Writing in Action: A Collaborative Rhetoric for College Writers

1987 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Thelma D. Curl ◽  
Lea Masiello
Keyword(s):  
College Writers

Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally.

1996 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 682-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Wallace ◽  
John R. Hayes ◽  
Jill A. Hatch ◽  
Walden Miller ◽  
Grant Moser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
First Year ◽  
First Year College ◽  
College Writers

scholarly journals Gambian-American College Writers Flip the Script on Aid-to-Africa Discourse

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elenore Long ◽  
Nyillan Fye ◽  
John Jarvis
Keyword(s):  
College Writers

Readings for College Writers

1962 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
David F. Sadler ◽  
H. J. Sachs ◽  
John Milstead ◽  
Harry M. Brown
Keyword(s):  
College Writers

A Multicomponent Measure of Writing Motivation With Basic College Writers

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. MacArthur ◽  
Zoi A. Philippakos ◽  
Steve Graham
Keyword(s):  
Community College ◽  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Achievement Goals ◽  
Design Research ◽  
Developmental Writing ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Writing Classes ◽  
College Writers ◽  
Avoidance Goals

The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a measure of motivation for use with basic college writers that would measure self-efficacy, achievement goals, beliefs, and affect. As part of a design research project on curriculum for community college developmental writing classes, 133 students in 11 classes completed the motivation scales at the beginning and end of the semester along with measures of writing quality. Single factors were found for self-efficacy and affect. For goal orientation, factors were found for mastery, performance, and avoidance goals. For beliefs, factors were found for beliefs related to the content of writing and to conventions. Anticipated patterns of correlations among the factors were found. The validity of the scales was further supported by significant differences in the anticipated direction between higher and lower level classes on five of seven factors. In addition, significant changes were noted from pretest to posttest in the anticipated direction on six of seven factors.

scholarly journals Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback among Graduate Students: The Effects of Feedback Timing

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-102
Author(s):  
Grant Eckstein ◽  
Maureen Sims ◽  
Lisa Rohm
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Feedback Timing ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Grammatical Accuracy ◽  
Premier Cycle ◽  
College Writers ◽  
Effects Of Feedback

Dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) is a pedagogical approach that offer meaningful, manageable, constant, and timely corrective feedback on student writing (Hartshorn et al., 2010). It emphasizes indirect and comprehensive writte error correction on short, daily writing assignments. Numerous studies have demonstrated that its use can lead to fewer language errors among undergraduate and pre-matriculated college writers (see Kurzer, 2018). However, the benefits of DWCF among second language (L2) graduate writers and the role of feedback timing have not been well examined. We analyzed timed writing samples over a 12-week intervention from 22 L2 graduate students who either received biweekly feedback on their writing throughout a semester, or postponed feedback until the last two weeks of the semester. Writing was analyzed for grammatical errors, lexical and syntactic complexity, and fluency. Results showed that neither timely nor postponed feedback led to significant improvement in grammatical accuracy or lexical complexity, but timely feedback did result in more fluent and complex writing. These findings suggest that the timing of feedback may be trivial for accuracy development but is more important for complexity among graduate writers. Teachers, teacher trainers, and writing administrators may use these insights as they plan curricula and design grammar and writing interventions. La rétroaction corrective écrite dynamique (RCED) est une approche pédagogique qui propose une rétroaction significative, gérable, constante et opportune sur les rédactions des étudiants (Hartshorn et al. 2010). Elle insiste sur la correction complète et indirecte d’erreurs dans de courts devoirs de rédaction quotidiens. De nombreuses études ont démontré que son utilisation peut amener les rédacteurs de premier cycle ou pré-inscrits au collège à faire moins d’erreurs de langue (voir Kurzer, 2018). Cependant, les avantages de la RCED chez les rédacteurs diplômés de seconde langue (L2) et le rôle joué par l’opportunité de la rétroaction n’ont pas été bien étudiés. Nous avons analysé des échantillons de rédaction écrites en temps limité sur une période d’intervention de 12 semaines chez 22 étudiants diplômés de L2 qui recevaient de la rétroaction deux fois par semaine sur leurs rédactions pendant la durée du semestre, ou une rétroaction différée jusqu’à deux semaines avant la fin du semestre. Les rédactions ont été analysées pour découvrir les erreurs grammaticales, la complexité lexicale et syntaxique, ainsi que la fluidité Les résultats ont montré que ni la rétroaction opportune, ni la rétraction différé ne se traduisaient par une amélioration marquée de la précision grammaticale ou de la complexité lexicale, mais la rétroaction opportune menait à une rédaction plus fluide et plus complexe. Ces résultats suggèrent que l’opportunité de la rétroaction peut ne pas beaucoup influer sur le développement de la précision, mais s’avère plus importante pour la complexité chez les rédacteurs diplômés. Les enseignants, les formateurs d’enseignants et les administrateurs de programmes de rédaction peuvent se servir de ces résultats lorsqu’ils planifient les programmes et conçoivent les interventions en grammaire et en rédaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document