Chen, V., Olson, C. B., & Chung, H. Q. (2020). Understanding Proficiency: Analyzing the Characteristics of Secondary Students’ On-Demand Analytical Essay Writing. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 13(1).
Ferretti, R.P. & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction, Read Writ. (32) 1345. DOI 10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x
Ferris, D., & Lombardi, A. Collaborative Placement of Multilingual Writers: Combining Formal Assessment and Self-Evaluation.
Krishnan, J., Black, R., & Olson, C. B. (2020) “The Power of Context: Exploring Teachers’ Formative Assessment for Online Collaborative Writing” Reading and Writing Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1764888.
Tate, T. & Warschauer, M. (2018). Going Beyond “That Was Fun”: Measuring Writing Motivation, Journal of Writing Analytics, 2, 257-279.
Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2019). Keypresses and Mouse Clicks: Analysis of the First National Computer-based Writing Assessment. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-019-09412-x.
Tate, T., Warschauer, M., & Abedi, J. (2016). The Effects of Prior Computer Use on Computer-Based Writing: The 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment, Computers & Education, 101, 115-131. DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.001.
- This study investigated the different characteristics of not-pass, adequate-pass, and strong-pass text-based, analytical essays written by middle and high school students.. Results revealed the use of relevant summary was an important difference between not-pass and adequate-pass essays where significantly more adequate-pass essays used summary in a purposeful rather than general way.
Ferretti, R.P. & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction, Read Writ. (32) 1345. DOI 10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x
- Despite the early emergence of oral argumentation, written argumentation is slow to develop, insensitive to alternative perspectives, and generally of poor quality. These findings are unsettling because high quality argumentative writing is expected throughout the curriculum and needed in an increasingly competitive workplace that requires advanced communication skills. In this introduction, we provide background about the theoretical perspectives that inform the papers included in this special issue and highlight their contributions to the extant literature about argumentative writing.
Ferris, D., & Lombardi, A. Collaborative Placement of Multilingual Writers: Combining Formal Assessment and Self-Evaluation.
- The purpose of this study was to see whether a specific subgroup of students (n = 65) in a large university writing program for multilingual students could be successful if allowed to collaborate, with guidance, in their own placement.
Krishnan, J., Black, R., & Olson, C. B. (2020) “The Power of Context: Exploring Teachers’ Formative Assessment for Online Collaborative Writing” Reading and Writing Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1764888.
- In this multiple-case study that took place in two states, we investigate (1) the common and unique contextual factors that shape ELA teachers’ formative assessment beliefs and practice, and (2) the challenges they face when engaging in ongoing assessment while students write together online in their classrooms.
- This work illustrates the unique contextual factors that shape teachers’ beliefs about and engagement with formative assessment, specifically for online collaborative writing.
Tate, T. & Warschauer, M. (2018). Going Beyond “That Was Fun”: Measuring Writing Motivation, Journal of Writing Analytics, 2, 257-279.
- One of the most important malleable factors involved in improving student writing is motivation, particularly for secondary school students. This research note systematically examines the measures of writing motivation for students in grades 4–12 used by researchers over the last ten years and summarizes their psychometric and measurement properties to the extent provided in the underlying literature. This collection of measures and their properties and features is designed to make researchers more aware of the various options and to point out the need for additional measures.
Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2019). Keypresses and Mouse Clicks: Analysis of the First National Computer-based Writing Assessment. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-019-09412-x.
- To better understand students’ digital writing skills, we take advantage of the information provided by computer-based assessments—keyboard and mouse activity data. We examine the relationship between students’ use of the keyboard and mouse during the assessment and students’ writing achievement.
- We found that the number of keypresses had a distinct and direct effect on writing achievement scores, controlling for word count. We also identified several different patterns of keyboard and mouse activity on the computer-based NAEP assessment.
Tate, T., Warschauer, M., & Abedi, J. (2016). The Effects of Prior Computer Use on Computer-Based Writing: The 2011 NAEP Writing Assessment, Computers & Education, 101, 115-131. DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.001.
- We examine the relationship between reported prior use of computers and students’ achievement on the first national computer-based writing assessment in the United States, the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment.
- Using data from over 24,100 eighth grade students, we found that prior use of computers for school-related writing had a direct effect on writing achievement scores on the computer-based NAEP assessment. One standard deviation increase in prior use led to a 0.14 and 0.16 standard deviation increase in mean and scaled writing achievement scores respectively, with demographic controls and jackknife weighting in our SEM analysis. We also looked at earlier NAEP assessments and found that prior computer use did not positively affect the earlier pen and paper-based writing assessments.
