Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.01
I. Scharlau, A. Karsten, K. Rohlfing
{"title":"Building, emptying out, or dreaming? Action structures and space in students’ metaphors of academic writing","authors":"I. Scharlau, A. Karsten, K. Rohlfing","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"32 1","pages":"493-529"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84937193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.04
R. Thompson, S. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, G. Shultz, A. Gere, J. A. Reynolds
Efforts to accelerate the pace of adoption of writing-to-learn (WTL) practices in undergraduate STEM courses have been limited by a lack of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to systematically guide research and empirical evidence about the extent to which intrapersonal attributes and contextual factors, particularly faculty beliefs and disciplinary cultures, influence faculty use of writing assignments in their teaching. To address these gaps, we adopted an ecological systems perspective and conducted a national survey of faculty in STEM departments across 63 research-intensive universities in the United States. Overall, the findings indicated that 70% of faculty assigned writing. However, the assignment of writing differed by faculty demographics, discipline, and beliefs. More specifically, faculty demographics accounted for 5% of the variance in assignment of writing. Faculty discipline accounted for an additional 6% increment in variance, and faculty epistemic beliefs and beliefs about effectiveness of WTL practices and contextual resources and constraints influencing the use of writing in their teaching together accounted for an additional 30% increment in variance. The findings point to faculty beliefs as salient intervention targets and highlight the importance of disciplinary specific approaches to the promotion of the adoption of WTL practices.
{"title":"How faculty discipline and beliefs influence instructional uses of writing in STEM undergraduate courses at research-intensive universities","authors":"R. Thompson, S. Finkenstaedt-Quinn, G. Shultz, A. Gere, J. A. Reynolds","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.04","url":null,"abstract":"Efforts to accelerate the pace of adoption of writing-to-learn (WTL) practices in undergraduate STEM courses have been limited by a lack of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to systematically guide research and empirical evidence about the extent to which intrapersonal attributes and contextual factors, particularly faculty beliefs and disciplinary cultures, influence faculty use of writing assignments in their teaching. To address these gaps, we adopted an ecological systems perspective and conducted a national survey of faculty in STEM departments across 63 research-intensive universities in the United States. Overall, the findings indicated that 70% of faculty assigned writing. However, the assignment of writing differed by faculty demographics, discipline, and beliefs. More specifically, faculty demographics accounted for 5% of the variance in assignment of writing. Faculty discipline accounted for an additional 6% increment in variance, and faculty epistemic beliefs and beliefs about effectiveness of WTL practices and contextual resources and constraints influencing the use of writing in their teaching together accounted for an additional 30% increment in variance. The findings point to faculty beliefs as salient intervention targets and highlight the importance of disciplinary specific approaches to the promotion of the adoption of WTL practices.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"57 1","pages":"625-656"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82012112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.05
Narmada Paul, Tzu-Jung Lin, S. Ha, J. Chen, George E. Newell
This study examined the relationships between writing anxiety, writing self-efficacy, and perceived use of revision strategies in high school students with different achievement goals as they learned argumentative writing in English Language Arts classrooms. Three achievement goal orientation profiles emerged from a sample of 307 American high school students on the basis of their mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Low on All, Average on All, and High on All. These three profiles of students significantly differed with respect to their writing anxiety and their perceived use of revision strategies. Writing self-efficacy mediated the effect of writing anxiety on the perceived use of revision strategies for students in the Average on All profile only. The findings suggest that students are diverse in their motivational and affective experiences with respect to argumentative writing, and caution against using a one-size-fits-all approach for teaching argumentative writing to students.
{"title":"The role of achievement goal orientations in the relationships between high school students' anxiety, self-efficacy, and perceived use of revision strategies in argumentative writing","authors":"Narmada Paul, Tzu-Jung Lin, S. Ha, J. Chen, George E. Newell","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.05","url":null,"abstract":"This study examined the relationships between writing anxiety, writing self-efficacy, and perceived use of revision strategies in high school students with different achievement goals as they learned argumentative writing in English Language Arts classrooms. Three achievement goal orientation profiles emerged from a sample of 307 American high school students on the basis of their mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Low on All, Average on All, and High on All. These three profiles of students significantly differed with respect to their writing anxiety and their perceived use of revision strategies. Writing self-efficacy mediated the effect of writing anxiety on the perceived use of revision strategies for students in the Average on All profile only. The findings suggest that students are diverse in their motivational and affective experiences with respect to argumentative writing, and caution against using a one-size-fits-all approach for teaching argumentative writing to students.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"98 1","pages":"657-684"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76054920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.03
Katherine Landau Wright, Tracey S. Hodges, E. Enright, Jade Z. Abbott
Most time spent writing in schools is typically in the form of writing practice, often in short-form writing assignments, and focused on the mechanics and cognitive approaches to writing, rather than motivation. Research has only recently begun to document a direct relationship between writing achievement and writing motivation, but so far concludes that the two constructs do inform each other. Therefore, for the present study, we independently examined the impacts of motivation to write, students’ perceived value of writing achievement, and students’ self-belief as writers on their writing outcomes. Focusing on middle and high school classrooms, we triangulated data through students’ writing samples, students’ writing scores from the Test of Written Language-IV (TOWL-4), and students’ writing achievement provided by teacher ratings. Our study adds support to previous work on writing motivation by demonstrating that middle and high school students’ motivation to write is correlated strongly with their writing achievement. To expand on our results from this study, additional research is needed to better understand the relationships between writing motivation and the complex, intersecting identities students bring with them into their writing.
{"title":"The relationship between middle and high school students' motivation to write, value of writing, writer self-beliefs, and writing outcomes","authors":"Katherine Landau Wright, Tracey S. Hodges, E. Enright, Jade Z. Abbott","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.12.03.03","url":null,"abstract":"Most time spent writing in schools is typically in the form of writing practice, often in short-form writing assignments, and focused on the mechanics and cognitive approaches to writing, rather than motivation. Research has only recently begun to document a direct relationship between writing achievement and writing motivation, but so far concludes that the two constructs do inform each other. Therefore, for the present study, we independently examined the impacts of motivation to write, students’ perceived value of writing achievement, and students’ self-belief as writers on their writing outcomes. Focusing on middle and high school classrooms, we triangulated data through students’ writing samples, students’ writing scores from the Test of Written Language-IV (TOWL-4), and students’ writing achievement provided by teacher ratings. Our study adds support to previous work on writing motivation by demonstrating that middle and high school students’ motivation to write is correlated strongly with their writing achievement. To expand on our results from this study, additional research is needed to better understand the relationships between writing motivation and the complex, intersecting identities students bring with them into their writing.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"9 1","pages":"601-623"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76518403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02
Marisela Bonilla López, E. Steendam, D. Speelman, Kris Buyse
While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.
虽然关于综合纠正反馈(CF)对整体准确性的影响的文献很多，但采用这种范围来探索错误可治疗性的工作却很少，特别是在混合设计研究中(CF . Ferris, 2010)。因此，本研究扩展了Bonilla等人(2018)的数据集分析，以报告单个语言特征。具体来说，为了解决需要仔细阅读的关键易受影响性问题，本混合设计研究探讨了两种类型的综合CF(直接纠正和元语言代码)对单独的语法和非语法结构的可治疗性的影响。为此，一组英语学习者(N = 139)被要求进行编辑，包括纠错，延期(在草稿上)，专注于语言，以及撰写两篇独立的文章(在即时测试和延迟后测中)。逻辑回归(用于测试修订论文中的效果)和混合效应模型(用于测试对独立论文的影响)的主要结果提供了七个可以解释可纠正性差异的变量:其中三个变量也解释了总体准确性的提高(cf. Bonilla et al.， 2018)，到目前为止尚未确定一个变量，另外三个变量在其他条件下也将自己整合为相关因素。讨论了理论和教学意义。
{"title":"Comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing: The response of individual error categories","authors":"Marisela Bonilla López, E. Steendam, D. Speelman, Kris Buyse","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2021.13.01.02","url":null,"abstract":"While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"163 1","pages":"31-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82782219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-31DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.04
Philip Durrant, Mark Brenchley, R. Clarkson
Corpus linguistic methods can provide detailed and statistically robust information about how children's written language develops as they progress through their education. Such data can inform both models of written language development and curricular policies and practices. To this end, the current paper focuses on subordination as a key site of syntactic complexity. Using a corpus of 240 texts written by children aged 6 to 16 in England as part of their regular school work, it quantifies how the most common type of subordinate clause (the adverbial clause) varies across year groups and genres in terms of frequency, internal complexity and semantic function. A complex developmental picture emerges with length and frequency of finite vs. non-finite clauses changing in distinct ways across primary vs. secondary education. These patterns are found to be closely related to disciplineand genre-specific developments in the main functions for which adverbial clauses are used.
{"title":"Syntactic development across genres in children's writing: the case of adverbial clauses","authors":"Philip Durrant, Mark Brenchley, R. Clarkson","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.04","url":null,"abstract":"Corpus linguistic methods can provide detailed and statistically robust information about how children's written language develops as they progress through their education. Such data can inform both models of written language development and curricular policies and practices. To this end, the current paper focuses on subordination as a key site of syntactic complexity. Using a corpus of 240 texts written by children aged 6 to 16 in England as part of their regular school work, it quantifies how the most common type of subordinate clause (the adverbial clause) varies across year groups and genres in terms of frequency, internal complexity and semantic function. A complex developmental picture emerges with length and frequency of finite vs. non-finite clauses changing in distinct ways across primary vs. secondary education. These patterns are found to be closely related to disciplineand genre-specific developments in the main functions for which adverbial clauses are used.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"32 1","pages":"419-452"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88413019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-11DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.03
M. Flores-Ferrés, D. van Weijen, Gert Rijlaarsdam
{"title":"Teachers' writing practices and contextual features in grades 7-12 of Chilean public schools","authors":"M. Flores-Ferrés, D. van Weijen, Gert Rijlaarsdam","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.03","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"23 1","pages":"365-417"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82074659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.05
H. Wen, D. L. Coker
Theoretical models of early writing support the importance of discourse knowledge to writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Berninger & Winn, 2006). However, there is limited research on the relationship between discourse knowledge and writing among beginning writers. This study explored whether fall, spring, and change in discourse knowledge predicted first-graders’ end-of-year writing. Three hundred eighty first-graders were given a discourse knowledge interview in the fall and spring assessing knowledge of writing production procedures, substantive processes, story elements, and writing motivation. Additional fall assessments included handwriting fluency, spelling, reading, and vocabulary. Students’ narrative and descriptive writing was assessed at the end of the year. Hierarchical linear modeling showed that fall discourse knowledge and knowledge gain variables were not consistent predictors for writing outcomes. However, a more consistent relation was found between spring discourse knowledge and writing achievement, where production procedures predicted writing in both genres while substantive processes and story elements only predicted narrative writing. This study extended findings from earlier research by examining the discourse knowledge and writing achievement of young students.
{"title":"The Role of Discourse Knowledge in Writing among First-graders","authors":"H. Wen, D. L. Coker","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.05","url":null,"abstract":"Theoretical models of early writing support the importance of discourse knowledge to writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Berninger & Winn, 2006). However, there is limited research on the relationship between discourse knowledge and writing among beginning writers. This study explored whether fall, spring, and change in discourse knowledge predicted first-graders’ end-of-year writing. Three hundred eighty first-graders were given a discourse knowledge interview in the fall and spring assessing knowledge of writing production procedures, substantive processes, story elements, and writing motivation. Additional fall assessments included handwriting fluency, spelling, reading, and vocabulary. Students’ narrative and descriptive writing was assessed at the end of the year. Hierarchical linear modeling showed that fall discourse knowledge and knowledge gain variables were not consistent predictors for writing outcomes. However, a more consistent relation was found between spring discourse knowledge and writing achievement, where production procedures predicted writing in both genres while substantive processes and story elements only predicted narrative writing. This study extended findings from earlier research by examining the discourse knowledge and writing achievement of young students.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"402 1","pages":"453-484"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76620081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.02
D. Ferris, G. Eckstein
All writing involves complex linguistic knowledge and thoughtful decision-making. But where do students acquire the linguistic tools needed to write effectively? Many students come from diverse backgrounds and may need additional support and/or instruction in language and grammar. In order to better understand this situation, we conducted a qualitative multiple-case study to examine the experiences of 12 students in a first-year university-level composition course to understand the extent of their diverse learning backgrounds and language needs and expectations. We synthesized information from surveys, interviews, and written texts into narratives about each student’s attitudes toward language and writing and also examined the actual language in their texts. The findings reveal wide diversity in linguistic backgrounds and experiences and that students need and want attention to their language skills in first-year writing. Findings further suggest that instructors should consider the backgrounds and abilities of individual student writers and listen carefully to students’ perceptions about their own writing and language needs in order to build students’ writing self-efficacy levels.
{"title":"Language matters: Examining the language-related needs and wants of writers in a first-year university writing course","authors":"D. Ferris, G. Eckstein","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.02","url":null,"abstract":"All writing involves complex linguistic knowledge and thoughtful decision-making. But where do students acquire the linguistic tools needed to write effectively? Many students come from diverse backgrounds and may need additional support and/or instruction in language and grammar. In order to better understand this situation, we conducted a qualitative multiple-case study to examine the experiences of 12 students in a first-year university-level composition course to understand the extent of their diverse learning backgrounds and language needs and expectations. We synthesized information from surveys, interviews, and written texts into narratives about each student’s attitudes toward language and writing and also examined the actual language in their texts. The findings reveal wide diversity in linguistic backgrounds and experiences and that students need and want attention to their language skills in first-year writing. Findings further suggest that instructors should consider the backgrounds and abilities of individual student writers and listen carefully to students’ perceptions about their own writing and language needs in order to build students’ writing self-efficacy levels.","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"1 1","pages":"321-364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88662507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.06
J. Parr
Understanding young people’s writing development: Identity, disciplinarity, and education by E. Krogh and K.S. Jakobsen, Eds.]. Journal of Writing Research, 12 (2), 485-491. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.06 Contact: Judy Parr, University of Auckland, Epsom campus, 74 Epsom ave, Epsom, Auckland 1023 | New Zealand jm.parr@auckland.ac.nz Copyright: Earli | This article is published under Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported license. Book review Understanding Young People’s Writing Development
{"title":"Book review: Understanding Young People's Writing Development","authors":"J. Parr","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.06","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding young people’s writing development: Identity, disciplinarity, and education by E. Krogh and K.S. Jakobsen, Eds.]. Journal of Writing Research, 12 (2), 485-491. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.06 Contact: Judy Parr, University of Auckland, Epsom campus, 74 Epsom ave, Epsom, Auckland 1023 | New Zealand jm.parr@auckland.ac.nz Copyright: Earli | This article is published under Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported license. Book review Understanding Young People’s Writing Development","PeriodicalId":30549,"journal":{"name":"Libellarium Journal for the Research of Writing Books and Cultural Heritage Institutions","volume":"1 1","pages":"485-491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81845444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：