difficulties in research writing

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

4 Common Research Writing Mistakes (and How to Fix Them)

It is disappointing to see authors who, after putting in so much of time and effort into conducting their research, make peace with their work being judged based on styling or linguistic errors, rather than its scientific merit.

Successful researchers understand that communicating your research effectively is as important as conducting solid scientific research. You can also check out this article on top ten ways to improve technical writing , which helps you to eliminate the  most common problems in technical writing and provide tips on how to recognize and solve them.

If you are about to start writing an academic paper soon, here are a few common research writing mistakes you must keep in mind to avoid unnecessary rejections:

1. Not emphasising on “why” the problem you are trying to solve is important

The introduction sets the tone of the entire paper. Authors often utilize this section to talk about the objectives of the study and explain the problem they are addressing. But a lot of authors leave it up to the reviewer to understand ‘why’ the problem is so important and challenging, which is a big mistake.

Authors must take the responsibility of convincing the reviewer about the gravity of the problem to give a compelling start to their paper. Use data to state why the problem is so important, how the current solutions are falling short to solve it, and why it is a difficult problem to solve. Similarly, just stating the solution to the problem is not enough. Give detailed arguments to explain what makes your solution so compelling. Explaining the limitations of the current solution and the challenges faced in solving the problem are also good ways to intrigue the reviewer. For example, if you are optimizing a current solution, showing the impact of those optimizations on the outcome can certainly help make a good case for your solution.

2. Weak structuring of the paper

The longer the research paper, the more challenging it becomes to keep readers engaged until the end. It is easy to drift from one thought to another.

A strong research question is at the center of a good research paper. You might want to present some good ideas, but if it doesn’t relate directly to the answer to your research question, it’s best to keep it for another day. If a project allows you to explore several research questions, it is best to address each question in a different paper.

Unnecessary information like why you used a particular software to create pie charts, or explaining fundamentals of a topic when the majority of your readers are already well-versed with it are easy ways to make people lose their interest in your work.

In some domains, projects are undertaken for operational purposes and not necessarily to add anything to scientific knowledge. Papers that are written based on such projects should thus define their primary research question as the basis of the paper.

A good research question is specific, original, and expresses a strong perspective on one focused topic. It should either extend the conversation about the topic in the scientific community or refute existing knowledge. For example, ‘we examined if giving a checklist of vaccinations for a newborn makes couples come back to the same hospital for vaccinations,’ might make a good hypothesis. Authors must note that their question should be intriguing enough for those in the same field of study.

All supporting statements should in effect answer this primary research question and pose a sustained inquiry and an inspiring discussion around your research question. This helps maintain unity throughout the paper and lends a logic flow to your ideas. Although most journals recommend following IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) to define the structure of a scientific paper, you must check specific requirements of the journal under the author’s guidelines section.

In the image below, you can see a great demarcation provided by OUP of the points to address under each section of IMRAD for a typical research paper:

Often when submitting manuscripts, authors do not mention the research question or the defined aim of the question is too vague. Mixing points between sections is another common issue that can make the paper lose its impact. The above image should work as a handy reference, in case you get confused. Besides structure, it is also important for authors to rightfully acknowledge the limitations of their study and make sure that their discussion is providing a convincing answer to the research question. Non-native speakers are highly recommended to get their papers proofread by a native speaker at least once before submission. The only time when it is probably okay to receive a paper rejection is when there is some grave loophole in your research you couldn’t have realized earlier and it warrants further deep dive into the subject. Getting your paper rejected due to linguistic errors, paper style errors, LaTeX errors or because you didn’t acknowledge the latest research, is a waste of your time as well as the reviewers and the journal where you submitted the paper.

3. Citing the sources incorrectly

There are several ways you can interpret this. Many scholars do not add relevant references that support their key arguments in the introduction and the discussion.

At other times, reviewers reject papers that cite references from a long time ago as it is unlikely that no scientific progress has been made in a particular field in a couple of years. Citing newer research thus is a great way to make sure that your manuscript is relevant and adds to the current conversation about the topic you are addressing. Add a few newer references from top journals to show how well aware you are about the recent developments to earn yourself some brownie points.

No one wants additional rounds of the stressful peer review process. It is common to spot authors conveniently skipping important research references (sometimes intentionally) or mentioning incorrect facts when citing previous references. For example, if you propose a revolutionary new algorithm to solve a problem but fail to recognize that it can be solved by an already existing solution, it might lead to rejection of your paper.

Each journal has specific guidelines on how to cite sources as well. Make sure you do not take these guidelines lightly and follow them correctly. Of course, if you are a SciSpace (Formerly Typeset) user, you do not have to worry about any of this as you can select the pre-set template of your journal on our platform and follow all citation and author guidelines 100% in a single click.

To understand all about citations, refer to The Fundamentals of Journal Citation

4. Not enriching your paper with appropriate figures and tables

Using text to describe everything can be boring and might not help you put your results/data across as effectively as a table or a figure. Adding figures and tables also help you flesh out your results section and give it the emphasis it deserves. Otherwise, it will probably be the shortest section of your manuscript. Authors often make a lot of mistakes in regards to basic formatting conventions in figures and tables. For example, figures and tables should be numbered in the same order in which they appear in your text and should be cited as (Figure 1) or (Fig. 1), and not (See Figure 1 attached). Same goes for tables as well. Also, your figures and tables should be self-explanatory.

If you are unable to decide what would be the best way to represent your data — tables or figures — the general rule is that tables present the experimental results, while figures offer a better visualization when comparing experimental results with theoretical/calculated values or previous works. Regardless of the choice you make, do not duplicate the information you’ve covered elsewhere in the manuscript.

Here are a few quick tips to present your figures and tables more clearly:

• Don’t use crowded plots. Limit to 3–4 sets of data per figure and choose your scales carefully
• Use the right size for axis labels
• Make sure your symbols are clear and it is easy to distinguish data sets
• Avoid including long boring tables and add them as supplementary material, if needed

Although the list of research writing mistakes can be pretty long-winding if you delve into the granularities of LaTeX errors or specific grammatical errors, those are probably appropriate subjects to take up in other posts. Are you a journal editor or perhaps a researcher yourself? What are the common errors you’ve observed in research papers? Share it with us.

Our recommendation, since you are looking for platforms that simplify research workflows, is SciSpace . All your research needs can be met through it, from literature searches to writing papers to publishing.

SciSpace is a platform that researchers, universities, and publishers worldwide trust for everything they need. An exhaustive repository with more than 200 million research papers from across disciplines with SEO-optimized summaries, public profiles to showcase your experience and expertise, a specifically-built collaborative text editor, 20,000+ journal templates that can be inserted in a click, and so much more.

More Stories

• How to increase citation count of your research paper?
• How to become good at academic research writing?
• 11 Reasons Why Research Papers Are Rejected

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Academic writing challenges and supports: perspectives of international doctoral students and their supervisors.

• 1 Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
• 2 School of Optometry, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
• 3 Department of Chemistry, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Introduction: Academic writing is a core element of a successful graduate program, especially at the doctoral level. Graduate students are expected to write in a scholarly manner for their thesis and scholarly publications. However, in some cases, limited or no specific training on academic writing is provided to them to do this effectively. As a result, many graduate students, especially those having English as an Additional Language (EAL), face significant challenges in scholarly writing. Further, faculty supervisors often feel burdened by reviewing and editing multiple drafts and find it difficult to help and support EAL students in the process of scientific writing. In this study, we explored academic writing challenges faced by EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors at a research intensive post-secondary university in Canada.

Methods and Analysis: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-method study using an online survey and subsequent focus group discussions with EAL doctoral students (n = 114) and faculty supervisors (n = 31). A cross-sectional online survey was designed and disseminated to the potential study participants using internal communications systems of the university. The survey was designed using a digital software called Qualtrics™. Following the survey, four focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, two each with two groups of our participants with an aim to achieve data saturation. The FGD guide was informed by the preliminary findings of the survey data. Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) and qualitative data was managed and analyzed using NVivo.

Discussion: The study findings suggest that academic writing should be integrated into the formal training of doctoral graduate students from the beginning of the program. Both students and faculty members shared that discipline-specific training is required to ensure success in academic writing, which can be provided in the form of a formal course specifically designed for doctoral students wherein discipline-specific support is provided from faculty supervisors and editing support is provided from English language experts.

Ethics and Dissemination: The general research ethics board of the university approved the study (#6024751). The findings are disseminated with relevant stakeholders at the university and beyond using scientific presentations and publications.

Introduction

The international student population at Canadian Universities is on the rise. Statistics Canada reported that over the past 10 years, between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, enrollments for Canadian students in formal programs grew by 10.9% whereas number of international students tripled over the same period ( Statistics Canada, 2020 ). The same report highlighted those international students contribute an estimated 40% of all tuition fees collected by Canadian universities, accounting for almost $4 billion in their annual revenue in 2018/2019 ( Statistics Canada, 2020 ). Not only international students contribute toward the tuition revenue of universities, but they also increase the social and cultural diversity of campuses leading to excellence in scientific achievement and innovation. The heterogeneity and diversity of graduate students contribute toward globalization of universities and enhance quality of educational experiences for all students ( Campbell, 2015 ).

Academic writing is one of the core elements of a successful graduate program, especially at the doctoral level ( Itua et al., 2014 ). The ability to present information and ideas in writing plays an integral role in graduate students’ academic and professional success ( Caffarella and Barnett, 2000 ; Aitchison et al., 2012 ). Research has shown that writing process is related directly with the doctoral students’ identity development and is not just can be seen as a skill acquisition but a socio-cultural tool that need to be learnt. In fact, in many cases it is a socially situated process that happens in social discourses and is based on intensive interactions with the text and scientific communities. The process eventually leads to the development of an academic identity of graduate students which determines expression of a scientific arguments, epistemologies, methodologies, and theoretical approaches that they align with and adopt as they grow into scientists ( Lee and Boud, 2003 ; Sala-Bubaré and Castelló, 2018 ; Inouye and McAlpine, 2019 ; Lonka et al., 2019 ). The complexity associated with scholarly writing is further compounded at the doctoral level due to the expectation of systematic understanding and comprehensive knowledge of the field of study, mastery of research methods associated with that field, and ability to communicate the complex ideas with the peers, the larger scholarly community and society in general ( Inouye and McAlpine, 2019 ). This process can be challenging to even native speakers, meaning that non-native English speakers may face not only problems with grammar, idea expression, etc., but this may lead to low self-esteem of doctoral students, especially those with English as an additional language (EAL), and interfere with their researcher identity and authorial voice development.

Many EAL doctoral students face numerous scholarly writing challenges ( Pidgeon and Andres, 2005 ). Previous research highlights that international students navigate a complex cultural adaptation like institutional, departmental, disciplinary, and individual culture ( Ismail et al., 2013 ). The internationalization of higher education enhances academic writing’s intricacies, challenging international students and their supervisors to tackle differences in English language understanding and proficiency ( Doyle et al., 2018 ). Previous research also suggests that academic writing practices are socio-culturally specific and subject to change for academic disciplines ( Abdulkareem, 2013 ). Second language learners need more time to gain similar understanding levels than first language learners ( Ipek, 2009 ). Individuals from a variety of disciplines and parts of the world adopt dissimilar rhetorical writing styles, with some preferring inductive forms while others prefer deductive styles. Writing styles also reflect specific cultural nuances that are not applicable or employed in different parts of the world.

Not only students, but faculty supervisors who supervise graduate students often feel burdened of reviewing and editing multiple drafts; and find it hard to help and support students in the process of scientific writing ( Maher et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, the university centers that provide services to support students develop their writing skills face difficulties in matching services according to the supervisor’s expectations ( McAlpine and Amundsen, 2011 ; Gopee and Deane, 2013 ). While extensive scholarly attention has been given to the challenges of doctoral studies, research directed toward understanding the challenges in academic writing from the perspectives of doctoral students and their graduate supervisors at Canadian institutions has been very limited ( Pidgeon and Andres, 2005 ; Jones, 2013 ). The goal of this study was to understand the challenges in academic writing faced by EAL doctoral students and graduate supervisors at a research-intensive post-secondary institution. To achieve our research goal, we had two main objectives:

1. Understand academic writing challenges from the perspectives of EAL doctoral students, knowledge and use of existing services, and writing support from supervisors.

2. Explore areas for support and services needed to improve academic writing, from the perspectives of EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors with graduate supervision responsibilities and experience.

Understanding these challenges will inform the mechanisms adopted by Canadian or other universities across the world to strengthen the existing services and development of an academic writing model that support graduate students and their supervisors toward successful academic writing.

Materials and Methods

The project was undertaken at a research-intensive post-secondary university in Canada. This university is one of the Canada’s renowned universities that has been granting graduate degrees for over 130 years, and currently offers more than 125 graduate programs to over 4,200 graduate students. Figures from the university suggest that, in 2017, international students from 80 different countries across the world comprised 26% of the total graduate student population. This project was funded by an educational research grant provided by Centre for Teaching and Learning and was a collaborative effort among key stakeholders concerning graduate students, faculty, and staff at the university. These stakeholders included members of the School of Graduate Studies, university’s International Centre, Student Academic Success Services, Centre for Teaching and Learning, and Society for Graduate and Professional Students that provided guidance at every stage of the research process.

A mixed-method approach with sequential explanatory design was used, wherein quantitative data was collected first followed by qualitative data. Participants belonged to major academic disciplines at the university which included science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics.

Study Participants

The study participants included doctoral students doing PhD at the university who were non-native English language speakers and in any year of their program and faculty supervisors with experience of supervising EAL doctoral students. The non-probability sampling was used wherein participants were invited to participate in the study voluntarily. The eligibility to participate in the study was self-determined by the participants.

Doctoral Students

A total of 114 students participated in the study. The average age of doctoral students who responded the survey was 31 years, ranging between 23 and 51 years. Out of 114, 47 students identified themselves as male (41%), 63 identified as female (55%), and four (4%) chose not to declare. With regards to ethnic origin and native languages, there was a large heterogeneity within the sample. Participants belonged to ten different ethnic backgrounds, and thirty-four different languages were reported as their native spoken language. The most indicated racial/ethnic backgrounds were South Asian (22%) and Middle Eastern (18%) followed by European (16%), and Chinese (15%). Four most commonly represented native languages were Arabic (12%), Farsi (9%), Mandarin (9%), and Spanish (6%). Most of the students belonged to Arts and Science (26%), followed by Health Sciences (21%), Engineering (20%), School of Business (13%) and Education (6%). Majority of students who completed the survey were in their first year of PhD program (38%). The remainder of the respondents were almost evenly distributed amongst second year (14%), third year (15%), fourth year (17%) and upper year (16%). With regards to the stage of PhD studies; 48% of respondents were commencing PhD studies, 28% of respondents were mid-candidature, and 24% of respondents were completing PhD studies at the time of the survey.

Faculty Members

A total of 31 faculty members participated in the study. Out of 31, almost half were females. In terms of their faculty ranks, 48% identified as associate professor, 36% as professor, 16% as assistant professor. The number of years of experience of participant supervisors with graduate supervision ranged from 1 to 35; with 45% of respondents having 11–15 years of experience supervising graduate students. Majority of the respondents had supervised less than 10 doctoral students, with 2 EAL doctoral students on an average (46%).

Data Collection and Analysis

The general research ethics board of the university approved the study (#6024751). The data was collected over a period of 6 months, from January to June 2019.

Quantitative Data

Two cross-sectional online surveys were designed and disseminated to the potential study participants (EAL doctoral students and faculty supervisors) using internal communications systems of the university. The surveys were designed using a digital software called Qualtrics™ and developed based on the literature and an environmental scan of academic writing support across ten universities in Canada. The environmental scan helped us to identify the extent and nature of support and services in Canadian universities such as a dedicated academic writing center, online resources for academic writing, personal consultation services for academic writing, workshops/seminars/other events dedicated to academic writing, and resources specific to EAL graduate students and supervisors. The instruments were validated through expert consultation and pilot testing with four potential participants ( Supplementary Materials 1 , 2 ). We followed the general recommendations of anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality from ethical practice guidelines for online research ( Gupta, 2017 ). Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). All continuous variables are presented as mean (standard deviation) and median (interquartile range). Dichotomous variable values are presented as proportions/percentage.

Qualitative Data

Following the survey, four FGDs were held, two each with two groups of our participants with an aim to achieve data saturation. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the objectives of the study and the key findings obtained from the quantitative phase of the study ( Supplementary Material 3 ). Participants for focus group discussions (FGDs) were recruited from the pool of survey respondents who agreed to participate in the qualitative phase of the study. The FGD guide was pilot tested with two participants and revised in light of their responses. The focus groups were conducted in-person. FGDs were conducted by the first author, who was a EAL PhD candidate at the time. All FGDs lasted between 40 and 60 min and were recorded using two audio-recorders and transcribed verbatim. To maintain anonymity, all personal identifiers were removed before data analysis.

Inductive thematic analysis approach was used for qualitative data which involved identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes that are important in the phenomenon of being investigated ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). The coding process in inductive thematic analysis started with the preparation of raw data files after data cleaning; close reading of the text to understand the content; the identification and development of general themes and categories; the re-reading to refine the categories and reduce overlap or redundancy among the categories; and creating a framework incorporating the most important categories ( Guest et al., 2014 ) ( Supplementary Material 4 ). The first two authors (SG, AJ) coded the four transcripts independently to ensure inter-coder consistency and peer examination of the codes developed by the first author. The coding scheme was confirmed and corrected by the senior author (JK) for any imprecise code definitions or overlapping of meaning in the coding scheme. Eighty percent of the total codes were identified within the first two FGDs. Two more FGDs were conducted to confirm thematic saturation in data. These additional FGDs verified that saturation is based on the widest possible range of data on the emerged subcategories. This process increased the comprehensibility of analysis and provided a sound interpretation of the data. The NVivo software was used to manage the data. Research rigor was ensured through an audit trail and peer debriefing ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). For an audit trail, a logbook was maintained that contained the notes on the data collection process, the analysis process, and the final interpretations. The research team met at regular intervals to provide critical inputs on the research methods and lead researcher’s interpretation of meanings and analysis. The peer-review process involved deliberations and debriefing of the emerging codes, categories, and their relationship with the data.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative data

Using the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design, the quantitative and qualitative data was connected at the intermediate stage when results obtained from the quantitative data analysis informed data collection of the qualitative study and guided the formation of the semi-structured interview guide. The quantitative and qualitative studies were also connected while selecting the participants for the qualitative study and conduct follow-up analysis based on the quantitative results. The development of the qualitative data collection tool was grounded in the results from the quantitative study to investigate those results in more depth through collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. Finally, an overall interpretation was framed, which is presented in this paper, and implications of the integrated findings on future research, policy and practice are discussed. Figure 1 describes this process and depicts the various stages of integration, along with the specific aspects of this research that were explored in subsequent phases or informed the subsequent phase.

Figure 1. Study process.

Findings From the Online Survey and Focus Group Discussions

Academic writing challenges.

Out of total respondents, almost 90% doctoral students felt that they need to improve their academic writing skills and 46% indicated that a university supervisor or faculty has at some point indicated that they need to work on improving their academic writing skills. The highest rated areas of difficulty were the writing process (25%), followed by developing content/ideas (24%), use of grammar (16%) and vocabulary (12%), and the organization of sentences or paragraphs (11%).

When explored further over a focus group discussion, the students provided reasons for their academic writing challenges. For example, a few students shared that because they frame their ideas in their native language, it becomes challenging for them to express those ideas in English due to the differences in structures, vocabulary, mechanics, and semantics between the two languages. These were depicted in these quotes:

“I tend too much often to use French grammatical structures and to apply it in English. Some words are not in my database of my vocabulary and I don’t think of those words. So, for me it’s two problems: it’s grammatical structures; and vocabulary.” (7th year PhD student, French speaker)

“In my … mother tongue- the syntax, or the semantics, how to organize sentences is totally different from English. in my writing … people find it quite easy to see that this kind of paper is written by a foreign people and not by a native speaker.”(1st year PhD student, Farsi speaker)

“One of the challenges that we have, that at least I have, is the difference in structures and organization … between my language, which would be Italian and English. So sometimes I tend to write sentences in the Italian structure, which is not the correct one.” (2nd year PhD student, Italian speaker)

Some students also highlighted the challenges they face while writing with their faculty supervisors such as getting timely and adequate feedback from them and making sure if they understand that feedback correctly. They further shared how this lack or delay of clear communication between them and their supervisors about their writing challenges led to loss of time and stress during their doctoral programs. This is depicted in these quotes:

“How to differentiate between a comment about concepts from a comment about writing. Like, sometimes I’m like, so is the idea correct and it’s not written well? Or are you saying the idea itself is crap? Like, can you tell me, if you know, where should I make the change. That took me many months to figure out. And yes, I think that more feedback would mean that you can actually talk to them and say I don’t understand what this comment means, but if you get less number of feedbacks and then that itself is like very confusing then you’re just stuck with four comment which you’re like … okay I think I’m terrible, I think I should just leave, this makes no sense.” (2nd year PhD student, Italian speaker)

“I’ll need to work more- just read them again and again and again and sometimes I’ll realize, oh I could use precise language … words that I was not thinking about. So it’s just more time consuming and time is against us in the PhD program.” (3rd year PhD student, French speaker)

Commonly Used Resources

The most common English language development or academic writing support sought out by doctoral students was university workshops (n = 28 students, 25%). After university workshops, the university writing center (20%) was listed as other commonly used English language support. Less common sought out supports were tutoring (9%) and writing retreats (8%). Some students also used resources outside the university such as grammar-check tools. However, around 62% doctoral students ( n = 71) indicated that they had not sought out any support for their academic writing development.

When asked about the reasons for not using university’s academic writing center over the subsequent focus group discussions, participants shared that either they were not aware of those services or felt that they needed support from someone belonging to their own discipline, as depicted in the quotes below:

“I started coming to the writing center only in my fourth year, which I was not aware of before … and I’m in fifth year now, and … it’s just … I’m here because of my editing, or the lack of editing (laughs) in my first draft because I didn’t know what to edit for. these things are something I could have started looking for in my first year.” (5th year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

“I think I was kind of aware of this possibility, but I think right now the major challenge I’m facing is improving on clarity in a way that can possibly only be done be somebody who’s in a research field. So, I think I notwithstanding that I could improve on structure and grammar and so on and so on, I think a major challenge I have is on particularly on specific points.” (2nd year PhD student, German speaker)

Participants further shared although they appreciate the support provided by English language experts, lack of technical or subject knowledge by them creates a barrier to either use those services. Lack of discipline specific knowledge among English language experts made those services less relevant for doctoral students across highly specialized disciplines. This was depicted in this quote:

“When they try to suggest us re-writing the sentence in a way that I know is not correct. So, their suggestion is not right because the science is modified for a different clarity purpose.” (3rd year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

Academic Writing Supports Needed

Students were also asked what writing supports would help improve their academic writing skills. The most important written language support as indicated by 64 respondents (56%) was personal feedback on writing tasks. Doctoral thesis writing workshops and working one-on-one with language experts to check writing regularly were identified as the next most important writing supports each with 47 students (41%). Finally, students were asked what they believe is the best way for their supervisors to give them feedback about their writing. The majority of students (56%) identified that the best way for supervisors to provide written feedback to students was highlighting the errors and informing the student of the type of error.

In the subsequent FGDs, students highlighted several aspects of the support that they thought would help in academic writing. For example, participants shared that a formal training should be provided to all PhD students, right from the beginning of their PhD, though this support should be available to them throughout their PhD program.

“If in the first year itself that they had a course, or just someone or something- an online module on little things like punctuation or comma splices, and length of sentences. Um … it would have definitely helped me figure out what was going wrong with my writing earlier.” (5th year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

“If there was a two-week time that we just dedicated all the efforts and energies to correcting systematic errors that we do when writing in English, then it would be so much easier afterwards.” (3rd year PhD student, Hindi speaker)

When asked further about their preferred arrangements to receive such support, they suggested a hybrid model wherein university’s writing center provides support on English language in the form of online modules, classes or one-on-one appointments with English language experts, while their department and its faculty members provide them training in discipline specific writing via seminars or workshops. These are depicted in the several of the quotes highlighted below:

“I think the support should be more department-specific rather than the entire university. I would say it’s more beneficial because academic writing’s different for every department …. (agreement in group)” (3rd year PhD student, Farsi speaker)

“May be the professors who have 10 to 15 years’ experience writing research reports can have a one-hour seminar throughout the semester, every 2 or 3 weeks, so they can share what they basically do when they’re reviewing reports, as well as also when developing their writing styles.” (1 st year PhD student, Arabic speaker)

“um … that is something for sure we could do like every year like a couple seminars on uh, semantics and punctuation- whatever topic in writing. But uh … sometimes it’s also about the structure of the … of the paper or the thesis. Um … writing my proposal of research um … research proposal? (laughs) I was uh, it was really helpful for me- both because it’s a great writing exercise and also because I learned the importance of having um, a frame when I start writing.” (3rd year PhD student, Spanish speaker)

“I think that not only if even the first year when it’s recommended for them or as we see now it’s most beneficial to them, if it’s open for later for second or third year they will still go if they think it’s useful…” (4th year PhD student, Mandarin speaker)

With respect to supervisors, students shared that they would like their supervisors to communicate expectations and give examples of good writing from the beginning of their program. They also suggested that there should be a link between supervisors and university’s writing center, so that they can be referred whenever they need support in English language, as depicted in this quote:

“I’m not aware that supervisors or profs at [university name] have been in contact with SASS at all, so I think it would be helpful to improve on this link because if supervisors find that students need sort of help that could be provided in the framework of these services, then they could say, well why don’t you ask, you know, the people here and then they will help you with the structure, the grammar and so on, and they don’t have to spend time on things that we could get help on otherwise.” (3rd year PhD student, French speaker)

Faculty Supervisors

The most common areas of difficulty highlighted by faculty supervisors were grammar ( n = 27, 87%), followed by logical organization ( n = 20, 65%), mechanics ( n = 19, 61%), vocabulary ( n = 19, 61%), content/ideas generation ( n = 14, 45%), writing process ( n = 14, 45%) and semantics ( n = 11, 35%).

In the FGDs, faculty members expanded further on the academic writing challenges that their EAL students face or have faced in the past. Using correct grammar and synthesizing and expressing ideas in a cohesive way were the two main challenges highlighted by faculty members. They also acknowledged that academic writing in general is a skill that even native English speakers find difficult. These are reflected in the quotes below:

“It’s as much as being grammatically correct as being able to express ideas in a concise and accurate succinct manner…” (Assistant Professor, Arabic speaker)

“I think I see this part of the training as not only you want them to be grammatically correct, but you want them to be able to say things to an audience – that they can say the right thing to the right audience and be persuasive in certain manner that they would be effective public speakers. But this will take time and some process we go through.” (Associate Professor, Mandarin speaker)

“Academic writing issues affect domestic students also, but especially if you have done an undergraduate degree outside Canada, then you’re going to be limping … ” (Assistant Professor, French speaker)

“Sometimes I find that our domestic students have trouble writing and these are the people who went through the Canadian system in high school and undergraduate, so it’s not … I think writ- professional writing in general is … an issue and it would take some time generally for all of us … ” (Professor, English speaker)

When explored further, faculty members shared the challenges they face while supervising EAL students in academic writing. For example, the quote below from a faculty member highlights how they need more time and effort to clearly understand and supervise the work of EAL students in comparison to students who are native English speakers.

“Before I can look at the idea, I have to go over and over and over the actual presentation so that I can understand the idea and argument clearly, and those additional rounds of assistance are not required for people who, who would perhaps have English as their first language. (Professor, English speaker)

Basically, we ask the student to write something and then rewrite it and rewrite it again depending on the student and how – how quickly, how quickly they’re getting it. The iteration can be anywhere between three and five times … ” (Assistant Professor, French speaker)

Expanding on this further, another faculty member who was also a department head at the university shared that the extra amount of time and effort required to supervise EAL students lead to reluctance from faculty supervisors in supervising international students.

“I have had faculty members say they don’t wish to supervise international students because they have to spend so much more time editing their work. And it’s nothing to do with their brightness – they’re very competent, but to get to the same level of output requires a lot more effort on the part of the supervisor and so some prefer not to work with international students.” (Professor and Department Head, Chinese speaker)

Academic Writing Supports Provided and Awareness of Academic Writing Support on Campus

In terms of writing supports provided, 75% of faculty supervisors said they provided models of good writing such as academic papers, previous successful and/or unsuccessful theses, dissertations and journal publications. The next question asked if the supervisor has any specific processes they use when supervising EAL doctoral students. The answers were fairly evenly split between yes (45%) and no (55%). Some examples provided by respondents of specific processes included: providing writing exercises, earlier submissions compared to native English speakers, peer reviews and one-on-one writing support.

The next question asked about what writing support services the participants were aware of on campus that support student writing. This was an open-ended question that resulted in various answers; however, the most common answer was ‘The Writing Centre’ with 50% respondents indicating this as the only writing support service they were aware of on campus. However, some comments indicated that respondents felt the writing center was not intensive enough or merely supplemental for doctoral students.

“I’ve never sent any students there. I have assumed that because undergraduates at the end of the semester are waiting a month to get access to it, it’s simply not available for the kind of intensive work, the kind of on-going intensive work that is required for graduate-level students.” (Assistant Professor, Cantonese speaker)

Around 10% of faculty supervisors did not know of any writing supports. Other responses included: graduate school seminars, the University International Centre, the Centre for Teaching and Learning, and graduate school workshops. Finally, 2 respondents knew that support services exist, but did not know the name. Participants were also asked if they had referred students to these services, and 24 respondents (75%) said yes, and 7 respondents (25%) said no.

Academic Writing Supports Required

Participants were then asked in what ways they thought academic writing for EAL students could be strengthened at the university. The most frequent response ( n = 18, 58%) was one-on-one group guidance from someone in a similar area of study. The second most frequent response was editing services/proofreading/grammar check tools ( n = 17, 55%). The third most frequent response chosen by respondents was sitting one by one with a language expert to check writing regularly ( n = 16, 52%). Also, courses on academic writing ( n = 12, 39%), training on grammar, structure, and expressions in sentences ( n = 11, 35%), and PhD thesis-writing workshops ( n = 11, 35%) were in the top-most frequent responses.

In the subsequent FGD, we asked faculty members for suggestions for supporting EAL doctoral students. A common theme in the responses was that more resources should be allocated to EAL doctoral students with respect to writing supports; particularly one-on-one writing supports and editing services. Another suggestion that emerged in the discussions is that expectations, needs and challenges will be subjective based on the department and the student’s individual needs. Specifically, the faculty supervisors suggested for a course specifically designed for graduate students, offered by respective discipline-specific departments but designed and delivered in partnership with academic writing centre of the university.

“I think dedicated graduate supervision on graduate writing would be very valuable. But the problem I would have with that is the kind of supervision you could provide in the science is going to be very different than what you provide in the social sciences, and you provide in humanities. So, there would have to be people who really can write in the different modes.” (Assistant Professor, Italian speaker)

“I think you could have dedicated courses. This is possible, but the courses would have to be designed in conjunction with the departments that are involved.” (Assistant Professor, Cantonese speaker)

“I would say that ongoing support and continuous support through a feedback loop, which will return some gains, because if a course is just provided in the first year, by the time the student actually gets into the intensive writing phase – third year, fourth year, it might not turn out to be very effective … ” (Assistant Professor, English speaker)

Finally, the discussions indicated that faculty supervisors would like to have resources external to themselves in terms of academic writing support, so that they have more time to focus on technical content of the student’s writing.

The purpose of this study was to explore academic writing challenges faced by EAL PhD graduate students and their faculty supervisors. The students chose writing process and content/ideas as their highest rated areas of difficulty whereas for faculty members, grammar and logical organization were the two most common areas where EAL students need improvement. Our study was confined to one post-secondary institution in Canada, though the findings can be applied widely to other universities in Canada and around the world where international student population is growing. We discuss three key recommendations that emerged out of this study ( Figure 2 ) while comparing our findings with other similar studies.

Figure 2. Study recommendations to improve academic writing for EAL doctoral students.

Need of Specialized Writing Support Services for Doctoral Students

Writing at the doctoral level requires a highly specialized understanding of the subject area that cannot be expected to be provided by the support staff at university writing centers. This was echoed by faculty supervisors and students in our study that felt the existing writing support center needs more capacity to support the intensity of a doctoral program. This finding has important implications for the universities where there are currently no writing centers dedicated to doctoral students and that for EAL doctoral students only. A previous study examined a doctoral support group for EAL students. In this program, native English speakers volunteered to review doctorate’s academic writing at the draft stages for clarity, grammar, and spelling/punctation ( Carter, 2009 ). Although the service was specific for doctoral EAL students, the volunteers did not receive EAL training or had to be doctorate holders ( Carter, 2009 ). Therefore, some EAL students of the program had suggested for volunteers to be academically trained or department specific to receive more thorough assistance ( Carter, 2009 ). On the other hand, a study in the United States examined a university that has a Doctoral Support Center (DSC) which provides technical and emotional support to doctoral students only ( West et al., 2011 ). Technical services at the DSC included one-on-one consultations with writing class papers/dissertations, preparation support for proposal and dissertation defenses, and writing retreats/workshops ( West et al., 2011 ). The services were offered by three writing advisors who are doctorate holders ( West et al., 2011 ). These findings suggest that a doctoral focused writing service can be more beneficial compared to general writing centers and can provide more tailored support. More specifically, since EAL doctoral students require both English language and general dissertation support throughout their program, one-on-one support in this area can assist with student success, address common writing errors, and reduce workload of faculty having to provide continuous feedback.

Significance of Faculty Supervisors/Advisors Support for EAL Doctoral Students

Some faculty supervisors within our study reported allowing EAL students to submit their work early, provided examples of strong academic papers or previous dissertations, and/or provided individual writing support. Previous literature has identified one-on-one consultations with advisors helped EAL doctoral students receive personal feedback, improve their writing, and build confidence in themselves, ( Odena and Burgess, 2017 ; Ma, 2019 ). On the other hand, our study and other studies reported some students did not receive timely, clear, or direct/specific constructive feedback from faculty, adding as a challenge to improve their writing ( Sidman-taveau and Karathanos-aguilar, 2015 ; Abdulkhaleq, 2021 ). Faculty supervisors should be aware of the initial learning curve EAL students may face and ensure they have ample time and capacity to provide English language support to doctoral EAL students, in addition to general academic writing mentorship. Although in our study, faculty indicated some staff prefer not to supervise international students due to the extra time required, it is important to recognize the diversity, value, and enriching experiences that EAL students bring to teams. Based on our study findings and that of previous literature, it is evident faculty supervisors play an integral role in supporting doctoral students to become strong writers.

Furthermore, in our study, EAL students reported facing stress due to untimely feedback from supervisors. Other studies found that EAL students often feel discouraged, lack confidence, feel vulnerable, and greater pressure due to their English speaking/writing abilities ( Maringe and Jenkins, 2015 ). One study had a participant suggest that academic writing courses should be taught by EAL staff since they will understand the technical and emotional challenges that EAL doctoral students face ( Odena and Burgess, 2017 ). Based on these findings, it is recommended writing support centers and supervisors help build confidence in student’s writing skills by providing positive encouragement and acknowledging student’s improvement, while also understanding the additional pressure international EAL students face.

EAL Doctoral Students Use University Resources and Invest Time in Building Their Academic Writing Skills

One of the intriguing findings of this study was that while 89.5% of students felt that they do need to improve on their academic writing skills, 62% indicated that they had not sought out any support for their academic writing development. Further in the study, participant students have explained the challenges that prevent them seeking support for academic writing. However, it is important to highlight the importance of intrinsic motivation for academic and social integration of international students and role it plays to determine their success. Previous studies have found that international students’ motivation and learning attitudes are significant for their academic success and cultural adaptation in a new learning environment ( Hsu, 2011 ; Zhou and Zhang, 2014 ; Eze and Inegbedion, 2015 ).

There are many things that EAL doctoral students can do to improve their academic writing skills, as demonstrated to be effective by research evidence. Recently, a number of published studies suggest that participation in writing retreats help graduate students in developing academic writing abilities through a community of practice formed during writing retreats and interacting with their peers afterward ( Kornhaber et al., 2016 ; Tremblay-Wragg et al., 2021 ). A few studies also suggest students examine their beliefs about writing and form a writer identity to improve their style and come up with effective strategies that work for them. Authors suggest that these activities can be useful across any discipline, in which high-stakes writing is used ( Boscolo et al., 2007 ; Fernsten and Reda, 2011 ). Some of the other effective strategies that could be helpful include developing a network for peer feedback, writing regularly, personal organization while keeping time aside for academic writing, and building self-motivation and resilience ( Wellington, 2010 ; Odena and Burgess, 2017 ).

Limitations

Our findings were only limited to a Canadian university; hence, the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. The participation in the study was voluntary, hence the survey respondents were not representative of all EAL doctoral students on campus. Although the sample for qualitative data ( n = 31) is reasonable, it was not representative of all disciplines. The findings should be interpreted with caution with respect to discipline-specific nuances toward academic writing challenges and supports. Gathering data on students’ level of language proficiency, previous educational setting or background and personal characteristics could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomena. Moreover, this study was limited to academic writing challenges and supports for international graduate students; it will be interesting to explore this phenomenon among domestic doctoral students and their supervisors to ascertain the impact of writing culture and level of language proficiency on scientific writing. Despite these limitations, we believe that our findings still provide original and meaningful insight into academic writing challenges and required supports for EAL doctoral students and have the potential to inform programs on academic writing in higher education.

This study explored academic writing experiences—challenges and potential solutions from the perspective of EAL PhD graduate students and their faculty supervisors at a Canadian University. With the rise in international student population across Canada, understanding the doctoral academic writing challenges is critical to strengthen the existing services and development of an academic writing model that support students and their supervisors toward successful academic writing experience and outcomes. Our study indicated that EAL doctoral students require both English language and general dissertation support throughout their program. A doctoral-focused writing service will be beneficial compared to general writing centers given they can provide more tailored support. One-on-one support in this area can assist with student success, address common writing errors, and reduce workload for faculty members. There is a need for multipronged approach at various levels to provide a conducive and enabling environment and support resources for the students to thrive in their doctoral journey, and timely complete their thesis with success.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by General Research Ethics Board of the Queen’s university. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

SG and AJ contributed to the conception and design of the study. JK contributed to the design of data collection tools. SG, AJ, and AP were involved in writing the first draft of the manuscript. JK and SG edited the final manuscript for submission. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Klodiana Kolomitro, Susan Korba, Marta Straznicky, Agniezka Herra, and Colette Steer for their support to this research project. We would also like to thank the students at Queen’s University who participated in this study and shared their experiences. We would like to acknowledge the support of Centre for Teaching and Learning at Queen’s University for providing educational research grant to conduct this research.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.891534/full#supplementary-material

Abdulkareem, M. N. (2013). an investigation study of academic writing problems faced by Arab postgraduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 3, 1552–1557. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.9.1552-1557

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abdulkhaleq, M. M. A. (2021). Postgraduate ESL student’s perceptions of supervisor’s written and oral feedback. J. Lang. Commun. 8, 45–60.

Google Scholar

Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., and Burgin, S. (2012). “Tough love and tears”: learning doctoral writing in the sciences. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 31, 435–447. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.559195

Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., and Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: an intervention study. Stud. High. Educ. 32, 419–438. doi: 10.1080/03075070701476092

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Caffarella, R. S., and Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: the importance of giving and receiving critiques. Stud. High. Educ. 25, 39–52. doi: 10.1080/030750700116000

Campbell, T. A. (2015). A phenomenological study on international doctoral students’ acculturation experiences at a U.S. university. J. Int. Stud. 5, 285–299.

Carter, S. (2009). Volunteer support of english as an additional language (EAL) for doctoral students. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 4, 013–025. doi: 10.28945/43

Doyle, S., Manathunga, C., Prinsen, G., Tallon, R., and Cornforth, S. (2018). African international doctoral students in New Zealand: englishes, doctoral writing and intercultural supervision. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 37, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1339182

Eze, S. C., and Inegbedion, H. (2015). Key factors influencing academic performance of international students’ in UK universities: a preliminary investigation. Br. J. Educ. 3, 55–68. doi: 10.37745/bje.vol3.no5.p55-68.2013

Fernsten, L. A., and Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing. Teach. High. Educ. 16, 171–182. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.507306

Gopee, N., and Deane, M. (2013). Strategies for successful academic writing – institutional and non-institutional support for students. Nurse Educ. Today 33, 1624–1631. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guest, G., MacQueen, K., and Namey, E. (2014). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Appl. Themat. Anal. 3:20. doi: 10.4135/9781483384436.n1

Gupta, S. (2017). Ethical issues in designing internet-based research: recommendations for good practice. J. Res. Pract. 13, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1612-3

Hsu, C.-H. (2011). Factors Influencing International Students’ Academic and Sociocultural Transition in an Increasingly Globalized Society. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 153. Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/868529304?accountid=10673%0Ahttp://openurl.ac.uk/redirect/athens:edu/?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+%26+theses&sid=ProQ:ProQuest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Global&at (accessed April 30, 2022).

Inouye, K., and McAlpine, L. (2019). Developing academic identity: a review of the literature on doctoral writing and feedback. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 14, 001–031. doi: 10.28945/4168

Ipek, H. (2009). Comparing and contrasting first and second language acquisition: implications for language teachers. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2, 155–163.

Ismail, H. M., Majid, F. A., and Ismail, I. S. (2013). “It’s complicated” relationship: research students’ perspective on doctoral supervision. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 90, 165–170. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078

Itua, I., Coffey, M., Merryweather, D., Norton, L., and Foxcroft, A. (2014). Exploring barriers and solutions to academic writing: perspectives from students, higher education and further education tutors. J. Furth. High. Educ. 38, 305–326. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2012.726966

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies -forty years of journal discussion: where have we been and where are we going? Int. J. Dr. Stud. 8, 83–104.

Kornhaber, R., Cross, M., Betihavas, V., and Bridgman, H. (2016). The benefits and challenges of academic writing retreats: an integrative review. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 35, 1210–1227. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572

Lee, A., and Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: research development as local practice. Stud. High. Educ. 28, 187–200. doi: 10.1080/0307507032000058109

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Lincoln and Guba’s Evaluative Criteria. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 3684.

Lonka, K., Ketonen, E., Vekkaila, J., Cerrato Lara, M., and Pyhältö, K. (2019). Doctoral students’ writing profiles and their relations to well-being and perceptions of the academic environment. High. Educ. 77, 587–602. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0290-x

Ma, L. P. F. (2019). Academic writing support through individual consultations: EAL doctoral student experiences and evaluation. J. Sec. Lang. Writ. 43, 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.006

Maher, M. A., Feldon, D. F., Timmerman, B. E., and Chao, J. (2014). Faculty perceptions of common challenges encountered by novice doctoral writers. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 33, 699–711. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863850

Maringe, F., and Jenkins, J. (2015). Stigma, tensions, and apprehension: the academic writing experience of international students. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 29, 609–626. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0049

McAlpine, L., and Amundsen, C. (2011). Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. Quebec: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0507-4

Odena, O., and Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: a qualitative approach. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 572–590. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598

Pidgeon, M., and Andres, L. (2005). Demands, Challenges, and Rewards: The First Year Experiences of International and Domestic Students at Four Canadian Universities. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Sala-Bubaré, A., and Castelló, M. (2018). Writing regulation processes in higher education: a review of two decades of empirical research. Read. Writ. 31, 757–777. doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3

Sidman-taveau, R., and Karathanos-aguilar, K. (2015). Academic writing for graduate-level english as a second language students: experiences in education. CATESOL J. 27, 27–53.

Statistics Canada (2020). International Students Accounted for all of the Growth in Postsecondary Enrolments in 2018 / 2019. The Daily. Available online at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201125/dq201125e-eng.htm (accessed April 30, 2022).

Tremblay-Wragg, E., Mathieu Chartier, S., Labonté-Lemoyne, E., Déri, C., and Gadbois, M. E. (2021). Writing more, better, together: how writing retreats support graduate students through their journey. J. Furth. High. Educ. 45, 95–106. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2020.1736272

Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: an exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teach. High. Educ. 15, 135–150. doi: 10.1080/13562511003619961

West, I. J. Y., Gokalp, G., Peña, E. V., Fischer, L., and Gupton, J. (2011). Exploring effective support practices for doctoral students’ degree completion. Coll. Stud. J. 45:310.

Zhou, G., and Zhang, Z. (2014). A study of the first year international students at a Canadian university: challenges and experiences with social integration. Comp. Int. Educ. 43, 1–18. doi: 10.5206/cie-eci.v43i2.9253

Keywords : international students (foreign students), academic writing and publishing, supervisors and supervision, university resources, support and services

Citation: Gupta S, Jaiswal A, Paramasivam A and Kotecha J (2022) Academic Writing Challenges and Supports: Perspectives of International Doctoral Students and Their Supervisors. Front. Educ. 7:891534. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.891534

Received: 07 March 2022; Accepted: 31 May 2022; Published: 29 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Gupta, Jaiswal, Paramasivam and Kotecha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shikha Gupta, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Student Notebook

The Difficulties of Scientific Writing

As an undergraduate, I typically spent one week or less on writing assignments, regardless of how much time my instructor gave me. It was my natural ability — or so I thought at the time — that made me adept at writing so well in such a short time. When I arrived at graduate school, I thought that my natural writing skills  would help me rise to the challenge of scientific writing. The goal of this article is to suggest that natural writing skills get far too much credit in scientific writing. In other words, writing is hard for everyone. In what follows, I detail some of the struggles of my early scientific writing experience while offering valuable lessons that I found helpful.

Everyone Struggles

Writing a research manuscript is difficult on many levels. The structure of a scientific manuscript differs from undergraduate writing, and this structure takes time to learn. Beyond this, data analysis can be challenging, particularly when results between studies are slightly inconsistent or if your current results show patterns that differ from patterns reported in the literature. Citing the work of others is also a challenge; knowing which articles are the most appropriate to reference in your given field requires experience. Finally, identifying your unique contribution to the literature can be challenging given all the previous research likely done on topics related to your manuscript. In light of all these considerations, it is easy for graduate students to feel overwhelmed, under-qualified, and in need of an advisor.

Every graduate student battles with these writing challenges, and others have written at length about ways to improve (e.g., Roediger, 2007). In my own experience, I have taken the behaviorist approach of B. F. Skinner (1954). For example, I tend to write in the same place and at the same time every day of each week. In Skinner’s language, the time and context reinforces the writing behavior. I find that being in a writing frame of mind helps me rise to the challenge and minimizes long spells spent staring at a blinking cursor.  Taking a second lesson from behaviorism, the rats in Skinner’s experiments developed associations between behaviors and rewards after many consecutive trials. In writing, my greatest improvements have come from practice and rehearsal, not epiphany or revelation.

Embrace Criticism

Science improves through critical review, but even knowing that, I could not help but take some of the criticism I have received personally. Given the time spent on a research project from start to finish, taking critical comments personally is a natural reaction but not a helpful one. Criticism is so important for improving one’s writing, and there are many opportunities to seek out reviews from peers. I have relied on lab meetings to solicit comments from my fellow graduate students for manuscripts I am preparing. In addition to these meetings, I joined a writing group with several fellow students to continue receiving critical reviews of my writing. I also enrolled (twice) in a graduate-level writing course taught by a psychology professor. The students enrolled in this course provided feedback that helped me improve my arguments and develop a writing style based on techniques that worked for me. Any criticism, especially that which is directed at your research, stings. What helped me was getting used to the notion that criticism helps build a stronger manuscript.

Reviews Do Not Determine Writing Success

Having manuscripts rejected from journals remains a painful experience for me. At my most unhappy moments, I think about all the work that went into the paper and all the time spent writing it, ultimately to receive a rejection letter boiled down to three, two, or even one main problem with the paper. Although I have yet to learn how to be unaffected by rejections from journal editors, I have decided instead to celebrate the submission of a manuscript to journals. Submitting an article for review means that you have reached a point where you and your colleagues believe the manuscript makes a contribution to psychological science, and that is an accomplishment worth celebrating. It is important to celebrate one’s writing independent of reviewer critiques. I find that this celebration takes some of the sting off of the inevitable negative reviews.

Enjoy Writing

One of the faculty members in our department often says that “words are your ambassadors.” Although I am unsure about the origins of this statement, its message is clear: One impacts the field of psychology through writing. The purpose of research is to enhance our understanding of the social world through communicating ideas and discoveries. Writing is at the core of any research field, and as such, it helps to enjoy it. As others have noted (Preacher, 2003), writing should be fun for you, and if it is not, then try and make it more bearable. I relish certain parts of writing, such as formulating ideas and framing research implications. These portions help me get through the tedious bits (for me, the methods section).

In my time as a graduate student, I have come to the revelation that writing is hard for everyone. Knowing this, I hope that, as a researcher/writer, you will be equal parts patient with yourself and dedicated to your improvement as you continue to hone your writing skills.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

Michael W. Kraus is a social-personality PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, studying the dynamics of social class and power, transference and close relationships, and nonverbal styles of communication. E-mail: [email protected]

Student Notebook: Finding Your Path in Psychological Science

Feeling unsure or overwhelmed as an early-career psychology student? Second-year graduate student Mariel Barnett shares advice to quell uncertainties.

Student Notebook: Doing Research With Your Community, for Your Community 

Scientific findings can be difficult to apply to real-life scenarios. Fifth-year clinical psychology student Gabrielle Lynch gives advice on working with communities, building relationships, and overcoming research hurdles.

Student Notebook: Tips for Navigating the Demands of Graduate School

Understanding the science of stress can help graduate students manage the uncertainties and demands they face, says PhD student Kyle LaFollette.

Privacy Overview

How to Overcome Difficulties in Academic Writing

Academic writing is a skill essential for anyone looking to pursue higher academics. Academic writing is a specific type of writing that involves a lot of reading or material collection, doing in-depth research and critical analysis of scholarly literature, planning of the entire presentation, revising contents and structure, etc. Invariably it ends up involving rewriting, editing, proofreading, and formatting to make it more professional and efficient.

Academic writings can be in the form of essays, term paper, thesis, dissertation, research reports, etc. depending on the core academic activity on which the final manuscript is to be based. While each of these forms has its own peculiarities and specific requirements, there are certain commonalities that every budding academician needs to keep in mind. Making essays with  seotoolscentre sentence rewriter can be way easier and faster.

The first key element for academic writing is self-organization. Academic writing is different from other forms of writing as it requires strict discipline not only in preparation for the content but also in how the content is presented. Any academic manuscript needs to be organized in a standard format: an introduction that includes the hypothesis or the premise which is essentially what the entire manuscript tries to address; the body of the content, which should include separate paragraphs discussing evidence that supports or negates the hypothesis; and a conclusion that ties everything together and conclusively connects it to the hypothesis. Self-organization starts with narrowing down the planned manuscript to chalk-out a basic outline even before the first words are drafted.

Research of secondary literature or ‘literature review’ is an essential part of any academic writing. Before one delves into one’s own hypothesis and arguments in favor or in opposition to it, it is customary to first review and present the viewpoints/evidence already presented by all others/peers in this field. Any such research needs to be reported with proper citation and accreditation as deemed fit. Plagiarism is a major problem in the field of academic writing and special care needs to be taken to ensure (a) no referencing is missed out for any secondary source of material and (b) the language of presentation is an authors’ own and not just a plain copy-paste of the original manuscript. One can always quote others but that needs to be done in a limited capacity and in proper formatting and protocols for quoting and citations.

Editing of the manuscript is an absolute must for any academic writing. Grammar, style, and punctuation are incredibly important if the article is to be understood and taken seriously. Language and vocabulary are important, and using jargon just to sound smart often results in the opposite effect if used inappropriately as it exposes overcompensating in their writing. Each body paragraph must start with a topic sentence that presents the main idea of the paragraph and express your point of view, and each paragraph much end with its own mini-conclusion of the discussions covered that logically leads to the next paragraph.

Academic writing is a habit developed by practice and is an integral part of the entire academic exercise.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Scientific writing of novice researchers: what difficulties and encouragements do they encounter?

Affiliation.

• 1 Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
• PMID: 19318791
• PMCID: PMC6035752
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8c3c

Purpose: Writing scientific articles is a daunting task for novice researchers. In this qualitative study carried out in 2007, the authors evaluated the experiences of a group of novice researchers engaged in the writing process, to elucidate the main difficulties and sources of encouragement they encountered.

Method: Sixteen novice researchers were interviewed. Most were women (10), and most were enrolled in programs of medicine (9), followed by nursing (4) and physical therapy (3). These were drawn via convenience sampling from a randomized control trial in which 48 of them were equally assigned to either an online or a face-to-face course of instruction. On completion, interviews were conducted in focus groups of four students each. The interviews were transcribed and read independently by two of the authors, who then encoded the material based on the principles of grounded theory. Initial categories were converted to major emerging themes, which were validated when participants were asked to review the findings. Triangulation of results was carried out by discussing the emerging themes in an online forum with five specialists in college writing education.

Results: Classifying the diverse responses of participants led to the emergence of four major themes: cognitive burden, group support and mentoring, difficulty in distinguishing between content and structure, and backward design of manuscripts.

Conclusions: The themes produced by this study provide some insight into the challenges faced by novice researchers in their early attempts at scientific writing. Remedies that address these challenges are needed to substantially improve scientific writing instruction.

PubMed Disclaimer

• More about the teaching of scientific writing. Brenner MJ. Brenner MJ. Acad Med. 2010 Jan;85(1):4; author reply 4-5. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c40912. Acad Med. 2010. PMID: 20042809 No abstract available.
• More about the teaching of scientific writing. Hanna M. Hanna M. Acad Med. 2010 Jan;85(1):4; author reply 4-5. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c40900. Acad Med. 2010. PMID: 20042810 No abstract available.

Similar articles

• Outlining and dictating scientific manuscripts is a useful method for health researchers: A focus group interview. Andresen K, Laursen J, Rosenberg J. Andresen K, et al. SAGE Open Med. 2018 May 25;6:2050312118778728. doi: 10.1177/2050312118778728. eCollection 2018. SAGE Open Med. 2018. PMID: 29854402 Free PMC article.
• Developing Student Metacognition through Reflective Writing in an Upper Level Undergraduate Anatomy Course. O'Loughlin VD, Griffith LM. O'Loughlin VD, et al. Anat Sci Educ. 2020 Nov;13(6):680-693. doi: 10.1002/ase.1945. Epub 2020 Feb 28. Anat Sci Educ. 2020. PMID: 31965753
• WriteSim TCExam--an open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing. Shah J, Rajgor D, Vaghasia M, Phadtare A, Pradhan S, Carvalho E, Pietrobon R. Shah J, et al. BMC Med Educ. 2010 May 28;10:39. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-39. BMC Med Educ. 2010. PMID: 20509946 Free PMC article.
• Mentoring students in doctoral nursing programs: A scoping review. Cleary M, Thapa DK, West S, Lopez V, Williamson M, Sahay A, Kornhaber R. Cleary M, et al. J Prof Nurs. 2023 Mar-Apr;45:71-88. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.01.010. Epub 2023 Feb 15. J Prof Nurs. 2023. PMID: 36889896 Review.
• Student nurses' experiences participating in a peer mentoring program in clinical placement studies: A metasynthesis. Jacobsen TI, Sandsleth MG, Gonzalez MT. Jacobsen TI, et al. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022 May;61:103328. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103328. Epub 2022 Mar 10. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022. PMID: 35299009 Review.
• ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks. Mondal H, Mondal S. Mondal H, et al. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Dec 1;71(12):3600-3606. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_718_23. Epub 2023 Nov 20. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023. PMID: 37991290 Free PMC article. Review.
• Development of a Scientific Writing Course to Increase Fellow Scholarship. Moore AL, Chaisson NF. Moore AL, et al. ATS Sch. 2022 Sep 30;3(3):390-398. doi: 10.34197/ats-scholar.2022-0023PS. eCollection 2022 Oct. ATS Sch. 2022. PMID: 36312809 Free PMC article.
• Publication dynamics: what can be done to eliminate barriers to publishing full manuscripts by the postgraduate trainees of a low-middle income country? Majid H, Jafri L, Ahmed S, Abid MA, Aamir M, Ijaz A, Khan AH, Siddiqui I. Majid H, et al. BMC Res Notes. 2022 Jul 15;15(1):249. doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06138-5. BMC Res Notes. 2022. PMID: 35841067 Free PMC article.
• Doing a PhD: ten golden rules. Molloy EJ, Bearer CF. Molloy EJ, et al. Pediatr Res. 2023 Feb;93(3):448-450. doi: 10.1038/s41390-022-01950-y. Epub 2022 Mar 21. Pediatr Res. 2023. PMID: 35314793 No abstract available.
• Untapped Potential for Emergency Department Observation Unit Use: A National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) Study. Navas A, Guzman B, Hassan A, Borawski JB, Harrison D, Manandhar P, Erkanli A, Limkakeng AT Jr. Navas A, et al. West J Emerg Med. 2022 Jan 18;23(2):134-140. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2021.8.52231. West J Emerg Med. 2022. PMID: 35302444 Free PMC article.
• Yore LD, Hand B, Florence MK. Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41:338–369.
• Keys CW. Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Sci Educ. 1999;83:115–130.
• Connally P. Writing and the ecology of learning. In: Connally P, Vilardi T, editors. Writing to Learn Mathematics and Science. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1989.
• Rivard RL. A review of writing to learn in science: Implications for practice and research. J Res Sci Teach. 1994;31:969–983.
• Bazerman C. From cultural criticism to disciplinary participation: Living with powerful words. In: Herrington A, Moran C, editors. Writing, Teaching, and Learning in the Disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association of America; 1992.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Grants and funding

• UL1 RR024128/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
• 1 UL1 RR024128-01/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• PubMed Central
• Wolters Kluwer

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Overcoming Challenges in Academic Writing

Session Agenda

The impact of ‘English’ language in scholarly communication is unmatched. Enago in collaboration with Technische Universität Dresden conducted insightful sessions helping researchers in communicating important findings in English for improved visibility and higher impact. Publishing in English helps researchers to reach out to the global research community, consequently boosting citations and establishing credibility among peers. For authors and graduate students whose primary language is not English, the most challenging aspect is conveying their research in a manner acceptable for publication in peer-reviewed international journals. Researchers often face difficulties in including all the findings from a research study in one article and presenting it efficiently. Moreover, many studies written by ESL authors are rejected by the journal editors themselves and do not even reach the stage of peer review. Through this session, we provided researchers with important and easy tips for correct usage of the English language and grammar. We also discussed ways to present data effectively.

Researchers will have a better understanding of the following:

• Importance of good English writing skills
• Improved knowledge about the application of English grammar in academic writing
• Importance of fluency, clarity, and readability of the manuscript
• Awareness of common mistakes made by ESL researchers while writing in English
• How to present research data effectively?
• Importance of manuscript proof-reading to avoid mistakes before submission

Good academic writing skills also play a crucial role in acquiring grants and fellowships. It is a proven fact that research and funding go hand in hand. Many private and public funding organizations support scholars in the interest of the advancement of science and technology. However, with a substantial increase in the number of proposals being submitted for review, minute differences and detailing in proposals counts most. Competition for grants and fellowships is intensifying and it is important for researchers to not only recognize a good call for applications that matches their profile and requirement but also write an excellent research proposal.

Through our second session, we will help researchers have an improved understanding of the following:

• How to choose between a grant and a fellowship?
• How to perform extensive research for available grants?
• How to identify the different funding bodies and their interests?
• How to read and select the most fitting call for applications?
• Basic building blocks of writing an impactful research proposal
• How to make your proposal engaging and appealing to the funders?
• Understanding the steps involved pre- and post-submission

Who should attend this session?

• Early-stage researchers
• Doctoral students
• Postdoctoral researchers
• Established researchers

About the Speaker

Fiona Murphy, DPhil English Literature, University of Oxford

Dr. Murphy is an independent publishing consultant with more than 20 years of experience in the scholarly publishing industry. She is the owner of Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd. advising institutions, learned societies, and commercial publishing companies about research data and its collection, management, storage re-use, and access requirements. She is currently a board member of the data repository, Dryad and an Editorial Board Member of the Data Science Journal. Along with holding an Associate Fellowship at the University of Reading, she is also a member of the peer-review board of Research Data in the Earth Sciences, Data2Paper, and Belmont Forum, and a co-Chair of WDS-RDA Publishing Data Workflows Working Group and Force11 Scholarly Commons Working Group.

Dr. Murphy is DPhil in English Literature from the University of Oxford and has collaborated with several reputed publishers like Oxford University Press, Bloomsbury Academic, and Earth and Environmental Sciences at Wiley in past. She has also written and presented widely on data publishing, Open Data, and Open Science.

Related Events

Understanding Research Ethics: How to Prevent Plagiarism

• Overview of research ethics
• Major ethical issues
• Drafting plagiarism-free papers
• IPR violation

Future of Peer Review in Research Publishing: Navigating possibilities and challenges

• Preprints and Open Peer Review
• Use of AI Tools for Peer Review
• Ethical Challenges of AI Integration
• Tips for New Reviewers

Register Now

Register now for free, want to conduct custom webinars and workshops , be our next speaker, peer review 2024: trends shaping the future of peer review, mastering research funding: a step-by-step guide to finding and winning grants, graphical abstracts vs. infographics: best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact, 10 tips to prevent research papers from being retracted, peer review week 2024 with enago — innovate, empower, and revolutionize the future of publishing.

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these features would you prefer the most in a peer review assistant?

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Top 10 Challenges Faced by Researchers on the Path to Excellence

The pursuit of research excellence is not for the faint of heart; you have to overcome several challenges faced by researchers to map a path to excellence. From formulating research questions to gathering data, writing research papers, and getting them published, researchers grapple with complexities that demand their unwavering dedication and perseverance. By shedding light on the challenges faced by researchers , we aim to help academics navigating the path of knowledge and foster a deeper understanding of the challenges in conducting research .  

A career in scientific research can be highly rewarding and fulfilling for those who enjoy intellectual pursuits, value continuous learning, and want to make a positive impact on society. It offers exciting opportunities to unravel the mysteries of the world, push the boundaries of knowledge, and contribute to the collective understanding of humanity. However, one requires dedication, hard work, and perseverance to overcome the many research challenges you will encounter along the way.  

Table of Contents

Top 10 Challenges faced by researchers  

While each research journey is unique, the challenges faced by researchers share common threads that bind them together. By acknowledging and understanding these research challenges , academics can equip themselves with the knowledge and strategies needed to conduct research effectively.  

1. Slow and time-consuming processes

 The scientific process is often slow and iterative, and progress sometimes can only be measured in small increments over many months or years. Research takes time to execute, and oftentimes the results are uncertain. This can be frustrating for researchers who may have invested significant time, money, and effort into these projects. By being patient and persistent and inculcating a willingness to accept failure and setbacks, you can overcome this researcher challenge and make important contributions to your field.  

2. Difficulty in getting grants and funds

One of the biggest challenges faced by researchers is securing adequate funding for their work. Grants can be highly competitive, and the process of applying can be time-consuming and complex. To secure research funding for your project, you need to seek out a variety of funding sources, including government grants, private foundations, and industry partnerships, and learn what is needed to write a successful grant proposal . One of the most common research challenges is writing a clear, concise, convincing grant proposal that outlines the goals and significance of your research and why the funding agency should support your project.  

 3. Juggling activities to ensure better time management

Managing multiple projects and deadlines successfully is among the most common research challenges . Careful time management , prioritizing work, and setting realistic goals and deadlines are simple ways for researchers to manage their many responsibilities. Experts suggest using strategies like breaking larger projects into smaller tasks and scheduling regular breaks to avoid burnout, a very real challenges faced by researchers .  

4. Active networking and collaboration

Collaboration and networking is essential for research, but it can also be a big challenge faced by researchers . It can be difficult to build a network when you are just starting out, especially if you are unfamiliar with the language or uncomfortable with public speaking. It doesn’t get easier when it comes to collaborations, especially in interdisciplinary research projects. Researchers have different working styles or conflicting priorities, which can lead to tension and conflict when working with larger teams. To overcome this challenge in conducting research , scientists should set the right expectations from the start, establish clear communication channels, and be willing to work together to achieve shared goals.  

 5. Managing and evaluating huge amounts of information

Managing and analyzing large datasets can be a time-consuming and complex process. To overcome this research challenge , researchers should develop effective data management strategies, such as using cloud-based tools for storage and analysis and implementing best practices for data security and privacy. The collection, analysis and management of research data is critical to scientific study and career advancement, which makes it important to know how to develop an effective data management plan for researchers .   

 6. Successfully publishing in impactful journals

Publishing research in reputable journals is one of the biggest challenges faced by researchers globally. Researchers have to learn to navigate the peer-review process, respond to feedback, meet strict formatting and style guidelines, and develop strong academic writing and editing skills. Experts suggest seeking mentorship and guidance from senior researchers and overcoming this research challenge by using AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal, powered by Researcher Life, to ease the process.  

 7. Securing intellectual property

Intellectual property rights protect your research ideas and work from being used unfairly or incorrectly by others. However, protecting intellectual property can be a critical challenge faced by researchers , particularly those working in areas with high commercial potential. It’s important to know that different laws related to intellectual property rights can impact research collaboration across boundaries, so discuss this beforehand. One way to tackle this research challenge is to be aware of your rights and responsibilities regarding intellectual property and seek out legal advice and guidance as when required.  

 8. Understanding and following the nuances of academic and scientific ethics

Research ethics are among the top challenges faced by researchers . Plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, missing ethical declarations and non-compliance with standard ethical guidelines are considered inappropriate and can have serious consequences for researchers. Overcome this research challenge by following all ethical considerations in research ; this helps to maintain the high standards of science and research, ensure accountability, prioritize transparency, and ensure trust and integrity in your work.   

 9. Staying abreast of technological developments

Researchers must keep track of and use technology effectively, but the continually developing landscape can also be a source of frustration. Today, there are several online tools, software, and platforms to optimize your academic writing, research reading, science communication, and more. Oddly, the challenge faced by researchers here is keeping up with technology trends, finding AI tools that are tailored for academics, and effectively integrating them into their work.  

10. Balancing work and life

One of the biggest and most common challenges faced by researchers is balancing the demands of a research career with personal and family responsibilities. PhD students and researchers must learn how to achieve a healthy work-life balance , prioritize self-care, and set boundaries to avoid academic burnout. Seeking support from peers, friends, and family is a great way to manage the stress that comes with a career in scientific research. Effective time management, pursuing a hobby, and taking breaks are other ways to find ways to take care of your mental health as a researcher.   

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

How to get a PhD in Computer Science? 

Editage Plus: Tools and Pricing

Difficulties in Acquiring and Developing Writing Skills

• First Online: 17 June 2023

Cite this chapter

• Barbara Arfé   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9869-9440 3 &
• Julie E. Dockrell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3595-6064 4  

356 Accesses

2 Altmetric

This chapter considers the proximal and distal skills which impact on children’s developing writing competencies. We examine three dimensions: text-based factors, child-based factors, and the role of writing instruction in supporting struggling writers. Text-based factors include writing levels (word sentence and discourse), writing genre, and the medium of text production. In terms of child-based factors, we examine the language in which children are learning to write; children’s competencies in oral language, spelling, and handwriting; and the processes they engage in (planning and revising) in text production. Finally, we consider the role of pedagogy and instructional programs in supporting struggling writers.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Evidence-Based Assessment and Intervention for Problems with Writing in School Psychology

Writing Interventions Using SRSD for Secondary Students with and At-Risk for Learning Disabilities: A Review of Empirical Research

What can writing-process data add to the assessment of spelling difficulties?

Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary-grade and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318

Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035692

Alves, R. A., Limpo, T., Fidalgo, R., Carvalhais, L., Pereira, L. A., & Castro, S. L. (2016). The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (5), 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000089

Apel, K., & Apel, L. (2011). Identifying intraindividual differences in students’ written language abilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 31 (1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e31820a22b4

Arfé, B., & Danzak, R. L. (2020). The influence of first language spelling and response inhibition skills on English-as-an-additional-language spelling. Cognitive Development, 56 , 100952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100952

Arfé, B., & Pizzocaro, E. (2016). Sentence generation in children with and without problems of written expression. In J. Perera, M. Aparici, E. Rosado, & N. Salas (Eds.), Written and spoken development across the lifespan . Springer.

Google Scholar  

Arfé, B., & Zancato, T. (2022). Language-specific effects in response to spelling intervention in Italian and in English as an additional language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55 (2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211001757

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arfé, B., Dockrell, J. E., & De Bernardi, B. (2016). The effect of language specific factors on early written composition: The role of spelling, oral language and text generation skills in a shallow orthography. Reading and Writing, 29 (3), 501–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9617-5

Arfé, B., Cona, E., & Merella, A. (2018). Training implicit learning of spelling in Italian children with developmental dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 38 (4), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0000000000000163

Arfé, B., Festa, F., Ronconi, L., & Spicciarelli, G. (2021). Oral sentence generation training to improve fifth and 10th graders’ writing. Reading and Writing, 34 , 1851–1883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10114-5

Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022545

Beers, S. F., Mickail, T., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2017). Effects of transcription ability and transcription mode on translation: Evidence from written compositions, language bursts and pauses when students in grades 4 to 9, with and without persisting dyslexia or dysgraphia, compose by pen or by keyboard. Journal of Writing Research, 9 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grade three to seven: syntactic complexity and syntactic generation. Reading and Writing, 24 , 183–202

Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43 (2), 79–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4302_1

Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35 , 735–771

Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5 (1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber

Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research . (pp. 96–114) The Guildford Press.

Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4 (3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01027151

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Graham, S., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (4), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., et al. (1998a). Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21 (2), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511340

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Graham, S., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. P., et al. (1998b). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.587

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 291. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.291

Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., & Beers, S. (2011). Child writers’ construction and reconstruction of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts: Contributions of syntax and transcription to translation. Reading and Writing, 24 (2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9262-y

Bigozzi, L., & Vettori, G. (2016). To tell a story, to write it: Developmental patterns of narrative skills from preschool to first grade. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31 (4), 461–477. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44951847

Boscolo, P. (2014). Two metaphors for writing research and their implications for writing instruction. In B., Arfé, J. E. Dockrell and W.V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing Development in Children with Hearing Loss, Dyslexia or Oral Language Problems: Implications for Assessment and Instruction (pp.33–42). Oxford University Press.

Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing – Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18 (1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004

Coker, D. L., Jennings, A. S., Farley-Ripple, E., & MacArthur, C. A. (2018). The type of writing instruction and practice matters: The direct and indirect effects of writing instruction and student practice on reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (4), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000232

Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, A. (2012a). Children challenged by writing due to language and motor difficulties. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of writing handbook: Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 217-245). Psychology Press.

Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., Walter, K., & Critten, S. (2012b). Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication, 29 (3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451109

Costa, J., Green, M., Sideris, J., & Hooper, S. R. (2018). First-grade cognitive predictors or writing disabilities in grades 2 through 4 elementary school students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (4), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417721182

Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2006). Exploring written narrative in children with poor reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 26 (1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500340991

Dockrell, J. E., & Connelly, V. (2021). Assessing writing. In T. Limpo & T. Olive (Eds.), Executive functions and writing . Oxford University Press.

Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73 (2), 147–164.

Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on adolescents’ written text. Exceptional Children, 75 (4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500403

Dockrell, J., Connelly, V., Lindsay, G., & Mackie, C. (2012). The impact of oral language skills on children’s production of written text. In M. Torrance, D. Alamargot, M. Castello, F. Ganier, O. Kruse, A. Mangen, L. Tolchinsky, & L. VanWaes (Eds.), Learning to write effectively: Current trends in European research (pp. 39–41). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1572-6304(2012)0000025014

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dockrell, J. E., Ricketts, J., Charman, T., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Exploring writing products in students with language impairments and autism spectrum disorders. Learning and Instruction, 32 , 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.008

Dockrell, J. E., Connelly, V., & Arfé, B. (2019a). Struggling writers in elementary school: Capturing drivers of performance. Learning and Instruction, 60 , 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.009

Dockrell, J. E., Ricketts, J., Palikara, O., Charman, T., & Lindsay, G. A. (2019b). What drives educational support for children with developmental language disorder or autism spectrum disorder: Needs, or diagnostic category? Frontiers in Education, 4 , 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00029

Dockrell, J. E., & Connelly, V. (2013). The role of oral language in underpinning the text generation difficulties in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Research in Reading . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01550.x

Duran, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N. (2004). Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.220

Fayol, M., Alarmagot, D., & Berninger, V. (2012). Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, methods and applications . Psychology Press/Taylor.

Book   Google Scholar  

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43 (1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27 (9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students. A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185

Graham, S., Hebert, M., Fishman, E., Ray, A. B., & Rouse, A. G. (2020). Do children classified with specific language impairment have a learning disability in writing? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53 (4), 292–310, 0022219420917338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420917338

Goldfeld, S., Snow, P., Eadie, P., Munro, J., Gold, L., Le, H. N. D. et al. (2017). Classroom Promotion of Oral Language (CPOL): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based intervention to improve children’s literacy outcomes at grade 3, oral language and mental health. Bmj Open, 7 (11). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016574

Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2014). Cognitive processing in writing. In B. Arfé, J. E. Dockrell, & Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia or oral language problems: Implications for assessment and instruction (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press.

Hebert, M., Kearns, D. M., Hayes, J. B., Bazis, P., & Cooper, S. (2018). Why children with dyslexia struggle with writing and how to help them. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 49 (4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_lshss-dyslc-18-0024

Jeong, H. (2017). Narrative and expository genre effects on students, raters, and performance criteria. Assessing Writing, 31 , 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.006

Jones, S., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and Writing, 26 (8), 1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9416-1

Joye, N., Dockrell, J. E., & Marshall, C. R. (2020). The spelling errors of French and English children with developmental language disorder at the end of primary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 1789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01789

Kent, S. C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86 (2), 570–601. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315619491

Kim, Y. S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141 , 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003

Kim, Y.-S. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2016). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 , 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129

Kim, Y. S. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109 (1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129

Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2015a). Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences, 37 , 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009

Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015b). Toward an understanding of dimensions, predictors, and the gender gap in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037210

Koutsoftas, A. D. (2016). Writing process products in intermediate-grade children with and without language-based learning disabilities. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 59 (6), 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0133

Koutsoftas, A. D., & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43 (4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0018

Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2018). Tailoring multicomponent writing interventions: Effects of coupling self-regulation and transcription training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417708170

Llaurado, A., & Dockrell, J. E. (2020). The impact of orthography on text production in three languages: Catalan, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 878. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00878 . PMID: 32581899; PMCID: PMC7283898

Mackie, C. J., Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. (2013). An evaluation of the written texts of children with SLI: The contributions of oral language, reading and phonological short-term memory. Reading and Writing, 26 (6), 865–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9396-1

McBride, C., Pan, D., & Mohseni, F. (2022). Reading and writing words: A cross-linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1920595

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01464076

McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S. H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing – implications for translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.86.2.256

McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A., Shin, J., Jung, P. G., & Lembke, E. (2018). Early writing intervention: A best evidence synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417708169

Mo, J., McBride, C., & Yip, L. (2018). Identifying the unique role of orthographic working memory in a componential model of Hong Kong kindergarteners’ Chinese written spelling. Reading and Writing, 31 , 1083–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9829-6

Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013248

Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22 (5), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z

Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009). Children’s cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effects of genre and of handwriting automatisation. Learning and Instruction, 19 (4), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.005

Olinghouse, N. G., & Santangelo, T. (2010). Assessing the writing of struggling learners. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43 (4), 1–27.

Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The Relationship between Vocabulary and Writing Quality in Three Genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26 , 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5

Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Orthography to phonology and meaning: Comparisons across and within writing systems. Reading and Writing, 18 , 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-004-2344-y

Prunty, M. M., Barnett, A. L., Wilmut, K., & Plumb, M. S. (2016). The impact of handwriting difficulties on compositional quality in children with developmental coordination disorder. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79 (10), 591–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022616650903

Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17 (2), 107–120.

Ravid, D. (2001). Learning to spell in Hebrew: Phonological and morphological factors. Reading and Writing, 14 , 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011192806656

Reilly, J., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. F. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.010

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43

Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (2), 225–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1

Savage, R., Kozakewich, M., Genesee, F., Erdos, C., & Haigh, C. (2017). Predicting writing development in dual language instructional contexts: Exploring cross-linguistic relationships. Developmental Science, 20 (1), https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12406

Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. L. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 43 (2), 324–39. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324

Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 (1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00359.x

Skar, G. B., Lei, P. W., Graham, S., Aasen, A. J., Johansen, M. B., & Kvistad, A. H. (2022). Handwriting fluency and the quality of primary grade students’ writing. Reading and Writing, 35 (2), 509–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10185-y

Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2018). Bridging oral and written language: An oral narrative language intervention study with writing outcomes. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 49 (3), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0030

Stuart, N. J., Connelly, V., & Dockrell, J. E. (2020). Written verb use and diversity in children with Developmental Language Disorder: Stepping stones to academic writing. Reading and Writing, 33 , 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09978-z

Sumner, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. L. (2016). The influence of spelling ability on vocabulary choices when writing for children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49 (3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414552018

Swanson, H. L. (1996). Individual and age-related differences in children’s working memory. Memory & Cognition, 24 (1), 70–82

Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24 (2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7

Wolf, B., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2017). Effective beginning handwriting instruction: Multi-modal, consistent format for 2 years, and linked to spelling and composing. Reading and Writing, 30 (2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9674-4

Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31 (2), 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp024

Zajic, M. C., & Wilson, S. E. (2020). Writing research involving children with autism spectrum disorder without a co-occurring intellectual disability: A systematic review using a language domains and mediational systems framework. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 70 , 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471

Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, M., Marinelli, C. V., & Spinelli, D. (2014). Modeling individual differences in text reading fluency: A different pattern of predictors for typically developing and dyslexic readers. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01374

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Barbara Arfé

Faculty of Education and Society, Psychology and Human Development, University College of London, IOE, London, UK

Julie E. Dockrell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Arfé .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Post-Graduate Program in Cognitive Psychology, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

Alina Galvão Spinillo

Institute for Advanced Studies in Education, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

Carmen Sotomayor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Arfé, B., Dockrell, J.E. (2023). Difficulties in Acquiring and Developing Writing Skills. In: Spinillo, A.G., Sotomayor, C. (eds) Development of Writing Skills in Children in Diverse Cultural Contexts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29286-6_10

Published : 17 June 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-29285-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-29286-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Children (Basel)

Difficulty in Writing Perceived by University Students: A Comparison of Inaccurate Writers with and without Diagnostic Certification

Chiara malagoli.

1 Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (FORLIPSI), University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Firenze, Italy; [email protected]

Mirella Zanobini

2 Department of Education Sciences (DISFOR), University of Genoa, C.so A. Podestà 2, 16128 Genova, Italy; [email protected] (M.Z.); [email protected] (C.C.)

Carlo Chiorri

Lucia bigozzi, associated data.

Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Research has shown that academic success is strongly associated with positive academic self-efficacy beliefs and that individuals with learning disabilities (LDs) usually report a lower perception of competence than their peers in most learning domains. The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) To compare the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with an LD with that of students who were diagnosed with an LD, in order to identify which tasks were the most challenging for individuals with LDs, and (2) to investigate whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties. Two groups were selected from a total sample of 639 students attending seven Italian universities: The first group included 48 participants (24 females) with scores on writing tasks below the 5th percentile, and the second included 51 participants (24 females) who were diagnosed with an LD. The results showed that the two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, but not in the standard condition tasks. When groups were matched for performance on writing tasks, students who were diagnosed with an LD reported significantly more perceived difficulties than students without an LD. The implications of these results in terms of the self-efficacy beliefs of students with an LD are discussed.

1. Introduction

A nonnegligible proportion of students in mainstream higher education have learning difficulties [ 1 ]. Learning disabilities (LDs) are, in fact, a condition of the cognitive asset that is stable across time [ 2 ]; although this condition is permanent across an individual’s life span, the expression of these difficulties evolves and varies throughout development, so the literacy skills profile of a child with LDs can be different from the profile of an adult or a young adult with LDs. Therefore, investigating the evolution of LDs beyond school years appears fundamental for obtaining a broader understanding of development trajectories. Additionally, it is crucial to understand the specific difficulties that may emerge later, in adolescence and beyond. Whereas the literature is quite rich and broad with regard to the early development of LDs and the impact on learning in lower grades of education, e.g., [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], less is known about the possible persistence of specific difficulties in young adulthood, adulthood, and during the transition into higher levels of education. Specifically, regarding writing skills, to date, only a few studies have investigated the evolution of writing abilities in young adults specifically diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and/or dysorthography in the past, prior to their entrance at university. Recent studies have outlined how students with writing disorders report more difficulties in specific learning-related tasks, e.g., [ 7 , 8 ]. This topic is particularly important to investigate since many academic assessments are made on the basis of written texts [ 9 ] and because poor spelling is likely to influence school grades, academic results, and possibly the general sense of efficacy of these students [ 10 , 11 ]. Indeed, because students with an LD are expected to achieve the same learning objectives as their peers, these difficulties may impact other important individual dimensions connected to self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-worth.

1.1. Developmental Trajectories of Learning Disabilities (LDs) Later in Development

As mentioned above, LDs tend not to fade with the progression of learning, but the expression of the disorders can change over time. Depending on the resources and characteristics of individuals, it is fairly common for LDs to remain undetected until the beginning of secondary education. Genovese et al. [ 12 ] reported that 17% of students who contact diagnostic centers each year are secondary grade school students, and 92% of these students are confirmed to have a certifiable LD. It is often the case that an elevated IQ, a supportive context, a high level of motivation, a strong effort to pursue learning tasks, high adaptive skills, or other factors linked to the specific manifestations of the condition can contribute to LDs being overlooked. In particular, when the condition is not severe, LDs can be managed up to secondary school, and it is reasonable to imagine that a number of students with LDs may reach higher levels of education without their LDs being detected [ 13 , 14 ]. At university, when task complexity increases, multitasking is often required (e.g., taking notes quickly and accurately, and listening to the lesson without losing information), and the volume of material to be processed increases. As a result, students might not be able to compensate for their difficulties any longer. In addition, young adults face an environmental demand to be more autonomous in studying and managing their academic career. All these factors connected to individual development and environmental changes may contribute to the emergence of difficulties that were not previously evident and might impact students’ learning proficiency, self-esteem, and self-efficacy [ 15 , 16 ]. The observed changes in the pattern of difficulties and the late emergence of specific symptoms contribute to increasing the complexity connected to performing a late diagnostic evaluation. Specifically, regarding the ability of reading and writing, it has been observed how crucial aspects such as difficulties in decoding single words and in applying the rules for a correct grapheme-phoneme conversion tend to decrease through different developmental stages [ 17 ]. Conversely, other difficulties, such as slowness in reading and writing non-existing words, specific terminology, foreign words and, in general, a documented deficit in applying lexical procedures, seem to remain stable over time [ 17 , 18 ]. Accuracy in decoding is generally less compromised and tends to improve over time, possibly reaching a performance level close to that observed in typical development [ 19 ]. Furthermore, the decoding speed plays a very important role in determining, aside from comprehension, performance in all school subjects, even in typically developing students [ 20 ].

As a whole, these characteristics may influence the presence of orthographic errors in the transcription of complex words, which usually require the direct retrieval of the orthographic representation to be accurately written. It has been reported that secondary school dyslexic students showed a significant text-specificity effect that translated into further difficulties whenever these students needed to handle more complex texts, in terms of morphosyntactic components, and with a high number of non-frequent words [ 21 ]. In general, the existing literature on the characteristics of dyslexia later in development outlines a complexity that is also connected to the fact that LDs often co-occur, in particular, dyslexia and dysorthography. Dyslexic and dysorthographic students experience a specific difficulty in automating the orthographic component when the task complexity increases, when a task is new and has never been performed before, or when difficulty and novelty are combined in a task. In this regard, [ 22 ] investigated which task would be the most effective in challenging dyslexic university students with respect to typical controls and documented how, in transparent languages, measures of phonological automaticity are the best indexes of reading and decoding competence, particularly in adults. The literature investigating which characteristics remain stable over time in a transparent orthography system, such as that used in Italy, shows how the slowness in decoding represents one of the core issues that defines the profile of these students [ 1 , 22 , 23 ]. Slowness in writing, in fact, shows a sensible worsening across time and constitutes a parameter for distinguishing dyslexic students with and without dysorthography at higher levels of instruction. In contrast, in this specific population, accuracy in writing does not seem to diverge dramatically with respect to typical peers in standard writing tasks; however, the performance tends to drastically decrease in tasks that interfere with a lack of automation of the writing processes, such as the abovementioned articulatory suppression condition, or during a challenging condition such as an exam. This lack of automation of the writing process also implies a specific difficulty in switching between the lexical route, which allows an individual to retrieve the stored spelling of the target word from the orthographic lexicon, and the sublexical route, which supports an individual’s ability to transcribe unfamiliar words [ 24 , 25 , 26 ].

Due to these characteristics, diagnostic tools must take into account the compensation strategies that students have established over time, and it is necessary to include specific diagnostic assessment tasks that are able to interfere with these compensation strategies (e.g., writing tasks to be executed in articulatory suppression). One important aspect of LDs in adulthood is assessment and diagnosis. Indeed, the majority of assessment batteries and tests are standardized for children, and very few instruments have been adapted and normed for adults. Furthermore, some dyslexic adults who had problems during their school years or were late in learning to read may have developed strategies for decoding with the support of comprehension, so that in adulthood, they may not display obvious literacy difficulties [ 27 , 28 ], but still present difficulties in complex and prolonged reading and writing tasks [ 29 ]. For this reason, specific tasks, such as dictation under a suppression condition, exhibited a very high sensitivity in discriminating between groups, even at a higher level than the one indicated as necessary by the literature [ 22 , 30 , 31 ]. This suggests that this procedure could be effectively used in the routine assessment of dyslexic and dysorthographic university students, as it might interfere with the strategies for compensation that adults and young adults have established over time.

1.2. Self-Efficacy Perception and the Impact on Career Decision Making and the Drop-Out Rate

“Self-efficacy” refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” [ 32 ] (p. 3). Positive academic self-efficacy beliefs are associated with higher levels of motivation, higher levels of persistence, and overall academic success. There is a gap in the literature regarding the way in which young adults with learning disabilities who are enrolled in postsecondary education develop their academic self-efficacy beliefs and corresponding adaptive coping skills. Reed et al. [ 31 ] explained how students with learning disabilities in college display lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs than their non-LD peers. On the basis of their results, the researchers highlighted that students with learning disabilities in higher education reported less confidence in their capabilities to meet academic demands, questioned their overall academic competencies, and demonstrated increased pessimistic attitudes towards completing higher education requirements. Researchers have argued that lower levels of academic self-efficacy beliefs translate into a diminished sense of capacity for learning in challenging academic curricula [ 10 ]. Therefore, it may be argued that individuals with identified LDs are significantly more likely to encounter challenges with performance and motivation due, at least in part, to lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs. In contrast to peers with learning disabilities who express lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs, individuals with LDs who have positive and accurate self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to achieve independence and autonomy within postsecondary learning environments [ 11 ]. In the same vein, Wright et al. [ 33 ] found that a positive relationship involving positive academic self-efficacy, continued enrolment, and academic achievement levels existed for college students with LDs. The research results indicated that the reported levels of self-efficacy at the end of the first semester of college were related to academic success [ 33 ]. Understanding these characteristics in university students is of pivotal importance, not only to allow these students to progress in their learning and career path while lowering their risk of dropping out, but also to possibly identify students with a previously undiagnosed LD. As mentioned previously, undiagnosed students have to compensate for their difficulties to succeed, with a consuming active effort that is often not in line with their performance, and they are likely to internalize a sense of frustration and inefficacy. These feelings may impact dimensions such as self-esteem, self-image, and the general perception of self-efficacy, which, in turn, may impact future and long-term decisions, such as their choice of academic path, career, and job [ 34 ]. The results from interviews, self-reports, and tests with university students have shown that students with dyslexia have problems with a number of common academic tasks, e.g., note taking and expressing ideas in writing. Many of the students reported that their difficulties were long-standing and had already been experienced in elementary school and later during higher education [ 7 , 35 ]. Difficulties have also been reported to change over time [ 35 ], in line with the developmental trajectory that LDs exhibit throughout an individual’s life span [ 2 ].

1.3. The Present Study

The data used in this study were collected during a broad data collection effort performed in seven Italian regions with the participation of seven universities and aimed to standardize a new battery for assessing LDs in adults and young adults. The project was promoted by the University of Padua and coordinated by the curators of the battery. The authors of the present contribution participated in the standardization and collected data at the University of Florence and Genoa.

In the Italian context, the evolution of norms relative to LDs and the enactment of law number 170/2010 [ 36 ], which recognizes dyslexia, dysorthography, and dyscalculia as LDs, have determined a growing interest in increasing the possibility of individualizing the learning context and supporting students with LDs with the use of technologies and other supportive tools, in order to preserve the learning experience of these students not only in early stages, but also later in development, and to extend the use of supportive tools and technologies for college and university students (law number 170/2010, art. 5, subparagraph 4). In addition, the guidelines with regards to the Ministerial Decree of 12 July 2011 clearly express that universities must take the lead in actively promoting solutions and tools in both teaching and assessment to foster proficient learning processes for older students with LDs. At the same time, there is an evident need for new diagnostic instruments adapted for this specific age range that would be able to offer a precise diagnostic process and access to supportive tools for adults and young adults that have not been diagnosed in the past, but who have experienced difficulties in learning. As mentioned, a prolonged experience of learning difficulties may lead to a lower self-efficacy perception and an increased tendency to drop out of colleges and universities.

From this perspective, the aim of this study was two-fold: (1) To compare the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with LDs with that of students who were diagnosed with LDs, in order to identify which tasks are the most challenging for individuals with LDs, and (2) to investigate whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

Two groups were extracted from a sample of 639 university students (380 females, mean age 22.15 years, Standard Deviation (SD) = 2.18) attending seven Italian universities in both scientific and humanities programmes: 48 participants (24 females) who registered scores on writing tasks below the 5th percentile and 51 participants (24 females) who were diagnosed with LDs (dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dysorthography) in the years prior to the administration of the battery and who were included as a control sample in the data collection. The students’ participation in the study was voluntary, and recruitment was organized at the university prior to the study being presented to the students in classes with the help of the professors in charge of the courses. Informed written consent was obtained from participants before data collection began (they were all older than 18). All of the students included in the LD sample were diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dysorthography.

2.2. Procedures

The tasks selected for the present study were extracted from a newly standardized battery [ 37 ]. The complete battery was administered during two test sessions (mean durations of 60 and 40 min) in a quiet, dedicated room or laboratory at the hosting universities. During the first session, reading, writing, and calculation tasks were administered, whereas in the second session, which could be conducted in small groups, with students working independently or individually, a task of text comprehension was administered. The interval between the two sessions ranged from 1 to 2 weeks. Globally, data were collected in a six-month time frame. For the purpose of this study, we exclusively selected and included the writing tasks in the analysis.

2.3. Description of the Selected Tasks

2.3.1. writing tasks, word dictation task.

In this task, the experimenter dictated eight lists of words in two different conditions: Participants were asked to write down four lists in a normal condition (NC) and four in an articulatory suppression condition (ASC). Each list comprised 14 words that varied in length (long and short) and frequency (high and low). The high-frequency short words (HFS), e.g., “bosco” (“woods”), and low-frequency short words (LFS), e.g., “fiele” (“bile”), were composed of two syllables and comprised a total of 75 graphemes and 28 syllables per condition. The high-frequency long words (HFLs), e.g., “avvocato” (“lawyer”), and low-frequency long words (LFLs), e.g., “pianeggiante” (“flat”), were composed of four or five syllables and comprised a total of 144 graphemes and 61 syllables per condition.

Both conditions assessed the orthographic component, specifically the dictation task in the ASC, which allowed the assessment of not only the automation of the writing process, but also the student’s ability to maintain the orthographic characteristics of words in an interference condition.

Normal Condition Administration

In the normal condition, the experimenter dictated each list at a constant rate, typically 2 s per word, but maintained the flexibility needed to address any possible difficulties of the students.

Each error (e.g., each misspelled, omitted, or incomplete words) made by the student was scored as 1. Multiple errors in the same word were scored as 1. The response variable was the total number of errors made across the four lists.

Articulatory Suppression Condition Administration

In this condition, the student was asked to repeat the syllable LA out loud continuously while performing the dictation task. In this condition, the dictation rate was required to be constant, typically 3 s, but the dictation was allowed to be interrupted if the student temporarily suspended the articulation. If the student showed specific difficulties in following the rhythm of the dictation, the task could be paused and restarted at a constant rate. The response variable was the total number of errors made, scored as described above, across the four lists.

Text Dictation Task

The dictation of the text was meant to objectively assess the orthographic component of writing. In this task, the experimenter dictated a text out loud, carefully modulating the rhythm based on the students’ rapidity in writing. It is not possible to give explanations about phrases or words that may have been difficult to understand in any phase of the task administration. The student was required to base their writing solely on the context. Prior to the start of the administration, students were informed that they needed to pay attention to the words, as they could not be repeated, and if they fell behind in writing, they should skip the word and proceed with the task. The response variable was the number of errors, scored as described above.

Writing Numbers in Words Task

This is a classical task relating to the writing speed. The student was required to write down in words, using the preferred graphic font, as many numbers as possible within one minute starting from the number one. This task was also administered in both normal and articulatory suppression conditions.

2.3.2. Vinegrad+ (Adaptation of the Vinegrad Questionnaire)

The Vinegrad+ [ 38 ] is a self-report measure that presents a series of items aimed at investigating the perception of difficulties in everyday life tasks that require the automation of reading and writing processes and associated abilities, also considering the evolution of the documented difficulties of individuals with LDs transitioning into adulthood. It comprises 26 dichotomous items (“yes” and “no” responses), and the total score is the number of positive answers. The items can also be clustered, depending on the area of difficulty they are meant to investigate, thus making it possible to identify specific areas in which the student perceives they have the most severe difficulties. The four areas are (i) the general characteristics of LD, which comprises eight items that investigate the difficulties in everyday tasks that imply reading, writing, and related issues that are possible to automate with respect to social abilities and linguistic components; (ii) the reading score, which comprises six items that assess perceived difficulties in the orthographic and motor-graphic components (speed, accuracy, and comprehension) of reading; (iii) the writing score, which comprises six items that evaluate the orthographic components of writing; and (iv) the calculation score, which comprises six items that tap into the automation of arithmetic facts, mental calculation difficulties, and knowledge of writing calculation task procedures.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, possible score ranges, skewness, and kurtosis), and zero-order and partial (Pearson) correlations among the measures were calculated ( Table 1 and Table 2 ).

Bivariate correlations between writing tasks and the Vinegrad+ questionnaire subscales.

Note: **: p < 0.01; *: p < 0.05. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_GC = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

Prematching descriptive statistics and results of the independent sample t -test.

Note: df: degrees of freedom; p : raw p -value; adj- p : false-discovery-rate adjusted p -value [ 43 ]; and d: Cohen’s d, with its 95% confidence interval. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_GC = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

To investigate which differences may exist in terms of the number of errors and speed in subgroups 1 and 2 (see the descriptive statistics reported in Table 2 ), after testing the association pattern between the variables, groups were compared using independent sample t -tests to investigate which tasks were more challenging for the LD group. We then used propensity score analysis (PSA [ 39 ]) to investigate the net group differences in self-perceived difficulties when matched with the writing tasks performance. PSA has been recommended as a more principled method than analysis of covariance to account for the imbalance of groups regarding relevant covariates, as the latter method is likely to provide biased and inconsistent estimates of group differences if not all relevant interactions and nonlinear effects are included in the model [ 40 ]. PSA was performed with the matchit function in the MatchIt [ 41 ] package in R using the genetic method [ 42 ].

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1 and Table 2 . The writing tasks showed a pattern of significant correlations that supported the association among writing tasks, consistent with the pattern reported in the manual of the battery [ 37 ]. Significant correlations were also found within self-report measures and between writing tasks and self-report measures (see Table 1 ).

3.2. Independent Sample t-Test Results

The results of the independent sample t -tests showed that there were large differences (Cohen’s d > 0.80) in self-perceived difficulties between the 5th percentile and the LD group, but this result could be an artefact of small-to-large differences in writing task scores ( Table 2 ). The two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, both in terms of the number of graphemes (a variable that measures slowness vs. fastness in writing) and accuracy (number of errors committed in both the word dictation task and the writing-numbers-in-words task), but not in the standard condition tasks, with the only exception of the dictation task.

3.3. Propensity Score Analysis

When we performed PSA to test net group differences in self-perceived difficulties, we found a large difference in pre-matching distance scores (i.e., the logit-transformed probability of a case of belonging to its actual group given the covariates—in this case, writing tasks scores) (LD group: 0.39 ± 0.23; 5th percentile group: 0.59 ± 0.17; t (87.85) = 4.96, p < 0.001, d = 0.99 [0.56; 1.41]).

3.4. Matching Procedure Results

The matching procedure discarded 31 observations in the LD group that could not contribute to achieving a balance between the groups for the writing task scores. Hence, the final analyses were performed for the original 5th percentile group participants ( n = 48), who were considered the reference group and thus assigned a weight of 1 by the procedure, and 21 participants from the LD group, who were considered the focal group and were assigned a weight ranging from 0.42 to 3.33 (median = 0.62) to reach an adequate balance. After matching, the difference in distance scores was no longer significant (LD group: 0.55 ± 0.16; 5th percentile group: 0.59 ± 0.17; t (67) = 0.20, p = 0.845, d = 0.05 [−0.46; 0.57]), and the groups were adequately balanced in terms of the writing task scores ( Table 3 ). Nevertheless, the first three rows of Table 3 show that even after matching, the group differences in the self-perceived difficulties were still large, suggesting that they could not be accounted for by differences in the writing task performance.

Postmatching descriptive statistics and results of the independent sample t -test.

Note: df: degrees of freedom; p : raw p -value; adj-p: false-discovery-rate adjusted p -value [ 43 ]; and d: Cohen’s d, with its 95% confidence interval. NC = normal condition; SC = articulatory suppression condition; and Vinegrad_gen_char = Vinegrad general characteristics sub_scale.

4. Discussion

This study compared the performance of inaccurate writers who were not diagnosed with LDs with that of students who were diagnosed with LDs in an attempt to identify which tasks are the most challenging for individuals with LDs, while also investigating whether inaccurate writers with and without a diagnosis differ in terms of self-perceived difficulties. An innovative contribution of the present study is that it analysed the difficulties experienced by individuals with LDs that may last until young adulthood using a sample of inaccurate writers, performing below the 5th percentile in the writing tasks, as a control group. Moreover, we studied the impact that being diagnosed with LDs may have on the self-perception of difficulty, particularly with regard to writing skills. The results regarding writing tasks showed that the two groups significantly differed in the articulatory suppression condition tasks, but not in the standard condition tasks, with the only exception of the text dictation task. Furthermore, with regard to the perception of difficulty, students who were diagnosed with LDs reported significantly more perceived difficulties, pertaining to the writing tasks selected for the purpose of this research, than inaccurate peers. Students with LDs also reported significantly more perceived difficulties after the two groups were matched for performance on writing tasks.

The correlation analyses confirmed a homogenous pattern of association among writing tasks and between writing tasks and perceived difficulties assessed by the general and writing-related items and by the total score of the Vinegrad [ 44 ]. Consistent with the literature, the comparisons of the two groups only outlined significant differences in the most challenging tasks, namely, all the tasks administered in the articulatory suppression condition and, to a lesser extent, in the text dictation task in a normal condition. Although university students with LDs are presumably able to compensate for most of their difficulties when reaching higher education and their performance in many tasks can be comparable to that of students belonging to the extreme of the normal distribution, specific characteristics of individuals with LDs emerge when they face tasks that involve a higher cognitive load. In simple tasks such as word dictation and grapheme writing, their performance does not differ from that of inaccurate writers, whereas they encounter particular problems achieving this level of performance in more difficult tasks. The condition of articulatory suppression interferes with the activation of the word subvocal rehearsal strategy during transcription, which usually allows continuous retrieval of the composition of the word. Generally, students diagnosed with dyslexia and dysorthographia compensate by articulating words during transcription, and whenever they are unable to apply this strategy, their performance tends to decline. An inaccurate writer performance, conversely, seems not to be particularly challenged by this condition, in terms of mean scores, possibly because, globally, they managed to establish better access to coding. The rehearsal process implied in the articulatory suppression condition seems to interfere with the normal functioning of working memory: Students who are able to fully automate the writing process and orthographic rules and rely on the lexical representation of the words are not particularly affected by this interference effect. Literature reporting results on adults with dyslexia, on the contrary, documents that dyslexic adults are strongly influenced by this specific interference effect [ 45 ]. From this perspective, students with LDs may need to rely on the sublexical route (accessed via subvocal rehearsal) not having immediate access to intact phonetic representations [ 17 ], which would also support a rapid retrieval of word representations while writing. Overall, considering the same tasks when performed under normal conditions, our results show that students who were diagnosed with LDs did not differ with respect to inaccurate writers.

The text dictation task, in which the two groups showed significant differences, represents an exception to this trend in terms of accuracy. This result may be due to the difficulties that writing under dictation for a more prolonged interval of time may present, in terms of the rhythm that needs to be followed and time, which may not allow the use of the subvocal rehearsal, especially when words are long, infrequent, and dictated continuously. Moreover, during the text dictation task, the students need to follow the experimenter’s dictation rhythm by writing at the same pace, and the perceived need to be fast (although the experimenter was instructed to adapt, to some extent, to the rhythm of the participant) might interfere with the LDs participants’ performance and result in a more inaccurate outcome. Interestingly, when considering standard tasks, such as word dictation and grapheme production, students with LDs did not seem to make more errors than students who were within the tails of the normal distribution. The tasks performed under the articulatory suppression condition cannot be classified as standard everyday tasks that were familiar to the student, but were specifically created to discriminate the specific characteristics of LDs [ 22 ].

The differences between the two groups registered in the Vinegrad+ questionnaire are particularly interesting. This self-report measure specifically focuses on the perception of difficulty, and the results clearly indicate that participants who were already diagnosed with LDs tended to report significantly more perceived difficulties compared to inaccurate writers who had never been evaluated for or diagnosed with LDs.

The analysis performed on the matched samples allowed us to test whether the differences found between the perceptions of the two groups were linked to the actual differences found in the performance of specific tasks that we described above. The results confirmed that even when balancing the performance of the two groups for all tasks under the articulatory suppression condition, which emerged as the most discriminative for students with a diagnosis of LDs, participants with LDs reported significantly more perceived difficulties than students identified as inaccurate writers—who, in some cases, possibly had an LD that had not yet been detected. This result, in particular, may be of specific interest in discussing the all-around implications of being diagnosed with LDs and the need to work not only on the learning cognitive mechanism, but also on more general aspects, such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-worth. The literature indicates how students with LDs benefit more from specific activities, such as first-year preparation courses, before entering university [ 31 ], as they show greater improvement in terms of academic self-efficacy compared to their typical peers. In general, these results highlight the importance of analysing all the emotional aspects that may be connected to and triggered by a diagnosis of an LD in depth. Being diagnosed with an LD can increase students’ awareness of their own difficulties, with possible positive effects on the use of effective learning and metacognitive strategies [ 46 , 47 ]. Nevertheless, it is important not to underestimate the possible negative impact of the diagnosis on self-efficacy and self-esteem, which must be taken into account when guiding students at any level of schooling.

The emerged enhanced perception of difficulty is a finding consistent with the limited existing literature on the topic. The results from a comprehensive study on the efficacy of university preparation courses by Reed et al. [ 31 ] outlined that students with learning disabilities in college report lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs than their non-LD peers. Reed et al. [ 31 ] highlighted that students with learning disabilities in higher education tend to report less confidence in their capabilities to meet academic demands, question their overall academic competencies, and show increased pessimistic attitudes towards completing higher education requirements. Lower levels of academic self-efficacy beliefs are argued by researchers to translate into a diminished sense of capacity for learning challenging academic curricula [ 10 ]. Consistent with the limited existing literature on the topic, these results support the idea that individuals with identified LDs are significantly more likely to encounter challenges in maintaining a good level of motivation and persistence in trying to overcome the difficulties they face, on a daily basis, due to lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs. In the long run, unlike peers with LDs who express lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs, individuals with LDs who have positive and accurate self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to achieve independence and autonomy within postsecondary learning environments [ 11 ].

The results presented in the current study show that the enhanced perception of difficulty concerns not only specific difficulties related to writing skills, but also general learning features (considering everyday activities that imply reading and writing processes, e.g., consulting a map, and one’s abilities relative to linguistic components that can be automated) and the overall learning experience assessed by the Vinegrad+ total score. These results suggest important areas for intervention that not only take into account the cognitive features and challenges that individuals with LDs face, but also the emotional impact of a diagnosis on the general perception of ability that, in turn, may influence future outcomes, such as career choice and the drop-out rate in higher levels of education [ 48 ]. This attitude towards education and learning, in fact, may negatively influence one’s career path choice, directing individuals towards something that they perceive as easier and/or less demanding, instead of something that is truly of interest to them and that they feel passionate about, with a subsequent impact on their future work life and, possibly, an enduring sense of general frustration and low-self efficacy beliefs. From this perspective, working on this emotional facet of the condition would not only magnify the effectiveness of the cognitive training on the implementation of strategies, but would also result in a protective factor that could reasonably reduce feelings, such as anxiety, and a perceived lack of efficacy, increasing the ability to tolerate fatigue and frustration; working on this facet of the condition would also preclude the creation of negative emotional anticipation associated with learning and education.

In conclusion, the results of the present study are consistent with previous findings on the compensation that university students with LDs are able to implement, on one hand, and on the tendency of these students to internalize an experience of difficulty and fatigue with regard to learning, on the other hand [ 30 , 31 ].

Some limitations of this study warrant mentioning. First, as students with LDs are relatively rare in Italian universities, the sample size was inevitably not very large, and this might have impacted the statistical power. Future research in this domain should attempt to replicate these results using larger samples. Second, we only used one self-report measure for perceived difficulties: The use of multiple measures and the collection of data from observers, such as peers, teachers, tutors, and/or parents, will help to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the phenomenon. Despite these limitations, this study adds knowledge to a relatively less investigated stage of development and the features of LDs in young adulthood. In addition, it provides evidence of differences in the individuals’ perception of difficulties while controlling for performance, suggesting important areas for intervention. From this perspective, these results address the crucial role that receiving a diagnosis has in guaranteeing that students with LDs have access to all the instruments and tutelage that can allow them to proficiently experience learning at university. Moreover, the results provided by the present study highlight the importance of investing in practices that support students emotionally, with a specific focus on self-efficacy and self-esteem beliefs, which, together with the above mentioned tutelages and instruments, constitute a core protective factor for preventing drop-out, allowing students to confidently persevere in their careers. An important advancement in this regard would be the implementation of a specific support service at university to work with LD students on both the emotional impact of diagnosis and specific strategies and methodologies for supporting them in studying. These practices would increase and support student’s self-efficacy and self-esteem, working on both performance and academic “identity” at the same time.

5. Conclusions

Overall, in this study, we showed how students with LDs and writing difficulties can reach a certain level of efficient compensation. Nevertheless, students with LDs perceived significantly more difficulties with respect to their undiagnosed peers. This result was also confirmed when matching the two groups in terms of writing task scores, suggesting the importance of addressing self-perception and self-efficacy issues in these students.

Author Contributions

M.Z. and L.B., conceptualization; C.M., M.Z., and. L.B., participated in the investigation for the standardization of the battery used; C.M., participated in the data curation; C.C., ran the analysis; C.M., writing—original draft preparation; C.M., M.Z., C.C., and L.B.; writing—review and editing, M.Z. and L.B., supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Genoa (official communication received on 20 March 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

RESEARCH WRITING DIFFICULTIES AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN PRACTICAL RESEARCH

2021, IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal

Using a descriptive-correlational research design, this study is an attempt to determine the relationship between the students’ perception on research writing difficulties and their performance in Practical Research. Specifically, it dealt on finding the perceived writing difficulties of 80 senior high school STEM and HUMSS students with regard to the technical aspect and process of research writing through a closedended survey questionnaire; evaluating the performance of students in their actual research outputs through researcher-modified holistic and analytic rubrics; and finding the correlation between the students’ perceived writing difficulties and their performance in Practical Research using Pearson ProductMoment Correlation Coefficient. The results indicate that the respondents generally agree to have been experiencing difficulties in both the technical aspect that includes research paper format and grammar and sentence construction; as well as in the process of research writing that includes steps in the research process and working on the different parts of the research paper. In addition, the results of the research outputs’ evaluation reveal that the students manifest developing skills in their performance in Practical Research. The findings of the study entail that difficulties in both the technical aspect and process of research writing confront the students in the senior high school. While the negative correlation coefficient results indicate that most of the students who have high perceived writing difficulties have low performance in research, the findings show that there is no statistically significant evidence that perceived writing difficulties and performance in Practical Research are correlated. In the light of the findings, the study recommends the need for the assessment of students’ difficulties in research writing. Identifying these difficulties can help the Practical Research teachers gauge their students' readiness for academic writing skills, which can have a big impact on the quality of their research outputs. Additionally, more activities and exercises may be provided by research teachers to help students improve their performance in Practical Research, particularly in the areas of content and focus, sources and format, and conventions. These activities could take the form of courses and modules that focus on note-taking, summarizing, and paraphrasing, all of which are critical skills in research writing. More so, the number of research teacher training programs may be increased to help teachers deal with students' research writing problems and other research-writing concerns.

RELATED PAPERS

Sri Widiastuti

IOSR Journals

jennifer de ramos , Jennifer Tan

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

Precy Paurillo

International Journal of Research Publications

Russel Aporbo

Rima Juniar

Studies in Linguistics and Literature

Amir Hossain

Journal of English Language Teaching

Rusdi Noor Rosa

Jurnal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Madani (JPMM)

Nuramalia Hasanah

Vinicius M. Netto

GEMMALINE BUMANGLAG

Marcia Farr

ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities

Dian Agustina Purwanto Wakerkwa

AJHSSR Journal

IAA Journal of Applied Sciences

EZE V A L H Y G I N U S UDOKA

Renaldi Bimantoro

The Scientific Journal of Cihan University – Sulaimaniya

Barham S Abdulrahman

Jurnal Iqra' : Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan

Lusy T Muharlisiani

Su-Hie Ting

Dr. Ajare oloruntoba

Acitya : Journal of Teaching and Education

Yanti Sri Rezeki

JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia)

Chaidir Adam

International Journal of Linguistics

khalid al-zuoud

Monika Sobejko

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

English 76-108 First-Year Writing Research Guide

Background sources.

• Find Sources
• Subject-Specific Resources
• Access Sources
• Evaluate Sources

Ask a CMU Librarian

• Ask a Librarian Use chat, text, or email to ask a librarian for help. You can also request a librarian consultation, suggest an item for purchase, or see the current system statuses here.

Welcome to the research guide for 76-108 Writing about Public Problems (WaPP). This guide will introduce you to research tools and strategies you can use to craft persuasive, public facing arguments.

On the Find Sources page here, learn how to:

• Search the Libraries Catalog
• Find & search library databases
• Navigate the stacks of Hunt and Sorrells Libraries to find books

On the Subject-Specific Databases page , learn how to:

• Access specialized databases on different aspects of policy research

On the Access Sources page , learn how to:

• Get to the full-text of resources from on or off campus,
• Get a book or article from another library
• Request the CMU Libraries to add a book to the collection
• Get to our streaming videos

On the Evaluate Sources page, learn how to:

• Skim a source for relevancy
• Assess the quality of a source
• Look out for bias
• Identify intended audience
• Figure out if a source is scholarly or not.

On the Citations page , learn how to:

• Cite sources in MLA, Chicago, or APA styles,
• See examples of citations
• Get links to citation management software
• Cite generative AI tools.

And on the Need Help? page, learn where you can go for help with research, writing, and other needs.

Companion sources, Handbooks, and specialized encyclopedias are great places to start. Most are available online through the Libraries Catalog.

• Next: Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 18, 2024 12:24 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/76108