Combining collaborative-writing observation, text analysis, and retrospective-prospective interviews provides productive tools to assess writing processes and knowledge of struggling adult writers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The methodical approach of combining three data sources provides productive tools to assess writing processes and writing knowledge of struggling adult writers. → Sturm 2016

Evidence¶

Sturm 2016¶

Sturm, A. (2016). Observing writing processes of struggling adult writers with collaborative writing. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 301-344. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.05

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Methodological claim from the study combining observation of collaborative writing tasks, analyses of written texts, and structured individual interviews with retrospective and prospective parts, triangulated in a case study.

"This methodical approach provides productive tools to assess writing processes and writing knowledge of struggling adult writers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Struggling adult writers have relatively extensive knowledge about themselves as writers, distinguishing them from younger writers — related
• Struggling adult writers show limited planning and revision in their writing process, similar to younger writers — related
• Process measures distinguish how text was entered: classroom writers revised most, left the editor often, and wrote actively for 77% of the session — related
• Process Writing Improves Writing Quality — related
• In retrospective within-subject comparison, no core metric distinguished synthesized TTS narration from recorded instructor voice, and equivalence testing supported non-inferiority — related