The claim that writing facilitates students' learning, although widely accepted, has little support from empirical research. A possible explanation for the lack of empirical evidence is that writing-to-learn research has disregarded that students use different writing strategies. The purpose of the present experimental study is to test whether it is effective to adapt writing-to-learn tasks to different writing strategies when teaching literature. A course "Learning to write argumentative texts about literature" was developed in two different versions: one adapted to a planning writing strategy, the other to a revising writing strategy. Participants were 113 tenth-grade high school students in the Netherlands. Our hypothesis is an adaptation hypothesis: we expect that the more a student will use a planning writing strategy, the more the student will profit from the lessons in the planning condition, and that the more a student uses a revising writing strategy, the more beneficial the revising condition will be. However, results show that for improving literary interpretation skill, a course adapted to the planning writing strategy is more effective for almost all students.This paper benefited substantially from the constructive suggestions kindly offered by Martine Braaksma, Michel Couzijn, and Tanja Janssen (our colleagues at the Graduate School of Teaching and Learning), and from the very helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers.

No abstract

Adapting writing instruction to students' level of writing strategy, is an effective approach for learning to write.

No abstract

No abstract