Name: Ahmad Qodri

Nim: RRA1B215010

1
Turner, K. H., & Katic, E. K. (2009). The influence of technological literacy on
students' writing.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 253270.

the author, Examines the role of technology in high school students writing processes and
products. Researchers asked two questions: 1) How do students appropriate technological
influences? and then 2) How do these influences affect their writing processes? Nine students
were involved in the case study. in this articel data analysis revealed several themes including
students use about of technology tools, references to technology affordances, use of
technological terms, use of non-textual representations, use non-linear processes to develop
students' arguments , use appearance of non-linear organization of writing products, and
interruptions by technology. Research findings indicate that for these students, the influence of
technology contributed more to the students writing than hindered it. Turner and Katic
recommend that writing instruction should not always be based on a linear model, and that
technology should be incorporated into writing instruction.

Asoodar, M., Atai, M. R., & Vaezi, S. (2015). Blog-integrated writing with blog-
buddies: EAP learners writing performance. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 54, 225252.

The authors present an investigates the implementation of a blog-buddy

system to support English language learners writing performance. They
Using a mixed-methods research design, researchers explored 60 Iranian
undergraduate engineering students online English writing practices. They
Find evidence that blog-integrated writing instruction accompanying the
implementation of a blog-buddy system resulted in significant improvement
of students writing performance. Identifies four themes that emerged from
the use of blogs and blog-buddies in the second-language online writing
classes: mentoring, motivation, interactivity, and monitoring/tracking
progress. Suggests that using learner-centered approaches within online
second-language writing classes provides opportunities for agentive learner
experiences.
 3

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn
activities on

elementary students conceptual understanding: Learning about force and

motion through

writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745771.

In this articel examines whether written correspondence can improve

students understanding of force and motion, a unit in their science
curriculum. Fourth graders collaboratively wrote three letters of exchange
one at the beginning of the unit, one in the middle, and one at the end.
These letters explained unit concepts to eleventh graders, who provided
feedback and asked for clarification. Through pre-test/post-test analysis and
examination of the letters, researchers found that students in treatment
groups significantly outperformed those in control groups. Concludes by
stressing science as communication and argumentation for particular
audiences.

Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL

summary writing. ELT
Journal,66(2),184-192.

The authors present an Investigates the instructional efficacy of a genre-based

approach to teaching summary writing for EFL university students. Forty-one
students in Taiwan were asked before and after the instruction to summarize a
simplified version of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in a maximum of 500 words.
Students summaries on the pre- and post-tests were evaluated against content,
organization, vocabulary, and language use. Results showed that such an approach
was effective in improving students overall summarization performance of a
narrative source text and that the students
benefited to a greater extent in content and organization than in vocabulary and
language use.
 5
Heldsinger, S. A., & Humphry, S. M. (2013). Using calibrated exemplars in the
teacher-assessment of writing: An empirical study. Educational Research,
55(3), 219235.

The authors present an investigates the use of a two-stage method of teacher

assessment of writing, involving calibrated exemplars. In the first stage, teachers
compared students writing performances using a method of pair-wise comparison.
The data were then analyzed to develop a performance scale (exemplars of
ascending quality). In the second stage, teachers assessed student performances
by judging which exemplar a performance was most alike. Results showed high
levels of inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity. Concludes that the use of
calibrated exemplars has potential as a method of teacher assessment in contexts
where extensive training and moderation is not possible or desirable.

Yang, Y.F. (2010). Students reflection on online self-correction and peer

review to improve

writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 12021210.

The authors present an investigates an online system to arouse students reflection

on both self-correction (ones own problem-solving process in writing) and peer
review (peers problem-solving process in writing) to improve their texts. Students
were encouraged to reflect on their actions during and after text construction. A
sample of 95 undergraduate students wrote a reflective journal, which was analyzed
by content analysis to compare their reflection on self-orrection with peer review in
writing. Finds that reflecting on the differences between self-correction and peer
review enabled students to monitor, evaluate, and adjust their writing processes in
the pursuit of text improvement. Furthermore, students claimed that self-correction
helped them detect grammatical errors
(local revision) while peer review allowed them to view their own texts from others
perspectives.
 7

Olinghouse, N. G., Zheng, J., & Morlock, L. (2012). State writing assessment:
Inclusion of motivational factors in writing tasks. Reading & Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 28(1), 97-119.

The authors evaluates large-scale state writing assessments for the inclusion of
motivational characteristics in the writing task and written prompt. Analyzes 222
prompts from 44 states. Finds that approximately half of the prompts did not specify
an audience, with secondary-level prompts specifying an audience more often than
elementary-level prompts. Two-thirds of the prompts narrowed the topic or the
procedure, reducing student choice and possibly motivation for the writing task.
Twenty-two percent of the rompts specified a stance for students to take in their
writing. Suggests that the relationship between state writing assessments and
classroom instruction should be an essential component of future research in the
field.

8
Proske, A., Narciss, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Computer-based scaffolding to
facilitate
students development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in
Reading, 35(2),
136152.
This articel examines whether the provision of computer-based scaffolding (CBS)
guiding deliberate practice facilitated 42 university students development of
writing expertise. A CBS environment was
developed to externally support expert writing. There were two testing times: First,
the effects of
practicing writing with CBS were compared with the effects of a practice-only
situation without
support. Second, a posttest comprised composing an essay discussing an academic
position
without scaffolding. Findings indicate that at both testing times, the CBS group
wrote essays of
better comprehensibility and spent more time on prewriting than students in the
practice-only
group. Suggests that CBS guiding deliberate practice may be a promising means to
facilitate the
development of writing expertise.

9
Covilla, A. E. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to
improve college students writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2), 199
226.

In this articel Compares the effects of three different types of revision

instruction on 61 college students revisions and writing quality: formal peer
Reviewoutline and critique a peers draft; formal Self-Reviewoutline and
critique their own draft; and No formal Reviewsimply revise their draft to
enhance organization and clarity. The authore find no significant differences
in writing quality between the three treatment groups. The No formal Review
students made more revisions than students in the other groups and had the
most positive attitude toward instruction. Suggests that peer review or
formal self-assessment may not necessarily enhance writing quality.

10
Yang, Y.F. (2010). Students reflection on online self-correction and peer review to
improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 12021210.

The authors investigate an online system to arouse students reflection on both self-
correction (ones own problem-solving process in writing) and peer review (peers
problem-solving process in writing) to improve their texts. Students were
encouraged to reflect on their actions during and after text construction. A sample
of 95 undergraduate students wrote a reflective journal, which was analyzed by
content analysis to compare their reflection on self-correction with peer review in
writing. They find that reflecting on the differences between self-correction and peer
review enabled
students to monitor, evaluate, and adjust their writing processes in the pursuit of
text improvement. Furthermore, students claimed that self-correction helped them
detect grammatical errors
(local revision) while peer review allowed them to view their own texts from others
perspectives.