Abstract

This article provides three major contributions to the literature: we provide granular information on the development of student argumentative writing across secondary school; we replicate the MacArthur et al. model of Natural Language Processing (NLP) writing features that predict quality with a younger group of students; and we are able to examine the differences for students across language status. In our study, we sought to find the average levels of text length, cohesion, connectives, syntactic complexity, and word-level complexity in this sample across Grades 7-12 by sex, by English learner status, and for essays scoring above and below the median holistic score. Mean levels of variables by grade suggest a developmental progression with respect to text length, with the text length increasing with grade level, but the other variables in the model were fairly stable. Sex did not seem to affect the model in meaningful ways beyond the increased fluency of women writers. We saw text length and word level differences between initially designated and redesignated bilingual students compared to their English-only peers. Finally, we see that the model works better with our higher scoring essays and is less effective explaining the lower scoring essays.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2024-07-01
DOI
10.1177/07410883241242093
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Written Communication

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Research in the Teaching of English
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Written Communication
  5. College Composition and Communication
Also cites 40 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1155/2019/2173638
  2. 10.1177/002221940203500104
  3. 10.1007/s11145-010-9262-y
  4. 10.1017/CBO9781316106372
  5. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.471
  6. 10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01
  7. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.006
  8. 10.37514/PER-B.2012.0452.2.05
  9. 10.3758/BF03195564
  10. 10.3102/0091732X18821125
  11. 10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7
  12. 10.1207/S1532799Xssr0502_3
  13. 10.17161/foec.v44i4.6687
  14. 10.1086/693009
  15. 10.1080/00405841.2022.2107334
  16. 10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100824
  17. 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152)
  18. 10.1080/10888438.2010.493964
  19. 10.1037/edu0000564
  20. 10.1007/s11145-015-9542-7
  21. 10.1037/edu0000129
  22. 10.3102/0013189X20965918
  23. 10.1007/s11145-018-9853-6
  24. 10.1177/0004944116664618
  25. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7
  26. 10.1007/BF01464076
  27. 10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.256
  28. 10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1-3.113
  29. 10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1
  30. 10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch011
  31. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
  32. 10.1037/edu0000387
  33. 10.1006/ceps.1998.0995
  34. 10.1007/s40593-016-0122-z
  35. 10.1016/j.asw.2019.100418
  36. 10.1037/amp0000356
  37. 10.4159/harvard.9780674433014
  38. 10.1037/edu0000701
  39. 10.1017/S0305000917000423
  40. 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100600
CrossRef global citation count: 2 View in citation network →