Pub Date : 2018-10-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.01
Renske Bouwer, F. Smedt
This article is an introduction to the special issue on how to report writing interventions in research publications. The six contributions included in this special issue systematically describe a broad range of writing interventions aimed at learning to write in primary, secondary, and higher education. Based on these contributions and on earlier recommendations of scholars in the field of writing intervention research, we established a set of recommendations for reporting key elements of writing interventions. These elements include characteristics of the context of the intervention, theories and/or empirical studies of writing, learning to write, and teaching writing, and design principles of the intervention at both a macro and micro level. These recommendations can be considered as a checklist for authors, reviewers, and editors when reporting or reviewing intervention studies.
{"title":"Introduction Special Issue: Considerations and Recommendations for Reporting Writing Interventions in Research Publications","authors":"Renske Bouwer, F. Smedt","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"This article is an introduction to the special issue on how to report writing interventions in research publications. The six contributions included in this special issue systematically describe a broad range of writing interventions aimed at learning to write in primary, secondary, and higher education. Based on these contributions and on earlier recommendations of scholars in the field of writing intervention research, we established a set of recommendations for reporting key elements of writing interventions. These elements include characteristics of the context of the intervention, theories and/or empirical studies of writing, learning to write, and teaching writing, and design principles of the intervention at both a macro and micro level. These recommendations can be considered as a checklist for authors, reviewers, and editors when reporting or reviewing intervention studies.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44433092","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 : 2018-10-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.07
S. Link
{"title":"Scaling up Graduate Writing Workshops: From needs assessment to teaching practices","authors":"S. Link","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.07","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47372529","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 : 2018-10-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.03
M. Koster, Renske Bouwer
To enable a proper evaluation of the results of writing interventions for scientific replication and theory building, it is of vital importance that the design principles underlying an intervention and operationalization thereof are clearly described. A detailed description of a writing intervention is also important from a practical point of view, to foster dissemination and successful implementation of the intervention into practice. In this paper we propose a framework for reporting on the design principles of multifaceted intervention programs in a systematic manner. Unique features of this framework are that we (1) separate the design principles for the focus and mode of instruction, (2) systematically describe how these principles are integrated and operationalized into learning and teaching activities, (3) systematically describe the professional development teachers need to be able to execute the teaching activities. We demonstrate how this framework can be applied, with a worked example of an intervention that we designed, implemented and tested in elementary schools in the Netherlands. The framework provided in this paper makes core features of writing interventions transparent to reviewers, other scholars, and educational practitioners, and warrants that an intervention includes all necessary elements in the most optimal way. Moreover, this type of framework facilitates the comparison of interventions across contexts and countries.
{"title":"Describing multifaceted writing interventions: From design principles for the focus and mode of instruction to student and teacher activities","authors":"M. Koster, Renske Bouwer","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.03","url":null,"abstract":"To enable a proper evaluation of the results of writing interventions for scientific replication and theory building, it is of vital importance that the design principles underlying an intervention and operationalization thereof are clearly described. A detailed description of a writing intervention is also important from a practical point of view, to foster dissemination and successful implementation of the intervention into practice. In this paper we propose a framework for reporting on the design principles of multifaceted intervention programs in a systematic manner. Unique features of this framework are that we (1) separate the design principles for the focus and mode of instruction, (2) systematically describe how these principles are integrated and operationalized into learning and teaching activities, (3) systematically describe the professional development teachers need to be able to execute the teaching activities. We demonstrate how this framework can be applied, with a worked example of an intervention that we designed, implemented and tested in elementary schools in the Netherlands. The framework provided in this paper makes core features of writing interventions transparent to reviewers, other scholars, and educational practitioners, and warrants that an intervention includes all necessary elements in the most optimal way. Moreover, this type of framework facilitates the comparison of interventions across contexts and countries.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49303830","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 : 2018-09-26DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.05
Paula López, Gert Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, Raquel Fidalgo
In this study we present a comparative report of two effective instructional programs focused on the improvement of upper-primary students’ writing competence through the promotion of revision skills. Both programs shared the main aim but had two different approaches. We contrasted writer-focused instruction with reader-focused instruction. To provide a valid report on the similarities and differences of the two programs, we applied two complementary dimensions. The first dimension, what the researcher intends students to achieve, provides insight into the types of students’ intermediate learning objectives and how they are sequenced. The second dimension, how to teach, includes the instructional design principles which relate the intermediate learning objectives to the specific learning and instructional activities in certain conditions. We analyse similarities and differences between the instructional programs and discuss the implications of using this kind of reporting system as a useful tool for reporting – and designing – writing interventions.
{"title":"How to report writing interventions? A case study on the analytic description of two effective revision interventions","authors":"Paula López, Gert Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, Raquel Fidalgo","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.02.05","url":null,"abstract":"In this study we present a comparative report of two effective instructional programs focused on the improvement of upper-primary students’ writing competence through the promotion of revision skills. Both programs shared the main aim but had two different approaches. We contrasted writer-focused instruction with reader-focused instruction. To provide a valid report on the similarities and differences of the two programs, we applied two complementary dimensions. The first dimension, what the researcher intends students to achieve, provides insight into the types of students’ intermediate learning objectives and how they are sequenced. The second dimension, how to teach, includes the instructional design principles which relate the intermediate learning objectives to the specific learning and instructional activities in certain conditions. We analyse similarities and differences between the instructional programs and discuss the implications of using this kind of reporting system as a useful tool for reporting – and designing – writing interventions.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45176002","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 : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.04
Katherine A. Abba, Shuai (Steven) Zhang, R. Malatesha Joshi
{"title":"Community College Writers' Metaknowledge of Effective Writing","authors":"Katherine A. Abba, Shuai (Steven) Zhang, R. Malatesha Joshi","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.04","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90931502","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 : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01
G. Eckstein, R. Casper, J. Chan, L. Blackwell
{"title":"Assessment of L2 Student Writing: Does Teacher Disciplinary Background Matter?","authors":"G. Eckstein, R. Casper, J. Chan, L. Blackwell","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41979680","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 : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.02
L. Allal
After an overview of several directions of research on cognitive and social processes in writing, this article presents a model of “co-regulation” of writing activities in the classroom. Co-regulation is defined in a situated perspective as the joint influence on student writing of sources of contextual regulation (structure of the teaching/learning situation, teacher interventions and interactions with students, peer interactions, tools and artifacts) and of processes of self-regulation. This conception is illustrated by the results of research on a writing activity in 5th and 6th grade classrooms. The research concerns two aspects of the co-regulation of students’ writing: (1) the role of whole-class discussions in the emergence of taken-as-shared meaning regarding the writing task and the influence of these discussions on the revisions subsequently carried out by students; (2) the articulations between self-regulation (reflected in revisions students carry out individually on their own drafts) and regulations resulting from peer interaction (reflected in revisions made during dyadic interaction). The conclusions drawn from this research are discussed with respect to their implications for writing instruction.
{"title":"The co-regulation of writing activities in the classroom","authors":"L. Allal","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.02","url":null,"abstract":"After an overview of several directions of research on cognitive and social processes in writing, this article presents a model of “co-regulation” of writing activities in the classroom. Co-regulation is defined in a situated perspective as the joint influence on student writing of sources of contextual regulation (structure of the teaching/learning situation, teacher interventions and interactions with students, peer interactions, tools and artifacts) and of processes of self-regulation. This conception is illustrated by the results of research on a writing activity in 5th and 6th grade classrooms. The research concerns two aspects of the co-regulation of students’ writing: (1) the role of whole-class discussions in the emergence of taken-as-shared meaning regarding the writing task and the influence of these discussions on the revisions subsequently carried out by students; (2) the articulations between self-regulation (reflected in revisions students carry out individually on their own drafts) and regulations resulting from peer interaction (reflected in revisions made during dyadic interaction). The conclusions drawn from this research are discussed with respect to their implications for writing instruction.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.02","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45851277","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 : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03
Daniël Janssen, F. Jansen
To what extent does numbering the reasons for a negative decision influence the persuasive force of the text? That is the focus of this study, in which we report an experiment (with 265 participants) wherein the direct effects and the indirect effects of numeral markings are analyzed in two linguistic contexts: in the introduction of the upcoming enumeration of reasons (the so-called ‘trigger’) and in the lead-ins of the successive reasons of the enumeration itself. The experiment was conducted within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) and the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis (Sanders and Noordman, 2000; Mulder, 2008). Adding numeral markers in both trigger and lead-ins turns out to enhance the persuasiveness of the text in several ways. It stimulates readers to elaborate more on the content of the reasons. It helps readers to scrutinize the reasons and stimulates recall, which contributes to a more balanced judgment. The markings also have a direct positive effect on persuasiveness, which points to an effect on low elaborating readers. Furthermore, inconsistent implementation of numeral markings (the combination of a numeral trigger with non-numeral lead-ins or a non-numeral trigger with numeral lead-ins) has a negative indirect effect on persuasiveness via text evaluation. This effect is explained by assuming that the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis not only applies to text processing, but to text evaluation as well.
{"title":"Persuasion by numbers: How does numeral marking of arguments in bad news letters influence persuasion?","authors":"Daniël Janssen, F. Jansen","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent does numbering the reasons for a negative decision influence the persuasive force of the text? That is the focus of this study, in which we report an experiment (with 265 participants) wherein the direct effects and the indirect effects of numeral markings are analyzed in two linguistic contexts: in the introduction of the upcoming enumeration of reasons (the so-called ‘trigger’) and in the lead-ins of the successive reasons of the enumeration itself. The experiment was conducted within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984) and the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis (Sanders and Noordman, 2000; Mulder, 2008). Adding numeral markers in both trigger and lead-ins turns out to enhance the persuasiveness of the text in several ways. It stimulates readers to elaborate more on the content of the reasons. It helps readers to scrutinize the reasons and stimulates recall, which contributes to a more balanced judgment. The markings also have a direct positive effect on persuasiveness, which points to an effect on low elaborating readers. Furthermore, inconsistent implementation of numeral markings (the combination of a numeral trigger with non-numeral lead-ins or a non-numeral trigger with numeral lead-ins) has a negative indirect effect on persuasiveness via text evaluation. This effect is explained by assuming that the Schematic Text Structural Expectations Hypothesis not only applies to text processing, but to text evaluation as well.","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.03","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47239308","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 : 2018-06-01DOI: 10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.05
J. Ureel
{"title":"Book Review: Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research","authors":"J. Ureel","doi":"10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2018.10.01.05","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46687036","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 : 2017-06-01DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01
Scott F Beers, Terry Mickail, Robert Abbott, Virginia Berninger
This study explored the effects of transcription on translation products and processes of adolescent students in grades 4 to 9 with and without persisting specific language disabilities in written language (SLDs-WL). To operationalize transcription ability (handwriting and spelling) and transcription mode (by pen on digital tablet or by standard US keyboard), diagnostic groups contrasting in patterns of transcription ability were compared while composing autobiographical (personal) narratives by handwriting or by keyboarding: Typically developing students (n=15), students with dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling, n=20), and students with dysgraphia (impaired handwriting, n=19). They were compared on seven outcomes: total words composed, total composing time, words per minute, percent of spelling errors, average length of pauses, average number of pauses per minute, and average length of language bursts. They were also compared on automaticity of transcription modes-writing the alphabet from memory by handwriting or keyboarding (they could look at keys). Mixed ANOVAs yielded main effects for diagnostic group on percent of spelling errors,, words per minute, and length of language burst. Main effects for transcription modes were found for automaticity of writing modes, total words composed, words per minute, and length of language bursts; there were no significant interactions. Regardless of mode, the dyslexia group had more spelling errors, showed a slower rate of composing, and produced shorter language bursts than the typical group. The total number of words, total time composing, words composed per minute, and pauses per minute were greater for keyboarding than handwriting, but length of language bursts was greater for handwriting. Implications of these results for conceptual models of composing and educational assessment practices are discussed.
{"title":"Effects of transcription ability and transcription mode on translation:: Evidence from written compositions, language bursts and pauses when students in grades 4 to 9, with and without persisting dyslexia or dysgraphia, compose by pen or by keyboard.","authors":"Scott F Beers, Terry Mickail, Robert Abbott, Virginia Berninger","doi":"10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01","DOIUrl":"10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explored the effects of transcription on translation products and processes of adolescent students in grades 4 to 9 with and without persisting specific language disabilities in written language (SLDs-WL). To operationalize transcription ability (handwriting and spelling) and transcription mode (by pen on digital tablet or by standard US keyboard), diagnostic groups contrasting in patterns of transcription ability were compared while composing autobiographical (personal) narratives by handwriting or by keyboarding: Typically developing students (n=15), students with dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling, n=20), and students with dysgraphia (impaired handwriting, n=19). They were compared on seven outcomes: total words composed, total composing time, words per minute, percent of spelling errors, average length of pauses, average number of pauses per minute, and average length of language bursts. They were also compared on automaticity of transcription modes-writing the alphabet from memory by handwriting or keyboarding (they could look at keys). Mixed ANOVAs yielded main effects for diagnostic group on percent of spelling errors,, words per minute, and length of language burst. Main effects for transcription modes were found for automaticity of writing modes, total words composed, words per minute, and length of language bursts; there were no significant interactions. Regardless of mode, the dyslexia group had more spelling errors, showed a slower rate of composing, and produced shorter language bursts than the typical group. The total number of words, total time composing, words composed per minute, and pauses per minute were greater for keyboarding than handwriting, but length of language bursts was greater for handwriting. Implications of these results for conceptual models of composing and educational assessment practices are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Writing Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.01.01","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36950797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","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：