Every teacher knows the challenge: ask your class what makes ‘good writing’ and they’ll give you answers like neat handwriting, using ‘wow’ words, or it has full-stops. Ask a staffroom full of colleagues and you’ll perhaps hear a broader definition: clarity, organisation, originality, voice, emotional connection, interest, adherence to genre-specific conventions, and audience awareness.
The truth is, there isn’t one universal definition of good writing. What counts as ‘good’ depends on who you ask — and what they value most about writing.
I want you to think about your own reading: when you sit down with a book at home, what is it about the author’s writing that you value most? More than anything else…
Educational theorists (and writers themselves) have long debated this, and their perspectives can help us as teachers reflect on what we value in our own classrooms.
Here are five influential ways of thinking about ‘good writing.’
E.D. Hirsch – The formalist view
For E.D. Hirsch, good writing is about correctness and adherence to the conventions of Standard English¹. Spelling, punctuation, grammar, and vocabulary matter most. Hirsch also links good writing to cultural literacy — the shared knowledge and forms that enable effective communication across society.
👉 Good writing, here, means: error-free, standardised, and conforming to agreed conventions.
Peter Elbow – The expressionist view
Peter Elbow sees writing primarily as a tool for self-expression and discovery. The process of freewriting, experimenting and finding a personal voice matters as much as the quality of the final outcome². For Elbow, good writing is writing that feels authentic, fluent, and true to the writer’s knowledge, feelings and experiences.
👉 Good writing, here, means: authentic voice, individual style and fluency, and a sense of personal satisfaction.
J.R. Martin & David Rose – The genre theorists
Martin & Rose emphasise that writing is always social. A persuasive essay, a science report, and a personal narrative each have different structures and purposes — and students need to be explicitly taught the typical conventions for these ‘genres.’ In their view, good writing is writing that does its job in context: a good discussion essay looks different from a good story because each piece serves a different function³.
👉 Good writing, here, means: matching structure and language to the text type and purpose.
Aristotle – The mimetic tradition
The roots of the mimetic tradition go back to Aristotle, who described art and literature as mimesis — complete accuracy to reality. From this perspective, writing is good when it convincingly represents the world: vivid description, believable characters, accurate accounts. Whether in fiction or non-fiction, good writing reflects truth in human experience⁴.
👉 Good writing, here, means: representing the world clearly, vividly, and sincerely.
Martin Nystrand – The audience-focused view
Martin Nystrand highlights writing as a conversation between writer and reader. A text isn’t ‘good’ on its own — it becomes good if it connects with its audience. That means anticipating readers’ expectations, engaging their interest, and communicating effectively.
👉 Good writing, here, means: audience-centred communication — readable and responsive to the readers’ needs.
Why this matters for teaching
Each perspective suggests a different classroom focus:
- Formalist: teach ‘rules’, correctness, and shared conventions.
- Expressionist: encourage the development of voice, flair and personal satisfaction.
- Genre theory: explicitly teach text types and purposes.
- Mimetic: develop vivid, accurate, realistic writing.
- Audience-focused: build audience awareness and adaptability.
No single view has all the answers. The kind of writing we value depends on our goals and the context. A history essay, a science report, and a private poem each demand different things — but all can be ‘good writing’ in their own terms.
For teachers, the challenge and opportunity is to help students navigate these varied expectations — focusing on transcriptional conventions, textual features, voice, accuracy, purpose and audience. Ultimately, good writing isn’t one fixed standard: it’s about making choices that fit the purpose, context, and reader.
References
- The Philosophy of Composition by E. D. Hirsch Jr [LINK] for a critique see Telling Writing by Ken Macrorie [LINK]
- Writing Without Teachers by Peter Elbow [LINK] for a critique see Writing With Teachers by David Bartholomae [LINK]
- Genre Relations by J.R Martin & David Rose [LINK] for a critique see Policing the Text: Structuralism’s Stranglehold on Australian Language and Literacy Pedagogy by Megan Watkins [LINK]
- Richard Fulkerson’s Four Philosophies of Composition [LINK]
- The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity between Writers and Readers by Martin Nystrand [LINK] for a critique see Text & Talk by David R. Olson [LINK]