熟练和不熟练的学生在写作过程中有什么不同?

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
R. Bennett, Mo Zhang, P. Deane, P. V. van Rijn
{"title":"熟练和不熟练的学生在写作过程中有什么不同?","authors":"R. Bennett, Mo Zhang, P. Deane, P. V. van Rijn","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We evaluate how higher- vs. lower-scoring middle-school students differ in their composition processes when writing persuasive essays from source materials. We examined differences on four individual process features–time taken before beginning to write, typing speed, total time spent, and number of words started. Next, we examined differences for four aggregated process measures: fluency, local editing, macro editing, and interstitial pausing (suspending text entry at locations associated with planning). Results showed that higher vs. lower scoring students were most consistently differentiated by total time, number of words started, and fluency. These differences persisted across two persuasive subgenres and two proficiency criteria, essay score and English language arts total-test score. The study’s findings give a more complete picture of how the processes employed by more- and less-successful students differ, which contributes to cognitive writing theory and may have eventual implications for education policy and instructional practice.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"25 1","pages":"198 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Proficient and Less Proficient Students Differ in Their Composition Processes?\",\"authors\":\"R. Bennett, Mo Zhang, P. Deane, P. V. van Rijn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We evaluate how higher- vs. lower-scoring middle-school students differ in their composition processes when writing persuasive essays from source materials. We examined differences on four individual process features–time taken before beginning to write, typing speed, total time spent, and number of words started. Next, we examined differences for four aggregated process measures: fluency, local editing, macro editing, and interstitial pausing (suspending text entry at locations associated with planning). Results showed that higher vs. lower scoring students were most consistently differentiated by total time, number of words started, and fluency. These differences persisted across two persuasive subgenres and two proficiency criteria, essay score and English language arts total-test score. The study’s findings give a more complete picture of how the processes employed by more- and less-successful students differ, which contributes to cognitive writing theory and may have eventual implications for education policy and instructional practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Assessment\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"198 - 217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1804351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要:我们评估了得分较高和得分较低的中学生在用原始材料写有说服力的文章时,在作文过程中的差异。我们研究了四个单独的过程特征的差异——开始写作前的时间、打字速度、花费的总时间和开始的字数。接下来,我们研究了四种聚合过程测量的差异:流畅性、局部编辑、宏编辑和间隙暂停(在与计划相关的位置暂停文本输入)。结果显示,得分较高的学生和得分较低的学生在总时间、开始单词的数量和流利程度方面的差异最为一致。这些差异在两个有说服力的子类别和两个能力标准(论文得分和英语语言艺术总分)中持续存在。这项研究的发现更全面地描述了成功学生和不成功学生所采用的过程是如何不同的,这有助于认知写作理论,并可能对教育政策和教学实践产生最终影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Proficient and Less Proficient Students Differ in Their Composition Processes?
ABSTRACT We evaluate how higher- vs. lower-scoring middle-school students differ in their composition processes when writing persuasive essays from source materials. We examined differences on four individual process features–time taken before beginning to write, typing speed, total time spent, and number of words started. Next, we examined differences for four aggregated process measures: fluency, local editing, macro editing, and interstitial pausing (suspending text entry at locations associated with planning). Results showed that higher vs. lower scoring students were most consistently differentiated by total time, number of words started, and fluency. These differences persisted across two persuasive subgenres and two proficiency criteria, essay score and English language arts total-test score. The study’s findings give a more complete picture of how the processes employed by more- and less-successful students differ, which contributes to cognitive writing theory and may have eventual implications for education policy and instructional practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
×
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