This review examines which types of instruction in writing‐to‐learn lead to effects on insight and topic knowledge in different disciplines, in grades 5–12 and in higher education. Forty‐three empirical studies have been selected to answer this question. Four types of instruction are distinguished. Three of them are based on hypotheses proposed by Klein (1999) about the cognitive processes involved in writing‐to‐learn: Forward Search, Genre Writing and Backward Search. The fourth type, Planning Only, arises from the literature reviewed. Results of the studies show that about two thirds of the (quasi) experimental studies lead to positive effects on insight and topic knowledge for the four types of instruction. However, given the small number of experimental studies conducted, no firm conclusions can be drawn for three types of instruction. For the remaining type of instruction, Genre Writing, a larger number of studies provide positive evidence. Suggestions for future research are discussed. Context and implications: Rationale for this study: It is known that instruction is needed for promoting learning by writing. The question is which specific types of instruction can be used for inciting the writing‐to‐learn process. Why the new findings matter: The finding that the four types of instruction, especially Genre Writing, may promote learning, can serve as a reference for judging or formulating instruction. Implications for educational researchers and policy makers: The outcome may be interesting for education, because it entails that one from four types of instruction, that is, Genre Writing, shows the largest positive effects. Subject teachers often are hesitant to use writing‐to‐learn in their teaching practice, therefore the findings may provide clearness about how to instruct it. They can use Genre Writing instruction for composing writing tasks and select the preferred content of this instruction. The authors indicate mechanisms underlying the process of writing‐to‐learn that may be stimulated by instruction. For researchers it can be interesting to study these mechanisms, for instance in think‐aloud studies.

This study investigates the effects of instruction in genre writing with planning and revising activities (GWPR) on learning. This type of instruction appeared to be successful in promoting learning in several types of education. However, there are few studies on the effects on low achievers. Therefore, two studies were conducted with low-achieving students, each comprising a quasi-experimental study and a small-scale think-aloud study, both of which were embedded in regular education for low-achieving adolescents. The first study took place in biology classes (grade 7, three lessons); the second study was in mathematics classes (grade 10, six lessons). The researchers co-created writing-to-learn tasks with the teachers. The results showed positive effects on learning in mathematics classes as compared with the control group, but not in biology classes. The think-aloud study in the experimental mathematics class condition provided evidence of the learning by writing process. In the experimental biology class condition, such evidence was barely present. The results suggest that the experimental intervention in biology classes was too short for the students to grasp the essentials of learning by writing. This paper also discusses suggestions for further research and pedagogical implications.

In the present study, effects of Genre Writing instruction added with planning and revising activities (GWPR) are investigated in teacher education. This type of instruction was considered promising because it appeared to lead to positive effects on topic knowledge and insight in previous studies conducted in secondary education. Researchers’ expectation was that writing-to-learn activities by means of GWPR support teacher candidates in acquiring topic knowledge and insight into subject matter. Two studies were undertaken, one in biology and one in mathematics teacher education, each comprising a quasi-experiment and a think-aloud study. Both studies were embedded in regular courses. Researchers co-created writing-to-learn tasks with the teacher educators involved. Both experiments showed positive effects on learning. Results of the think-aloud studies provided evidence for specific indicators (students’ reflections) of the process of writing-to-learn, in which experimental teacher candidates differed from the control group. Finally, we discuss the impact of the results for the theory, follow-up studies and teaching practice.