001). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analyses in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin, J. R., Christie, F., & Rothery, J. (1987). Social processes in education. A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Read (Ed.), The Place of Genre in Learning. Current Debates, Typereader Publications No. 1, (pp. 58–82). Centre for Studies in Literary Education, Deakin University, UNSW Press.Google Scholar
  46. Matre, S., & Solheim, R. (2015). Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 15, Special Issue on Scandinavian L1 research. Accessed 30 October 2015.
  47. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 235–247). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  49. Øgreid, A. K., & Hertzberg, F. (2009). Argumentation in and across disciplines: Two Norwegian cases. Argumentation, 23, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olsen, S. K. (2015). The Use of Process Oriented Methods in Several Subjects. A Qualitative Study of Teachers’ Writing instruction. Master thesis, Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  51. Peercy, M. M, Martin-Beltrán, M., Silverman, R., & Daniels, S. (2015). Curricular design and implementation as a site of teacher expertise and learning. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2014.995486. Accessed 27 April 2015.
  52. Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction—Examining its effectiveness. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 275–290). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  53. Roe, A., & Helstad, K. (2014). Den andre skriveopplæringen i Norge—om prosesskriving og skriving i og på tvers av fag [The second writing instruction in Norway—Of process writing in and across subjects]. In R. Hvistendahl & A. Roe (Eds.), Alle tiders norskdidaktiker (pp. 171–194). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  54. Rose, D. (2008). Writing as linguistic mastery: The development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 151–166). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to Write/Reading to Learn Genre. Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Smidt, J. (Ed.). (2010). Skriving i alle fag—innsyn og utspill [Writing in all Subjects—Insights and Views]. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  57. Swales, J. (1998). Other Floors. Other Voices. A Textography of a Small University Building. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia. A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Young, A., & Fulwiler, T. (1986). Writing Across The Disciplines: Research into Practice. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations