Matching Items (2)
Description
A commonly held belief among educators, researchers, and students is that high-quality texts are easier to read than low-quality texts, as they contain more engaging narrative and story-like elements. Interestingly, these assumptions have typically failed to be supported by the writing literature. Research suggests that higher quality writing is typically associated with decreased levels of text narrativity and readability. Although narrative elements may sometimes be associated with high-quality writing, the majority of research suggests that higher quality writing is associated with decreased levels of text narrativity, and measures of readability in general. One potential explanation for this conflicting evidence lies in the situational influence of text elements on writing quality. In other words, it is possible that the frequency of specific linguistic or rhetorical text elements alone is not consistently indicative of essay quality. Rather, these effects may be largely driven by individual differences in students' ability to leverage the benefits of these elements in appropriate contexts. This dissertation presents the hypothesis that writing proficiency is associated with an individual's flexible use of text properties, rather than simply the consistent use of a particular set of properties. Across three experiments, this dissertation relies on a combination of natural language processing and dynamic methodologies to examine the role of linguistic flexibility in the text production process. Overall, the studies included in this dissertation provide important insights into the role of flexibility in writing skill and develop a strong foundation on which to conduct future research and educational interventions.
ContributorsAllen, Laura (Author) / McNamara, Danielle S. (Thesis advisor) / Glenberg, Arthur (Committee member) / Connor, Carol (Committee member) / Duran, Nicholas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
My study examined Automated Writing Evaluation tools (AWE) and their role within writing instruction. This examination was framed as a comparison of 4 AWE tools and the different outcomes in the Writing Program Administrators “Outcomes Statement for First Year Composition” (the OS). I also reviewed studies that identify feedback as an effective tool within composition instruction as well as literature related to the growth of AWE and the 2 different ways that these programs are being utilized: to provide scoring and to generate feedback. My research focused on the feedback generating component of AWE and their relationship with helping students to meet the outcomes outlined in the OS. To complete this analysis, I coded the OS, using its outcomes as a reliable indicator of the perspectives of the academic community regarding First Year Composition (FYC). This coding was applied to text associated with two different kinds of feedback related AWEs. Two of the AWE used in this study facilitated human feedback using analytical properties: Writerkey and Eli Review. While the other 2 generated automated feedback: WriteLab and PEG Writing Scholar. I also reviewed instructional documents associated with each AWE and used the coding to compare the features described in each text with the different outcomes in the OS. The most frequently occurring coding from the feedback was related to Rhetorical Knowledge and other outcomes associated with revision, while the most common codes from the instructional documents were associated with feedback and collaboration. My research also revealed none of these AWE were capable of addressing certain outcomes, these were mostly related to activities outside of the actual process of composing, like the act of reading and the various writing mediums.
ContributorsSterling, Chadwick Le Roi (Author) / D'Angelo, Barbara (Thesis advisor) / Maid, Barry (Committee member) / Brumberger, Eva (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017