similarities between essay writing and comprehension

Comparing and Contrasting

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you first to determine whether a particular assignment is asking for comparison/contrast and then to generate a list of similarities and differences, decide which similarities and differences to focus on, and organize your paper so that it will be clear and effective. It will also explain how you can (and why you should) develop a thesis that goes beyond “Thing A and Thing B are similar in many ways but different in others.”

Introduction

In your career as a student, you’ll encounter many different kinds of writing assignments, each with its own requirements. One of the most common is the comparison/contrast essay, in which you focus on the ways in which certain things or ideas—usually two of them—are similar to (this is the comparison) and/or different from (this is the contrast) one another. By assigning such essays, your instructors are encouraging you to make connections between texts or ideas, engage in critical thinking, and go beyond mere description or summary to generate interesting analysis: when you reflect on similarities and differences, you gain a deeper understanding of the items you are comparing, their relationship to each other, and what is most important about them.

Recognizing comparison/contrast in assignments

Some assignments use words—like compare, contrast, similarities, and differences—that make it easy for you to see that they are asking you to compare and/or contrast. Here are a few hypothetical examples:

• Compare and contrast Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression.
• Compare WWI to WWII, identifying similarities in the causes, development, and outcomes of the wars.
• Contrast Wordsworth and Coleridge; what are the major differences in their poetry?

Notice that some topics ask only for comparison, others only for contrast, and others for both.

But it’s not always so easy to tell whether an assignment is asking you to include comparison/contrast. And in some cases, comparison/contrast is only part of the essay—you begin by comparing and/or contrasting two or more things and then use what you’ve learned to construct an argument or evaluation. Consider these examples, noticing the language that is used to ask for the comparison/contrast and whether the comparison/contrast is only one part of a larger assignment:

• Choose a particular idea or theme, such as romantic love, death, or nature, and consider how it is treated in two Romantic poems.
• How do the different authors we have studied so far define and describe oppression?
• Compare Frye’s and Bartky’s accounts of oppression. What does each imply about women’s collusion in their own oppression? Which is more accurate?
• In the texts we’ve studied, soldiers who served in different wars offer differing accounts of their experiences and feelings both during and after the fighting. What commonalities are there in these accounts? What factors do you think are responsible for their differences?

You may want to check out our handout on understanding assignments for additional tips.

Using comparison/contrast for all kinds of writing projects

Sometimes you may want to use comparison/contrast techniques in your own pre-writing work to get ideas that you can later use for an argument, even if comparison/contrast isn’t an official requirement for the paper you’re writing. For example, if you wanted to argue that Frye’s account of oppression is better than both de Beauvoir’s and Bartky’s, comparing and contrasting the main arguments of those three authors might help you construct your evaluation—even though the topic may not have asked for comparison/contrast and the lists of similarities and differences you generate may not appear anywhere in the final draft of your paper.

Discovering similarities and differences

Making a Venn diagram or a chart can help you quickly and efficiently compare and contrast two or more things or ideas. To make a Venn diagram, simply draw some overlapping circles, one circle for each item you’re considering. In the central area where they overlap, list the traits the two items have in common. Assign each one of the areas that doesn’t overlap; in those areas, you can list the traits that make the things different. Here’s a very simple example, using two pizza places:

To make a chart, figure out what criteria you want to focus on in comparing the items. Along the left side of the page, list each of the criteria. Across the top, list the names of the items. You should then have a box per item for each criterion; you can fill the boxes in and then survey what you’ve discovered.

Here’s an example, this time using three pizza places:

As you generate points of comparison, consider the purpose and content of the assignment and the focus of the class. What do you think the professor wants you to learn by doing this comparison/contrast? How does it fit with what you have been studying so far and with the other assignments in the course? Are there any clues about what to focus on in the assignment itself?

Here are some general questions about different types of things you might have to compare. These are by no means complete or definitive lists; they’re just here to give you some ideas—you can generate your own questions for these and other types of comparison. You may want to begin by using the questions reporters traditionally ask: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? If you’re talking about objects, you might also consider general properties like size, shape, color, sound, weight, taste, texture, smell, number, duration, and location.

Two historical periods or events

• When did they occur—do you know the date(s) and duration? What happened or changed during each? Why are they significant?
• What kinds of work did people do? What kinds of relationships did they have? What did they value?
• What kinds of governments were there? Who were important people involved?
• What caused events in these periods, and what consequences did they have later on?

Two ideas or theories

• What are they about?
• Did they originate at some particular time?
• Who created them? Who uses or defends them?
• What is the central focus, claim, or goal of each? What conclusions do they offer?
• How are they applied to situations/people/things/etc.?
• Which seems more plausible to you, and why? How broad is their scope?
• What kind of evidence is usually offered for them?

Two pieces of writing or art

• What are their titles? What do they describe or depict?
• What is their tone or mood? What is their form?
• Who created them? When were they created? Why do you think they were created as they were? What themes do they address?
• Do you think one is of higher quality or greater merit than the other(s)—and if so, why?
• For writing: what plot, characterization, setting, theme, tone, and type of narration are used?
• Where are they from? How old are they? What is the gender, race, class, etc. of each?
• What, if anything, are they known for? Do they have any relationship to each other?
• What are they like? What did/do they do? What do they believe? Why are they interesting?
• What stands out most about each of them?

Deciding what to focus on

By now you have probably generated a huge list of similarities and differences—congratulations! Next you must decide which of them are interesting, important, and relevant enough to be included in your paper. Ask yourself these questions:

• What’s relevant to the assignment?
• What’s relevant to the course?
• What’s interesting and informative?
• What matters to the argument you are going to make?
• What’s basic or central (and needs to be mentioned even if obvious)?
• Overall, what’s more important—the similarities or the differences?

Suppose that you are writing a paper comparing two novels. For most literature classes, the fact that they both use Caslon type (a kind of typeface, like the fonts you may use in your writing) is not going to be relevant, nor is the fact that one of them has a few illustrations and the other has none; literature classes are more likely to focus on subjects like characterization, plot, setting, the writer’s style and intentions, language, central themes, and so forth. However, if you were writing a paper for a class on typesetting or on how illustrations are used to enhance novels, the typeface and presence or absence of illustrations might be absolutely critical to include in your final paper.

Sometimes a particular point of comparison or contrast might be relevant but not terribly revealing or interesting. For example, if you are writing a paper about Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey” and Coleridge’s “Frost at Midnight,” pointing out that they both have nature as a central theme is relevant (comparisons of poetry often talk about themes) but not terribly interesting; your class has probably already had many discussions about the Romantic poets’ fondness for nature. Talking about the different ways nature is depicted or the different aspects of nature that are emphasized might be more interesting and show a more sophisticated understanding of the poems.

Your thesis

The thesis of your comparison/contrast paper is very important: it can help you create a focused argument and give your reader a road map so they don’t get lost in the sea of points you are about to make. As in any paper, you will want to replace vague reports of your general topic (for example, “This paper will compare and contrast two pizza places,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in some ways and different in others,” or “Pepper’s and Amante are similar in many ways, but they have one major difference”) with something more detailed and specific. For example, you might say, “Pepper’s and Amante have similar prices and ingredients, but their atmospheres and willingness to deliver set them apart.”

Be careful, though—although this thesis is fairly specific and does propose a simple argument (that atmosphere and delivery make the two pizza places different), your instructor will often be looking for a bit more analysis. In this case, the obvious question is “So what? Why should anyone care that Pepper’s and Amante are different in this way?” One might also wonder why the writer chose those two particular pizza places to compare—why not Papa John’s, Dominos, or Pizza Hut? Again, thinking about the context the class provides may help you answer such questions and make a stronger argument. Here’s a revision of the thesis mentioned earlier:

Pepper’s and Amante both offer a greater variety of ingredients than other Chapel Hill/Carrboro pizza places (and than any of the national chains), but the funky, lively atmosphere at Pepper’s makes it a better place to give visiting friends and family a taste of local culture.

You may find our handout on constructing thesis statements useful at this stage.

Organizing your paper

There are many different ways to organize a comparison/contrast essay. Here are two:

Subject-by-subject

Begin by saying everything you have to say about the first subject you are discussing, then move on and make all the points you want to make about the second subject (and after that, the third, and so on, if you’re comparing/contrasting more than two things). If the paper is short, you might be able to fit all of your points about each item into a single paragraph, but it’s more likely that you’d have several paragraphs per item. Using our pizza place comparison/contrast as an example, after the introduction, you might have a paragraph about the ingredients available at Pepper’s, a paragraph about its location, and a paragraph about its ambience. Then you’d have three similar paragraphs about Amante, followed by your conclusion.

The danger of this subject-by-subject organization is that your paper will simply be a list of points: a certain number of points (in my example, three) about one subject, then a certain number of points about another. This is usually not what college instructors are looking for in a paper—generally they want you to compare or contrast two or more things very directly, rather than just listing the traits the things have and leaving it up to the reader to reflect on how those traits are similar or different and why those similarities or differences matter. Thus, if you use the subject-by-subject form, you will probably want to have a very strong, analytical thesis and at least one body paragraph that ties all of your different points together.

A subject-by-subject structure can be a logical choice if you are writing what is sometimes called a “lens” comparison, in which you use one subject or item (which isn’t really your main topic) to better understand another item (which is). For example, you might be asked to compare a poem you’ve already covered thoroughly in class with one you are reading on your own. It might make sense to give a brief summary of your main ideas about the first poem (this would be your first subject, the “lens”), and then spend most of your paper discussing how those points are similar to or different from your ideas about the second.

Point-by-point

Rather than addressing things one subject at a time, you may wish to talk about one point of comparison at a time. There are two main ways this might play out, depending on how much you have to say about each of the things you are comparing. If you have just a little, you might, in a single paragraph, discuss how a certain point of comparison/contrast relates to all the items you are discussing. For example, I might describe, in one paragraph, what the prices are like at both Pepper’s and Amante; in the next paragraph, I might compare the ingredients available; in a third, I might contrast the atmospheres of the two restaurants.

If I had a bit more to say about the items I was comparing/contrasting, I might devote a whole paragraph to how each point relates to each item. For example, I might have a whole paragraph about the clientele at Pepper’s, followed by a whole paragraph about the clientele at Amante; then I would move on and do two more paragraphs discussing my next point of comparison/contrast—like the ingredients available at each restaurant.

There are no hard and fast rules about organizing a comparison/contrast paper, of course. Just be sure that your reader can easily tell what’s going on! Be aware, too, of the placement of your different points. If you are writing a comparison/contrast in service of an argument, keep in mind that the last point you make is the one you are leaving your reader with. For example, if I am trying to argue that Amante is better than Pepper’s, I should end with a contrast that leaves Amante sounding good, rather than with a point of comparison that I have to admit makes Pepper’s look better. If you’ve decided that the differences between the items you’re comparing/contrasting are most important, you’ll want to end with the differences—and vice versa, if the similarities seem most important to you.

Our handout on organization can help you write good topic sentences and transitions and make sure that you have a good overall structure in place for your paper.

Cue words and other tips

To help your reader keep track of where you are in the comparison/contrast, you’ll want to be sure that your transitions and topic sentences are especially strong. Your thesis should already have given the reader an idea of the points you’ll be making and the organization you’ll be using, but you can help them out with some extra cues. The following words may be helpful to you in signaling your intentions:

• like, similar to, also, unlike, similarly, in the same way, likewise, again, compared to, in contrast, in like manner, contrasted with, on the contrary, however, although, yet, even though, still, but, nevertheless, conversely, at the same time, regardless, despite, while, on the one hand … on the other hand.

For example, you might have a topic sentence like one of these:

• Compared to Pepper’s, Amante is quiet.
• Like Amante, Pepper’s offers fresh garlic as a topping.
• Despite their different locations (downtown Chapel Hill and downtown Carrboro), Pepper’s and Amante are both fairly easy to get to.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

• Features for Creative Writers
• Features for Work
• Features for Higher Education
• Features for Teachers
• Features for Non-Native Speakers
• Learn Blog Grammar Guide Community Events FAQ
• Grammar Guide

Comparing and Contrasting: A Guide to Improve Your Essays

Walter Akolo

Essays that require you to compare and contrast two or more subjects, ideas, places, or items are common.

They call for you to highlight the key similarities (compare) and differences (contrast) between them.

This guide contains all the information you need to become better at writing comparing and contrasting essays.

This includes: how to structure your essay, how to decide on the content, and some examples of essay questions.

Let’s dive in.

What Is Comparing and Contrasting?

Is compare and contrast the same as similarities and differences, what is the purpose of comparing and contrasting, can you compare and contrast any two items, how do you compare and contrast in writing, what are some comparing and contrasting techniques, how do you compare and contrast in college level writing, the four essentials of compare and contrast essays, what can you learn from a compare and contrast essay.

At their most basic, both comparing and contrasting base their evaluation on two or more subjects that share a connection.

The subjects could have similar characteristics, features, or foundations.

But while a comparison discusses the similarities of the two subjects, e.g. a banana and a watermelon are both fruit, contrasting highlights how the subjects or items differ from each other, e.g. a watermelon is around 10 times larger than a banana.

Any question that you are asked in education will have a variety of interesting comparisons and deductions that you can make.

Compare is the same as similarities.

Contrast is the same as differences.

This is because comparing identifies the likeness between two subjects, items, or categories, while contrasting recognizes disparities between them.

When you compare things, you represent them regarding their similarity, but when you contrast things, you define them in reference to their differences.

As a result, if you are asked to discuss the similarities and differences between two subjects, you can take an identical approach to if you are writing a compare and contrast essay.

In writing, the purpose of comparing and contrasting is to highlight subtle but important differences or similarities that might not be immediately obvious.

By illustrating the differences between elements in a similar category, you help heighten readers’ understanding of the subject or topic of discussion.

For instance, you might choose to compare and contrast red wine and white wine by pointing out the subtle differences. One of these differences is that red wine is best served at room temperature while white is best served chilled.

Also, comparing and contrasting helps to make abstract ideas more definite and minimizes the confusion that might exist between two related concepts.

Can Comparing and Contrasting Be Useful Outside of Academia?

Comparing enables you to see the pros and cons, allowing you to have a better understanding of the things under discussion. In an essay, this helps you demonstrate that you understand the nuances of your topic enough to draw meaningful conclusions from them.

Let's use a real-word example to see the benefits. Imagine you're contrasting two dresses you could buy. You might think:

• Dress A is purple, my favorite color, but it has a difficult zip and is practically impossible to match a jacket to.
• Dress B is more expensive but I already have a suitable pair of shoes and jacket and it is easier to move in.

You're linking the qualities of each dress to the context of the decision you're making. This is the same for your essay. Your comparison and contrast points will be in relation to the question you need to answer.

Comparing and contrasting is only a useful technique when applied to two related concepts.

To effectively compare two or more things, they must feature characteristics similar enough to warrant comparison.

In addition to this they must also feature a similarity that generates an interesting discussion. But what do I mean by “interesting” here?

Let’s look at two concepts, the Magna Carta and my third grade poetry competition entry.

They are both text, written on paper by a person so they fulfil the first requirement, they have a similarity. But this comparison clearly would not fulfil the second requirement, you would not be able to draw any interesting conclusions.

However, if we compare the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, you would be able to come to some very interesting conclusions concerning the history of world politics.

To write a good compare and contrast essay, it’s best to pick two or more topics that share a meaningful connection .

The aim of the essay would be to show the subtle differences or unforeseen similarities.

By highlighting the distinctions between elements in a similar category you can increase your readers’ understanding.

Alternatively, you could choose to focus on a comparison between two subjects that initially appear unrelated.

The more dissimilar they seem, the more interesting the comparison essay will turn out.

For instance, you could compare and contrast professional rugby players with marathon runners.

Can You Compare and Contrast in an Essay That Does Not Specifically Require It?

As a writer, you can employ comparing and contrasting techniques in your writing, particularly when looking for ideas you can later apply in your argument.

You can do this even when the comparison or contrast is not a requirement for the topic or argument you are presenting. Doing so could enable you to build your evaluation and develop a stronger argument.

Note that the similarities and differences you come up with might not even show up in the final draft.

While the use of compare and contrast can be neutral, you can also use it to highlight one option under discussion. When used this way, you can influence the perceived advantages of your preferred option.

As a writing style, comparing and contrasting can encompass an entire essay. However, it could also appear in some select paragraphs within the essay, where making some comparisons serves to better illustrate a point.

What Should You Do First?

Before you compare two things, always start by deciding on the reason for your comparison, then outline the criteria you will use to compare them.

Words and phrases commonly used for comparison include:

In writing, these words and phrases are called transitions . They help readers to understand or make the connection between sentences, paragraphs, and ideas.

Without transition words writing can feel clumsy and disjointed making it difficult to read. ProWritingAid’s transition report highlights all of a documents transitions and suggests that 25% of any sentences in a piece include a transition.

Sign up for a free ProWritingAid account to use the Transitions Report.

So, how do you form all of this into a coherent essay? It's a good idea to plan first, then decide what your paragraph layout will look like.

Venn diagrams are useful tool to start generating ideas. The, for your essay, you need to choose between going idea by idea and going point by point.

Using a Venn Diagram

A Venn diagram helps you to clearly see the similarities and differences between multiple objects, things, or subjects.

The writing tool comprises two, or more, simple, overlapping circles in which you list down the things that are alike (within the overlapping area) and those that differ (outside the overlapping area).

It’s great for brainstorming ideas and for creating your essay’s outline. You could even use it in an exam setting because it is quick and simple.

Going Subject by Subject

Going subject by subject is a structural choice for your essay.

Start by saying all you have to say on the first subject, then proceed to do the same about the second subject.

Depending on the length of your essay, you can fit the points about each subject into one paragraph or have several sections per each subject, ending with a conclusion.

This method is best for short essays on simple topics. Most university-level essays will go point by point instead.

Going Point by Point

Going point by point, or alternating, is the opposite essay structure from going subject by subject. This is ideal when you want to do more direct comparing and contrasting. It entails discussing one comparison point at a time. It allows you to use a paragraph to talk about how a certain comparing/contrasting point relates to the subjects or items you are discussing.

Alternatively, if you have lots of details about the subject, you might decide to use a paragraph for each point.

An academic compare and contrast essay looks at two or more subjects, ideas, people, or objects, compares their likeness, and contrasts their differences.

It’s an informative essay that provides insights on what is similar and different between the two items.

Depending on the essay’s instructions, you can focus solely on comparing or contrasting, or a combination of the two.

Examples of College Level Compare and Contrast Essay Questions

Here are eleven examples of compare and contrast essay questions that you might encounter at university:

• Archaeology: Compare and contrast the skulls of homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapiens.
• Art: Compare and contrast the working styles of any two Neoclassic artists.
• Astrophysics: Compare and contrast the chemical composition of Venus and Neptune.
• Biology: Compare and contrast the theories of Lamarck and Darwin.
• Business: Compare and contrast 2 or more business models within the agricultural industry.
• Creative writing: Compare and contrast free indirect discourse with epistolary styles.
• English Literature: Compare and contrast William Wordsworth with Robert Browning.
• Geography: Compare and contrast the benefit of solar panels with the benefit of wind turbines.
• History: Compare and contrast WWI to WWII with specific reference to the causes and outcomes.
• Medicine: Compare and contrast England’s health service with America’s health service.
• Psychology: Compare and contrast the behaviorist theory with the psychodynamic theory.

So, the key takeaways to keep in mind are:

Have a basis for comparison. The two things need to have enough in common to justify a discussion about their similarities and disparities.

Don’t go back and forth when using the block method. The best way to write your essay is to begin with a paragraph discussing all the facets of the first topic. Then, move on to another paragraph and talk through all the aspects of the second subject.

You can use both alternating and blocking techniques. Combining the two approaches is also an option. You can apply the alternating method in some paragraphs, then switch and use the block method. This method will help you offer a much deeper analysis of the subjects.

Have a reason for comparing the two things. Only select the points of comparison that resonate with your purpose.

Comparing and contrasting are essential analytical skills in academic writing. When your professor issues you with such an essay, their primary goal is to teach you how to:

• Engage in critical thinking
• See and make connections between words or ideas
• Move beyond mere descriptions or summaries to developing interesting analysis
• Get a deeper understanding of the subjects or items under comparison, their key features, and their interrelationships with each other.

Ultimately, your essay should enlighten readers by providing useful information.

Want to use ProWritingAid with your classroom? Download this free book now:

ProWritingAid Teacher’s Manual

Editing technology like prowritingaid provides immediate, personalized feedback that will help students to better understand grammar and writing techniques., in this guide , we walk you through exactly how to use prowritingaid in your classroom and give you tools and templates for creating a rigorous, effective independent writing practice with your students..

Be confident about grammar

Check every email, essay, or story for grammar mistakes. Fix them before you press send.

Walter Akolo is a freelance writer, internet marketer, trainer, and blogger for hire. He loves helping businesses increase their reach and conversion through excellent and engaging content. He has gotten millions of pageviews on his blog, FreelancerKenya, where he mentors writers. Check out his website walterakolo.com.

Get started with ProWritingAid

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via :

Teaching Compare and Contrast

Comparative Thinking Skills: Teaching Students to Compare and Contrast

The ability to compare and contrast is one of the first higher-order reading comprehension skills students are introduced to. And it is no wonder, as the ability to categorise and compare things in terms of their differences and similarities corresponds to some of the earliest stages of cognitive development. Without the ability to group items effectively regarding their similarities and differences, much of what we consider ‘learning’ would be impossible.

Defining the Terms Compare and Contrast

The ability to compare and contrast has its uses far beyond the classroom. With practical applications in everything from choosing which insurance policy to buy to what clothes to pack for a holiday, comparing and contrasting are requirements for much of our everyday decision-making. However, when we discuss these terms in relation to reading skills, they have much more specific meanings.

Compare , in relation to reading, refers to the process of identifying the similarities and differences between two things. On the other hand, Contrast refers to identifying only the differences between two things. While the distinction between these two terms may appear on the surface to be quite subtle, it is important that students can accurately differentiate between the two concepts to ensure they are able to answer questions and prompts accurately.

A COMPLETE TEACHING UNIT ON COMPARE AND CONTRAST ESSAY WRITING

Teach your students to write excellent compare-and-contrast essays using a proven model of research skills, writing strategies and engaging content. ALL CONTENT, RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS INCLUDED.

A COMPLETE 58-PAGE UNIT of work: No preparation is required, including

Importance of Teaching Comparative Thinking

Compare and contrast type questions are commonly featured in standardized tests, but there are many more reasons for students to develop their comparative thinking skills than just passing tests. A few of the most compelling reasons include:

●     These types of questions serve as good introductions for students to begin developing higher-order thinking skills

●     Answering compare and contrast questions help students focus closely on the details in a text while improving their comprehension in the process

●     The attention to detail required in reading to compare and contrast helps students to better retain the information they are reading

●     Knowledge gained through comparing and contrasting helps students understand how to organize information, think more clearly, and express ideas more effectively in their own writing.

GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS FOR COMPARING AND CONTRASTING

Most students find it easy to follow graphic organizers such as the ones below to help compare and contrast information.  They are a huge time saver and can be found and created in both digital and paper-based format quickly and easily.

Helping Students to Approach Compare and Contrast Questions

Though we have established that comparing and contrasting serves as a good introduction to the higher-order reading skills, students can often find these types of questions challenging. The best thing we can do to help our students effectively answer these types of questions is to offer them a coherent strategy with which to approach them. One effective approach can be broken down into the following steps:

Step 1: Analyze the Question

As mentioned in the introduction to this article, it is very important students clearly understand what exactly the question is asking them to do. To achieve this effectively students must break the question down into its simplified parts.

If, for example, the question asks a student to contrast the opinions of two critics on the use of metaphor in a poem, students need only focus on the parts of the text where the critics deal with metaphor and, furthermore, students need only focus on where these two opinions differ. On the other hand, if the question asks students to compare the views of the two critics, they must focus on both similarities and differences in their answers.

Step 2: Identify Similarities and Differences in the Content

Once students have identified the purpose of the writing prompt or the nature of the question, they can start to read the text and take note of the similarities and differences in terms of content. Students can begin the process by highlighting or underlining the appropriate information in the text. They can then record this information in note form or bullet points. These are often sufficient for students to prepare for writing their answers. However, it is often helpful for students to use graphic organisers to visually display the information they extract. Venn diagrams are particularly suitable for displaying comparisons as they can usefully display areas of difference, as well as any overlapping similarities. Venn diagrams can easily accommodate a comparison of multiple ideas through the addition of more circles in the diagram.

Step 3: Identify Similarities and Differences in the Structure

Once students have examined and identified the similarities and differences in terms of content, they can begin to look at how the texts compare and contrast in regards to structure. This will require students to give consideration to the genre of each text. Often, students are asked to compare texts that are in the same genre. Sometimes, however, they will be asked about texts which share a common a theme, but are presented in different genres. Depending on the exact nature of the question, students may look at a variety of elements of structure, including how the text is presented in terms of:

●     The length of sentences and paragraphs

●     The progression of ideas and arguments

●     The point of view expressed (Informative? Emotional?)

●     The use of stylistic elements, such as irony, humor, emotional appeals etc

●     The setting, characters, and plot in fiction

●     The use of facts and statistics in nonfiction.

Step 4: Identify Similarities and Differences in Media

Advances in technology make it ever more important that students develop their literacy skills in media beyond the printed word. When we think of students reading a text, we must ensure we recognize that texts can be visual and audio in nature too. As part of learning to compare and contrast texts, students should be offered opportunities to compare texts in a variety of media. Many of the texts students will encounter, whether in print or online, will contain information presented in a variety of ways, including diagrams, charts, photographs, and illustrations – to name a few. Online texts especially may contain embedded videos and audio tracks. These elements should not be ignored as they are an intrinsic part of how the text operates and, therefore, students should be prepared to compare and contrast these too.

Step 5: Evaluate

Now that the students have analyzed closely the question or writing prompt, identified the similarities and differences in content, structure, and media used across the texts, it is time for them to evaluate the texts and offer their opinion on their overall merit or effectiveness. The following questions are suggestions of areas to focus on to evaluate the texts:

●     Which of the texts is the most convincing?

●     Which of the texts best employs appropriate media?

●     Which of the texts is the most enjoyable?

In the evaluation, students can choose to focus on the most interesting, relevant, and informative material they have identified to illustrate the wider thesis of their opinion. READ OUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO STORY ELEMENTS HERE

Quick Compare and Contrast Reading Activities:

Activity i. chalk and cheese.

This is a great activity for students to cut their teeth on reading to compare and contrast. Read the students a modern updated version of a traditional tale such as Cinderella or Little Red Riding Hood . It doesn’t have to be a fairytale necessarily, but it should be based on a standard tale that the students are very familiar with. Students work on comparing the similarities and differences between the two versions of the tale. Through skilful questioning on your part, draw from the students’ answers that reflect on not only the content of each tale, but the structure and the media employed too. This activity offers further opportunities for students to focus on aspects of story elements and sequencing too.

Activity ii. The Zen of Venn

This activity works well when comparing and contrasting two longer texts. Divide the class into smaller groups and assign each of them one of the chapters, sections, or extracts etc that are being compared and contrasted. Groups scan their text and note the features they identify according to the steps outlined in the Helping Students to Approach Compare and Contrast Questions section above. Groups can then combine their findings in a Venn diagram displaying the similarities and differences between each text.

Activity iii. Visual Contrasts

Increasingly, we are recognizing the need for students to approach visual texts with the same rigour we have traditionally approached the printed word. In this primarily oral activity, students are given two or more photographs or pictures to compare and contrast. You may wish to select two pictures related to the same historical event, for example. Students reflect on the pictures and critically evaluate them through discussion. Students work together to identify the similarities and differences in the pictures and they then record their findings. This information can then serve as useful material to prompt a whole class discussion on students’ personal views on each of the pictures.

In this article, we have taken a look at some of the reasons why it is so important for our students to develop these reading skills and some of the ways we can go about helping them do this. Our students will benefit greatly from developing a methodical approach in this area. Categorizing things in terms of their similarities and differences is something we do instinctively as humans, but it is essential this is further refined through conscious practice. Remember too, opportunities to reinforce student understanding of the processes of comparing and contrasting will arise regularly in all types of lessons, whether in the subject of English or in other areas such as Science, Maths, History and beyond. Comparing and contrasting helps us all understand the world around us and our place in it.

A COMPLETE DIGITAL READING UNIT FOR STUDENTS

Over 30 engaging activities for students to complete BEFORE, DURING and AFTER reading ANY BOOK

• Compatible with all devices and digital platforms, including GOOGLE CLASSROOM.
• Fun, Engaging, Open-Ended INDEPENDENT tasks.
• 20+ 5-Star Ratings ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Teaching Resources

Use our resources and tools to improve your student’s writing skills through proven teaching strategies.

USEFUL VIDEOS FOR TEACHING STUDENTS TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Other great articles related to compare and contrast.

How to Write a Compare and Contrast Essay

Sequencing events in reading and writing

How to teach Guided Reading: Teaching Strategies and Activities

Graphic Organizers for Writing and Reading

125 Guided Reading Activities

Ensure your students are constantly engaged with these INDEPENDENT & GROUP Reading Activities for ANY BOOK.

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ ( 215 reviews )

• Writing Worksheets and Other Writing Resources
• Thesis, Analysis, & Structure

Comparing and Contrasting

About the slc.

• Our Mission and Core Values

The professor says to compare and contrast A and B ...

Determining the Structure of your Essay:

Determining the structure of your essay is the most important step towards conducting and presenting to the reader a well-developed comparison. Students are often asked to compare things in twos. For example, compare these two articles, or two characters in a novel, or a film and a novel or an article and a poem... The possibilities are endless.

When you are faced with the task of having to compare and contrast, it can be overwhelming. You're thinking about two pieces of writing that you know are different, and perhaps there are some similarities, too, but how can you suddenly start talking about them both?  Which one should I talk about first? Which one should I talk about last?

Sometimes, comparisons are done in the following manner:

You pick one article to describe:  Article A.  Then you talk about  Article B.  Perhaps at the end, you talk about the similarities in both articles.

This format will consist of three main parts: A, B, and, finally, their similarities.

Although this format is an acceptable way of making comparisons, and it is sometimes used to present well-developed "compare and contrast" essays, the format has its weaknesses that can jeopardize an effective comparison.

What could happen when you use this format and you completely isolate  Article A  from  Article B  is that you make it more difficult to compare. Your final essay might end up divided in two parts: half of the paper talks about only  Article A  and the second half talks about only  Article B . You do not want to split your essay into a description of  Article A  and a description of  Article B  because then it will be harder to compare them since you invested most of your energy into describing them and not comparing them.

How to avoid the "Split Essay": A Second Option for Comparison

The best way to avoid the Split Essay is to unify both split ends. Do not discuss  Article B  at the end. Talk about  both A and B  from the beginning. The question now is:

What do I do to eliminate the Split?

Break it down:

You do not get rid of the gap between the two halves of the essay that are split. You simply  break it down . This is done by finding common themes, or points of comparison in  Article A and Article B.  Once you find those points of comparison, you can discuss each individual theme and how each shows up in  Article A and B . Consider the following questions:

• What major themes are discussed in each of the essays?
• What doe the writer of  Article A  say about the first theme, and how is this similar to or different than what the writer of  Article B  says about the same topic?
• What conclusions can you make about these differences or similarities?

After developing a thorough explanation of the first theme, you can mow move on to discuss the second theme that appears in both essays and write about it. Ideally, each theme will be discussed thoroughly in its own paragraph, explaining how each is similar or different in  Article A  and  Article B

During the seventies, Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote his most famous novel,  One Hundred Years of Solitude , in which he discussed themes regarding the solitude of Latin America.

In 1982, Marquez received the Nobel Prize in Literature for his novel and wrote a speech for this occasion. In his speech, he called attention to Latin American economic struggles and their historical context.

In 1990, Enrique Krauze, a Mexican economist, published an article in which he discussed the same topic: problems in Latin American economics.

The prompt says:

Compare and contrast Enrique Krauze's essay to the speech written by Marquez.

Possible approaches:

Option #1: Text by text comparison

First paragraph:

A: An explanation of Marquez's entire speech

Second paragraph:

B: An explanation of Krauze's entire essay

Third paragraph:

Similarities or differences

(this might lead to the "Split Essay" comparison)

Option #2: Point by point comparison

The breakdown: Finding common themes or points of comparison:

• Neoliberalism (free trade)

• US involvement

• Proposed solutions to the problems (macro or micro economy?)

A: Krauze's opinion on neoliberalism

B: Marquez's opinion on neoliberalism

A: US involvement good or bad? According to Marquez

B: US involvement good or bad? According to Krauze

Whatever other theme that stands out as significant for explaining the differences of opinions.

Sample paragraph:

          Enrique Krauze and Gabriel Garcia Marquez take different positions in regards to the implementation of more neoliberalist policies in Latin American countries. While Krauze argues the need to expand open trade in Latin America to improve its economy, Marquez opposes this idea and argues that an open trade economy would only aid foreign investors in further exploiting the natural resources in Latin America. Krauze's support of neoliberalism is based on the idea that through a macro economy, the "undeveloped" countries will soon see the light at the end of the tunnel. On the other hand, Marquez rebuts this argument, claiming that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which forced neoliberalist policies onto Latin American countries, only served to increase their foreign debt.

Notice how the beginning of this paragraph discusses only one theme: neoliberalism. Also notice how the writer was able to incorporate both articles and not just one. Pay attention, too, to the use of words and phrases that juxtapose or suggest comparison. These words establish links between  A  and  B .

Handout created by Rubén Garibaldo, Student Learning Center, University of California, Berkeley

©2006 UC Regents

Handout revised by Carolyn Swalina, Student Learning Center, University of California, Berkeley

©2011 UC Regents

  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

23 Compare and Contrast

Comparison  in writing discusses elements that are similar, while  contrast  in writing discusses elements that are different. A  compare-and-contrast essay , then, analyzes two subjects by comparing them, contrasting them, or both.

The key to a good compare-and-contrast essay is to choose two or more subjects that connect in a meaningful way. The purpose of conducting the comparison or contrast is not to state the obvious but rather to illuminate subtle differences or unexpected similarities. For example, if you wanted to focus on contrasting two subjects you would not pick apples and oranges; rather, you might choose to compare and contrast two types of oranges or two types of apples to highlight subtle differences. For example, Red Delicious apples are sweet, while Granny Smiths are tart and acidic. Drawing distinctions between elements in a similar category will increase the audience’s understanding of that category, which is the purpose of the compare-and-contrast essay.

Figure 5.7 Apples, Green and Red

Similarly, to focus on comparison, choose two subjects that seem at first to be unrelated. For a comparison essay, you likely would not choose two apples or two oranges because they share so many of the same properties already. Rather, you might try to compare how apples and oranges are quite similar. The more divergent the two subjects initially seem, the more interesting a comparison essay will be.

Writing at Work

Comparing and contrasting is also an evaluative tool. In order to make accurate evaluations about a given topic, you must first know the critical points of similarity and difference. Comparing and contrasting is a primary tool for many workplace assessments. You have likely compared and contrasted yourself to other colleagues. Employee advancements, pay raises, hiring, and firing are typically conducted using comparison and contrast. Comparison and contrast could be used to evaluate companies, departments, or individuals.

Exercise 13

Brainstorm an essay that leans toward contrast. Choose one of the following three categories. Pick two examples from each. Then come up with one similarity and three differences between the examples.

• Romantic comedies
• Internet search engines
• Cell phones

Exercise 14

Brainstorm an essay that leans toward comparison. Choose one of the following three items. Then come up with one difference and three similarities.

• Department stores and discount retail stores
• Fast food chains and fine dining restaurants
• Dogs and cats

The Structure of a Comparison and Contrast Essay

The compare-and-contrast essay starts with a thesis that clearly states the two subjects that are to be compared, contrasted, or both and the reason for doing so. Remember, the point of comparing and contrasting is to provide useful knowledge to the reader. Take the following thesis as an example that focuses on contrast.

Thesis statement : Organic vegetables may cost more than those that are conventionally grown, but they are definitely worth every extra penny.

Here the thesis sets up the two subjects to be compared and contrasted (organic versus conventional vegetables), and it makes a claim about the results that might prove useful to the reader.

You may organize compare-and-contrast essays in one of the following two ways:

• According to the subjects themselves, discussing one then the other
• According to individual points, discussing each subject in relation to each point

The organizational structure you choose depends on the nature of the topic, your purpose, and your audience.

See the chart below, which diagrams the ways to organize the organic versus conventional vegetables thesis.

Figure 5.8 Organization Diagram

Given that compare-and-contrast essays analyze the relationship between two subjects, it is helpful to have some phrases on hand that will cue the reader to such analysis. See the chart below for examples.

Figure 5.9 Phrases of Comparison and Contrast

Exercise 15

Create an outline for each of the items you chose in Exercises 13 and 14. Use the point-by-point organizing strategy for one of them, and use the subject organizing strategy for the other.

Writing a Comparison and Contrast Essay

First, choose whether you want to compare seemingly disparate subjects, contrast seemingly similar subjects, or compare and contrast subjects. Once you have decided on a topic, introduce it with an engaging opening paragraph. Your thesis should come at the end of the introduction, and it should establish the subjects you will compare, contrast, or both as well as state what can be learned from doing so.

The body of the essay can be organized in one of two ways: by subject or by individual points. The organizing strategy that you choose will depend on, as always, your audience and your purpose. You may also consider your particular approach to the subjects as well as the nature of the subjects themselves; some subjects might better lend themselves to one structure or the other. Make sure to use comparison and contrast phrases to cue the reader to the ways in which you are analyzing the relationship between the subjects.

After you finish analyzing the subjects, write a conclusion that reinforces your thesis while drawing a conclusion based on what you have presented. This conclusion is the “and so” statement for your essay, giving you the place to offer a judgement based on the examination you have just offered.

Many business presentations are conducted using comparison and contrast. The organizing strategies—by subject or individual points—could also be used for organizing a presentation. Keep this in mind as a way of organizing your content the next time you or a colleague have to present something at work.

Exercise 16

Choose two people who are significant in your life and have a similar relationship with you (two friends, two siblings, etc). Make a list of similarities and differences between these people. Consult your list, then draw a conclusion based on the presence of these similarities and differences. Outline the similarities and differences, then write a statement that offers an overall conclusion.

Assignment 5

Choose one of the outlines you created in Exercise 15 or 16, and write a full compare-and-contrast essay. Be sure to include an engaging introduction, a clear thesis, well-defined and detailed paragraphs, and a fitting conclusion that ties everything together.

Key Takeaways

• A compare-and-contrast essay analyzes two subjects by either comparing them, contrasting them, or both.
• The purpose of writing a comparison or contrast essay is not to state the obvious but rather to illuminate subtle differences or unexpected similarities between two subjects.
• The thesis should clearly state the subjects that are to be compared, contrasted, or both, and it should state what is to be learned from doing so.
• Organize by the subjects themselves, one then the other.
• Organize by individual points, in which you discuss each subject in relation to each point.
• Use phrases of comparison or phrases of contrast to signal to readers how exactly the two subjects are being analyzed.

External Links

“ Disability ” (https://tinyurl.com/y99te6e2) by Nancy Mairs: In “Disability,” writer Nancy Mairs discusses the experience of being a disabled person in a world focused on the able-bodied. It seems to be titled “Hers” but it is the correct essay.

“ Friending, Ancient or Otherwise ” (https://tinyurl.com/y85u8ae8) by Alex Wright: In “Friending, Ancient or Otherwise,” writer Alex Wright explores the evolution and purpose of friendship in the age of social media.

“ Sex, Lies and Conversation: Why Is It So Hard for Men and Women to Talk to Each Other ? ” (https://tinyurl.com/y95dpehx) by Deborah Tannen. In this essay, Tannen compares and contrasts conversation styles. You can view the essay  here  (https://tinyurl.com/y9vnjqv8) also.

Example Comparison and Contrast Essay

“A South African Storm”

By Allison Howard – Peace Corps Volunteer: South Africa (2003-2005)

It’s a Saturday afternoon in January in South Africa. When I begin the 45–minute walk to the shops for groceries, I can hear thunder cracking in the distance up the mountain in Mageobaskloof. But at 4 p.m. the sky is still light and bright and I am sure—famous last words—I will be fine without an umbrella.

Just the basics: eggs, bread, Diet Coke in a bag slung into the crook of my elbow. Halfway from town, two black South African women—domestic workers in the homes of white Afrikaner families—stop me with wide smiles. They know me; I’m the only white person in town who walks everywhere, as they do. They chatter quickly in northern Sotho: “Missus, you must go fast. Pula e tla na! The rain, it comes!” They like me, and it feels very important to me that they do.“Yebo, yebo, mma,” I say—Yes, it’s true—and I hurry along in flip-flops, quickening my pace, feeling good about our brief but neighborly conversation. These are Venda women.

My black South African friends tell me it’s easy to tell a Venda from a Shangaan from a Xhosa from a Pedi. “These ones from Venda , they have wide across the nose and high in the cheekbones,” they say. But I don’t see it; I’m years away from being able to distinguish the nuances of ethnicity. Today, I know these women are Vendas simply because of their clothing: bright stripes of green and yellow and black fabric tied at one shoulder and hanging quite like a sack around their bodies. They’ve already extended a kindness to me by speaking in northern Sotho. It’s not their language but they know I don’t speak a word of Afrikaans (though they don’t understand why; Afrikaans is the language of white people). They know I struggle with Sotho and they’re trying to help me learn. So they speak Sotho to me and they’re delighted and amused by my fumbling responses. And I am, quite simply, delighted by their delight.

The Venda ladies are right: the rain, it comes. Lightly at first, and by habit I begin trotting to hurry my way home. Just a little rain at first and there are plenty of us out in it. I can see others up ahead on the street and others still just leaving the shops to get back before the real rain begins.

The people who are walking along this swath of tar road are black. Black people don’t live in this neighborhood—or in my town at all, for the most part. They work and board here as domestic workers, nannies, gardeners. Their families live in black townships and rural villages—some just outside of my town; others far away, in places like Venda.

Today, we’re walking together in the rain, and I’m quickening my pace because—after all , it’s raining . That’s what you do in the rain. And even though it’s coming down noticeably harder, it’s 80 degrees and I’m not cold, I’m just wet. My hair is stuck to my forehead and my T-shirt is soaked … and I’m the only one running for cover. And I think: So what? It’s just water and in the middle of the January summer, it’s warm, refreshing water. Why run? Why do we run from the rain?

In my life back in the United States, I might run because I was carrying a leather handbag, or because I wore an outfit that shouldn’t get wet. I would run because rain dishevels and messes things up. Mostly though, we run because we just do; it’s a habit. I’ve done it a hundred times: running to my car or the subway station with a newspaper sheltering my head. I have never not quickened my pace in the rain until today.

It took all of my 27 years and a move to Africa , where I don’t have a leather handbag to shelter or a pretty outfit to protect. I’m wearing an old cotton skirt and a T-shirt, and I’m drenched, and I love it. I learn things here in the most ordinary circumstances. And I feel like a smarter, better woman today because I got groceries in the rain.

But on the long walk home, positively soaked and smiling like a fool, I notice a car pulling over and a man yelling in Afrikaans to get in, get in. I look in the direction I’ve come from and several meters behind me is a woman with a baby tied to her back and an elderly man carrying bags, leading a young boy by the hand. On the road ahead, a woman about my age carries a parcel wrapped in plastic, balanced precariously on her head. There are maybe 20 people walking with me in my reverie of rain and they are black. And the man in the car is white and he’s gesturing frantically for me to get in. Why me? Why not the others? Because I’m white and it’s about race. Everything is about race here.

This man in the car is trying to do something kind and neighborly. He wants to help me and his gesture is right, but his instincts are so wrong. How do you resent someone who is, for no benefit of his own, trying to help? But I do. I resent him and I resent the world he lives in that taught him such selective kindness. This whole event unravels in a few seconds’ time. He’s leaned over and opened the car door, urging me in … and I get in. And we speed past my fellow walkers and he drops me at my doorstep before I have time to think of anything besides giving him directions.

It feels like a mistake because I’m ashamed to think what the Venda women would have felt if he’d ignored them and they had watched me climb into that car. In some ways, the whole episode seems absurd. I’m not going to atone for 400 years of South African history by walking with black people in the rain. If I’d refused his ride, he wouldn’t have thought anything besides the fact that I was certifiably crazy. That’s the thing about being here: I’m not going to change anything. But I believe it matters in some infinitesimal way that people like the Venda women, and the dozens of people who may walk alongside me on any given day, know that I’m there. In black South African culture, it is polite to greet every person you pass. That’s what they do, so I do it, too. On the occasional morning, someone might greet me as “sesi,” sister. I have to believe that matters; I know it matters to me.

I was disappointed in myself for getting into the car because I acted according to the same habit that makes us think rain an inconvenience. Just as we run from the rain, I hopped into that car because I’m supposed to. Conventionally, it makes sense. But convention compels us to do so many things that don’t make any sense at all. Convention misinforms our instincts. And in a larger sense, it is convention that propels Afrikaner culture anachronistically into the future. Ten years after the supposed end of apartheid, I’m living in a world of institutionalized racism. Convention becomes institution—and it’s oppressive and it’s unjust. I know that if I’m going to make it here for two more years, I need to walk in the rain. It’s a small, wasted gesture, but it’s an uncorrupted instinct that makes me feel human.

So much about living here feels like that fraction of a second when the Afrikaner man was appealing to my conventional sensibilities and the people on the street were appealing to my human instincts. It may feel unnatural to reject those sensibilities just as, at first, it feels unnatural to walk in the rain. But if I lose a hold on my instincts here, I’ll fail myself and I’ll fail to achieve those tiny things that matter so much. It’s simple and it’s small; and it’s everything. Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Indeed. Let it rain.

Example Comparison and Contrast Essay #2

Comparing and Contrasting London and Washington, DC

Both Washington, DC, and London are capital cities of English-speaking countries, and yet they offer vastly different experiences to their residents and visitors. Comparing and contrasting the two cities based on their history, their culture, and their residents show how different and similar the two are.

Both cities are rich in world and national history, though they developed on very different time lines. London, for example, has a history that dates back over two thousand years. It was part of the Roman Empire and known by the similar name, Londinium. It was not only one of the northernmost points of the Roman Empire but also the epicenter of the British Empire where it held significant global influence from the early sixteenth century on through the early twentieth century. Washington, DC, on the other hand, has only formally existed since the late eighteenth century. Though Native Americans inhabited the land several thousand years earlier, and settlers inhabited the land as early as the sixteenth century, the city did not become the capital of the United States until the 1790s. From that point onward to today, however, Washington, DC, has increasingly maintained significant global influence. Even though both cities have different histories, they have both held, and continue to hold, significant social influence in the economic and cultural global spheres.

Both Washington, DC, and London offer a wide array of museums that harbor many of the world’s most prized treasures. While Washington, DC, has the National Gallery of Art and several other Smithsonian galleries, London’s art scene and galleries have a definite edge in this category. From the Tate Modern to the British National Gallery, London’s art ranks among the world’s best. This difference and advantage has much to do with London and Britain’s historical depth compared to that of the United States. London has a much richer past than Washington, DC, and consequently has a lot more material to pull from when arranging its collections. Both cities have thriving theater districts, but again, London wins this comparison, too, both in quantity and quality of theater choices. With regard to other cultural places like restaurants, pubs, and bars, both cities are very comparable. Both have a wide selection of expensive, elegant restaurants as well as a similar amount of global and national chains. While London may be better known for its pubs and taste in beer, DC offers a different bar-going experience. With clubs and pubs that tend to stay open later than their British counterparts, the DC night life tend to be less reserved overall.

Both cities also share and differ in cultural diversity and cost of living. Both cities share a very expensive cost of living—both in terms of housing and shopping. A downtown one-bedroom apartment in DC can easily cost $1,800 per month, and a similar “flat” in London may double that amount. These high costs create socioeconomic disparity among the residents. Although both cities’ residents are predominantly wealthy, both have a significantly large population of poor and homeless. Perhaps the most significant difference between the resident demographics is the racial makeup. Washington, DC, is a “minority majority” city, which means the majority of its citizens are races other than white. In 2009, according to the US Census, 55 percent of DC residents were classified as “Black or African American” and 35 percent of its residents were classified as “white.” London, by contrast, has very few minorities—in 2006, 70 percent of its population was “white,” while only 10 percent was “black.” The racial demographic differences between the cities is drastic.

Even though Washington, DC, and London are major capital cities of English-speaking countries in the Western world, they have many differences along with their similarities. They have vastly different histories, art cultures, and racial demographics, but they remain similar in their cost of living and socioeconomic disparity.

Attributions

Content taken from Chapter 5 – Rhetorical Modes  by Jenifer Kurtz is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

English 101: Journey Into Open Copyright © 2021 by Christine Jones is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Compare and Contrast Essay: Everything You Need to Know

Compare and contrast essays represent a unique style of writing that highlights both the similarities and differences between two or more subjects. This approach is ideal for elucidating what distinguishes and connects related concepts or things, especially when subjects are prone to confusion or unjust amalgamation.

While compare and contrast essays share commonalities with other essay types, they also possess distinctive features – that's where the essence of comparison lies! By discerning the differences and similarities, readers gain a deeper understanding of each subject, using the contrasted subject as a valuable frame of reference.

In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the art of writing a compare and contrast essay, offering advanced tips regarding the compare and contrast essay thesis and illustrative examples. We’ll explore essay structure and thesis framing and, before delving into specifics, illuminate the broader significance of why comparison essays are such powerful tools. In case you’re in a hurry, use our college essay writing service to achieve the desired result faster. 

Explanation of What Is a Compare and Contrast Essay

A compare and contrast essay is a distinctive form of academic writing that delves into the similarities and differences between two or more subjects. This genre offers a platform to explore the relationships and distinctions among various concepts, ideas, or objects. By presenting a balanced examination, it aims to highlight nuanced insights that might not be immediately apparent. Unlike other essay types, the essence of compare and contrast essays lies in juxtaposing elements to reveal a deeper understanding and to encourage critical thinking.

The primary objective of a compare and contrast essay is to dissect the chosen subjects, showcasing their unique characteristics and shared traits. This approach allows you as an author to present a comprehensive analysis, offering readers a more profound comprehension of each subject by virtue of their relation to one another. Whether comparing historical events, literary works, scientific theories, or any other topics, this essay form prompts a thoughtful examination that goes beyond mere surface observations.

When contemplating a compare and contrast essay format, the author not only explores the content but also navigates the terrain of structural nuances. This involves carefully framing a thesis statement that encapsulates the central theme and purpose of the essay. The subsequent paragraphs are dedicated to meticulously examining each point of comparison or contrast, often leading to insightful conclusions that contribute to a more holistic understanding of the subjects at hand. Through this process, the essay serves as a tool for fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging a deeper engagement with the subject matter.

How to Start a Compare and Contrast Essay

As we’ve just learned what is compare and contrast essay, it’s time to learn how to engage your readers and set the stage for the exploration of similarities and differences between the chosen subjects. Begin with a compelling introduction that provides context and captures the audience's attention. Consider employing a thought-provoking quote, a relevant anecdote, or a striking statistic to pique interest. This initial section should introduce the subjects to be compared and contrasted, offering a glimpse of why the comparison is significant or intriguing.

Following the introduction, create a clear and concise thesis statement that outlines the main points of comparison or contrast. This statement serves as the essay's roadmap, guiding both you and the reader through the ensuing analysis. Expert essay writers know that a well-crafted thesis not only succinctly conveys the essence of the essay but also hints at the broader significance of the chosen subjects' similarities or differences. This can involve identifying patterns, revealing insights, or highlighting implications that will be explored in the subsequent paragraphs. Below, we will share an example of compare and contrast essay for your inspiration and practical guidance. 

As you transition to the body of the essay, set the stage for the comparison by providing necessary background information about the subjects. This ensures that your readers have a foundational understanding of the topics before delving into the detailed analysis. Establish the relevant context, highlight key characteristics, and address any critical aspects that will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the subjects. As a compare and contrast essay writer, apply this smooth transition from introduction to body paragraphs to prepare your audience for the in-depth exploration of comparisons and contrasts that will follow. If at any moment you find the material too time-consuming or challenging, simply order an essay from seasoned academic penmen for quicker and more consistent outcomes. 

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline

To learn how to write a compare and contrast essay, you can choose between two outline methods at your disposal – namely, the block method and the point-by-point method. In the block structure, all information pertaining to the first subject is presented, elucidating its characteristics and specific details in one block. The second block then adopts the same approach for the second subject. 

On the other hand, the point-by-point structure of a compare and contrast essay entails listing each similarity and difference concurrently, providing notes on both subjects. For instance, you can highlight a characteristic specific to one subject, followed by its similarity or difference to the other subject.

Each format, whether block or point-by-point, comes with its own set of advantages and drawbacks. The block method is notably simpler for the essay writer, as it involves presenting all information about the two subjects and leaving the comparison to the reader. On the other hand, the point-by-point format necessitates a more in-depth analysis by the writer, making similarities and differences explicit for easier comprehension by the reader. How do you structure this compare and contrast paper? A detailed structure for each type is provided below.

The point-by-point method is a popular approach used in writing compare and contrast essays. In this method, the writer systematically addresses points of comparison and contrast between two or more subjects. Unlike the block method, where information about one subject is presented in a block followed by information about the second subject in another block, the point-by-point method integrates the discussion of similarities and differences throughout the essay.

Point-by-Point Structure

Here's how the point-by-point structure of a compare and contrast essay typically works:

Introduction

• Introduce the subjects you will be comparing and contrasting.
• Provide a brief overview of the main points of comparison.

Body Paragraphs

• Each body paragraph focuses on a specific point of comparison or contrast.
• Discuss one aspect of the first subject and immediately follow it with the corresponding aspect of the second subject.
• For example, if you're comparing two cities, a body paragraph might address the climate of City A and then immediately discuss the climate of City B.

Transition Sentences

• Use clear transition sentences to guide the reader from one point to the next.
• These sentences help maintain the flow and coherence of the essay.

Repeat for Each Point

• Continue addressing points of comparison and contrast, dedicating a separate paragraph to each aspect.
• Ensure a balanced discussion of both subjects, presenting an equitable number of points for each.
• Summarize the main points of comparison and contrast.
• Reiterate the significance of the similarities or differences discussed.
• Conclude with a statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

The point-by-point method allows for a more detailed and intertwined analysis of the subjects, making it easier for the reader to follow the comparison throughout the essay.

Block Structure

The block structure is one of the common methods used in writing compare and contrast essays. In this approach, the writer organizes the information about one subject in a block or chunk and then presents the information about the second subject in another block. Each block addresses all the aspects, characteristics, or details related to the respective subject. Here's a breakdown of the block structure:

• Introduce the subjects to be compared and contrasted.
• Each body paragraph focuses on a specific aspect or characteristic of one subject.
• Present all the information related to the first subject in the first block.
• Address various aspects, supporting details, or examples within this block.

Transition to Second Subject

• Use a clear transition sentence or paragraph to move from the discussion of the first subject to the second subject.

Body Paragraphs (Second Block)

• Similar to the first block, each body paragraph in this section concentrates on a specific aspect or characteristic of the second subject.
• Provide comprehensive details, examples, or evidence for the second subject within this block.
• Reinforce the significance of the similarities or differences discussed.
• Conclude with a final statement that leaves an impression on the reader.

The block structure is straightforward and easy to follow. It allows for a thorough examination of each subject independently, making it clear for the reader to understand the characteristics of both subjects. However, it may lack the interconnected analysis provided by other methods, such as the point-by-point method.

Present Your Supporting Evidence

In compare and contrast essays, it's crucial to substantiate your arguments with ample evidence. Draw upon various sources such as personal experiences, books, scholarly articles, magazine and newspaper features, movies, or any relevant material that lends credibility to your argument. For instance, if your essay compares attending college on campus versus distance-based learning, incorporate personal experiences as a student, discussing the daily attendance patterns on campus. Additionally, share insights from your online learning experiences, bolstering the credibility of your argument concerning online classes.

Valuable Compare and Contrast Essay Tips

One of the key pieces of advice from dissertation writing services is to approach writing a compare and contrast essay with the right attitude, actively involving the reader in the discussion. If you find the topic intriguing, chances are your reader will too! Here are additional tips to refine your compare and contrast essay:

• Learn about crafting effective transition sentences using the words provided in the 'Compare and Contrast Essay Outline' section.
• Always provide clear explanations for the concepts introduced in your essay. Assume your reader may not be familiar with lesser-known information.
• Small errors, when numerous, can impact your grade. Pay meticulous attention to grammar and punctuation during the proofreading process.
• Have a friend or family member review your essay; they may identify elements you might have overlooked. Their fresh perspective can contribute to enhancing the overall quality of your work.

How to Brainstorm Compelling Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

As you learned about the compare and contrast essay structure, we should move on to brainstorming compare and contrast essay topics that engage readers. It is a creative process that involves exploring connections between different ideas or subjects. To begin, consider your areas of interest or the themes covered in your course. Think about topics that not only capture your attention but also present rich material for meaningful comparisons. For instance, you might explore the contrast between traditional education and online learning, the similarities and differences in cultural practices, or the evolution of technology in different decades. By tapping into your personal interests, you can identify subjects that will engage both you and your readers.

Another effective strategy for generating compare and contrast essay topics is to consider current events, societal issues, or trends. Reflect on contemporary debates or contrasting perspectives on relevant topics. This could involve comparing different approaches to environmental conservation, contrasting political ideologies, or examining the impact of social media on interpersonal relationships. Choosing topics rooted in current affairs not only ensures relevance but also provides an opportunity to contribute to ongoing discussions and showcase the significance of your analysis.

Furthermore, exploring literature, history, or scientific domains can inspire unique and thought-provoking topics for your essay. Delve into literary works, historical events, or scientific theories and identify aspects that lend themselves to comparison. For example, you might compare the portrayal of gender roles in two novels, analyze the impact of two historical movements, or contrast the methodologies of two scientific experiments. Drawing from diverse fields allows you to explore a wide range of topics and demonstrate the versatility of the compare and contrast essay format.

How to Choose Compare and Contrast Topics That Resonate with Readers

Selecting a topic for your compare and contrast essay writing process is a critical step in ensuring the success of your essay. Begin by considering your interests and expertise. Choose a topic that genuinely intrigues you and aligns with your knowledge base. When you are passionate about the subject matter, your enthusiasm will naturally reflect in your writing, making the essay more engaging for both you and your readers. Another approach is to think about the relevance of the topic to your audience. 

• Consider your audience's interests, educational background, and the context in which they'll be reading your essay. 
• Opt for a topic that not only captivates you but also has the potential to captivate and resonate with your readers. 
• Whether your audience is academic peers, instructors, or a general readership, relevance is key to maintaining interest.
• Look for topics that offer room for meaningful comparison and contrast. 

A great topic should have distinct elements or characteristics that can be thoroughly analyzed. Avoid overly broad or simplistic topics and, instead, focus on those that allow for a nuanced exploration of similarities and differences. For example, comparing two different genres of literature, contrasting historical events with similar repercussions, or examining the cultural impact of two art movements can provide rich material for a comprehensive analysis.

110 Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

Selecting a suitable topic can pose a challenge, but fear not, as there's a plethora of options available. In the subsequent sections, we've curated a list of 110 compare and contrast essay ideas to assist you in initiating your exploration. Encompassing diverse subjects, from education and technology to history and politics, these topics cater to a broad spectrum of interests. Regardless of whether you're a high school or college student, you're bound to encounter a topic that piques your curiosity. Dive into the following sections to uncover a myriad of awesome ideas.

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics for College Students

While enrolled in college, your professor may assign you the responsibility of crafting this type of essay at any given moment. Explore the following topics curated by our team, designed specifically for college students, to ensure you attain the grades you rightfully deserve.

• Traditional learning and online education.
• Classic literature and modern literature.
• Environmental conservation and industrial development.
• Democratic and authoritarian governance.
• Traditional art and digital art.
• Urban living and rural living.
• World War I and World War II.
• Nature and nurture in human development.
• Traditional medicine and alternative medicine.
• Individualism and collectivism.

Interesting Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

From thought-provoking societal debates to fascinating examinations of cultural nuances, this collection offers a rich array of subjects to spark engaging discussions. 

• The influence of science fiction literature on film: A comparative analysis.
• The evolution of traditional photography vs. digital photography in the modern era.
• The impact of traditional classroom learning and virtual reality learning environments on student engagement.
• A comparative exploration of Eastern and Western philosophy on the concept of happiness.
• The portrayal of heroes in ancient mythology vs. contemporary superhero movies.
• The influence of Shakespearean tragedies on contemporary television drama.
• A comparative study of traditional family structures and non-traditional family arrangements.
• The impact of traditional and e-learning approaches in language education.
• The representation of gender roles in classic literature vs. modern graphic novels.
• A comparative analysis of sustainable agriculture practices and conventional farming methods.

Movie Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

Explore the nuances of various films, from timeless classics to contemporary masterpieces, as we delve into the unique themes, characters, and cinematic techniques that define each cinematic journey. 

• The cinematic styles of Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino: A comparative analysis.
• Classic novels vs. their film adaptations: Examining narrative choices.
• The impact of special effects in vintage sci-fi films vs. modern blockbusters.
• Animated Disney classics vs. Pixar animated films: A journey through animation styles.
• The evolution of superhero movies: Marvel Cinematic Universe vs. DC Extended Universe.
• The portrayal of historical events in Hollywood vs. independent films.
• The representation of gender roles in Golden Age Hollywood films vs. contemporary cinema.
• Original films vs. remakes: A critical analysis of storytelling and artistic choices.
• Classic black and white films vs. contemporary color cinema: examining visual aesthetics.
• The influence of literature on film: A comparative study of book-to-movie adaptations.

Funny Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

From quirky everyday situations to amusing cultural phenomena, these topics offer a delightful twist to the traditional essay format. Make your readers smile!

• The daily struggles of owning a cat vs. a dog: A humorous examination.
• Living with roommates vs. living with ghosts: Unexpected challenges.
• Dating in high school vs. dating in senior citizenship: A humorous perspective.
• The humor in failed cooking experiments vs. successful culinary ventures.
• The quirks of traditional superheroes vs. unconventional, everyday heroes.
• The hilarity of family holiday gatherings vs. solo Netflix marathons.
• The comedy of traditional love letters vs. modern emoji-infused texts.
• The absurdity of morning people vs. night owls: A sleep-deprived comedy.
• The humorous adventures of traveling solo vs. traveling with a stuffed animal companion.
• The comedy in embracing procrastination vs. attempting productivity: A satirical exploration.

Informative Essay Topics for 6th Graders

Ignite the curiosity of young minds with our thoughtfully curated collection of topics for 6th graders. Designed to inspire learning and exploration, these topics cover a wide spectrum of subjects, allowing students to delve into new realms of knowledge.

• The life cycle of butterflies: A comprehensive exploration.
• Renewable energy sources: Understanding solar and wind power.
• The ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and their contributions.
• The water cycle: Unraveling the mysteries of Earth's hydrological system.
• Volcanoes and earthquakes: Forces of nature and their impact.
• The importance of healthy eating habits and nutrition for kids.
• Exploring the solar system: Planets, moons, and beyond.
• The history and significance of ancient Egyptian pyramids.
• Endangered species: Understanding the threats and conservation efforts.
• The scientific method: A step-by-step guide to conducting experiments.

Compare and Contrast History Essay Topics

This list of topics invites you to explore pivotal moments, historical figures, and societal transformations, providing a nuanced lens to analyze the intricate tapestry of human history. 

• The French Revolution vs. the American Revolution: A comparative analysis of revolutionary ideals and outcomes.
• The Roman Empire vs. the British Empire: Exploring imperial expansions and legacies.
• The Renaissance vs. the Enlightenment: Contrasting movements in European intellectual history.
• Feudalism vs. Manorialism: Examining medieval social and economic structures.
• World War I vs. World War II: A comparative study of causes, impact, and global changes.
• The Byzantine Empire vs. the Ottoman Empire: Examining Eastern Mediterranean powers.
• The Industrial Revolution in Britain vs. the industrialization of the United States: Economic transformations.
• The Civil Rights Movement vs. the Women's Suffrage Movement: Struggles for equality.
• The Chinese dynasties vs. the Japanese shogunates: Comparing East Asian historical developments.
• The Cold War vs. the Space Race: Analyzing political tensions and scientific advancements.

Best Topics for Compare and Contrast Essays

Whether you're a student delving into academic pursuits or an avid writer seeking creative inspiration, this topic list offers a wealth of engaging topics to elevate your essay-writing experience.

• The impact of traditional learning vs. online education on student success.
• The representation of gender roles in classic literature vs. modern media.
• The evolution of communication: From letters to emails and instant messaging.
• The advantages and disadvantages of living in a city vs. living in the countryside.
• The portrayal of superheroes in Marvel vs. DC Comics: A comparative analysis.
• The influence of nature vs. nurture on human personality and behavior.
• The effects of traditional medicine vs. alternative medicine on health.
• The rise of social media vs. traditional forms of communication in society.
• The impact of traditional art vs. digital art on visual expression.
• The consequences of environmental conservation vs. industrial development.

Easy Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

Designed to simplify the essay writing process, these topics offer a user-friendly penmanship start for students and aspiring writers alike. 

• Dogs and cats: Comparing two popular pets.
• Summer versus winter: Exploring seasonal differences.
• City life or rural life: Contrasting lifestyles.
• Books or movies: Analyzing different storytelling formats.
• High school versus college: Comparing educational environments.
• Pizza or burgers: Contrasting fast food preferences.
• Biking or walking: Comparing exercise options.
• Facebook or Instagram: A look at social media platforms.
• Sunrise or sunset: Comparing daily phenomena.
• Apple or Android: Exploring smartphone preferences.

Good Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

Each topic is meticulously chosen to inspire insightful discussions and analytical explorations. Join us as we present a diverse array of subjects that invite you to explore the intricacies of thought-provoking juxtapositions.

• Traditional classroom learning and online education reveal a spectrum of similarities and differences in educational approaches.
• The impact of city living versus suburban lifestyles prompts reflections on individual preferences and lifestyle implications.
• Owning a small business versus working for a large corporation involves contrasting advantages and disadvantages in the professional realm.
• Parenting styles across different cultures exhibit intriguing similarities and differences, influencing child development.
• The effects of a healthy diet versus regular exercise on overall well-being raise questions about lifestyle priorities and choices.
• Experiences of traveling by plane versus train vary, presenting contrasting perspectives on efficiency and comfort.
• Classical music and modern pop music offer a rich canvas for exploring the evolving landscape of musical expression.
• Freelancing versus a traditional 9-to-5 job entails comparing the diverse challenges and rewards within the professional sphere.
• Environmental impacts of electric cars versus traditional gas-powered vehicles underscore the trade-offs in sustainable transportation.
• The portrayal of female and male characters in literature and film unveils nuanced similarities and differences, reflecting societal norms and evolving perspectives.

Psychology Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

This compilation offers a captivating exploration of psychological theories, perspectives, and phenomena, providing an enriching platform for analytical discussions. 

• Behavioral and cognitive approaches in psychology present distinct perspectives, influencing our understanding of human behavior.
• The nature versus nurture debate in personality development contrasts inherent factors with environmental influences.
• Freudian and Jungian psychoanalytic theories offer unique insights, yet their similarities and differences provoke ongoing discussions.
• Classical and operant conditioning's impact on learning and behavior varies, shedding light on effective teaching methods.
• The theories of emotional intelligence versus traditional intelligence prompt reflections on diverse measures of human cognitive abilities.
• Cognitive therapy and behavioral therapy differ in their approaches but also share commonalities in addressing psychological issues.
• Nature and nurture's effects on mental disorder development prompt inquiries into the interplay of genetics and environment.
• Positive psychology and traditional clinical psychology represent contrasting approaches to mental health, emphasizing strengths versus pathology.
• Similarities and differences between social cognitive theory and social identity theory unveil complex insights into human social cognition.
• The neurological foundations of psychological disorders vary, emphasizing the diverse factors contributing to mental health challenges.

Controversial Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

From ethical dilemmas to societal taboos, each topic offers a platform to delve into the heart of contentious discussions, allowing for a nuanced examination of contrasting viewpoints. 

• The ethical implications of animal testing versus the benefits of scientific research prompt debates on morality and progress.
• Capital punishment sparks controversy as legal systems worldwide grapple with its pros and cons.
• The impact of censorship on freedom of speech raises questions about the balance between protection and restriction.
• Recreational drug legalization discussions reveal diverse perspectives on public health and personal freedom.
• Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture stir debates over their benefits and potential risks.
• Abstinence-only education and comprehensive sex education present varied approaches to promoting sexual health.
• Ethical considerations surrounding physician-assisted suicide and palliative care highlight complex end-of-life decisions.
• Affirmative action in college admissions elicits arguments on fairness, diversity, and meritocracy.
• The regulation of social media sparks debates over its societal benefits and potential drawbacks.
• Perspectives on gun control and the right to bear arms vary, reflecting societal attitudes towards safety and individual freedoms.

Compare and Contrast Essay Examples

Having gained comprehensive insights into compare and contrast essays, let's delve into practical examples to kickstart your writing journey or seek assistance from our dedicated essay helper. With a solid understanding of the principles, examining real-life examples can provide valuable inspiration and guidance for creating your own compelling paper.

What Is the Example of Compare and Contrast Essay?

How do you compare and contrast in an essay, how do you compare and contrast essay topic sentences, how to write a compare and contrast essay introduction.

• Plagiarism Report
• Unlimited Revisions
• 24/7 Support

English Studies

This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.

Comparison: Using in Writing

“Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned.” Emile Durkheim.

Introduction

Table of Contents

Comparison is a literary device writers use to show the nuances of complex ideas, characters, or situations. Through juxtaposing two distinct objects, authors try to reveal their similarities and differences, providing readers with clear understanding of the object compared.

This device not only aids in clarifying complex concepts but also fills the narrative with vivid imagery and emotional resonance. By drawing parallels between disparate elements, authors evoke powerful reactions from their audience.

This is how comparison serves as an indispensable tool for writers to shed light their subject matter and engage readers on emotional level and academic level.

Creating comparisons in a fictional work helps to add depth and complexity to characters, themes, and settings. Here are some tips for creating effective comparisons in your writing:

Benefits of Comparison

1. Clarity and Understanding:

• Clear Visual Representation: Comparisons provide a tangible and relatable image that helps readers grasp abstract concepts more easily.
• Enhanced Comprehension: Complex ideas become simpler to understand when compared to familiar or concrete objects.

2. Engaging and Captivating:

• Reader Engagement: Comparisons pique readers’ curiosity by drawing parallels between seemingly unrelated subjects, keeping them interested.
• Emotional Connection: Well-crafted comparisons evoke emotions, making the content more emotionally resonant and memorable.

3. Effective Communication:

• Simplification of Complex Ideas: Comparisons break down intricate concepts into digestible parts, making them accessible to a wider audience.
• Universal Language: Comparisons bridge language barriers and cultural differences, conveying messages that transcend boundaries.

4. Vivid Imagery:

• Immersive Description: Comparisons use sensory details to create vivid mental images, allowing readers to immerse themselves in the text.
• Memorable Descriptions: Striking comparisons leave a lasting impression in the reader’s mind due to their imaginative and unique nature.

5. Emotion Elicitation:

• Emotional Impact: Well-chosen comparisons trigger emotional responses, eliciting empathy and resonance in readers.
• Atmosphere Establishment: Comparisons set the tone and mood of the content by associating subjects with particular feelings or atmospheres.

6. Enhanced Persuasion:

• Analogies for Persuasion: Comparisons can be used as persuasive tools by aligning the reader’s existing beliefs with the writer’s viewpoint.
• Visualizing Benefits: Through comparisons, readers can better understand the benefits of a certain idea, product, or concept.

7. Increased Memorability:

• Memorable Mental Hooks: Unique and creative comparisons serve as mental hooks that help readers retain information for longer periods.
• Aiding Recall: Readers are more likely to remember content that features engaging comparisons due to the visual and emotional impact.

8. Cognitive Engagement:

• Intellectual Stimulation: Comparisons encourage critical thinking by prompting readers to explore connections and analyze differences.
• Active Participation: Readers actively engage with the content as they process and evaluate the validity of the comparison.

9. Expressive Writing:

• Creative Expression: Comparisons offer writers a versatile tool for conveying thoughts and emotions in a more imaginative and expressive manner.
• Style and Voice: Authors can establish a unique writing style by employing comparisons that reflect their individual voices.

10. Highlighting Contrasts and Similarities:

• Contrast Illumination: Comparisons emphasize differences between subjects, helping readers identify distinctions that might have been overlooked.
• Common Ground Identification: By highlighting shared traits, comparisons enable readers to recognize connections and similarities.

11. Attention Retention:

• Reader Focus: Effective comparisons maintain the readers’ attention by providing intriguing points of reference throughout the content.
• Avoiding Monotony: Varied comparisons prevent content from becoming monotonous, adding dynamic and engaging elements.

12. Cultural and Contextual Relevance:

• Cultural Understanding: Appropriate comparisons grounded in cultural references enhance relatability and understanding for diverse audiences.
• Contextual Application: Comparisons tailored to specific contexts ensure that the intended message is well-received and relevant.

Using comparisons in your writing offers a multitude of advantages that contribute to better communication, reader engagement, and impactful expression.Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Comparison and Literary Theory

Suggested Readings

• Brooks, Cleanth. The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry . Harcourt, Brace & World, 1947.
• Eliot, T.S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism . Methuen, 1920.
• Hirsch, E.D. Jr. Valid Interpretation: Perspectives on Meaning in the Arts . Yale University Press, 1967.
• Miller, J. Hillis. On Literature . Routledge, 2002.
• Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Philosophy of Composition.” Graham’s Magazine , vol. 28, no. 4, 1846, pp. 163-167.
• S hklovsky, Viktor. “Art as Technique.” Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays , translated by Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, University of Nebraska Press, 1965, pp. 3-24.
• Wimsatt, W.K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry . University Press of Kentucky, 2011.
• Wood, James. How Fiction Works . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.

Related posts:

• Onomatopoeia: A Literary Device

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Relations between Reading and Writing: A Longitudinal Examination from Grades 3 to 6

Young-suk grace kim.

University of California Irvine

Yaacov Petscher

Florida Center for Reading Research

Jeanne Wanzek

Vanderbilt University

Stephanie Al Otaiba

Southern Methodist University

We investigated developmental trajectories of and the relation between reading and writing (word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, and written composition), using longitudinal data from students in Grades 3 to 6 in the US. Results revealed that word reading and spelling were best described as having linear growth trajectories whereas reading comprehension and written composition showed nonlinear growth trajectories with a quadratic function during the examined developmental period. Word reading and spelling were consistently strongly related (.73 ≤ r s ≤ .80) whereas reading comprehension and written composition were weakly related (.21 ≤ r s ≤ .37). Initial status and linear slope were negatively and moderately related for word reading (−.44) whereas they were strongly and positively related for spelling (.73). Initial status of word reading predicted initial status and growth rate of spelling; and growth rate of word reading predicted growth rate of spelling. In contrast, spelling did not predict word reading. When it comes to reading comprehension and writing, initial status of reading comprehension predicted initial status (.69), but not linear growth rate, of written comprehension. These results indicate that reading-writing relations are stronger at the lexical level than at the discourse level and may be a unidirectional one from reading to writing at least between Grades 3 and 6. Results are discussed in light of the interactive dynamic literacy model of reading-writing relations, and component skills of reading and writing development.

Reading and writing are the foundational skills for academic achievement and civic life. Many tasks, including those in school, require both reading and writing (e.g., taking notes or summarizing a chapter). Although reading and writing have been considered separately in much of the previous research in terms of theoretical models and curriculum ( Shanahan, 2006 ), their relations have been recognized (see Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ; Langer & Flihan, 2000 ; Shanahan, 2006 for review). In the present study, our goal was to expand our understanding of developmental trajectories of reading and writing (word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, and written composition), and to examine developmental relations between reading and writing at the lexical level (word reading and spelling) and discourse level (reading comprehension and written composition), using longitudinal data from upper-elementary grades (Grades 3 to 6).

Successful reading comprehension entails construction of an accurate situation model based on the given written text ( Kintsch, 1988 ). Therefore, decoding or reading words is a necessary skill (Hoover & Gough, 1990). The other necessary skill is comprehension, which involves parsing and analysis of linguistic information of the given text. This requires working memory and attention to hold and access linguistic information (Daneman & Merikle, 1996; Kim, 2017 ) as well as oral language skills such as vocabulary and grammatical knowledge ( Cromley & Azevedo, 2007 ; Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009 ; Kim, 2015 , 2017 ; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ; Vellutino, Tunmer, Jaccard, & Chen, 2007 ). In addition, construction of an accurate situation model requires making inferences and integrating propositions across the text and with one’s background knowledge to establish global coherence. These inference and integration processes draw on higher order cognitive skills such as inference, perspective taking, and comprehension monitoring ( Cain & Oakhill, 1999 ; Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004 ; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007 ; Kim, 2015 , 2017 ; Kim & Phillips, 2014 ; Oakhill & Cain, 2012 ; Pressley & Ghatala, 1990 ).

In writing (written composition), one has to generate content in print. As a production task, transcription skills (spelling, handwriting or keyboarding fluency) are necessary (e.g., Berninger & Amtmann, 2002; Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997 ; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986 ). Generated ideas undergo translation into oral language in order to express ideas and propositions with accurate words and sentence structures; and thus, writing draws on oral language skills ( Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ; Kim et al., 2011 , 2013 , 2015a ; Olinghouse, 2008 ). Of course, quality writing is not a sum of words and sentences, but requires local and global coherence ( Kim & Schatschneider, 2017 ; Bamberg, 1983 ). Coherence is achieved when propositions are logically and tightly presented and organized, and meet the needs of the audience. This draws on higher order cognitive skills such as inference, perspective taking ( Kim & Schatschneider, 2017 ; Kim & Graham, 2018 ), and self-regulation and monitoring (Berninger & Amtmann, 2002; Kim & Graham, 2018 ; Limpo & Alves, 2013 ). Coordinating these multiple processes of generating, translating, and transcribing ideas relies on working memory to access short term and long term memory (Berninger & Amtmann, 2002; Hayes & Chenoweth, 2007 ; Kellogg, 1999 ; Kim & Schatschneider, 2017 ) as well as sustained attention ( Berninger & Winn, 2006 ).

What is apparent in this brief review is similarities of component skills of reading and writing skills (see Kim & Graham, 2018 ; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ). Then, what is the nature of reading and writing relations 1 ? According to the interactive and dynamic literacy model ( Kim & Graham, 2018 ), reading and writing are hypothesized to co-develop and influence each other during development (interactive), but the relations change as a function of grain size and developmental phase (dynamic). The interactive nature of the relation is expected for two reasons. First, if reading and writing share language and cognitive resources to a large extent, then, development of those skills would influence both reading and writing. Second, the functional and experiential aspect of reading and writing facilitates co-development ( Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000 ). The majority of reading and writing tasks occur together (e.g., writing in response to written source materials; note taking after reading); and this functional aspect would facilitate and reinforce learning key knowledge and meta-awareness about print and text attributes (e.g., text structures) in the context of reading and writing.

Reading-writing relations are also expected to be dynamic or to change as a function of various factors such as grain size ( Kim & Graham, 2018 ). When the grain size is relatively small (i.e., word reading and spelling), reading-writing relations are expected to be stronger because these draw on a more or less confined set of skills such as orthography, phonology, and semantics ( Adams, 1990 ; Carlisle & Katz, 2006 ; Deacon & Bryant, 2005 ; Kim, Apel, & Al Otaiba, 2013 ; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006 ; Ehri, 2000 ; Treiman, 1993 ). In contrast, when the grain size is larger (i.e., discourse-level skills such as reading comprehension and written composition), the relation is hypothesized to be weaker because discourse literacy skills draw on a more highly complex set of component skills, which entails more ways to be divergent (see Kim & Graham, 2018 ). Extant evidence provides support for different magnitudes of relations as a function of grain size (i.e., lexical versus discourse level literacy skills). Moderate to strong correlations have been reported for lexical-level literacy skills (i.e., word reading and spelling; .50 ≤ r s ≤ .84; Ahmed, Wagner, & Lopez, 2014 ; Berninger & Swanson, 1994 ; Ehri, 2000 ; Juel et al., 1986 ; Kim, 2011 ; Kim, Al Otaiba, Wanzek, & Gatlin, 2015a ) whereas a weaker relation has been reported for reading comprehension and written composition (.01 ≤ r s ≤ .59; Abbott & Berninger, 1993 ; Ahmed et al., 2014 ; Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ; Berninger et al., 1993; Juel et al., 1986 ; Kim et al., 2015a ).

Although previous work on reading-writing relations has been informative, empirical investigations of developmental relations between reading and writing using longitudinal data were limited. In fact, little is known about developmental patterns of writing skills (for reading development, see, for example, Kieffer, 2011 ; McCoach, O’Connell, Reis, & Levitt, 2006 ; Morgan, Farkas, & Wu, 2011 ), let alone developmental relations between reading and writing. In other words, our understanding is limited about a) the functional form or shape of development – whether writing skills, including both spelling and written composition, develop linearly or non-linearly; and b) the nature of growth in terms of the relation between initial status and the other growth parameters (linear slope and/or quadratic function) – a positive relation between initial status and linear growth would indicate that students with more advanced skills at initial status would growth faster, similar to the Matthew Effect ( Stanovich, 1986 ), whereas a negative relation would indicate a mastery relation where students with advanced initial status showing less growth.

Relatively few studies have investigated developmental trajectories for either spelling or writing. In spelling, a nonlinear developmental trajectory was reported for Norwegian-speaking children in the first three years of schooling ( Lervag & Hulme, 2010 ). Nonlinear developmental trajectories in spelling were also found for Korean-speaking children and developmental trajectories differed as a function of word characteristics ( Kim, Petscher, & Park, 2016 ). In written composition, only a couple of studies have investigated development trajectories. Kim, Puranik, and Al Otaiba (2015b) investigated growth trajectories of writing within Grade 1 (beginning to end) for three groups of English-speaking children: typically developing children, children with language impairment, and those with speech impairment. They found that although there were differences in initial status among the three groups, the linear developmental rate in writing did not differ among the three groups of children. This study was limited, however, because it examined development within a relatively short period (Grade 1), and the functional form of the growth trajectory was limited to a linear model because only three waves of data were available. Another longitudinal study, conducted by Ahmed and her colleagues ( 2014 ), followed English-speaking children from Grades 1 to 4, but growth trajectories over time were not examined because their focus was the relation between reading and writing, using changes in scores between grades.

The vast majority of previous studies on reading-writing relations have been cross-sectional investigations, and they have reported somewhat mixed findings. Some reported a unidirectional relation of reading to writing ( Kim, 2011 ; Kim et al., 2015a ); some reported a direction from writing to reading ( Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002 ; see also Graham & Hebert’s [2010] meta-analysis); and others reported bidirectional relations ( Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ; Kim & Graham, 2018 ; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Shanahan & Lomax, 1988). Results from limited extant longitudinal studies are also mixed. Lerkkanen, Rasku-Puttonen, Aunola, and Nurmi (2004) , using longitudinal data (4 time points across the year) from Finnish first grade children, reported a bidirectional relation between reading (composed of word reading and reading comprehension) and spelling during the initial phase of development, but not during the later phase. As for the relation between written composition and reading (composed of word reading and reading comprehension), the direction was from writing to reading, but not the other way around. Ahmed et al. (2014) examined reading-writing relations at the lexical, sentence, and discourse levels using longitudinal data from Grades 1 to 4, and found different patterns at different grain sizes. They reported a unidirectional relation from reading to writing at the lexical (word reading-spelling) and discourse levels (reading comprehension and written composition), but a bidirectional relation at the sentence level.

Findings from these studies suggest that reading and writing are related, but the developmental nature of relations still remains unclear. Building on these previous studies, the primary goal of the present study was to expand our understanding of the development of reading and writing, and their interrelations. To this end, we examined growth trajectories and developmental relations of reading and writing at the lexical and discourse-levels. Although previous studies did reveal relations between reading and writing, the number of studies which explicitly examined developmental relations at the same grain size of language (i.e., lexical level and discourse level) using longitudinal data is extremely limited, with the above noted Ahmed et al.’s (2014) study as an exception. We examined the reading-writing relations at the lexical-level and discourse-level, respectively. This is because theory and evidence clearly indicate that the component skills of reading and writing differ for lexical literacy skills (e.g., Adams, 1990 ; Treiman, 1993 ) versus discourse literacy skills (e.g., Berninger & Winn, 2006 ; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; Kim, 2017 ).

With the overarching goal of examining developmental relations between reading and writing at the lexical and discourse-levels, we had the following two research questions:

• What are the patterns of development of reading (word reading and reading comprehension) and writing (spelling and written composition) from Grades 3 to 6?

How are growth trajectories in reading and writing interrelated over time from Grades 3 to 6?

With regard to the first research question, we expected nonlinear growth trajectories for word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension where linear development is followed by a slowing down (or plateau). Due to lack of prior evidence in the grades we examined (i.e., Grades 3 to 6), we did not have a specific hypothesis about the functional form of growth trajectories for written composition. In terms of reading-writing relations, we hypothesized a stronger relation between word reading and spelling than that for reading comprehension and written composition. We also hypothesized a bidirectional relation particularly between word reading and spelling based on fairly strong bivariate relations reviewed above. For reading comprehension and written composition, we expected a weaker relation, and did not have a specific hypothesis about bidirectionality, given lack of empirical data in upper elementary grades.

Participants

Data from the present study are from a longitudinal study of students’ reading and writing development in the South Eastern region of the US. Cross sectional results on predictors of writing in Grades 1 to 3 have been reported previously ( Kim et al., 2014 , 2015a ). However, longitudinal data from Grades 3 (mean age = 8.25, SD =.39) to 6, the focal grades in the present study, have not been reported. The longitudinal study was composed of two cohorts of children in the same district. In other words, the sample sizes in each grade (see Table 1 ) were the sum of two cohorts of children.

Descriptive statistics for outcome measures

Note. WJ = Woodcock Johnson; LWID = Letter Word Identification Task; PC = Passage Comprehension; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; One day = One day prompt; TDTO = Thematic Development and Text Organization

As shown in Table 1 , total sample size in each grade varied across years and each measure 2 . For instance, in spelling, data from a total of 359 children were available in Grade 3 whereas in Grade 6, data were available for 278 children. An empirical test of whether missingness is completely at random (MCAR; Little, 1988 ) or not revealed that all data in grades 3–6 were MCAR, χ 2 (492) = 530.13, p = .114, with the exception of the grade 6 writing data, χ 2 (4) = 21.46, p < .001. However, a review of the data suggested that the data were not non-ignorable missing and the patterns of missing were unrelated to the variables themselves. As such, full-information maximum likelihood was the appropriate method for estimating coefficients in the presence of missing data ( Enders, 2010 ).

The sample was composed of 53% male students who were predominantly African-Americans (59%), followed by White (29%), Multi-racial (9%), Other (2%), and Native American or Asian (1%). We noted a pattern of more attrition related to free and reduced lunch price status. In grade 3, 51% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch compared to 49% in grade 4, 39% in grade 5, and 29% in grade 6. Further, 10% of students in grade 3 were identified with a primary exceptionality, 7% in grade 4, 6% in grade 5, and 6% in grade 6. No students were identified as having limited English proficiency.

Word reading

Children’s word reading was assessed by the Letter Word Identification task of the Woodcock Johnson-III (WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001 ). In this task, the child is asked read aloud words of increasing difficulty. This task assesses children’s decoding skill and knowledge of word specific spellings in English. Cronbach’s alpha estimates across grades 3–6 ranged from .90 to .91 according the test manual. The Letter Word Identification task of WJ-III has been widely used in previous studies and has been shown to be strongly related to other word reading tasks (e.g., r = .92; Kim et al., 2015a ; Kim & Wagner, 2015 ).

Reading comprehension

The Passage Comprehension task of WJ-III was used. This is a cloze task where the child is asked to read sentences and short passages and to fill in the blanks. Cronbach’s alpha estimates across the grades ranged from .76 to .84. This has also been widely used as a measure of reading comprehension with strong correlations with other well-established measures of reading comprehension (e.g., .70 ≤ r s ≤ .82; Keenan et al., 2008 ; Kim & Wagner, 2015 ).

The Spelling task of WJ-III was used. This is a dictation task where the child hears the word in isolation, in a sentence, and in isolation again, and is asked to spell it. Cronbach’s alpha estimates across the grades ranged from .90 to .91. The WJ-III has been reported to be strongly related to word reading skills (.76 ≤ r s ≤ .83; Kim et al., 2015a ; McGrew, Schrank, & Woodcock, 2007 ).

Written composition

Written composition was measured by two tasks: The Essay Composition task of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-3 rd (WIAT-3; Wechsler, 2009 ) and an experimental task that were used in previous studies ( Kim et al., 2014 , 2015a ; McMaster, Du, & Pétursdôttir, 2009 ; also see Abbott & Berninger, 1993 for a similar prompt). In the WIAT task, the child was asked to write about her favorite game and provide three reasons. The WIAT task has been widely used in previous studies (e.g., Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ) and was related to other writing prompts (.38 ≤ r s ≤ .45; Kim et al., 2015a ). In the experimental task, the child was asked to write about something interesting that happened after they got home from school one day (One day prompt hereafter). The One day prompt has been shown to be related to the WIAT writing task ( r = .45; Kim et al., 2015a ) and was related to other indicators of writing proficiency such as writing productivity and fluency ( McMaster et al., 2009 ). Children were given 15 minutes to complete each of their writing tasks.

Students’ written compositions were evaluated on the quality of ideas on a scale of 0 (unscorable) to 7, which was modified from the widely used 6+1 Trait approach ( Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2011 ). A similar approach has been widely used in previous studies ( Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007 ; Hooper, Swartz, Wakely, de Kruif, & Montgomery, 2002 ; Kim et al., 2014 ; , 2015a ; Olinghouse, 2008 ). Compositions that had rich and clear ideas with details received higher scores. In addition to the idea quality, the WIAT Essay Composition task was also evaluated on thematic development and text organization (TDTO hereafter) following the examiner’s manual. Coders were rigorously trained to achieve high reliability within each year as well as across the years. For the present study, we established inter-rater reliability using 40–50 written compositions per prompt per year; Cohen’s Kappa ranged from .78 to .97.

Children were assessed in the spring by carefully trained assessors in a quiet space in each school. Assessment consisted of two sessions of individual assessment and two sessions of small group sessions. Research assistants were trained for two hours prior to each assessment session were required to pass a fidelity check before administering assessments to the participants in order to ensure accuracy in administration and scoring. The reading tasks and the spelling task were individually administered whereas the written compositions were administered in a small group setting (3–4 children).

Data Analytic Approach

We employed a combination of latent individual growth curve modeling and structural equation modeling in this study. An important aspect of evaluating the structural cross-construct relations is first understanding the underlying functional form of growth for each of the four outcome types. To this end, four specific latent variable models were tested for each outcome: a linear growth model, a non-linear growth model with non-linearity defined through a quadratic term, a linear free-loading growth model, and a linear latent change score (or dual change score) model. Each of these models reflect an alternative consideration of how growth is shaped ( Petscher, Quinn, & Wagner, 2016 ). The linear latent growth model describes a strictly linear relation over time regardless of the number of time points in the model; thus, even though there are four observed waves of data, the linear model forces a linear growth curve. The non-linear growth model extends the linear model by allowing multiple non-linear terms to be added above the linear slope; and the different alternative nonlinear models were evaluated for precise estimation of non-linearity. In the present data, four available time points permitted specification of a quadratic parameter to be estimated to determine the rate of celeration that one grows (i.e., acceleration or deceleration). The freed loading growth curve model is eponymous such that the loadings on the slope factor in the growth model are freely estimated rather than fixed at particular time intervals. In this way, the shape of the curve is defined by the estimated loadings, not a priori determined values. For example, in a linear growth model the loadings may be coded as 0, 1, 2, 3 for four time points and the equal interval coding points to the assumption of equal interval change over time. A freed loading growth model may code the loading structure as 0, *, *, 1 where 0 and 1 denote the beginning and end of change and * denotes freely estimated proportional change that may occur between times 1 and 4. The dual change score model ( McArdle, 2009 ) may be viewed as a hybrid of direct and/or indirect models with individual growth curve analysis. Dual change models include two types of change parameters, an average slope factor, such as in the linear model, and a proportional change parameter that reflects the relation between a prior time point and the change between two time points.

For the word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension outcomes, the latent growth models were fit directly to the observed measures. However, for written composition, with multiple measures of writing data at each time point, multiple indicator growth models ( Meredith & Tisak, 1990 ) were specified for each of the four general model types described above. The inclusion of the multiple indicators necessitate additional model testing steps to evaluate levels of longitudinal invariance for the loadings, intercepts, and variances. The level(s) of measurement invariance serves to ensure that the latent variables are measured on the same metric over time so that differences in the latent means and variances are due to individual differences in the latent scores and not due to biases that are consequential to a lack of measurement invariance. Loading invariance was first tested, followed by various iterations of freeing model constraints on the basis of modification indices. Once a decision was made regarding measurement invariance, the multiple indicator growth models were specified.

Following the growth model evaluations, two structural equation models were specified for pairs of constructs. First, the latent intercept and slope factors from the word reading growth model were used as predictors of factors in the spelling growth model, as well as the latent intercept from the spelling growth model as a predictor of growth in word reading. Second, the latent intercept and slope factors from the reading comprehension growth model were used as predictors of factors in the writing growth model. Fit for all latent variables was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990 ), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980 ), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1992 ). CFI and TLI values greater than .90 are considered to be minimally sufficient criteria for acceptable model fit ( Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008 ) and RMSEA values <.10 are desirable. The Bayes Information Criteria (BIC) was used as another index for comparing model fit with model difference of at least 5 suggesting practically important differences (Raftery, 1995).

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics (W scores for the WJ measures & standard scores when available) across all measures and time points. Mean standard scores in the standardized and normed tasks were in the average range across the years (93–111). Average W scores in WJ-III Letter-Word Identification scores increased from grade 3 ( M = 499.40, SD = 19.34) to grade 6 ( M = 519.48, SD = 17.98), as did the WJ-III Spelling scores (grade 3: M = 498.85, SD = 17.08; grade 6: M = 515.91, SD = 16.16), and the WJ-III Passage Comprehension scores (grade 3: M = 491.34, SD = 11.26; grade 6: M = 501.61, SD = 11.49).

For writing measures, raw scores showed increases from grades 3 to 6 on both the WIAT TDTO (grade 3: M = 6.67, SD = 2.88; grade 6: M = 9.62, SD = 4.01) and the WIAT idea quality (grade 3: M = 3.80, SD = 0.88; grade 6: M = 4.33, SD = 1.15). The mean WIAT TDTO standard scores were in the average range (106–111). In contrast, mean scores for the One Day idea quality measure did not show a similar pattern of growth, but decreased slightly (grade 3: M = 4.40, SD = 1.07; grade 6: M = 4.25, SD = 0.99). Although this may appear surprising, a slight dip or no growth in a particular year in writing quality has been previously reported ( Ahmed et al., 2014 ).

Correlations among the measures across grades are reported in Table 2 . The relations between reading and writing in each grade varied: Word reading and spelling were strongly related (.73 ≤ r s ≤ .80) whereas reading comprehension and writing were somewhat weakly related (.21 ≤ r s ≤ .37). Correlation matrices within tasks across grades show that word reading tasks (.75 ≤ r s ≤ .86) and spelling (.83 ≤ r s ≤ .89) were strongly correlated across grades. Reading comprehension was also fairly strongly related across the grades (.60 ≤ r s ≤ .69) In contrast, correlations in writing scores across grades were weakly to moderately related (.15 ≤ r s ≤ .50).

Correlations among variables

G = Grade; LWID = Letter Word Identification Task; PC = Passage Comprehension; WT = WIAT Essay task; One day = One day prompt; TDTO = Thematic Development and Text Organization

Research Question 1

What are the patterns of development in reading (word reading and reading comprehension) and writing (spelling and written composition) from Grades 3 to 6?

Prior to the specification of the growth models for all outcomes, the longitudinal invariance of the writing measures was evaluated with Mplus v7.0 ( Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2013 ). The first phase of the model building was to identify the extent to which a single factor best represented the measurement-level covariances among the three measured writing variables at each of the grade levels. However, because the model was just-identified (i.e., 0 degrees of freedom), fit indices were not available for the grade-based models. The baseline model for longitudinal invariance specified longitudinal constraints on the loadings, intercepts, and residual variances and the model fit was poor: χ 2 (75) = 480.97, RMSEA = .107, (90% RMSEA CI = .098, .116), CFI = .68, TLI = .72. Through a series of model revisions a final model was specified that included invariant loadings and intercepts, partially invariant residual variances (i.e., grade 3 WIAT TDTO was freely estimated), and the addition of three residual covariances among writing measures, χ 2 (62) = 115.40, RMSEA = .043 (90% RMSEA CI = .030, .055), CFI = .96, TLI = .96, and the fit of this final model was significantly better than the fully invariant model (Δχ 2 = 365.57, Δdf = 13, p < .001).

As noted above, four alternative growth models were examined and compared for each of the outcomes, word reading, spelling, reading comprehension, and writing. Model fit results are reported in Table 3 . Generally, each model configuration fit well to the outcomes. For example, the word reading models all maintained acceptable CFI and TLI (>.95) as well as RMSEA (<.10). When using the BIC to compare relative model fit, both the dual change score model (BIC = 9,720) and freed loading model (BIC = 9,719) were lower by at least 5 points from the linear latent growth (BIC = 9,735) and quadratic growth (BIC = 9,729) models but only differed by 1 point from each other. Based on the χ 2 /df ratio and the measurement simplicity, the freed loading model was selected for word reading. The results from the freed loading model indicated that 45% of the total growth in word reading having occurred between grades 3 and 4, 26% of growth occurring between grades 4 and 5, and 29% of growth occurring between grades 5 and 6. The comparison of the spelling growth models showed an advantage for the dual change score model over the freed loading and non-linear growth models by 11 points on the BIC, as well as a 41 point difference with the linear latent growth model.

Developmental model fit for word reading, spelling, reading comprehension, and writing

Note . BIC = Bayes Information Criteria, df = degrees of freedom, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, LB = 90% RMSEA lower bound, UB = 90% RMSEA upper bound, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index.

For reading comprehension, the quadratic growth and dual change scores models fit better to the other two alternatives, and similar to the word reading model selection, the χ 2 /df ratio and the measurement parsimony led to the selection of the quadratic growth model. Finally, the quadratic growth model was selected for the writing outcome based on its relative fit to the dual change models (i.e., ΔBIC = 30), and its superior fit to the linear latent growth model (Δχ 2 = 14.74, Δdf = 4, p < .01) and the freed loading model (Δχ 2 = 8.74, Δdf = 2, p < .05).

Randomly selected individual growth curves ( n = 25) for each of the four outcomes are presented in Figure 1 . The word reading curves reflect the linear relation over time with slight individual differences in the amount of change occurring. Similarly, though spelling change over time appear non-linear, the variance in the linear and quadratic slope functions were minimal and resulted in relatively parallel development. Both the reading comprehension and latent writing trajectories demonstrated individual differences in change with large differences observed in the latent writing development.

Randomly selected estimated individual curves from n =25 for word reading, spelling, reading comprehension, and latent writing across grades 3–6 (Times 1–4).

Research Question 2

The first structural analysis tested the relation between word reading intercept (centered in grade 3) and slope in predicting spelling intercept (centered in grade 3) and slope, χ 2 (22) = 27.92, RMSEA = .024, 90% RMSEA CI = .000, .047, CFI = .99, TLI = .99. Standardized path coefficients are presented in Figure 2 (Unstandardized model coefficients are reported in Appendix A1 ). Word reading intercept (initial status) and slope were moderately and negatively related (−.44), indicating that children who had higher word reading in Grade 3 had a slower growth rate in word reading. In contrast, spelling intercept and slope had a strong and positive relation (.73), indicating that children who had a higher spelling skill showed a faster growth rate over time. In terms of the relation between word reading and spelling, Grade 3 word reading scores significantly predicted Grade 3 spelling scores (.86) as well as the average spelling growth trajectory (.96). Word reading growth also uniquely predicted the average spelling growth trajectory (.22). In contrast, Grade 3 spelling scores did not significantly predict growth in word reading (.16, p > .50). A model including bi-directional paths from word reading slope to spelling slope did not converge; a final model included a covariance between word reading and spelling slopes with the correlation estimated as .08 ( p > .50). The inclusion of the word reading predictors resulted in 75% of the variance in Grade 3 spelling explained along with 84% of the variance in spelling growth.

Latent word reading development predicting latent spelling development. LWID = Letter Word Identification

Standardized path coefficients for the predictive model of reading comprehension development to writing development are shown in Figure 3 : χ 2 (110) = 218.45, RMSEA = .045, 90% RMSEA CI = .037, .054, CFI = .95, TLI = .94 (Unstandardized model coefficients are reported in Appendix A2 ). Although our goal was to examine how growth trajectories (initial status, linear slope, and quadratic terms) in reading comprehension and writing are related to one another, this was not permitted due to zero variance in the linear slope and quadratic terms in reading comprehension as well as the quadratic term in writing. As shown in Figure 3 , Grade 3 reading comprehension significantly predicted Grade 3 writing (.69) 3 , but did not significantly explain differences in the linear writing slope (.10, p = .29). Grade 3 reading comprehension explained 48% of the variance in Grade 3 writing and 1% of the variance in the linear writing slope. Furthermore, intercept and linear slope in writing were not related (.09, p = .74); and the relation between intercept and linear slope in reading comprehension was not estimated due to lack of variance in the slope of reading comprehension.

Latent reading comprehension development predicting latent writing development. PC = Passage Comprehension; W = Writing quality

Two overarching questions guided the present study: a) what are the growth trajectories or growth patterns in reading and writing across Grades 3 to 6, and b) what is the developmental relation between reading and writing for children in these grades. We focused on development from Grades 3 to 6 when children are expected to have developed foundational literacy skills, but continue to develop reading and writing skills. Colloquially, they have moved from a learning to read to a reading to learn phase (Chall, 1983).

We found that different growth models described best the four different reading and writing outcomes. Overall, alternative models for the four literacy outcomes fit the data well. Unlike our hypothesis of nonlinear trajectories, for lexical-level literacy skills, word reading and spelling, linear models (freed loading and dual change models) described data best, at least from Grades 3 to 6. For word reading, results from the freed loading growth curve fit the data best and showed the amount of growth in word reading varied as function of development time points. The largest amount of growth (45% of total growth) occurred between grades 3 and 4 with less growth between grades 4 and 5 (26%) and between grades 5 and 6 (29%). This is convergent with a previous study, which found that growth in reading skills was larger in lower grades than upper grades ( Kieffer, 2011 ). For spelling, again the dual change score model described the data best. The dual change score model does not differ from the traditional growth model in terms of shapes of growth pattern. The dual change score model, however, adds nuances because it captures proportional (i.e., auto-regressive) growth parameters (changes between two time points) in addition to average growth parameters in traditional growth models (changes across all the time points).

Interestingly, however, for reading comprehension and written composition, nonlinear trajectories with a quadratic function described the data best. In other words, developmental trajectories were characterized by an initial linear development followed by slowing down (or plateau). This nonlinear trajectory in reading comprehension is convergent with previous work (e.g., Kieffer, 2011 ). The present study is the first one to describe any growth pattern over time in written composition beyond a single academic year and/or from Grades 3 to 6. Taken together with the limited extant work, it appears that reading comprehension and written composition develop in nonlinear trajectories, characterized by initial strong growth and followed by a pattern of deceleration, or slowing down, at least from Grades 3 to 6.

Another interesting finding about growth trajectories in reading and writing was the relation between initial status and linear growth rate. For word reading, children’s status in Grade 3 was negatively related to rate of growth (−.44) such that those who had advanced word reading in Grade 3 had a slower growth rate through the grades. Spelling, on the other hand, showed a different pattern with a strong positive relation between initial status and growth rate (.73), indicating that students with a higher spelling skill at Grade 3 developed at a faster rate from Grades 3 to 6. Although there might be several explanations, we speculate that these results are attributed, at least partially, to the fact that children in these grades are in different developmental phases in word reading versus spelling. In word reading, many children have reached high levels of proficiency by Grade 3, and therefore, their subsequent learning rate is slower as their learning approaches a ceiling. In spelling, however, students’ overall development in Grade 3 did not quite reach as high because spelling requires greater accuracy and precision in orthographic representations than reading ( Ehri, 2000 ). Therefore, there is sufficient room for further growth for the majority of learners, and those with more advanced spelling in Grade 3 continue to grow at a fast rate in subsequent grades, presumably because they have more solid foundations in component skills of spelling. Another possible explanation may relate to instruction; that is by third grade, relatively little reading instructional focus is at the word level, because students are expected to have mastered learning to read whereas spelling instruction may continue, particularly for more complex word patterns. This speculation, however, requires future studies.

Results for discourse-level literacy skills were less clear. Unfortunately, the relation between initial status and growth rates was not estimable for reading comprehension due to the lack of variance in the linear slope and quadratic parameters. In written composition, although there was variation in the linear slope, the relation between initial status and linear slope was not statistically significant. This finding suggests that initial student writing levels do not necessarily predict future growth in writing. However, given that this was the first study to explicitly examine the relations between initial status and growth trajectories in writing, our findings cannot be compared to any previous research, and so will require replication in future studies.

Turning to the relation between reading and writing, we hypothesized a dynamic relation between reading and writing as a function of grain size – differential relations for the lexical-level skills versus discourse-level skills, hypothesizing a stronger relation between word reading and spelling than between reading comprehension and written composition. This hypothesis was supported such that bivariate correlations between word reading and spelling were strong across grades (.73 ≤ r s ≤ .80). The strong correlation between word reading and spelling is convergent with theoretical explanations and empirical evidence that word reading and spelling rely on a limited number of highly similar skills such as phonological awareness, orthographic awareness (letter knowledge and letter patterns), and morphological awareness ( Apel, Wilson-Fowler, Brimo, & Perrin, 2012 ; Berninger et al., 1998 ; Ehri, Satlow, & Gaskins, 2009 ; Kim, 2011 ; Kim et al., 2013 ;Treiman, 1998).

When reading-writing relations were examined at the discourse level, the relation was weak (.21 ≤ r s ≤ .37), convergent with previous evidence ( Ahmed et al., 2014 ; Berninger & Swanson, 1994 ; Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ; Kim et al., 2015a ). The overall weak relation indicates that reading comprehension and written composition have shared variance, but are unique and independent to a large extent, at least during the relatively early phase of development examined in the present study (Grades 3 – 6). Reading comprehension and written comprehension draw on complex, similar sets of skills and knowledge such as oral language, lexical-level literacy skills, higher-order cognitive skills, background knowledge, and self-regulatory processes (e.g., Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ; Berninger et al., 2002 ; Conners, 2009 ; Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004 ; Compton, Miller, Elleman, & Steacy, 2014 ; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007 ; Graham et al., 2002; Graham et al., 2007 ; Kim, 2015 , 2017 ; Kim & Schatschneider, 2017 ; Kim & Schatschneider, 2018; Vellutino et al., 2007 ). However, as noted earlier, higher order skills such as reading comprehension and written comprehension which draw on a number of knowledge, skills, and factors are likely to be divergent as a construct. Furthermore, demands for reading comprehension and written composition differ. As a production task that involves multiple processes of planning (including generating and organizing ideas), goal setting, translating, monitoring, reviewing, evaluation, and revising (Hayes, 2012; Hayes & Flower, 1980), skilled writing requires regulating one’s attention, decisions, and behaviors throughout these process ( Berninger & Winn, 2006 ; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, 2012). Therefore, although reading comprehension and written composition draw on a similar set of knowledge and skills (e.g., oral language, self-regulation), the extent to which component skills are required for reading comprehension versus writing tasks might vary, resulting in a weaker relation ( Kim & Graham, 2018 ).

The hypothesis about the interactive nature of relations between reading and writing was not supported in the present study. Instead, our findings indicate a unidirectional relation from reading to writing both at the lexical and discourse levels. Initial status in word reading strongly predicted initial status (.86) and linear growth rate of spelling (.96). In other words, children who had higher word reading in Grade 3 also had higher spelling in Grade 3 and experienced a faster growth rate in spelling. Growth rate in word reading also predicted growth rate in spelling (.22) after accounting for the contribution of initial status in word reading, indicating that children who had faster growth in word reading also had faster growth in spelling. When the contribution of spelling to word reading was examined, initial status in spelling was positively related to word reading slope, but was not statistically significant. When growth rate in spelling was hypothesized to predict growth rate in word reading, the model did not converge. Although the causes of model non-convergence is unclear, overall the present findings indicate that development of word reading facilitates development of spelling skills but not the other way around at least from Grades 3 to 6. The unidirectional relation from word reading to spelling is convergent with a previous longitudinal study from Grades 1 to 4 ( Ahmed et al., 2014 ), but divergent with a meta-analysis reporting a large effect of spelling instruction on word reading (average effect size = .68; Graham & Hebert, 2010).

Furthermore, reading comprehension in Grade 3 fairly strongly predicted writing in Grade 3 (.69). However, neither initial status in reading comprehension (in Grade 3) nor in written composition predicted linear growth in written composition. The relation from reading comprehension to writing is convergent with an earlier study by Ahmed et al. (2014) with younger children, and suggests that knowledge of and experiences with reading comprehension are likely to contribute to written composition, but not the other way around, at least during Grades 3 to 6. This appears to contradict previous findings on the effect of writing instruction on reading (Graham & Hebert, 2010) or the positive effects on reading and writing when instruction explicitly targets both reading and writing ( Graham et al., in press ). These discrepancies might suggest that for writing to transfer to reading at the discourse level, explicit and targeted instruction might be necessary. Although writing acquisition and experiences may help children to think about and to reflect on how information is presented in written texts, which promotes awareness of text structure and text meaning, and, consequently, reading comprehension ( Graham & Harris, 2017 ; Langer & Flihan, 2000 ), these might be beneficial for children who have highly developed meta-cognition or might require instruction that explicitly identifies these aspects to promote transfer of skills between writing and reading comprehension. Future studies are warranted for this speculation.

Limitations and Conclusion

Results of the present findings should be interpreted with the following limitations in mind. First, there was a lack of variance in the linear parameter of reading comprehension as well as in the quadratic parameter of reading comprehension and written composition. These indicate that children in Grades 3 to 6 did not vary in linear growth rate in reading comprehension and quadratic function in reading comprehension and written composition. While these are potentially important findings themselves, these limited the scope of relations that could be estimated in the present study. Measuring a construct (e.g., reading comprehension) using multiple tasks would be beneficial in several aspects, including reduction of measurement error and addressing the issue of zero variance in future studies. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that reading comprehension measures vary in the extent to which they tap into component skills ( Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 ; Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008 ). Therefore, the extent to which our present findings are influenced by the use of a particular reading comprehension task (i.e., WJ Passage Comprehension) is an open question and requires future work. Second, the foci of the present study were developmental trajectories and reading-writing relations; and thus, an investigation of component skills and their relations to growth trajectories of reading and writing was beyond the scope of the present study. Such an investigation would shed light on shared and unique aspects of reading and writing development (see Kim & Graham, 2018 ). Third, we did not observe the amount or quality of instruction in reading or writing; future research might explore how instruction and interventions mediate growth trajectories. Moreover, variation across classrooms across the grades was not accounted for in the statistical model for its complexity. Finally, our findings should be replicated with different samples of students in terms of both ethnicity, English language proficiency, and free and reduced lunch price status.

In conclusion, we found that linear developmental trajectories describe development of lexical-level literacy skills whereas a nonlinear function describes development of discourse-level literacy skills from Grades 3 to 6. We also found that reading-writing relations are more likely to be from reading to writing at lexical- and discourse levels, at least during these grades. Future longitudinal and experimental investigations are needed to replicate and extend the present study to further reveal similarities and uniqueness of reading versus writing, and the nature of their relations.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by [masked for blind review]. The authors appreciate participating children, their parents, and teachers and school personnel.

Unstandardized model coefficients for passage comprehension and writing structural equation model

Note . WG3= grade 3 writing, WG4 = grade 4 writing, WG5 = grade 5 writing, WG6 = grade 6 writing; PC = passage comprehension; Int. = intercept; Var./Res. Var. = model variances and residual variances. p -values of 999 are indicative of model coefficients that were assigned a fixed value.

Unstandardized model coefficients for word reading and spelling structural equation model

Note . SG3= grade 3 spelling, SG4 = grade 4 spelling, SG5 = grade 5 spelling, SG6 = grade 6 spelling; SG34 = grade 3–4 latent change score, SG45 = grade 4–5 latent change score, SG56 = grade 5–6; latent change score, WR = word reading; LWID = letter word identification; Int. = intercept; Var./Res. Var. = model variances and residual variances. p -values of 999 are indicative of model coefficients that were assigned a fixed value.

1 The similarities that reading and writing draw on do not indicate that reading and writing are the same or a single construct ( Kim & Graham, 2018 ). Instead, reading and writing differ in demands and thus, in the extent to which they draw on resources. Spelling places greater demands on memory for accurate recall of word specific spelling patterns than does word reading, and word reading and spelling are not likely the same constructs (see Ehri, 2000 for a review; but see Kent et al., 2015; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-Martin, & Taylor, 2005 ). Written composition is also a more self-directed process than reading comprehension, and thus, is likely to draw on self-regulation to a greater extent than for reading comprehension ( Kim & Graham, 2018 ).

2 There is a dip in sample size in Grade 4. This was primarily because a few schools’ decision not to participate in the study during that year with changes in the leadership.

3 An alternative model tested a covariance between reading comprehension and written composition initial status, resulting in a .67 correlation between the constructs.

Contributor Information

Young-Suk Grace Kim, University of California Irvine.

Yaacov Petscher, Florida Center for Reading Research.

Jeanne Wanzek, Vanderbilt University.

Stephanie Al Otaiba, Southern Methodist University.

• Abbott RD, Berninger VW. Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993; 85 :478–508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adams MJ. Beginning to reading: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmed Y, Wagner RK, Lopez D. Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 106 :419–434. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Apel K, Wilson-Fowler EB, Brimo D, Perrin NA. Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2012; 25 :1283–1305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bamberg B. What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication. 1983; 34 :417–429. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107 :238–246. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980; 88 :588. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger VW, Abbott RD. Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in Grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102 :635–651. doi: 10.1037/a0019319. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Graham S, Richards T. Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35 :39–56. doi: 10.1177/002221940203500104. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Rogan L, Reed E, Abbott S, Brooks A, … Graham S. Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly. 1998; 21 :106–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger V, Amtmann D. Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In: Swanson H, Harris K, Graham S, editors. Handbook of Learning Disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003. pp. 323–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger VW, Swanson HL. Children’s writing; toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing. In: Butterfield E, editor. Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1994. pp. 57–81. Reproduced in The Learning and Teaching of Reading and Writing (by R. Stainthorp). Wiley, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berninger VW, Winn WD. Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In: MacArthur C, Graham S, Fitzgerald J, editors. Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006. pp. 96–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourassa D, Treiman R. Linguistic foundations of spelling development. In: Wyse D, Andrews R, Hoffman J, editors. Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching. London, UK: Routledge; 2009. pp. 182–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourassa DC, Treiman R, Kessler B. Use of morphology in spelling by children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Memory & Cognition. 2006; 34 :703–714. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research. 1992; 21 :230–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cain K, Oakhill JV. Inference ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing. 1999; 11 :489–503. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cain K, Oakhill J, Bryant P. Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96 :31–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlisle JF, Katz LA. Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2006; 19 :669–694. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, Steacy LM. Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading. 2014; 18 :55–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conners FA. Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2009; 22 :591–613. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cromley J, Azevedo R. Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99 :311–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cutting LE, Scarborough HS. Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend o how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2006; 10 :277, 299. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 1980; 19 :450–466. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deacon SH, Bryant PE. What young children do and do not know about the spelling of inflections and derivations. Developmental Science. 2005; 8 :583–594. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC. Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders. 2000; 20 (3):19–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Satlow E, Gaskins I. Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analysis instruction for struggling young readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2009; 25 :162–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman AM, Lindo EJ, Morphy P, Compton DL. The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2009; 2 :1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Enders CK. Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzgerald J, Shanahan T. Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35 :39–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Whitaker D. Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89 :170–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Harris KR. Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa) In: Ng C, Bartlett B, editors. Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21 st century. Singapore: Springer; 2017. pp. 333–350. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Berninger VW, Fan W. The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2007; 32 :516–536. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Liu X, Aitken A, Ng C, Bartlett B, Harris KR, Holzapfel J. Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes JR, Chenoweth NA. Working memory in an editing task. Written communication. 2007; 24 :283–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008; 6 :53–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooper SR, Swartz CW, Wakely MB, de Kruif REL, Montgomery JW. Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35 :57–68. doi: 10.1177/002221940203500105. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Juel C, Griffith PL, Gough PB. Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1986; 78 :243–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keenan JM, Betjemann RS, Olson RK. Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2008; 12 :281–300. doi: 10.1080/10888430802132279. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kellogg RT. A model of working memory in writing. In: Levy CM, Randell S, editors. The science of writing: Theories of, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999. pp. 57–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kent S, Wanzek J, Petscher Y, Al Otaiba S, Kim YS. Writing fluency and quality in kindergarten and first grade: The role of attention, reading, transcription, and oral language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2014; 27 :1163–1188. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9480-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer M. Converging trajectories: Reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational Research Journal. 2011; 48 :1187–1225. doi: 10.3102/0002831211419490. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS. Considering linguistic and orthographic features in early literacy acquisition: Evidence from Korean. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2011; 36 :177–189. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.06.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS. Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development. 2015; 86 :128–144. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12293. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YSG. Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER) Scientific Studies of Reading. 2017; 21 :310–333. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Puranik C, Folsom JS, Greulich L, Wagner RK. Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21 :517–525. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Puranik C, Folsom JS, Greulich L. The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2014; 27 :237–253. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9440-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Wanzek J, Gatlin B. Towards an understanding of dimension, predictors, and gender gaps in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 107 :79–95. doi: 10.1037/a0037210. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Apel K, Al Otaiba S. The relation of linguistic awareness and vocabulary to word reading and spelling for first-grade students participating in response to instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2013; 44 :1–11. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0013). [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim Y-SG, Graham S. Integrating reading and writing: Interactive dynamic literacy model. 2018 Manuscript submitted for publication. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YSG, Petscher Y, Park Y. Examining word factors and child factors for acquisition of conditional sound-spelling consistencies: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2016; 20 :265–282. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2016.1162794. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Phillips B. Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2014; 49 :269–281. doi: 10.1002/rrq.74. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YS, Puranik C, Al Otaiba S. Developmental trajectories of writing skills in first grade: Examining the effects of SES and language and/or speech impairments. Elementary School Journal. 2015; 115 :593– 613. doi:0013-5984/2015/11504-0008. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YSG, Schatschneider C. Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW) Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109 :35–50. doi: 10.1037/edu0000129. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim YSG, Wagner RK. Text (Oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from Grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2015; 19 :224–242. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kintsch W. The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review. 1988; 95 :163–182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langer JA, Flihan S. Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In: Indrisano R, Squire JR, editors. Writing and Research/Theory/Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 2000. pp. 112–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerkkanen M, Rasku-Puttonen H, Aunola K, Nurmi J. The developmental dynamics of literacy skills during the first grade. Educational Psychology. 2004; 24 :793–810. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lervag A, Hulme C. Predicting the growth of early spelling skills: Are there heterogeneous developmental trajectories? Scientific Studies of Reading. 2010; 14 :485–513. [ Google Scholar ]
• Limpo T, Alves RA. Modelling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105 :401–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Little RJ. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988; 83 :1198–1202. [ Google Scholar ]
• McArdle JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009; 60 :577–605. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCoach DB, O’Connell AA, Reis SM, Levitt HA. Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 :14–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrew KS, Schrank FA, Woodcock RW. Technical manual: Woodcock–Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster KL, Du X, Pétursdôttir AL. Technical features of curriculum-based measures for beginning writers. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2009; 42 :41–60. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326212. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mehta PD, Foorman BR, Branum-Martin L, Taylor WP. Literacy as a Unidimensional Multilevel Construct: Validation, Sources of Influence, and Implications in a Longitudinal Study in Grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2005; 9 :85–116. doi: 10.1207/s1532. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith W, Tisak J. Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika. 1990; 55 :107–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan PL, Farkas G, Wu Q. Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2011; 44 :472–488. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus user’s guide. 7. Los Angeles, CA: 1998–2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagy W, Berninger V, Abbott R. Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 :134–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769) [ Google Scholar ]
• Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. 6 + 1 trait writing. 2011 Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits .
• Oakhill J, Cain K. The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2012; 16 :91–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olinghouse NG. Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2008; 21 :3–26. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petscher Y, Quinn JM, Wagner RK. Modeling the co-development of correlated processes with longitudinal and cross-construct effects. Developmental Psychology. 2016; 52 :1690. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pressley M, Ghatala ES. Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist. 1990; 25 :19–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T. Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In: MacArthur CA, Graham S, Fitzgerald J, editors. Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2006. pp. 171–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich Keith E. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 1986; 22 :360–407. [ Google Scholar ]
• Treiman R. Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard JJ, Chen R. Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2007; 11 :3–32. doi: 10.1080/10888430709336632. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wechsler D. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. 3. San Antonio, TX: Pearson; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N. Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]

Creative Communication Frames: Discovering Similarities between Writing and Art

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Modest Petrovitch Moussorgsky (1839-1881) wrote, "Art is a means of communicating with people, not an end in itself." In this lesson, students explore art as communication by first viewing and discussing a painting from various perspectives, and analyzing the painting's purpose, audience, form and function. During a real or virtual trip to an art gallery, students use a graphic organizer to record detailed observations about paintings they see, viewed from multiple perspectives. After discussing their observations, they identify a corresponding literary term for each of the terms used to analyze the art form. They then use an online tool to compare how the process of writing is similar to the process of creating art. Finally, they use their ideas to write a compare and contrast essay. Though these activities were designed to compare writing with Impressionism, they could be adapted to any art form.

Featured Resources

Comparison and Contrast Guide : This online tool outlines the characteristics of the genre and provides direct instruction on the methods of organizing, gathering ideas, and writing comparison and contrast essays.

Compare & Contrast Map : This interactive graphic organizer enables students to organize and outline their ideas for different kinds of comparison essays.

Observation Guide : This handout prompts students to record detailed observations of an Impressionist painting.

From Theory to Practice

In her article describing a class project student poetry inspired by art, Honor Moorman describes her motivation: she had "become increasingly aware of the similarities between the visual and the verbal arts. William Blake said that poetry and art are "ways to converse with paradise" (Farrell 6). In the Phaedrus, Plato observes that when paintings and poems are put together, they "seem to talk to you as if they were intelligent" (qtd. in Foster and Prevallet xv). Indeed, both poetry and art speak to our imaginations through the power of images. Georgia Heard calls language "the poet's paint" (65), and many other writers and artists have commented on the parallels between these two modes of expression." (46-47) This lesson capitalizes on the natural connection between language and art, asking students to compare expression through language to expression through art.

Further Reading

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 1. Students read a wide range of print and nonprint texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works.
• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 5. Students employ a wide range of strategies as they write and use different writing process elements appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes.
• 6. Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts.
• 7. Students conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. They gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and nonprint texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience.
• 8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
• 9. Students develop an understanding of and respect for diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles.
• 10. Students whose first language is not English make use of their first language to develop competency in the English language arts and to develop understanding of content across the curriculum.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).
• Observation Guide
• Rubric Example

Preparation

• Provide choices of non-print media for student viewing (field trip to local gallery, or prepare a classroom "gallery" of prints).
• Preview URLs for art resources and virtual tours.
• Prepare student handouts-a guide for viewing and comparison.

Student Objectives

Students will

• demonstrate proficiency in using the writing process.
• make connections between prior knowledge and new information using prewriting strategies.
• write in response to a self-selected example of nonprint media, demonstrating an awareness of purpose, audience, voice, and style.
• note relevant information using listening and visual literacy.
• synthesize information in order to produce a piece of writing that demonstrates an understanding of comparison, analogy, and metaphor.
• use a variety of technology and multi-media resources.

Session One

• Display a print from one of the Impressionists (Monet, Renoir, Manet)—The painting could be selected from one of the virtual galleries found in the Resources section.
• In a large group brainstorming session, note and record details of what the students see at a distance. Select several students to study the painting closely, making verbal observations that are recorded.
• Repeat with several others viewing up close. Again in large group, discuss differences noted when painting is viewed closely. Discussion becomes more specific as students use the handout to record specific details.
• Discuss different perspectives from distant and close viewing.
• Use the Comparison and Contrast Guide to introduce basic characteristics and strategies for comparing items.
• List words writers use to help readers understand similarities and differences when two concepts are being compared. Small groups can develop word lists then combine into whole class working word bank. (Examples: compare, contrast, metaphor, analogy, alike, similar to). Work bank should be entered in students' journals for future reference, or transcribed to the computer and printed out.

Session Two

• The class may be viewing a virtual museum or on a field trip to a local gallery.
• Ask students to use the "close, distant, close again" to examine pieces of art, and record their observations based on the terms identified in the previous session.
• After individuals or partners complete their viewing and analysis, meet as a whole group for debriefing, sharing what was observed.

Session Three

• Discuss the art in general terms of analogy and metaphor. Seek examples of specific paintings and how they demonstrate communication of an idea or feelings. Develop a literary term for each of the terms used to analyze the art form. Title _________________ Artist_________________ (Author) Time painting was done __________________(setting) Brushstrokes _______________ (words,genre,style) Lines ______________________ (style, form) Colors______________________ (word choice, style) Shadings ___________________ (inferences) Shadows ____________________ (inferences,opinion) Perspective _________________(point of view, bias) Focal Point _________________(point of view) Background __________________ (setting) Subject of painting _____________ (main idea)
• Discuss this as a prewriting framework. Talk through, verbally model, how these ideas can shape a discussion of art as a means of communication, comparing the similarities between writing and painting-both the artist and the author are portraying an idea, images, a story, and/or an opinion.
• The students will use this framework to express their thoughts about ways in which the process of writing is similar to the process of creating art, using the transitional, comparative vocabulary developed for the class word bank.
• Introduce the Compare & Contrast Map , and demonstrate how students can use the online graphic map to organize their ideas.
• Using examples from the nonprint media they have studied, and perhaps examples from literature, ask students to write a compare and contrast essay. Allow time for them to revise, edit, and type their essays.

Student Assessment / Reflections

Impressionism was inspired by the music of Modest Petrovitch Moussorgsky who translated Russian literature into musical genres. Understanding of the similarities between the creative processes of composition—writing, art, and music—could be assessed through extended synthesis, after listening to Moussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" (Maurice Ravel's 1922 orchestration). Student responses could be noted through contributions to a large group discussion or reflective journal entries (written or drawn). The students' written responses to the painting (or other art form) can be assessed with a rubric based on:

• their use of transitional and comparative words (e.g. alike, similar to, close to, both, also, not only, therefore, consequently, next, in fact, still, besides, finally, furthermore, consequently).
• their inclusion of literary terms applied to the non-print media (see previewing and prewriting handouts).
• evidence of careful editing and proofreading.

Students could be given the option to demonstate their understanding by creating an original art form—computer generated, mixed media, musical piece or mix, etc.—accompanied by a written piece that could be used as a gallery print release about a "newly recognized artist". The written piece would address the artist's perspective/point of view; choice of media; purpose; focual point/main idea; and technique. These pieces could develop into a classroom or school exhibit—a form of publication.

• Calendar Activities
• Student Interactives

After showing students Picasso's Guernica , they are provided with background information, share their impressions, and write about Picasso's purpose in creating the painting.

Add new comment

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Language & Grammar

Science & Social Studies

Digital Learning

Comparing texts using paired passages.

Comparing text is a FAVORITE activity of mine. It’s not the easiest to teach, but I always find it so fun. Now, this blog post is going to be a bit different from my Exploring ELA Comparing Texts. That is because common core’s comparing text standards are within the domains, so fiction vs. fiction and nonfiction vs. nonfiction. That is where paired passages are different. And, it’s where these add-ins are so fun to teach. If you’re standards-based, try plugging these in for a week or two, or even throughout the year in centers! Having students find details from fiction and nonfiction texts about a topic is a great skill.

If you’re looking for the skill of comparing fiction to fiction and nonfiction to nonfiction, come back soon for that blog post! 

Fiction to Nonfiction

Today, we will discuss comparing fiction to nonfiction text. Teach what paired passages are first. 

Introduce the topic with an anchor chart or a KWL chart that the students fill out together. Make sure the students know the reason why they are going to read paired passages.

Use mentor texts as examples

Before you expect students to read paired passages on their own, you need to start with a few mentor texts to compare. Grab a fictional story that you really like and then find a nonfiction text to match it. This will help the students see the similarities between facts from fiction and nonfiction. Check out the links under the picture to grab my affiliate links to books on Amazon.

Horses Up Close!  and  Cowgirl Kate and Cocoa Spiders  and  Diary of a Spider Storms  and  Thundercake

Let them practice a lot!

First, you will read both texts together. I always chose to do choral reading with mine, as I tracked the stories under the document camera. So we will read our fictional story and our nonfiction story.

Then, you dive into your fiction story. This activity may be an entire day’s work, or even two or three days worth of work. When reading fiction stories, students should be marking up their texts, underlining their important details, and answering questions with text dependent answers.

After you finish studying your fiction story, you move on to your nonfiction text. You can choose to simply read and answer questions in one day, or expand it over a couple of days and include fact writing and research.

And finally, you wrap up your comparing text unit with your comparison pages. But, before you ask students to compare these two texts on their own, allow them to work on groups of 3 or 4. They can make a Venn diagram together. This will help them vocalize their thoughts before being asked for the cumulative writing comparison.

Quick tip on students making their own Venn diagram. Tell them to fold it into thirds and draw the circles in only two of the rectangles. Help with the sizes of the circles.

Suggested Resources For You

There are many options in my TPT store that you can choose from for Paired Passages. You can choose to teach paired texts with fairy tales. You can choose to teach paired texts with seasonal topics. Or, you can choose to teach paired texts with general nonfiction topics.

• Fairy Tale Paired Passages
• Paired Passages Bundle
• Paired Passages – Non-seasonal
• Read more about: Common Core Aligned , Interactive Notebooks , Reading Blog Posts , Uncategorized

You might also like...

3 Easy Times to Squeeze Speaking and Listening Skills into Your Day

In today’s blog post we will talk about incorporating speaking and listening skills in your elementary classroom! Finding time to focus on these crucial skills

Introduction to Fractions: Partitioning, Shares, and Fractions in 1st and 2nd Grade

Hello teachers! Welcome to today’s blog post, where we will dive into the fascinating world of fractions, tailored specifically for 1st and 2nd-grade classrooms. Fractions

Teaching Text Features in the Spring

This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed using the current season as a way to make your ELA content more engaging. Adding the element of

Join these happy teachers

Join the email list.

Get teaching tips, how-to guides, and freebies delivered right to your inbox every Wednesday!

Hi, I'm Jessica

I help elementary teachers master the standards by providing helpful standards-based tips, guides, and resources.

Let's Connect

Access your purchases

© Elementary Nest • Website by KristenDoyle.co

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 30 October 2023

A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays

• Steffen Herbold 1 ,
• Annette Hautli-Janisz 1 ,
• Ute Heuer 1 ,
• Zlata Kikteva 1 &
• Alexander Trautsch 1  

Scientific Reports volume  13 , Article number:  18617 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

12 Citations

94 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computer science
• Information technology

ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and have become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and lead to significant changes in the education system and information generation. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models—both lack scientific rigor. We systematically assess the quality of AI-generated content through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays. We use essays that were rated by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis by considering a set of linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher regarding quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays. Since the technology is readily available, we believe that educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilizes the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives.

Similar content being viewed by others

ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays

Željana Bašić, Ana Banovac, … Ivan Jerković

Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses

Hazem Ibrahim, Fengyuan Liu, … Yasir Zaki

The model student: GPT-4 performance on graduate biomedical science exams

Daniel Stribling, Yuxing Xia, … Rolf Renne

Introduction

The massive uptake in the development and deployment of large-scale Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems in recent months has yielded an almost unprecedented worldwide discussion of the future of society. The ChatGPT service which serves as Web front-end to GPT-3.5 1 and GPT-4 was the fastest-growing service in history to break the 100 million user milestone in January and had 1 billion visits by February 2023 2 .

Driven by the upheaval that is particularly anticipated for education 3 and knowledge transfer for future generations, we conduct the first independent, systematic study of AI-generated language content that is typically dealt with in high-school education: argumentative essays, i.e. essays in which students discuss a position on a controversial topic by collecting and reflecting on evidence (e.g. ‘Should students be taught to cooperate or compete?’). Learning to write such essays is a crucial aspect of education, as students learn to systematically assess and reflect on a problem from different perspectives. Understanding the capability of generative AI to perform this task increases our understanding of the skills of the models, as well as of the challenges educators face when it comes to teaching this crucial skill. While there is a multitude of individual examples and anecdotal evidence for the quality of AI-generated content in this genre (e.g. 4 ) this paper is the first to systematically assess the quality of human-written and AI-generated argumentative texts across different versions of ChatGPT 5 . We use a fine-grained essay quality scoring rubric based on content and language mastery and employ a significant pool of domain experts, i.e. high school teachers across disciplines, to perform the evaluation. Using computational linguistic methods and rigorous statistical analysis, we arrive at several key findings:

AI models generate significantly higher-quality argumentative essays than the users of an essay-writing online forum frequented by German high-school students across all criteria in our scoring rubric.

ChatGPT-4 (ChatGPT web interface with the GPT-4 model) significantly outperforms ChatGPT-3 (ChatGPT web interface with the GPT-3.5 default model) with respect to logical structure, language complexity, vocabulary richness and text linking.

Writing styles between humans and generative AI models differ significantly: for instance, the GPT models use more nominalizations and have higher sentence complexity (signaling more complex, ‘scientific’, language), whereas the students make more use of modal and epistemic constructions (which tend to convey speaker attitude).

The linguistic diversity of the NLG models seems to be improving over time: while ChatGPT-3 still has a significantly lower linguistic diversity than humans, ChatGPT-4 has a significantly higher diversity than the students.

Our work goes significantly beyond existing benchmarks. While OpenAI’s technical report on GPT-4 6 presents some benchmarks, their evaluation lacks scientific rigor: it fails to provide vital information like the agreement between raters, does not report on details regarding the criteria for assessment or to what extent and how a statistical analysis was conducted for a larger sample of essays. In contrast, our benchmark provides the first (statistically) rigorous and systematic study of essay quality, paired with a computational linguistic analysis of the language employed by humans and two different versions of ChatGPT, offering a glance at how these NLG models develop over time. While our work is focused on argumentative essays in education, the genre is also relevant beyond education. In general, studying argumentative essays is one important aspect to understand how good generative AI models are at conveying arguments and, consequently, persuasive writing in general.

Related work

Natural language generation.

The recent interest in generative AI models can be largely attributed to the public release of ChatGPT, a public interface in the form of an interactive chat based on the InstructGPT 1 model, more commonly referred to as GPT-3.5. In comparison to the original GPT-3 7 and other similar generative large language models based on the transformer architecture like GPT-J 8 , this model was not trained in a purely self-supervised manner (e.g. through masked language modeling). Instead, a pipeline that involved human-written content was used to fine-tune the model and improve the quality of the outputs to both mitigate biases and safety issues, as well as make the generated text more similar to text written by humans. Such models are referred to as Fine-tuned LAnguage Nets (FLANs). For details on their training, we refer to the literature 9 . Notably, this process was recently reproduced with publicly available models such as Alpaca 10 and Dolly (i.e. the complete models can be downloaded and not just accessed through an API). However, we can only assume that a similar process was used for the training of GPT-4 since the paper by OpenAI does not include any details on model training.

Testing of the language competency of large-scale NLG systems has only recently started. Cai et al. 11 show that ChatGPT reuses sentence structure, accesses the intended meaning of an ambiguous word, and identifies the thematic structure of a verb and its arguments, replicating human language use. Mahowald 12 compares ChatGPT’s acceptability judgments to human judgments on the Article + Adjective + Numeral + Noun construction in English. Dentella et al. 13 show that ChatGPT-3 fails to understand low-frequent grammatical constructions like complex nested hierarchies and self-embeddings. In another recent line of research, the structure of automatically generated language is evaluated. Guo et al. 14 show that in question-answer scenarios, ChatGPT-3 uses different linguistic devices than humans. Zhao et al. 15 show that ChatGPT generates longer and more diverse responses when the user is in an apparently negative emotional state.

Given that we aim to identify certain linguistic characteristics of human-written versus AI-generated content, we also draw on related work in the field of linguistic fingerprinting, which assumes that each human has a unique way of using language to express themselves, i.e. the linguistic means that are employed to communicate thoughts, opinions and ideas differ between humans. That these properties can be identified with computational linguistic means has been showcased across different tasks: the computation of a linguistic fingerprint allows to distinguish authors of literary works 16 , the identification of speaker profiles in large public debates 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 and the provision of data for forensic voice comparison in broadcast debates 21 , 22 . For educational purposes, linguistic features are used to measure essay readability 23 , essay cohesion 24 and language performance scores for essay grading 25 . Integrating linguistic fingerprints also yields performance advantages for classification tasks, for instance in predicting user opinion 26 , 27 and identifying individual users 28 .

Limitations of OpenAIs ChatGPT evaluations

OpenAI published a discussion of the model’s performance of several tasks, including Advanced Placement (AP) classes within the US educational system 6 . The subjects used in performance evaluation are diverse and include arts, history, English literature, calculus, statistics, physics, chemistry, economics, and US politics. While the models achieved good or very good marks in most subjects, they did not perform well in English literature. GPT-3.5 also experienced problems with chemistry, macroeconomics, physics, and statistics. While the overall results are impressive, there are several significant issues: firstly, the conflict of interest of the model’s owners poses a problem for the performance interpretation. Secondly, there are issues with the soundness of the assessment beyond the conflict of interest, which make the generalizability of the results hard to assess with respect to the models’ capability to write essays. Notably, the AP exams combine multiple-choice questions with free-text answers. Only the aggregated scores are publicly available. To the best of our knowledge, neither the generated free-text answers, their overall assessment, nor their assessment given specific criteria from the used judgment rubric are published. Thirdly, while the paper states that 1–2 qualified third-party contractors participated in the rating of the free-text answers, it is unclear how often multiple ratings were generated for the same answer and what was the agreement between them. This lack of information hinders a scientifically sound judgement regarding the capabilities of these models in general, but also specifically for essays. Lastly, the owners of the model conducted their study in a few-shot prompt setting, where they gave the models a very structured template as well as an example of a human-written high-quality essay to guide the generation of the answers. This further fine-tuning of what the models generate could have also influenced the output. The results published by the owners go beyond the AP courses which are directly comparable to our work and also consider other student assessments like Graduate Record Examinations (GREs). However, these evaluations suffer from the same problems with the scientific rigor as the AP classes.

Scientific assessment of ChatGPT

Researchers across the globe are currently assessing the individual capabilities of these models with greater scientific rigor. We note that due to the recency and speed of these developments, the hereafter discussed literature has mostly only been published as pre-prints and has not yet been peer-reviewed. In addition to the above issues concretely related to the assessment of the capabilities to generate student essays, it is also worth noting that there are likely large problems with the trustworthiness of evaluations, because of data contamination, i.e. because the benchmark tasks are part of the training of the model, which enables memorization. For example, Aiyappa et al. 29 find evidence that this is likely the case for benchmark results regarding NLP tasks. This complicates the effort by researchers to assess the capabilities of the models beyond memorization.

Nevertheless, the first assessment results are already available – though mostly focused on ChatGPT-3 and not yet ChatGPT-4. Closest to our work is a study by Yeadon et al. 30 , who also investigate ChatGPT-3 performance when writing essays. They grade essays generated by ChatGPT-3 for five physics questions based on criteria that cover academic content, appreciation of the underlying physics, grasp of subject material, addressing the topic, and writing style. For each question, ten essays were generated and rated independently by five researchers. While the sample size precludes a statistical assessment, the results demonstrate that the AI model is capable of writing high-quality physics essays, but that the quality varies in a manner similar to human-written essays.

Guo et al. 14 create a set of free-text question answering tasks based on data they collected from the internet, e.g. question answering from Reddit. The authors then sample thirty triplets of a question, a human answer, and a ChatGPT-3 generated answer and ask human raters to assess if they can detect which was written by a human, and which was written by an AI. While this approach does not directly assess the quality of the output, it serves as a Turing test 31 designed to evaluate whether humans can distinguish between human- and AI-produced output. The results indicate that humans are in fact able to distinguish between the outputs when presented with a pair of answers. Humans familiar with ChatGPT are also able to identify over 80% of AI-generated answers without seeing a human answer in comparison. However, humans who are not yet familiar with ChatGPT-3 are not capable of identifying AI-written answers about 50% of the time. Moreover, the authors also find that the AI-generated outputs are deemed to be more helpful than the human answers in slightly more than half of the cases. This suggests that the strong results from OpenAI’s own benchmarks regarding the capabilities to generate free-text answers generalize beyond the benchmarks.

There are, however, some indicators that the benchmarks may be overly optimistic in their assessment of the model’s capabilities. For example, Kortemeyer 32 conducts a case study to assess how well ChatGPT-3 would perform in a physics class, simulating the tasks that students need to complete as part of the course: answer multiple-choice questions, do homework assignments, ask questions during a lesson, complete programming exercises, and write exams with free-text questions. Notably, ChatGPT-3 was allowed to interact with the instructor for many of the tasks, allowing for multiple attempts as well as feedback on preliminary solutions. The experiment shows that ChatGPT-3’s performance is in many aspects similar to that of the beginning learners and that the model makes similar mistakes, such as omitting units or simply plugging in results from equations. Overall, the AI would have passed the course with a low score of 1.5 out of 4.0. Similarly, Kung et al. 33 study the performance of ChatGPT-3 in the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) and find that the model performs at or near the passing threshold. Their assessment is a bit more optimistic than Kortemeyer’s as they state that this level of performance, comprehensible reasoning and valid clinical insights suggest that models such as ChatGPT may potentially assist human learning in clinical decision making.

Frieder et al. 34 evaluate the capabilities of ChatGPT-3 in solving graduate-level mathematical tasks. They find that while ChatGPT-3 seems to have some mathematical understanding, its level is well below that of an average student and in most cases is not sufficient to pass exams. Yuan et al. 35 consider the arithmetic abilities of language models, including ChatGPT-3 and ChatGPT-4. They find that they exhibit the best performance among other currently available language models (incl. Llama 36 , FLAN-T5 37 , and Bloom 38 ). However, the accuracy of basic arithmetic tasks is still only at 83% when considering correctness to the degree of \(10^{-3}\) , i.e. such models are still not capable of functioning reliably as calculators. In a slightly satiric, yet insightful take, Spencer et al. 39 assess how a scientific paper on gamma-ray astrophysics would look like, if it were written largely with the assistance of ChatGPT-3. They find that while the language capabilities are good and the model is capable of generating equations, the arguments are often flawed and the references to scientific literature are full of hallucinations.

The general reasoning skills of the models may also not be at the level expected from the benchmarks. For example, Cherian et al. 40 evaluate how well ChatGPT-3 performs on eleven puzzles that second graders should be able to solve and find that ChatGPT is only able to solve them on average in 36.4% of attempts, whereas the second graders achieve a mean of 60.4%. However, their sample size is very small and the problem was posed as a multiple-choice question answering problem, which cannot be directly compared to the NLG we consider.

Research gap

Within this article, we address an important part of the current research gap regarding the capabilities of ChatGPT (and similar technologies), guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: How good is ChatGPT based on GPT-3 and GPT-4 at writing argumentative student essays?

RQ2: How do AI-generated essays compare to essays written by students?

RQ3: What are linguistic devices that are characteristic of student versus AI-generated content?

We study these aspects with the help of a large group of teaching professionals who systematically assess a large corpus of student essays. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large-scale, independent scientific assessment of ChatGPT (or similar models) of this kind. Answering these questions is crucial to understanding the impact of ChatGPT on the future of education.

Materials and methods

The essay topics originate from a corpus of argumentative essays in the field of argument mining 41 . Argumentative essays require students to think critically about a topic and use evidence to establish a position on the topic in a concise manner. The corpus features essays for 90 topics from Essay Forum 42 , an active community for providing writing feedback on different kinds of text and is frequented by high-school students to get feedback from native speakers on their essay-writing capabilities. Information about the age of the writers is not available, but the topics indicate that the essays were written in grades 11–13, indicating that the authors were likely at least 16. Topics range from ‘Should students be taught to cooperate or to compete?’ to ‘Will newspapers become a thing of the past?’. In the corpus, each topic features one human-written essay uploaded and discussed in the forum. The students who wrote the essays are not native speakers. The average length of these essays is 19 sentences with 388 tokens (an average of 2.089 characters) and will be termed ‘student essays’ in the remainder of the paper.

For the present study, we use the topics from Stab and Gurevych 41 and prompt ChatGPT with ‘Write an essay with about 200 words on “[ topic ]”’ to receive automatically-generated essays from the ChatGPT-3 and ChatGPT-4 versions from 22 March 2023 (‘ChatGPT-3 essays’, ‘ChatGPT-4 essays’). No additional prompts for getting the responses were used, i.e. the data was created with a basic prompt in a zero-shot scenario. This is in contrast to the benchmarks by OpenAI, who used an engineered prompt in a few-shot scenario to guide the generation of essays. We note that we decided to ask for 200 words because we noticed a tendency to generate essays that are longer than the desired length by ChatGPT. A prompt asking for 300 words typically yielded essays with more than 400 words. Thus, using the shorter length of 200, we prevent a potential advantage for ChatGPT through longer essays, and instead err on the side of brevity. Similar to the evaluations of free-text answers by OpenAI, we did not consider multiple configurations of the model due to the effort required to obtain human judgments. For the same reason, our data is restricted to ChatGPT and does not include other models available at that time, e.g. Alpaca. We use the browser versions of the tools because we consider this to be a more realistic scenario than using the API. Table 1 below shows the core statistics of the resulting dataset. Supplemental material S1 shows examples for essays from the data set.

Annotation study

Study participants.

The participants had registered for a two-hour online training entitled ‘ChatGPT – Challenges and Opportunities’ conducted by the authors of this paper as a means to provide teachers with some of the technological background of NLG systems in general and ChatGPT in particular. Only teachers permanently employed at secondary schools were allowed to register for this training. Focusing on these experts alone allows us to receive meaningful results as those participants have a wide range of experience in assessing students’ writing. A total of 139 teachers registered for the training, 129 of them teach at grammar schools, and only 10 teachers hold a position at other secondary schools. About half of the registered teachers (68 teachers) have been in service for many years and have successfully applied for promotion. For data protection reasons, we do not know the subject combinations of the registered teachers. We only know that a variety of subjects are represented, including languages (English, French and German), religion/ethics, and science. Supplemental material S5 provides some general information regarding German teacher qualifications.

The training began with an online lecture followed by a discussion phase. Teachers were given an overview of language models and basic information on how ChatGPT was developed. After about 45 minutes, the teachers received a both written and oral explanation of the questionnaire at the core of our study (see Supplementary material S3 ) and were informed that they had 30 minutes to finish the study tasks. The explanation included information on how the data was obtained, why we collect the self-assessment, and how we chose the criteria for the rating of the essays, the overall goal of our research, and a walk-through of the questionnaire. Participation in the questionnaire was voluntary and did not affect the awarding of a training certificate. We further informed participants that all data was collected anonymously and that we would have no way of identifying who participated in the questionnaire. We orally informed participants that they consent to the use of the provided ratings for our research by participating in the survey.

Once these instructions were provided orally and in writing, the link to the online form was given to the participants. The online form was running on a local server that did not log any information that could identify the participants (e.g. IP address) to ensure anonymity. As per instructions, consent for participation was given by using the online form. Due to the full anonymity, we could by definition not document who exactly provided the consent. This was implemented as further insurance that non-participation could not possibly affect being awarded the training certificate.

About 20% of the training participants did not take part in the questionnaire study, the remaining participants consented based on the information provided and participated in the rating of essays. After the questionnaire, we continued with an online lecture on the opportunities of using ChatGPT for teaching as well as AI beyond chatbots. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Passau. We further confirm that our study protocol is in accordance with all relevant guidelines.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of three parts: first, a brief self-assessment regarding the English skills of the participants which is based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 43 . We have six levels ranging from ‘comparable to a native speaker’ to ‘some basic skills’ (see supplementary material S3 ). Then each participant was shown six essays. The participants were only shown the generated text and were not provided with information on whether the text was human-written or AI-generated.

The questionnaire covers the seven categories relevant for essay assessment shown below (for details see supplementary material S3 ):

Topic and completeness

Logic and composition

Expressiveness and comprehensiveness

Language mastery

Vocabulary and text linking

Language constructs

These categories are used as guidelines for essay assessment 44 established by the Ministry for Education of Lower Saxony, Germany. For each criterion, a seven-point Likert scale with scores from zero to six is defined, where zero is the worst score (e.g. no relation to the topic) and six is the best score (e.g. addressed the topic to a special degree). The questionnaire included a written description as guidance for the scoring.

After rating each essay, the participants were also asked to self-assess their confidence in the ratings. We used a five-point Likert scale based on the criteria for the self-assessment of peer-review scores from the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Once a participant finished rating the six essays, they were shown a summary of their ratings, as well as the individual ratings for each of their essays and the information on how the essay was generated.

Computational linguistic analysis

In order to further explore and compare the quality of the essays written by students and ChatGPT, we consider the six following linguistic characteristics: lexical diversity, sentence complexity, nominalization, presence of modals, epistemic and discourse markers. Those are motivated by previous work: Weiss et al. 25 observe the correlation between measures of lexical, syntactic and discourse complexities to the essay gradings of German high-school examinations while McNamara et al. 45 explore cohesion (indicated, among other things, by connectives), syntactic complexity and lexical diversity in relation to the essay scoring.

Lexical diversity

We identify vocabulary richness by using a well-established measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) 46 which is often used in the field of automated essay grading 25 , 45 , 47 . It takes into account the number of unique words but unlike the best-known measure of lexical diversity, the type-token ratio (TTR), it is not as sensitive to the difference in the length of the texts. In fact, Koizumi and In’nami 48 find it to be least affected by the differences in the length of the texts compared to some other measures of lexical diversity. This is relevant to us due to the difference in average length between the human-written and ChatGPT-generated essays.

Syntactic complexity

We use two measures in order to evaluate the syntactic complexity of the essays. One is based on the maximum depth of the sentence dependency tree which is produced using the spaCy 3.4.2 dependency parser 49 (‘Syntactic complexity (depth)’). For the second measure, we adopt an approach similar in nature to the one by Weiss et al. 25 who use clause structure to evaluate syntactic complexity. In our case, we count the number of conjuncts, clausal modifiers of nouns, adverbial clause modifiers, clausal complements, clausal subjects, and parataxes (‘Syntactic complexity (clauses)’). The supplementary material in S2 shows the difference between sentence complexity based on two examples from the data.

Nominalization is a common feature of a more scientific style of writing 50 and is used as an additional measure for syntactic complexity. In order to explore this feature, we count occurrences of nouns with suffixes such as ‘-ion’, ‘-ment’, ‘-ance’ and a few others which are known to transform verbs into nouns.

Semantic properties

Both modals and epistemic markers signal the commitment of the writer to their statement. We identify modals using the POS-tagging module provided by spaCy as well as a list of epistemic expressions of modality, such as ‘definitely’ and ‘potentially’, also used in other approaches to identifying semantic properties 51 . For epistemic markers we adopt an empirically-driven approach and utilize the epistemic markers identified in a corpus of dialogical argumentation by Hautli-Janisz et al. 52 . We consider expressions such as ‘I think’, ‘it is believed’ and ‘in my opinion’ to be epistemic.

Discourse properties

Discourse markers can be used to measure the coherence quality of a text. This has been explored by Somasundaran et al. 53 who use discourse markers to evaluate the story-telling aspect of student writing while Nadeem et al. 54 incorporated them in their deep learning-based approach to automated essay scoring. In the present paper, we employ the PDTB list of discourse markers 55 which we adjust to exclude words that are often used for purposes other than indicating discourse relations, such as ‘like’, ‘for’, ‘in’ etc.

Statistical methods

We use a within-subjects design for our study. Each participant was shown six randomly selected essays. Results were submitted to the survey system after each essay was completed, in case participants ran out of time and did not finish scoring all six essays. Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) 56 allows us to determine the inter-rater reliability for the rating criterion and data source (human, ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4) in order to understand the reliability of our data not only overall, but also for each data source and rating criterion. We use two-sided Wilcoxon-rank-sum tests 57 to confirm the significance of the differences between the data sources for each criterion. We use the same tests to determine the significance of the linguistic characteristics. This results in three comparisons (human vs. ChatGPT-3, human vs. ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-3 vs. ChatGPT-4) for each of the seven rating criteria and each of the seven linguistic characteristics, i.e. 42 tests. We use the Holm-Bonferroni method 58 for the correction for multiple tests to achieve a family-wise error rate of 0.05. We report the effect size using Cohen’s d 59 . While our data is not perfectly normal, it also does not have severe outliers, so we prefer the clear interpretation of Cohen’s d over the slightly more appropriate, but less accessible non-parametric effect size measures. We report point plots with estimates of the mean scores for each data source and criterion, incl. the 95% confidence interval of these mean values. The confidence intervals are estimated in a non-parametric manner based on bootstrap sampling. We further visualize the distribution for each criterion using violin plots to provide a visual indicator of the spread of the data (see Supplementary material S4 ).

Further, we use the self-assessment of the English skills and confidence in the essay ratings as confounding variables. Through this, we determine if ratings are affected by the language skills or confidence, instead of the actual quality of the essays. We control for the impact of these by measuring Pearson’s correlation coefficient r 60 between the self-assessments and the ratings. We also determine whether the linguistic features are correlated with the ratings as expected. The sentence complexity (both tree depth and dependency clauses), as well as the nominalization, are indicators of the complexity of the language. Similarly, the use of discourse markers should signal a proper logical structure. Finally, a large lexical diversity should be correlated with the ratings for the vocabulary. Same as above, we measure Pearson’s r . We use a two-sided test for the significance based on a \(\beta\) -distribution that models the expected correlations as implemented by scipy 61 . Same as above, we use the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiple tests. However, we note that it is likely that all—even tiny—correlations are significant given our amount of data. Consequently, our interpretation of these results focuses on the strength of the correlations.

Our statistical analysis of the data is implemented in Python. We use pandas 1.5.3 and numpy 1.24.2 for the processing of data, pingouin 0.5.3 for the calculation of Cronbach’s \(\alpha\) , scipy 1.10.1 for the Wilcoxon-rank-sum tests Pearson’s r , and seaborn 0.12.2 for the generation of plots, incl. the calculation of error bars that visualize the confidence intervals.

Out of the 111 teachers who completed the questionnaire, 108 rated all six essays, one rated five essays, one rated two essays, and one rated only one essay. This results in 658 ratings for 270 essays (90 topics for each essay type: human-, ChatGPT-3-, ChatGPT-4-generated), with three ratings for 121 essays, two ratings for 144 essays, and one rating for five essays. The inter-rater agreement is consistently excellent ( \(\alpha >0.9\) ), with the exception of language mastery where we have good agreement ( \(\alpha =0.89\) , see Table  2 ). Further, the correlation analysis depicted in supplementary material S4 shows weak positive correlations ( \(r \in 0.11, 0.28]\) ) between the self-assessment for the English skills, respectively the self-assessment for the confidence in ratings and the actual ratings. Overall, this indicates that our ratings are reliable estimates of the actual quality of the essays with a potential small tendency that confidence in ratings and language skills yields better ratings, independent of the data source.

Table  2 and supplementary material S4 characterize the distribution of the ratings for the essays, grouped by the data source. We observe that for all criteria, we have a clear order of the mean values, with students having the worst ratings, ChatGPT-3 in the middle rank, and ChatGPT-4 with the best performance. We further observe that the standard deviations are fairly consistent and slightly larger than one, i.e. the spread is similar for all ratings and essays. This is further supported by the visual analysis of the violin plots.

The statistical analysis of the ratings reported in Table  4 shows that differences between the human-written essays and the ones generated by both ChatGPT models are significant. The effect sizes for human versus ChatGPT-3 essays are between 0.52 and 1.15, i.e. a medium ( \(d \in [0.5,0.8)\) ) to large ( \(d \in [0.8, 1.2)\) ) effect. On the one hand, the smallest effects are observed for the expressiveness and complexity, i.e. when it comes to the overall comprehensiveness and complexity of the sentence structures, the differences between the humans and the ChatGPT-3 model are smallest. On the other hand, the difference in language mastery is larger than all other differences, which indicates that humans are more prone to making mistakes when writing than the NLG models. The magnitude of differences between humans and ChatGPT-4 is larger with effect sizes between 0.88 and 1.43, i.e., a large to very large ( \(d \in [1.2, 2)\) ) effect. Same as for ChatGPT-3, the differences are smallest for expressiveness and complexity and largest for language mastery. Please note that the difference in language mastery between humans and both GPT models does not mean that the humans have low scores for language mastery (M=3.90), but rather that the NLG models have exceptionally high scores (M=5.03 for ChatGPT-3, M=5.25 for ChatGPT-4).

When we consider the differences between the two GPT models, we observe that while ChatGPT-4 has consistently higher mean values for all criteria, only the differences for logic and composition, vocabulary and text linking, and complexity are significant. The effect sizes are between 0.45 and 0.5, i.e. small ( \(d \in [0.2, 0.5)\) ) and medium. Thus, while GPT-4 seems to be an improvement over GPT-3.5 in general, the only clear indicator of this is a better and clearer logical composition and more complex writing with a more diverse vocabulary.

We also observe significant differences in the distribution of linguistic characteristics between all three groups (see Table  3 ). Sentence complexity (depth) is the only category without a significant difference between humans and ChatGPT-3, as well as ChatGPT-3 and ChatGPT-4. There is also no significant difference in the category of discourse markers between humans and ChatGPT-3. The magnitude of the effects varies a lot and is between 0.39 and 1.93, i.e., between small ( \(d \in [0.2, 0.5)\) ) and very large. However, in comparison to the ratings, there is no clear tendency regarding the direction of the differences. For instance, while the ChatGPT models write more complex sentences and use more nominalizations, humans tend to use more modals and epistemic markers instead. The lexical diversity of humans is higher than that of ChatGPT-3 but lower than that of ChatGPT-4. While there is no difference in the use of discourse markers between humans and ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4 uses significantly fewer discourse markers.

We detect the expected positive correlations between the complexity ratings and the linguistic markers for sentence complexity ( \(r=0.16\) for depth, \(r=0.19\) for clauses) and nominalizations ( \(r=0.22\) ). However, we observe a negative correlation between the logic ratings and the discourse markers ( \(r=-0.14\) ), which counters our intuition that more frequent use of discourse indicators makes a text more logically coherent. However, this is in line with previous work: McNamara et al. 45 also find no indication that the use of cohesion indices such as discourse connectives correlates with high- and low-proficiency essays. Finally, we observe the expected positive correlation between the ratings for the vocabulary and the lexical diversity ( \(r=0.12\) ). All observed correlations are significant. However, we note that the strength of all these correlations is weak and that the significance itself should not be over-interpreted due to the large sample size.

Our results provide clear answers to the first two research questions that consider the quality of the generated essays: ChatGPT performs well at writing argumentative student essays and outperforms the quality of the human-written essays significantly. The ChatGPT-4 model has (at least) a large effect and is on average about one point better than humans on a seven-point Likert scale.

Regarding the third research question, we find that there are significant linguistic differences between humans and AI-generated content. The AI-generated essays are highly structured, which for instance is reflected by the identical beginnings of the concluding sections of all ChatGPT essays (‘In conclusion, [...]’). The initial sentences of each essay are also very similar starting with a general statement using the main concepts of the essay topics. Although this corresponds to the general structure that is sought after for argumentative essays, it is striking to see that the ChatGPT models are so rigid in realizing this, whereas the human-written essays are looser in representing the guideline on the linguistic surface. Moreover, the linguistic fingerprint has the counter-intuitive property that the use of discourse markers is negatively correlated with logical coherence. We believe that this might be due to the rigid structure of the generated essays: instead of using discourse markers, the AI models provide a clear logical structure by separating the different arguments into paragraphs, thereby reducing the need for discourse markers.

Our data also shows that hallucinations are not a problem in the setting of argumentative essay writing: the essay topics are not really about factual correctness, but rather about argumentation and critical reflection on general concepts which seem to be contained within the knowledge of the AI model. The stochastic nature of the language generation is well-suited for this kind of task, as different plausible arguments can be seen as a sampling from all available arguments for a topic. Nevertheless, we need to perform a more systematic study of the argumentative structures in order to better understand the difference in argumentation between human-written and ChatGPT-generated essay content. Moreover, we also cannot rule out that subtle hallucinations may have been overlooked during the ratings. There are also essays with a low rating for the criteria related to factual correctness, indicating that there might be cases where the AI models still have problems, even if they are, on average, better than the students.

One of the issues with evaluations of the recent large-language models is not accounting for the impact of tainted data when benchmarking such models. While it is certainly possible that the essays that were sourced by Stab and Gurevych 41 from the internet were part of the training data of the GPT models, the proprietary nature of the model training means that we cannot confirm this. However, we note that the generated essays did not resemble the corpus of human essays at all. Moreover, the topics of the essays are general in the sense that any human should be able to reason and write about these topics, just by understanding concepts like ‘cooperation’. Consequently, a taint on these general topics, i.e. the fact that they might be present in the data, is not only possible but is actually expected and unproblematic, as it relates to the capability of the models to learn about concepts, rather than the memorization of specific task solutions.

While we did everything to ensure a sound construct and a high validity of our study, there are still certain issues that may affect our conclusions. Most importantly, neither the writers of the essays, nor their raters, were English native speakers. However, the students purposefully used a forum for English writing frequented by native speakers to ensure the language and content quality of their essays. This indicates that the resulting essays are likely above average for non-native speakers, as they went through at least one round of revisions with the help of native speakers. The teachers were informed that part of the training would be in English to prevent registrations from people without English language skills. Moreover, the self-assessment of the language skills was only weakly correlated with the ratings, indicating that the threat to the soundness of our results is low. While we cannot definitively rule out that our results would not be reproducible with other human raters, the high inter-rater agreement indicates that this is unlikely.

However, our reliance on essays written by non-native speakers affects the external validity and the generalizability of our results. It is certainly possible that native speaking students would perform better in the criteria related to language skills, though it is unclear by how much. However, the language skills were particular strengths of the AI models, meaning that while the difference might be smaller, it is still reasonable to conclude that the AI models would have at least comparable performance to humans, but possibly still better performance, just with a smaller gap. While we cannot rule out a difference for the content-related criteria, we also see no strong argument why native speakers should have better arguments than non-native speakers. Thus, while our results might not fully translate to native speakers, we see no reason why aspects regarding the content should not be similar. Further, our results were obtained based on high-school-level essays. Native and non-native speakers with higher education degrees or experts in fields would likely also achieve a better performance, such that the difference in performance between the AI models and humans would likely also be smaller in such a setting.

We further note that the essay topics may not be an unbiased sample. While Stab and Gurevych 41 randomly sampled the essays from the writing feedback section of an essay forum, it is unclear whether the essays posted there are representative of the general population of essay topics. Nevertheless, we believe that the threat is fairly low because our results are consistent and do not seem to be influenced by certain topics. Further, we cannot with certainty conclude how our results generalize beyond ChatGPT-3 and ChatGPT-4 to similar models like Bard ( https://bard.google.com/?hl=en ) Alpaca, and Dolly. Especially the results for linguistic characteristics are hard to predict. However, since—to the best of our knowledge and given the proprietary nature of some of these models—the general approach to how these models work is similar and the trends for essay quality should hold for models with comparable size and training procedures.

Finally, we want to note that the current speed of progress with generative AI is extremely fast and we are studying moving targets: ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 today are already not the same as the models we studied. Due to a lack of transparency regarding the specific incremental changes, we cannot know or predict how this might affect our results.

Our results provide a strong indication that the fear many teaching professionals have is warranted: the way students do homework and teachers assess it needs to change in a world of generative AI models. For non-native speakers, our results show that when students want to maximize their essay grades, they could easily do so by relying on results from AI models like ChatGPT. The very strong performance of the AI models indicates that this might also be the case for native speakers, though the difference in language skills is probably smaller. However, this is not and cannot be the goal of education. Consequently, educators need to change how they approach homework. Instead of just assigning and grading essays, we need to reflect more on the output of AI tools regarding their reasoning and correctness. AI models need to be seen as an integral part of education, but one which requires careful reflection and training of critical thinking skills.

Furthermore, teachers need to adapt strategies for teaching writing skills: as with the use of calculators, it is necessary to critically reflect with the students on when and how to use those tools. For instance, constructivists 62 argue that learning is enhanced by the active design and creation of unique artifacts by students themselves. In the present case this means that, in the long term, educational objectives may need to be adjusted. This is analogous to teaching good arithmetic skills to younger students and then allowing and encouraging students to use calculators freely in later stages of education. Similarly, once a sound level of literacy has been achieved, strongly integrating AI models in lesson plans may no longer run counter to reasonable learning goals.

In terms of shedding light on the quality and structure of AI-generated essays, this paper makes an important contribution by offering an independent, large-scale and statistically sound account of essay quality, comparing human-written and AI-generated texts. By comparing different versions of ChatGPT, we also offer a glance into the development of these models over time in terms of their linguistic properties and the quality they exhibit. Our results show that while the language generated by ChatGPT is considered very good by humans, there are also notable structural differences, e.g. in the use of discourse markers. This demonstrates that an in-depth consideration not only of the capabilities of generative AI models is required (i.e. which tasks can they be used for), but also of the language they generate. For example, if we read many AI-generated texts that use fewer discourse markers, it raises the question if and how this would affect our human use of discourse markers. Understanding how AI-generated texts differ from human-written enables us to look for these differences, to reason about their potential impact, and to study and possibly mitigate this impact.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Zenodo repository, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8343644

Code availability

All materials are available online in form of a replication package that contains the data and the analysis code, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8343644 .

Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022). arXiv:2203.02155 .

Ruby, D. 30+ detailed chatgpt statistics–users & facts (sep 2023). https://www.demandsage.com/chatgpt-statistics/ (2023). Accessed 09 June 2023.

Leahy, S. & Mishra, P. TPACK and the Cambrian explosion of AI. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference , (ed. Langran, E.) 2465–2469 (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2023).

Ortiz, S. Need an ai essay writer? here’s how chatgpt (and other chatbots) can help. https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-chatgpt-to-write-an-essay/ (2023). Accessed 09 June 2023.

Openai chat interface. https://chat.openai.com/ . Accessed 09 June 2023.

OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report (2023). arXiv:2303.08774 .

Brown, T. B. et al. Language models are few-shot learners (2020). arXiv:2005.14165 .

Wang, B. Mesh-Transformer-JAX: Model-Parallel Implementation of Transformer Language Model with JAX. https://github.com/kingoflolz/mesh-transformer-jax (2021).

Wei, J. et al. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).

Taori, R. et al. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca (2023).

Cai, Z. G., Haslett, D. A., Duan, X., Wang, S. & Pickering, M. J. Does chatgpt resemble humans in language use? (2023). arXiv:2303.08014 .

Mahowald, K. A discerning several thousand judgments: Gpt-3 rates the article + adjective + numeral + noun construction (2023). arXiv:2301.12564 .

Dentella, V., Murphy, E., Marcus, G. & Leivada, E. Testing ai performance on less frequent aspects of language reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning (2023). arXiv:2302.12313 .

Guo, B. et al. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection (2023). arXiv:2301.07597 .

Zhao, W. et al. Is chatgpt equipped with emotional dialogue capabilities? (2023). arXiv:2304.09582 .

Keim, D. A. & Oelke, D. Literature fingerprinting : A new method for visual literary analysis. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology , 115–122, https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2007.4389004 (IEEE, 2007).

El-Assady, M. et al. Interactive visual analysis of transcribed multi-party discourse. In Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demonstrations , 49–54 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 2017).

Mennatallah El-Assady, A. H.-J. & Butt, M. Discourse maps - feature encoding for the analysis of verbatim conversation transcripts. In Visual Analytics for Linguistics , vol. CSLI Lecture Notes, Number 220, 115–147 (Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2020).

Matt Foulis, J. V. & Reed, C. Dialogical fingerprinting of debaters. In Proceedings of COMMA 2020 , 465–466, https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200536 (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2020).

Matt Foulis, J. V. & Reed, C. Interactive visualisation of debater identification and characteristics. In Proceedings of the COMMA workshop on Argument Visualisation, COMMA , 1–7 (2020).

Chatzipanagiotidis, S., Giagkou, M. & Meurers, D. Broad linguistic complexity analysis for Greek readability classification. In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , 48–58 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2021).

Ajili, M., Bonastre, J.-F., Kahn, J., Rossato, S. & Bernard, G. FABIOLE, a speech database for forensic speaker comparison. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) , 726–733 (European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Portorož, Slovenia, 2016).

Deutsch, T., Jasbi, M. & Shieber, S. Linguistic features for readability assessment. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , 1–17, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.bea-1.1 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, WA, USA \(\rightarrow\) Online, 2020).

Fiacco, J., Jiang, S., Adamson, D. & Rosé, C. Toward automatic discourse parsing of student writing motivated by neural interpretation. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2022) , 204–215, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.bea-1.25 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, 2022).

Weiss, Z., Riemenschneider, A., Schröter, P. & Meurers, D. Computationally modeling the impact of task-appropriate language complexity and accuracy on human grading of German essays. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , 30–45, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4404 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2019).

Yang, F., Dragut, E. & Mukherjee, A. Predicting personal opinion on future events with fingerprints. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 1802–1807, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.162 (International Committee on Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain (Online), 2020).

Tumarada, K. et al. Opinion prediction with user fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2021) , 1423–1431 (INCOMA Ltd., Held Online, 2021).

Rocca, R. & Yarkoni, T. Language as a fingerprint: Self-supervised learning of user encodings using transformers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP . 1701–1714 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022).

Aiyappa, R., An, J., Kwak, H. & Ahn, Y.-Y. Can we trust the evaluation on chatgpt? (2023). arXiv:2303.12767 .

Yeadon, W., Inyang, O.-O., Mizouri, A., Peach, A. & Testrow, C. The death of the short-form physics essay in the coming ai revolution (2022). arXiv:2212.11661 .

TURING, A. M. I.-COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE. Mind LIX , 433–460, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 (1950). https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-pdf/LIX/236/433/30123314/lix-236-433.pdf .

Kortemeyer, G. Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course? (2023). arXiv:2301.12127 .

Kung, T. H. et al. Performance of chatgpt on usmle: Potential for ai-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health 2 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 (2023).

Article   Google Scholar  

Frieder, S. et al. Mathematical capabilities of chatgpt (2023). arXiv:2301.13867 .

Yuan, Z., Yuan, H., Tan, C., Wang, W. & Huang, S. How well do large language models perform in arithmetic tasks? (2023). arXiv:2304.02015 .

Touvron, H. et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models (2023). arXiv:2302.13971 .

Chung, H. W. et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models (2022). arXiv:2210.11416 .

Workshop, B. et al. Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model (2023). arXiv:2211.05100 .

Spencer, S. T., Joshi, V. & Mitchell, A. M. W. Can ai put gamma-ray astrophysicists out of a job? (2023). arXiv:2303.17853 .

Cherian, A., Peng, K.-C., Lohit, S., Smith, K. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Are deep neural networks smarter than second graders? (2023). arXiv:2212.09993 .

Stab, C. & Gurevych, I. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers , 1501–1510 (Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 2014).

Essay forum. https://essayforum.com/ . Last-accessed: 2023-09-07.

Common european framework of reference for languages (cefr). https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages . Accessed 09 July 2023.

Kmk guidelines for essay assessment. http://www.kmk-format.de/material/Fremdsprachen/5-3-2_Bewertungsskalen_Schreiben.pdf . Accessed 09 July 2023.

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A. & McCarthy, P. M. Linguistic features of writing quality. Writ. Commun. 27 , 57–86 (2010).

McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. Mtld, vocd-d, and hd-d: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behav. Res. Methods 42 , 381–392 (2010).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dasgupta, T., Naskar, A., Dey, L. & Saha, R. Augmenting textual qualitative features in deep convolution recurrent neural network for automatic essay scoring. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Natural Language Processing Techniques for Educational Applications , 93–102 (2018).

Koizumi, R. & In’nami, Y. Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens. System 40 , 554–564 (2012).

spacy industrial-strength natural language processing in python. https://spacy.io/ .

Siskou, W., Friedrich, L., Eckhard, S., Espinoza, I. & Hautli-Janisz, A. Measuring plain language in public service encounters. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Political Text Analysis (CPSS-2022) (Potsdam, Germany, 2022).

El-Assady, M. & Hautli-Janisz, A. Discourse Maps - Feature Encoding for the Analysis of Verbatim Conversation Transcripts (CSLI lecture notes (CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2019).

Hautli-Janisz, A. et al. QT30: A corpus of argument and conflict in broadcast debate. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference , 3291–3300 (European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 2022).

Somasundaran, S. et al. Towards evaluating narrative quality in student writing. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 6 , 91–106 (2018).

Nadeem, F., Nguyen, H., Liu, Y. & Ostendorf, M. Automated essay scoring with discourse-aware neural models. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , 484–493, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4450 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2019).

Prasad, R. et al. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08) (European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Marrakech, Morocco, 2008).

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 , 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555 (1951).

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom. Bull. 1 , 80–83 (1945).

Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6 , 65–70 (1979).

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Academic press, 2013).

Freedman, D., Pisani, R. & Purves, R. Statistics (international student edition). Pisani, R. Purves, 4th edn. WW Norton & Company, New York (2007).

Scipy documentation. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.pearsonr.html . Accessed 09 June 2023.

Windschitl, M. Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Rev. Educ. Res. 72 , 131–175 (2002).

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Passau, Passau, Germany

Steffen Herbold, Annette Hautli-Janisz, Ute Heuer, Zlata Kikteva & Alexander Trautsch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.H., A.HJ., and U.H. conceived the experiment; S.H., A.HJ, and Z.K. collected the essays from ChatGPT; U.H. recruited the study participants; S.H., A.HJ., U.H. and A.T. conducted the training session and questionnaire; all authors contributed to the analysis of the results, the writing of the manuscript, and review of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Herbold .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information 1., supplementary information 2., supplementary information 3., supplementary tables., supplementary figures., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herbold, S., Hautli-Janisz, A., Heuer, U. et al. A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays. Sci Rep 13 , 18617 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9

Download citation

Received : 01 June 2023

Accepted : 22 October 2023

Published : 30 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Defense against adversarial attacks: robust and efficient compressed optimized neural networks.

• Insaf Kraidia
• Afifa Ghenai
• Samir Brahim Belhaouari

Scientific Reports (2024)

AI-driven translations for kidney transplant equity in Hispanic populations

• Oscar A. Garcia Valencia
• Charat Thongprayoon
• Wisit Cheungpasitporn

How will the state think with ChatGPT? The challenges of generative artificial intelligence for public administrations

• Thomas Cantens

AI & SOCIETY (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.