Too much writing instruction starts in the wrong place. Students are handed a prompt, told to produce a claim, and then expected to somehow generate evidence and reasoning on demand. That approach often leaves them stuck, especially when the question is vague, the claim is weak, or the structure is too formulaic.
A better sequence begins with dialogue before writing. When students talk first, they rehearse ideas, test possibilities, and notice what actually makes sense. That conversation is not extra time. It is the work that makes the writing possible.
Dialogue is upstream of monologue
The central idea is simple: students should have multiple chances to talk before they are asked to produce a written response. A paragraph, response, or essay becomes stronger when students have already explored the idea aloud.
That means building in deliberate conversation before asking students to write. It also means treating talk as part of the thinking process, not as a warm-up that has little connection to the actual task.
Why formulaic writing often falls short
Rigid structures can be useful in some settings, but they can also create false separations. Claim, evidence, and reasoning are often taught as if they are isolated parts that students can assemble like a kit. In real writing, those pieces work together.
When students are forced to treat evidence and reasoning as disconnected steps, they may end up dropping in a quote and stopping there. A more effective approach is to help them see how evidence supports a claim and how reasoning makes that support clear.
Start with claimworthy questions
Not every question deserves a claim. Some prompts are not debatable, and students should not be asked to pretend that they are. Strong instruction starts with questions that actually allow for divergence.
If a question has no meaningful range of answers, then evidence and reasoning become mechanical. But when a question is truly claimworthy, students have room to make different decisions, justify them, and defend them with text-based support.
Use simple dialogue structures to build confidence
Students do not always need elaborate protocols to talk well. Repeated, accessible structures can build a real discourse culture over time.
- Would-you-rather questions can get students into conversation quickly.
- Partner talk gives students a smaller, safer space to justify a choice.
- Small-group discussion helps move students from a personal response to a more academic one.
- Standing and choosing sides can make a claim visible before students explain it.
These structures work because they make thinking public without making it overwhelming. Students can state a position, explain why they chose it, and then connect that reasoning to the academic task.
Make evidence work with the claim, not against it
One useful move is to give students a claim and several possible pieces of evidence, then ask them to sort what fits and what does not. That keeps the focus on coordination rather than perfection.
Students learn to ask whether a piece of evidence actually supports the claim in front of them. They also begin to see that strong reasoning can make even modest evidence more compelling, while weak reasoning can undermine good evidence.
This is a more realistic way to teach argumentation. It respects the fact that evidence and reasoning are interrelated and that students need practice making those connections visible.
Teach with more clarity and fewer slogans
The message for educators is not to abandon structure. It is to use structure more intelligently. Give students clearer questions. Give them time to talk. Help them identify claims and evidence before expecting polished writing. Then ask them to write.
That sequence is more demanding than it sounds, but it is also more humane. It gives students a place to start, a chance to think, and a reason to write with more confidence.
If writing feels stuck in your classroom, the problem may not be the writing task itself. It may be that students were never given enough dialogue to think it through first.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main argument about writing instruction?
Students should talk through ideas before they write, because dialogue helps them test claims and organize evidence and reasoning.
Why is the speaker skeptical of rigid writing formulas?
Because claim, evidence, and reasoning are not really separate parts in strong writing; they work together.
What kind of questions work best for this approach?
Questions that are claimworthy and allow for more than one defensible answer.
What are some simple dialogue structures mentioned?
Would-you-rather questions, partner talk, small-group discussion, and standing to choose sides.
For more context, listen to the original episode of Better Teaching: Only Stuff That Works: The Surprises of Returning to Teaching with Rod Naquin.