Short Bio

Yana joined Tecolab on October 1, 2019 and is focusing on empowering the argumentative, collaborative writing skills of secondary school students. She is working under the supervision of Prof. dr. Bram De Wever in the department of Educational Sciences at Ghent University. Additionally, one of the research objectives is to investigate the impact of dialogic talk on peer feedback conversations.

For more information on the Argumentativo research project, please send an e-mail to Yana.Landrieu@UGent.be.

Research Interests

• Argumentative writing
• Collaborative writing
• Rating procedures
• Peer feedback conversations

Memberships & Affiliations

• SIG 12 Writing
• SIG 26 Argumentation, Dialogue & Reasoning

Publications

Assessing the Quality of Argumentative Texts: Examining the General Agreement Between Different Rating Procedures and Exploring Inferences of (Dis)agreement Cases

Abstract.
Assessing argumentative writing skills is not a straightforward task, as multiple elements need to be considered. In function of providing feedback to students and keeping track of their progress, evaluating argumentative texts in a suitable, valid and efficient way is important. In this state-of-the-art exploratory study, 130 argumentative texts written by eleventh graders were assessed by means of three different rating procedures (i.e., absolute holistic rating, comparative holistic rating, and absolute analytic rating). The main aim of this study is twofold. First, we aim to examine the correlations between the three rating procedures and to study the extent to which these procedures differ in assigning scores. In doing so, the more innovative approach of pairwise comparisons is compared to more established assessment methods of absolute holistic and analytic rating. Second, we aim to identify key characteristics that determine the quality of an argumentative text, independent of the rating procedure used. Furthermore, key elements of mid-range, weak and strong argumentative texts were studied in detail. The results reveal low to moderate agreement between the different procedures, indicating that all procedures are suitable to assess the quality of an argumentative text; each procedure, however, has its own qualities and applicability.

Keywords.


Downloads.


Argumentation in collaboration: the impact of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on secondary school students’ argumentative writing

Abstract.
This paper has investigated the importance of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on (a) argumentative writing performance and (b) self-efficacy for writing of secondary school students. This intervention study additionally aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of alternating between individual and collaborative writing throughout the writing process (planning collaboratively, writing individually, revising collaboratively, and rewriting individually). A cluster randomized control trial (CRT) design was opted for. To investigate the effect of the intervention on secondary school students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for writing, multilevel analyses were performed. It was found that the presence of explicit instruction in combination with collaborative writing is positively related to argumentative writing performance and self-efficacy for writing. Alternating between individual and collaborative writing was not significantly different from collaborating throughout all phases of the writing process. More in-depth research into the quality of collaboration is, however, needed to gain insight into the interaction processes and writing processes that take place during collaborative writing.

Keywords.


Downloads.