WRITING STRATEGIES USED BY INDONESIAN HIGH AND LOW ACHIEVERS
Open accessAbstract
The objectives of current study were to determine the types of writing strategies used by the students and to describe the differences of writing strategies utilization between high and low achievers. This research was conducted at academic writing program, Language Training Center of Universitas Gadjah Mada. The subjects were three of high achievers and three of low achievers who had enrolled in the program. The study applied a qualitative method approach. Structured interview and open-ended questionnaire based on Cazrl and Petric writing strategies inventory were employed in collecting data. The result showed that all twenty writing strategies investigated in this research were employed by the subjects; secondly, high achievers employ writing strategies more frequently than those with low achievers. The implication of the study is that by understanding the writing strategies employment of the high and the low students to upgrade the students writing quality into a better writing.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Expert writers or high-achieving university students employed strategies for planning, setting goals, monitoring, textualizing, and revising more frequently and thoroughly than novices or low achievers.
“Several studies, based on classical models defining the different strategies used by expert and novice writers, suggest that expert writers or high-achieving university students employed strategies for planning, setting goals, monitoring, textualizing and revising more frequently and thoroughly than novices or low achievers (Chien, 2012;Rahmawati et al, 2019;Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Rahmawati et al, 2019
Low-proficiency university students may use fewer strategies than high achievers.
“research suggests that low-proficiency university students may use fewer strategies than high achievers (Rahmawati et al., 2019;Rijlaarsdam et al., 2012).”
From Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: explicit instruction and practice (2023) · cites this paper as Rahmawati et al., 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 3
- Authors
- Rahmawati, N., Fauziati, E., & Marmanto, S.
- ORCID
- Marmanto, Sri
- Venue
- Zenodo
- Publisher
- Zenodo
- Published
- 2019-11-28
- OpenAlex
- W6949996426
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- writing strategies, academic writing, high achievers, low achievers, writing quality, ESL learners, Indonesian students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
