2015
DOI: 10.1177/2381336915617602
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Quality of Recent Studies in Content-Area Writing in Secondary Classrooms

Abstract: Situated within the historical and current state of writing and adolescent literacy research, we conducted a systematic literature review in which we screened 2,871 articles to determine the prevalent themes in current research on writing tasks in content-area classrooms. Each of the 37 final studies was evaluated and coded using seven methodological quality indicators. In this article, we further explore the quality analysis step of the review. Specifically, we critique the relative strengths and weaknesses o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, only including studies published in English give more prominence to research derived from specific countries and may overlook relevant advancements in the assessment of writing motivation originating from other parts of the world. In addition, to lessen limitations related to the quality of included studies, like Camacho et al ( 2021 ) and Miller et al ( 2018 ), the present review only includes peer-reviewed studies, as these studies have undergone the rigorous demands of the peer-review process, which is generally accepted “as a method to ensure a level of academic credibility” (Miller et al, 2015 , p. 467). However, even though relevant as a quality threshold, this criterion can be a source of bias.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, only including studies published in English give more prominence to research derived from specific countries and may overlook relevant advancements in the assessment of writing motivation originating from other parts of the world. In addition, to lessen limitations related to the quality of included studies, like Camacho et al ( 2021 ) and Miller et al ( 2018 ), the present review only includes peer-reviewed studies, as these studies have undergone the rigorous demands of the peer-review process, which is generally accepted “as a method to ensure a level of academic credibility” (Miller et al, 2015 , p. 467). However, even though relevant as a quality threshold, this criterion can be a source of bias.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We subjected the data from this mixed-method study to quantitative textual analysis (QTA; Bolden and Moscarola, 2000 ; Kelle, 2004 ). QTA is a branch of qualitative content analysis and assumes that (1) words that tend to appear together (i.e., in close proximity) in a given context may be interpreted as related to the same lexical theme or concept within the discourse under study ( Brier and Hopp, 2011 ) and (2) traditional statistical techniques may be used to analyze narrative data ( Miller and Riechert, 2001 ). We applied co-word analysis (CA, Greenacre and Blasius, 2006 ) to the adolescents’ responses to the question “If you had to describe, using one phrase, image, or metaphor, what it is like to be a girl/boy your age these days, what would you write?” The value of using CA to analyze this type of material is that it enables researchers to represent the structure of their data by converting a set of proximity measures into visual distances corresponding to specific locations within a spatial (Cartesian coordinate system) configuration ( Borg et al, 2013 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, literacy research has traditionally emphasised reading over writing (e.g. Miller et. al., 2015;, including in the field of disciplinary literacy (e.g.…”
Section: Literacy Studies Across Disciplinesmentioning
confidence: 99%