Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum

DiPardo, Anne; Storms, Barbara A.; Selland, Makenzie K.

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.01.003

Cited by 30 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to have a strong voice in writing, one needs to make proper use of the linguistic resources that are available to them (Hyland, 2010; Johnstone, 2000; Sperling et al, 2011). In line with the individualistic nature of some cultures which encourage individual independence and choice (Vinken et al, 2004), several researchers have considered voice a target objective in teaching writing (e.g., Llosa et al, 2011; Matsuda & Jeffery, 2012), and have thus included voice both as an essential element in writing textbooks (e.g., Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996) and as an important evaluation trait in writing assessment rubrics (e.g., DiPardo et al, 2011; Jeffery, 2009).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing

Zabihi

Bayan

2020

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that collaboratively produced texts are better in quality compared with individually written texts. However, no study has considered the role of collaboration in authorial voice, which is an essential element in current writing curricula. This study analyzes the effects of collaborative task performance in the quality of L2 learners’ argumentative texts and in their authorial voice strength. A total of 306 upper-intermediate L2 learners were selected and divided into independent ( N = 130) and paired ( N = 176) groups. Each learner/pair was asked to write one argumentative text. The quality of writings was determined by a quantitative analysis that included three measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Participants’ authorial voice strength was assessed by two raters using an analytic voice rubric. Comparison of means revealed that pairs outperformed independent writers in all CAF measures. However, the results for the role of collaboration in authorial voice were mixed: While pairs were more successful than independent writers in manifesting their ideational voice, independent writers outperformed pairs with regard to affective and presence voice dimensions and holistic voice scores. The article concludes that, despite its positive implications for L2 writing, collaborative writing may pose challenges for learners’ authorial stance taking.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing

Zabihi

Bayan

2020

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many cases, the conception of voice in also shifted from personal to social-constructionist to social-constructivist within individual teachers and rubrics. National Writing project Analytic Writing Continuum tried to avoid the heavy reliance on personal view of voice by replacing with voice with stance (DiPardo, Storms, & Selland, 2011), which gets at an aspect of voice but does not quite capture the larger conception of voice. Matsuda and Jeffery (2012) documented the conspicuous absence of voice from standardized writing assessment rubrics (i.e., IELTS, TOEFL iBT, SAT) and the ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981), which are commonly used in U.S. higher education for admission, placement, and even outcomes assessment.…”

Section: Identity and Writing Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identity in Written Discourse

Matsuda¹

2015

Ann Rev Appl Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of theoretical and research issues in the study of writer identity in written discourse. First, a historical overview explores how identity has been conceived, studied, and taught, followed by a discussion of how writer identity has been conceptualized. Next, three major orientations toward writer identity show how the focus of analysis has shifted from the individual to the social conventions and how it has been moving toward an equilibrium, in which the negotiation of individual and social perspectives is recognized. The next two sections discuss two of the key developments-identity in academic writing and the assessment of writer identity. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the implications and future directions for teaching and researching identity in written discourse.

show abstract

“…Pearson and Hiebert () described the paucity of work on qualitative analyses of texts for reading, as compared with research on qualitative schemes for writing, which has produced valid and reliable rubrics that teachers can use (DiPardo, Storms, & Selland, ). Inclusion of a qualitative dimension on the text complexity triad was visionary on the part of CCSS writers, but with little prior work to build on, they presented the four dimensions—levels of meaning, knowledge demands, language conventions and clarity, and structure—in a dichotomous format with features either complex or simple in a text.…”

Section: Step 3: Qualitative Rubricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Students’ Movement Up the Staircase of Text Complexity

Hiebert¹

2013

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard 10 of the Common Core State Standards attends to students’ capacity with complex text. This standard distinguishes the Common Core State Standards from previous standards documents. This article describes a process—the Text Complexity Multi‐Index (TCMI)—that supports teachers in studying texts to support their students in increasing capacity with complex text. The TCMI addresses the three prongs of the text complexity triad identified by the CCSS: quantitative, qualitative, and reader‐task. As teachers apply steps of the TCMI process, they become increasingly knowledgeable about the features of texts that can create challenges for students and those that provide the content of lessons that support students in reading increasingly more complex texts across their school careers.

show abstract

Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum

Cited by 30 publications

References 21 publications

Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing

Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial Voice in Paired and Independent L2 Writing

Identity in Written Discourse

Supporting Students’ Movement Up the Staircase of Text Complexity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About