Common Essay Writing Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: June 2025

Abstract

Essay writing represents a fundamental skill in academic discourse, yet students and scholars frequently encounter systematic challenges that compromise the effectiveness of their written communication. This comprehensive analysis examines the most prevalent essay writing mistakes across educational contexts, investigating their underlying causes and proposing evidence-based strategies for prevention and remediation. Through examination of contemporary research in composition studies, cognitive psychology, and applied linguistics, this paper identifies recurring patterns of error in essay construction, argumentation, organization, and language use. The findings reveal that common essay writing mistakes often stem from inadequate understanding of rhetorical principles, insufficient planning strategies, and limited metacognitive awareness of the writing process. By implementing targeted interventions and pedagogical approaches, educators and writers can significantly improve essay quality and effectiveness. This research contributes to the broader understanding of writing pedagogy and offers practical solutions for enhancing essay writing competence across diverse academic contexts.

Keywords: essay writing, writing mistakes, composition pedagogy, academic writing, writing instruction, rhetorical awareness, writing process, error analysis

Introduction

Essay writing constitutes a cornerstone of academic literacy, serving as both a means of knowledge demonstration and a tool for intellectual development across educational contexts (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Despite its centrality to academic success, essay writing remains problematic for many students and even experienced writers, who consistently struggle with recurring patterns of error that undermine the clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness of their written work. The persistence of common essay writing mistakes across diverse educational settings suggests systematic deficiencies in writing instruction and limited understanding of the cognitive and rhetorical processes underlying effective essay composition.

Contemporary research in composition studies has identified recurring categories of essay writing difficulties that transcend individual differences in ability, experience, and educational background (Sommers, 1982). These systematic patterns of error encompass multiple dimensions of written communication, including structural organization, argumentative development, evidence integration, and linguistic precision. Understanding the nature and causes of these common mistakes is essential for developing effective pedagogical interventions and support strategies that can enhance writing competence and academic achievement.

This comprehensive analysis examines the most prevalent essay writing mistakes encountered in academic contexts, investigating their underlying causes and proposing evidence-based strategies for prevention and remediation. By synthesizing research from composition studies, cognitive psychology, and applied linguistics, this paper provides a systematic framework for understanding and addressing the challenges that impede effective essay writing. The findings have significant implications for writing pedagogy, curriculum development, and student support services across educational institutions.

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Essay Writing Errors

Cognitive Foundations of Writing Difficulties

The complexity of essay writing as a cognitive activity provides essential context for understanding why certain mistakes occur with such regularity across diverse populations of writers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Essay composition requires the simultaneous coordination of multiple cognitive processes, including content generation, organization, audience awareness, and linguistic formulation, creating substantial demands on working memory and executive function. This cognitive complexity makes essay writing particularly susceptible to systematic errors when writers lack adequate strategic knowledge or fail to deploy effective metacognitive monitoring strategies.

Research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that novice writers often employ knowledge-telling strategies that prioritize content generation over rhetorical effectiveness, leading to essays that lack coherent structure and persuasive argumentation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). This approach to writing reflects limited understanding of essay writing as a problem-solving activity that requires strategic planning, goal setting, and continuous revision based on rhetorical considerations. The prevalence of structural and organizational problems in student essays can thus be understood as reflecting cognitive limitations in managing the complex demands of academic writing tasks.

Furthermore, the development of writing expertise requires extensive practice with increasingly sophisticated rhetorical challenges, suggesting that many common essay writing mistakes reflect developmental stages in the acquisition of writing competence rather than permanent deficiencies (Kellogg, 2008). This developmental perspective emphasizes the importance of providing appropriate scaffolding and instruction that addresses the specific cognitive challenges associated with different aspects of essay writing.

Rhetorical and Social Dimensions of Writing Errors

Essay writing mistakes must also be understood within the broader context of rhetorical communication and social interaction, as effective essays serve specific communicative functions within particular discourse communities (Bazerman, 1988). Many common essay writing errors reflect inadequate understanding of rhetorical principles, including audience analysis, purpose clarification, and genre conventions. Writers who lack sufficient awareness of their rhetorical situation frequently produce essays that fail to achieve their intended communicative goals, regardless of their technical writing competence.

The social nature of academic writing further complicates the task of essay composition by requiring writers to navigate complex relationships with their intended audience, often including evaluators who possess greater expertise and authority within the relevant discourse community (Bartholomae, 1986). This power dynamic can contribute to various forms of essay writing difficulty, including excessive formality, inappropriate register choices, and reluctance to take clear argumentative positions. Understanding these social dimensions of essay writing is essential for addressing mistakes that stem from rhetorical insecurity rather than technical incompetence.

Additionally, the increasing diversity of student populations in higher education has highlighted the importance of recognizing cultural and linguistic variation in approaches to written argumentation and organization (Connor, 1996). What may appear as essay writing mistakes from the perspective of dominant academic conventions may actually reflect alternative rhetorical traditions that emphasize different values and organizational strategies. This recognition has important implications for how educators identify, interpret, and respond to apparent errors in student essays.

Structural and Organizational Mistakes

Inadequate Thesis Development and Positioning

One of the most pervasive essay writing mistakes involves the development and positioning of thesis statements that fail to provide clear direction for essay development or adequate foundation for argumentative claims (Ramage et al., 2015). Many writers struggle to craft thesis statements that are sufficiently specific, arguable, and significant to sustain extended analysis and development. Weak thesis statements often manifest as overly broad generalizations, factual observations that require no argumentation, or personal opinions that lack sufficient complexity for academic exploration.

The positioning of thesis statements within essay introductions represents another common area of difficulty, with many writers either burying their central claim within unnecessary background information or presenting thesis statements that fail to emerge logically from the introductory context (Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 2019). Effective thesis positioning requires sophisticated understanding of how introductory paragraphs function rhetorically to establish context, engage reader interest, and prepare audiences for the specific argumentative trajectory that will follow. Writers who lack this rhetorical awareness often produce introductions that confuse rather than orient their readers.

Furthermore, many essay writers fail to recognize the iterative nature of thesis development, treating their initial thesis formulation as fixed rather than as a working hypothesis that may require refinement based on the evidence and analysis that emerges during the writing process (Murray, 2013). This static approach to thesis development often results in essays that lack internal coherence because the writer has discovered new insights or complications that are not reflected in the controlling thesis statement.

Problematic Essay Organization and Paragraph Structure

Organizational problems represent another category of common essay writing mistakes that significantly compromise reader comprehension and argumentative effectiveness (Williams & Bizup, 2017). Many writers struggle to develop logical organizational schemes that support their thesis development and guide readers through complex argumentative sequences. Common organizational mistakes include the absence of clear organizational principles, illogical sequencing of ideas, and inadequate transitions between major sections of the essay.

Paragraph-level organization presents additional challenges for many essay writers, who often fail to construct paragraphs that function as coherent units of analysis while simultaneously contributing to the overall argumentative development of the essay (Coe, 2011). Problematic paragraph structure frequently manifests as paragraphs that lack clear topic sentences, attempt to address multiple unrelated ideas simultaneously, or fail to provide adequate development and support for their central claims. These paragraph-level problems often reflect limited understanding of how individual paragraphs function within the larger essay structure.

The integration of evidence and analysis within paragraphs represents a particularly challenging aspect of essay organization that frequently results in systematic errors (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014). Many writers struggle to balance summary, quotation, and analysis in ways that support their argumentative goals while maintaining reader engagement. Common mistakes in this area include excessive reliance on quotation without adequate analysis, failure to explain the relevance of evidence to the broader argument, and inadequate integration of source material with the writer’s own voice and perspective.

Argumentative and Analytical Errors

Insufficient Evidence and Support

The inadequate use of evidence represents a fundamental category of essay writing mistakes that undermines the credibility and persuasiveness of academic arguments (Booth et al., 2016). Many writers fail to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, relying instead on unsupported assertions, personal opinions, or overgeneralized examples that lack the specificity and relevance necessary for effective academic argumentation. This insufficient evidence often reflects limited understanding of the standards of proof required for different types of claims and inadequate research skills for locating appropriate supporting material.

Even when writers locate potentially relevant evidence, they frequently make mistakes in the selection and presentation of supporting material that diminish its argumentative effectiveness (Hacker & Sommers, 2019). Common errors include relying on outdated or unreliable sources, failing to consider alternative perspectives or contradictory evidence, and presenting evidence in ways that do not clearly connect to the specific claims being advanced. These mistakes often stem from inadequate understanding of how evidence functions rhetorically within academic arguments.

The analysis and interpretation of evidence presents additional challenges that frequently result in essay writing mistakes, particularly among less experienced writers who may struggle to move beyond summary to develop sophisticated analytical insights (Bean, 2011). Many essays suffer from inadequate analysis that fails to explain the significance of presented evidence or to draw meaningful connections between different pieces of supporting material. This analytical insufficiency often reflects limited practice with the complex reasoning processes required for effective academic writing.

Logical Fallacies and Reasoning Errors

Essay writers frequently commit logical fallacies and reasoning errors that compromise the validity and persuasiveness of their arguments, even when they present adequate evidence and maintain clear organizational structure (Toulmin, 2003). Common logical fallacies in student essays include false dichotomies that oversimplify complex issues, hasty generalizations based on insufficient evidence, and ad hominem arguments that attack persons rather than addressing substantive issues. These logical errors often reflect limited training in critical thinking and informal logic.

Causal reasoning presents particular challenges for essay writers, who frequently make mistakes in establishing causal relationships between events or phenomena (Moore & Parker, 2017). Common causal reasoning errors include confusing correlation with causation, failing to consider alternative explanations for observed phenomena, and oversimplifying complex causal chains that involve multiple contributing factors. These mistakes often occur when writers attempt to address complex social, political, or scientific issues without adequate understanding of the methodological requirements for establishing causal claims.

The treatment of counterarguments and alternative perspectives represents another area where essay writers frequently make reasoning errors that weaken their overall argumentative effectiveness (Wolff, 2015). Many writers either ignore potential objections to their position entirely or address counterarguments in superficial ways that fail to demonstrate genuine engagement with alternative viewpoints. These mistakes often reflect anxiety about acknowledging the complexity of their chosen topics or limited understanding of how effective academic arguments address and respond to competing perspectives.

Language and Style Deficiencies

Clarity and Concision Problems

Language-level mistakes that compromise clarity and concision represent persistent challenges in essay writing that can significantly impede reader comprehension even when content and organization are otherwise effective (Strunk & White, 2019). Many writers struggle with wordiness and redundancy, producing sentences that contain unnecessary words, phrases, or clauses that obscure rather than clarify their intended meaning. This excessive verbiage often reflects insecurity about the substance of their ideas or misguided attempts to sound more academic or sophisticated.

Sentence-level clarity problems frequently manifest as overly complex grammatical constructions that place excessive demands on reader processing, particularly when writers attempt to pack multiple ideas into single sentences without adequate coordination or subordination (Kolln & Gray, 2016). These clarity problems often occur when writers lack sufficient confidence in their ideas to present them directly and simply, leading to convoluted expressions that confuse rather than communicate effectively.

The appropriate use of academic register and tone presents additional challenges for many essay writers, who may either adopt excessively informal language that undermines their credibility or resort to unnecessarily complex vocabulary and sentence structures that create barriers to reader comprehension (Swales & Feak, 2012). Effective academic writing requires careful attention to register choices that maintain appropriate formality while preserving clarity and accessibility for the intended audience.

Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage Errors

Persistent grammar, mechanics, and usage errors represent another category of common essay writing mistakes that can significantly detract from the effectiveness of otherwise well-conceived arguments and analyses (Lunsford, 2016). Frequent grammatical errors include subject-verb disagreement, pronoun reference problems, and inconsistent verb tense usage that can confuse readers and undermine writer credibility. These errors often reflect inadequate proofreading practices or limited understanding of standard grammatical conventions.

Mechanical errors in punctuation, capitalization, and formatting may seem less significant than content-related mistakes, but they can create substantial barriers to reader comprehension and negatively impact reader perceptions of writer competence (Connors & Lunsford, 1988). Common mechanical errors include inappropriate comma usage, inconsistent citation formatting, and failure to follow standard conventions for quotation integration. These mistakes often reflect insufficient attention to detail during the revision and editing phases of the writing process.

Usage errors involving word choice, idiomatic expressions, and register appropriateness can also significantly impact essay effectiveness, particularly for writers whose first language is not English (Ferris, 2011). Common usage errors include confusion between similar words, inappropriate formality levels, and direct translation from native language patterns that do not conform to English academic conventions. These errors require targeted instruction and extensive practice with academic English conventions.

Pedagogical Interventions and Prevention Strategies

Process-Oriented Writing Instruction

Effective prevention of common essay writing mistakes requires pedagogical approaches that emphasize the recursive nature of the writing process and provide explicit instruction in planning, drafting, and revision strategies (Graham & Perin, 2007). Process-oriented writing instruction focuses on helping students develop metacognitive awareness of their writing processes and strategic knowledge for managing the complex cognitive demands of essay composition. This approach has been shown to be particularly effective in reducing organizational and structural problems that result from inadequate planning and preparation.

Peer review and collaborative writing activities represent important components of process-oriented instruction that can help students identify and address common essay writing mistakes through social interaction and feedback (Liu & Hansen, 2002). These collaborative approaches provide opportunities for writers to practice audience awareness and to receive feedback on their rhetorical choices from readers who represent their target audience. Research has demonstrated that well-structured peer review activities can significantly improve essay quality and reduce common errors.

Explicit instruction in revision strategies is essential for helping students move beyond surface-level editing to address more fundamental problems in essay structure, argumentation, and development (Sommers & Saltz, 2004). Many students lack effective revision strategies and focus exclusively on correcting grammatical and mechanical errors while ignoring more significant problems in content and organization. Teaching students systematic approaches to revision can significantly reduce the occurrence of structural and argumentative mistakes.

Genre-Based and Rhetorical Approaches

Genre-based instruction that explicitly teaches the conventions and expectations of academic essay writing can effectively reduce many common mistakes that stem from inadequate understanding of academic discourse conventions (Devitt, 2004). This approach involves analyzing exemplary essays to identify successful rhetorical strategies and structural patterns, providing students with concrete models for their own writing. Genre-based instruction is particularly effective in addressing thesis development, organizational structure, and evidence integration problems.

Rhetorical awareness instruction focuses on helping students understand how different rhetorical situations require different approaches to essay writing, including variation in audience expectations, purpose clarification, and genre conventions (Carter, 2007). This instruction can significantly reduce mistakes that stem from inadequate audience analysis or inappropriate rhetorical choices. Students who develop strong rhetorical awareness are better able to make strategic decisions about organization, style, and argumentation.

Argument-based instruction that explicitly teaches logical reasoning, evidence evaluation, and counterargument strategies can effectively address many of the analytical and argumentative mistakes that commonly occur in student essays (Newell et al., 2011). This instruction includes training in informal logic, critical thinking skills, and evidence-based reasoning that supports more sophisticated argumentative development and reduces logical fallacies and reasoning errors.

Technology-Enhanced Error Prevention

Digital Writing Tools and Feedback Systems

Contemporary technology offers unprecedented opportunities for providing immediate feedback on common essay writing mistakes through automated writing evaluation systems and intelligent tutoring platforms (Shermis & Burstein, 2013). These systems can identify many surface-level errors in grammar, mechanics, and usage while also providing feedback on higher-order concerns such as organization, development, and argumentation. However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on their integration with human instruction and feedback rather than their use as standalone solutions.

Online writing labs and digital consultation services provide additional technological resources for addressing common essay writing mistakes through personalized feedback and instruction (Wolfe & Griffin, 2013). These services can offer timely support for writers who need assistance with specific aspects of essay development and can provide targeted instruction that addresses individual patterns of error. The accessibility and convenience of digital writing support services make them particularly valuable for diverse student populations.

Collaborative writing platforms and peer review systems facilitate social interaction around writing that can help students identify and address common mistakes through community feedback and support (Cho & Cho, 2011). These platforms can provide structured opportunities for peer review and collaborative revision that support the development of both writing skills and critical reading abilities. The social nature of these platforms can also increase student motivation and engagement with the writing process.

Data-Driven Approaches to Error Analysis

Learning analytics and data mining techniques offer new possibilities for identifying patterns in student writing errors and developing targeted interventions that address specific areas of difficulty (McNamara et al., 2015). By analyzing large datasets of student essays, researchers and educators can identify the most common types of mistakes and develop evidence-based instructional approaches that address these specific challenges. This data-driven approach to writing instruction represents a significant advancement in the field’s ability to provide effective, targeted support.

Adaptive learning systems that adjust instruction based on individual student performance and error patterns can provide personalized support that addresses specific writing challenges while building on individual strengths (Roscoe & McNamara, 2013). These systems can provide customized practice opportunities and feedback that target the specific types of mistakes that individual students are most likely to make, resulting in more efficient and effective learning outcomes.

Automated essay scoring systems continue to evolve in their ability to provide meaningful feedback on higher-order writing concerns, though they remain most effective when used in conjunction with human instruction and evaluation (Weigle, 2013). These systems can provide consistent, immediate feedback on common essay writing mistakes while freeing human instructors to focus on more complex aspects of writing development and individualized support.

Future Directions and Implications

Emerging Research in Writing Assessment

Current research in writing assessment is exploring new approaches to identifying and addressing common essay writing mistakes through more sophisticated understanding of writing development and individual differences in learning (Haswell, 2001). This research includes investigation of how different types of feedback affect student learning, the role of metacognitive awareness in writing improvement, and the effectiveness of various instructional interventions for addressing specific categories of writing errors.

Longitudinal studies of writing development are providing new insights into how common essay writing mistakes change over time and how different instructional approaches support long-term improvement in writing competence (Sternglass, 1997). These studies suggest that many writing mistakes reflect developmental stages in the acquisition of academic literacy rather than permanent deficiencies, highlighting the importance of providing appropriate scaffolding and support throughout the learning process.

Research in multilingual writing is contributing to more nuanced understanding of how linguistic and cultural background influences the types of mistakes that writers make and the most effective approaches for addressing these challenges (Matsuda et al., 2003). This research has important implications for writing instruction in increasingly diverse educational contexts and for the development of more inclusive approaches to error analysis and correction.

Implications for Writing Pedagogy

The research examined in this paper has significant implications for writing pedagogy across educational contexts, suggesting the need for more comprehensive and systematic approaches to addressing common essay writing mistakes (National Writing Project, 2003). Effective writing instruction must address both surface-level concerns and deeper issues related to rhetorical awareness, critical thinking, and genre knowledge. This comprehensive approach requires substantial professional development for educators and institutional support for innovative pedagogical practices.

The integration of technology-enhanced instruction with traditional pedagogical approaches represents an important direction for future development in writing education (Takayoshi & Selfe, 2007). While technology offers valuable tools for identifying and addressing common writing mistakes, its effectiveness depends on thoughtful integration with human instruction and feedback. Educational institutions must invest in both technological infrastructure and faculty development to realize the potential benefits of these emerging tools.

Finally, the recognition of writing as a complex, socially situated activity has important implications for how educators conceptualize and respond to essay writing mistakes (Prior, 1998). Rather than viewing errors as simple deficiencies to be corrected, effective writing pedagogy must address the underlying cognitive, rhetorical, and social factors that contribute to writing difficulties. This approach requires more sophisticated assessment practices and more individualized instructional approaches that recognize the diverse needs and backgrounds of contemporary student populations.

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis of common essay writing mistakes reveals the complex nature of writing difficulties and the need for multifaceted approaches to prevention and remediation. The persistent occurrence of systematic errors across diverse populations of writers reflects fundamental challenges in writing instruction and inadequate understanding of the cognitive and rhetorical processes underlying effective essay composition. However, contemporary research in composition studies, cognitive psychology, and educational technology provides valuable insights into the causes of these mistakes and evidence-based strategies for addressing them.

The findings of this research emphasize that effective prevention of essay writing mistakes requires comprehensive pedagogical approaches that address both surface-level concerns and deeper issues related to rhetorical awareness, critical thinking, and genre knowledge. Process-oriented instruction, genre-based approaches, and technology-enhanced feedback systems all contribute to more effective writing pedagogy, but their success depends on thoughtful integration and sustained institutional support.

Future research in this area should continue to explore the complex relationships between individual differences, instructional approaches, and writing development outcomes. Longitudinal studies of writing improvement, investigation of multilingual writing challenges, and development of more sophisticated assessment practices will contribute to continued advancement in the field’s ability to support effective essay writing across diverse educational contexts.

The implications of this research extend beyond individual writing improvement to encompass broader questions about academic literacy, educational equity, and institutional responsibility for supporting student success. As educational contexts become increasingly diverse and technology continues to transform communication practices, understanding and addressing common essay writing mistakes will remain a critical challenge for educators and researchers committed to promoting effective written communication.

References

Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385-418.

Cho, K., & Cho, M. H. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 272-275.

Coe, R. M. (2011). Rhetoric and composition: A guide for the teacher (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39(4), 395-409.

Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Southern Illinois University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2014). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2019). A writer’s reference (9th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Haswell, R. H. (2001). Gaining ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Southern Methodist University Press.

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26.

Kolln, M., & Gray, L. (2016). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects (8th ed.). Pearson.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press.

Lunsford, A. A. (2016). The St. Martin’s handbook (8th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2019). Everything’s an argument (8th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 151-179.

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. D. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 499-515.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2017). Critical thinking (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Murray, D. M. (2013). The craft of revision (5th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

National Writing Project. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. Jossey-Bass.

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304.

Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ramage, J., Bean, J., & Johnson, J. (2015). The Allyn & Bacon guide to writing (7th ed.). Pearson.

Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 622-636.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). Macmillan.

Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. Routledge.

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148-156.

Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year. College Composition and Communication, 56(1), 124-149.

Sternglass, M. S. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Strunk Jr., W., & White, E. B. (2019). The elements of style (4th ed.). Pearson.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Takayoshi, P., & Selfe, C. L. (2007). Thinking about multimodality. In C. L. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 1-12). Hampton Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85-99.

Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2017). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th ed.). Pearson.

Wolfe, J., & Griffin, J. A. (2013). Comparing technologies for online writing conferences: Effects of medium on conversation. Teaching of English, 48(2), 198-231.

Wolff, J. (2015). An introduction to political philosophy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.