Academic language use in middle school informational writing.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL British Journal of Educational Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-03 DOI:10.1111/bjep.12724
Cherish M Sarmiento, Adrea J Truckenmiller, Eunsoo Cho, Heqiao Wang
{"title":"Academic language use in middle school informational writing.","authors":"Cherish M Sarmiento, Adrea J Truckenmiller, Eunsoo Cho, Heqiao Wang","doi":"10.1111/bjep.12724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Learning to write the complex academic language (AL) associated with a discipline (like science) is a critical task in education, with middle school being a key developmental period. However, we need more research to guide how we assess students' learning to write AL, especially if we want to create assessment that guides more effective instruction.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We evaluated middle school students' informational writing for six different measures of AL to determine which ones were most strongly related to writing quality and were most indicative of the unique features of informational writing. We also examined which metrics were sensitive to growth across middle school.</p><p><strong>Sample: </strong>Our sample consists of informational compositions from 285 students in Grade 5 (n = 175) and Grade 8 (n = 110) in a Midwestern state in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Path modelling was used to determine the degree to which the AL metrics are associated with writing quality and narrativity in each grade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the six measures of AL explained 70% of the variance in students' writing quality. We found that a new measure, number of long words, outperformed other more established measures at the word level and should be used in assessment of informational writing quality. We also found that automated scores at the sentence level better detected development across middle school grade levels than typical rubrics of writing quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results provide promising avenues for the assessment of malleable aspects of AL in middle school informational writing.</p>","PeriodicalId":51367,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12724","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Learning to write the complex academic language (AL) associated with a discipline (like science) is a critical task in education, with middle school being a key developmental period. However, we need more research to guide how we assess students' learning to write AL, especially if we want to create assessment that guides more effective instruction.

Aims: We evaluated middle school students' informational writing for six different measures of AL to determine which ones were most strongly related to writing quality and were most indicative of the unique features of informational writing. We also examined which metrics were sensitive to growth across middle school.

Sample: Our sample consists of informational compositions from 285 students in Grade 5 (n = 175) and Grade 8 (n = 110) in a Midwestern state in the United States.

Methods: Path modelling was used to determine the degree to which the AL metrics are associated with writing quality and narrativity in each grade.

Results: Overall, the six measures of AL explained 70% of the variance in students' writing quality. We found that a new measure, number of long words, outperformed other more established measures at the word level and should be used in assessment of informational writing quality. We also found that automated scores at the sentence level better detected development across middle school grade levels than typical rubrics of writing quality.

Conclusion: Results provide promising avenues for the assessment of malleable aspects of AL in middle school informational writing.

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
初中信息写作中的学术语言使用。
背景:学习书写与学科(如科学)相关的复杂学术语言(AL)是教育中的一项重要任务,而初中阶段是学生发展的关键时期。然而,我们需要更多的研究来指导我们如何评估学生学习写作学术语言的情况,尤其是如果我们想创建能指导更有效教学的评估方法的话。目的:我们用六种不同的学术语言测量方法对初中学生的信息写作进行了评估,以确定哪些测量方法与写作质量关系最密切,最能体现信息写作的独特性。我们还研究了哪些指标对初中生的成长敏感:样本:我们的样本包括美国中西部某州五年级(n = 175)和八年级(n = 110)285 名学生的信息作文:方法:采用路径模型确定AL指标与各年级写作质量和叙事性的关联程度:总体而言,六项AL指标解释了学生写作质量70%的差异。我们发现,一种新的衡量标准--长单词数量--在单词水平上优于其他更成熟的衡量标准,应在信息写作质量评估中使用。我们还发现,与一般的写作质量评分标准相比,句子层面的自动评分能更好地检测初中各年级的发展情况:结论:研究结果为评估初中信息写作中AL的可塑性方面提供了很好的途径。
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
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.70%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Educational Psychology publishes original psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels including: - cognition - learning - motivation - literacy - numeracy and language - behaviour - social-emotional development - developmental difficulties linked to educational psychology or the psychology of education
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Academic language use in middle school informational writing. Learning from errors and failure in educational contexts. Study longer or study effectively? Better study strategies can compensate for less study time and predict goal achievement and lower negative affect. Parents' use of sustained shared thinking during joint mathematics activities with young children: An investigation of its measurement, antecedents, and outcomes.
×
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