Lifewide Writing: What Happens After High School?

Theorists in the field of English Education have an ongoing concern about fragmentation in our understanding of a developmental trajectory of writing across the lifespan. If we are serious about teaching writers for college and career readiness, it would only make sense to have a solid grasp of what we are getting our writers ready to do. We aren’t preparing a basketball player from elementary school to the NBA where the game is rule-governed and neatly separable—you got your defense, your offense; your point guard, your front court, and your backcourt; your three pointers, layups, and free throws. The skills are well-known, the career is well-understood, and candidates for the job reveal themselves early.

Yet as writing teachers, we have no coherent and shared understanding of what we are getting students ready for in middle age. Although writing has been studied through microscopes and telescopes, through experiments and ethnographies, through interviews and think-alouds, changes in writing practices that occur from early adulthood through middle and late stages depend on an absent synthesis of analytical research. Bazerman et al. (2017, p3)¹ pointed this out almost a decade ago in an article reflecting on how little we know about lifewide writing, yet how much we understand about the lifewide significance of writing :

Scholars are aware of the significance of developmental frameworks across the lifespan in other professional fields. Medicine, for example, understands that medical professionals have to have an experiential and academic base of learning during their preparation to understand differences in individual health made sensible by knowledge of developmental expectations. Health outcomes in old age depend in part on what happens in childhood, even what happens in one’s genome. In the field of medicine, specialists practice targeted healthcare for differing populations and groups, but there are generalists who specialize in general knowledge to treat common ailments of all ages and refer uncommon ones to specialists.

This professional coherence in practice suggests an underlying shared lifewide developmental framework—not imposed as policy or ideology but respected by professionals because it is grounded in empirical evidence. In the field of writing, we have grade-level specialists focused narrowly on the developmental level they happen to be teaching or studying with little attention to the lifewide needs of writers. We have researchers studying writing in the workplace, which is too often ignored by teachers with a mission to prepare writers for college and career. How can educators discern lifewide developmental trajectories with enough confidence to remodel their practices? This question is suddenly crucial with the advent of generative AI.

A Case for Lifewide Writing Instruction Implied by the Common Core

If one were to imagine what such a lifewide developmental trajectory might look like extrapolating from the vision represented in the Common Core State Standards for the English Language Arts, this writer would be hard pressed for reliable and valid studies. What would writing look like from late childhood to the grave? Think about lifelong writing for personal reasons, for fulfillment of ordinary daily tasks, for voluntary civic engagement, for religious or ceremonial occasions, for lifelong learning and democratic participation, for occupation or for operating a business, for courtroom or boardroom or Oval Office, for literary or film production.

I realize not everyone has detailed knowledge of these Core standards. For that reason I’ll quote several CORE anchor standards and explore their implications. Many educators especially at the secondary level have embraced the part of the CORE vision that privileges argumentative writing as the essence of college or career readiness. As we shall see, this perspective indicates a narrower view on the substance expressed in the CORE anchor standards than is necessary

Close Reading and Persuasive Writing as Lifewide Skills

While the Common Core Standards declare the intention to provide a foundation for academic writing development across the lifespan—college and career readiness— implementation of the CORE has amplified the teaching of close reading and the writing of argumentative prose. These skills do transfer to future professional, civic, and personal writing tasks. For a high school graduate who masters claim-evidence relationships in essays, it’s reasonable expect these same skills apply to job applications, resumes, community advocacy, and eventually legacy documentation. As writers age, their argumentative skills don't simply transfer from situation to situation but mature to handle increasingly complex life situations from career advancement to healthcare decisions to estate planning.

Writing Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.1 is relevant: "Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence." This standard speaks to transferable argumentative skills. The key terms "substantive topics" and "valid reasoning" establish a foundation that extends naturally to adult writing tasks like job applications (arguing qualifications) or healthcare decisions (presenting evidence-based choices).

Reading Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.1 complements CCRA.W1: "Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text." This close reading standard implicates the development of literal comprehension skills to undergird inferences to warrant textual interpretation from insurance contracts to job offers to legal trusts. The ability to make logical inferences and support conclusions with textual evidence transfers directly to a long list of lifewide literacy tasks from reading binding contracts to explanations of appliances.

Mastering Multiple Communication Modes

A second CORE vision, implied but not as widely acknowledged as it might be, suggests lifewide writing development as mastery of multiple communication modes. Rather than overly privileging argumentation, this approach suggests writers need a repertoire of styles and strategies to match varied life circumstances. Close reading and logical reasoning are important but hardly the ballgame. The academic persuasive essay becomes one tool among many as writers learn to select appropriate forms for different situations. This multimodal approach particularly suits our digital age, where writing often involves integrating text with other media and adapting to new communication platforms.

Writing Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.4 states: "Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience." The language here encompasses three elements that directly support multimodal writing development as an outcome crossing the seven ages of man (Shakespeare).

First, it showcases textual "development,” i.e., how ideas unfold and build upon each other in a text. This development applies differently across modes: a narrative builds through scene and character development while a technical document builds through logical progression of procedures. The standard doesn't specify a single development pattern, implicitly acknowledging that different writing tasks require different ideational developmental approaches.

Second, the standard addresses "organization,” i.e., how information is structured. Structure is inherently multimodal because it acknowledges that effective organization varies dramatically by genre and medium. A social media post might require front-loading key information with supporting details in threaded responses. A technical manual might demand a hierarchical structure with clear sections and subsections. A personal essay might follow a stream-of-consciousness organizational pattern layering detailed memories, emotions, reflections in surprising and innovative ways. The standard's emphasis on organization without prescribing specific patterns supports the development of flexible organizational strategies.

Third, and most significantly, the standard links "style" directly to "task, purpose, and audience." A writer crafting installation instructions needs a precise, basic, no frills style. A writer composing marketing copy needs an engaging, persuasive style. A writer creating family history needs a style that balances factual accuracy with emotional resonance. The standard's focus on appropriateness rather than any particular style validates the need for writers to develop multiple stylistic capabilities. Leaving both organization and style as open rather than. closed constructs invites the inference that these learned outcomes do indeed deepen and strengthen across the lifespan.

Together, these anchor standards establish writing as a context-dependent activity with no necessary tie to the close reading of literature and the writing of interpretive essays bound to the source text. This deeper understanding reveals how the Common Core, while often associated with academic argumentation, contains within it support for broader writing development across multiple modes and contexts. The standard's explicit targeting of appropriateness in the lived circumstance rather than prescribed forms aligns with the natural evolution of writing needs across the lifespan.

Learning Situational Awareness

A third vision focuses on developing situational sensitivity as a key to lifewide writing development. This third vision suggests that writing effectiveness comes not just from mastering specific forms or narrow skills, but from reading the tea leaves in varied writing situations. Across the lifespan, writers exert effort to develop increasingly sophisticated awareness of physical, regulatory, ethical, social, digital, temporal, and audience factors that shape effective written communication. This environmental sensitivity helps writers navigate everything from early career development to family documentation to end-of-life planning.

Writing Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.10 is particularly significant: "Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences." This standard calls for building environmental sensitivity by requiring writers to adapt to different temporal conditions from quick responses to long-term projects. It acknowledges that writing happens in varied situations requiring different approaches to time management and task completion.

Writing Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.5 reinforces this environmental awareness: "Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach." The emphasis on "as needed" and "trying a new approach" suggests that writing is a responsive process shaped by environmental feedback. The standard recognizes that different situations may require different development strategies. Perhaps most importantly, it teaches writers to try a new approach even in the latter stages of a lifespan as I have been doing with my experimental approach to AI for the past two years.

Reading Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.10 provides crucial support: "Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently." This standard underlies environmental sensitivity because reading complex texts develops awareness of how different contexts and text intentions shape meaning. “Complex" in this anchor standard has a specific, stable meaning defined within the Common Core framework through grade-level specifications and text complexity measures.

Qualitative dimensions refer to levels of meaning, structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands. Quantitative dimensions refer to readability measures and other scores of text complexity. Reader and Task considerations are often honored of necessity or in the breach, if I may be forgiven an editorial observation; prior knowledge, motivation, and interests of the reader are highly individual and difficult to accommodate in large classes.

For example, a "complex" literary text at grade 11-12 might be Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway because it expresses multiple levels of meaning in a non-linear structure, it displays sophisticated language patterns, and it requires significant prior knowledge demands. A "complex" informational text might be a Supreme Court decision because it requires understanding legal terminology, complex reasoning patterns, and contextual knowledge.

This three-part definition means that "complex" in the standard isn't relative to the reader or situation as a deictic term would be, but is instead benchmarked against specific criteria. Writers need rich opportunities across their grade level experiences interrogating this stable meaning of “complex text” and reflecting on it with respect to texts they choose for independent reading. When the standard calls for comprehending "complex" texts, it's referring to texts that meet these defined complexity requirements for each grade level. Students need to be let in on this secret and taught how to set learning goals for themselves, a learning with lifewide importance.

Speaking and Listening Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.SL.1 contributes another dimension: "Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively." This standard supports the development of social environment awareness in reading and writing by emphasizing the importance of understanding and responding to diverse perspectives.

Language Anchor Standard CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.L.3 perhaps most directly supports environmental sensitivity: "Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different contexts, to make effective choices for meaning or style, and to comprehend more fully when reading or listening." This standard explicitly recognizes that language use must be contextualized, that effective writing requires understanding how different environments shape meaning and reception.

A Way Forward

This collection of standards suggests that while the Common Core is often interpreted narrowly as promoting close reading and persuasive writing, when viewed in its entirety, it actually contains support for developing writing expertise for lifetime writing satisfaction. The standards recognize that effective writing requires understanding and responding to the full range of factors—physical, regulatory, ethical, social, digital, temporal, and audience—that shape written communication.

This deeper analysis reveals how the Common Core can support a more nuanced vision of writing development, one that prepares writers not just to produce particular types of texts but to navigate the complex writing environments they'll encounter throughout life. From early career documentation to family communication to end-of-life planning, success requires exactly the kind of environmental sensitivity these standards help develop. when they are implemented holistically and appropriately in public or private school classrooms.

These CORE visions aren't mutually exclusive but offer complementary perspectives on writing development. The argumentative element provides for teaching and learning analytical tools, multimodal awareness expands expressive options, and sensitivity to embedded circumstances guides strategic choices. Together, they suggest an awareness that writing development continues throughout life with each stage adding layers of complexity to core skills while demanding new kinds of awareness and adaptation. These visions can merge into one comprehensive vision and expand to include artificial intelligence, playing a non-negotiable role in the future world of composition.

Particularly striking is how death emerges as a factor shaping writing across the lifespan. While end-of-life documentation becomes more urgent in later years, awareness of mortality influences writing tasks throughout adulthood. From early career insurance documents to midlife estate planning to late-life legacy writing, the certainty of death creates writing demands that require both technical precision and emotional intelligence. The certainty of death played a key role in shaping the writing process of the first American President.

George Washington may have been the first to keep a writing portfolio. From his early days as a surveyor through his presidency, he maintained meticulous records of correspondence and documents, recognizing their lasting significance. His method was thorough: He made copies of outgoing letters using a letterpress book that created reversed ink impressions on thin paper. During the Revolutionary War, he assigned specific staff to manage his papers and had them transported separately from military operations for safety, often to Mount Vernon.

The scope of preserved materials is remarkable—military orders, presidential papers, personal letters, diaries, farm records, and drafts showing his editing process. His decision to will these papers to his nephew, Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington, indicated he saw them as historical artifacts requiring proper custodianship. Washington preserved not just individual documents but their relationships, allowing future historians to understand both his decisions and their context. Today, these carefully maintained papers, housed primarily in the Library of Congress, provide invaluable insights into America's founding period.

This broader view of writing development challenges educators to look beyond academic preparation toward creating the conditions for lifewide writers to deepen their skills and widen their experience. While school-based writing instruction necessarily focuses on foundational skills, understanding the full developmental trajectory can help teachers better prepare students for foundational lifewide writing opportunities and demands. Introducing situational awareness pedagogy alongside traditional teacher-controlled writing tasks, helping students understand how different contexts shape writing choices, and providing opportunities to practice writing for varied real-world purposes can fit within the CORE vision for writing instructional practice adapted for AI integration, which likely will change our understanding of teaching writing in schools and doing what it means to do writing across the lifespan. Learning to teach writing is a never ending job until it ends, and even then, following the example of George Washington, it may live on if even in microscopic ways.

1. Bazerman, Charles & Applebee, Arthur & Berninger, Virginia & Brandt, Deborah & Graham, Steve & Matsuda, Paul & Murphy, Sandra & Rowe, Deborah & Schleppegrell, Mary. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English. 51. 351-360. 10.58680/rte201728980.