Sven De Maeyer

3 articles

Loading profile…

Publication Timeline

Co-Author Network

Research Topics

Who Reads Maeyer

Sven De Maeyer's work travels primarily in Technical Communication (100% of indexed citations) · 1 indexed citations.

By cluster

  • Technical Communication — 1

Counts include only citations from indexed journals that deposit reference lists with CrossRef. Authors whose readers publish primarily in venues without reference deposits will appear less central than they are. See coverage notes →

  1. Learning from comPA(I)Ring exemplars: Enhancing genre knowledge of argumentative texts
    Abstract

    Poor writing skills are problematic in today’s society where writing expertise is essential in personal, academic and professional contexts. Students struggle most with argumentative writing. To write a good argumentative text, students need genre knowledge on this type of text. After all, genre knowledge has been proven to be related to writing quality. Considering its relevance, in this study we investigated whether learning from (comparing) text exemplars could be an effective method to enhance genre knowledge. This study aims to investigate whether learning from (comparing) text exemplars can enhance genre knowledge. A quasi-experimental study with 77 11th grade students was carried out to test the effects of four conditions on genre knowledge of argumentative texts. Findings show that genre knowledge increases through single and analogue text examples. In addition, learning from comparing text exemplars does not seem to increase genre knowledge more than learning from single, sequential exemplars.

    doi:10.17239/jowr-2024.16.01.06
  2. Comparative approaches to the assessment of writing: Reliability and validity of benchmark rating and comparative judgement
    Abstract

    In the past years, comparative assessment approaches have gained ground as a viable method to assess text quality. Instead of providing absolute scores to a text as in holistic or analytic scoring methods, raters in comparative assessments rate text quality by comparing texts either to pre-selected benchmarks representing different levels of writing quality (i.e., benchmark rating method) or by a series of pairwise comparisons to other texts in the sample (i.e., comparative judgement; CJ). In the present study, text quality scores from the benchmarking method and CJ are compared in terms of their reliability, convergent validity and scoring distribution. Results show that benchmark ratings and CJ-ratings were highly consistent and converged to the same construct of text quality. However, the distribution of benchmark ratings showed a central tendency. It is discussed how both methods can be integrated and used such that writing can be assessed reliably, validly, but also efficiently in both writing research and practice.

    doi:10.17239/jowr-2024.15.03.03
  3. Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts
    Abstract

    This intervention study aimed to test the effect of writing process feedback. Sixty-five Grade 10 students received a personal report based on keystroke logging data, including information on several writing process aspects. Participants compared their writing process to exemplar processes of equally scoring (position-setting condition) or higher-scoring students (feed-forward condition). The effect of the feedback on writing performance and process was compared to a national baseline study. Results showed that feed-forward process feedback had an effect on text quality comparable to one grade of regular schooling. The feedback had an effect on production, pausing, revision, and source use, which indicates that it supported participants in self-regulating their writing process. Additionally, we explored the students’ perception of the feedback to get an insight into its strengths and weaknesses. This study shows the potential of writing process feedback and discusses pedagogical implications and options for future research.

    doi:10.1177/07410883221127998