Writing Into the 21st Century

Abstract

This study charts the terrain of research on writing during the 6-year period from 1999 to 2004, asking “What are current trends and foci in research on writing?” In examining a cross-section of writing research, the authors focus on four issues: (a) What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? (b) What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? (c) What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? and (d) What methodologies are being used in research on writing? Based on a body of refereed journal articles (n = 1,502) reporting studies about writing and composition instruction that were located using three databases, the authors characterize various lines of inquiry currently undertaken. Social context and writing practices, bi- or multi-lingualism and writing, and writing instruction are the most actively studied problems during this period, whereas writing and technologies, writing assessment and evaluation, and relationships among literacy modalities are the least studied problems. Undergraduate, adult, and other postsecondary populations are the most prominently studied population age group, whereas preschool-aged children and middle and high school students are least studied. Research on instruction within the preschool through 12th grade (P-12) age group is prominent, whereas research on genre, assessment, and bi- or multilingualism is scarce within this population. The majority of articles employ interpretive methods. This indicator of current writing research should be useful to researchers, policymakers, and funding agencies, as well as to writing teachers and teacher educators.

Keywords

history of writing research population age groups in writing research research methodology writing instruction empirical writing research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Applebee, A. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bazerman, C. (Ed.). (forthcoming). Handbook of writing research. (Manuscript in preparation).

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brandt, D. (2004). Drafting U.S. literacy. College English, 66(5), 485-203.

Brandt, D. (2005). Writing for a living: Literacy and the knowledge economy. Written Communication, 22, 166-197.

Cope, B. , & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

DeVoss, D. , Cushman, E. , & Grabill, J. (2005). The infrastructure of composing: The when of new-media writing. College Composition and Communication, 57, 14-44.

Durst, R. K. (1990). The mongoose and the rat in composition research: Insights from the RTE annotated bibliography. College Composition and Communication, 41, 393-408.

Dyson, A. H. (1986). Negotiating among multiple words: The space/time dimensions of young children’s composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 345-366.

10.

Dyson, A. H. (1988). Transitions and tensions: Interrelationships between the drawing, talking, and dictating of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 379-409.

11.

Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary school. New York: Teachers College Press.

12.

Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.

13.

Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Dyson, A. H. (2004). Diversity as a “handful”: Toward retheorizing the basics. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 210-214.

15.

Dyson, A. H. , & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood , D. Lapp , J. R. Squire , & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 967-992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

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

17.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. MacArthur , S. Graham , & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187-207). New York: Guilford.

18.

Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies in the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Haswell, R. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22, 198-223.

20.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Hill, C. , & Larsen, E. (2001). Children and reading tests. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

22.

Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133-170.

23.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

24.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

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

26.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges . (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

27.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

28.

Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context of writing research. In C. MacArthur , S. Graham , & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11-27). New York: Guilford.

29.

Ohmann, R. (1996). English in America: A radical view of the profession. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press. (Original work published 1976)

30.

Singer, B. D. , & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In C. A. Stone , E. R. Silliman , B. J. Ehren , & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 559-582). New York: Guilford.

31.

Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). (2006). Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

32.

Sperling, M. , & Freedman, S. W. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 721-737). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

33.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1998). Open coding. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin (Eds.), Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (pp. 101-121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

U.S. Department of Education . (2005, January 25). Scientifically based evaluation methods. Retrieved January 29, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2005-1/012505a.html

35.

Valdes, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward professionwide responses to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9, 85-136.

36.

Wong, B. Y. L. , & Berninger, V. W. (2004). Cognitive processes of teachers in implementing composition research in elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. In C. A. Stone , E. R. Silliman , B. J. Ehren , & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 600-624). New York: Guilford.