Single Paper Session 13

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Development and Initial Validation of the Word-Processing Assessment for Elementary-School

Keywords
assessment;education;writing instruction;writing skills
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

TopicThis presentation describes the development and initial validation of the Word-Processing Assessment for Elementary-School (WoPA-E)- Grades 2-4.Theoretical framework Although word-processing (WP) is commonly required in elementary-schools1, structured instruction in WP skills is frequently absent, which may impact writing performance. Moreover, no valid assessments targeting WP skills in elementary-school students appear to exist. The WoPA-E was developed to fill this gap, drawing on the International Study of Computer and Information Literacy1, and the digital-literacy curriculum of the Israeli Ministry of Education2. Methodology and Results The WoPA-E was designed as both diagnostic- and formative-type assessments for Grades 2-4. A list of 25 commands was generated, encompassing two components: Document Management (e.g., open/save a document), and Editing (e.g., change font/size). Commands are scored as ‘0’-unable, or ‘1’-able to perform. Ethical approval and participants’ consent were obtained. Content validity was assessed by 9 experts/judges using a Table of Specification. Each command achieved over 70% agreement on classification (Management or Editing). Internal consistency (n=51, Grade 4 students) indicated medium-high reliability. Construct validity was established through known-group (Gender) differences, showing, as expected3, no significant differences. Additionally, the WoPA-E demonstrated sensitivity to change; participants showed a significant improvement from pre- to posttest following instruction. Conclusions and relevanceThe WopA-E shows promise as a tool for assessing WP skills among elementary-school students, offering valuable insight for designing WP targeted instruction. However, these results are preliminary, warranting further research.  KeywordsComputer literacy, Computer skills, Elementary school, Word processingReferences1. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report (p. 308). Springer Nature.2. Ministry of Education, Israel. (2017). ICILS in prompting language objectives, https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Yesodi/ivrit/meyomanot.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116672468 3. Qazi, A., Hasan, N., Abayomi-Alli, O., Hardaker, G., Scherer, R., Sarker, Y., Kumar, S.K., & Maitama, J.Z. (2022). Gender differences in information and communication technology use & skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4225-4258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10775-x

Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write: What have we learned from 20 years of research?

Keywords
education;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction;writing theory
Domain
Educational Policy and Systems

Abstract

Ivanič’s discourses of writing and learning to write (DoW) (2004; 2017) framework proposes seven categories representing how writing has been conceptualised in composition theory and research. The framework, which Ivanič conceived of as an analytic tool, has been applied over the past two decades to analyses of writing curricula and pedagogy across educational levels and geographic regions. Given its broad applicability as a coherent framework that encompasses diverse perspectives on writing as well as its adaptability to unique educational contexts (e.g., in Canada, Peterson, 2012), DoW has been particularly useful as a conceptual basis for comparative research in writing curriculum studies (e.g., for cross-national comparison, Peterson et al., 2018). To provide an overview of the outcomes of this research and to propose how the framework might be modified for writing studies moving forward, we present a systematic, comparative review of DoW literature published in English or Scandinavian languages since the framework’s initial publication in 2004 (N=46 studies).We asked: 1) What is the focus of this research in terms of geographic region, education level, and educational perspective? 2) Which DoWs are most and least represented in research findings, and 3) Which DoWs are not included in the framework but are identified as possible additions or adaptations? Results show that the bulk of corpus studies were situated in North America and Europe; and that the research most often focussed on the written curriculum (e.g., official curriculum documents) followed by the planned and/or enacted curriculum (classroom instruction), while the curriculum as experienced by students was the focus of only one study. We found that genre, process, and skills discourses were most strongly represented in findings, while sociopolitical and thinking discourses were rarely identified as prominent. Results further suggest the influence of standards-based global policy shifts in candidates for additional DoWs, including a “market discourse” (Pulls, 2019), a “compliance discourse” (Lambirth, 2016), and a discourse positioning writing as a forced activity (Norberg, 2021). We conclude by discussing implications for the impact of writing scholarship moving forward into an age of technological disruption.

Foundations of Early Writing: Measuring Classroom Practices that Support Writing Development

Keywords
assessment;education;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

Few observational measures exist for measuring how preschool teachers’ instructional practices promote children’s handwriting, spelling, and composing skills (Berninger & Winn, 2006). This gap may contribute to educators spending limited time writing with young children (Gerde et al., 2015) or in providing limited composing supports (Bingham et al., 2017).This study draws on cognitive early writing theoretical models (Puranik & Lonigan, 2014) and sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1985) to examine how teachers enact a variety of practices that could support children’s early writing development. We employ a new observational measure to address two research questions.RQ1 = What types of writing experiences do preschool children experience?RQ2 = How are preschool writing practices predict children’s early writing skills?MethodA total of 723 preschool aged children (ages 3 to 5 years) from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds (55% Black, 32% Latine, 13% White), across three US states, and 198 preschool teachers participated in this study. Teachers’ writing practices and supports were assessed using Writing Resources and Interactions in Teaching Environments-tWRITE (Bingham, Gerde, Bowles, 2025) in the fall and spring of the preschool year. Preschoolers early writing skills were measured by the Test of Early Written Language (Hresko et.al., 2012). Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to understand the predictive value of teacher writing practices on preschoolers’ writing achievement, while controlling for child age and gender.ResultsDescriptive statistics (RQ1) reveal that preschool teachers primarily supported handwriting and spelling skills. Composing interactions supporting children’s ideation and language construction attempts were infrequent. Hierarchical Linear Modeling revealed that teachers writing practices, particularly composing supports, were related to children’s scores on the TEWL-3.ConclusionsThe TWRITE is a valid measure of preschool writing practices. Findings yield actionable insights into how teachers’ writing practices shape children’s early writing development. References