11.07.2015 Views

Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English

Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English

Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

240 <strong>Research</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>English</strong> Volume 41 November 2006KIEFT, M., RIJLAARSDAM, G., & VAN DEN BERGH, H. (2006). Writ<strong>in</strong>g as a learn<strong>in</strong>g tool: Test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>role <strong>of</strong> students’ writ<strong>in</strong>g strategies. European Journal <strong>of</strong> Psychology <strong>of</strong> Education 21(1), 17-34.KORAT, O., & SCHIFF, R. (2005). Do children who read more books know “what is good writ<strong>in</strong>g”better than children who read less? A comparison between grade levels and SES groups. Journal<strong>of</strong> Literacy <strong>Research</strong>, 37(3), 289-324.KLEIN, J., & TAUB, D. (2005). The effect <strong>of</strong> variations <strong>in</strong> handwrit<strong>in</strong>g and pr<strong>in</strong>t on evaluation <strong>of</strong>student essays. Assess<strong>in</strong>g Writ<strong>in</strong>g, 10(2), 134-148.LEFRANÇOIS, P. (2005). How do university students solve l<strong>in</strong>guistic problems? A description <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> processes lead<strong>in</strong>g to errors. L1 – Educational Studies <strong>in</strong> Language and Literature, 5(3), 417-432.LILLIS, T., & CURRY, M. J. (2006). Pr<strong>of</strong>essional academic writ<strong>in</strong>g by multil<strong>in</strong>gual scholars: Interactionswith literacy brokers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> <strong>English</strong>-medium texts. Written Communication,23(1), 3-35.LIU, K. M. (2006). Annotation as an <strong>in</strong>dex to critical writ<strong>in</strong>g. Urban Education, 41(2), 192-207.LUCE-KAPLER, R., & KLINGER, D. (2005). Uneasy writ<strong>in</strong>g: The def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g moments <strong>of</strong> high-stakesliteracy test<strong>in</strong>g. Assess<strong>in</strong>g Writ<strong>in</strong>g, 10(3), 157-173.LUMLEY, T. (2005). Assess<strong>in</strong>g second language writ<strong>in</strong>g: The rater’s perspective. New York: PeterLang.MARTIN, L., SEGRAVES, R., THACKER, S., & YOUNG, L. (2005). The writ<strong>in</strong>g process: Three first-gradeteachers and <strong>the</strong>ir students reflect on what was learned. Read<strong>in</strong>g Psychology, 26(3), 235-249.MERISUO-STORM, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scand<strong>in</strong>avianJournal <strong>of</strong> Educational <strong>Research</strong>, 50(2), 111-125.MILIAN, M. (2005). Reformulation: A means <strong>of</strong> construct<strong>in</strong>g knowledge <strong>in</strong> shared writ<strong>in</strong>g. L1 –Educational Studies <strong>in</strong> Language and Literature, 5(3), 335-351.MONTÉSINOS-GELET, I., & MORIN, M. F. (2005). The impact <strong>of</strong> a cooperative approximate spell<strong>in</strong>gsituation <strong>in</strong> a k<strong>in</strong>dergarten sett<strong>in</strong>g. L1 – Educational Studies <strong>in</strong> Language and Literature, 5(3),365-383.MORIN, M. F. (2006). Declared knowledge <strong>of</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g writers. L1 – Educational Studies <strong>in</strong> Languageand Literature, 5(3), 385-401.NEUWIRTH, C., VAN WAES, L., & LEIJTEN, M. (EDS.) (2006). Writ<strong>in</strong>g and digital media (Studies <strong>in</strong>writ<strong>in</strong>g: Vol. 17). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.RIJLAARSDAM, G., COUZIJN, M., JANSSEN, T., BRAAKSMA, M., & KIEFT, M. (2006). Writ<strong>in</strong>g experimentmanuals <strong>in</strong> science education: The impact <strong>of</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g, genre, and audience. International Journal<strong>of</strong> Science Education, 28(2-3), 203-233.SHIPKA, J. (2005). A multimodal task-based framework for compos<strong>in</strong>g. College Composition andCommunication, 57(2), 277-306.SMAGORINSKY, P. (ED.). (2005). <strong>Research</strong> on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades <strong>of</strong>change. New York: Teachers College Press.SYRQUIN, A. F. (2006). Registers <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> academic writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> African American college students.Written Communication, 23(1), 63-90.THAISS, C., & ZAWACKI, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic discipl<strong>in</strong>es: <strong>Research</strong> on <strong>the</strong>academic writ<strong>in</strong>g life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.VAN DEN BERG, I., ADMIRAAL, W., & PILOT, A. (2006). Design pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and outcomes <strong>of</strong> peerassessment <strong>in</strong> higher education. Studies <strong>in</strong> Higher Education, 31(3), 341-356.VAN WAES, L., LEIJTEN, M., & NEUWIRTH, C. (EDS.). (2006). Writ<strong>in</strong>g and digital media. New York:Elsevier.VANHULLE, S. (2005). How future teachers develop pr<strong>of</strong>essional knowledge through reflectivewrit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a dialogical frame. L1 – Educational Studies <strong>in</strong> Language and Literature, 5(3), 287-314.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!