Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on the need for continued research on writing

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A focused scientific research effort on writing research and its relationship to language development and reading is needed to address the writing and broader literacy needs of today’s and tomorrow’s learners and workers. In the United States, as well as in many other nations, research on writing has been neglected in relation to the emphasis on reading and oral language more generally. The authors argue first for why there is a need for this refocused effort, what should be focused on, and how as a field we should consider moving forward and addressing this imperative. In addressing the why, the authors argue that need is not limited to a particular age or developmental range but rather is broad-based, beginning with our youngest learners and continuing through those transitioning into post-secondary and the workplace. The clear message is that the picture is surprisingly similar across age ranges with a demonstrated need beginning with those coming from less advantaged backgrounds into formal education to the majority of students transitioning from twelfth grade into the workplace or post secondary settings. The authors suggest next steps for research addressing both what and how: what areas of science are areas of high need and how the field may consider moving forward to address these needs. Interdisciplinary research on writing is needed that addresses and integrates cognitive, biological, and social-cultural traditions, contributions, and methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Subsequent to this analysis, the CRISP database has been replaced by the NIH RePorter (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Report Expenditures & Results). This new system uses information originally available in the CRISP system with a dramatically improved user interface. Given the use of the same historical data in both systems, the corresponding analysis in the RePORTER system should yield similar overall findings.

  2. For this count a project was identified as a research project if it possessed a unique grant number. This excluded multiple instances (e.g., one per funding year) for the same grant. However, this also undercounted grants because research projects were counted only once even if the project successfully competed for one or more renewal periods and hence received multiple awards. All of the identified projects were funded by the NIH.

References

  • ACT (2002).Using posttesting to show the effectiveness of developmental/remedial college course. Retrieved from: http://www.act.org/research/researchers/briefs/2002-3.html.

  • Administration of Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2006). FACES 2003 research brief: Children’s outcomes and program quality in head start. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/research_2003/research_2003.pdf.

  • Bazerman, C. (2008). Handbook on writing research: History, society, school, individual, text. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C., Krut, R., Lunsford, K., McLeod, S., Null, S., Rogers, P., et al. (2010). Traditions of writing research. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudet, C., Grant, P., & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2008). Research communication in the social and human sciences: From dissemination to public engagement. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (in press). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. NY: Psychology press.

  • Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., & Raskind, W. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and writing disability: A family approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(1), 59–106. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0501_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS. (2009). Child Development and Behavior Branch, NIHCD, Report to the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development (NACHHD) Council, Jan 2009. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/CDBB_Council_Report_2009.pdf.

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Multilingual writing in preschool through 12th grade: The last 15 years. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook on writing research (pp. 337–354). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J., Lyon, G., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b).Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC, Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from: www.all4ed.org/files/WritingNext.pdf.

  • Grigorenko, E. (2007). Rethinking disorders of spoken and written language: Generating workable hypotheses. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 28, 478–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E., Mambrino, E., & Preiss, D. (in press). Handbook of writing: A Mosaic of perspectives and views. NY: Psychology Press.

  • Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006a). Motivation and writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook on writing research (pp. 144–157). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006b). Motivation in writing. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. (2002). The language of written language: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(2), 2–6. doi:10.1177/002221940203500101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., Wakely, M., de Kruif, R., & Swartz, C. (2006). Aptitude-treatment interactions revisited: Effect of metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written expression in elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 217–241. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/adult_ed_02.pdf.

  • Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (1996). Remedial education in higher education institutions in fall 1995 (NCES 97–584). US Dept. of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Research relevant to the connection between reading and writing in adult basic education: A working paper. Technical report for the National Institute for Literacy, Adult Literacy Research Working Group, US Department of Education.

  • MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Writing (NCOW) (2004).Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. New York, NY: College Entrance Examinations Board. Retrieved from: http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf.

  • National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf.

  • NCES (2002). National Assessment of Educational Progress. NAEP data explorer tool. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

  • NCES (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003–529) by H. R. Persky, M. C. Daane, & Y. Jin. Washington, DC.

  • NCES (2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP data explorer tool. Washington, DC. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.

  • Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook on writing research (pp. 158–170). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in fall 2000 (NCES 2004-010). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97584.pdf.

  • Patterson, M. B. (2008). Learning disability prevalence and adult education program characteristics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K., Frost, S., Sandak, R., Gillis, M., Moore, D., Jenner, A., et al. (2006). What does reading have to tell us about writing? In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook on writing research (pp. 433–448). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini, J., Sawaki, Y., Shore, J., & Scarborough, H. (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008).The Nation’s report card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468.pdf.

  • Torrance, M., Waes, L., & Galbraith, D. (2007). Writing and cognition: Research and application (Studies in writing, vol. 20). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. (2009). Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence-based practices. NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Education, NCES (2000). America’s kindergartners (NCES 2000–070). Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf.

  • US Department of Education, NCES (2006). Fifth grade: Findings from the fifth-grade follow-up of the early childhood longitudinal study, Kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K) (NCES 2006-038). Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006038.pdf.

  • US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2009a).CRISP—A database of biomedical research funded by the National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/.

  • US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2009b). Small business innovation research (SBIR) and small business technology transfer (STTR) Programs. Retrieved from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirsttr_programs.htm.

  • Wood, C., & Connelly, V. (2009). Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling. London, Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Blvd., Suite 4B05, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Brett Miller & Peggy McCardle

Authors
  1. Brett Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy McCardle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, B., McCardle, P. Reflections on the need for continued research on writing. Read Writ 24, 121–132 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9267-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9267-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation