CARDS: A Collaborative Community Model for Faculty Development or an Institutional Case Study of Writing Program Administration

The structure of writing programs evolves to account for the transformation of composition studies. Online and dual credit programs necessitate a need to adjust prior practices initially geared towards face-to-face pedagogy; however, several challenges surface in online and dual credit writing programs. The most prevalent is that these online courses are primarily staffed by non-tenured faculty, including adjuncts who do not have a physical presence on campus. The faculty dynamic presents many challenges when attempting to garner participation in collaborations. In recent years, the Writing Program Administrator (WPA) at a regional public university noticed a need to improve faculty morale, satisfaction, and participation, especially with the emergence of online programs. Through a national survey and selective interviews of current faculty at the university, we determined that the answer lies in the structure of the program. The Writing Program Administrator has several models to choose from, but we will argue that the collaborative community model is most conducive to addressing and enhancing faculty morale, satisfaction, and participation in first-year writing programs

Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments

This paper raises concerns about the advantages of using statistical significance tests in research assessments as has recently been suggested in the debate about proper normalization procedures for citation indicators. Statistical significance tests are highly controversial and numerous criticisms have been leveled against their use. Based on examples from articles by proponents of the use statistical significance tests in research assessments, we address some of the numerous problems with such tests. The issues specifically discussed are the ritual practice of such tests, their dichotomous application in decision making, the difference between statistical and substantive significance, the implausibility of most null hypotheses, the crucial assumption of randomness, as well as the utility of standard errors and confidence intervals for inferential purposes. We argue that applying statistical significance tests and mechanically adhering to their results is highly problematic and detrimental to critical thinking. We claim that the use of such tests do not provide any advantages in relation to citation indicators, interpretations of them, or the decision making processes based upon them. On the contrary their use may be harmful. Like many other critics, we generally believe that statistical significance tests are over- and misused in the social sciences including scientometrics and we encourage a reform on these matters.Comment: Accepted version for Journal of Informetric

The Effect Of Summarization On Intermediate EFL Learners Reading Comprehension And Their Performance On Display, Referential And Inferential Questions

This study examined the effect of summarization as a generative learning strategy of the readers' performance on reading comprehension, in general, and reading comprehension display, referential and inferential questions in particular. The subjects in this study were 61 high school students. They were assigned to two groups - control and experimental – each given the same texts taught by one of the researchers during ten sessions. In the control group, learners automatically used their own self-preferred strategies; but the experimental group was taught how to summarize the paragraphs. Then all were post-tested on their achievement of the instructed texts. The results revealed that the use of summarization did not have a significant effect on the readers' performance on display and inferential questions. As for the referential questions, however, the results demonstrated a significant effect for the use of summarization

TRADITIONAL VS. WIKI: SAUDI STUDENTS\u27 PERFORMANCE IN AND PERCEPTIONS OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING IN A WIKI

This research study was a quasi-experimental study that investigated the impact of collaborative writing on 76 male EFL students\u27 writing performance in an online (wiki) classroom compared with a traditional (paper-and-pencil) collaborative writing classroom. The subjects were enrolled in a semester-long advanced English writing course at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, and were equally divided into two classrooms---online/wiki (experimental) and traditionally-taught (control). In the experimental classroom, students used wiki to collaborate; in the control classroom, students used face-to-face communication and notebooks. Both treatments were compared analyzing data collected from a pretest and post-test of individual writing, three collaborative writing assignments, a collaborative writing questionnaire, and individual interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (i.e., frequency, maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (repeated measures ANOVA and t-test). Analysis of individual writing in the pretest and post-test showed that the number of words and grammatical form scores significantly increased in both the experimental (wiki) and control (paper and pencil) classrooms. In total score, content, diction and tone, and mechanics, the students’ scores in both classrooms significantly increased regardless of the treatment the students received. Additionally, there was a significant difference in the post-test scores between the treatments, with the wiki classroom scoring higher than the traditional classroom. In rhetorical structure, the scores in both classrooms significantly improved from the pretest to the post-test, yet, they were also slightly different between treatments. Analysis of the collaborative writing assignments showed that the writing quantity (i.e., word count) and quality (i.e., total score, content, rhetorical structure, grammatical form, diction and tone, and mechanics) significantly increased over time in both treatments. However, there was no significant difference between treatments and time by treatment. The students’ perceptions of writing collaboration were significant but were not for the rest of the measurements. They responded similarly in writing performance, writing apprehension, and its future use. Qualitative analysis of student interview data showed that both treatments yielded positive responses toward collaborative writing in terms of its usefulness, ease of use, and process writing. However, there were some limitations regarding this experience (i.e., participation, technical problems)

Promoting research through claiming centrality and explicit research contributions in applied linguistics research articles

Since authors intend to publish their academic research in reputable journals, promoting their research significance is pivotal to convincing journal gatekeepers for accepting their research articles (RAs). However, studies on research promotion within RAs are still limited, and none has comparatively studied this essential issue in English RAs published in reputable international journals and Indonesian highly-accredited journals as data sets. Thus, comprehending this gap has encouraged me to conduct the present study, by analyzing how claiming centrality and research contribution are employed in both data sets. For the data analysis, I employed a top-down approach for analyzing both data sets and used combined qualitative and quantitative approaches for the analysis reports. Then, the analysis results revealed that while claiming centrality appeared in most of both data sets, presenting research contribution appeared only in a few RAs of both data sets. Then, authors tend to express these two communicative steps using simple sentences more than the other three sentence types, except those published in reputable international journals as they mostly employ complex sentences in expressing their research contribution. These findings imply that promoting research by stating that the current research topic is important for research is important in the data, but using claiming centrality is more dominant than presenting research contribution. These findings also indicate that promoting the significance of current research topics is very essential

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFORMING IN WRITING: AN ANALYSIS OF READ-TO-WRITE PROCESS

Academic writing depends on critical reading. Writers need to read materials to be used as support and evidence in their writing. The writing process of an academic writer mirrors the knowledge transforming model. The link between reading and writing has been established by past studies. The read-to-write process is the academic writing process that writers go through but focused more on the reading activities to prepare for materials to be included in the essay. This study is done to explore the perception of writers in their reading stage (read-to-write process). 176 undergraduates taking academic writing course were randomly chosen to respond to the instrument. The instrument is a 5 Likert-scale with 34 items on topics pertaining to variables found in the knowledge transforming model. Findings reveal that writers take alternative roles and reader and writer in the writing process. Findings also reveal interesting pedagogical implications in the teaching and learning of both academic reading and writing.  Article visualizations

A Methodology for Streamlining Historical Research: The Analysis of Technical and Scientific Publications

This article provides a framework for organizing and structuring the research of historical researchers who analyze technical and scientific publications. Because historical research spans both decades and centuries, an effective research methodology is essential. The framework consists of a multifaceted 10-step method for studying the written discourse of scientific and technical communication, specifically for interpreting historical data obtained from articles published in technical and scientific journals. The method is a reliable means for making sense of the enormous body of data that awaits historical researchers in the volumes of scientific and technical discourse already published