Tekstopmaak - de tekst is niet duidelijk ingedeeld (d.w.z. niet begrijpelijk) en
inconsequent ingedeeld
- de typografie is eentonig of juist erg rommelig
- de gekozen tekstopmaak is inconsequent toegepast
- de tekst is grotendeels duidelijk ingedeeld (d.w.z. begrijpelijk) en consequent ingedeeld, maar bevat hier en daar een inconsequente indeling - voor het grootste gedeelte
ondersteunt de typografie de tekststructuur
- de gekozen tekstopmaak is grotendeels consequent toegepast
- de tekst is duidelijk ingedeeld (d.w.z. begrijpelijk) en consequent ingedeeld
- de typografie ondersteunt de tekststructuur
- de gekozen tekstopmaak is consequent toegepast Kopjes - er zijn geen kopjes - er zijn kopjes
- kopjes helpen over het algemeen structuren en selecteren
- er zijn precies genoeg kopjes (d.w.z. zoveel als nodig zijn om tekstbegrip zo eenvoudig mogelijk te maken)
- kopjes helpen structureren en selecteren
Titel - er is geen titel - er is een titel
- de titel heeft een structurerende en selecterende functie, maar mist een motiverende functie
- er is een titel
- de titel heeft een structurerende, selecterende functie en motiverende functie
Leeswijzer - er is een structuuraanduidende alinea nodig om een inschatting te kunnen maken van de structuur van de rest van de tekst, maar die is er niet
- er is een structuuraanduidende alinea nodig om een inschatting te kunnen maken van de structuur van de rest van de tekst, die is er ook, maar hij geeft de structuur niet volledig en/of niet volledig begrijpelijk weer
- er is een structuuraanduidende alinea nodig om een inschatting te kunnen maken van de structuur van de rest van de tekst, die is er ook, en hij geeft de structuur volledig en volledig begrijpelijk weer
- of: er is geen structuuraanduidende alinea, maar die is ook niet nodig om een inschatting te kunnen maken van de structuur van de rest van de tekst
Overall
oordeel
46
APPENDIX 2
Extended list of differences between non-directive and directive peer-feedback, used in the training ‘directive approach’.10
Directief Non-directief
Tekst staat centraal Student staat centraal
Tutor oppert een probleem Student oppert een probleem
Tutor legt uit Tutor stelt vragen
Student luistert Student antwoordt/lost op
Weinig zicht op gedachten student Denkpatronen student worden zichtbaar Tutor draagt veel ideeën/oplossingen aan Tutor laat student ideeën/oplossingen
aandragen
Tutor initieert correcties Tutor corrigeert niet
Tutor is veel aan het woord Tutor is weinig aan het woord
Tutor komt uit zichzelf met ‘zwakke’
teksteigenschappen Tutor komt niet uit zichzelf met ‘zwakke’ teksteigenschappen IRE conversatiepatroon (Initiation,
Response, Evaluation) ("tentamenvragen")
Tutor stelt open vragen Tutor oppert mogelijke (tekstgerichte!)
oplossingen (en geeft ook aan op wat voor manier ze verschillen)
Tutor laat student mogelijke oplossingen opperen (en de tutor kan vragen op wat voor manier ze verschillen)
Tutor sluit af met te zeggen wat de student
nu kan gaan doen Tutor sluit af met te vragen wat de student kan gaan doen
Tutor initieert Student initieert
Teacher/student-model Dialogische interactie
10 The texts that were used in the training to practice are not published for the sake of privacy. They are
47
APPENDIX 3
The form the tutors used to note their perceived level of directivity (this form was printed).
Naam student (voor- en achternaam) Ini- tialen Tu- tor Leng- te ge- sprek in minu- ten Datum afspraak (dd-mm-jj) En tijdstip begin afspraak (uu:mm) Gesprek bedoeld als directief (D) of non- directief (N-D)?
Wie heeft voornamelijk
ideeën/oplossingen aangedragen? De student heeft alle ideeën
aangedragen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Jij hebt alle ideeën aangedragen (Juiste getal omcirkelen)
Wie was er vooral aan het woord in het gesprek?
Jij 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
De student (Juiste getal omcirkelen)
In welke mate heb je verbetersuggesties gedaan?
Heel weinig 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Heel veel
(Juiste getal omcirkelen)
Voorbeeld Xyz JA 45 08-02-17 14:45 D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48
APPENDIX 4
The assignment that students made to measure their skill to improve the text structure of a given text, which was not their own.
Dear student,
The next two pages contain an introduction to a scientific paper that was written by a student. Your assignment is to improve the structure of this introduction. You may do whatever you think is necessary to make the structure of the text as good as possible: rewrite sentences, rearrange some of the text, remove some of the text, add more text, etc.
The main question in the introduction was: ‘Is the negative relation between self-esteem and being the victim of harassment mediated (in other words, ‘explained’) by the social support experienced?’ This study mentions a negative relation between self-esteem and victimization: if you have low self-esteem, you are quick to feel that you are harassed. The question is whether this relation can be explained by social support: the extent to which you feel accepted by those around you.
Please do not save your changes in the original document because other students still have to do this same assignment. Be sure that your tutor has opened a copy of the text and that you are not working in the original document. If the tutor has opened a copy, please save this document in the file ‘Opdrachten Onderzoek’ (on your desktop) under the title ‘[your first name and surname] assignment’. Your name will only be used to link your assignment to the text that you discussed in your tutorial session. After the link has been made, all of the texts and assignments will be made anonymous.
When you have finished improving the text, we would like to ask you to complete a questionnaire, which you can find via this link:
https://radboudletteren.eu.qualtrics.com/xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It will take you about three minutes to complete the questionnaire. Following that, you can report to your tutor.
You may start the assignment now. You will have half an hour to complete the assignment. Check the time now and be sure to stop making improvements to the text in half an hour. Then save the definitive version of your improved text in the file mentioned above.
49
In the past few years, the subject of bullying has received a lot of attention at primary and secondary schools. The recent suicide of a fifteen-year-old student from Heerlen as a result of bullying increased the media’s attention to this subject (‘15-year-old student,’ 2017). It is hoped that greater attention will help to reduce harassing behaviour and eventually eliminate it. This subject gives rise to a number of questions, such as what causes bullying? How can you prevent it? But, even more important, what can you do if someone is harassing people? This study tries to find an answer by giving a better idea of the relationship between the extent of someone’s self-esteem and the social support from the individual’s surroundings with regard to that harassment.
The HBSC study done in 2013 showed that more than 10% of the children in group 8 of the primary school said that they had been bullied. This percentage is an average of 7% at secondary schools. These findings are nearly identical to the study done by HBSC in 2009. The figures show that the percentages of bullies are higher than the percentages of those being bullied. Both at primary and secondary schools, about 20% of the pupils say that they bully others. Thus this means that at least one out of five children in a class experience harassment. This bullying touches on an evolved and innate system of developing and maintaining social relationships. Bullying is a form of exclusion and being a victim of this is truly painful. Research has shown that exclusion activates pain areas in the brain and this is similar to physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman,& Williams, 2003; DeWall, & Bushman, 2011). The extent to which the pain is felt differs per individual and is determined by the OPRMI-I gene. After people have been excluded they are better in differentiating between a sincere and a false laugh. The theory behind this is that by nature people need to belong to a group and when this is not the case people experience actual pain and consequently direct their attention to new relations. This innate system is coupled to our self-esteem. The evaluation of ourselves works namely according to a sociometric system; if others like us, then we also like ourselves more. Self-esteem is thus not only an intrinsic value, but is also dependent on the social circles. People who feel good about themselves are more often happy and healthier. On the other hand people who are often regarded negatively and without this being compensated for, also think negatively about themselves. This repeats itself in new situations in which one acts according to the negative self-image that has arisen. Thinking and acting according to the image that has been created by biases is also called the selffulfilling prophecy. This is generally the case with minorities. That was pointed out in the study by Brown and Lohr (1987), which showed that, on average, adolescents who feel that they belong to a group report a higher self-esteem than people who do not belong to a group, such as victims of bullying.
50
Thus these findings show that there is a negative relationship between self-esteem and being the victim of bullying. In this study we are going to look at which mechanisms cause self-esteem and victimization to go together. In addition to self-esteem, however, there is the social support with being the victim of bullying. The longitudinal study by Fanti, Demetriou and Hawa (2012) examined the risk factors and protective factors of bullying. It appeared that social support is a protective factor. The findings showed that when someone experiences social support the chance is smaller that this person will be bullied. Social support, that is, the extent to which someone feels that he or she is accepted by those around them, thus has a negative influence on the chance of becoming a victim of bullying. Both social support and self-esteem are thus related to the chance of being a victim of bullying. However, this social support also plays an important role in the development of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1981). Close supportive relationships with peers and more importantly with parents are related to the self-esteem of an adolescent (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, 2004; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004).
On the basis of the literature it is expected that self-esteem is positively related to the social support experienced (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, (2004).
Another expectation is that there is a negative relationship between self-esteem and being the victim of bullying (Brown, & Lohr 1987).
However, a negative relationship is expected between the social support experienced and being the victim of bullying (Mishna et. al 2016). If self-esteem, the experienced social support and being a victim of bullying show mutual relationships mediation will be investigated.
Thus this study will examine whether the relationship between self-esteem and being the victim of bullying is mediated by the social support experienced. Thus the main question that will be answered in this study is: is the negative relationship between self-esteem and being the victim of bullying mediated by the social support experienced?
Please remember to complete the questionnaire once you have finished making your improvements to the text!
Once again, the link to the questionnaire:
51
APPENDIX 5
The questionnaire the participants filled out after they finished the assignment. Dear student,
This questionnaire contains a number of questions about the effectiveness of the tutorial sessions. It should take you no more than three minutes to complete the questionnaire. What is your current degree programme?
Which year of the degree programme are you enrolled in? What is your sex?
On what date (day-month-year) did you have your tutorial session, and at what time did this session start?
What is your first name and your surname? (Please note: This information will be used only to link your answers to your assignment and your written text. After the link has been made, the information will be made anonymous).
The tutorial session in the writing centre was...
Not at all useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very useful
The discussion with the tutor was...
Very unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very pleasant
The tutorial session helped me do the assignment in which I had to improve the textual structure of an introduction.
Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
After my tutorial session, my motivation to start working on the assignment was...
Much less than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Much more than
before the session before the session
The tutorial session will help me to improve the structure of my own text that was discussed.
Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
The tutorial session gave me new insights into how I write.
Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
As a result of the tutorial session, my writing has...
Not improved at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Become much
better
The tutorial session will help me to structure other texts that I will write.
52
My advice to someone about having a tutorial session at the writing centre is Definitely not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Definitely yes In conclusion, we have a number of questions about how the tutor handled the session. What was the first name of your tutor?
Who suggested most of the ideas/solutions?
You made all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The tutor made of
the suggestions all of the
suggestions
Who did most of the talking?
The tutor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 You
To what extent did the tutor offer suggestions for improvements?
Very little 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
53
APPENDIX 6
r- and p-values for the Pearson r correlation and the inter-rater reliability.
Criterion Version A Version B Assignment
r-value Sig. r-value Sig. r-value Sig.
Order .050 .768 .095 .599 .192 .243 Relevance -.084 .617 -.037 .840 .194 .236 Linking words .162 .337 .168 .349 .202 .217 Topic sentences .348* .032 .159 .376 .366* .022 Paragraph division .334* .041 .076 .674 .551** .000 Paragraph links .227 .171 .058 .749 .459** .003 Paragraph length .650** .000 .428* .013 .501** .001 Lay-out .234 .157 .129 .475 .681** .000 Subheadings .505** .001 .567** .001 .252 .121 Title .635** .000 .426* .014 .575** .000 Overall .287 .081 .186 .299 .478** .002
* indicates significance at the .05 level ** indicates significance at the .001 level
54
APPENDIX 7
Absolute numbers agreement and no agreement between two coders, divided per text and criterion (percentages between brackets).
Criterion Version A Version B Assignment
Agree-
ment (%) Disagree- ment (%) Agree-ment (%) Disagree-ment (%) Agree-ment (%) Disagree-ment (%) Order 21 (53.8) 18 (46.2) 21 (60.0) 14 (40.0) 29 (74.4) 10 (25.6) Relevance 23 (59.0) 16 (41.0) 23 (65.7) 12 (34.3) 27 (69.2) 12 (30.8) Linking words 29 (71.8) 10 (28.2) 25 (71.4) 10 (28.6) 27 (69.2) 12 (30.8) Topic sentences 28 (71.8) 11 (28.2) 21 (60.0) 14 (40.0) 31 (79.5) 8 (20.5) Paragraph division 30 (76.9) 9 (23.1) 22 (62.9) 13 (37.1) 33 (84.6) 6 (15.4) Paragraph links 27 (69.2) 12 (30.8) 25 (71.4) 10 (28.6) 33 (84.6) 6 (15.4) Paragraph length 31 (79.5) 8 (20.5) 28 (80.0) 7 (20.0) 33 (84.6) 6 (15.4) Lay-out 34 (87.2) 5 (12.8) 28 (80.0) 7 (20.0) 34 (87.2) 5 (12.8) Subheadings 22 (56.4) 17 (43.6) 24 (68.6) 11 (31.4) 34 (87.2) 5 (12.8) Title 29 (74.4) 10 (25.6) 21 (60.0) 14 (40.0) 37 (94.9) 2 (5.1) Overall 25 (56.8) 14 (35.9) 25 (71.4) 10 (28.6) 36 (92.3) 3 (7.7) Total 299 130 263 122 354 75
55
APPENDIX 8
F-values, df’s , p-values and effect sizes d for the main effect of Time on the eleven
criteria of text structure quality.
Criterion F-value df1 df2 Sig. Effect size
(ηp2) Order 1.831 1 33 .185 .053 Relevance 2.593 1 33 .117 .073 Linking words .187 1 33 .668 .006 Topic sentences 3.303 1 33 .078 .091 Paragraph division 3.594 1 33 .067 .098 Paragraph links 3.027 1 33 .091 .084 Paragraph length 2.153 1 33 .152 .061 Lay-out .566 1 33 .457 .017 Subheadings 1.959 1 33 .171 .056 Title .102 1 33 .751 .003 Overall 2.879 1 33 .099 .080
56
APPENDIX 9
F-values, df’s , p-values and effect sizes d for the main effect of Condition on the eleven
criteria of text structure quality.
Criterion F-value df1 df2 Sig. Effect size
(ηp2) Order 4.887 1 33 .034 .129 Relevance 1.277 1 33 .267 .037 Linking words 3.701 1 33 .063 .101 Topic sentences .190 1 33 .666 .006 Paragraph division .044 1 33 .835 .001 Paragraph links .070 1 33 .793 .002 Paragraph length .787 1 33 .381 .023 Lay-out .612 1 33 .440 .018 Subheadings 1.364 1 33 .251 .040 Title 1.083 1 33 .306 .032 Overall 2.749 1 33 .107 .077
57
APPENDIX 10
F-values, df’s , p-values and effect sizes d for the Time x Condition interaction on the
eleven criteria of text structure quality.
Criterion F-value df1 df2 Sig. Effect size
(ηp2) Order .804 1 33 .376 .024 Relevance .356 1 33 .555 .011 Linking words .059 1 33 .794 .002 Topic sentences .033 1 33 .856 .001 Paragraph division .006 1 33 .937 .000 Paragraph links .711 1 33 .405 .021 Paragraph length 1.106 1 33 .301 .032 Lay-out .197 1 33 .660 .006 Subheadings .186 1 33 .669 .006 Title .167 1 33 .686 .005 Overall .493 1 33 .488 .015
58
APPENDIX 11
Means for the two types of feedback per criterion of text structure for the before and after version (standard deviations between brackets).
Criterion Non-directive feedback Directive feedback
Before After Before After
Order 108.09 (15.42) 109.41 (15.68) 96.94 (13.65) 103.47 (12.28) Relevance 102.79 (12.56) 108.26 (13.71) 100.29 (13.53) 102.78 (10.98) Linking words 103.97 (10.65) 104.41 (14.27) 97.50 (8.61) 99.30 (12.80) Topic sentences 96.47 (20.48) 104.12 (20.50) 94.86 (18.54) 101.11 (17.68) Paragraph division 100.58 (13.04) 106.18 (12.03) 100.00 (16.52) 105.14 (14.56) Paragraph links 99.27 (16.08) 102.21 (15.53) 95.42 (17.45) 103.89 (12.67) Paragraph length 82.35 (13.24) 91.62 (18.83) 90.28 (20.86) 91.81 (15.31) Lay-out 117.94 (13.64) 121.18 (13.26) 116.52 (13.67) 117.36 (9.98) Subheadings 89.85 (34.17) 86.62 (34.48) 80.14 (26.52) 74.03 (23.49) Title 76.91 (27.16) 77.35 (29.74) 86.94 (25.21) 83.33 (26.11) Overall 100.44 (15.54) 107.94 (14.69) 96.67 (15.64) 99.78 (9.81)
59
APPENDIX 12
Mean scores per criterion of the assignment’s text structure quality, divided per type of feedback (non-directive versus directive) (standard deviations between brackets).
Criterion Before feedback11 After non-
directive feedback After directive feedback Order 100.00 n.a. 101.91 (12.92) 96.84 (11.27) Relevance 107.50 n.a. 96.79 (9.52) 98.55 (14.03)
Linking words 75.00 n.a. 93.10 (11.96) 96.05 (13.95)
Topic sentences 70.00 n.a. 89.52 (15.38) 85.79 (13.41)
Paragraph
division 67.50 n.a. 89.17 (11.95) 86.97 (10.85)
Paragraph links 72.50 n.a. 96.55 (13.05) 91.18 (12.29)
Paragraph length 55.00 n.a. 92.38 (13.86) 86.84 (13.97)
Lay-out 50.00 n.a. 90.36 (21.68) 92.24 (22.70)
Subheadings 50.00 n.a. 59.88 (18.88) 58.55 (11.34)
Title 50.00 n.a. 52.50 (11.46) 50.00 (00.00)
Overall 70.00 n.a. 94.17 (12.85) 90.30 (12.80)
11 These scores are the mean scores of two coders, who coded the blank assignment independently of each
other, without knowing that they were coding the blank version (i.e., they thought they scored the result of an assignment made by a participant). Because there were only two coders, no standard deviations are given.
60
APPENDIX 13
t-values, df’s , p-values and effect sizes d per criterion of the assignment’s text structure
quality for the differences between non-directive and directive feedback.
Criterion t-value df p-value Effect size d12
Order 1.315 38 .197 .42 Relevance -.461 38 .648 .15 Linking words -.722 38 .475 .23 Topic sentences .814 38 .421 .26 Paragraph division .605 38 .549 .19 Paragraph links 1.334 38 .190 .42 Paragraph length 1.257 38 .216 .40 Lay-out -.268 38 .790 .08 Subheadings .266 38 .792 .09 Title .950 38 .348 n.a.13 Overall .961 38 .343 .30
12 The effect size Cohen’s d was calculated as follows:
Cohen's d = (M2 - M1) ⁄ SDpooled where SDpooled = √((SD12 + SD22) ⁄ 2)
13 The effect size could not be calculated for this criterion, since its standard deviation was 0.00 in one of
61
APPENDIX 14
t-values, df’s , p-values and effect sizes d per criterion for the differences between type of
feedback for the three questions about the perceived effects of the feedback on structuring skills and for the fillers.
Perceived effectiveness of feedback on… t-value df p-value Effect size d
… skill to improve the structure of an own,
discussed text -.836 38 .408 0.27
… skill to structure the text in the
assignment 1.859 38 .071 0.58
… skill to structure texts in the future -.638 38 .527 0.20
Filler questions
The tutorial session in the writing centre
was... [Not at all useful – Very useful]. -1.54 38 .131 0.48
The discussion with the tutor was... [Very
unpleasant – Very pleasant]. .599 38 .552 0.20
After my tutorial session, my motivation to start working on the assignment was... [Much less than before the session – Much more than before the session].
.399 38 .692 0.12
The tutorial session gave me new insights into how I write.
[Completely disagree – Completely agree].
1.609 38 .116 0.51
As a result of the tutorial session, my
writing has... [Not improved at all – Become much better].
.356 38 .724 0.12
My advice to someone about having a tutorial session at the writing centre is [Definitely not – Definitely yes].
62
APPENDIX 15
Mean scores for the three questions about the perceived effects of the feedback on structuring skills and for the fillers (standard deviations between brackets).
Perceived effectiveness of feedback on… After non-directive
feedback After directive feedback
… skill to improve the structure of an own,
discussed text 5.95 (1.12) 6.21 (0.79)
… skill to structure the text in the
assignment 5.76 (1.04) 4.95 (1.68)
… skill to structure texts in the future 5.57 (1.03) 5.79 (1.13)
Filler questions
The tutorial session in the writing centre
was... [Not at all useful – Very useful]. 5.62 (0.97) 6.05 (0.78) The discussion with the tutor was... [Very
unpleasant – Very pleasant]. 6.38 (0.45) 6.26 (0.73)
After my tutorial session, my motivation to start working on the assignment was... [Much less than before the session – Much more than before the session].
5.33 (1.02) 5.21 (0.92)
The tutorial session gave me new insights into how I write.
[Completely disagree – Completely agree].
6.19 (0.60) 5.84 (0.77)
As a result of the tutorial session, my writing has... [Not improved at all – Become much better].
4.86 (0.66) 4.79 (0.54)
My advice to someone about having a tutorial session at the writing centre is [Definitely not – Definitely yes].