|earli | contact|
The Journal of Writing Research welcomes proposals for special issues within the scope of the journal. Please, download the 'procedure for special issues’ for more details.Open call Technology-Based Writing Instruction: A Collection of Effective Tools Guest editor: Teresa Limpo, Andreia Nunes, and António Coelho University of Porto & INESC TEC, Portugal
In the last years, there has been a fast and impressive increase in the development of technology in the field of writing research. Indeed, there are more and more tools being developed and tested as aids to those interested in fostering the teaching of writing. Technology-based instruction tools support the teaching and learning of writing by facilitating the enactment of specific writing processes, providing online feedback, and enhancing writers’ motivation (e.g., Berninger, Nagy, Tanimoto, & Thompson, 2015).
This Special Issue aims to gather a set of writing tools to promote writing from pre-school to university, across varied contexts. Presented tools are expected to have empirical evidence on their effectiveness to promote writing, which should be clearly presented by authors. The Special Issue will also give authors the opportunity to provide a detailed view of their tools, and the option to include a digital component, such as videos or demos. By showing a useful collection of technology-based writing tools, this Special Issue is expected to become a relevant reference in the writing research field, from both basic and applied viewpoints. It will display an array of the available valid options to promote writing through technology. Furthermore, it will prompt other researchers to build on those tools and provide further evidence on their validity as well as expand their use to other contexts. The Journal of Writing Research will be a particularly suitable outlet for this Special Issue due to its open-access nature, which will surely be critical to scale up the use of technologies either in the laboratory or in the classroom.
To foster coherence within the issue and comparison across tools, each paper will be structured similarly: (i) short introduction to the tool and theoretical basis; (ii) detailed presentation of the tool; (iii) empirical study reporting on its effectiveness; and (iv) indications for future developments. Manuscripts will be desk rejected if they present neither a writing tool nor any kind of empirical data showing the effectiveness of the tool.
Post your manuscript before March 31, 2019 on the JoWR repository with an explicit reference to the special issue's title.
This Special Issue is organized within the M2S Project.PREVIOUS CALLS Promoting metacognitive strategy-focused instruction for EFL/L2 writing: Orientation, practice, and performance Guest editor: Mark Feng Teng, Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University
Learning to write is a complex, recursive, and strategic process that requires metacognitive competencies (Yves, 2017). Over the past few decades, language educators and researchers worldwide have called for changes in the way the writing skill is taught in schools. The rationale behind applying strategy-focused writing instructions include the interconnection between writing and metacognition. Metacognition refers to a higher order of thinking, which involves an active control over the cognitive processes engaged in learning (Flavell, 1979). Instruction on metacognitive strategy facilitated learners to develop and evaluate arguments as well as select and use various syntactic representations (Negretti, 2012). For example, metacognitive strategy-based training strongly improved the writing performance for Vietnamese students (Nguyen & Gu, 2013). A combination of text structure application strategy, summarization strategy, and self-monitoring strategy enhanced the text quality of German students (Wischgoll, 2016). The metacognitive strategies, e.g., monitoring and evaluating, provided in a cooperative learning setting enhanced the writing performance of Chinese students (Teng, 2016). Therefore, metacognitive strategies, such as reviewing, monitoring, and evaluating, facilitate the tracking of the writing process and deciding the process of aligning these very strategies for creating the intended writing output. However, EFL/L2 students lack linguistic competence and cultural knowledge, which may hinder their effective use of strategies. Instruction on metacognitive strategies may present a different scenario for EFL/L2 learners than native speakers. Hence, infusing praxis-based metacognitive strategy instruction into empirical investigations is sorely needed in the context of learning to write for EFL/L2 learners. Through process and intervention studies in different EFL/L2 contexts this special issue will describe research that develops understanding of the role of metacognition in second language writing and how it can be trained.How to report instructional interventions in writing research? Guest editors: Fien De Smedt (Ghent University | Belgium) & Renske Bouwer (University of Antwerp | Belgium) To improve students’ writing skills, instructional programs should consider both the focus of instruction (i.e., what is taught) and the mode of instruction (i.e., how it is taught). In research on effective writing instruction, numerous meta-analyses have already identified several effective writing interventions (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007; Koster, Tribushinina, de Jong, & van den Bergh, 2015). However, these interventions are often described rather broadly and therefore it is difficult to gain insight into the crucial ingredients determining the effectiveness of an intervention (Graham & Harris, 2014; Rijlaarsdam, Janssen, Rietdijk, & Van Weijen, 2016). Getting grip on the content of evidence-based writing programs is important in two ways. First, in light of replication, instructional writing researchers need to know how to operationalize the focus and mode of instruction. Second, in light of dissemination and implementation in educational writing practice, evidence based writing practices should be clearly translated into teaching and learning activities. To move the field of research on writing instruction forward, it is of high importance that writing interventions are reported in a more systematic way, by establishing a set of principles to report interventions in writing research. For instance, Rijlaarsdam et al. (2016) designed a reporting system in which researchers are asked to identify and specify: (a) design principles, (b) learning activities, and (c) instructional activities underlying the learning activities. In this way, the transparency of the independent variable in writing intervention studies is improved, which facilitates the communication, comparison, and replication of writing interventions. The aim of this special issue is to establish a blueprint on how to report writing intervention studies in research papers. We invite a broad range of intervention studies aimed at learning to write to provide an analytic description of how didactical principles are operationalized into an instructional writing program. We are specifically interested in intervention studies from different countries, including different didactical practices (e.g., strategy instruction, peer interaction, genre instruction, observational learning), different types of students (e.g., struggling writers, regular writers, L1/L2 learners), and different contexts (e.g., primary or secondary grades, academic writing, professional writing).
Towards a blueprint for successful collaborative writing in educational and professional settings Guest editor: Elke Van Steendam, Faculty of Applied Linguistics, KULeuven, Campus Brussels
Peer collaboration in writing has been shown to be effective for Learning to Write and Writing to Learn (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; MacArthur, Schwartz, & Graham, 1991; Onrubia & Engel, 2009; Storch, 2005; Yarrow &Topping, 2001). That is why collaborative writing is often implemented in educational contexts. However, not only in educational contexts but also in professional contexts (academia, policy making, administration, journalism) collaborative writing has become common practice. Very frequently, written documents are the end-product of a collaborative process involving multiple actors, writers and readers ( e.g. research articles; group proposals, public policy documents; journalistic texts (Perrin, 2011; Lowry, Albrecht, Nunanmaker, & Lee, 2003; Sleurs, Jacobs, & Van Waes, 2003).
However, for peer collaboration to have a positive effect on either writing or learning outcomes, a few conditions need to be met. One of the crucial factors determining the effectiveness of peer collaboration in revision in an educational context for example is instruction and/or support (Min, 2005; Van Steendam, Rijlaarsdam, Sercu, & Van den Bergh, 2010). Another important component for peer collaboration in writing may be group composition (Patchan, Hawk, Stevens, & Schunn, 2012; Van Steendam, Rijlaarsdam, & Van den Bergh in press).
It is the complex interplay of individual, collaborative and contextual factors in collaborative writing and revision that we want to look at in this special issue. More specifically, the special issue aims at providing an overview of the most recent findings about collaborative writing and revision. Collaboration is conceptualized as either pupils or students, from primary school children to higher education students, or adult professionals writing (planning, composing, revising) collaboratively, either in a face-to-face context or online (via e-learning). We welcome both quantitative and qualitative studies that investigate peer collaboration in the context of writing (planning, drafting, revising) in three domains: Learning to Write in L1 and L2, Writing to Learn and Workplace Writing (technical and professional communication). Studies on Learning to Write and Workplace Writing should include the effect of peer collaboration on the writing product and/or writing process and writing-to-learn studies should (also) test the effect on learning processes and/or outcomes (domain knowledge). Additionally, also studies which shed light on methodological issues are invited. Ideally, the different contributions will result in a blueprint for effective and efficient collaborative writing.
We are especially interested in studies investigating one or more of the following:
Intervention studies in writing-to-learn: Effects on comprehension, domain-specific learning outcomes and meaning making processes Writing-to-learn refers to the act of writing as learning activity aimed at increasing students’ learning in content areas. The premise of writing-to-learn is that writing is not a communicative tool only, but also an epistemological tool for acquiring knowledge, developing understanding, and improving thinking skills. This ‘learning through writing’ can be applied in all subject areas – ranging from science to literature – and at various educational levels. This special issue presents contemporary research about writing as a learning activity and aims at providing an overview of effective use of writing to enhance learning. It also focuses on the implications for educational practice: how can the results of the intervention studies be applied in classrooms?
The papers in this special issue address three themes:
Special issue: Writing and Translation process research - Bridging the gap
During the past decades, a lot of research on text-production processes has been carried out in the disciplines of writing and translation. Theoretical reflections about both the internal cognitive processes and the external processes of both disciplines have helped understanding how writers and translators work and think from the moment they receive the task till the final text product is reached.
Special Issue: Redesigning Peer Review Interactions Using Computer Tools
Peer review has long been a component of writing education, although often informally implemented in classrooms with mixed results. More recently, web technologies have enabled more regular use of formal peer review methods in a broad cross-section of classes across many disciplines. This transition enables computers to play new roles in writing, now supporting the peer review process rather than just the writing process. With new computer tools, for example, the following elements can be changed: how reviewers are matched with authors, how reviewers interact with each other, how reviewers interact with authors, how instructors interact with reviews, how instructors interact with other instructors about writing assignments, and how authors provide feedback on the reviews.
Special issue: Gender and Writing You are invited to submit a 1000-word proposal for reports of empirical studies, conceptual papers, review papers, or meta-analyses that approach the topic of gender and writing from a range of disciplines (e.g., social, cognitive, developmental and educational psychology, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and applied linguistics, learning and teaching, information and communication technology, etc.). Examples of possible themes are:
Corpus methods are new to the field of L1 writing research and there has been no comprehensive discussion of the work in this area. The aim of this special JoWR issue, therefore, is to bring together teachers and researchers from a myriad of perspectives in an effort to explore the emerging field of corpus-informed L1 writing research.
We invite papers covering a range of related topics, including discussions of the development of large, small, and parallel writing corpora; papers exploring the kinds of questions examined via corpus research (e.g. diction and style, citation practices, usage, stylistic variation and its relationship to author gender, etc.); papers examining corpus methods (e.g. frequency lists, concordancing, examination of sociolinguistic variables, etc.) in the context of L1 writing research; explanations of current and ongoing research; as well as discussions of the critiques surrounding a corpus-informed approach to L1 writing research and the corpus-inclined researcher's response to them. Authors are asked to write papers for a broad audience including readers with little or no corpus study familiarity.More information: download (pdf) Guest editor: Stephanie A. Schlitz, Assistant Professor, Bloomsburg, PA