writing in education journals

Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education

• ScholarWorks

ScholarWorks > Arts & Sciences > English > Teaching/Writing

• About This Journal

Teaching/Writing is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on issues of writing teacher education – the development, education, and mentoring of prospective, new, and experienced teachers of writing at all levels. The journal will draw from English education – including voices from secondary and elementary teacher educators at both the graduate and undergraduate levels; from teacher educators in K-12 settings -- including leaders and mentors in the National Writing Project and those in high school, middle school, and elementary school English leadership positions; and from composition studies – including writing program administrators, writing across-the-curriculum specialists, and other teaching mentors. This journal is designed to create a rigorous, respected scholarly space for writing teacher education scholarship.

The journal is hosted online at Western Michigan University by Berkeley Electronic Press/Scholarworks, and includes a traditional journal page-design, full pagination, editing, and citation usage. It is downloadable as a full issue and by individual article. Articles will also be listed in Google Scholar searches. No subscription fees are charged, but email subscriptions are available (automatic mailing of links).

• Journal Home
• Submit Article
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The impact of three types of writing intervention on students’ writing quality

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

¶ ‡ These authors are co-first authors on this work.

Affiliation Department of Applied Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation José Carlos Núñez, Department of Psychology, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology

Affiliation Facultad de Educación, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile

• Pedro Rosário, 
• Julia Högemann, 
• José Carlos Núñez, 
• Guillermo Vallejo, 
• Jennifer Cunha, 
• Celestino Rodríguez, 
• Sonia Fuentes

• Published: July 18, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099
• Reader Comments

Students’ writing constitutes a topic of major concern due to its importance in school and in daily life. To mitigate students’ writing problems, school-based interventions have been implemented in the past, but there is still a need to examine the effectiveness of different types of writing interventions that use robust design methodologies. Hence, the present study followed a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design using a multilevel modeling analysis with 370 fourth-grade students (nested in 20 classes). The classes were randomly assigned to four conditions: one comparison group and three writing types of writing interventions (i.e., week-journals, Self-Regulation Strategy Development (SRSD) instruction and SRSD plus Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) program using a story-tool), with five classes participating in each condition. Data supports our hypothesis by showing differences between the treatment groups in students’ writing quality over time. Globally, the improvement of students’ writing quality throughout time is related to the level of specialization of the writing interventions implemented. This is an important finding with strong implications for educational practice. Week-journals and writing activities can be easily implemented in classrooms and provides an opportunity to promote students’ writing quality. Still, students who participated in the instructional programs (i.e., SRSD and SRSD plus story-tool) exhibited higher writing quality than the students who wrote week-journals. Current data did not find statistical significant differences between results from the two instructional writing tools.

Citation: Rosário P, Högemann J, Núñez JC, Vallejo G, Cunha J, Rodríguez C, et al. (2019) The impact of three types of writing intervention on students’ writing quality. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0218099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099

Editor: Emmanuel Manalo, Kyoto University, JAPAN

Received: November 12, 2018; Accepted: May 26, 2019; Published: July 18, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Rosário et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are in the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre, University of Minho. PR, JH and JC were supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, UID/PSI/01662/2013. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In the last decades, students’ writing problems throughout schooling have been discussed as a topic of educational concern due to the importance of writing in school and life success (e.g., employment) (e.g., [ 1 – 2 ]). To mitigate students’ writing problems, curriculum reforms have been implemented in different educational systems, and researchers have been investigating the efficacy of school-based interventions in improving students’ writing (e.g., free writing activities, strategy instruction as Self-Regulation Strategy Development, SRSD) (e.g., [ 3 – 6 ]). Still, there is a need to disclose evidence on the effectiveness of different types of writing interventions using robust design methodologies. Data is expected to help researchers, school administrators and teachers organize school-based interventions and promote students’ writing skills [ 7 ].

To analyze the effectiveness of three writing interventions (i.e., week-journals, SRSD, and SRSD plus a Self-Regulated Learning program using a story-tool) on fourth graders motivational variables and writing quality a cluster-randomized controlled design was conducted for twelve weeks.

Promoting students’ writing performance

Previous research has strengthened the idea that writing is one of the most powerful and fundamental tools, not only to learn, but to communicate and share knowledge [ 8 – 9 ]. In fact, the ability to communicate and express one’s thoughts and ideas through writing is truly essential for success at school and in further education [ 10 ]. This section provides an overview of three types of writing interventions examined in the current study.

Writing week-journals.

Students’ motivation and engagement in writing are likely to grow in learning environments providing many opportunities and encouragements for students to express themselves through writing [ 11 – 14 ]. Journal writing is a practice that can be easily implemented in classrooms without much effort, time, or resources (e.g., [ 5 , 15 ]). Journals are a type of free writing that is informal and personal [ 16 – 17 ] and have gained popularity among the activities aiming at promoting writing [ 17 ] and students’ confidence in writing [ 18 ]. The nature of this educational tool allows students to write freely without strict directions, restrictions or assessment purposes [ 16 ]. While writing journals, students will choose their writing topic [ 19 ], engage deeply in their writing activities [ 17 ] and improve their writing skills and creativity [ 16 ]. Furthermore, writing journals allow students to enhance their reflection skills, critical thinking, self-expression, self-regulated skills, and knowledge [ 17 ].

Notwithstanding the potential positive influence of writing journals on students’ motivation and writing performance (e.g., [ 16 , 18 ]), findings from the extant research are not consistent. Prior research (e.g., [ 4 , 16 , 20 – 21 ]) found no statistical evidence on the effectiveness of free writing on students’ writing quality. But, a recent study with fourth graders concluded that students who wrote weekly journals for twelve weeks showed a higher improvement on the quality of their compositions, than that achieved by students in the comparison group [ 15 ]. Despite these encouraging findings, students in the experimental group reached a plateau after the first three weeks of writing journals, which might indicate that this type of intervention may not be sufficient to foster progress on writing quality.

Writing and self-regulation.

Considerable progress has been made in the last thirty-five years to understand the role of self-regulation in writing. Not surprisingly, research found that skilled writers master self-regulated learning competencies (e.g., self-set goals, self-reinforcement) [ 22 ], and also that many students struggle with writing [ 23 ]. This may happen because effective writing requires: (i) high levels of self-regulation and attentional control to manage the writing environment; (ii) knowledge of the writing topic, genre, processes and skills involved in writing [ 22 ]; (iii) strategies for planning, text production [ 24 – 25 ] and monitor the writing activity [ 26 ] to meet specific self-set goals [ 27 ].

Three decades ago, Karen Harris and Steve Graham built the Self-Regulation Strategy Development model (i.e., SRSD model; [ 28 ])—an instructional program designed to enhance writing and self-regulation strategies. SRSD was designed to attain the three major goals, as follows [ 29 ]: (i) to help students develop the knowledge and skills needed to manage the writing strategies involved in the writing processes (i.e., planning, writing, revising and editing); (ii) to support students using the strategies and self-regulatory skills (e.g., goal-setting, self-instruction, self-assessment, self-reinforcement) while monitoring and managing their own writing (e.g., [ 30 – 32 ]); and finally (iii) to help students develop positive attitudes and beliefs about themselves as writers [ 31 , 33 – 34 ]. In fact, when students perceive themselves as self-efficacious in writing, they are likely to exhibit good writing quality and invest effort while carrying out a writing task [ 34 – 36 ].

The meta-analysis by Graham et al. [ 5 ] analyzed the impact of the SRSD model on students’ writing and found that adding self-regulation instruction (e.g., goal setting and self-assessment) to strategy instruction can improve the overall writing quality of typical developing writers and, in most cases, of struggling writers. The benefits of participating in SRSD programs are well established in literature (e.g., [ 23 ]), but further research is needed to explore complementary forms infused in regular curriculum that may increase the teaching of writing strategies [ 3 , 5 , 15 ]. Recently Rosário and colleagues (e.g., [ 15 , 37 – 41 ]) discussed the use of story-tools in class as a successful strategy to foster students’ motivation, and promote self-regulated learning (SRL). Based on the extant evidence which supports the role of stories to promote SRL, current authors believe that infusing story-tools in the regular curriculum combined with writing instruction (i.e., SRSD) may be beneficial for increasing the levels of writing quality.

Story-tools to promote SRL.

Stories, traditional tales and fables are well-known ways of delivering knowledge [ 40 ], to promote children’s development [ 42 – 45 ], imagination [ 46 ], and self-reflection about their own behaviors [ 40 ]. Bearing this in mind, researchers in Iberian Peninsula, created SRL story-tools programs that focus on promoting SRL through different types of narratives. The Yellow trials and tribulations [ 45 ] is a story–tool developed to promote SRL at elementary school, and was used in the present study. This narrative tells the story of the disappearance of the color Yellow from the Rainbow and describes the adventures experienced by Yellows’ friends, the other colors of the rainbow, whilst searching for Yellow. Along this quest in search for Yellow, who should not be left alone, the other colors of the rainbow met new friends and learned various useful SRL strategies to overcome the obstacles found along the way.

This story-tool was designed to promote students’ SRL strategies (e.g., goal-setting, self-reflection, strategic planning, and organizational strategies), to increase motivation and academic achievement [ 47 ]. This tool is grounded on the social cognitive framework [ 48 ], and assumes that contextual variables and learning settings play important roles in students’ motivation and self-regulation [ 47 ]. The stories in each chapter of the story-tool address the PLEE cyclical model: Planning, Execution and Evaluation (see [ 40 ] for a more detailed explanation), which is rooted in the SRL model by Zimmerman [ 49 – 50 ]. Students are expected to regulate their school behaviors in three cyclical phases: forethought (i.e., processes prior to learning), performance control (i.e., processes while learning), and self-reflection (i.e., processes after learning). The former model presents a recursive structure, through two paths of logic. The process is derived from Planning through Execution to Evaluation, but the same cyclical nature is also reset in each phase, thus reinforcing the self-regulation logic of the process. These two structuring loops, throughout and within the phases, reinforce the SRL synergy strengthening the process [ 38 , 40 , 51 ].

Modeling and teaching the learning strategies (e.g., goal-setting, strategic planning, organizational strategies), embedded in the story-tool underlies on three types of knowledge [ 38 ]: (i) the declarative knowledge—learning the meaning of a learning strategy (e.g. know what taking notes is); (ii) the procedural knowledge, that is related to learn how to implement these learning strategies (e.g., know how to take notes in class); and, finally, (iii) the conditional knowledge that demands students to know when it is more appropriate to use a specific learning strategy in a particular learning context (e.g., when it is more useful to take notes) [ 52 ]. For example, in chapter 6 of the story-tool [ 45 ], the Ant General, one of the characters, explained the planning phase to his troops (i.e., declarative knowledge): “in order to plan, we have to decide what we need to know and what we need to do for everything to run smoothly. Afterwards, to avoid any problems, we allocate time for each task” (p. 27).

Each chapter provides students with the opportunity to acquire, practice and reflect on the use of the SRL strategies embedded in each phase of the PLEE model. This tool allows the analysis of the characters’ behavior which are similar to those of children in real life situations (e.g., the Bird-Teacher told the little birds a story about a lazy deer who did not listened to the teacher advice’s friends and hurt himself while competing with a grasshopper ), hence helping students to reflect on what they may learn with the characters’ behaviors. This experiential closeness fosters children’s engagement in learning [ 40 ]. For example, it is expected for students to transfer the content learned throughout the story to the process of writing compositions.

Present study

Driven by the worldwide need to promote students’ writing quality and to examine the impact of various types of writing interventions tailored to students’ needs and school resources, the current study examines the impact of three types of writing interventions (i.e., week-journals, SRSD, and SRSD plus a SRL program using a story-tool) on students’ writing quality.

Research data on the positive effects of using week-journals to improve students writing quality is inconsistent; however recent data from a controlled study [ 15 ] reported that students using week-journals improved the quality of writing after the first three weeks, and then reached g a plateau on the following weeks. These findings suggest that this tool solely may not be sufficient to sustain students’ progress on the writing quality. Moreover, the corpus of research on SRSD is vast and data has consistently indicated the efficacy of the SRSD programs to improve the quality of writing [ 5 , 23 ]. Finally, Rosário and colleagues have been advocating for the last decade the merits of using story-tools to promote SRL [ 40 , 53 ]. The current research aims to examine the potential positive effects of adding a story-tool to SRSD program. This design addresses the call by authors [ 3 , 5 ] to explore ways of promoting the teaching of writing strategies embedded in regular curriculum. Children read and learn stories in class and at home; in fact, stories make up part of their lives and play a vital role in their growth and development. While reading books and reflecting on the messages conveyed, children are expected to learn how to think, and also to learn about everyday tasks [ 42 , 43 ]. For these reasons, we believe that adding a story tool to the training of writing strategies is likely to improve children writing quality. Findings are expected to add literature on writing quality and improve educators’ practices on writing.

In addition, the impact of several potentially moderating variables, such as self-regulation in writing, self-efficacy in writing, attitude towards writing, prior achievement in writing, gender, age and interactions between these variables and will be examined. Based on extant literature (e.g., [ 15 , 30 , 39 ]) we hypothesize that: (i) students’ writing quality of the three intervention groups will be higher when compared to students in the comparison group; (ii) students’ writing quality in the SRSD and SRSD plus the SRL story-tool conditions will be higher when compared to students in the week-journal condition; (iii) all covariates will be significantly related with students’ writing quality. No hypothesis will be made regarding the conditions SRSD and SRSD and the SRL story-tool because literature lacks data in this regard. This step of the research is exploratory.

Design and participants

The present study was conducted with fourth grade students, the final grade level in Portuguese elementary school. The Portuguese Ministry of Education approved the study by giving their written consent (n. 036000004). This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Universidade do Minho. The study followed a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design for twelve weeks, in 18 public schools in the north of Portugal. The participating teachers and their fourth-grade students were randomly assigned to the four conditions, with five classes participating in each condition (i.e., Groups A, B, C and D; see Fig 1 ). This methodology is useful to access the comparative effectiveness of experimental conditions that vary in their practices. Moreover, this tool helps avoid “contamination” between those participants receiving the intervention and those who are not, preventing that the treatment effect would be compromised [ 54 ]. During the twelve weeks of the study, students on the comparison condition (Group A) did not participate in any type of program focused on writing instruction. Teachers were instructed to follow the regular Portuguese writing curriculum to meet fourth grade level teaching requirements. According to the Directorate-General for Education and the Minister of Education and Science [ 55 ] this included teaching students about grammar, vocabulary, spelling, sentence construction, punctuation, handwriting, organization and revision of different types of text (i.e., narrative, informative, descriptive, letters, invitations, and texts using direct speech). In group B students wrote a journal on a weekly basis for 12 weeks. Students in group C and D were given writing instructions following the SRSD model; in group D the story-tool “ Yellow Trials and Tribulations ” [ 45 ] were added to the treatment received by the group C (see Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.g001

Participating students and their teachers.

The participants were 370 (183 girls) fourth graders nested in 20 classes from 18 public elementary schools in the north of Portugal. All the participants had Portuguese as their home language, aged between 9 and 10 ( M = 9.45, SD = .51). The fourth-grade classes were randomly assigned to four groups: A ( N = 92); B ( N = 90); C ( N = 98 ); and D ( N = 90 ). Students with special education needs (i.e., specific learning disorder and learning disabilities) were excluded from the data analyses.

All the 20 teachers, 17 were female, aged between 34–56 years ( M = 42.4, SD = 6.59) had an undergraduate degree and experience in teaching ranging between 12 and 34 years ( M = 21.5, SD = 6.16). Class sizes ranged between 10 and 23 ( M = 20.38, SD = 4.75). None of the teachers enrolled in the study reported having received specific writing instruction in their professional development.

After receiving the consent from the Portuguese Ministry of Education, an email explaining the overall study objectives was sent to 26 public schools located in northern part of Portugal. Eighteen schools (a response rate of 69.2%) and 20 teachers agreed to participate in our research. In these schools, the families were lower-middle classes, as noted by the high percentage of students (40%) receiving free or reduced-price lunches. These demographics were collected from the offices of the participating schools. A letter informing about the study was sent out to ask permission for the children participate the study. Participants’ confidentiality was assured (e.g., eliminating the names and researchers’ personal notes that could link the participants to their teachers or schools). All students returned the signed parental consent forms. Finally, the 20 teachers (classes) who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to the four treatment conditions (i.e., comparison group and three experimental groups). Teachers were blind to the purpose of the study and all agreed to follow the fourth grade Portuguese curriculum (e.g., variety of text genres, grammar and punctuation) throughout the study.

Two weeks prior to the beginning of the study, a training course with two modules was delivered separately to all participating teachers within the same condition (i.e., Groups A, B, C and D). The first module (9 h) presented and discussed of the general framework (e.g., genre of the compositions, protocol of the weekly administration of the questionnaires by the research team) and the assessment measures (e.g., rating scale for teachers to assess the quality of the compositions). Participants were informed that following the protocol was a requirement to participate, and all agreed.

In the second module (8h) teachers worked collaboratively with researchers and assistant researchers in 2-hour sessions over a span of four days (i.e., 20 pre-service teachers) on the assessment of the overall quality of the children compositions. The training on how to use the rating scale (see measures) followed a hands-on approach. Teachers selected a set of compositions made by their students in the third grade, and switched those compositions with their colleagues and assistant researchers on a random basis. Each composition was assessed independently using the rating scale. After scoring each composition, teachers and research assistants met and discussed scores to reach a consensus. To ensure reliability of the assessment process, each teacher assessed eight compositions over the four days, each time with a different research assistant. Kappa value was calculated using the Coder Comparison Queries in the Navigation View of the NVivo software. In the end of the training the Kappa value of the 20 dyads ranged between .80 and .86 ( M = .82) which can be labeled as “almost perfect” according to Landis and Koch [ 56 ].

Five weeks post-intervention, all teachers from the four groups participated in a three-hour evaluation meeting to analyze their experiences during the intervention (e.g., comments and suggestions that could help in future research), and discuss preliminary data (see, [ 57 – 58 ]) from the standardized exam in Portuguese language. In this meeting, teachers from the four groups declared, as agreed, to have followed the national writing curriculum (e.g., teaching grammar, punctuation and the other types of genres) to meet fourth grade level expectations. Teachers who fully participated in the research were offered a 27-hour (1 ECTS) training course about the learning and instruction processes.

Treatment integrity

To assure the integrity of the implementation of the protocol conducted by the teachers, four different measures were used: i) all teachers were delivered dossiers with session record sheets (see, [ 59 ]) including the elements and activities for each session. These dossiers helped teachers monitor the steps for each session. Each of the activities intended for the session and group were detailed in topics and teachers were asked to check it off when the activity was completed (e.g., teachers are expected to maintain a silent class while students are writing compositions; compositions are expected to be written in 45 minutes; journals are due to be kept in the classroom in a closet under the responsibility of a research assistant; students write about the composition topic assigned to that week topic; teachers do not make comments on students week-journal entry; teachers do not suggest topics for the week-journals); ii) Moreover, teachers were asked to write a short diary explaining how they followed protocol, and if not, to explain why; iii) Additionally, on a random basis, a research assistant observed 30% of the sessions using the same session record sheets. These research assistants also wrote a short diary describing teachers’ adherence to the protocol; iv) Finally, during the duration of the intervention, on a weekly basis, the principle investigator met with the researchers and research assistants and engaged in each condition separately. These meetings addressed project issues and adherence to protocol of each condition (e.g., analysis of record sheets data). Afterwards, research assistants enrolled in assessing compositions met with their dyad teacher and discussed the same issues. The major goal of these meetings was to prevent the teachers and the researcher (enrolled in delivering training lessons of conditions C and D) from withdrawing from the planned protocol by adding new components based on their experience of what was working.

Treatment fidelity was high for the writing composition sessions. Teachers reported adherence to the protocol was 95% ( SD = 2.77, range 90–100). Data from the observations of both intervention sessions indicated that teachers completed 93% of the activities ( SD = 3.24, range 85–98). Data from the teachers’ diaries and research assistants allowed to conclude that discrepancies in the assessment may be due to different interpretation of teachers’ behaviors in class (e.g., classroom management issues such as maintain complete silence in class while students were doing their compositions, and responding to students with “leading questions”).

But Concerning the treatment fidelity of the week-journal sessions, data indicated a good treatment receipt. Research assistants who enrolled in this treatment condition reported to have completed 87% of the tasks ( SD = 2.62, range 81–90) across all sessions. Data from the observations of this intervention sessions indicated that research assistants completed 84% of the tasks ( SD = 3.06, range 80–90).

Lessons for the groups C ( SRSD instruction) and D ( SRSD instruction plus the story-tool) were delivered by one of the authors of this paper with training in SRL and writing strategies. This researcher followed the treatment fidelity procedure previously described.

Treatment fidelity for lessons of conditions C and D was high for both. Researcher reported 88% ( SD = 1.61, range 85–90) and 85% ( SD = 3.62, range 79–90) of the activities completed across all lessons, respectively. Data from the observations of both conditions indicated that researcher completed 84% of the activities ( SD = 1.94, range 81–87) and 82% ( SD = 2.55, range 78–85), respectively.

Specific intervention procedures for all participating students

For twelve weeks, on each Monday morning during regular Portuguese language class, all students’ from the four conditions wrote a composition in 45 minutes. The composition topic was sent by email to all teachers each Sunday evening (e.g., Imagine that you were on a boat school trip . Suddenly , the boat was caught in a big storm and shipwrecked . Write a story about your adventure as a castaway and your life in a desert island) . Along the duration of the investigation, students wrote one story each week. Compositions were assessed individually and every Thursday after school, along 12 weeks, the dyads (i.e., teacher and a randomly assigned research assistant) met to find consensus on the scores given. Finally, the graded compositions were delivered to students each Friday. Additionally, every Friday afternoon for approximately 25 minutes, all students from the four conditions were asked to fill in questionnaires to assess SRL strategies in writing, attitude towards writing and self-efficacy. The research assistants administrated these instruments in class.

Comparison group (group A) and Week-Journals (group B).

During the twelve weeks of the study, students on the comparison condition and weekly-journals did not participate in any type of writing instruction, besides the writing of the weekly compositions proposed for this research. Teachers were instructed just to follow the regular writing curriculum [ 55 ] to meet fourth grade level expectations.

Additionally, for twelve weeks, students in the week-journals condition (i.e., group B) wrote a journal in 25 minutes each Friday morning under the supervision of a research assistant. While students were writing their journals they did not receive any instructions, nor feedback afterwards. Prior to the beginning of the study, participants’ confidentiality was assured, by telling students that the journals would only be used for research purposes (i.e., teachers did not read the journals). Each student received a notebook “journal” to write their weekly entries (i.e., approximately ten lines) about their week’s events at school or at home. Journals were kept in the classroom in a closed box and were the responsibility of a research assistant.

General instructional procedures (intervention conditions C and D).

SRSD writing instruction, as well as the topics for condition D, were delivered along eleven sessions on a weekly basis, by one of the authors, during regular Portuguese language lessons. The length of the sessions for students in group C and D was 45 minutes. Both intervention conditions are briefly described in S1 Appendix . An extended description of the lessons and materials suggested for instruction is provided elsewhere [ 53 ].

SRSD instruction (intervention condition–group C).

The writing instruction followed the six stages of the SRSD model [ 25 , 28 ] as follows: (i) development of background knowledge; (ii) discussion and description of the strategies to be learned; (iii) modeling the use of those strategies; (iv) memorization of those strategies; (v) supporting of the strategies; and, finally, (vi) independent performance. In the present study, instruction started at the first stage and continued into the following stages (see S1 Appendix ). Despite acknowledging the sequence of the content, we followed Harris and Graham [ 28 ] and asked students to memorize the mnemonics taught (strategy from stage four) since session 1. Thus, this stage was recalled at the beginning of every session to analyze if students had memorized the mnemonics [ 60 ]. A number of self-regulation procedures were also taught to students, including self-monitoring while planning their stories, self-reinforcement and self-assessment [ 60 ]. The materials for teaching writing narratives using the SRSD model were translated to Portuguese and used by fourth graders and teachers in class.

Writing strategies.

In the first sessions, students learned a general strategy to apply while writing their compositions. This strategy included three steps, represented by the mnemonic POW: Pick my ideas (i . e ., decide what to write about) , Organize my notes (i . e ., organize writing ideas into a writing plan) , Write and say more (i.e., continue to modify, upgrading the plan while writing). For example, on the second step of POW (i.e., organize my notes) students were taught a genre-specific strategy for writing notes for each part of the story: the mnemonic S-A-C [principal steps of a story: Setting ( S ), action ( A ) and conclusion ( C )] (see [ 53 ]). To help students become familiar with the S-A-C mnemonic, students were taught to ask themselves the following six questions, aligned with the three S-A-C steps: Where does the story take place ? When does the story take place ? Who are the main characters (describe them) ? What do the main characters do or want to do (sort them in the right way) ? How does the story end ? How do the main characters and the others feel ? For writing notes, students were presented with a graphic organizer (see [ 53 ]).

Strategy instruction.

The strategy instruction followed the SRSD model [ 28 ], however the time spent on each stage was adjusted to the design of the current study. As shown in S1 Appendix , lesson one and two aimed to develop students’ prior knowledge on composition and to discuss and explore the characteristics of a good story. General writing strategies (i.e., POW) were presented and discussed with students. Students’ negative beliefs about writing performance were also discussed, and students were encouraged to transform negative thoughts into positive beliefs (e.g., "I can do it, if I use the right strategy”). In lesson three and four , students revisited the general writing strategies (i.e., POW) and discussed the SRL strategies (i.e., self-instructions, goal setting, self-assessment and self-reinforcement) they will use during and after writing a story. In lesson five , six and seven the planning, writing and assessing of compositions using general (i.e., POW) and SRL strategies (i.e., self-instructions, goal setting, self-assessment and self-reinforcement) were modeled collaboratively in class. Modeling the use of strategies helped students to learn to apply these strategies and to develop competencies, attitudes and beliefs, while writing independently. Lesson eight , nine and ten focused on strengthening students’ abilities for independent planning, writing and assessing of stories by using general (i.e., POW) and SRL strategies (i.e., self-instructions, goal setting, self-assessment and self-reinforcement). The work on these lessons aimed to wean students off the graphic organizer [ 60 ]. Finally, in lesson eleven students wrote, without support, a composition, using the strategies learned. Still, as suggested by authors [ 61 ], if any story elements were not included, the previous stages were recalled.

SRSD instruction plus the story-tool (intervention condition–group D).

In the current study, the Yellow Trials and Tribulations story-tool [ 45 ] was used to help students learn a set of learning strategies and apply them into the story-tool learning context while reflecting upon their own writing activities (i.e., on how and when to implement the general and SRL strategies). Sessions for the group D were preceded by the reading out loud of one or two chapters of the book in class. During the reading, small breaks were made and students were invited to discuss and analyze what was happening in the story plot (see [ 40 , 53 ]). During the session students did the same writing tasks as students in group C. The Appendix aligns the stages from SRSD (i.e., group C) with the chapters of the story-tool.

Instruments and measures

Self-regulated learning strategies inventory (sr_w)..

The SRL Strategies Inventory [ 38 ] assesses nine SRL strategies concerning the three phases of the SRL process (i.e., planning, execution and evaluation). In the preset study, this scale was adapted with the aim of assessing the SRL strategies used while writing: Planning (i.e., ‘‘I make a plan before I begin writing. I think about what I want to say and how I need to write it”), Execution (i.e., “While I write my composition I follow my plan”, and Evaluation (i.e., ‘‘I compare the grades I received with the goals I set for that subject.”). The 9-items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .80. Data from the confirmatory factorial analysis run support the construct validity of this measure. The model fits well data [χ 2 (25) = 53.639; p < .01; AGFI = .907; TLI = .900; CFI = .927; SRMR = .058; RMSEA = .076 (.048-.104)]. The factor weights of the nine items ranged from .507 to .703 (all statistically significant at p < .001). After fit the model, none of the modification indexes was greater than 5.00.

Attitude towards writing (AT_W).

Each of the nine items from the writing attitude survey [ 34 ] asked students to indicate how they felt when they engaged in writing activities at school or at home (e.g., How do you feel when you think you have to write instead of being able to play ? ) . Students were asked to mark one of the four images of Garfield the Cat on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = very unhappy; 4 = very happy). This scale was, in the present study, translated and adapted to the Portuguese population. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .86. The construct validity analysis yielded data supporting a unifactorial model [χ 2 (25) = 34.086; p > .05; AGFI = .933; TLI = .976; CFI = .983; SRMR = .034; RMSEA = .043 (.000-.076]. The factorial weights of the nine items ranged from .660 to .750 (all statistically significant at p < .001). After fit the model, none of the modification indices was greater than 6.00. All data suggest construct validity.

Self-efficacy in writing (SE_W)

Students’ self-efficacy for planning and writing a story was assessed with five-items [ 60 ]. An example of an item was “When writing a paper , I have trouble finding the right words for what I want to say” . The five-items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). This scale was translated and adapted to the Portuguese population. Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .71. Data from the confirmatory factorial analysis run support the construct validity of this measure. [χ 2 (3) = 5.646; p > .05; AGFI = .943; TLI = .945; CFI = .983; SRMR = .026; RMSEA = .067 (.000-.151)]. The factorial weights of the five items are statistically significant at p < .001). After fit the model, the modification indices do not suggest any changes in the model.

Writing performance

Individual notebooks were delivered for each participating student for research purposes. The notebooks had twelve parts (i.e., one for each of the twelve independent writing moments) and each had three subparts: (i) a lined page for the writing of the composition; (ii) a rating scale for students to review and self-assess the quality of their compositions; and finally, (iii) a checklist for the individual feedback given by the teacher.

Compositions.

In order to assess the writing quality of students’ compositions, a holistic rating scale was used based on the criteria defined in the Educational Progress Test (i.e., a standardized exam) in Portuguese language for fourth graders [ 62 ]. The rating scale assesses topics such as (i) title; (ii) organization (introduction, main body paragraph, ending), (iii) grammatical correctness of sentences (e.g., active verbs, use of direct speech, descriptive adjectives, punctuation, morphology) (iv) coherence; (v) originality; (vi) sentence structure, (vii) word choice; (viii) spelling errors. Prior to scoring, all narratives were typed into a word document and the number of words were counted. Students’ personal information was removed and punctuation, spelling and capitalization were corrected to minimize bias that might influence the scoring process as suggested by the literature (e.g., [ 34 ]). Teachers were encouraged to read the composition to obtain a general impression of overall writing quality. Compositions were then scored on fourteen 5-point Likert scales (1 = low quality; 5 = high quality), ranging from 0 to 65 points. All compositions from the same class were scored independently by a dyad (teacher-research assistant) using the mentioned rating scale. Each dyad met every week to find a consensus about the grades for each composition as previously stated (see procedures subsection). Cohen’s Kappa coefficient showed an inter-rater agreement that ranged among the 20 dyads between .82 and .90 ( M = .86, SD = .023) which can be labeled as “almost perfect” according to authors [ 63 ]. The compositions rated for each topic were assessed and the final score were delivered before students write the following composition.

Feedback on the week-journals was not provided to students. In the end of the study four new research assistants who were unfamiliar with the design of the study, assessed all journals quality using the same holistic rating scale. Two research assistants assessed each journal independently, following procedures similar to those used to assess the compositions. The Kappa value obtained was .84, considered as very good according to Landis and Koch [ 56 ].

Prior achievement.

Prior achievement in Portuguese language was obtained from students’ writing quality scores on three compositions written between April and June from the previous school year (third grade). Two independent research assistants scored the compositions by following the same procedures as described above. Compositions were scored on fourteen 5-point Likert scales (1 = low quality, 5 = highly quality), ranging from 0 to 65 points ( M = 50.46, SD = 8.63). Cohen’s Kappa coefficient showed an inter-rater agreement of .87, which can be labeled as “almost perfect” according to authors [ 63 ].

Data analyses

Considering the hierarchical nature of data, a three-level hierarchical model was conducted. To avoid the enumeration of all the possible models, a data-driven strategy for selecting the best model by computing information criteria was used.

Fig 2 presents a “spaghetti plot” of the compositions scores (CS) by time. This plot indicates that students who received any form of treatment have increased the CS scores, although clearly there is considerable individual heterogeneity (i.e., some participants show accelerating positive trends, while others have decelerating negative trends). Some participants even have significant swings upward or downward across time of their CS response. In contrast, the trend lines appear to be approximately linear for most participants. With regard to the population level, Fig 1 shows interesting differences for the four groups across time. The group B (i.e., Week-journal) began with a moderate upturn in CS followed by a very slow increase, whereas the groups C and D (i.e., SRSD and SRSD+SRL) showed a moderate but steady and gradually accelerating upward trend up at the end of the study. The participants in the comparison group did not show an upward trend.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.g002

Data from a preliminary analysis suggested considerable random variation, intercept and slope at both levels 2 and 3. The results also indicated the need to retain the main effects of time-varying predictors (i.e., SE_W , SR_W and AT_W ) and the interaction between SR_W and linear TIME in the level-1 model but treat them as fixed instead of allowing them to change randomly across level-2 and at level-3 units. To correctly interpret the model parameters, it is important to note that all time-varying predictors were included in the model centered at its mean.

Next, we explored whether students nested within classes receiving training for CS during 12 weeks began at a different level, or progressed over time at a different rate of growth and acceleration, than those who did not receive training. Thus, the level-3 model incorporated the treatment conditions, the explanatory variable of major interest in the current research. As previously mentioned, the 20 classes were randomized in groups of five for each of the treatment conditions: control, week-journal ( WJ ), self-regulated strategy development ( SRSD ), or SRSD+SRL condition. In the analysis, these four groups were compared using Helmert contrasts. Specifically, the contrast coefficients for the three group-related Helmert contrasts were: H 1 = c (-1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3), H 2 = c (0, -1, 1/2, 1/2), and H 3 = c (0, 0, -1, 1). The first Helmert contrast involves a comparison of subjects randomized to control versus some form of treatment. The second Helmert contrast implies to compare subjects randomized to WJ versus some form of SRL , while the goal of the third Helmert contrast is to compare the subjects randomized to SRSD versus SRSD + SRL .

Consistent with common practice in multilevel modeling, we assume that the random effects associated with classes are independent of the random effects associated with students nested within classes, and that all random effects are independent of the level 1 random components. It is also assumed that the residuals are normally distributed with zero means and uncorrelated with respective right-hand covariates. Multilevel analysis was conducted by fitting a variance components structure with parameters estimated by the full maximum likelihood (ML) estimation as implemented in PROC MIXED of [ 64 ].

Descriptive analyses

Prior to conducting the analysis, the distribution of the data of the different samples for the outcome variable (composition skills– CS_W ) and time-dependent covariates (i.e., SE_W , SR_W and AT_W ) were examined. The extent of variations of skewness and kurtosis for the variables were included in the model, as well as the means and standard-deviations presented in Table 1 . As shown in this table, the skewness values are generally within the range (i.e., ± 1) of what is considered a reasonable approximation to the normal curve. Looking at the kurtosis, it is necessary to note that depending on the time of the measurements, the variables are very slightly platykurtic (i.e., its peak is just a bit shallower than the peak of a normal distribution) or very slightly leptokurtic (i.e., its central peak is just a bit higher than the peak of a normal distribution). As a result, it can be concluded that the values for skewness and kurtosis remain within allowable limits for all the time periods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.t001

Multilevel analyses

Selecting the best model..

To address the goals of the present study (i.e. compare the performance of subjects receiving training in writing skills with the performance of subjects with no training, verify whether all treatments have the same effectiveness, and determine which of two treatments (C or D) was more effective); first the best linear mixed model to the CS use data was selected. Tables 2 and 3 present the results of fitting eight growth curve models to the CS data using full ML in SAS PROC MIXED. Table 2 summarize the results for five multilevel models applied to CS data as follows: the unconditional two-level growth model (A) examined the standard linear change, the unconditional two-level growth model (B) and three-level growth model (C) examined the quadratic change, the conditional three-level growth model (D) examined the effects of the time-varying predictors and their interactions through time, and the conditional three-level growth model (E) examined the process of adding time-invariant predictors to models. Table 3 presents the models that incorporate the effects of treatment conditions, both with and without the heterogeneous variance specifications at level 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.t003

To facilitate the selection of the best model, results (not shown in the table due to space) corresponding to the unconditional means model (i.e., a no-change trajectory model) were described. The estimated outcome grand mean across all occasions and students was 54.29 ( p < .001), which suggests that between the first and the twelfth week, the average CS is non-zero. Examining the variance components, we found statistically significant variability both within-students (31.55, p < .001) and between-students (39.37, p < .001). Findings allowed to conclude that CS outcome varies from week to week, and also that students differ from each other.

To determine whether the unconditional means model was preferable to Model A, the compound null hypothesis was tested on a set of differences between models (e.g., regarding the linear growth rate, its associated variance components and covariance between slope and intercept—this last term is not shown in the table due to space). The difference in deviance statistics, (31830.5–30516.5) = 1314, far exceeds 16.27, the 0.001 critical value of a χ 2 distribution on 3 degrees freedom ( df ), allowing to reject the null hypothesis ( H 0 ) at the p < .001 level stating that all the three parameters are simultaneously 0. Hence, the unconditional two-level growth model provides a better fit than the unconditional means model. It is possible to conclude that Model A is the best fit model? Comparison of Models B and A suggest a positive response. Comparing deviance statistics for pair of nested models yields a difference of 189.8. As this exceeds the .001 critical value of a χ 2 distribution on 4 df (18.46), the H 0 is rejected, and we may conclude that there is potentially predictable variation in the acceleration rate across students. For Model B, despite the variance for quadratic component of change ( r 2 i ) being statistically significant ( p < .001), its associated fixed effect ( TIME 2 ) is not. The tests associated with the random acceleration parameter indicate that there is substantial variation in the quadratic rates across students. The test for the fixed effect indicates that the average value of these rates is indistinguishable from 0. Thus, the trend across time is essentially linear at the population level but curvilinear at the individual level.

Then the unconditional quadratic three-level Model C was compared to the unconditional quadratic two-level Model B. Since students are nested within classes, and may vary considerably among themselves, a three-level model of level-1 occasions nested within level-2 students nested within level-3 classes was also used to analyze this clustered longitudinal design. As there are only 20 classes, CS dataset is not ideal for building a three-level growth model, but it can still be useful for descriptive purposes. As indicated in Table 2 , the deviance statistics and number of estimated parameters for the unconditional Model C were 30011.4 and 16, respectively. The likelihood ratio test comparing the Model C to Model B yields a deviance difference statistically significant at any alpha level we might reasonably select (30326.7–30011.4 = 315.3, with 6 df , p < .001). Findings indicate that the more complex model provides the better fit. Each information criterion is consistent with that judgment.

Because we are interested in finding a level-1 individual growth model that describes the fundamental structure of these data, additional time-varying predictors and interactions among level-1 predictors and TIME (i.e., SE_W , SR_W , AT_W , SE_W × TIME , SR_W × TIME , and AT_W × TIME ), but also the required additional variance and covariance components (see Model D) were included. Although not shown in the Table 2 , the covariance components were not constrained to be 0. When comparing the Model D with the Model C, there is significant evidence that the model incorporating the main effects of time-dependent covariates and interactions fits better (i.e. the difference in deviances was (30011.4–29960.6) = 50.8; df = 6, p < 0.001). Having identified an appropriate level-1 model, the additional effects of time-invariant predictors were included in the level-2 model (i.e., AGE , GEN and P_ACHIEV ). For Model E (i.e., model that incorporates time-varying predictors, time-invariant predictors, and the level-1 interactions), the deviance statistic was 29441.1 with 25 df , and 29960.6 with 22 df for Model D (i.e. model that only incorporates time-varying predictors and the level-1 interactions). As a result, the likelihood ratio test statistic was 518.5 with 3 df ( p < .001), which provides strong evidence for Model E. Although the Model E provides a more realistic representation of the pattern of change in CS scores than Model D, the Model E contain terms that are not necessarily required. In this paper an even more parsimonious model will be assessed (i.e. Model F). Model F is a simplification of Model E in which the main effect of AGE and non-significant level-1 interaction terms are removed. Comparing the last two models each other, we find a trivial difference in deviance of 0.7 on 3 df , showing that the elimination of AGE , SE_W by TIME and AT_W by TIME has hardly changed the goodness of fit.

After running the appropriate model selection at level-2 for the CS use data, we examined the performance of subjects receiving training in writing skills with the performance of subjects who did not receive such training, and the performance of participants receiving treatment in different modalities. Model G in Table 3 presents the results of fitting this model to data. The final conditional model (Model G) included three class-level variables (i.e., the aforementioned set of Helmert contrasts for group), two student-level variables ( GEN and P_ACHIEV ) and five within level-1 repeated observations ( TIME , TIME 2 , SE_W , SR_W and AT_W ). The cross-product between SR_W and TIME and cross-level interaction term H 1 by linear TIME (i.e., difference between the control and treatment groups across time) were also included in the Model G. Data in Table 3 and indicated that adding the three group-related Helmert contrasts (i.e., H 1 , H 2 and H 3 ) cross-level interaction between H 1 and TIME to the model which decreased the deviance from 29441.8 to 29407.5, a decrease of 34.3. This change in deviance is tested at 4 df using the χ 2 statistic and was found to be significant.

It might appear, that Model G is preferable. But before proceeding to examine Model G in depth, we considered the possibility that the residual variances at level 1 may depend on treatment groups (see, [ 56 ]). Returning to Fig 1 , we note that participants display considerable heterogeneity across the groups. Thus, we might hypothesize that residual variance at level 1 in these data is different for the four conditions. Table 3 presents estimates for homogeneous variances (Model G) and for heterogeneous variances that occurs at level-1 (Model H). The likelihood ratio test comparing Model G to Model H, shows that the deviance declined 132.1 (29407.5–29275.4), which far exceeds the .05 critical value of a χ 2 distribution on 3 df . We therefore may reject the null hypothesis stating that all four variances are equal and conclude that the heterogeneous model fits this data better than the simple homogeneous level-1 specification. For this reason, Model H was adopted as our “final model” (see Table 3 ). The AIC (BIC) weight of this model (> 0.97) implies that there is a high probability that this is the best model among all of the examined models.

Analysis of the selected multilevel model.

Finally, following the procedure of Vallejo and colleagues [ 65 ] in examining statistical power to detect a significant group-by-time-interaction (i.e., H1 × TIME), a power below the often-mentioned benchmark of 0.80 was obtained; specifically, the post hoc power was found to be approximately 0.44.

Before describing the structure of the random-effects model matrix, we included two intraclass correlations (ICCs) for this three-level hierarchical model (see Table 3 , bottom panel). The first is the level-3 ICC at the class level, the correlation among quality of compositions from different second level students nested on the same class. The second is the level-2 ICC at the student-within-class level, the correlation among quality of compositions measured at different time points in the same student and class. We found that the quality of compositions is strongly correlated within the same student and class, but only slightly correlated within the same class, while this ICC is non-negligible. Table 3 (bottom right panel) also displays the design effect (DEFT) indices at levels 2 and 3 in Table 3 . DEFT is used to determine how much larger the standard errors estimates will be (considering clustering compared to the analysis that ignore clustering). For example, for the ICC in level two (class) (see Table 3 ) the unconditional DEFT is expected to be 1.73; meaning that standard errors would only capture a little more than one-half of the true sampling variability if the third-level was ignored.

In this study, the impact of three types of writing interventions (i.e., week-journals, SRSD, SRSD plus story-tool) on the quality of writing compositions was analyzed using a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design. Moreover, to analyze the effects of the four intervention conditions on writing composition skills, a set of covariates were controlled (i.e. self-regulation in writing, self-efficacy in writing, attitude towards writing, prior achievement in writing, gender and age). These variables have been selected due to previous findings on their positive effects on students’ writing quality.

The current research contributes to literature due to three major aspects. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study that examined the benefits of a free writing activity (i.e., week-journals) in comparison with two other instructional writing programs. Moreover, this study contributes to literature by adding a story-tool that enhances self-regulation to the SRSD model. Lastly, this study analyzes the effects of three types of writing intervention by conducting a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled design using a multilevel modeling analysis. This complex design of the randomized cluster groups over time allowed for the effectiveness of this educational intervention to be measured in a real-life setting, but with robust control. Current findings are expected to provide relevant data that may help researchers and educators improve their work to increase the students’ quality of writing.

The effectiveness of writing interventions on writing quality

Findings support our hypothesis by showing differences between the treatment groups in students’ writing quality over time, but with some reserves. Firstly, it was found that the students enrolled in the three intervention groups exhibited higher levels of writing quality in their composition when compared to those of students with no intervention (i.e., comparison group). These findings indicate that all writing intervention groups showed a positive and significant impact on students writing quality, which increased the intervention time. These findings are consistent with literature that reports the benefits of writing journals [ 15 ], of participating in instructional writing programs as SRSD (e.g., [ 3 , 5 , 30 , 60 – 61 , 66 ]), and of participating in general SRL training programs using story-tools [ 37 – 41 ]. Moreover, it was observed that the evolution of the writing quality of the three intervention groups was, overall, essentially linear and positive, indicating a constant acquisition of writing skills occurring over time.

Secondly, it was found that students who participated in the instructional programs (i.e., SRSD and SRSD plus story-tool) exhibited higher writing quality than students who wrote week-journals. Furthermore, Fig 2 also shows that the writing quality of students in the week-journals condition achieved a plateau after three weeks, while the writing quality of students in the two instructional programs continue to improve after that period. These findings are consistent with those of colleagues [ 15 ] showing that in order to master higher levels of writing skills and overcome the plateau effect it would be necessary to enroll in instructional writing programs designed to promote writing quality. These results are also consistent with data from the meta-analysis by Graham et al. [ 5 ], which found that studies involving strategy instruction using the SRSD model produced a statistically positive effect on students’ writing quality with an effect size (ES) of 1.17 in average. On the other hand, investigations enrolling students in free writing activities (e.g., writing about a free topic) produced an average weighted ES of 0.30 [ 5 ].

Finally, one important goal of this research was to learn the impact of adding the usage of story-tools to SRSD intervention on the writing quality. Students’ participating in SRSD plus story-tool instruction showed a higher writing quality than their peers in the SRSD condition; however, the differences found were not statistically significant. This finding may be due to the fact that the SRSD model includes self-regulation strategies focused on writing of compositions (e.g., goal setting, self-assessment) (e.g., [ 28 , 60 , 67 ]), and that the usage of the story-toll in classes was not focused on writing, but on the promotion of general SRL strategies. In the post-intervention evaluation meeting, teachers in the condition SRSD plus story-tool instruction enthusiastically shared their students’ scores in the composition section in the national standardized exam in Portuguese language, which counts as 30% of their overall grade. As this issue was brought to discussion, the teachers in the other conditions were invited to share the results of their students (i.e. for the comparison group, scores ranged between 5 and 30 points ( M = 18.68, SD = 5.46); for the Week-journals group, scores ranged between 10 and 30 points ( M = 19.24, SD = 3.88; for the SRSD group, scores ranged between 11 and 29 points ( M = 20.35, SD = 4.99); and for the SRSD plus story-tool group between 12 and 30 points ( M = 23.82, SD = 4.02). The percentage of students scoring lower than 15 points (negative scores) per condition was: 17%, 10%, 10% and 2%, respectively). Globally, participant teachers in conditions B, C and D were very happy with their students’ writing performance that far exceeded the National average score for compositions, and their expectations.

The effects of the covariates in writing quality

For what concerns the covariates assessed in this study, our findings have supported the need and usefulness of accounting for every single covariate (i.e., self-regulation in writing, the self-efficacy in writing, the attitude towards writing, the prior achievements in writing, the gender and the age), as they have shown a positive impact on the writing quality at the end of the instructional program. Accordantly, as previous studies focused on writing have indicated, when students receive training in SRL strategies they are likely to produce texts with quality (e.g., [ 3 , 68 – 69 ]), to engage deeply in school tasks and show higher academic achievement [ 51 ]. Furthermore, when students’ show a positive attitude towards writing [ 34 ] and perceive themselves as self-efficacious in writing, they are likely to show signs of good writing quality and invest effort while carrying out a writing task [ 34 – 36 ]. Specifically, it was found that the prior achievement in writing composition seems to be the variable with more influence on writing composition skills. Nevertheless, a positive relationship between each moderate variable and the writing composition performance was observed, except between self-regulation in writing and time, which were found to have a negative impact, indicating that the levels of self-regulation tend to be less predictive of the writing composition skills throughout time. This may be explained by the fact that all groups tend to match, with time, their self-regulation skills as consequence of their engagement in this study. Finally, it was observed that the improvements achieved by girls were greater than those of boys. This supports previous research that has shown that girls present higher scores in writing quality than boys (e.g., [ 8 , 59 , 70 ]).

Conclusions, limitations and implications

Globally, the improvement of students’ writing quality over time is related to the level of specialization of the writing intervention implemented. This is an important finding with strong implications for educational practice. For example, the week-journals writing activity can be easily implemented in classrooms by teachers without much effort, time, and resources (e.g., [ 15 ]), providing teachers with an opportunity to help their students improve their writing quality. Thus, school administrators, teachers, and parents may consider the usage of week-journals as a regular writing activity for all children as a preventive approach to writing difficulties. Data of the current study did not show statistical significant differences between results from SRSD and SRSD plus story tool condition, it would be useful to conduct further research on instructional writing interventions using story-tools. In the current study, stories didn’t help students significantly improve their writing quality when compared with their counterparts in condition C.

Furthermore, in the post-research evaluation meeting teachers in the condition C and D expressed with enthusiasm that their students improved not only in their writing but also in other content domains. As the majority of the participating teachers in condition D stated in the post-research evaluation meeting, “students started to use PLEE for everything since planning their games in the playground or the steps to solve a difficult math problem , to evaluate the cake baked at home or at school” (T 11 ). Participants in the condition C and D added that they felt that their students started to enjoy learning and their motivation increased for learning to write, specially the struggling students. We believe that this is a relevant finding that stresses the importance of the training on writing strategies rather than the mode of delivery. Both interventions trained students in the use of writing strategies in context, and the interventions used examples to explore the strategies, and yielded similar results. The use of the stories may contribute to improvement of students general SRL [ 40 ], but as results indicate do not help improve students writing quality directly.

Despite the promising contributions referred, further research is needed to disclose the benefits of the usage of the story-tool in combination with writing instruction. In fact, implications derived should be taken cautiously due to the limitations of this study. The present study used self-reports to assess SRL strategies, attitude towards writing and self-efficacy in writing. However, self-reports did not capture real-time response demands of authentic learning environments [ 51 ]. For example, it is possible that these instruments did not capture the benefits and potential of the story-tool to improve writing quality. These possible explanations reinforce the need to include event measures in the research design likely to capture the processual nature of the variables being studied.

Moreover, future research could consider including variables that may help explain results (e.g., writing goals, anxiety towards writing, contextual variables [ 65 ]), and improve the sensitivity of the measures, (e.g., using on task measures to access SRL). Finally, given the insight provided by the data collected in the post-research meeting, future studies may explore in depth the complex process of learning writing strategies in combination with a story-tool, using qualitative methods to analyze students’ and teachers’ experiences during the program.

Furthermore, our findings indicated that students’ writing quality in the two instructional conditions increased throughout the end of the study. It would be relevant to conduct studies with a longer duration, and with more classes in each condition to learn about the efficacy of these programs and to promote the writing quality throughout time. Finally, consistent with extant literature, we believe that educators are expected to use the best evidence available to make informed decisions and design their classes instruction accordingly [ 71 ]. We hope current findings on the efficiency of different writing interventions may help educators contextualize this knowledge and develop the best writing program possible.

Supporting information

S1 appendix..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.s001

S1 Questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.s002

S1 Data Base.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.s003

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Graham S, Harris K, Hebert MA. Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. A Carnegie corporation time to act report . Washington, DC, USA: Alliance for Excellent Education; 2011.
• 8. Graham S. Writing. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH. (eds.) Handbook of educational psychology . Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 2006.
• 9. Prior P. A sociocultural theory of writing. In: MacArthur C, Graham S, Fitzgerald J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research . New York, NY, USA: Guilford; 2006. p.54–66.
• 10. Hillocks G. The testing trap : How state writing assessments control learning . New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press; 2006.
• 11. Applebee AN. Alternative models of writing development. In: Indrisano R, Squire J. (eds.) Perspectives on writing : Research, theory and practice . New Wark, DE, USA: International Reading Association; 2000. p.90–110.
• 12. Braddock R, Jones R. English composition. In: Ebel RL. (eds) Encyclopedia of educational research . New York, NY, USA: Macmillan; 1969. p.443–461.
• 16. Hillocks JG. (ed.) Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. 1986. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED265552.pdf
• 17. Tynjälä P. Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In: Tynjälä P. (ed.) Writing as a learning tool : Integration theory and practice . Boston, MA, USA: Klumer Academic Publishers; 2001. p.37–56.
• 19. Graves DH. A case study observing the development of primary children's composing, spelling, and motor behaviors during the writing process. (Final Report, NIE Grant No. G-78-0174. ED 218–653). Durham, New Hampshire. 1981.
• 20. Arthur SV. The effects of two writing treatments on the reading and writing of third graders. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. 1981.
• 21. Wienke W. Strategies for improving elementary school students’ writing skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED209679); 1981.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 26. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C. Written composition. In: Gitomer D, Bell C. (eds.) Handbook of research on teaching ; 1986. p.778–803.
• 28. Harris KR, Graham S. Making the writing process work : Strategies for composition and self-regulation . Cambridge, MA, USA: Brookline; 1996.
• 29. Harris KR, Schmidt T, Graham S. Every child can write: Strategies for composition and self-regulation in the writing process. In: Harris KR, Graham S, Deshler DE. (eds) Teaching every child every day : Learning in diverse schools and classrooms . Cambridge, MA, USA: Brookline Books; 1998. p.131–167. Retrieved from http://proxy.libraries.smu.edu/login?url = http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1997-36718-004&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• 30. Graham S, Perin D. Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools . A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York, NY, USA. 2007.
• 31. Harris KR, Graham S, Mason L, Friedlander B. Powerful writing strategies for all students . Baltimore, MD, USA: Brooks; 2008.
• 32. Harris KR, Graham S, Brindle M, Sandmel K. Metacognition and students’ writing. In: Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesse A. (eds.) Handbook of metacognition in education. Handbook of metacognition in education . Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum. 2009. p.131–153.
• 35. Pajares F, Valiante G. Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In MacArthur CA, Graham S, Fitzgerald J. (eds) Handbook of Writing Research . New York, NY, USA: Guilford. 2006. p.158–170.
• 36. Pajares F, Valiante G, Cheong YF. Writing Self-Efficacy and Its Relation to Gender, Writing Motivation and Writing Competence: A Developmental Perspective. In: Hidi S, Boscolo P. (eds.) Writing and Motivation . Leiden, The Netherlands: BRILL. 2006. p.141–159. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508216_009
• 40. Rosário P, Núñez JC, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R, Fernández E, Tuero E, et al. Analysis of instructional programs in different academic levels for improving self-regulated learning SRL through written text. In: Redondo RF, Olive T. (eds.) Studies in Writing. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Editions. 2018. p.201–231. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_010
• 45. Rosário P, Núñez JC, González-Pienda JA. Auto-regulação em crianças sub 10: Projecto sarilhos do amarelo [ Self-regulation in children under 10 : Yellow’s trials and tribulations ] . Porto, Portugal: Porto Editora. 2007.
• 47. Rosário P, Núñez JC, González-Pienda J, Cerezo R., Valle A. Yellow’s trials and tribulations project. In: Fuente J, Eissa MA. (eds.) International Handbook on Applying Self-regulated Learning in Different Settings . Almería, Spain: Education & Psychology I+D+i. 2010. p.139–156.
• 48. Bandura A. The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In: Toch H. (Ed.). Psychology of crime and criminal justice . Long Grove, IL, USA: Waveland Press; 1986; p.198–236.
• 49. Zimmerman BJ. Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In Zimmerman BJ. (ed.) Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice . New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press; 1998; p.1–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/10.19851
• 50. Zimmerman BJ. Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In: Zeidner M, Pintrich P. (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Inc. 2000.13–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
• 52. Alexander PA. Psychology in Learning and Instruction . Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. 2006.
• 53. Högemann J, Rosário P, Núñez JC, Rodríguez C, Valle A. Promoting self-regulatory skills in writing using a story-toll. In Redondo RF, Harris K, Braaksma M. (eds) Design Principles for teaching effective writing . Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Editions. 2017; p.34.
• 55. Buescu H, Morais J, Rocha M R, Magalhães V F. Programa e Metas Curriculares de Português do Ensino Bãsico . 2015 May. Available from: https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Basico/Metas/Portugues/pmcpeb_julho_2015.pdf
• 62. Ministério da Educação e da Ciência. Processo de avaliação externa da aprendizagem–provas finais de ciclo e exames nacionais 2013. [Ministry of Education and Science Learning External Assessment Process–final grade exams and national exams in 2013] . Available from: http://www.dgidc.min.edu.pt/jurinacionalexames/index.php?s=directorio&pid=21
• 63. SAS Institute Inc. (SAS). SAS/STAT® 13.1 User's Guide . Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc; 2013.
• 68. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. The psychology of written composition . Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum; 1987.

Journal of Teaching Writing

Current Issue

From the editor, linguistic knowledge, effective communication, and agency: moving forward in writing pedagogy with a progressive agenda, grammar as choice: teaching students the craft of writing, what is 'good writing' analyzing metadiscourse as civil discourse, creating effective paragraphs: choosing appropriate topics and first elements mindfully, encouraging playful, productive curiosity about language in the writing classroom, tools, not rules: rhetorical grammar as a meaning-making tool in the creative writing workshop, "why do you think i'm asking": how misunderstood requests impeded student agency in writing conferences, about the authors, information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Journal of Teaching Writing IUPUI Department of English Cavanaugh Hall, Room CA345 425 University Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46202

Phone: 317-274-4777 E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN: 0735-1259 eISSN: 2374-2852

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

• Writing for Young Children

You are here

Types of articles.

• Young Children cluster topics

Formatting requirements

Photos and visuals, permissions, how to submit an article, review and editing process, writing for  young children.

Young Children   is a peer-reviewed journal from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Published four times a year, each issue offers practical, research-based articles on timely topics of interest. Our readers work with or on behalf of young children from birth through age 8. Readers include teachers, family child care providers, child development program administrators, resource and referral counselors, early intervention specialists, elementary school principals, teacher educators, students, researchers, policy makers, and others.

The editorial team and consulting editors use the following criteria when reviewing the content of articles submitted to  Young Children . We look for articles that

• reflect the  current knowledge base  in early childhood education
• describe real life examples of  developmentally appropriate practice
• provide  practical strategies  for practitioners
• cite  relevant research findings , when appropriate
• suggest ways to  involve families , when appropriate
• consider the roles of  culture, ethnicity, and home language  when relevant to the content
• support  inclusion  of children with a range of abilities
• show  respect  for gender, culture, and home language
• reflect NAEYC's recent initiatives on  developmentally appropriate practice and  advancing equity

Articles selected for publication in  Young Children  are considered a contribution to the profession; authors do not receive fees or royalties. Articles published in Young Children are  peer reviewed  and vetted by the  Young Children  editorial team.      

Young Children  articles vary in content, length, and writing style. The best way to determine what types of manuscripts we are seeking is to  read recently published articles . Many authors write about a particular classroom, school, or teacher they have observed. If your article describes another educator’s practice in detail, please acknowledge this contribution or consider including him or her as coauthor.

Young Children  does not publish term papers, literature reviews without clear connections to practitioners, content or promotional pieces that focus on and promote one organization's products or services as editorial content, or reports that emphasize research methodology or the findings of an individual study. The journal does not accept articles already published elsewhere in print or electronic format. We expect that articles have not been simultaneously submitted to other publications.

Young Children  articles are written in an informal, conversational style. They use active voice (e.g., “The teacher planned…” rather than “Plans were made by the teacher…”) and clear language. This makes the text easier and more enjoyable to read.

Cluster-topic articles

Each issue features a group of articles that address different aspects of a topic. Although cluster topics are decided on many months in advance (see below), in order to respond to topical issues and trends, the editors may change the publication date of a cluster from time to time.

General articles

These articles address important early childhood topics and have a variety of styles. General articles typically include

• innovative, research-based teaching strategies
• early childhood theories and research, along with recommended practices
• specific issues affecting young children
• professional stories and observations, often intended to enhance understanding of research-based practices

These are research-informed opinion pieces, similar to op-eds, that address specific questions, issues, or challenges of practices. A Viewpoint piece takes a particular stance or presents a specific perspective and offers supporting sources and examples. It should answer the question of why this viewpoint is important and impactful for early childhood teaching and learning as well as what it looks like in practice.

Young Children  cluster topics 

Young Children , NAEYC's award-winning, peer-reviewed journal, publishes four times a year, in Spring, Fall, Summer, and Winter.  

We are excited to announce the cluster topics and associated due dates, which you will find in the table below, and we look forward to continuing to support educational excellence and focus on meeting the needs of all children, birth through third grade, through high-quality content in Young Children .

The table below provides the cluster topics for upcoming issues of  Young Children , along with the due dates for submitting articles to be considered for each cluster. 

	(2024), this issue of will focus on how early childhood leaders and educators determine what, when, and how children learn in programs and schools. We are seeking specific examples and illustrations of high-quality curricula in action in preschool through grade 2. This could include program- or school-wide efforts, or it could include classroom-level efforts. A manuscript could delve into one aspect of a program/school curriculum, or it could explore how various elements are addressed in a comprehensive way.
	will focus on the following elements:
	focuses on clarifying how educators and programs can think about the impacts including:
	: Reflections on NAEYC’s 100th Anniversary , NAEYC’s flagship journal.   archive is vast with some ideas and practices still relevant today while many others have been challenged and changed over the years. The Spring 2026 issue will focus on revisiting the past, examining the present, and looking to the future—to remind and reflect as well as to stimulate and inspire readers and the field. We are seeking articles that   archive  article impacted one’s own practice or transformed others’ thinking and teaching. A submission could offer a profile of an early learning program or educator who exemplifies an idea from the archives. Or it could present a commentary that debunks a concept or practice presented in the archive. An article could offer an analysis of how an idea or practice has evolved over time in the pages of or how much a concept or issue has stayed the same For the issue, submission length can vary (from 2,000-3,000 words, not including references and graphic elements).   . (Select the link for the digital archive.) It is also available through other digital library databases, including EBSCO and ProQuest.
	, we are focusing on educator agency, exploring questions such as

Please note: We are no longer asking authors to submit proposals for cluster articles. Authors should submit complete articles (along with figures and  photos , if possible). 

When submitting an article to  Young Children , please adhere to the following formatting and submission guidelines.

• All manuscripts  must  meet page-length requirements.
• General, cluster, and viewpoint articles: 3,000 - 3,500 words (not including the reference list or graphics)

If manuscripts are not formatted correctly, they will be unsubmitted until the appropriate changes are made.

• All manuscripts are subject to blind review. Make sure the name(s) of author(s) as well as specific workplaces/schools/program names do not appear on any pages of the article. This includes the reference list.
• Use pseudonyms in place of children's real names.
• Use in-text citations as outlined in  The Chicago Manual of Style . Do not include footnotes.
• Include subheadings throughout the article.
• Use Times New Roman font, 12-point type, double space lines, and allow for at least 1-inch margins.
• Number the pages.

Cover letter

• Prepare the cover letter as a separate document.
• List the title of the article.
• Indicate the type of article (cluster topic, general, viewpoint).
• List the name, affiliation, title, and e-mail for each author.
• Designate one author as the primary contact.
• Provide a brief summary of how the submission offers useful and relevant information for teachers and other practitioners.
• Provide a brief abstract of 50 words or less.

Style guides

Authors should provide accurate and complete information for references and resources.  Young Children  expects authors to focus on references published within the last 10 years (unless they are seminal sources) in order to reflect the most recent research and data. Use primary references when available and avoid online resources such as Wikipedia. Authors should also use the number of resources appropriate for the length of their manuscript.

Young Children follows  Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , 11th edition, for spelling and  The Chicago Manual of Style , 17th edition, for style and reference formatting.

We encourage authors to include informative, interesting visuals (e.g., high-resolution photographs, children's work samples, charts, and graphs) that enhance the content of the article and promote understanding. This is not a requirement.

The author must confirm completed model release forms for any recognizable person appearing in the author's photos (signed by any adult who appears in the photo and by the legal guardian of any child who appears in the photo). If the author did not take the photos but submits them with the article, the author must confirm that she or he has the right to publish the photos and that the photographer possesses the necessary model releases. The editorial team will reach out to the author upon acceptance to process the forms. NAEYC-approved model release forms are available from the editorial team if needed. Forms must be confirmed and provided to the editorial team before publication. Failure to do so will result in the visuals being excluded from publication.

The visuals themselves can be uploaded as separate files in Editorial Manager  as part of the manuscript submission. Do not include them in the body of the article.  Young Children  does not pay authors for their own photos when they are integral to the content of the article.

Authors are responsible for seeking and maintaining written permission from parents or legal guardians to include photos of children or children's work samples, and for seeking and maintaining written permission to include photos of adults. These permissions must be provided to NAEYC for review prior to publication.

For quoted material longer than 100 words, as well as figures and tables (or the content therein), authors must seek and submit to  Young Children  written permission from the copyright holder prior to publication.

Young Children  receives all submissions electronically through  Editorial Manager . After creating an account, authors will find instructions for manuscript submission. Be sure to submit the cover letter, article, and photographs as separate files. Authors can view tutorials on the Editorial Manager  website for assistance or e-mail the  Young Children  editorial staff at [email protected] .

With the exception of cluster-topic articles, submissions are generally published 16 to 24 months after acceptance. Authors may check the status of their submissions by logging into their Editorial Manager account.

Please note: Individuals may submit only one article within a six-month period.   Young Children 's preferred practice is to publish a particular author only once per 12-month period. On rare occasions we make exceptions to best meet the needs of our readers.

Authors may submit only one article at a time. This holds true whether they are the only author, or one of several. If authors have written several articles for submission, they must decide which one to submit first.

After the article has been reviewed, the authors will be notified of its status. After receipt of this notification, the author may submit another article.  Thus, only one article per author can be under initial consideration and review at a time.

The  Young Children  review process generally takes 6–8 months from receipt of manuscript. The process is compressed for cluster articles. The schedule may vary according to the schedule of our reviewers, many of whom are on the academic calendar.  

Steps in the Review and Editing Process

Given the volume of articles we receive, not all articles can be sent out for review, nor can we provide individual feedback on articles that are not reviewed. The editor in chief determines whether articles will go out for review. There are a number of reasons why articles are not sent out for review. Sometimes articles do not meet basic guidelines for content, writing style, length, or format. At times, the journal has a backlog of articles or has recently published an article on the same topic. In some cases, we receive a number of articles for a cluster that address the same topic and age group. The editor in chief might recommend revising an article before it is reviewed by consulting editors.	1  to 16 weeks after receipt
Articles that meet basic guidelines undergo peer review by NAEYC’s consulting editors. The reviewers provide comments and suggestions. NAEYC senior staff may also review articles.	16 to 26 weeks after receipt
Using all reviews as a guide, the editorial team determines one of the following as the next step. The editor in chief notifies the author of the decision via e-mail. When necessary, this correspondence includes the reviewers' feedback and suggestions for enhancing the manuscript.	26 to 32 weeks after receipt
When authors submit revised articles, they must include a summary of what the author did to address the reviewers’ feedback, through Editorial Manager.	Within 6 months of authors' receipt of decision e-mail

From acceptance to print

It is not possible to determine in advance the exact publication dates of accepted articles (unless for a particular cluster). When planning issues, the editorial team considers the content, style, intended audience, and length of articles, as well as articles’ submission dates.

Authors are notified when their articles are scheduled for publication. They are asked to make updates—sometimes significant—and to complete biography, copyright transfer, and photograph submission and credit forms.

Editing involves substantive editing and copyediting by members of the editorial team. The lead editor returns the edited article to the author via email for final approval before the manuscript enters production. On occasion, last-minute changes in an issue’s content may cause publication of an article to be postponed.

Authors receive a protected PDF copy of their article and have the option to receive two print copies of the issue in which their article appears. 

Contact information 

Annie Moses , PhD, Editor in Chief,  Young Children

Susan Donsky , Managing Editor,  Young Children

Email:   [email protected]

Interested in writing for other NAEYC publications?

Check out our author guidelines for

• Teaching Young Children
• Voices of Practitioners

Recommendations For Authors & Photographers Catalog Webinars NAEYC Books List  

Permissions Desk Copies FAQ

Books NAEYC Books List   Catalog Quantity & Special Pricing

For Authors and Photographers

English and language arts education : Journals

• Children's Literature in Education "Children's Literature in Education has been a key source of articles on all aspects of children's literature for more than 40 years. It covers classic and contemporary material, the highbrow and the popular, and ranges across works for infants through to material for young adults. It features analysis of fiction, poetry, drama and non-fictional material (plus studies in other media: film, TV, computer games, online works); visual narratives from picture books and comics to graphic novels; interviews with writers and artists; textual analysis and interpretation from differing theoretical perspectives; historical approaches to the area; reader-response work with children; ideas for teaching children's literature; adaptation, translation and publishing."
• ELT journal "ELT Journal aims to provide a medium for informed discussion of the principles and practice which determine the ways in which English is taught and learnt around the world. It also provides a forum for the exchange of information and ideas among members of the profession worldwide."
• English education "English Education is the journal of English Language Arts Teacher Educators (ELATE), formerly the Conference on English Education (CEE), a constituent organization of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). The journal serves teachers engaged in the preparation, support, and continuing education of teachers of English language arts/literacy at all levels of instruction."
• English journal "English Journal is NCTE's award-winning journal of ideas for English language arts teachers in junior and senior high schools and middle schools. It presents information on the teaching of writing and reading, literature, and language, and includes information on how teachers are putting the latest technologies to work in their classrooms."
• Journal of adolescent & adult literacy : a journal from the International Reading Association "The Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy highlights innovative, peer-reviewed, research-based practices aimed at improving engagement and achievement among literacy learners ages 12 and older."
• Journal of literacy research : JLR "The Journal of Literacy Research (JLR) is a peer-reviewed journal that has contributed to the advancement literacy and literacy education research for over 50 years. JLR is a forum for sharing innovative research and pedagogy that considers a broad range of topics encompassing instruction and assessment, policy development, understandings of literacies, and relationships of ideology and knowledge."
• Language arts "Language Arts is a professional journal for elementary and middle school teachers and teacher educators. It provides a forum for discussions on all aspects of language arts learning and teaching, primarily as they relate to children in pre-kindergarten through the eighth grade."
• Reading & writing quarterly: overcoming learning disabilities "Interdisciplinary in scope, the journal addresses the causes, prevention, evaluation, and remediation of reading and writing difficulties in regular and special education settings."
• Reading improvement "Publishes reports of investigations and creative theoretical papers dealing with every aspect of reading improvement, and at all levels of instruction."
• Reading research quarterly "Reading Research Quarterly is the leading global journal offering multidisciplinary scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages, including the latest research studies (methods, results, effects, findings, and implications)."
• The Reading teacher "The Reading Teacher (RT) provides the latest peer-reviewed, research-based best practices to literacy educators working with children up to age 12. RT’s classroom-ready articles cover topics from curriculum, instruction, and assessment to strategies for teaching diverse populations of literacy learners."
• Research in the teaching of English "Research in the Teaching of English (RTE) is a multidisciplinary journal composed of original research and scholarly essays on the relationships between language teaching and learning at all levels, preschool through adult."
• TESOL quarterly TESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, was first published in 1967. The Quarterly encourages submission of previously unpublished articles on topics of significance to individuals concerned with English language teaching and learning and standard English as a second dialect.
• << Previous: Recent print books
• Next: Databases >>
• Background information
• Recent e-books
• Recent print books
• Connect to Stanford e-resources
• Related guides
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 2:14 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/english_and_language_arts

• Park University
• Writing in Your Discipline

Writing for Education

Writing in Your Discipline: Writing for Education

• URL: https://library.park.edu/disciplinewriting
• Writing for Business
• Writing for Humanities
• Writing for Nursing
• Writing for Science
• Writing for Social Sciences
• Writing for Social Work
• Tools for Academic Writing This link opens in a new window
• Citing This link opens in a new window
• Individual Help This link opens in a new window

Writing Lesson Plans

If you plan to certify to teach, you will be asked to write lesson plans in many different classes. Lesson planning lies at the heart of good teaching, and written plans represent the most structured writing assignments you will do in education classes. A good lesson plan describes all the critical elements of your teaching plan, including what you intend for your students to learn, how the lesson will proceed, and how you will know that your lesson reached your goals. In good lesson plans these three elements (objectives, instructional activities, and assessments) are very clearly connected, and they inform each other.

Education is a field that bridges anthropology, sociology, psychology, science, and philosophy. When writing about education, you will utilize a myriad of writing styles and formats to address your essay topics. Your writing should always:

1) Be tailored for the audience of the educational community

2) Be tailored for the type or purpose of writing in education

3) Use formal, specific, and precise language

4) Be credibly sourced and free of plagiarism

5) Convey clear, complete, and organized communication

6) Use correct English language conventions

7) Be correctly formatted and styled

The types of writing in Education include: reflective writing, persuasive writing, analytic writing and procedural writing. 

Types of Papers

As an education student, you may be asked to write:

• journals/field-notes: think of field-notes as the clay for your future thoughts, observations, and ideas; these are informal
• literature reviews: categorize or conceptualize relevant pieces of literature
• analysis papers: analyze outside sources to promote your own interpretation of a particular theory or style
• evaluative essays: look at a particular approach to teaching or theory of learning and discuss strengths and weaknesses
• narratives present collected data through use of informal methods, imaginary letters to parents, recommendations for school, etc.
• case studies: present problem, discuss others' thoughts on the issue, describe and analyze data/evidence, and draw conclusions
• research and lab papers: identify research questions, contextualize the question in the research literature; identify hypotheses, methods of data collection and reduction and analysis; discuss findings.
• << Previous: Writing for Business
• Next: Writing for Humanities >>
• Last Updated: Sep 6, 2024 11:57 AM

8700 NW River Park Drive, Box 61 - Parkville, MO - 64152

Phone: (816) 584-6285 Toll-free: (800) 270-4347

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 August 2024

Profiling EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses in Saudi universities

• Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4002-822X 1 ,
• Asma Alsahil   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8326-3388 2 &
• Zainab Alsuhaibani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2154-9460 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1120 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

Understanding the realities of feedback practices and activity uses in writing classrooms is key to optimizing them. This study attempted to profile Saudi university English writing teachers’ uses of feedback delivery modes, error correction strategies, and learner-centered feedback activities. The study drew upon the qualitative approach by using an open-ended questions to explore and gain an in-depth understanding of teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses. Open-end questionnaire responses were collected from 74 English writing teachers working at eight Saudi universities. The results revealed that handwritten and oral feedback modes are more dominant in the teachers’ practices than electronic and audio-recorded modes. Additionally, a relatively larger number of the teachers reported using direct and comprehensive error correction strategies more than indirect and selective ones. A considerable number of the teachers were found to use combinations of feedback modes, direct-indirect and comprehensive-selective error correction forms. With regard to their use of learner-centered feedback activities, a larger number of the teachers reported making use of peer feedback in their classes but neglecting student self-evaluation and automated writing evaluation activities. The paper discusses the implications pertinent to improving feedback provision practices and activity uses in the Saudi university context.

Similar content being viewed by others

Timed second language writing performance: effects of perceived teacher vs perceived automated feedback

What matters in the cultivation of student feedback literacy: exploring university EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices

L2 writer engagement with automated written corrective feedback provided by ChatGPT: A mixed-method multiple case study

Introduction.

The writing teacher’s main task is to provide students with feedback on their texts (Ferris et al., 2011 ). While providing feedback on students’ writing is time-consuming, it is a prominent and non-negotiable component in writing instruction (Ferris and Hedgcock, 2013 ). Feedback provision is a much more complicated task in second-language (L2) writing environments when compared to first-language (L1) ones. Due to the more writing difficulties encountered in such L2 learning environments, teachers try to meet a wider range of students’ needs and expectations and help them overcome different types of writing problems. Feedback provision is theoretically grounded in Vygotsky’s ( 1978 ) socio-cultural theory. According to this theory, learners gain more benefits when teachers encourage them to self-correct and scaffold their language products by adjusting their choice of corrective strategies (Lantolf, 2000 ). Teachers’ feedback beliefs and practices are important contextual factors in L2 writing learning and development.

Feedback in writing classes entails using different modes, strategies, and activities. In writing classes, we can distinguish between ‘teacher feedback provision practices’ and ‘teacher uses of feedback activities’. In writing instruction literature, these two terms are alternatively labeled as ‘teacher feedback forms’ and ‘non-teacher feedback forms’ (see for example, Abdel Latif et al., 2024 ; Saito, 1994 ). The former term ‘teacher feedback provision practices’ refers to the feedback modes and types/forms the teacher uses when evaluating students’ texts. As for ‘teacher uses of feedback activities’, this term means the learner-centered feedback activities the teacher makes use of in the writing classroom; these normally include writing self-evaluation, peer feedback, and automated writing evaluation activities. The main role of the writing teacher in such activities is not to provide students with feedback but to guide and organize their participation in them, to monitor and evaluate their responses to the activities, and to assess their writing outcomes. The ultimate goal of both ‘teacher feedback provision practices’ and ‘teacher uses of feedback activities’—or teacher and non-teacher feedback forms– is to raise students’ awareness of their writing strengths and weaknesses and in turn bring about desired changes in their performance.

Feedback provision and activity use represent an indicator of writing instruction effectiveness and students’ successful learning (Wang et al., 2023 ). In their attempts to meet L2 students’ writing needs, teachers have to optimize feedback provision practices and activities in their classes taking some contextual factors into account, such as time constraints, students’ levels, and class size. Besides, L2 writing difficulties can negatively influence the successful implementation of classroom learner-centered feedback activities (e.g., Özkanal and Gezen, 2023 ; Tian and Zhou, 2020 ). Accordingly, understanding writing teacher feedback provision practices and their uses of feedback activities is key to improving both forms of feedback in writing classes.

The last three decades have witnessed the publication of an increasing number of studies on feedback in L2 writing environments. Some studies have been concerned with teacher feedback (e.g., Mao and Crosthwaite, 2019 ; Wei and Cao, 2020 ; Zacharias, 2007 ). Other studies have focused mainly on learner-centered feedback activities (e.g., Dikli and Bleyle, 2014 ; Özkanal and Gezen, 2023 ; Sari and Han, 2024 ; Zhao, 2010 ). While these empirical attempts have widened our understanding of feedback practices in L2 writing classes, some research issues remain unaddressed. For example, it can be noted that previous studies have been concerned with some international settings rather than others. Besides, previous studies on learner-centered feedback activities have only evaluated them in light of students’ perceptions and experiences and neglected those of teachers. In an attempt to deal with these two research gaps, the study reported in this paper has tried to profile Saudi university English writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and their perspectives on learner-centered feedback activities. Before presenting the study, in the following section, we review and discuss pertinent research on L2 writing teacher feedback, learner-centered writing feedback, and English writing feedback practices in the Saudi context, respectively.

Literature review

L2 writing teacher feedback research.

Using various research approaches, previous relevant works have focused on exploring L2 writing teachers’ feedback provision strategies and beliefs in different international educational settings. For example, Diab ( 2006 ) surveyed the feedback provision strategies of 14 university L2 teachers in Lebanon. The teachers were found to focus on word choice, text organization, writing style, and ideational content in their feedback. In a similar vein, using focus group interviews with L2 writing teachers at a Singaporean university, Lee, Leong, and Song ( 2016 ) found that these teachers’ feedback provision beliefs were shaped by students’ needs and that in their feedback provision, these teachers paid particular attention to grammar, text purpose, and text organization.

Wei and Cao ( 2020 ) also surveyed the feedback practices of 245 EFL lecturers working at Chinese, Thai, and Vietnamese universities. The results revealed that the teacher participants preferred high-demand feedback (i.e., requiring students to respond to feedback) and indirect correction. Their preferences for such strategies were explained in light of training experiences, as well as contextual factors such as limited available resources. In the Chinese EFL context, Mao and Crosthwaite ( 2019 ) also analyzed questionnaire and interview data from five English writing teachers and found that the teachers frequently used indirect feedback predominantly targeting local instead of global errors. Additionally, their study showed a mismatch between the teachers’ beliefs and practices due to some contextual factors, including time limitations, heavy workloads, and perceptions of students’ attitudes toward feedback. In contrast, Lee ( 2011 ), who collected textual feedback data from 26 English teachers in Hong Kong and interviewed six of them, found that the teachers’ most commonly used feedback strategy was direct error correction with a focus on content and accuracy.

Two main limitations can be noted in the above writing teacher feedback studies. First, most of them involved a small number of participant teachers. This raises a question about whether these research findings are generalizable or not. Second, the feedback issues they covered were not comprehensive enough as they focused on limited feedback practices. A main research gap particularly concerns investigating teachers’ preferred or commonly used feedback modes. The very vast majority of the studies available about writing teachers’ use of feedback modes are of experimental nature (e.g., Alsahil et al., 2024 , Bakla, 2020 ; Cunningham and Link, 2021 ). Thus, there is a need for research profiling the feedback practices of a larger number of teachers and dealing with these practices from a more comprehensive angle.

Learner-centered writing feedback research

The writing feedback generated in learner-centered activities also represents an important information source learners can use to improve the quality of their texts. Literature indicates that the three most popular learner-centered feedback activities in writing classes are: self-evaluation, peer feedback, and automated writing evaluation. Increasing research has been published on these non-teacher feedback forms in the last few years.

The studies comparing teacher feedback with non-teacher forms represent a relatively recent research strand. These studies have notably increased since the early 2010s. Some studies have only compared the perceived usefulness of teacher feedback with peer feedback. For example, Miao et al. ( 2006 ) analyzed the questionnaire and interview data of two groups of EFL Chinese students and found that they preferred teacher feedback over peer feedback. Meanwhile, the meta-analysis conducted by Thirakunkovit and Chamcharatsri ( 2019 ) revealed that teacher feedback has a larger effect size in comparison to peer feedback. Yet, their further analysis of peer feedback research shows a notable difference between peer feedback with and without training.

Some other studies compared teacher feedback with self-evaluation and automated writing evaluation. For example, Dikli and Bleyle ( 2014 ) reported L2 students’ positive perceptions of automated writing evolution though they reported a preference for teacher feedback. Similarly, Özkanal and Gezen ( 2023 ) found that Turkish university students valued and integrated teacher feedback more than automated writing evaluation and peer feedback, respectively. In a more recent study, Sari and Han ( 2024 ) used a focus group interview with eight EFL students and found that they had positive attitudes toward using combined teacher and automated feedback.

There is a paucity of research on teacher evaluation of non-teacher forms or learner-centered feedback activities. The relevant research available dealt only with teacher perceptions and experiences of automated writing evaluation tools; though such research is even scarce (Koltovskaia, 2023 ). For example, Wilson et al. ( 2021 ) used focus group interviews to explore elementary writing teachers’ attitudes towards and experiences of using an automated writing evaluation in U.S. elementary schools. The teachers viewed automated writing evaluation tools may potentially fostering students’ motivation and autonomy, but raised concerns about the functionality of such tools causing some instructional challenges. In a classroom-based study with three L2 writing teachers in U.S. university classes, Li ( 2021 ) found that while they had positive perceptions of the tool, they reported limitations for it as a feedback alternative and concerns regarding the required ecological changes in the learning and instructional environment. In Koltovskaia’s ( 2023 ) interview-based study, six U.S. university teachers had a positive attitude towards relying upon automated writing evaluation as a feedback tool, but they viewed that such potential could be accomplished through practical instructional experiences.

In addition to the scarcity of research on teacher evaluation of non-teacher feedback forms, some contextual gaps also pertain to the studies on teacher evaluation of learner-centered feedback activities. As noted, all three studies have been conducted in non-Arab contexts. Accordingly, the issue of teacher evaluation of non-teacher feedback forms needs also to be addressed in under-explored contexts such as the Saudi one.

English writing feedback in the Saudi context

Not much research has been reported on English writing feedback practices in the Saudi context. Of the few research attempts made on teacher feedback are the ones reported by Alshahrani and Storch ( 2014 ) and Alkhatib ( 2015 ). Alkhatib ( 2015 ), for example, investigated how the feedback practices of ten English writing teachers at a Saudi university matched their instructional beliefs and also their students’ feedback preferences. Her data revealed matches and mismatches between teachers’ writing feedback beliefs and practices, and also between feedback practices and students’ preferences, particularly with regard to explicitness of written corrective feedback. The teachers tended to give comprehensive direct feedback on language-related aspects and indirect feedback on content and organization. Some factors were found to influence the teachers’ feedback practices such as time constraints and students’ levels.

As for researching non-teacher writing feedback forms in Saudi Arabia, the case is very similar to the international contexts highlighted above. On the one hand, the very scarce studies reported addressed the perceptions of students- rather than teachers- of learner-centered feedback activities. On the other hand, most of these studies explored automated writing evaluation. Aldukhail ( 2023 ), for instance, combined a questionnaire with semi-structured interview data to probe Saudi university students’ evaluation of self-directed, teacher, and peer feedback types. Her study revealed that teacher feedback was the most preferred feedback type, while peer feedback was the least preferred one. With regard to automated writing evaluation, the two studies reported by Alnasser ( 2022 ) and Alhabib and Alghammas ( 2023 ) generally indicate that Saudi university students had positive attitudes towards it but they were dissatisfied with the technical difficulties of tools, and their feedback on text content and organization, respectively.

In light of the above, the picture of English writing feedback practices and feedback activity uses in the Saudi context is still unclear. This has been caused by some noted limitations in previous studies. First, these studies involved small numbers of participant teachers, which may limit the generalizability of their findings. Second, such studies also examined a limited range of teachers’ feedback practices and activity uses, leaving gaps in our understanding of a wider scope of them. Finally, while research indicates the role of context-related factors in teachers’ feedback practices and activity uses, there have been scarce relevant studies in the Saudi context. Thus, there is a need to investigate the feedback practices of a larger number of Saudi university English writing teachers and to cover these practices more comprehensively in order to profile them in a clearer and more generalizable way.

The present study

To fill in the above research gaps, the present study explored multiple dimensions in English writing teachers’ perspectives on feedback provision practices and learner-centered feedback activity uses at Saudi universities. The study dealt with this topic through three original angles. First, it explored various dimensions in teacher feedback provision practices (feedback modes, and error correction explicitness, scope, and focus strategies) and also in teacher uses of learner-centered or non-teacher writing feedback forms. Second, it tried to profile teachers’ feedback practices and the beliefs rationalizing them by collecting open-ended qualitative data from a much larger number of participants in comparison to the previous relevant studies conducted in both the international educational settings and the Saudi one. Third, the study collected data from female and male teachers working at a number of Saudi universities rather than one university only. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following three questions:

RQ1: Which feedback provision modes do Saudi university English writing teachers rely upon more frequently, and what reasons do they give for the modes used?

RQ2: Which error correction explicitness, scope, and focus strategies do Saudi university English writing teachers use more frequently, and what reasons do they give for the error correction strategies used?

RQ3: To what extent do Saudi university English writing teachers use learner-centered feedback activities in their classes, and what reasons do they give for their reported uses of these activities?

By answering these questions, the present study could provide important implications for improving feedback practices and the implementation of learner-centered activities in English writing classes at Saudi universities. Such instructional improvements could in turn lead to bringing about the desired changes in students’ writing performance.

To answer the research questions, the study drew upon the qualitative approach. Literature indicates the qualitative research approach is helpful in exploring a central educational phenomenon and developing a detailed understanding of it (Creswell, 2012 ). It is mainly used to inductively explore how people are experiencing the target educational phenomena, and their interpretations of these experiences without having any hypotheses to confirm or reject (Bogdan and Biklen, 1997 ; Lodico et al., 2006 ). In line with the qualitative approach, we decided to collect data using a questionnaire part with open-ended questions instead of interviews to access the largest possible number of research participants, and in turn to profile the participants’ feedback practices more reliably. According to Creswell ( 2012 ), open-ended questions help research participants best voice their experiences without any restrictions and allow researchers to explore participants’ reasons for the reported practices.

Participants

The data of this study was collected from a sample of English writing teachers who were working in English language departments and programs at several Saudi universities. They were faculty members teaching English writing along with some other language areas and/or linguistics courses in their workplaces. They were working primarily at English teacher and/or translator education programs in which students have to take 4–6 English writing courses; each course is taught for 2–3 h a week over one academic term. At these programs, the number of students attending writing courses ranges normally from 15 to 25.

The questionnaire responses analyzed in this paper were gathered from 74 teachers. Forty-eight teachers were females and twenty-six were males. The 74 teachers were working at eight Saudi universities during the data collection stage. The larger number of these teachers were Saudi; other teacher nationalities include Egyptian, Indian, Jordanian, Sudanese, and Yemeni. They had varied academic degrees; 45 were assistant professors and the remaining 29 participants were in other academic ranks (lecturers = 16, associate professors = 8, professors = 5). Their teaching experiences also varied and ranged mostly from five to 20 years. The teachers’ writing instruction experiences and the number of writing courses they taught also varied. During the data collection stage, most participants had taught more than five writing courses. All the teachers participated in the study based on informed consent indicated in the questionnaire introduction which explained to them the purpose of the study, confirmed the protection of their privacy and personal data, and indicated that submitting their questionnaire responses means approving to take part voluntarily in the study.

The open-ended questionnaire

As indicated above, in this study we drew upon open-ended questionnaire responses for accessing the largest possible number of teachers, allowing participant teachers to report their practices and reasons freely without restrictions, and minimizing participants’ potential social desirability, which may increase with using some other similar data sources such as interviews. We specifically used a questionnaire part with eight open-ended questions for collecting the data for this study. The eight open-ended questions were a part of a whole questionnaire– with other closed-ended parts– used in a larger research project. The open-ended questions were developed based on the purpose of the study and the relevant literature on writing feedback modes, error correction strategy types, and non-teacher feedback forms (e.g., Abdel Latif et al., 2024 ; Ferris, 2007 ; Ferris and Hedgcock, 2023 ). Thus, with the 74 teacher responses obtained, it is assumed that the open-ended questionnaire questions have enabled us to collect detailed and objective feedback practices and activity uses in the target research context.

We worked collaboratively on developing the open-ended questions which were written in English. Some revisions in the phrasing of the questions were made based on our mutual discussion of the suitability of the questions. In its final version, the questionnaire starts with a bio part about the respondent’s workplace, nationality, and teaching and writing instruction experiences. This bio section is followed by the main questionnaire with its closed-ended and open-ended parts. The open-ended questionnaire part used in this study includes eight questions about the teachers’ uses of feedback delivery modes, error correction strategies, and learner-centered feedback activities, and the factors or beliefs accounting for these uses. Each question about the feedback provision modes/strategies, or a learner-centered activity was followed by another question part about the reason for the reported response. For example: When correcting students’ English writing errors, do you correct them directly (by giving the correct alternative) or indirectly (by highlighting them or indicating their types)? Please explain in detail and give reasons.; To what extent do you use peer feedback or evaluation activities in the English writing classes you teach? Please explain in detail and give reasons.

Data collection and analysis

The data of this study was collected over eight weeks. The open-ended questionnaire was written using Google Forms, and its URL was circulated to the faculty members working at Saudi universities. This was done by individually sending the questionnaire webpage to some faculty members and also to groups of them through WhatsApp or emails. We also asked some faculty members to circulate the questionnaire URL to their workplace colleagues. Only those faculty members with experience in teaching English writing were asked to complete the questionnaire. Eighty-two responses were initially obtained from the target sample, but only 74 teachers completed all the open-ended questions reliably. The remaining eight teachers responded to most open-ended questions by just adding a dot or letter to skip answering them after completing the closed-ended questionnaire parts; therefore, their open-ended responses were excluded from the analysis. Accordingly, this qualitative data collection process ended up with gathering 74 reliable questionnaire responses.

The data analysis process took several stages. We worked undependably and then collaboratively on analyzing the qualitative data drawing upon the following guidelines proposed by Lodico et al. ( 2006 ): sorting out the data by organizing the respondents’ answers to each question in one section, exploring the data by initially reading the respondents’ answers to each questionnaire question and comparing them, identifying the related descriptions of the participants’ reported feedback provision and classroom practices and their reported reasons, and confirming the evidence emerging from the data. After independently exploring potential emerging themes in the data, we met online to discuss the main emerging themes each one identified in the data. Through such discussion, we resolved the slight differences noted in our data analysis. To verify the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative data analysis at this early stage, we asked an expert applied linguist to read our agreed-upon data analysis framework and to indicate whether or not he would agree with the themes and categories identified. An inter-coding agreement rate of 92% was found between our data analysis and the expert applied linguist’s evaluation and analysis. We used the finally agreed-upon framework to analyze the whole data set and to look for more related details supporting each theme. The last stage involved revising the sub-themes relevant to the finally agreed-upon main data analysis categories, and calculating some of them when needed (Guest et al., 2012 ).

Results of the study

The results of the data analysis are provided in the following subsections. The presentation of these results is guided by the research questions as it incorporates the teachers’ reported uses of feedback practices or activities along with their reasons: the teachers’ feedback delivery modes section provides the answer to RQ1, error correction strategies section gives the answer to RQ2, and the content of the teachers’ use of learner-centered feedback activities section relates to the answer to RQ3.

The teachers’ feedback delivery modes

Dominant feedback modes.

In their answers to the first two open-ended questionnaire questions which concern feedback delivery modes, the respondent teachers reported using different approaches to feedback provision. Overall, the teachers’ answers showed that handwritten feedback is their most preferred and commonly used mode. Specifically, 47 teachers reported depending on handwritten feedback either as their only delivery mode or in combination with another one. Collectively, they view providing students with handwritten comments as (a) a more effective, clearer, and desirable mode for students; (b) more helpful for students in their future writing tasks; (c) more focused than oral feedback; and (d) easier, faster and more convenient for themselves as teachers than the electronic or audio modes. The following exemplary answers indicate these opinions:

Handwritten feedback is easier and faster. Also, I can write down quickly the comments that pop into my mind. The large number of students’ essays makes it difficult to evaluate using electronic comments. Moreover, electronic feedback is a technique that I did not learn how to use .

Written comments are more effective as students learn from their mistakes and they can be discussed orally if the student needs more help .

I am a paper-and-pencil person. Plus, I feel students pay more attention to written comments. They are more memorable and handwriting itself carries meaning .

As noted in the above answers, some participant teachers developed a longstanding reliance on handwritten feedback as part of their professional careers. That is why they do not like using technology in feedback provision.

The teachers’ second most commonly used mode is oral feedback. According to the teachers reporting it as their preferred mode ( n  = 37), oral feedback is personalized and immediate, and it is also an easier and less time-consuming feedback option that meets students’ psychological and learning needs. Two main issues are worth noting with regard to the oral feedback practices the teachers reported. First, it is used in most cases in combination with handwritten comments or error correction. Second, the teachers mentioned using the following three forms of oral feedback:

The one-to-one conferencing in which they discuss with students their writing .

Individual– normally brief– comments given to each student in the classroom .

Oral comments were given to the whole class on sample texts written by the students .

Conferencing is the least used form of the three oral ones; only five teachers reported using it. Conversely, the individual comments given to each student in the classroom represent the teachers’ most used oral feedback form ( n  = 24 teachers). The following answer summarizes how this oral feedback takes place in the classroom:

I believe individual oral comments are the most useful for students as they understand the source of their errors through the face-to-face discussion inside the class where I walk to each student and point out her writing errors and explain their causes .

On the other hand, 12 teachers mentioned giving oral comments to the whole class on sample texts written by students. The following two answers indicate the different approaches some of these teachers use in providing oral group feedback:

Sometimes, I show one of my student’s written work after taking his permission. I ask all students to find the mistakes and we discuss them together .

After individual oral comments and once all students have submitted their work, I collect sample anonymous essays (collection of mistakes) and present them asking students to correct the mistakes. From my experience, this is an excellent way for students to notice their mistakes .

As noted in the above answers, some teachers give students oral group feedback on anonymous texts they submit, whereas others discuss students’ texts before their classmates non-anonymously. This latter technique could cause students’ some writing anxiety and apprehension symptoms.

Regarding electronic feedback, 17 teachers reported using it with their students. Compared to other feedback modes, these teachers find electronic comments easier to manage and more comfortable to deliver. Meanwhile, they also view that with electronic feedback, students have the advantage of obtaining comments with clearer features that are easier to read and understand, and change. The following answers clearly indicate these reasons:

For me, I prefer to make comments in the email because this is easy. Handwriting is tiring, and nowadays we rarely write on paper .

I like to write comments electronically because I feel it is easier for students to read and understand. I can edit directly, or write comments on the side, or write elaborate comments at the end. I have more space than in a hard copy .

The first answer above implies that some teachers provide students with electronic feedback using emails. Other teachers mentioned they include their comments using specific platforms. It is also noteworthy that four teachers also mentioned electronic feedback because their students submit texts electronically via emails or platforms.

The teachers’ answers showed that audio-recorded feedback was their least used feedback mode. Only five teachers reported using it. For example:

I like also to give audio-recorded comments in the first draft because this allows me to elaborate more on their written texts in terms of organization and ideas .

Recorded notes were useful when we were teaching online during COVID-19 .

As noted in the above answers, some teachers use audio-recorded feedback for a functional reason (e.g., to give more detailed comments) or due to some extenuating circumstances such as emergency online teaching.

Using combinations of feedback modes

In addition to depending primarily on one particular feedback delivery mode, some teachers were found to use two or more modes in their feedback provision. The teachers’ answers revealed they use the following three different combinations of feedback modes:

Combining handwritten and oral feedback (n   =   9);

Combining electronic and oral feedback (n   =   4 teachers);

Combining three feedback modes (n   =   5 teachers) .

The 11 teachers who mentioned combining handwritten and oral feedback were found to ask students to submit their texts in a non-electronic format. These teachers’ answers suggest that with this combined handwritten-oral feedback mode, they seem to provide students with a minimal level of handwritten comments in these situations, perhaps due to the large number of students and classroom time limitations. The following two answers support this conclusion:

I usually use handwritten comments because I ask students to write in class using pen and paper. I use oral comments to the whole class about the repeated errors and techniques that would help them to overcome them .

I use handwritten comments on the paper while correcting the first draft, and oral comments for the whole class so they all can learn from them .

On the other hand, a richer feedback level is noted in the answers given by two teachers combining electronic and oral feedback:

I give students both electronic and oral comments. After correcting their assignments, I compile them anonymously in a PDF file, send them on the general chat box on Teams, and ask students to specify an online extra class so that I explain each student’s mistakes. There is no time in classes to point out all students’ mistakes. Therefore, the online meeting helps me a lot and students’ levels also improve notably .

What I do is receive students’ essays through emails. Then I evaluate them and add my comments on them. Following this, I add all the evaluated essays in one Word file and discuss all the essays anonymously with all students in the classroom using the projector to show them their writing weaknesses and strengths. After the class, I send students this file through email. I think my students always like this .

In the above answers, we could feel that the two teachers have self-satisfaction with this combined handwritten-oral feedback; a self-satisfaction level which has been reinforced by students’ feedback on their feedback practices (for example: I think my students always like this ).

In addition to the above two feedback mode combinations, five teachers said they use three feedback modes. The following answer, for instance, exemplifies an oral, audio-recorded, and handwritten feedback mode combination:

I like to use oral comments. I do it in two ways: the face-to-face comments in the classroom, and sending students private audio messages on Telegram so that each student can ask me about something on her essay. I provide my feedback by replying to my students in an audio message on Telegram. Besides, I also like to give students written feedback either through Teams or on paper .

The five teachers’ answers generally indicate their feedback mode combinations take two patterns: (a) handwritten, electronic, and oral comments ( n  = 3); and (b) oral, handwritten, and audio-recorded comments ( n  = 2).

Error correction strategies

The teachers’ use of direct versus indirect error correction.

The teachers’ answers to the third open-ended question were analyzed to understand the explicitness in their error correction of students’ writing, and their reasons. Thirty-three teachers mentioned that they use direct error correction as they have to take into account students’ language maturity levels, and also to help them understand their errors and thus avoid them in future writing tasks. The following answers exemplify these reasons:

Without giving students the correct alternative, they may not realize the error and cannot understand why it is incorrect. Giving the correct alternative will help them compare and know why it is more suitable than the other and will show them a model they can learn from .

I assume that when errors are not corrected, they might be made again. That is why I correct them in their texts, and explain the most common ones in class orally to give other students an overall idea of the most commonly committed mistakes .

The last exemplary answer above shows that in addition to written corrective feedback, some teachers correct students’ errors orally.

On the other hand, a relatively smaller number of teachers ( n  = 29) said they mainly use indirect error correction. They view it could helping students think actively about their errors and how to correct them. They also think that time constraints and students’ numbers make it difficult for them to correct errors directly. For example:

It is hard to rewrite corrections for all students. They need to figure out their mistakes and correct them .

I would like to make students try to find the alternatives themselves. In my opinion, this will have a positive impact on their writing .

Regarding the nature of the teachers’ indirect error correction, some teachers said they highlight the errors only, others said they highlight them and indicate their types, whereas two teachers mentioned they correct some errors directly and then highlight other ones for students to correct.

For a third group of teachers ( n  = 12), using direct or indirect error corrections depends on a number of variables. These include students’ numbers and levels, draft type (first versus final draft), course stage, and assignment type. It is noted that the phrase “ it depends ” is very frequent in these 12 teachers’ answers. For example:

It depends on how far we are in the course and whether direct correction has already been given to them on previous essays or not .

It depends on students’ level; high-proficiency students benefit more from highlighting the errors and identifying their types in contrast to low-proficiency students .

I correct errors directly in the early assignments to help students recognize the right alternatives. After that, I only specify the type of error for students to help them think about it .

The above answers imply that the teachers’ error correction strategies are mediated by different contextual factors and that they are only caused by their preferences or beliefs.

The teachers’ use of comprehensive versus selective error correction

The fourth open-ended questionnaire question concerns the teachers’ use of comprehensive versus selective error correction. In their answers to this question, the larger group of teachers ( n  = 43) reported adopting a comprehensive approach to correcting students’ writing errors. Like the previous case of the teachers with interest in direct error direction, the teachers with the comprehensive error correction orientation also view it helps students be aware of their English writing errors. As one of them summarizes it:

Students need to see all the errors corrected; otherwise, they would regard what is left uncorrected as correct .

It is worth mentioning that there are some slight differences in this group of teachers’ comprehensive approaches to error correction; while most teachers mentioned correcting all writing errors in students’ written texts, five teachers in the group referred to correcting a large number of students’ writing errors. Two other teachers in the group used the phrase “ I try… ” to describe their attempts to correct all writing errors. These two notes generally suggest that some teachers in this group tend to correct all errors in students’ texts, but they find it a challenging task.

The second group of teachers ( n  = 23) reported using a selective or focused approach to correcting students’ writing errors. According to these teachers, such a focused error correction approach is a better alternative as it prioritizes major writing problems and fosters students’ error awareness raising. Some teachers in this group also regard this approach as non-detrimental to students’ writing motivation and meets their optimal error correction expectations, whereas other teachers believe that in some cases students’ writing errors are too many to be dealt with either explicitly or implicitly. The following answers further explain these views:

Students usually don’t pay attention to the detailed comments .

From my experience, students can feel demotivated if they see that they need to fix many errors. To avoid such pressure and to keep them motivated, I prefer to focus on specific and attainable goals suitable for their current level .

Sometimes you don’t even know where to start with a sentence because learners often have more than one level of error in one sentence .

With such issues in mind, this group of teachers prefers to focus only on correcting selected errors deemed important for their students to avoid.

In a way similar to the teachers’ perspectives on direct versus indirect error correction, a third group of teachers ( n  = 8) also reported that covering students’ errors comprehensively or selectively depends primarily on some factors such as the error type, students’ levels and numbers, the time available, and the writing course stage. For example:

It differs based on the types of errors (simple versus complicated errors) .

I usually start any writing course I teach by correcting a large number of errors, particularly with the initial drafts. Then my error correction becomes gradually less comprehensive on the final drafts and also towards the end of the course because it will be very time-consuming if I keep providing feedback in this way .

As noted in the answers, the factors influencing the teachers’ error correction selectivity or comprehensiveness are almost identical to the ones accounting partially for their error correction explicitness or implicitness (see the above subsection). This was also noted in the influential factors a few teachers mentioned regarding their error correction focus. In other words, there are some common factors influencing some teachers’ varied approaches to error correction explicitness, comprehensiveness, and focus.

The teachers’ error correction focus

The main dimensions determining the quality of written texts include the content, organization, grammar or language use, vocabulary, and mechanics (spelling and punctuation) (see Jacobs et al., 1981 ). Broadly speaking, we can categorize these dimensions into two main categories: text ideational and organizational aspects versus language-related ones. The teachers’ answers to the fifth open-ended questionnaire question showed important issues with their error correction focus. Overall, the teachers were divided into three groups in this regard: a group focusing on text ideational and organizational aspects only ( n  = 35); a group focusing on language-related aspects only ( n  = 28); and a third one addressing both types of aspects ( n  = 11). The following three exemplary answers represent these three error correction focus orientations, respectively:

I try to cover all the aspects (organization, ideas, and mechanics) to help students improve their writing while focusing more on the skills provided by the course .

I focus on what they would need to learn the most. Sometimes, I work on a particular aspect, such as (punctuation or capitalization issues, only) if I feel that students are having apparent issues with the correct usage of these elements .

Generally in my feedback, I focus on different aspects of writing (coherence, organization, and sentence structure) .

The feedback focus areas the teachers frequently referred to in their answers include text ideas, organization, text coherence, punctuation, and grammar, respectively. The teachers’ answers generally suggest that many of them do not seem to provide their students with a deep level of language-related feedback; the teachers’ brief descriptions only concern correcting students’ punctuation and grammar errors but not their vocabulary.

Seven teachers’ answers revealed that the text draft plays an important role in their feedback focus. They reported they tend to focus on different aspects when providing feedback on multiple text drafts. However, these teachers’ focus areas vary. For example, the following two answers show the focus area of two teachers:

In any required assignment, I like to give students feedback on two drafts if time allows. In the first draft, I direct students to the overall organization of the essay and idea coherence. In the last draft, I give detailed feedback on many aspects of their writing such as grammar and punctuation .

When reading the student’s first draft, I like to comment on students’ written text in terms of organization and ideas. The second draft is the one that will be graded; therefore I have to comment on all aspects particularly students’ language .

The first answer shows that the teacher evaluates text organizational and ideational aspects in the earlier draft, but focuses on grammar and punctuation in the second draft; the opposite case is noted in the second teacher’s answer.

The teachers’ use of learner-centered feedback activities

Using student self-evaluation activities.

The teachers’ responses to the last three open-ended questionnaire questions were used to profile their use of learner-centered feedback activities and beliefs about them. Regarding self-evaluation activities, more than two-thirds of the teachers ( n  = 53) said they do not use them in their writing classes. According to these teachers, a number of factors make it difficult to use this kind of activity such as students’ unfamiliarity with them, students’ inability to detect their own errors, and time limits. The following sample answers clarify these reasons:

Students are not familiar with them .

I believe students have difficulty doing that due to their level .

I am afraid, that students don’t notice their errors .

Three teachers gave two other unique reasons for not using self-evaluation activities in the classroom. For one teacher, students self-evaluate their texts indirectly; and for the two other teachers, students need some time gap between writing the text and self-reviewing it to effectively realize their errors:

I don’t use this kind of activity because students already do it indirectly before they submit their essays .

There is no need. But I always ask students to leave their first essay draft for some time and then go back and check it. In this way, they will spot some naive writing errors they were not aware of after immediately writing the essay .

As may be inferred from the second answer, the time gap needed for helping students effectively realize their errors is not likely to be met in a one- or two-hour writing class.

With regard to the 21 teachers who reported using student self-evaluation activities in their writing classes, they view that these activities help students discover their errors, reflect upon them, become more motivated, and be autonomous learners. For example:

I use self-evaluation activities to allow students to realize their mistakes and understand why they are incorrect and how to improve their writing .

I always encourage my students to assess their own writing since it is very effective in finding out the gaps in their work and this helps them to be more independent .

A few teachers described the ways they engage students in evaluating their own texts. Their descriptions, however, are brief and do not reveal many details about the implementation of self-evaluation activities in their classes (for example, their frequency, duration, the teacher’s role, and the nature of the text drafts used). Two teachers, for instance, said they use text quality rubrics to guide these activities, and two other ones referred to using model texts to help students compare theirs to theirs. Overall, the teachers’ reported attitudes and uses indicate that self-evaluation activities are unpopular in their writing classes.

Using peer feedback activities

Unlike their reported uses of self-evaluation activities, about three-quarters of the teachers ( n  = 57) mentioned employing peer feedback in their English writing classes. It is worth noting, however, that five of these teachers used the word “sometimes” in their descriptions of the use of peer feedback. The teachers gave multiple reasons for such use. Collectively, these reasons include: changing teaching methods and classroom atmosphere, motivating students, helping students learn from each other, and improving their essay assessment ability and communication skills. For example:

I use it to help students get an idea of other students’ writings that help them to evaluate their own writing as well. At the same time, they benefit from giving and providing feedback .

Students can see others’ mistakes in a better way than seeing their own mistakes; this will eventually make them aware of how to write properly .

The teachers with this positive attitude, however, did not report many details about the way they implement peer feedback activities in the classroom. Their descriptions include phrases such as “ encourage students ”, “ ask students ” “ to share essays ”, “ to exchange essays ”, “ to share thoughts ”, “ to collaborate ”, and “ to discuss ”. Two teachers talked about dividing peer groups into students of varied writing abilities, and one teacher mentioned guiding these activities by using model texts.

The 17 teachers with a negative attitude toward using peer feedback also have their reasons. For these teachers, there are no real gains from peer feedback activities because students do not take their classmates’ evaluations seriously and do not regard them as reliable sources, and they apprehend peer evaluation. Besides, students’ similar low levels do not help in effectively implementing peer feedback activities. The following answers illustrate these concerns:

Students do not take peer feedback activities seriously; sometimes they talk about irrelevant life issues during them .

It is less likable to me. I think many students do not like to criticize each other’s writing .

Students don’t like their mistakes to be seen by friends .

Due to these reasons, these teachers, or at least a number of them view peer feedback as a time-consuming activity in writing classes.

Using automated writing evaluation activities

Compared to self-evaluation and peer feedback activities, the teachers reported the least positive attitude towards using automated writing evaluation. Sixty teachers answered the relevant questionnaire question negatively. Some of these teachers do not trust automated writing evaluation applications and feel they are not helpful enough as they just provide students with text grammar and mechanics correction suggestions, but do not make them aware of their nature or causes. Other teachers believe that students will not obtain significant learning gains from using them. Therefore, they regard such activities as time-consuming, particularly if we take into account that students can use them on their own. For example:

Don’t use it. Never thought about it. I think students will naturally use it at home .

I don’t like to use it because students will add the suggested changes without understanding why their writing is wrong .

For the 14 teachers who reported a positive attitude towards using automated writing evaluation as a classroom-based tool, they feel it could guide students properly, and help them to write correctly. They also believe it could save time, and perceive its use in the classroom as a way for coping with technological advances and for reinforcing students’ out-of-classroom writing learning experiences. As one teacher summarizes this last reason:

I use automated writing evaluation because students already use it; so, I teach them how to use it and the best ways of making use of online apps .

In some of the relevant answers these teachers provided, we can also note the words “advise” and “recommend”. In other words, some of these teachers also suggest particular more reliable automated writing evaluation applications for their students to use independently. Taking all the positive answers into account, we may generally conclude that a few teachers in this context occasionally integrate automated writing evaluation applications in their classes, and/or alternatively advise students to use them out of classrooms.

Discussion and conclusions

The results above show the complexity of the teachers’ feedback provision process. The teachers in this study reported their dependence on some feedback delivery modes and error correction strategies more than others. Both handwritten and oral feedback modes are more dominant in their feedback practices than the other modes. Meanwhile, a small group of teachers reported they combined two or three feedback modes. With regard to direct versus indirect error correction, a relatively larger group of teachers mentioned using direct error correction. While these results concur with Lee’s ( 2011 ) findings, they contradict those reported by Alshahrani and Storch ( 2014 ), Liu and Wu ( 2019 ), Mao and Crosthwaite ( 2019 ), Wei and Cao ( 2020 ) whose participant teachers had preferences for indirect feedback. Regarding error correction scope (i.e., comprehensive versus selective), a relatively larger group of teachers reported correcting students’ writing errors comprehensively. These results are congruent with those of Alshahrani and Storch ( 2014 ) and Alkhatib ( 2015 ) in indicating that comprehensive error correction is more common in Saudi university English writing classes.

The study showed the teachers are somewhat divided in their focus on text ideational and organizational versus language-related aspects, but more teachers were found to pay slightly more attention to text ideational and organizational aspects. Specifically, the textual areas the teachers reported focusing on in their feedback are text ideas, organization, text coherence, punctuation, and grammar, respectively. These results contradict those of Diab ( 2006 ), Lee ( 2011 ), Lee et al. ( 2016 ), and Mao and Crosthwaite ( 2019 ) whose participant teachers were found to prioritize language accuracy error correction. In their language-related error correction focus, the teachers were found to be concerned with grammar and mechanics in particular. Some previous studies (e.g., Alshahrani and Storch, 2014 ; Cheng et al., 2021 ) strongly support this point. The conclusion drawn here is that in many L2 writing contexts, teachers focus far more on grammar and mechanics than vocabulary. The study also emphasizes previous research findings (e.g., Alkhatib, 2015 ; Chen, 2023 ; Lee et al., 2016 ) that many L2 writing teachers view considering students’ needs as a decisive factor in prioritizing their feedback provision practices. What may seem unique in the results of the present study is that many teachers use combinations of feedback modes and direct-indirect and comprehensive-selective error correction. This may be inconsistent with the previous conceptualizations proposing that writing teachers normally use one particular feedback mode or error correction type rather than the other (e.g., Ferris, 2007 ; Ferris and Hedgcock, 2023 ). Finally, the teachers considered some factors potentially influencing their use of particular feedback modes and error correction explicitness, scope, or focus strategies. Collectively, these factors are text draft type (first versus final draft), writing error type, assignment type, students’ levels and numbers, available time, and the writing course stage. Some similar contextual factors such as time limitations and workload were also found in previous studies (e.g., Mao and Crosthwaite, 2019 ; Wei and Cao, 2020 ).

As for the teachers’ use of learner-centered feedback activities, it was found that a larger number of them make use of peer feedback activities only in their classes, and neglect student self-evaluation and automated writing evaluation. The teachers’ reasons varied depending on the activity type, but it seems that the perceived value of the particular activity has influenced their attitude towards using it. Overall, these results confirm previous learner and teacher research findings (e.g., Aldukhail, 2023 ; Alhabib and Alghammas, 2023 ; Alnasser, 2022 ; Koltovskaia, 2023 ; Li, 2021 ; Wilson et al., 2021 ) about the teachers’ concerns related to using student self-evaluation and automated writing evaluation activities in writing classes.

The results of this study indicate the need for fostering some particular dimensions in Saudi university teachers’ L2 writing feedback literacy. As noted in the results section, there seem to be shortcomings in the teachers’ practices regarding, for instance, making more effective use of electronic feedback, providing more comprehensive language-related feedback, and optimizing peer feedback activities. Teachers need to receive adequate training in these dimensions. In-service teacher training should also focus on raising teachers’ awareness of how to effectively use self-evaluation and automated writing evaluation activities in their writing classes. Given that large class sizes hinder effective feedback practices, there is a need to minimize students’ number in Saudi university English writing classes. With an average number of about 15 students in one class, feedback practices in English writing classes are expected to significantly improve. These recommendations are also generalizable to the L2 writing instruction context with characteristics similar to the Saudi one.

The qualitative approach used in this study has enabled us to provide a detailed profile of teacher feedback practices and feedback activity uses in Saudi university English writing classes. Yet, further research is still needed to complete this profile. Future studies could combine writing teacher feedback open questionnaire data with large sample feedback comments. This will add significantly to profiling feedback practices in the Saudi context. Important also is comparing writing teacher and learner feedback perspectives using qualitative and quantitative data. Such methodological approaches may be also adopted in examining writing feedback practices in other international contexts. By profiling feedback perspectives in this way, we could identify writing teacher feedback literacy needs and learner feedback expectations.

Data availability

The data is not publicly available to protect the participants’ privacy and confidentiality. The data of this study will be available upon request to the corresponding author at [email protected].

Abdel Latif MMM, Alsuhaibani Z, Alsahil A (2024) Matches and mismatches between Saudi university students’ English writing feedback preferences and teachers’ practices. Assess Writ 61:100863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100863

Article   Google Scholar  

Alsahil A, Abdel Latif MMM, Alsuhaibani Z (2024) Exploring EFL learner engagement with different teacher feedback modes. Comput Assist Lang Learn. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2374785

Aldukhail B (2023) Saudi undergraduate students’ perceptions on applying self-directed feedback in writing and preferences for feedback. Theory Pract Lang Stud 13(3):636–645. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1303.12

Alhabib A, Alghammas A (2023) Automated Corrective Feedback Program (Grammarly): a study of effects on the writing skills of Saudi EFL undergraduates. Migr Lett 20(S9):563–582

Google Scholar  

Alkhatib N (2015) Written corrective feedback at a Saudi university: English language teachers’ beliefs, students’ preferences, and teachers’ practices. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, UK

Alnasser S (2022) EFL Learners’ perceptions of integrating computer-based feedback into writing classrooms: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Sage Open 12(3):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221123021

Alshahrani A, Storch N (2014) Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: how do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences? Aust Rev Appl Linguist 37(2):101–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als

Bakla A (2020) A mixed methods study of feedback modes in L2 writing. Lang Learn Technol 24(1):107–128. 10125/44712

Bogdan R, Biklen SK (1997) Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA

Chen W (2023) Investigating novice EFL writing teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning written corrective feedback across contexts: a case study from a complexity theory perspective. Lang Aware 32(3):465–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2022.2119993

Cheng X, Zhang L, Yan Q (2021) Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Lang Teach Res 13621688211057665. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665

Creswell JW (2012) Personal copy: educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Incorporated

Cunningham KJ, Link S (2021) Video and text feedback on ESL writing: understanding attitude and negotiating relationships. J Second Lang Writ 52:100797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100797

Diab R (2006) Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom: comparing instructor and student preferences. Engl Teach Forum 44(3):2–13

Dikli S, Bleyle S (2014) Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: how does it compare to instructor feedback? Assess Writ 22:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006

Ferris DR (2007) Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. J Second Lang Writ 16:165–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003

Ferris DR, Hedgcock JS (2013) Teaching L2 composition: purpose, process, and practice. Routledge, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Ferris DR, Hedgcock JS (2023) Teaching L2 composition: purpose, process, and practice. Routledge, New York

Ferris DR, Brown J, Liu H, Stine MA (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: What teachers say and what they do. TESOL Q 45:207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706

Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE (2012) Applied thematic analysis. Sage, Los Angeles

Jacobs HL, Zinkgraf SA, Wormuth DR, Hartfiel VF, Hughey JB (1981) Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Newbury House, Rowley, MA

Koltovskaia S (2023) Postsecondary L2 writing teachers’ use and perceptions of Grammarly as a complement to their feedback. ReCALL 35(3):290–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344022000179

Lantolf JP (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press., Oxford

Lee I (2011) Working smarter, not working harder: revisiting teacher feedback in the L2 writing classroom. Can Mod Lang Rev 67(3):377–399. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.67.3.377

Lee H, Leong A, Song G (2016) Investigating teacher perceptions of feedback. ELT J 71(1):60–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw047

Li Z (2021) Teachers in automated writing evaluation (AWE) system-supported ESL writing classes: Perception, implementation, and influence. System 99:102505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102505

Lodico M, Spaulding D, Voegtle K (2006) Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Liu Q, Wu S (2019) Same goal, varying beliefs: how students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. J Writ Res 11(2):299–330. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.03

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mao SS, Crosthwaite P (2019) Investigating written corrective feedback:(Mis) alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. J Second Lang Writ 45:46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004

Miao Y, Badger R, Zhen Y (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. J Second Lang Writ 15:179–200

Özkanal Ü, Gezen E (2023) Students ‘attitudes and perceptions of e-feedback types: online teacher feedback (OTF), online peer feedback (OPF), and automated writing evaluation feedback (AWE). J Adv Educ Stud 5:53–79. https://doi.org/10.48166/ejaes.1343506

Saito H (1994) Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: a case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Can J 11(2):46–70

Sari E, Han T (2024) The impact of automated writing evaluation on English as a foreign language learners’ writing self‐efficacy, self‐regulation, anxiety, and performance. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13004

Thirakunkovit S, Chamcharatsri B (2019) A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL J 21(1):140–170

Tian L, Zhou Y (2020) Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System 91:102247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Wang Y, Derakhshan A, Pan Z, Ghiasvand F (2023) Chinese EFL teachers’ writing assessment feedback literacy: a scale development and validation study. Assess Writ 56:100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100726

Wilson J, Ahrendt C, Fudge E, Raiche A, Beard G, MacArthur C (2021) Elementary teachers’ perceptions of automated feedback and automated scoring: transforming the teaching and learning of writing using automated writing evaluation. Comput Educ 168:104208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104208

Wei W, Cao Y (2020) Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: a teacher cognition perspective. Sage Open 10(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886

Zacharias N (2007) Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC J 38(1):38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820607615

Zhao H (2010) Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assess Writ 15(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-RG23043).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Graduate Studies of Education, Cairo University, Al Giza, Egypt

Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif

College of Languages & Translation, Department of English Language & Literature, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Asma Alsahil & Zainab Alsuhaibani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Muhammad MM Abdel Latif: conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, writing, review and editing, project supervision. Asma Alsahil: methodology, investigation, data curation, data analysis, writing, review and editing. Zainab Alsuhaibani: methodology, investigation, data analysis, writing, review and editing, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asma Alsahil .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University and its ethical committee (638209094656124483).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants of the study. In the introductory section of the questionnaire, the participants were provided with clear information about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their research participation, the use of data for research purposes only, and the protection of their privacy and personal data. The participants were also informed that submitting questionnaire responses means agreeing to participate voluntarily in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abdel Latif, M.M.M., Alsahil, A. & Alsuhaibani, Z. Profiling EFL writing teachers’ feedback provision practices and activity uses in Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1120 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03639-5

Download citation

Received : 11 March 2024

Accepted : 21 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03639-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Athl Train
• v.41(2); 2006

Journal Writing as a Teaching Technique to Promote Reflection

Stacy e walker.

Ball State University, Muncie, IN

Stacy E. Walker, PhD, ATC, provided conception and design; acquisition and analysis and interpretation of the data; and drafting, critical revision, and final approval of the article.

Objective: To introduce the process of journal writing to promote reflection and discuss the techniques and strategies to implement journal writing in an athletic training education curriculum.

Background: Journal writing can facilitate reflection and allow students to express feelings regarding their educational experiences. The format of this writing can vary depending on the students' needs and the instructor's goals.

Description: Aspects of journal writing assignments are discussed, including different points to take into account before assigning the journals. Lastly, various factors to contemplate are presented when providing feedback to the students regarding their written entries.

Clinical Advantages: Journal writing assignments can benefit students by enhancing reflection, facilitating critical thought, expressing feelings, and writing focused arguments. Journal writing can be adapted into a student's clinical course to assist with bridging the gap between classroom and clinical knowledge. In addition, journals can assist athletic training students with exploring different options for handling daily experiences.

As athletic training students progress through their education, instructors hope that their students have time to not only retain but also to reflect on the knowledge learned. Reflection has been defined as a process regarding thinking about and exploring an issue of concern, which is triggered by an experience. 1 Leaver-Dunn et al 2 stated that reflection distinguishes expert practitioners from their peers. An expert clinician uses information from previous experiences as well as the insights gained from the reflective process to improve decision-making ability. As students progress through their education, they must practice, enhance, and habitually use their reflection skills. Leaver-Dunn et al 2 stated that athletic training educators should seek to facilitate a student's reflection. Although many strategies exist to promote this process, one teaching method that has been used to encourage reflection is journal writing. 3–11 The purpose of this article is to discuss journal writing as a pedagogic technique to promote reflection. I first briefly discuss the process of reflection and the research related to journal writing and then offer strategies for implementing journal writing in an athletic training education curriculum.

PROCESS OF REFLECTION

Once a student has knowledge and becomes proficient at a skill (ie, evaluating an ankle injury), that student possesses knowing-in-action. 12 Knowing-in-action refers to the “know-how” a practitioner reveals while performing an action. Simply put, the practitioner shows competency, or that he or she knows how to perform an orthopaedic assessment, by displaying the appropriate actions. Knowing-in-action assists a student except when a familiar routine produces an unexpected result. Take an example of a senior-level student who has performed various patellofemoral examinations but, during a recent evaluation, had inconclusive results. A student in this situation can become very frustrated. When students come across a new situation such as this, it would be beneficial for them to reflect-on-action, or reflect on that experience after it has happened. Unfortunately, more often than not, no time is designated for students to engage in the activity of reflection. Athletic training educational programs are encouraged to not only foster knowledge in students but also to cultivate reflection to enable our students to learn from past experiences.

An expert practitioner experiments on the spot with previous data or engages in what is called reflection-in-action . 12 Reflection-in-action occurs when an individual reshapes what he or she is doing while doing it. Students, who do not possess an array of previous experiences from which to draw, are not able to reflect-in-action as can skilled practitioners. We hope that as they progress through their education, students will learn to practice, enhance, and learn to habitually use their reflection-in-action skills. Although many strategies exist to facilitate reflection, one teaching method that has been extensively used is journal writing. 3–11 The examples of the reflective processes cited above refer to Schon, 12 but interested readers can also consult Powell 13 and Mezirow 14 for additional processes.

No true definitions of journal writing exist due to the vast number of ways journal writing can be used. In the literature, journal writing is described and explained in many different ways. For the purposes of this article, journal writing refers to any writing that students perform during either a clinical or classroom experience that challenges them to reflect on past situations, as well as consider how they might perform differently should similar situations arise in the future. The goal of any journal writing assignment should guide the written content for the student. For example, a student could reflect on the challenges of designing and administering a rehabilitation program as part of a rehabilitation course. Students can also return to their struggles with matters such as professionalism during any aspect of their clinical experiences. Both assignments encourage the student to reflect on an experience, whether that experience be from classroom content or their clinical experiences.

Journal writing has been used with nursing, 4 5 8 11 physical therapy, 9 15 occupational therapy, 7 and teacher certification 16 17 students. The journal writing topics for this teaching method can range from reflecting on daily clinical experiences (eg, assessments and rehabilitations performed) to summaries of weekly clinical experiences. Widely used, journal writing has been recognized as a method designed to enhance reflection, 3–11 facilitate critical thought, 18–22 express feelings in writing about problems encountered during clinical experiences, 5 23 and practice writing summaries, objectives, and focused arguments. 22 Because of these benefits, educational writing in a clinical journal is a common assignment in nursing programs. 22 23 However, information for the athletic training educator in various teaching methods, including journal writing, is lacking.

JOURNAL WRITING RESEARCH

Most of the research involving journal writing has been qualitative in nature, with the journal entries analyzed for trends. Davies 3 found that in the process of journal writing, students moved from being passive to active learners during their clinical debriefing sessions. Students would come to debriefing sessions with problems or clinical issues partially solved and look to the debriefing sessions for further input and validation. This type of paradigm shift was also reported by Sedlack, 24 who found that journal writing aided in placing responsibility with the student for active engagement and self-directed learning. In addition, the students' self-confidence increased because the journals enabled them to identify their own lack of motivation. 24

Recently, Williams and Wessel 15 used reflective journals with physical therapy students studying chronic musculoskeletal conditions to obtain feedback regarding their learning. Students moved through a “fix-it” mentality to a more client-centered disability focus. Over the course of the 8 weeks, interactions with patients changed students' attitudes and increased students' knowledge about chronic disease.

In another qualitative study, Ritchie 25 reported that after completing 7 weeks of weekly journal entries, physical therapy students were provided with many opportunities for both the student and faculty member to give feedback, ask questions, and offer ideas for further reflection. In addition, bonds of trust were formed, not only between the student and faculty member, but among the students themselves as they learned to begin to trust themselves and the decisions they made. Last, students valued being able to ask the faculty member questions and receive validation without exposing their own perceived weaknesses to their peers. Ibarreta and McLeod 5 also found this need for feedback. Nursing students using journals wanted more feedback and direction from the instructor to gain more confidence regarding decisions made during their practicum.

Wong et al 11 used dialogue and journal writing to assess a system for test coding the level of any reflection. Each student wrote a reflective paper after developing a teaching plan and then carried out that teaching plan at the clinical assignment. A coding scheme was developed to analyze the reflective papers. Students were categorized as nonreflectors, reflectors, or critical reflectors. Of the 45 students in the study, 34 demonstrated reflection and were able to relate their experiences and turn them into new learning opportunities.

In a similar study, 10 during 2 semesters, each student engaged in dialogue 5 times and wrote 4 journal entries in addition to a reflective paper. (Not described were the specific data analysis methods and the specific breakdown of nonreflectors, reflectors, and critical reflectors.) Students moved from a more narrative or descriptive writing style (nonreflector) to expressing frustration and offering solutions to problems (critical reflector). It was felt that journal writing and dialogue were essential to student learning.

JOURNAL WRITING PROCESS

Journal writing can have many different applications based on the goals of the instructor and student. One common use of journal writing is to promote reflection and thought through one-on-one dialogue between the student and instructor. Brown and Sorrell 22 stated that a clinical journal provides guided opportunities for students to “think aloud” on paper and reflect on their own perceptions or understandings of the situations encountered in their practicums. Hahnemann 20 felt that journal writing assignments encourage exploration and risk taking on the part of the student. Before trying solutions to problems in real life, the student can be creative and express feelings and frustrations on paper. Ibarreta and McLeod 5 reported that their students, through journal writing, were expected to apply knowledge gained from prior classroom content and literature relevant to their clinical experiences. Recently, reflective journals 7 were used to emphasize connecting clinical content with thought process and self-awareness.

Holmes 23 stated that by recording and describing experiences, feelings, and thoughts, students are able to recreate their experiences for additional exploration. A student who had a difficult encounter with a student-athlete could write in the journal about the situation and think about what happened. He or she could describe why decisions were made and actions taken, along with feelings and future thoughts and directions. As educators, we must push our students to reflect more deeply. Pushing students to continuously ask themselves why a decision was made or why they feel the way they do about a topic or situation will cause them to look deeper for answers. Why did they perform a certain special test? Why was ultrasound used in the treatment of that injury, and how will that ultrasound affect the inflammation process? What changes could be made to this patient's treatment or future encounters with a specific injury? Davies 3 stated that journal writing provides students with an opportunity to return to their experiences in an attempt to develop new perspectives that can guide future clinical actions. For example, a student, after performing a knee examination and discussing it with the Approved Clinical Instructor, could later write about the entire experience. What would he or she do differently? What did he or she learn? Writing encourages and provides an opportunity for students to reflect on an experience, connect, and think critically about ideas or situations.

Dialogue Between Instructor and Student

As stated previously, journal writing provides a one-on-one dialogue between the instructor and student. 23 Wong et al 11 suggested that instructors and students are partners in the promotion of reflective learning. This dialogue, facilitated by the instructor, should be designed to challenge the student to reflect on his or her experiences. A student who has accomplished a goal or had a positive rehabilitation experience with a patient is allowed to share that information. In addition, this dialogue can also assist with conflicts in a confidential manner. For example, a student could reflect in the written journal about a difficult situation with a coach. Upon reading the journal, the instructor may provide feedback and ask questions, which will ideally push the student to think about future decisions if again faced with a similar situation.

Not only does this one-on-one dialogue assist in challenging the student, but also students valued the feedback to validate their thoughts on new endeavors. 25 26 Because students are unfamiliar with dealing with coaches, let alone being involved in professional conflict, they may be limited in what they perceive as actions and solutions. This unfamiliar problem can leave students feeling that they have no control or power in the situation.

Although students may experience cognitive dissonance when engaging in a written dialogue about a challenging experience they had, the discourse can facilitate different ways of thinking 27 and empower students to handle themselves differently after reflection in the future. 28 Through one-on-one dialogue, students are empowered to not just leave future encounters and experiences to fate. Instead students, after reflection, have thought about their actions and how they would handle themselves or the situation differently in the future, which is reflection-for-action. 28 Reflection should be encouraged and enhanced through one-on-one dialogue via the journal writing process. The journal writing process, however, should be well planned and have explicit student expectations.

EXPECTATIONS AND PLANNING

Before assigning journal writing, the instructor must convey to the students all expectations with regard to completing and grading the journals. 22 29 Table 1 presents many questions that should be asked when contemplating whether to assign journal writing. These questions will provide focus to enable the student to concentrate on the writing and not feel insecure about how the instructor will grade the journal. As stated by Kobert, 29 every effort should be made to ensure that the journal writing is seen as nonthreatening and satisfying. Identifying expectations before starting the first journal will prevent some confusion. It is also imperative for the instructor to consider many facets of the journaling process. The following section discusses factors to consider when planning for the use of journals, including setting student expectations, identifying appropriate topics, journal utilization strategies, and grading systems.

Journal Utilization Techniques

Depending on the method of use (daily, weekly writing) and the journal's purpose (to enhance critical thinking, promote reflection, etc), the way in which journal writing is used can take many different forms. Table 2 presents general topics followed by subtopics for possible student assignments in the classroom or clinical education setting. These topics can vary depending on the level of student, classroom content, location and type of clinical experience, and deficiencies or needs of the student. Topics may be decided solely by the instructor or through more egalitarian methods with the students' input. Burnard 30 stated that one democratic method of determining topics for journal writing is to discuss this with the class. Preassigned or spontaneous topics could also be used. The advantage of preassigned topics is that the student is aware of the topic and can be thinking about it before writing. On the other hand, some students may have certain spontaneous experiences during their clinical education about which they wish to write. It is important for instructors to experiment with students and classes to determine which methods encourage reflection in students. Some classes as a whole may elect to use journal writing with the spontaneous method.

Spontaneous topics and experiences can include incidents that interest or concern students during their clinical placements. Unfortunately, due to uncontrollable factors, some students may find this method less challenging than preassigned topics and want to change the method of their journal writing. Journal writing should be viewed as experimental and as a work in progress or a process by which students learn to reflect and, we hope, move from reflection-in-action to reflection-for-action. Simply, the goal is for students to evaluate their actions and reflect on how they could handle the situation differently in the future. Instructors should be ready to adapt the journal writing experience to enhance assignment goals, whether they are reflection, learning, etc.

Journal writing can be time consuming for the student, so one way to show that this writing is valued is to allot some classroom time for the students to write. Hahnemann 20 reported using journal writing for 10 to 15 minutes of each class. Students were asked to write about what they expected to learn from class that day, as well as what had been learned from previous classes. Although allocating 10 to 15 minutes of class time for this purpose may not be feasible in a 50-minute class period, this method could be adapted to 2 to 3 minutes every class period or whatever fits the instructor's schedule.

Brown and Sorrell 22 assigned students to write in their journals during class about difficult concepts or summarize a discussion or argue for or against a treatment. Physical therapy students were assigned to write about at least one learning event that occurred in their clinical placement. 9 Burnard, 30 who assigned weekly writings under 6 headings from which students could choose, also used this type of weekly writing. Pinkstaff 26 asked nursing students enrolled in a public health class to write in their journals on individual topics related to class each week. Qualitative analysis revealed that the students not only improved in the creativity of their writing but the quality of their essay writing skills.

When completing some journal assignments, students should be allowed to write using a freeform style. 20 31 Although this seems nontraditional, it is important to remember that if the focus is on the thought process, then grammar and punctuation should not be a part of the evaluation of the journal. If the focus of the journal is to reflect, then the journal should be a forum where students can write and not worry about punctuation, grammar, and spelling. As stated by Hahnemann, 20 journals are a means by which students should be allowed to experiment and test their wings. Focusing too much attention on grammar and punctuation may lead a student to misinterpret the purpose of the journal writing activity. Instead, the attention should be on the content of what is written and not how it is written. Additional information on grading and feedback is discussed later.

Journal Content and Format

Burnard 30 felt that no guidelines should be given regarding the amount that is written under each heading or journal topic, because it was felt this would be overstructuring; however, students were encouraged to provide regular journal entries for each given topic. Instead of a student's writing about a given topic one time over the course of a week, the student could be encouraged to write after each clinical experience or several times during that week. Brown and Sorrell 22 felt that the maximum length for assignments, such as summaries or critiques, should be 1 to 2 pages. Each instructor must decide what is appropriate for his or her purpose, and students must realize that content is more important than word count. Instructors should also realize that motivation is a factor in journal writing. Paterson 31 pointed out that students are not always interested in all aspects of their clinical experiences, so instructors should not expect all journals to be of the same quality. Some weeks, the student might only meet the basic requirements, whereas in other weeks, the student may write profusely. Different clinical experiences provide more education and invoke more passion than others. The instructor has to decide, based on the goals and objectives of the assignment as well as the clinical experience during a given time frame, the quality and length of journal writing.

Students should also be given instructions as to how and when to turn in and pick up their journal entries. Specific guidelines should be in place that will enable the student to properly submit and collect the journal entries. For example, one guideline may be to have the students collect their journals every Monday by 12:00 pm and to submit them every Friday by 12:00 pm . Another would be to have them submitted during one class period and, after grading, handed back to the students during the next class period. Lastly, other questions must be considered, such as where and how to submit the journal entries (eg, mail box versus e-mail).

JOURNAL GRADING

Jackson 32 and Pinkstaff 26 stated that the single most important factor in the successful use of journaling is allowing the journal to be a safe space for free expression. How can a student be graded for writing about feelings and reactions to specific issues and topics? How do we know he or she is really trying to reflect? Although they should be graded for their thoughts and feelings, it is important the students be informed 22 as to how the journals will fit into their grades. What percentage of their grade will be affected by their journal writing? How will they be graded? Brown and Sorrell 22 suggested a method of grading by which if the student achieves all the goals for the journal, then he or she earns an A or passes that portion of the class the journal fulfills. Hahnemann 20 and Williams et al 9 weighted the journals as 10% of a grade in a course. Hahnemann 20 stated this was done because they felt it would motivate the students to write thoroughly and with meaning. Tryssenaar 7 reported weighting the journals as 20% of the final grade. However the instructor chooses to integrate journal writing into a course, unless the journals have an effect on the grades, students will put very little effort into their writing. 20 Adding a grade to the journals puts value to them and establishes their importance. Although 10% to 20% of a grade has been reported in the literature, it is up to the individual instructor to weight the journals accordingly or in some way to ensure that students feel the journal writing assignments matter and are of significant value. These journals can be a commitment for the student as well as the instructor, but they can potentially provide valuable insight and reflection. The strength of journal entries is related to the students' motivation to engage and participate in their own learning processes. 8 If a student is motivated and active in learning, the process will be seen as an investment instead of time consuming. Wong et al 11 found that willingness, commitment, and open mindedness were attributes that were conducive to reflective learning.

Determining the level of reflectivity is beyond the scope of this manuscript. However, Atkins and Murphy 33 outlined 3 stages of the reflective process that can be used when grading. Stage 1 is triggered by awareness of uncomfortable feelings. The student realizes that knowledge being applied in this situation is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the situation. For example, a student is using ultrasound treatments for tendinitis, but the treatment is producing no therapeutic effect. The student is unsure as to why this is happening and expresses frustration. The second stage is characterized by a critical analysis of the situation. This involves feelings and knowledge, so that new knowledge is applied. Four terms were used to describe this critical thought process: association, validation, integration, and appropriation. The development of a new perspective on the situation is stage 3. The outcome here through learning is reflection. These 3 stages can be a guide when grading a student's written journal entry to determine the level of reflectivity of the student. Educators interested in researching other tools with which to evaluate or grade journals are encouraged to consult the following papers and other works. 8 24 34

JOURNAL FEEDBACK

After writing their first journal entry, students should receive feedback before writing the next entry. 22 One of the most challenging tasks with journal writing is evaluating the student's written work. 20 Judgment and criticism are withheld. Instead, the attempt to write on the student's part is more important than the success of the attempt. 20 Brown and Sorrell 22 agreed to provide 1 to 2 comments about the overall journal. The thought of not providing numerous comments is echoed by Holmes, 23 who stated that when the focus of feedback is detailed, the students lose their sense of purpose and meaning in the writing. Students will shift their focus from constructing a sense of what they are trying to say into worrying about grammar and sentence structure. Table 3 provides some sample follow-up questions that can be used to challenge and encourage students to think and reflect. In addition, as stated by Paterson, 31 a balance must be maintained between giving too many comments and nudging the student into new ways of thinking. Correcting misinformation written by the student is encouraged, but no criticism or judgment should be made of the student's feelings. Annotations might pertain to future questions and comments to expand on in the next journal entry, but the instructor needs to try to avoid excessive grammar and spelling corrections.

Feedback can be given in various ways. Brown and Sorrell 22 reported using both oral and written feedback. Conferences, also known as debriefing sessions, either individual or group, can be set up to discuss the clinical journal's relationship to reflection, critical thinking, etc. The student and instructor sit down together to discuss the journal along with feedback goals for upcoming writings. In addition, group discussions 8 15 22 at the beginning of a practicum and/or throughout can conserve faculty time, promote the exchange of ideas, and help synthesize information for students. Another way to conserve faculty time is to only grade at random a percentage of the journals that are written after a few weeks of feedback has been given. All of these types of feedback have strong points and limitations. It is up to the instructor to decide what is appropriate and to modify as needed. Last, if a student inquires as to why or how the journal was graded, it is important for the instructor to be able to explain all comments and methods of grading. These grading points are not only justification but can help guide the student to further reflection.

As stated by Riley-Doucet and Wilson, 8 one of the limitations of this type of assignment is the student who procrastinates and doesn't take responsibility for coursework. When a student exhibits this type of behavior, it should be recognized by the instructor and discussed with the student. The student should be given the benefit of the doubt as to the procrastination, and the instructor can approach the student from the perspective that the student is lacking knowledge about reflection and journal writing. Riley-Doucet and Wilson 8 recommended pairing this student with a peer who is comfortable with the journal writing. If this is not possible, another recommendation is to establish small short-term goals for upcoming journal writings, such as considering specific questions when writing the journal. These short-term goals and guiding questions can assist the student in the reflective process.

Examples of questions include the following:

• How would I have done this differently?
• Why did I choose to perform the skill the way I did?
• What was my reasoning in handling that situation that way?

Journal writing is a process, and students may not put much effort into their writing in the beginning. For some students, it will be easy to express their feelings and frustrations. Other students may struggle. Instructors should take into account individual personalities when providing feedback. In addition, the students need to be reminded that the journal writing is a process that takes time. It may take weeks or longer for a student to feel comfortable and trust the instructor. Feedback is a vital aspect in nurturing reflection over time, as the journal writing progresses over weeks and possibly years.

As stated by Kobert, 30 one drawback to journal writing is what makes it so valuable. Students may be reluctant or unable to explore and share intimacies of their own lived experiences with others. They may be more concerned with writing what they think the instructor wants to hear than writing about what is true to them. Writing about issues and feelings puts the student in a very vulnerable position. To promote reflection, he or she must express weakness and insecurity to grow. Students must feel comfortable exposing this vulnerability. Holmes 23 noted the significant responsibility of both the student and instructor to accept differing views while searching for understanding and meaning. Part of encouraging this truthful writing is not only through the previously mentioned feedback procedures but also by maintaining confidentiality to encourage truthfulness. 19 If students are familiar with the instructor and know him or her to be nonjudgmental, they will, more than likely, be more willing to self-disclose in their journal writing. However, if the instructor is new to the students, they will need evidence that the instructor will remain true to his or her word before disclosing too much in a journal entry. Such trust takes time to develop, but if journal writing is seen as a work in progress, this is all part of the journey.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional research needs to be conducted investigating journal writing. 4 15 33 Much of the journal writing literature in the allied health field ranges from specific articles about grading 23 and assisting with common problems or pitfalls 31 to general guidelines for using journal writing. 19 20 30 Although this information is useful and often written by professionals speaking from years of experience, more qualitative and quantitative research is needed. Specific research questions include the following:

• How does journal writing affect the learning of material?
• Does the type of feedback given to the student affect what is written in journal writing?
• How do students learn to reflect on their experiences?
• What variables affect the trust level between the instructor and student to enhance truthful writing?
• Does maturity affect journal writing and reflection?

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this article was to provide an introduction to the process of journal writing to promote reflection. Our students, on a daily basis, encounter experiences that can teach them to reflect during their future practice of athletic training, and we owe it to our students to facilitate their reflection. Course preparation is short in relation to career practice; therefore, as educators, we hope to instill reflective qualities that mature and grow.

Many methods of assigning and grading journal writing were presented in this article. As with any teaching method, there is no right or wrong way to approach journal writing. As the students grow in self-confidence and gain trust in the instructor, they begin to reflect and write about their real concerns. This leads to obtaining valuable feedback to empower our future certified athletic trainers to overcome those real-life concerns. Reflection is the goal, as everyone is rewarded—the student, the patient, the coach, and the instructor. Reflection enables the student to do a better job as a certified athletic trainer. Isn't our real goal to enable all of our students to give thought to their actions and perform with the utmost skill, knowledge, and confidence that they have done their jobs in the best possible manner?

• Boyd E, Fales A. Reflective learning: key to learning from experience. J Human Psychol. 1983; 23 :99–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leaver-Dunn D, Harrelson GL, Martin M, Wyatt T. Critical thinking predisposition among undergraduate athletic training students. J Athl Train. 2002; 37 :S-147–S-151. (4 suppl) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies E. Reflective practice: a focus for caring. J Nurs Educ. 1995; 34 :167–174. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fakude LP, Bruce JC. Journaling: a quasi-experimental study of student nurses' reflective learning ability. Curationis. 2003; 26 :49–55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibarreta GI, McLeod L. Thinking aloud on paper: an experience in journal writing. J Nurs Educ. 2004; 43 :134–137. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessler PD, Lund CH. Reflective journaling: developing an online journal for distance education. Nurse Educ. 2004; 29 :20–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tryssenaar J. Interactive journals: an educational strategy to promote reflection. Am J Occup Ther. 1995; 49 :695–702. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riley-Doucet C, Wilson S. A three-step method of self-reflection using reflective journal writing. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25 :964–968. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RM, Wessel J, Gemus M, Foster-Seargeant F. Journal writing to promote reflection by physical therapy students during clinical placements. Physiother Theory Pract. 2002; 18 :5–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong FKY, Kember D, Chung LYF, Yan L. Assessing the level of student reflection from reflective journals. J Adv Nurs. 1995; 22 :48–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong FYK, Loke AY, Wong M, Tse H, Kan E, Kember D. An action research study into the development of nurses as reflective practitioners. J Nurs Educ. 1997; 36 :476–481. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schon DA. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc; 1987.
• Powell JH. The reflective practitioner in nursing. J Adv Nurs. 1989; 14 :824–832. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mezirow J. A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Educ. 1981; 32 :3–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RM, Wessel J. Reflective journal writing to obtain student feedback about their learning during the study of chronic musculoskeletal conditions. J Allied Health. 2004; 33 :17–23. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter CW. The use of journals to promote reflection. Action Teach Educ. 1998; 19 :39–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dart BC, Boulton-Lewis GM, Borwnlee JM, McCride AR. Change in the knowledge of learning and teaching through journal writing. Res Papers Educ. 1998; 13 :291–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abegglen J, O'Neill Conger C. Critical thinking in nursing: classroom tactics that work. J Nurs Educ. 1997; 36 :452–458. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Degazon CE, Lunney M. Clinical journal: a tool to foster critical thinking for advanced levels of competence. Clin Nurse Spec. 1995; 9 :270–274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahnemann BK. Journal writing: a key to promoting critical thinking in nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 1986; 25 :213–215. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lashley M, Wittstadt R. Writing across the curriculum: an integrated curricular approach to developing critical thinking through writing. J Nurs Educ. 1993; 32 :422–424. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown HN, Sorrell JM. Use of clinical journals to enhance critical thinking. Nurse Educ. 1993; 18 :16–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes V. Grading journals in clinical practice: a delicate issue. J Nurs Educ. 1997; 36 :489–492. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlak CA. Use of clinical logs by beginning nursing students and faculty to identify learning needs. J Nurs Educ. 1992; 31 :24–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richie MA. Faculty and student dialogue through journal writing. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2003; 8 :5–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinkstaff E. An experience in narrative writing to improve public health practice by students. J Nurs Educ. 1985; 24 :25–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry WG. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc; 1999.
• Brown SC, Gillis MA. Using reflective thinking to develop personal professional philosophies. J Nurs Educ. 1999; 38 :171–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobert LJ. In our own voice: journaling as a teaching/learning technique for nurses. J Nurse Educ. 1995; 34 :140–142. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burnard P. The journal as an assessment and evaluation tool in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today. 1988; 8 :105–107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson BL. Developing and maintaining reflection in clinical journals. Nurse Educ Today. 1995; 15 :211–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson R. Approaching clinical teaching and evaluation through the written word: a humanistic approach. J Nurs Educ. 1987; 26 :384–385. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atkins S, Murphy K. Reflection: a review of the literature. J Adv Nursing. 1993; 18 :1188–1192. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorrell JM, Brown HN, Silva MC. Kohlenberg. Use of writing portfolios for interdisciplinary assessment of critical thinking outcomes of nursing students. Nurs Forum. 1997; 32 :12–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• All subject areas
• Agricultural and Biological Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Chemical Engineering
• Computer Science
• Decision Sciences
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance
• Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Health Professions
• Immunology and Microbiology
• Materials Science
• Mathematics
• Multidisciplinary
• Neuroscience
• Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
• Physics and Astronomy
• Social Sciences
• All subject categories
• Acoustics and Ultrasonics
• Advanced and Specialized Nursing
• Aerospace Engineering
• Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Agronomy and Crop Science
• Algebra and Number Theory
• Analytical Chemistry
• Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
• Animal Science and Zoology
• Anthropology
• Applied Mathematics
• Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
• Applied Psychology
• Aquatic Science
• Archeology (arts and humanities)
• Architecture
• Artificial Intelligence
• Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
• Assessment and Diagnosis
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atmospheric Science
• Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
• Automotive Engineering
• Behavioral Neuroscience
• Biochemistry
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)
• Biochemistry (medical)
• Bioengineering
• Biological Psychiatry
• Biomaterials
• Biomedical Engineering
• Biotechnology
• Building and Construction
• Business and International Management
• Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
• Cancer Research
• Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
• Care Planning
• Cell Biology
• Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
• Ceramics and Composites
• Chemical Engineering (miscellaneous)
• Chemical Health and Safety
• Chemistry (miscellaneous)
• Chiropractics
• Civil and Structural Engineering
• Clinical Biochemistry
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Colloid and Surface Chemistry
• Communication
• Community and Home Care
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Complementary and Manual Therapy
• Computational Mathematics
• Computational Mechanics
• Computational Theory and Mathematics
• Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design
• Computer Networks and Communications
• Computer Science Applications
• Computer Science (miscellaneous)
• Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
• Computers in Earth Sciences
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Conservation
• Control and Optimization
• Control and Systems Engineering
• Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
• Critical Care Nursing
• Cultural Studies
• Decision Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Dental Assisting
• Dental Hygiene
• Dentistry (miscellaneous)
• Dermatology
• Development
• Developmental and Educational Psychology
• Developmental Biology
• Developmental Neuroscience
• Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
• Drug Discovery
• Drug Guides
• Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Earth-Surface Processes
• Ecological Modeling
• Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
• Economic Geology
• Economics and Econometrics
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
• Electrical and Electronic Engineering
• Electrochemistry
• Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
• Emergency Medical Services
• Emergency Medicine
• Emergency Nursing
• Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
• Endocrinology
• Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
• Energy Engineering and Power Technology
• Energy (miscellaneous)
• Engineering (miscellaneous)
• Environmental Chemistry
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
• Epidemiology
• Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
• Family Practice
• Filtration and Separation
• Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes
• Food Animals
• Food Science
• Fuel Technology
• Fundamentals and Skills
• Gastroenterology
• Gender Studies
• Genetics (clinical)
• Geochemistry and Petrology
• Geography, Planning and Development
• Geometry and Topology
• Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
• Geriatrics and Gerontology
• Gerontology
• Global and Planetary Change
• Hardware and Architecture
• Health Informatics
• Health Information Management
• Health Policy
• Health Professions (miscellaneous)
• Health (social science)
• Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
• History and Philosophy of Science
• Horticulture
• Human Factors and Ergonomics
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Immunology and Allergy
• Immunology and Microbiology (miscellaneous)
• Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
• Industrial Relations
• Infectious Diseases
• Information Systems
• Information Systems and Management
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Insect Science
• Instrumentation
• Internal Medicine
• Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects
• Leadership and Management
• Library and Information Sciences
• Life-span and Life-course Studies
• Linguistics and Language
• Literature and Literary Theory
• LPN and LVN
• Management Information Systems
• Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
• Management of Technology and Innovation
• Management Science and Operations Research
• Materials Chemistry
• Materials Science (miscellaneous)
• Maternity and Midwifery
• Mathematical Physics
• Mathematics (miscellaneous)
• Mechanical Engineering
• Mechanics of Materials
• Media Technology
• Medical and Surgical Nursing
• Medical Assisting and Transcription
• Medical Laboratory Technology
• Medical Terminology
• Medicine (miscellaneous)
• Metals and Alloys
• Microbiology
• Microbiology (medical)
• Modeling and Simulation
• Molecular Biology
• Molecular Medicine
• Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
• Nature and Landscape Conservation
• Neurology (clinical)
• Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
• Neuroscience (miscellaneous)
• Nuclear and High Energy Physics
• Nuclear Energy and Engineering
• Numerical Analysis
• Nurse Assisting
• Nursing (miscellaneous)
• Nutrition and Dietetics
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Therapy
• Ocean Engineering
• Oceanography
• Oncology (nursing)
• Ophthalmology
• Oral Surgery
• Organic Chemistry
• Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
• Orthodontics
• Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
• Otorhinolaryngology
• Paleontology
• Parasitology
• Pathology and Forensic Medicine
• Pathophysiology
• Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
• Periodontics
• Pharmaceutical Science
• Pharmacology
• Pharmacology (medical)
• Pharmacology (nursing)
• Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
• Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
• Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
• Physics and Astronomy (miscellaneous)
• Physiology (medical)
• Plant Science
• Political Science and International Relations
• Polymers and Plastics
• Process Chemistry and Technology
• Psychiatry and Mental Health
• Psychology (miscellaneous)
• Public Administration
• Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
• Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
• Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
• Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
• Rehabilitation
• Religious Studies
• Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
• Reproductive Medicine
• Research and Theory
• Respiratory Care
• Review and Exam Preparation
• Reviews and References (medical)
• Rheumatology
• Safety Research
• Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
• Sensory Systems
• Signal Processing
• Small Animals
• Social Psychology
• Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Social Work
• Sociology and Political Science
• Soil Science
• Space and Planetary Science
• Spectroscopy
• Speech and Hearing
• Sports Science
• Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
• Statistics and Probability
• Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
• Strategy and Management
• Stratigraphy
• Structural Biology
• Surfaces and Interfaces
• Surfaces, Coatings and Films
• Theoretical Computer Science
• Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management
• Transplantation
• Transportation
• Urban Studies
• Veterinary (miscellaneous)
• Visual Arts and Performing Arts
• Waste Management and Disposal
• Water Science and Technology
• All regions / countries
• Asiatic Region
• Eastern Europe
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Northern America
• Pacific Region
• Western Europe
• ARAB COUNTRIES
• IBEROAMERICA
• NORDIC COUNTRIES
• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Brunei Darussalam
• Czech Republic
• Dominican Republic
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Trinidad and Tobago
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Vatican City State
• Book Series
• Conferences and Proceedings
• Trade Journals

• Citable Docs. (3years)
• Total Cites (3years)

-->

	Title	Type
1		journal	5.772 Q1	186	43	74	5366	1338	73	12.59	124.79	64.39
2		journal	4.321 Q1	142	118	208	11698	2845	197	12.23	99.14	53.76
3		journal	3.956 Q1	151	67	205	3036	2030	198	6.76	45.31	48.23
4		journal	3.914 Q1	73	58	116	4766	837	109	7.32	82.17	27.78
5		journal	3.874 Q1	100	48	130	5704	2101	129	12.20	118.83	57.87
6		journal	3.863 Q1	130	84	216	7477	2702	214	4.93	89.01	55.99
7		journal	3.651 Q1	232	163	597	13475	9892	596	12.14	82.67	47.96
8		journal	3.520 Q1	68	72	199	2880	2148	182	10.46	40.00	44.83
9		journal	3.313 Q1	11	14	46	400	635	40	18.34	28.57	62.96
10		journal	3.227 Q1	29	79	106	5426	2196	105	18.85	68.68	31.47
11		journal	2.966 Q1	185	62	269	5579	3184	253	6.30	89.98	54.17
12		journal	2.838 Q1	54	12	21	1493	236	21	8.20	124.42	61.90
13		journal	2.808 Q1	116	20	74	3639	621	74	7.31	181.95	63.08
14		journal	2.774 Q1	252	53	307	5250	2234	306	6.45	99.06	57.48
15		journal	2.761 Q1	118	51	104	5425	885	103	6.56	106.37	68.78
16		journal	2.738 Q1	106	130	273	5755	2125	272	6.97	44.27	55.08
17		journal	2.606 Q1	105	61	101	2688	644	81	5.00	44.07	52.53
18		journal	2.601 Q1	60	94	161	5032	1493	146	4.15	53.53	58.00
19		journal	2.578 Q1	61	62	183	3613	2510	178	11.28	58.27	52.17
20		journal	2.426 Q1	117	18	76	1500	827	75	9.75	83.33	52.38
21		journal	2.425 Q1	119	120	387	7794	3894	366	9.33	64.95	48.14
22		journal	2.357 Q1	144	80	243	4949	1824	236	6.12	61.86	47.45
23		journal	2.249 Q1	88	229	835	18525	11016	834	12.66	80.90	34.93
24		journal	2.232 Q1	144	35	142	2674	802	141	4.99	76.40	61.98
25		journal	2.198 Q1	107	42	190	3459	1159	174	4.85	82.36	68.75
26		journal	2.158 Q1	109	56	129	2747	762	115	5.14	49.05	63.64
27		journal	2.155 Q1	29	84	192	3501	1345	99	5.38	41.68	45.53
28		journal	2.124 Q1	115	82	166	5522	836	153	4.52	67.34	52.29
29		journal	2.105 Q1	111	23	71	1314	388	66	3.79	57.13	54.90
30		journal	2.082 Q1	289	172	621	11356	3257	614	4.57	66.02	61.38
31		journal	2.075 Q1	104	146	461	9456	3132	458	6.12	64.77	43.27
32		journal	2.065 Q1	127	256	396	15378	3075	392	7.11	60.07	52.47
33		journal	2.041 Q1	113	22	55	1730	276	53	4.17	78.64	50.00
34		journal	2.035 Q1	50	68	187	5429	1767	174	7.37	79.84	55.85
35		journal	2.007 Q1	95	38	106	3403	550	97	4.51	89.55	43.02
36		journal	1.987 Q1	74	0	43	0	328	40	3.11	0.00	0.00
37		journal	1.982 Q1	21	40	63	1645	288	56	4.46	41.13	68.25
38		journal	1.954 Q1	144	186	494	11252	2846	489	5.44	60.49	61.37
39		journal	1.937 Q1	120	899	1482	45502	12101	136	5.91	50.61	34.69
40		journal	1.933 Q1	95	16	58	1494	236	58	3.84	93.38	62.00
41		journal	1.908 Q1	132	96	127	4236	669	122	5.03	44.13	61.15
42		journal	1.906 Q1	157	99	181	9134	1171	168	5.19	92.26	59.22
43		journal	1.898 Q1	60	235	544	12273	3423	526	4.26	52.23	70.75
44		journal	1.888 Q1	122	112	178	5739	923	171	4.44	51.24	47.51
45		journal	1.866 Q1	112	71	150	3408	620	150	3.57	48.00	37.28
46		journal	1.866 Q1	75	98	124	6503	1063	121	8.11	66.36	51.61
47		journal	1.852 Q1	62	89	123	4840	1140	112	5.56	54.38	57.95
48		journal	1.842 Q1	62	76	99	5306	789	91	7.30	69.82	41.16
49		journal	1.842 Q1	114	179	313	12758	2443	312	7.41	71.27	46.41
50		journal	1.840 Q1	111	55	151	5498	837	149	4.29	99.96	65.33

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Education Resources for Teachers

of Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students

Journal Writing

Effective with students of all ages

• Reinforces writing skills
• Provides opportunities to experiment with different writing styles and formats
• Develops communication skills through written language
• Reinforces English language structures

Learning logs

• Generally, students keep learning logs in their content area classes.
• Summarize the lesson
• React to class activities and discussions
• Ask questions about things they did not understand or are not sure they understand
• Link new knowledge with prior knowledge
• Reflect on what they have learned
• Identify problems they are having in understanding the material
• Answer questions
• Direct students to resources
• Discuss with student

Dialogue journals

Reading response journal.

Atwell (1987) believed that students’ written responses to reading show more reflection than their discussions because writing gives them more time to think and consider their responses.

• Explain that using a response journal is similar to writing letters back and forth except that you focus on responses to what you have read. A reading response journal is a place to share your ideas, express your feelings, and ask questions about what you have read.
• Show the students a reading response journal; read to them a few of the student’s writings and the teacher’s responses. Explain that the student then responds to the teacher’s response, if appropriate, and adds more to his/her journal.
• What you liked and disliked about the selection and why.
• What you wish had happened.
• Your opinion of the characters.
• Your opinion of the illustrations, tables, and figures.
• What you felt when you read.
• Questions you have after reading.

Students may write either as they are reading or after they are finished, but should understand that their response should not be a retelling of the story. Students may write in their journals 2 or 3 times a week, depending on the teacher’s schedule for responding to each journal.

Student-teacher dialogue journals

These journals are interactive and cumulative and can be on any topic that the student or teacher initiates. Because these journals are an ongoing collection of communication exchanges, they are like having an extended conversation between teacher and student, something that is not always possible in the classroom because of time constraints. The teacher or student can respond to an entry or ignore it and move on to another topic, just as in a casual face-to-face conversation. The frequency of this journal writing depends on the amount of time that elapses between responses—similar to social letter writing or social communications through email.

Buddy journals

Buddy journals are dialogue journals in which students write back and forth to each other. It is a natural way to read and write providing a purpose and a personally meaningful context as students interact socially through writing.

Students select their own topics and write about anything they think is appropriate. Buddy journals are not evaluated or graded by the teacher. In these journals students ask and answer questions, share experiences and feelings, discuss ideas, and develop relationships with one another.

Character journals

In these journals, students assume the personality of a character in a story or book they are reading or the teacher is reading to them. They write entries about the character’s experiences and feelings from the character’s perspective. They write about how the character feels about events that occurred in the story, how the character feels about other people in the story, and how the character changes in the course of the story or book.

Our website is being updated this week; thank you for your patience.

Justin Lerner receives high honors from the Journal of Social Work Education

An article by Justin Lerner , associate teaching professor, which was published in Volume 56, Issue 1, of the Journal of Social Work Education, was selected as that publication’s Best Conceptual Article for 2020.

The article, “Social Workers Can’t Be Republicans”: Engaging Conservative Students in the Classroom , was selected from all articles published in JSWE in 2020. In announcing the award, JSWE’s editor-in-chief, Danielle E. Parrish, cited Justin’s role in “authoring an important article for our profession.”

To make its selection, the journal’s editorial board looks for originality of thought; sound and innovative conceptualization of the topic; and recommendations or conclusions that add significantly to the professional knowledge base and to social work education as a field. 

Justin earned a PhD in social welfare at New York University Silver School of Social Work, a master’s degree in public administration from New York University, and an MSW from Washington University in St. Louis. In addition to teaching, he works with the School’s intergroup dialogue undergraduate program. He has co-authored several articles on social justice for transgender people and on creating a social justice agenda in the classroom. Additionally, he works in a social justice group therapy practice that focuses on providing anti-oppressive counseling to create healing and resilience. 

We hope you’ll take the time to congratulate Justin. We are honored to have him among our distinguished faculty. 

• Subscriptions
• Advanced search

Advanced Search

Cathepsin C (dipeptidyl peptidase 1) inhibition in adults with bronchiectasis: AIRLEAF®, a Phase II randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Michal Shteinberg
• ORCID record for Marcus A. Mall
• ORCID record for Sanjay H. Chotirmall
• Info & Metrics

Bronchiectasis is characterised by uncontrolled neutrophil serine protease (NSP) activity. Cathepsin C (CatC; dipeptidyl peptidase 1) activates NSPs during neutrophil maturation. CatC inhibitors can potentially reduce neutrophil-mediated lung damage. This Phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (AIRLEAF®; NCT05238675 ) evaluated efficacy, safety and optimal dosing of BI 1291583, a novel, reversible CatC inhibitor, in adults with bronchiectasis.

In total, 322 participants were randomised (2:1:1:2) to receive one of three oral doses of BI 1291583 (1 mg/2.5 mg/5 mg) or placebo for 24 to 48 weeks. A multiple comparison procedure and modelling approach was used to demonstrate a non-flat dose–response curve based on the time to first pulmonary exacerbation up to Week 48. In addition, efficacy of individual BI 1291583 doses was evaluated based on the frequency of exacerbations, severe exacerbations (fatal or leading to hospitalisation and/or intravenous antibiotic administration), lung function and quality of life.

A significant dose-dependent benefit of BI 1291583 over placebo was established based on time to first exacerbation (shape: Emax; adjusted p-value: 0.0448). Treatment with BI 1291583 5 mg and 2.5 mg numerically reduced the risk of an exacerbation compared with placebo (hazard ratios: 0.71 and 0.66, 95% CIs 0.48–1.05 and 0.40–1.08; both p>0.05). BI 1291583 2.5 mg showed numerically better efficacy compared with 5 mg across several endpoints; 1 mg was similar to placebo. The safety profile of BI 1291583 was similar to placebo.

Treatment with BI 1291583 resulted in a reduction in the risk of experiencing an exacerbation in adults with bronchiectasis.

This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.

Conflict of interest: EVA received support for this work from the Swedish Research Council, the Strategic Research Area in Epidemiology (SfoEpi) at Karolinska Institutet and the Sven and Ebba Hagberg Prize. EVA received an honorarium for grant review from the Milken Institute.

Conflict of interest: James D Chalmers reports grants or contracts from Astrazeneca, Genentech Gilead Sciences, Glaxosmithkline, Insmed, Grifols, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Astrazeneca, Chiesi Glaxosmithkline, Insmed, Grifols, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Janssen, Antabio, Zambon, outside the submitted work; James D Chalmers is the current Chief Editor of the European Respiratory Journal.

Conflict of interest: Anastasia Eleftheraki has nothing to disclose.

Conflict of interest: Wiebke Sauter has nothing to disclose.

Conflict of interest: Peter Eickholz reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Consulting fees received from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Michal Shteinberg reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Grants or contracts from GSK, Trudell medical international, Tel Aviv league for lung diseases, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcel, Kamada, Synchrony medical, Trumed, Vertex, Zambon, outside the submitted work; Payment for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Kamada, Sanofi, Insmed, outside the submitted work; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim Israel, Astra Zeneca Israel, Kamada, Rafa, GSK Israel, outside the submitted work; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board or Bonus Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: AJRCCM Associate Editor Management board member: Israeli Pulmonology society, Israeli society for Tuberculosis and mycobacterial diseases Management board member: EMBARC Editorial board member: ERJ, Chest, ERJ taskforce member- bronchiectasis guidelines, outside the submitted work; Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services: Trudell medical international - Receipt of oPEP devices for clinical trial.

Conflict of interest: Johanna Rauch reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Conflict of interest: Abhya Gupta reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Conflict of interest: Edith Frahm reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Conflict of interest: Sanjay H Chotirmall reports support for the present manuscript from Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Clinician-Scientist Individual Research Grant (MOH-001356), Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Clinician Scientist Award (MOH-000710), Open Fund Individual Research Grant (MOH-000955), Singapore Ministry of Education under its AcRF Tier 1 Grant (RT1/22) (S.H.C). Consulting fees from CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pneumagen Ltd, outside the submitted work; Lecture fees from Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, outside the submitted work; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Naoki Hasegawa reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Royalties or licenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Patents planned, issued or pending for Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Pamela J McShane reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Speakers bureaus from Insmed, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Marcus A Mall reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Grants or contracts from German Research Foundation (DFG), German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Personal fees for consultancy received from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Prieris, Recode, Splisense, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; Honoraria received for presentations and educational events from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; Travel reimbursement received for participation in advisory board meetings for Boehringer Ingelheim, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; Personal fees for participation in advisory board received from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Pari, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Anne E O'Donnell reports support for the present manuscript from Boehringer Ingelheim. Grant or contracts from Insmed, Zambon, Paratek, Armata, Renovian, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, outside the submitted work; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: US Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry -Steering committee, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: April W Armstrong reports grants or contracts from Abbvie; ASLAN; BMS; Dermavant Sciences; Dermira; Eli Lilly; Galderma; Incyte; Janssen; Leo Pharma; Meiji Seika Pharma Co; Modernizing Medicine; Nimbus Therapeautics; Novartis; Ortho Dermatologics; Pfizer; Sanfoi Genzyme; UCB; Ventyx Biosciences, outside the submitted work; Consulting fees from Abbvie; ASLAN; Almirall; Amgen; Arcutis; Beiersdorf; BMS; Dermavant; EPI Health; Eli Lilly; Janssen; LEO Pharma; Mindera; Nimbus; Organon & Co; Sanofi; Sun Pharma; Takeda; Ventyx Biosciences, outside the submitted work; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events for Abbvie; Amgen; BMS; Galderma; Janssen; Mindera; Organon & Co; Sanofi; Takeda, outside the submitted work; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Incyte; Regeneron; UCB; Boehringer Ingelheim; Parexel, outside the submitted work; Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: Board of Director Elect, American Academy of Dermatology, outside the submitted work.

Conflict of interest: Henrik Watz declares medical writing support for the present manuscript from Nucleus Global; and consulting fees, payment or honoraria, payment for expert testimony, support for attending meetings and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Sanofi.

This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.

• Received August 5, 2024.
• Accepted August 29, 2024.
• Copyright ©The authors 2024. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

• Table of Contents
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

• MK-5475, an inhaled sCG stimulator, for treatment of PAH
• Microenvironmental acidification by pneumococcal sugar consumption fosters barrier disruption and immune suppression in the human alveolus

Related Articles

Advertisement

Pakistani students’ perceptions about knowledge, use and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on academic writing: a case study

• Published: 11 September 2024

Cite this article

• Shaista Rashid 1 ,
• Sadia Malik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4989-2359 2 ,
• Faheem Abbas 2 &
• Javaria Ahmad Khan 3  

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in language pedagogy can help learn and develop many skills. In this context, this study explores Pakistani students' perceptions and trends regarding the knowledge, use, and impact of AI on their academic writing. The data was collected using a quantitative method, using a questionnaire through cluster sampling of four faculties and random sampling of 229 students from Bahuddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan. Data is subjected to frequency analysis, Kruskal–Wallis hypothesis test, and chi-square association test using SPSS. The findings reveal that most students agree regarding the knowledge, use, and impact of AI on their academic writing. For the Kruskal–Wallis test, significant variations are seen in semesters and age groups for all three variables; however, only the knowledge variable shows significant variation across faculties. Moreover, chi-square test results indicate an association among components of knowledge, use, and impact of AI. The research suggests that academia should introduce AI as a pedagogical tool to improve students' comprehension, productivity, and writing quality. Furthermore, trends indicate that comprehensive policy formulation should be implemented to equip students of all faculties, semesters, and age groups to use technology equally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

The data was collected through questionnaire using Google Forms; SPSS file can be provided if requested.

Ahmed, M., Siddiqui, M., & Usman, T. (2024). Impact of artificial intelligence-based writing assistant on the academic writing skills of university faculty in Pakistan. International Journal of Human and Society, 4 (1), 539–545.

Google Scholar  

Aladini, A. (2023). AI applications impact on improving EFL university academic writing skills and their logical thinking. Al-’ulūm Al-Tarbawiyyaẗ, 31 (2), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.21608/ssj.2023.320166

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI): A review of its uses in language teaching and learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 769 (1), 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/769/1/012043

Almusharraf, N., & Bailey, D. (2021). A regression analysis approach to measuring the influence of student characteristics on language learning strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 14 (4), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14428a

Beiki, M. (2022). Review of writing-related theories. Cultural Arts Research and Development, 2 (1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.55121/card.v2i1.20

Burkhard. (2022). Student perceptions of AI-powered writing tools: Towards individualized teaching strategies. 19th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2022) . https://doi.org/10.33965/celda2022_202207l010

Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., Refae, G. A. E., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance evaluation approach in higher education sector in a new era of Chatgpt — a case study. Cogent Education, 10 (1), 2210461. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2210461

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8 , 75264–75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2988510

Cunningham, U., Rashid, S., & Van Le, T. (2019). The effect of learner training on the use of digital tools to support English writing skills. Asian EFL Journal , 21 , 27–49. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1300583

Dhara, S., Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Goswami, A., & Ghosh, S. K. (2022). Artificial intelligence in assessment of students’ performance. In CRC Press eBooks (pp. 153–167). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003184157-8

Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021). Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing. The JALT CALL Journal, 17 (2), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336

Feise, R. J. (2002). Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-8

Fitria, T. N. (2021). Grammarly as AI-powered English writing assistant: students’ alternative for writing English. Metathesis, 5 (1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v5i1.3519

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

Ghafar, Z. N., Salh, H. F., Abdulrahim, M. A., Farxha, S. S., Arf, S. F., & Rahim, R. I. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence technology on English language learning: a literature review. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 3 (2), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v3i2.87

Ginting, P., Batubara, H. M., & Hasnah, Y. (2023). Artificial intelligence powered writing tools as adaptable aids for academic writing: Insight from EFL college learners in writing final project. Zenodo, 6 (10), 4640–4650. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8407887

Grájeda, A., Burgos, J., Olivera, P. C., & Sanjinés, A. (2023). Assessing student-perceived impact of using artificial intelligence tools: Construction of a synthetic index of application in higher education. Cogent Education, 11 (1), 2287917. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2287917

Imran, M., & Almusharraf, N. (2023). Analyzing the role of ChatGPT as a writing assistant at higher education level: A systematic review of the literature. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15 (4), ep464. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13605

Kaur, P., Stoltzfus, J., & Yellapu, V. (2018). Descriptive statistics. Biostatistics, 4 (1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijam.ijam_7_18

Keleş, P. U., & Aydın, S. (2021). University students’ perceptions about artificial intelligence. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9 , 212–220. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9is1-may.4014

Knowles, E. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of phrase and fable. In Oxford University Press eBooks . https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198609810.001.0001

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques . New Age International.

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2015). Ethics in ethnography: A mixed methods approach . AltaMira Press.

Lei, H. (2022). High school students’ foreign language vocabulary acquisition in the era of artificial intelligence. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 637 , 669–662. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220131.121

Li, A. W. (2023). Using Perceptive to support AI-based online writing assessment across the disciplines. Assessing Writing, 57 , 100746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100746

Mahmud, F. A. (2023). Investigating EFL students’ writing skills through artificial intelligence: Wordtune application as a tool. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14 (5), 1395–1404. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1405.28

Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki, M. (2023). Exploring artificial intelligence in academic essay: Higher education student’s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5 , 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296

Malik, S., Sadiq, U., & Khan, J. A. (2021). Belief, practices, and challenges of Pakistani primary grade government school teachers: Variable analysis affecting pronunciation and phonics teaching. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9 (1), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9122

Marzuki, Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, D., & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10 (2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2236469

Mayo, D. G., & Cox, D. R. (2006). Frequentist statistics as a theory of inductive inference. In Institute of Mathematical Statistics eBooks (pp. 77–97). https://doi.org/10.1214/074921706000000400

McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23 (2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.018

Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7 (5), e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014

Ostertagová, E., Ostertag, O., & Kováč, J. (2014). Methodology and application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 611 , 115–120. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.611.115

Pacheco-Mendoza, S., Guevara, C., Samaniego, J., & Fernandez, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: A predictive model for academic performance. Education Sciences, 13 (10), 990. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100990

Park, J. (2019). An AI-based English grammar checker vs. human raters in evaluating EFL learners’ writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning , 22 (1), 112–131. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002449524

Rashid, S., Cunningham, U., Watson, K., & Howard, J. (2018). Revisiting the digital divide(s): Technology-enhanced English language practices at a university in Pakistan. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.29140/ajal.v1n2.7

Ribeiro, R. (2022). AI in English Language Learning | Cambridge English . World of Better Learning | Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2020/03/09/artificial-intelligence-english-language-learning/

Rothman, K. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1 (1), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010

Rusmiyanto, R., Huriati, N., Fitriani, N., Tyas, N. K., Rofi’i, A., & Sari, M. N. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in developing English language learner’s communication skills. Journal on Education, 6 (1), 750–757. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v6i1.2990

Saini, N. (2023). Research paper on artificial intelligence and its applications. International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation, 8 (4), 356–360.

Sharifi, A., Ahmadi, M., & Ala, A. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence and digital style on industry and energy post-COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28 (34), 46964–46984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15292-5

Slimi, Z. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: An empirical study. European Journal of Educational Sciences . https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v10no1a17

Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022). Students’ perceptions of the use of AI in a writing class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 624 , 52–57. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220201.009

Toncic, J. (2020). Teachers, AI grammar checkers, and the newest literacies: Emending writing pedagogy and assessment. Digital Culture & Education, 12 (1), 26–51.

Turner, E. (2021). Causes for leaving jobs: A comparative analysis. 2nd International Conference on Research in Management . https://doi.org/10.33422/2nd.icrmanagement.2021.02.43

Utami, S. P. T., Andayani, A., Winarni, R., & Sumarwati, S. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive? Contemporary Educational Technology, 15 (4), ep450. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13419

Verma, M. (2018). Artificial intelligence and its scope in different areas with special reference to the field of education. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research , 3 (1), 5–10. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604401.pdf

Victorivna, K. L., Oleksandrovych, V. A., Oleksandrivna, K. I., & Oleksandrivna, K. N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in language learning: What are we afraid of? Arab World English Journal, 8 , 262–273. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call8.18

Wang, T., Lund, B., Marengo, A., Pagano, A., Mannuru, N. R., Teel, Z. A., & Pange, J. (2023). Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success. Applied Sciences, 13 (11), 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116716

Zhao, X. (2022). Leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) technology for English writing: Introducing Wordtune as a digital writing assistant for EFL writers. RELC Journal, 54 (3), 890–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221094089

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prince Sultan University for its support.

No funding was sought from any external source for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Shaista Rashid

Department of English, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

Sadia Malik & Faheem Abbas

Department of Statistics, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

Javaria Ahmad Khan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadia Malik .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest of any sort.

Ethical statement

All participants gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. Their responses were evaluated anonymously as the data was presented in aggregate form.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rashid, S., Malik, S., Abbas, F. et al. Pakistani students’ perceptions about knowledge, use and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on academic writing: a case study. J. Comput. Educ. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00338-7

Download citation

Received : 15 May 2024

Revised : 08 August 2024

Accepted : 14 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00338-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence
• Academic writing
• Higher education
• Language pedagogy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Do Cyclones or Hawkeyes get a better education? See how the Wall Street Journal ranks them

The rivalry between Iowa and Iowa State isn't limited to athletic courts. While fans may sweat over the outcome of a Cy-Hawk game, the schools also compete for students and academics.

The Wall Street Journal scored and ranked the top 500 public and private universities in the country for 2025. While neither Iowa nor Iowa State made the top 100 schools, one did rank higher than the other.

How did the Wall Street Journal rank Iowa and Iowa State

Iowa State University not only beat the University of Iowa, but it was the highest-ranked post-secondary school in the state, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Iowa State ranked 119th on the list while the University of Iowa's overall rank was 162.

Drake University also outperformed the University of Iowa but fell short of topping ISU. The University of Nothern Iowa was not included on the Journal's list.

More: What's the top private college in Iowa? See what the Wall Street Journal says.

How did the Wall Street Journal determine its best colleges list?

The Wall Street Journal evaluated student outcomes such as "salary impact score," which compares graduate salaries to the cost of attending. It also looked at graduation rate, learning opportunities, preparation for a career, recommendation score, learning facilities, diversity and character development. Each of these categories was scored on a 1 to 100 scale, with 100 being the best score. Schools were then compared and ranked based on the overall score.

How do the two schools' scores compare?

Iowa State's overall score was 75, while the University of Iowa's was 70.6.

The University of Iowa scored better in salary impact, diversity and character development.

Iowa State had higher scores than Iowa in graduation rate, learning opportunities, preparation for career, learning facilities and recommendation score.

How did Iowa State University score in each category?

Salary impact score: 79

Graduation rate score: 80

Diversity: 41

Learning opportunities: 67

Preparation for career: 71

Learning facilities: 78

Character development: 78

Recommendation score: 79

How did the University of Iowa score?

Salary impact score: 83

Graduation rate score: 65

Diversity: 42

Learning opportunities: 64

Preparation for career: 68

Learning facilities: 76

Character development: 81

Recommendation score: 76

What are the best colleges, according to the Wall Street Journal?

Princeton University - private school scoring 92.3

Babson College - private school scoring 91.9

Stanford University - private school scoring 91.6

Kate Kealey is a general assignment reporter for the Des Moines Register. Reach her at  [email protected]  or follow her on Twitter at  @Kkealey17 .

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa vs. Iowa State: See how the Wall Street Journal ranks the schools