Written Communication Apr 2014

What Is Successful Writing? An Investigation Into the Multiple Ways Writers Can Write Successful Essays

Scott A. Crossley Georgia State University ; Rod Roscoe ; Danielle S. McNamara Arizona State University

Abstract

This study identifies multiple profiles of successful essays via a cluster analysis approach using linguistic features reported by a variety of natural language processing tools. The findings from the study indicate that there are four profiles of successful writers for the samples analyzed. These four profiles are linguistically distinct from one another and demonstrate that expert human raters examine a number of different linguistic features in a variety of combinations when assessing writing proficiency and assigning high scores to independent essays (regardless of the scoring rubric considered). The writing styles in the four clusters can be described as action and depiction style, academic style, accessible style, and lexical style. The study provides empirical evidence that successful writing cannot be defined simply through a single set of predefined features, but that, rather, successful writing has multiple profiles. While these profiles may overlap, each profile is distinct.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2014-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088314526354
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
assessment
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (12)

  1. Potter et al. (2025)
    Assessing academic language in tenth grade essays using natural language processing
    Assessing Writing
  2. Effatpanah et al. (2024)
    A mixed Rasch model analysis of multiple profiles in L2 writing
    Assessing Writing
  3. Geijerstam et al. (2022)
    Linguistically based scales for assessment of young students’ writing
    Writing and Pedagogy
  4. Golparvar et al. (2022)
    Unpacking the contribution of linguistic features to graph writing quality: An …
    Assessing Writing
  5. Sarte et al. (2022)
    Noun phrasal complexity in ESL written essays under a constructed-response task…
    Assessing Writing
Show all 12 →
  1. Aull et al. (2020)
    From Cow Paths to Conversation
    Pedagogy
  2. Humphry et al. (2019)
    Raters’ perceptions of assessment criteria relevance
    Assessing Writing
  3. Aull (2019)
    Linguistic Markers of Stance and Genre in Upper-Level Student Writing
    Written Communication
  4. Holcomb et al. (2018)
    First-Year Composition as “Big Data”: Towards Examining Student Revisions at Scale
    Computers and Composition
  5. Abdollahzadeh et al. (2017)
    Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners
    Argumentation
  6. Wilson et al. (2017)
    Automated formative writing assessment using a levels of language framework
    Assessing Writing
  7. Johnson et al. (2017)
    College student perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author charact…
    Assessing Writing

References (56) · 9 in this index

  1. 10.1007/s11423-012-9235-8
     ↗
  2. Applebee A. N. (1990)
    Learning to write in our nation’s schools
  3. Attali Y., Burstein J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and…
  4. Bereiter C. (1987)
    The psychology of written communication
  5. 10.1007/BF01027151
     ↗
Show all 56 →
  1. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     ↗
  2. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
     ↗
  3. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
     ↗
  4. Burns R. A. (2008)
    Business research methods and statistics using SPSS
  5. Burstein J. (2004)
    AI Magazine
  6. College Board. (2011). Essay scoring guide: A framework for scoring SAT essays. Retrieved from http://profess…
  7. Crossley S. A. (2010)
    Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
  8. Crossley S. A. (2011)
    Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
  9. 10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_62
     ↗
  10. Crossley S. A. (2013)
    Proceedings of the 26th international Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (F…
  11. Crossley et al. (2011)
    The Development of Writing Proficiency as a Function of Grade Level: A Linguist…
    Written Communication
  12. Deane (2013)
    On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing…
    Assessing Writing
  13. 10.1017/CBO9780511816796
     ↗
  14. 10.1023/A:1003202412203
     ↗
  15. 10.1037/h0057532
     ↗
  16. Flower L. S. (1980)
    Cognitive processes in writing
  17. 10.4324/9780203463932_UC_and_the_SAT
     ↗
  18. 10.3102/0013189X11413260
     ↗
  19. 10.3758/BF03195564
     ↗
  20. 10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.779
     ↗
  21. HASWELL (2000)
    Documenting Improvement in College Writing: A Longitudinal Approach
    Written Communication
  22. Hayes J. R. (1989)
    The complete problem solver
  23. 10.3102/00346543060002237
     ↗
  24. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
     ↗
  25. 10.3758/BF03197724
     ↗
  26. 10.1080/00461520903213600
     ↗
  27. 10.21236/ADA006655
     ↗
  28. King et al. (1979)
    Toward a Theory of Early Writing Development
    Research in the Teaching of English
  29. McCormick C. B. (1992)
    Promoting academic competence and literacy in school
  30. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7
     ↗
  31. 10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.256
     ↗
  32. 10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1-3.113
     ↗
  33. 10.1177/1461445613501446
     ↗
  34. McNamara et al. (2010)
    Linguistic Features of Writing Quality
    Written Communication
  35. 10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1
     ↗
  36. 10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch011
     ↗
  37. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
     ↗
  38. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
     ↗
  39. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Retrieved from h…
  40. Norušis M. J. (2011)
    IBM SPSS statistics 19 statistical procedures companion
  41. 10.2307/747180
     ↗
  42. Pennebaker J. W. (2001)
    Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001
  43. Powell (2009)
    Retention and Writing Instruction: Implications for Access and Pedagogy
    College Composition and Communication
  44. Raine R. B. (2011)
    Proceedings of the 24th international Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (F…
  45. 10.1207/s15324818ame0702_4
     ↗
  46. 10.1037/a0032340
     ↗
  47. Schriver (1989)
    Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods
    IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  48. Simon H. A. (1973)
    American Scientist
  49. Stewart (1978)
    Syntactic Maturity from High School to University: A First Look
    Research in the Teaching of English
  50. Strunk W. (1968)
    The elements of style
  51. Wolfe et al. (2009)
    Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation
    Written Communication
CrossRef global citation count: 66 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Assessing Writing Jul 2026
    LAWE-CL2: Multi-agent LLM-based automated writing evaluation system integrating linguistic features with fine-tuning for Chinese L2 writing assessment ↗
    Xuelin Wang; Qihao Yang; Yuxin Hao; Zhijun Wang; Sijia Guo
    assessment artificial intelligence multilingual writers
  2. Assessing Writing Jul 2026
    Investigating the impact of ChatGPT-assisted self-assessment on college students' writing development: Insights from diverse linguistic backgrounds ↗
    Hamidreza Moeiniasl
    assessment artificial intelligence
  3. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    From spelling to content: The influence of spelling quality on text assessment ↗
    Frederike Strahl; Jörg Kilian; Jens Möller
    assessment grammar and mechanics
  4. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    How do L2 writing subskills interact hierarchically? Insights from diagnostic classification models ↗
    Farshad Effatpanah; Hamdollah Ravand; Mahmoud Abdi Tabari; Yi-Hsin Chen; Olga Kunina-Habenicht
    assessment multilingual writers grammar and mechanics
  5. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    Assessing GenAI-assisted digital multimodal composing: Reconceptualizing a genre-based framework through self-assessment and peer assessment ↗
    Yunan Zhang; Zixuan Li
    genre theory assessment multimodality