Efficacy Check of Writing Processes of Adult Writers and Using Collaborative Writing as Writing Enhancement Tool
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v3i1.30Keywords:
Writing process, writing knowledge, collaborative writing, struggling adult writersAbstract
This research examined how and what struggling adult writers know about writing and
themselves as authors when it comes to overcoming a writing difficulty. We used a threepronged
approach to learn more about the adult authors' writing processes: participant
observation, text analysis, and structured one-on-one interviews with both retrospective and
prospective parts. Adult writers who are struggling can benefit from this rigorous approach
since it provides them with important tools for examining their writing processes and
expertise. We may observe an example of data triangulation in action by examining a realworld
case study. The results of this case study show that struggling adult authors and
younger writers have certain things in common and some things in common. When it comes
to the writing process, both groups have a limited role for planning and rewriting. For the
most part, struggling adult authors have an advantage over their younger counterparts
because they have a better grasp of their own talents as writers, in addition to a better grasp of
their own identity as writers.
References
• Amato, J. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2011). The predictive validity of cbm writing indices for eighth- grade students. The Journal of Special Education, 44(4), 195–204. doi:10.1177/0022466909333516
• Benson, B. J., & Campbell, H. M. (2009). Assessment of student wrting with curriculum-based measurement. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers : evidence- based practices (pp. 337–357). New York/London: Guilford Press.
• Berry, A. B., & Mason, L. H. (2010). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED. Remedial and Special Education. doi:10.1177/0741932510375469
• Boscolo, P., &Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In S. Hidi& P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 14–21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (2002). Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production. International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 219–227. doi:10.1080/00207590244000070
• Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., &Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103–123. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2
• Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 99–118. doi:10.1177/0741088303253572
• Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on adolescents’ written text. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 427–446. doi:10.1177/001440290907500403
• Egloff, B., Grosche, M., Hubertus, P., &Rüsseler, J. (2011). FunktionalerAnalphabetismusimErwachsenenalter: eine Definition. [Functional illiteracy in adulthood: a definition.] In Projektträgerim DLR e.V. (Hrsg.), Zielgruppen in Alphabetisierung und GrundbildungErwachsener (Bd. 1, S. 11–31). [Targetgroups in alphabetization and basic education of adults] Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
• Fagan, W. T. (1988). Concepts of reading and writing among low-literate adults. Reading Research and Instruction, 27(4), 47–60. doi:10.1080/19388078809557950
• Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 781–91. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ440475. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4. 781
• Graham, S., &Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools (A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York). New York: Carnegie Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/3c/f5/3cf58727-34f4-4140-a014- 723a00ac56f7/ccny_report_2007_writing.pdf
• Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4),237–49.Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ462502. doi:10.1177/002221949302600404
• Grotlüschen, A., &Riekmann, W. (Eds.). (2012). FunktionalerAnalphabetismus in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der erstenleo. – Level-One-Studie. [Functional illiteracy in germany: results of the first leo.-level-one study.] Münster: Waxmann.
• Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., &Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition and children’s writing. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 131–153). New York: Taylor & Francis.
• Janssen, D., Van Waes, L., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 233–250). New York/London: Routledge.
• Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Margulis, M. (2011). The situated dynamics of purposes of engagement and self-regulation strategies: A mixed-methods case study of writing. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 284–324.
• Kelle, U. (2007). Integration qualitativer und quantitativerMethoden. [Integration of qualitative and quantitative methods.] In U. Kuckartz, H. Grunenberg, & T. Dresing (Eds.), (2. ed., pp. 50– 64). Qualitative Datenanalyse: computergestützt [Qualitative data analysis: computer-based.] Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
• Kostouli, T. (2009). A sociocultural framework: writing as social practice. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 98–116). London: Sage Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9780857021069.n7
• Kruidenier, J. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Wrigley, H. S. (2010). Adult education literacy instruction: A review of the research (No. ED-03-CO-0026). Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/adult_ed_2010.pdf
• Kuckartz, U. (2005). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativerDaten. [Introduction to the computer-based analysis of qualitative data] Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-322-93531-1
• Levy, C. M., Marek, J. P., & Lea, J. (1996). Concurrent and retrospective protocols in writing research. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, Models and methodology (pp. 532–556). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
• Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66 –99. doi:10.1177/0021943603259363
• MacArthur, C. A., &Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners.Reading & Writing, 22(9), 1021–1039. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9142-x
• Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 379–90. Retrievedfromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ671152. doi:10.1002/pits.10096
• McAllister, C. H. (2005). Collaborative writing groups in the college classroom. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in Context(s). Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp. 207–227). New York: Springer. doi.:10.1007/0-387-24250-3_10
• McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5 (3), 306–324. doi:10.1177/0741088388005003003
• Metze, W. (2003). Stolperwörtertest. [Stumbleword test] Retrieved from http://www.wilfriedmetze.de/html/stolper.html
• OECD. (2013). OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publications. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/Skills%20volume%201%20%28 eng%29--full%20v12--eBook%20%2804%2011%202013%29.pdf
• Quinlan, T., Loncke, M., Leijten, M., &Waes, L. V. (2012). Coordinating the cognitive processes of writing: The role of the monitor. Written Communication, 29(3), 345–368. doi:10.1177/0741088312451112
• Spörer, N., &Brunstein, J. C. (2005). Diagnostik von selbstgesteuertemLernen. Ein VergleichzwischenFragebogen- und Interviewverfahren. [Diagnosis of self-regulated learning. A comparison of methods between questionnaire and interviews.] In C. Artelt& B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition. ImplikationenfürForschung und Praxis (pp. 43–64). [Learning Strategies and metacognition. Implications for Research and practice.] München: Waxmann.
• Sturm, A. (2010). Schreibprofile und SchreibenalsverborgeneSchreibpraxis. [Writing profiles and writing as a hidden writing practice.] In A. Sturm (Hrsg.), LiteralesLernen von ErwachsenenimKontextneuerTechnologien (S. 107–160). [Literacy Learning of adults in the context of new technologies] Münster: Waxmann.
• Sturm, A. (2014). Basale Lese- und SchreibfertigkeitenbeiBerufsschülerInnen und die NotwendigkeitkompensatorischerFördermassnahmen. [Basic reading and writing skills of vocational students and the necessity of compensatory remedial instruction] Leseforum, (1), 1–19. http://doi.org/www.leseforum.ch
• Sturm, A., & Lindauer, N. (2014). ZwischenbegrenztemWissen und Widerspruch – zur Expertise von KursleitendenimBereich des funktionalenAnalphabetismus. [Between Limited knowledge and contradiction – About the expertise of teachers in the field of functional illiteracy.] Zeitschriftfür interpretative Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung, (3), 115–129.
• Sturm, A., & Philipp, M. (2013a). «Lieber fragst du jemandanders» – Lese- und SchreibschwierigkeitenbeischriftschwachenErwachsenen. [«It is better if you ask someone else» – Reading and Writing difficulties of adults with low literacy skills.] Leseforum, (2). http://doi.org/www.leseforum.ch
• Sturm, A., & Philipp, M. (2013b). Wissenschaftliche Evaluation LAB (2009–2013): Schlussberichtzuhanden des SBFI (Schlussbericht). [Scientific evaluation LAB (2009–2013): Final report for the SBFI.] Aarau: Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW, ZentrumLesen.
• Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379–392. doi:10.1007/BF03179901
• Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing Instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur,
• S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing reserach (pp. 324–336). New York: Guilford Press.
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The Assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method-designs. In C. Artelt& B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition. ImplikationenfürForschung und Praxis (pp. 75–98). Münster: Waxmann.
• Wengelin, Å. (2007). The Word-level-focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 67–82). Amsterdam/Boston: Elsevier. doi:10.1108/S1572-6304(2007) 0000020006
• Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving Measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 267–276. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.517150
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628. doi:10.3102/00028312023004614
