The Effect of the Write, Talk, and Rewrite Dialogic Writing Treatment on Argumentative Texts: a Replication Study in Türkiye

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Omer Faruk Tavsanli, Steve Graham, Yucheng Cao
{"title":"The Effect of the Write, Talk, and Rewrite Dialogic Writing Treatment on Argumentative Texts: a Replication Study in Türkiye","authors":"Omer Faruk Tavsanli, Steve Graham, Yucheng Cao","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09949-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The current study replicated an earlier investigation by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) where 10 Grade 5 and 6 classrooms in the Netherlands (210 students) were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition, with treatment students evidencing improvements in the quality of their essays after practice writing argumentative essays, reading and discussing them with a small group of peers, and revising each essay based on the discussion that ensued. In the present study, 12 Grade 2 to 4 classrooms in Türkiye (383 students) were randomly assigned to this write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment or to a control condition. Students in the control condition practiced planning and writing the same four argumentative essays as treatment students did during the experiment, and each of these essays was shared with peers (time spent in both conditions was comparable). Control students did not, however, discuss their essay with peers or use such feedback to revise them as was done by students in the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment. When the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant, the quality of the argumentative posttest essays produced by students in the treatment condition evidenced greater improvement than essays written by control students. The same outcome was obtained for the length of essays (number of words) when the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant. This investigation provided evidence that the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic intervention tested by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) was effective in improving the argumentative writing of even younger students in a different country. Implications for research and practice are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09949-z","RegionNum":1,"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

The current study replicated an earlier investigation by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) where 10 Grade 5 and 6 classrooms in the Netherlands (210 students) were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition, with treatment students evidencing improvements in the quality of their essays after practice writing argumentative essays, reading and discussing them with a small group of peers, and revising each essay based on the discussion that ensued. In the present study, 12 Grade 2 to 4 classrooms in Türkiye (383 students) were randomly assigned to this write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment or to a control condition. Students in the control condition practiced planning and writing the same four argumentative essays as treatment students did during the experiment, and each of these essays was shared with peers (time spent in both conditions was comparable). Control students did not, however, discuss their essay with peers or use such feedback to revise them as was done by students in the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment. When the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant, the quality of the argumentative posttest essays produced by students in the treatment condition evidenced greater improvement than essays written by control students. The same outcome was obtained for the length of essays (number of words) when the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant. This investigation provided evidence that the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic intervention tested by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) was effective in improving the argumentative writing of even younger students in a different country. Implications for research and practice are provided.

写、说、改写 "对话式写作疗法对议论性文章的影响:土耳其的一项复制研究
本研究重复了 Bouwer 和 van der Veen(2023 年)早先的一项调查,将荷兰 10 个五、六年级班级(210 名学生)随机分配到治疗或对照条件下,治疗学生在练习写作议论文、阅读并与一小组同伴讨论、根据讨论结果修改每篇文章后,其作文质量都有所提高。在本研究中,土耳其的 12 个二年级至四年级班级(383 名学生)被随机分配到这种 "写、说、改 "对话式疗法或对照组。实验期间,对照组学生与治疗组学生一样,练习计划和撰写四篇议论文,每篇议论文都与同学分享(两种情况下所用时间相当)。然而,对照组学生并没有与同伴讨论他们的作文,也没有像 "写、说、改 "对话处理中的学生那样利用这些反馈来修改作文。当数据的嵌套性质和前测分数保持不变时,治疗条件下的学生所写的议论文的质量比对照组学生的文章有更大的提高。在数据嵌套性质和前测分数不变的情况下,作文长度(字数)也得到了相同的结果。这项调查提供了证据,证明 Bouwer 和 van der Veen(2023 年)测试过的 "写、说、改写 "对话式干预能有效提高不同国家低年级学生的议论文写作水平。本研究为研究和实践提供了启示。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信