Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

What Critics of Student Writing Get Wrong

By Elizabeth Wardle August 30, 2019
What Critics of Student Writing Get Wrong 1
Katherine Streeter for The Chronicle

It’s easy to lament student writing abilities. Alarmist complaints can be regularly read in The Chronicle, popular journalism, and books. It’s easy for teachers to take their frustration with a few student writers and extrapolate from it a number of conclusions based solely on their own experiences, histories, and biases.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

It’s easy to lament student writing abilities. Alarmist complaints can be regularly read in The Chronicle, popular journalism, and books. It’s easy for teachers to take their frustration with a few student writers and extrapolate from it a number of conclusions based solely on their own experiences, histories, and biases.

But academics should demand more from such public statements. We should demand not personal feelings and frustrations, but research-based evidence grounded in more than a sample of one. Those of us in the field of rhetoric and composition have spent decades gathering such research about student writing. Let’s consider four research-supported points about student writing that should help put to rest the public narrative of calamity.

First, students are what they have always been: learners. There is no evidence that student writing over all is any better or worse than it has ever been. What is true is that faculty members have been complaining about student writing for as long as students have been writing.

As David Russell outlines in his history of writing in the American university, “Until the last third of the nineteenth century, writing instruction beyond the elementary school was largely unnecessary, for writing was ancillary to speaking” and the curriculum consisted primarily of “Latin, Greek, mathematics, and rhetoric.” In the late 1800s, Harvard sounded an alarm about the “illiteracy of American youth” due to the fact that, when suddenly presented with the need to write extensively on an entrance exam with no prior writing instruction, students struggled to do so.

Providing students with grammar worksheets does not produce expert writers any more than memorizing rigid rules about biking produces Tour de France cyclists.

Harvard was not the last to sound such alarms. For example, in the 1970s, a Newsweek cover screamed: “Why Johnny Can’t Write,” and the accompanying article claimed that the “U.S. educational system is spawning a generation of semiliterates.” Here in The Chronicle, English and history faculty complain: “My students can’t write a clear sentence to save their lives,” and “The staples of paper writing, including the basic punctuation of sentences and the clear organization of ideas, … are almost nowhere to be found.”

These are only a few of the complaints spanning over 130 years; all sound eerily similar, and nearly all allude to a golden era of student writing that, as Russell’s history clearly illustrates, never existed.

Second, to improve as writers, students need to write frequently, for meaningful reasons, to readers who respond as actual readers do — with interest in ideas, puzzlement over lack of clarity or logic, and feedback about how to think more deeply and write more clearly to accomplish the writer’s purposes. There is no shortcut.

Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, research shows that providing students with grammar worksheets and skill-and-drill exercises and extensive line editing does not produce expert writers any more than memorizing rigid rules about biking produces Tour de France cyclists.

All of us learn to write well the same way we learn to do anything well: by doing it. Students need to write and revise in as many classes, internships, and extracurricular sites as possible, but they won’t produce expert or error-free writing overnight.

ADVERTISEMENT

The third point: All writers struggle with new genres and conventions; learning to write in new situations always requires instruction and practice because there is no singular “writing in general” and certainly no singular “good” writing in general. As I wrote in a chapter for a collection called Bad Ideas about Writing: If you doubt this claim, “go to your desk right now and attempt to write something in general. Do not write for any specific audience, purpose, or context. Do not use any conventions that you’ve learned for school, work, creative writing, and so on. Just write in general.”

You can’t do this because it can’t be done. We are all always writing something in particular. Once we’ve learned scribal skills such as letters and basic grammatical constructions and conventions, everything else is quite particular: the genre, the audience, the purpose, whether there should be main claims and if so where, what counts as evidence, what “succinct” looks like. Scholars from various fields have quite different ideas about these matters.

We use the term “writing” as a shorthand, and to vent our various frustrations, but we don’t all mean the same thing by it. When opinion columnists opine that “our students can’t write,” they mean that students can’t put together a sentence or paragraph that appeals to their sensibilities or adheres to the norms of writing in their disciplines or professions. However, the characteristics of “good” writing differ dramatically for history essays, grocery lists, fan fiction, text messages, poetry, grant proposals, lab reports, ethnographies, and opinion columns.

We can help our students improve by being explicit and specific about what we mean by “good writing.”

Which brings me to a final point: Teaching writing is everyone’s responsibility, but it’s not any one person’s responsibility to teach all kinds of writing. We are each responsible for helping students understand the written practices that we use in our fields and professions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Those of us who study rhetoric and composition for a living can provide students with a solid foundation in what the scholar Shannon Carter calls rhetorical dexterity. We can share rhetorical principles and heuristics for writing, and provide extensive opportunities to practice and revise with feedback. But the instruction and practice can’t end with us.

Faculty need to recognize themselves as expert writers in their disciplines; they need help seeing what have been called their expert blind spots and gaining language for talking with students about writing in their context. Teaching writing in this way doesn’t require that every historian or engineer become a composition teacher. However, helping students with writing does require that institutions provide faculty members with support in making their writing-related practices explicit for students. As we’ve demonstrated at the Howe Center for Writing Excellence here at Miami University, there are many methods for helping faculty learn to do this.

The research is clear that we can help students improve as writers, but this requires a system in place for long-term faculty development and support. Institutions and their faculty and students can only benefit from investing in such support.

Elizabeth Wardle is a professor of written communication and director of the Howe Center for Writing Excellence at Miami University of Ohio.

A version of this article appeared in the September 6, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Scholarship & Research Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Our Students Can’t Write. We Have Ourselves to Blame.
We Must Help Students Master Standard English
Are We Teaching Composition All Wrong?

More News

Collage of charts
Data
How Faculty Pay and Tenure Can Change Depending on Academic Discipline
Vector illustration of two researcher's hands putting dollar signs into a beaker leaking green liquid.
'Life Support'
As the Nation’s Research-Funding Model Ruptures, Private Money Becomes a Band-Aid
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress

From The Review

Photo-based illustration of the sculpture, The Thinker, interlaced with anotehr image of a robot posed as The Thinker with bits of binary code and red strips weaved in.
The Review | Essay
What I Learned Serving on My University’s AI Committee
By Megan Fritts
Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin