No abstract

No abstract

Process-oriented writing instruction has been advocated for both L1 and L2 writing classrooms since the 1960s. Empowering learner autonomy may best occur through non-direct instruction (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994), engaging students in social learning (Vygotsky, 1978) and creating workshop-like classrooms (Murray, 2004). Any number of techniques can be used, preferably in-sync with each other, to accomplish such an approach. This study will examine the results of some recent action research in the classroom to attempt to ascertain among various process-techniques, designed to accomplish the aforementioned aspects of process-oriented instruction, which techniques (CODA paradigm / rubrics, journals, peer reviews, teacher conferences, etc.) were most useful to developmental students, especially from their own points of view. Student voices were collected through oral presentations, instructor evaluations, and classroom observations in an American classroom where native English speaking and nonnative English speaking writers wrestled with freshman level developmental writing side-by-side.

Although the Attitudes toward Mathematics Inventory (ATMI; four-factor model with 40 items) has been well-established as a viable tool to test the multidimensionality of math attitudes, studies have pointed out that the ATMI is lengthy, and analyses have typically been conducted on individual samples from either western or non-western cultural contexts. To address these concerns, the present study aimed to evaluate a shorter version of math attitude scales (three-factor model with 11 items) using data from three nationally representative samples (USA, Hong Kong, and Singapore). The primary goal of the current investigation was to establish reliability and validity of the factor structure of Affective-Behavioral-Cognitive math attitudes. Alpha coefficients (.74 -.91), factor loadings (.49 -.90), and inter-item correlation matrices supported strong reliability and clear convergent and discriminant validity of all three subscales of math attitudes. Findings were consistent with the well-documented theoretical model of ABC math attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998Walker, 2018;Zan & Di Martino, 2007, 2014 as well as the classical tripartite model of attitudes from social psychology (Breckler, 1984;Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). Implications of the ABC model of math attitudes on math education, limitations of the present study, and future research are discussed.