Search results

The aim of this study is to explore students' expectations and perceived effectiveness of computer-assisted review tools, and the differences in reliability and validity between human evaluation and automatic evaluation, to find a way to improve students' English writing ability.

Based on the expectancy disconfirmation theory (EDT) and Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL) theory, an experiment is conducted through the observation method, semistructured interview method and questionnaire survey method. In the experiment, respondents were asked to write and submit four essays on three online automated essay evaluation (AEE) systems in total, one essay every two weeks. Also, two teacher raters were invited to score the first and last papers of each student. The respondents' feedbacks were investigated to confirm the effectiveness of the AEE system; the evaluation results of the AEE systems and teachers were compared; descriptive statistics was used to analyze the experimental data.

The experiment revealed that the respondents held high expectations for the computer-assisted evaluation tools, and the effectiveness of computer scoring feedback on students was higher than that of teacher scoring feedback. Moreover, at the end of the writing project, the students' independent learning ability and English writing ability were significantly improved. Besides, there was a positive correlation between students' initial expectations of computer-assisted learning tools and the final evaluation of learning results.

The innovation lies in the use of observation methods, questionnaire survey methods, data analysis, and other methods for the experiment, and the combination of deep learning theory, EDT and descriptive statistics, which has particular reference value for future works.

Competence in written communication has been described as a fundamental underpinning of contemporary undergraduate education by both educational advisors and agencies. This article focuses on students’ perceptions of their own writing styles and skills. These opinions have been considered in the context of the desires and expectations of practitioners in public relations for high standards of grammar, variety in copywriting style and a high degree of accuracy in writing. Students’ perceptions of the learning environment for this vocational academic discipline also suggest a receptiveness to the integration of alternative pedagogues in the form of information technology.

In this chapter, we explore genre-blurring writing, where fiction meets theory, following the argument that texts in management and organisation studies suffer from the ‘textbook syndrome’. The stories that we tell through textbooks not only influence, but also set boundaries for, the way understandings are developed through the eyes of the reader. Often textbooks are written in a way that lead the reader into an idealised linear understanding of an organisation – far from the problems, dilemmas and messy everyday life that managers experience. Our discussion builds on previous literature on writing differently and our own experiences of writing a textbook by involving a professional novelist. Engaging in genre-blurring writing opens up how we think not only about writing, fiction and facts but also in our role as scientists. By situating ourselves, as researchers, at the intersection of fiction and the scientific work, not only new ways of writing, but also of thinking emerge. We discuss three aspects through which fiction challenge and develop our writing and thinking, namely to write with voice, resonance and an open end. Through genre-blurring writing, we create opportunities both to learn and to engage students in learning.

Purpose – The gradual release of responsibility (GRR) framework has long been used as a model to provide explicit and scaffolded literacy instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), but has seen far less application within the teaching of writing. As such, a framework for further incorporating the GRR model into comprehensive writing instruction is presented.

Design – This chapter describes a recursive writing process that includes four iterative and connected steps: we study, we write, we share, and we react and revise. From direct modeling needed to build efficacy (Bloomberg & Pitchford, 2017), prompting in the “we do it together phase” (Fisher & Frey, 2016), and peer collaboration offering students the opportunity to move from the solve it together to the self-regulated stage of learning, the GRR model of writing supports students as they move recursively between the phases of learning.

Findings – The recursive nature of the GRR model of writing offers scaffolded support calibrated to each student’s phase of learning. The gradual release model of recursive writing provides an opportunity for students and teachers to engage in a feedback cycle and permit teachers to pass the pen to students at an ideal time, often encompassing many opportunities to write, react, and revise with their peers serving as an authentic audience.

Practical implications – Writing proficiency is linked to relationship building and social networks (Swan & Shih, 2005) as well as academic and career success (Cormier, Bulut, McGrew, & Frison, 2016). The GRR model of writing offers a new model of a flexible, social, and recursive writing process needed in professional development and teacher education programs.

With growing concerns about an academic literacy crisis plaguing the education system in South Africa, tertiary institutions have to find ways to strengthen the academic literacy skills of underprepared students transitioning into higher education. This is more pressing for low socioeconomic status students who are linguistically marginalised and face historically poor graduation prospects. In response, this chapter offers a snapshot of two studies conducted in South Africa that sought to test the efficacy of a purposefully designed academic literacy intervention (Reading to Learn (RtL)). The intervention sought to address inequitable academic literacy skills development of linguistically marginalised students, who are also socioeconomically disadvantaged. Two small-scale, longitudinal studies were run in two separate educational contexts in South Africa – a senior secondary school context and a tertiary context with largely first-generation undergraduate students. Results of both studies showed the RtL intervention to be successful at raising the level of academic writing skills of the research participants. Furthermore, similar to other RtL studies conducted globally, the two studies found weaker-performing students made the greatest gains in their academic writing skills, showing evidence of a convergence effect – more equitable learning outcomes being exhibited in the English classroom.

To investigate sixth-grade students with learning disabilities and their use of Google Docs to facilitate peer revision for informational writing.

A qualitative case study is used to examine how students used Google Docs to support peer revision. Constant comparative analysis with a separate deductive revision and overall writing quality analysis was used.

The findings indicate that students used key features in Google Docs to foster collaboration during revision, they made improvements in overall writing quality, their revisions focused on adding informational elements to support organization of their writing and revisions were mostly made at the sentence level, and students were engaged while using the technology.

We postulate that the use of peer revision coupled with Google Docs technology can be a powerful tool for improving student writing quality and for changing the role of the writing teacher during revision. The use of peer revision should be accompanied with strong explicit instruction using the gradual release of responsibility model so that peer tutors are well-trained. Writing teachers can use Google Docs to monitor and assess writing and peer collaboration and then use this knowledge to guide whole and small-group instruction or individual conferences.

The purpose of this paper is to present considerations for developing a writing community for doctoral students.

The paper reflects on data from a self-study of a writing seminar in which the authors were involved. The authors examined students’ writing samples and peer-review comments, email correspondence, online discussion board postings, meeting minutes and participants’ reflections on their participation in the seminar.

While doctoral students described benefits from their participation in the writing seminar, the paper provides a cautionary tale concerning the challenges that can arise in the development and delivery of interventions that focus on developing writing communities involving doctoral students.

This article draws on findings from an examination of a writing intervention to consider potential challenges that faculty and students face in developing writing communities. Findings may not apply to other kinds of settings, and they are limited by the small number of participants involved.

The paper discusses strategies that might be used to inform faculty in the development of writing communities for doctoral students.

The authors’ experiences in developing and delivering a writing seminar highlight the importance of the process of trust-building for students to perceive the value of feedback from others so that they can respond to the technical demands of doctoral writing.

There is a growing body of work on the value of writing interventions for doctoral students such as retreats and writing groups. These are frequently facilitated by faculty whose area of expertise is in teaching writing. This paper contributes understanding to what is needed for faculty who are not writing instructors to facilitate groups of this sort. Participants must demonstrate a sufficient level of competence as writers to review others’ work; develop trusting, collegial relationships with one another; and be willing to contribute to others’ development and make a commitment to accomplishing the required tasks.

Capstone subjects which link students approaching graduation with significant experiential learning and relevant industry placements, have the potential to be very valuable to students. This is particularly evident if they are able to critically reflect on the experience. In light of this, the School of Business at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle campus, sought to embed reflective practice and reflective writing within its Business Internship (capstone) subject. This paper aims to discuss this.

The paper presents a case study approach.

Significant challenges emerged in relation to the student learning experience. Some students did not perceive the value of an internship, or of engaging in a professionally reflective process. Business students' differing academic literacy standards became apparent, as did the diverse experiences of international students. It became evident that students required explicit teaching and more thorough training to understand the value of reflection and to write reflectively where required. Subsequently, reflective writing workshops were trialled and embedded in the subject. Reflective practice enabled students to move to a deeper level of understanding, rather than submitting a superficial retelling of their internship experience.

The value of reflective writing is widely recognised in many disciplines, although its application in Business capstone subjects is relatively new. This merits further scholarship, particularly as capstone subjects are increasingly being used to demonstrate assurance of learning for accrediting agencies in Australia.