Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media, as well as to allow video information to be shared for both marketing, analytics and editorial purposes.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content
Log in

The future of writing instruction and research at the secondary level: recommendations from the WRITE Center summit

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In February of 2025, 25 scholars from across the United States met for a Summit at the University of California at Irvine. This Summit, which was sponsored by the federally-funded WRITE Center, focused on (1) developing evidence-based recommendations for improving writing instruction for middle- and high-school students and (2) providing recommendations for future research on the teaching of writing at these grades. The two day meeting resulted in nine recommendations for improving secondary writing instruction as well as seven recommendations for future research. These recommendations are presented and discussed here.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from ¥17,985 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  • Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, N. S. (2023). Who wrote this? How AI and the lure of efficiency threaten human writing. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, L., Thompson, A., Little, J. W., & Collins, R. (2024). Going the distance: The teaching profession in a post-covid world. Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C., Berninger, V., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Langer, J., Murphy, S. Matsuda, P., Rowe, D., & Schleppegrell, M. (2018). Thelifespan development of writing. National Council of English.

  • Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chaukina, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. Palmore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. W., & Levine, S. R. (2023). Backtalk: ChatGPT: A powerful technology tool for writing instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 105(1), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231197487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & Levine, S. (2024). The next word: A framework for imagining the benefits and harms of generative AI as a resource for learning to write. Reading Research Quarterly, 59(4), 706–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom, 6(3), ix–xi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 35–117). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueie, G., Skar, G., & Graham, S. (inpress). High school students’ use and beliefs about chatbots and writing in school. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

  • Carroll, J. (1989). The carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, H., Abbott, J., & Wright, K. L. (2022). Preservice teachers’ preparedness to teach writing: Looking closely at a semester of structured literacy tutoring. Journal of Writing Research, 14(1), 77–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiong, C., & Oliveira, G. (2022). The truth about writing education in America. 826 National

  • Chung, H.Q., Chen, V., & Olson, C.B. (2021). The impact ofself-assessment, planning and goal setting, and reflection before and after revision on studentself-efficacy and writing performance. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(7),1885–1913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10186-x.

  • Cohen, M., & Reil, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026002143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (2007). The Collins Writing program improving student performance through writing and thinking across the curriculum. Collins Writing Program.

  • Cook, B., Smith, G., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook. American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durst, R., & Newell, G. (1989). The uses of function: James Britton’s category system and research on writing. Review of Educational Research, 59, 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durst, S. (2019). Disciplinarity and literate activity in civil and environmental engineering: A lifeworld perspective. Written Communication, 36, 471–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Early, J. (2022). Next generation genres: Teaching writing for civic and academic engagement. W. W. Norton Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, E., & Erikson, H. (2024). High school teachers’ adoption of generative AI: Antecedents of instructional AI utility in the early stages of school-specific chatbot implementation. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.5736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2017). How practice-based research informs adolescent English language learners’ composing and compositions. In K. A. Hinchman & D. A. Appleman (Eds.), Adolescent literacies: A handbook of practice-based research (pp. 357–378). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S. W., Hull, G. A., Higgs, J. M., & Booten, K. P. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching. American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53, 238–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K. (2011). Write like this: Teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor texts. Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K., & Kittle, P. (2018). 180 days: Two teachers and the quest to engage and empower adolescents. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 2. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol2/1/

  • Graham, S. (in press). Learning to write. In R. Mayer, P. Alexander, & L. Fiorella. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Learning and Teaching, Third Edition. Routledge.

  • Graham, S. (2018). Thewriter(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53, 258–279.

  • Graham, S. (2019). Changinghow writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43, 277–303.

  • Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become morefully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35–S44.

  • Graham, S., Collins, A. A., & Ciullo, S. (2023a). Special and general education teachers’ beliefs about writingand writing instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(3), 163–179.

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R.,& Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-Based Writing Practices and the Common Core: Meta-Analysisand Meta-Synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 498–522.

  • Graham, S., Kim, Y., Cao, Y., Lee, W., Tate, T., Collins, T., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H., Olson, C. (2023b). A meta-analysis of writing treatments for students in Grades 6 to 12. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 115, 1004–10027.

  • Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writingon learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of EducationalResearch, 90, 179–226.

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective strategies toimprove writing of adolescent middle and high school. Alliance for Excellence in Education. Commissioned by the Carnegie Corp. of New York.

  • Graham, S., Skar, G., Huebner, A., Anazi, J., & Weinberg, P. (in press). Teaching writing to middle and high school students in the United States. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

  • Hayes, J. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperely, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing: Grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4099–4112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2020). Flash feedback: Responding to student writing better and faster – without burning out. Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufer, D., & Ishizaki, S. (2025). Future of writing & writing instruction in the disciplines and Professions. Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittle, P. (2008). Write beside them: Risk, voice, and clarity in high school writing. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(3), 504–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, D. (2016). Pre-service teacher preparation for L2 writing: Perspectives of in-service elementary ESL teachers. In Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing and teacher education (pp. 172–190). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • Levine, S., Beck, S. W., Mah, C., Phalen, L., & Pittman, J. (2025). How do students use ChatGPT as a writing support? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(5), 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippenvich, A., & Smith, J. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback. Cambridge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Scott, C., & McTigue, E. (2018). Writing in secondary-level disciplines: A systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molitor, S., Langberg, J., Bourchtein, E., Eddy, L., Dvorsky, M., & Evans, S. (2016). Writing abilities longitudinally predict academic outcomes of adolescents with ADHD. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugerwa, S., & Holden, J. (2012). Writing therapy: A new tool for general practice? British Journal of General Practitioner, 62, 661–663. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X659457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad, G., Love, B., & Winn, M. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad, G., & Williams, P. (2023). Unearthing joy: A guide to culturally and historically responsive teaching and learning. Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J., Scales, R. Q., Grisham, D. L., Wolsey, T. D., Dismuke, S., Smetana, L., & Martin, S. (2016). What about writing: A national exploratory study of writing instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55, 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Writing (2003). The neglected "R": The need for a writing revolution. College Entrance Examination Board.

  • National Commission on Writing (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. College Entrance Examination Board.

  • National Council of Teachers of English. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. [Position Statement]. Accessed at https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-writing/

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

  • Nieva V., Murphy R., Ridley, N., Donaldson, N., Combes, J., Mitchell, P., Kovner, C., Hoy, E., & Carpenter D. (2005). From science to service: A framework for the transfer of patient safety research into practice. In K. Henriksen. J. Battles, E. Marks, & D. Lewin (Eds), Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation (Volume 2). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). PMID: 21249844.

  • Patrick, S. K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Kini, T. (2023). Educating teachers in California: What matters for teacher preparedness? Learning Policy Institute.

  • Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Tillema, M., Van Steendam, E., & Raedts, M. (2012). In K. R. Harris, S., Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.). APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching (pp. 189–227). American Psychological Association

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spera, S., Bahrfeind, E., & Pennabacker, J. (2023). Expressive writing and coping with job loss. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.54651/256708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiss, J., Tate, T., Cruz, J., Graham, S., Hebert, M., Wang, J., Moon, Y., Tseng, W., Warschauer, M., Olson, C. (2024). Comparing the quality of human and ChatGPT feedback on students’ writing. Learning & Instruction, 91, 101894.

  • Swedlow, J. (1999). The power of writing. National Geographic, 196, 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (in press). Leveraging generative AI to improve secondary writing instruction. In S. Graham, C. Olson, & T. Baker (Eds.), Writing across the disciplines: Evidence-based practices in grades 6 – 12. Guilford.

  • Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 83–95). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Writing and students with language and learning disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.). Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 337–357). London, England, UK: Routledge.

  • Vilar, H., & Pascual, M. (2023). Teaching of argumentative writing in romance languages: A meta-analysis. In A. G. Spinillo & C. Sotomayor (Eds.), Development of writing skills in children in diverse cultural contexts: Contributions to teaching and learning (pp. 325–352). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_15

  • Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11, 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawacki, T. M., & Rogers, P. M. (2012). Writing across the curriculum: A critical sourcebook. Bedford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, N., & Ma, X. (2023). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation on writing quality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(4), 875–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading & Writing, 29, 349–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No other persons helped write the paper.

Funding

Institute of Educational Science,R305C190007

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Appendix—Summit ParticipantsAuthor **Author** S.G—lead conceptualization, writing, and revising **Autho** CBO conceptualized, wrote, and revised Author T.B conceptualized, wrote, and revised Author H.C. conceptualized, wrote, and revised.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix

Summit Participants Author

Carol Booth Olson, Professor Emerita,University of California, Irvine, Principal Investigator, WRITE Center.

Tanya Baker, Executive Director of the National Writing Project, Co-PI, WRITE Center.

Steve Graham, Warner Professor in the Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation at Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Co-PI, WRITE Center.

Huy Chung, Director of Research for the UCI Writing Project, Former Project Scientist for the Pathway to Academic Success Project and WRITE Center, University of California, Irvine.

Jim Burke, English Teacher Emeritus, Middle College, College of San Mateo.

Penelope Collins, Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine.

Paul Deane, Principal Research Scientist, Educational Testing Services.

Jessie Early, Professor of English, Arizona State University.

Ralph Ferretti, Professor Emeritus in Education and Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of Delaware.

Jennifer Fletcher, Professor of English, California State University, Monterey Bay.

Linda Friedrich, Senior Program Director, Literacy, WestEd.

Karen Harris, Regents Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University.

Michael Hebert, Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine.

Young-Suk Grace Kim, Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine.

Joshua Lawrence, Professor of Education Sciences, University of Oslo.

Carol Lee, Professor Emerita in Education, Northwestern University.

Sarah Levine, Assistant Professor of Education, Stanford University.

Undraa Maamuujav, former Project Scientist, Pathway to Academic Success and WRITE Center, Lecturer in Education, Butler University.

Danielle McNamara, Professor of Psychology, Arizona State University.

George Newell, Professor Emeritus of Teaching and Learning, Ohio State University.

Mary Schleppegrell, Professor of Education, University of Michigan.

Khirsten Scott, Assistant Professor of Education, University of Pittsburgh.

Jacob Steiss, former Project Scientist, WRITE Center, Postdoctoral Fellow, College of Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Tamara Tate, Assistant Director of the Digital Learning Lab, University of California, Irvine.

Mark Warschauer, Distinguished Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graham, S., Olson, C., Baker, T. et al. The future of writing instruction and research at the secondary level: recommendations from the WRITE Center summit. Read Writ (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-025-10727-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-025-10727-8

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Huy Chung