Fleshing out your text: How elaboration and contextualization moves differentially predict writing quality

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Writing Research Pub Date : 2023-08-23 DOI:10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.05
Henk Pander Maat, Kees De Glopper, Kay Raaijmakers, Joris Veerbeek, Dennis Vermeulen
{"title":"Fleshing out your text: How elaboration and contextualization moves differentially predict writing quality","authors":"Henk Pander Maat, Kees De Glopper, Kay Raaijmakers, Joris Veerbeek, Dennis Vermeulen","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores the relation between writing quality and contextualization and elaboration moves, two kinds of textual expansion devices crucial for building common ground between writers and readers. We ask whether elaboration and contextualization features differentially predict writing quality and whether their quality contributions differ between genres. We also ask to what extent elaboration and contextualization are tied to individual writers, and can be explained by writer characteristics. To examine these issues, we annotated descriptive and argumentative texts of Dutch adolescents. Text quality was rated holistically, using benchmark scales. As regards elaboration, depth affects quality more than breadth does. It also contributes across genres, whereas breadth only contributes in argumentations. Depth shows a large individual consistency across tasks, which is substantially related to students’ school type, grade and gender. Breadth shows weaker links to individual writers and their characteristics. With regard to contextualization, opening and closing moves play a modest role in text quality. Initial support moves contribute to quality across tasks; concluding moves contribute more in argumentations. Concluding moves are most consistent within writers; however, for all contextualization moves, the writer variance is substantially explained by writer characteristics. This study opens up new avenues for explicating writing quality and writing skill.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Writing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2023.15.02.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores the relation between writing quality and contextualization and elaboration moves, two kinds of textual expansion devices crucial for building common ground between writers and readers. We ask whether elaboration and contextualization features differentially predict writing quality and whether their quality contributions differ between genres. We also ask to what extent elaboration and contextualization are tied to individual writers, and can be explained by writer characteristics. To examine these issues, we annotated descriptive and argumentative texts of Dutch adolescents. Text quality was rated holistically, using benchmark scales. As regards elaboration, depth affects quality more than breadth does. It also contributes across genres, whereas breadth only contributes in argumentations. Depth shows a large individual consistency across tasks, which is substantially related to students’ school type, grade and gender. Breadth shows weaker links to individual writers and their characteristics. With regard to contextualization, opening and closing moves play a modest role in text quality. Initial support moves contribute to quality across tasks; concluding moves contribute more in argumentations. Concluding moves are most consistent within writers; however, for all contextualization moves, the writer variance is substantially explained by writer characteristics. This study opens up new avenues for explicating writing quality and writing skill.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
充实你的文章:阐述和语境化如何不同地预测写作质量
本文探讨了写作质量与语境化和精细化之间的关系,语境化和精细化是作者和读者之间建立共同点的两种语篇扩展手段。我们想知道,阐述和语境化特征是否会对写作质量产生不同的预测,以及它们对写作质量的贡献是否会因体裁而异。我们也会问,在何种程度上,阐述和语境化与作家个人有关,并且可以用作家的特征来解释。为了研究这些问题,我们注释了荷兰青少年的描述性和论证性文本。使用基准尺度对文本质量进行整体评价。就精化而言,深度比广度更能影响质量。它也适用于不同类型,而广度只适用于论证。深度在不同的任务中表现出很大的个体一致性,这与学生的学校类型、年级和性别有很大的关系。广度显示出与个别作家及其特征的联系较弱。在语境化方面,开始和结束动作对文本质量的影响不大。最初的支持行动有助于跨任务的质量;结束语在论证中作用更大。作者的结束语是最一致的;然而,对于所有的语境化运动,作者的差异基本上是由作者的特征来解释的。这项研究为解释写作质量和写作技巧开辟了新的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Writing Research
Journal of Writing Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
16
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Writing Research is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes high quality theoretical, empirical, and review papers covering the broad spectrum of writing research. The Journal primarily publishes papers that describe scientific studies of the processes by which writing is produced or the means by which writing can be effectively taught. The journal is inherently cross-disciplinary, publishing original research in the different domains of writing research. The Journal of Writing Research is an open access journal (no reader fee - no author fee).
期刊最新文献
Book review | Technology in second language writing: Advances in composing, translation, writing pedagogy and data-driven learning Fleshing out your text: How elaboration and contextualization moves differentially predict writing quality Thinking outside the box: Senior scientists’ metacognitive strategy knowledge and self-regulation of writing for science communication Synthesis Writing in Science Orientation Classes: An Instructional Design Studio Advancing Civics-specific Disciplinary Writing in the Elementary Grades issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1