Fostering philosophy teachers' disciplinary writing practice: A multiple-case design study



disciplinary literacy, philosophy, writing instruction, instructional design, teacher development


In this design study, we designed an instructional unit open to contextual modifications with the aim of fostering secondary school students' philosophical writing. Three philosophy teachers developed innovative source-based writing tasks and provided discipline-specific writing strategy instruction in their 10th grade class.

In this study, we focused on change. We explored teachers' interaction with the instructional design and studied teachers' views on how the intervention had changed their practice since a change of beliefs is crucial to successful, durable innovation of teaching. Moreover, we studied the effects of the changed practice, by exploring change in students' writing. An external jury analyzed students' texts to determine students' actual learning achievements. Teachers' insights into student progress were obtained from reflective interviews that featured comparisons between the observed and expected results.

The results showed that teachers judged the design to be feasible, valid, and effective for students' philosophical writing development. After the intervention, students' texts showed similar or even more independent philosophical thinking than before, while the tasks became more complex. Implementation drove teachers to contemplate writing instruction, indicating a change in their belief system, which is necessary for genuine improvement in teacher practice.


Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1-36.

Borren, M. (2012). Handleiding filosofische leesvaardigheden [Manual for philosophical reading]. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.

Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby, & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276-314). Cambridge University Press.

Carless, D., & Chan, K. K. H. (2017). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930-941.

Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students' development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100-147.

Concepción, D. W. (2004). Reading philosophy with background knowledge and metacognition. Teaching Philosophy, 27(4), 351-368.

Corcelles-Seuba, M., & Castelló, M. (2015). Learning philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 157-200.

De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174-192.

De La Paz, S., Monte-Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Worland Piantedosi, K. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31-52.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

De Vries, G. (1984). De ontwikkeling van wetenschap. Een inleiding in de wetenschapsfilosofie [The development of science. An introduction to philosophy of science]. Wolters-Noordhoff.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers' self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26(6), 473-488.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing as discovery. Teaching and learning writing. BJEP Monograph Series II, 6. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(6), p. 5-26.

Galbraith, D. & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238-257.

Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89-116.

Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M. A., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C., & Project READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 219-246.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (Series Eds.) & R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing series: Vol. 34. Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp. 13-37). Leiden: Brill.

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.

Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279-304.

Handley, K., & Williams, L. (2011). From copying to learning: Using exemplars to engage students with assessment criteria and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 95-108

Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143-169.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.

Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390.

Koek, A. (2020). Filosofisch lezen [Philosophical reading]. In: D. Berendsen, N. Kienstra, K. Poortier, & F. Rombout (Eds.) Filosofie op school. Handboek vakdidactiek filosofie (pp. 225-235). Amsterdam: Boom.

Marsman, P. (2010). Vakdossier filosofie [Subject file philosophy]. Enschede: Stichting leerplanontwikkeling (SLO).

Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275-302.

McDermott, M., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students' chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 217-246.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research. Second Edition. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 97-107.

Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents' historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3) 273-299.

Monte-Sano, C., De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. (2014). Implementing a disciplinary-literacy curriculum for US history: learning from expert middle school teachers in diverse classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 540-575,

OECD (2018). PISA 2018 Results: Combined executive summaries. Volume I, II & III.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, 309-23.

Polanyi, M. (1973). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.

Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19-52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Rijlaarsdam, G. & Janssen, T. (1996). How do we evaluate the literature curriculum? About a social frame of reference. In E. Marum (Ed.), Children and books in the modern world: Contemporary perspectives on literacy (pp. 75-98). London: The Falmer Press.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2017). Disciplinary literacy: Just the faqs. Educational Leadership, 74(5), 18-22.

Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393-429.

Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743. 10.1037/A0027627

Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2023). Writing process feedback based on keystroke logging and comparison with exemplars: Effects on the quality and process of synthesis texts. Written Communication, 40(1), 90-144.

Van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 360-372.

Van Drie, J., & Stoel, G. (2020). 'Maar wat vind je hier nu goed aan?' Samen redeneringen van leerlingen analyseren als vorm van professionalisering ['What do think is good about it?' Collaborative assessment of students' texts as a way of professionalization].VELON Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders, 41(2), 87-100.

Van Veen, K., Zwart, R., & Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. In: M. Kooy, M., & K. van Veen (Eds.). Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives. Vol. 62, Chapter, 3, pp. 3-22. New York: Routledge.

Velema, F., & Groza, T. (2020). Het schrijven van een filosofisch essay [Writing a philosophical essay]. In: D. Berendsen, N. Kienstra, K. Poortier, & F. Rombout (Eds.) Filosofie op school. Handboek vakdidactiek filosofie (pp. 215-223). Amsterdam: Boom.

Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2011). Science for all: Engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 233-240.

Westbroek, H., Janssen, F., Mathijsen, I., & Doyle, W. (2020). Teachers as researchers and the issue of practicality. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-17.

Yin, R. K., (1994). Case study research design and methods: Applied social research and methods series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.



How to Cite

Holdinga, L., van Drie, J., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2024). Fostering philosophy teachers’ disciplinary writing practice: A multiple-case design study. Journal of Writing Research. Retrieved from




Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>