Workshops Increase Students’ Proficiency at Identifying General and APA-Style
Writing Errors*
Terrence D. Jorgensen
1and Pam Marek
2Abstract
To determine the effectiveness of 20- to 30-min workshops on recognition of errors in American Psychological Association-style writing, 58 introductory psychology students attended one of the three workshops (on grammar, mechanics, or references) and completed error recognition tests (pretest, initial posttest, and three follow-up tests). As a comparison condition for the work- shops, an additional 47 students attended one discussion session about the reasons for style rules. Workshop participants improved from pretest to initial posttest for all topics (whereas comparison groups did not) and retained their proficiency in follow-up tests. Feedback and note taking enhanced improvement. By providing students with supplementary training in basic writing skills, workshops may conserve course time in methodology courses, allowing for greater conceptual emphasis.
Keywords
writing skills, scientific writing, college students, psychology, APA style
A key component of undergraduate psychology curricula is teaching not only what psychologists know about behavior but also how they know it. Thus, research methods courses are common requirements (Dunn, McCarthy, Baker, Halonen, &
Hill, 2007), often including emphasis on written reviews and analyses of psychological research. For these assignments, familiarity with basic writing skills (e.g., grammar, mechanics) is indispensable. Lack of such skills (Conners & Lunsford, 1988), which psychology professors may assume students learned in English composition courses (Madigan, Johnson, &
Linton, 1995), presents an obstacle to effective scientific writing.
Although instructors have expressed concerns about students’
writing competency, a focus on substantive research-related con- cepts challenges methodology instructors to find time to teach basic writing and specific style rules for the American Psycholo- gical Association (APA, 2010).
As is true for many skills, practice is a prerequisite to quality writing (Fallahi, Wood, Austad, & Fallahi, 2006; Goddard, 2003; Johnstone, Ashbaugh, & Warfield, 2002; Madigan et al., 1995). Moreover, students who practice writing related to their field improve more than when they practice general writing (Johnstone et al., 2002) and can learn how to think more like experienced members of their field (Madigan et al., 1995). To reinforce retention of new material, note taking is a valuable tool for promoting active involvement, particularly when coupled with reviewing of notes (Bohay, Blakely, Tam- plin, & Radvansky, 2011; Carter & Van Matre, 1975). Feed- back is also helpful for students, especially if it is timely and detailed (Boscolo, Arfe, & Quarisa, 2007; Fallahi et al., 2006; Gianaros, 2006; Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007); however,
the effectiveness of feedback for formal writing may relate to whether the initial feedback is provided by the same individual who grades the final paper (Stellmack, Keenan, Sandidge, &
Sippl, 2012).
Because proficiency in formal writing is an important psychology program outcome and one of the more difficult out- comes for students to achieve (Marek & Jorgensen, 2012), eva- luation of interventions (e.g., lectures, rubrics, peer revision, and writing supplements) is an ongoing concern. In lieu of a separate writing course for psychology majors (e.g., Calhoun
& Selby, 1979; Goddard, 2003; Luttrell, Bufkin, Eastman, &
Miller, 2010), writing workshops may be beneficial supple- ments to (or incorporated in) classroom training. Workshops, even if brief (Drabick, Weisberg, Paul, & Bubier, 2007), pro- vide opportunities for students to practice, receive feedback on, and improve their writing skills (Boscolo et al., 2007).
Whereas writing centers tend to offer general workshops, writing in psychology differs in multiple ways (e.g., use of citations, quotations, and ‘‘hedge’’ words) from writing in other disciplines (Madigan et al., 1995). Thus, we designed and
1Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
2Deparment of Psychology, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA
* Andrew N. Christopher served as action editor for this paper.
Corresponding Author:
Terrence D. Jorgensen, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Fraser Hall Room 426, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.
Email: [email protected]
40(4) 294-299 ªThe Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0098628313501037 top.sagepub.com
evaluated the effectiveness of psychology-specific workshops in developing skills related to formal report preparation.
Within the recursive process of writing (e.g., planning, sen- tence generation, reviewing; Hayes & Flower, 1986), the skills addressed in three workshops (grammar, mechanics, and refer- ences) seem particularly relevant to the reviewing phase when writers edit their manuscripts. To minimize participants’ prior knowledge of APA-style writing, we recruited introductory psychology students to attend one workshop with a PowerPoint (PPT) presentation and to complete a pretest, initial posttest, and three follow-up tests to examine retention of error recogni- tion skills. To assess potential testing effects influencing improvement from pretest to initial posttest, we also included comparison groups who attended only one discussion (without a PPT presentation) about why disciplines use style rules. We hypothesized that students attending the workshops would improve and retain their proficiency at identifying errors in grammar, mechanics, and references, with progress moderated by feedback and whether students took notes on the material.
Method Participants
Introductory psychology students (31 male, 74 female; Mage¼ 21, range 16–48 years) at Kennesaw State University partici- pated to fulfill part of their research experience requirement. All completed informed consent forms and reported basic demo- graphics (ethnicity [64% White, 26% Black], primary language [94% English], credit hours completed [M ¼ 25.71, SD ¼ 36.55]), general sleep and work schedules, any learning disabil- ities (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) that required therapy or medication to overcome, and prior exposure to APA- style rules (28%).1 Most (92%) participants permitted us to
record their grade point averages and their American College Testing (ACT) or Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores.
None of these variables revealed a significant effect or interac- tion with the variables modeled in the Results section.
Materials
We prepared three 20- to 30-min PPT presentations based on the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), one for each of the three workshops (grammar, mechanics, and references). Table 1 shows topics covered in each workshop, many of which are rel- evant to formal writing in general, not only APA style.2We selected topics based upon the most frequent errors we noticed when grading student manuscripts.
We constructed four assessments (one version completed at the beginning and end of the initial meeting, three follow-up versions). Each assessment contained 20 items related to psychological topics, each with one error for participants to identify. For example, the grammar assessment included ‘‘If a person is afraid to fail, they may delay starting an activity,’’
with an error in pronoun–antecedent agreement. To reduce the possibility of practice effects, each assessment had the same format but different content. Correlations between students’
performance on the four versions of the assessments ranged from .62 to .78.
Design and Procedure
Students signed up for one of the nine timeslots online using SONA Systems web-based software for managing participant pools. We randomly assigned six timeslots to the workshop conditions (two timeslots for each content area in Table 1) and Table 1. List of Specific Topics Presented for Three General Areas of APA-Style Rules.
Content Area Relevant Pages Specific Topics Discussed
References 181–184 Author format, alphabetization
185 Date of publication
176–177 Groups as authors, no author
185–186 Title format (periodical vs. nonperiodical) 186–187 Publication info (periodical vs. nonperiodical) 187–192, 198–199 Electronic sources, DOI versus database or URL
Grammar and writing style 69 Anthropomorphism
69–70 Editorial we, avoid second person
70–77 Biased language
78–79 Subject–verb agreement (data is plural)
79–80 Pronoun–antecedent agreement
83–84 Using specific language (e.g., while and since)
84–86 Parallel construction
87–90 Conjunctions, proper separation of clauses
Mechanics 63–65 Seriation
87–96 Punctuation (including apostrophes, colons, etc.)
96 Common spelling mistakes (e.g., than vs. then)
97–100 Hyphenation (e.g., prefixes, self words)
106–111 Abbreviations
111–115 Numbers and metrication
three timeslots to handout-only comparison conditions (one for each area in Table 1), yielding a 2 (workshop or handout-only)
3 (content area) between-groups design. During Meeting 1, all students (workshop and handout-only groups) received PPT handouts with space for notes corresponding to the PPT mate- rial in their content area, as well as informed consent forms, a demographic questionnaire, and a pretest. The PPT handouts served as a proxy for having access to the APA (2010) Publi- cation Manual itself, reflecting the fact that instructors do not typically expect students to memorize the manual, but rather to recognize when to consult it while writing or editing. The first author read the instructions aloud, reminding participants to complete the materials at their own pace by identifying the 20 mistakes and, in workshop conditions, indicating that they could make notes on the handouts during the workshop. We assigned random three-digit IDs to include at the top of their handouts, so that we could redistribute them at subsequent meetings for student use during follow-up tests.
After the pretest, workshop groups viewed a lecture on the content area given by the first author, who engaged students by asking questions (e.g., ‘‘Is this subject singular or plural?’’).
An undergraduate research assistant helped distribute and collect materials. In handout-only groups, rather than presenting a PPT lecture about specific grammar or APA-style rules, the first author discussed why disciplines have specific style rules, how material was organized in the APA (2010) Publication Manual, and that the handout included information about a specific sub- topic in the manual. After the workshop presentation (or handout-only group discussion), participants completed the ini- tial posttest identical to the pretest. We asked participants in the workshops to attend three follow-up sessions scheduled 2 days, 7 days, and 2–4 weeks after the workshop, yielding a 3 (content area) 4 (assessment occasion) mixed-groups design among the workshop groups. Only two participants in the workshop groups did not complete all follow-up assessments. Participants in the handout-only groups did not attend any follow-up sessions.
We randomized the distribution of the three follow-up assessments for workshop groups (i.e., participants completed any of Versions 2–4 during Meetings 2–4). Before the work- shop groups completed each subsequent assessment, they received their original handouts with their own handwritten notes (if they chose to make any). For each content area, we randomly assigned one of the two timeslots to receive feedback on prior assessments at Meeting 2 and the other timeslot to receive feedback at Meeting 3. No one received feedback at Meeting 4. For all assessments, the number of accurate error identifications was the outcome variable for analysis.
Results
Initial Posttest Improvement in Workshop and Handout-Only Groups
We analyzed data from the handout-only group to estimate test- ing effects between the pretest and initial posttest completed at Meeting 1, the only session that handout-only groups attended.
The ideal method for a pretest–posttest, control-group design is not to perform a t-test on difference scores or to perform a two- way, mixed-effects ANOVA—both of which assume every individual improves at the same rate. Instead, Dugard and Todman (1995) recommended performing an analysis of covar- iance (ANCOVA) on posttest scores using pretest scores as the covariate because this between-group comparison allows for individual rates of improvement. Although initially we found that pretest scores were higher among the handout-only groups than the workshop groups, t(103)¼ 3.21, p ¼ .002 (means pre- sented in Table 2), further analysis revealed the reason for the difference was due to the materials. Each workshop group com- pleted Assessment Version 1 during the first meeting. Handout- only groups—because they would not be attending any further meetings—completed any of the four versions. As shown in Table 2, Version 1 received the lowest scores in the handout- only group; when the version was held constant, no difference was found between the handout-only and workshop groups’
performance, t(73)¼ 0.18, p ¼ .86.
We performed a 2 (workshop or handout-only) 3 (content area) between-groups ANCOVA on posttest scores, using pretest scores as a covariate and a ¼ .05 as criterion for significance.
Controlling for pretest scores (number correct of the 20), partici- pants in the workshop groups improved more (Mdiff¼ 9.91, SE
¼ 0.69) than those in the handout-only groups (Mdiff¼ 3.19, SE¼ 1.17), F(1, 93) ¼ 19.76, p < .0001, R2¼ .62. The workshop and pretest scores accounted for a large percentage of the varia- bility in posttest scores. There were also significant differences in improvement between content areas (see means in Table 3), F(2, 93)¼ 10.47, p < .0001, which accounted for 11% additional variability in posttest scores (R2¼ .73). We discuss these differ- ences further in the following section. Planned comparisons using paired-samples t-tests revealed no significant improve- ment in the combined handout-only groups, t(46)¼ 1.45, p ¼ .15, whereas significant improvement was revealed in each workshop content area: grammar, t(19)¼ 7.33, p < .0001, d ¼ 1.64, mechanics, t(23)¼ 4.45, p ¼ .0002, d ¼ 0.91, and refer- ences, t(13) ¼ 6.89, p < .0001, d ¼ 1.84.
Longitudinal Effects
To reveal the workshop groups’ trends in improvement over the following few weeks, we used a hierarchical linear model to Table 2. Pretest and Initial Posttest Scores by Group and Assessment Version.
Group N
Pretest Initial Posttest
M (SD) M (SD)
Workshop 58 8.79 (5.22) 13.72 (3.70)
Handout-only 47 12.17 (5.55) 12.70 (4.87)
Handout-only group by Assessment Version
1 17 9.06 (5.52) 11.00 (5.22) 2 11 14.73 (5.10) 13.45 (4.80) 3 10 14.30 (4.52) 14.40 (4.30) 4 9 12.56 (5.00) 13.11 (4.62) Note. Workshop groups only completed Assessment Version 1.
control for repeated measures (see chapter 4 of Singer & Will- ett, 2003, for details). The intraclass correlation coefficient was .80, indicating that 80% of variance in improvement was due to differences between students; it is also a measure of the corre- lation between any two measurements from the same person.
We calculated improvement by subtracting the pretest score from the subsequent follow-up scores; thus, our use of
‘‘improvement’’ is always in contrast to the pretest.
At Follow-up 3 (the final assessment), there was greater improvement for references than for mechanics, t(162) ¼ 5.95, p < .0001, or for grammar, t(162) ¼ 4.32, p < .0001.
Improvement was similar for grammar and mechanics, t(162)
¼ 1.64, p ¼ .10. Table 3 includes descriptive statistics for each testing occasion and content area, as well as test statistics com- paring each follow-up to initial improvement. As Table 3 shows, improvement remained stable or increased significantly in all cases; there was no decline in performance for any follow-up tests in any content area. In the grammar condition, improvement at Follow-ups 1 and 2 was significantly higher than for the initial posttest, and Follow-up 3 improvement was similar to the initial posttest. In the mechanics condition, improvement for Follow-ups 2 and 3 was significantly higher than for the initial posttest, and Follow-up 1 improvement was similar to the initial posttest. In the references condition, improvement for all Follow-ups was significantly higher than for the initial posttest.
As we hypothesized, receiving feedback yielded greater improvement (b¼ 1.89 items, SE ¼ 0.60) than no feedback, t(162)¼ 3.12, p ¼ .002, and improvement was greater among students who took notes (b¼ 3.35 items, SE ¼ 1.18) than those who did not, t(162)¼ 2.82, p ¼ .005. The effect size for the model is the reduction in residual variance at the within- and between-student levels, analogous to R2in traditional regression.
Time-invariant predictors (i.e., content area and whether they took notes) explained 42.58% of the variability in improvement between students, and time-varying predictors (i.e., test occasion and feedback) explained 33.53% of the within-student variabil- ity in improvement, both of which are substantial.
The number of days between participants’ second and third follow-up tests ranged from 4 to 21 days (M¼ 10.08, SD ¼ 5.60). We investigated whether improvement decreased predic- tably as time elapsed until Follow-up 3, at which point no one received feedback as a form of review. No significant relation- ship was found between the final improvement score and days elapsed between Follow-ups 2 and 3, r(54) ¼ .13, p ¼ .35, nor between the initial posttest and Follow-up 3 (M¼ 23.27, SD¼ 7.73, range 14–44), r(54) ¼ .13, p ¼ .33.
Discussion
Results supported our hypotheses about workshop effective- ness, sustained improvement from pretest, feedback, and note taking. Using similar methods as Fallahi, Wood, Austad, and Fallahi (2006), we found that students improved their editing skills, even though the exposure to material was brief (Drabick et al., 2007)—in fact, Kellogg and Raulerson (2007) indicated that brief, frequent workshops improved writing skills more than infrequent, long workshops. Furthermore, our follow-up sessions demonstrated that students’ proficiency in error iden- tification was greater on the last follow-up test than on the initial posttest in each content area.
When we incorporated feedback, error identification improved by 2 items; taking notes increased improvement by 3 items. The effects of feedback (Boscolo et al., 2007; Fallahi et al., 2006) and content (Fallahi et al., 2006) were consistent with past research. The positive effect of students’ note taking Table 3. Mean Performance and Improvement by Content Area and Tests Comparing Initial Improvement to Improvement at Each Follow-Up.
Difference in Improvement on Initial Posttest Versus Follow-Ups
Area/Test M (SD) Improvement From Pretest (SD) t(162) p
Grammar
Pretest 6.75 (3.55)
Initial posttest 11.65 (4.12) 4.90 (2.99)
Follow-up 1 14.15 (4.77) 7.40 (3.35) 3.73 .003
Follow-up 2 14.35 (4.18) 7.60 (3.55) 3.65 .004
Follow-up 3 12.79 (3.77) 6.04 (2.26) 1.19 .06
Mechanics
Pretest 11.79 (4.54)
Initial posttest 14.54 (2.62) 2.75 (3.03)
Follow-up 1 15.71 (2.56) 3.92 (3.36) 1.70 .09
Follow-up 2 16.96 (1.68) 5.17 (4.15) 3.38 .001
Follow-up 3 15.71 (2.42) 3.92 (4.51) 2.27 .03
References
Pretest 6.57 (6.01)
Initial posttest 15.29 (3.56) 8.72 (4.73)
Follow-up 1 17.79 (1.63) 11.22 (5.74) 2.31 .02
Follow-up 2 17.43 (2.10) 10.86 (5.53) 3.09 .002
Follow-up 3 18.38 (1.66) 11.81 (6.97) 4.32 <.0001
Note. No significant differences were found between follow-ups in any content area.
could indicate either that the notes themselves were effective or that actively engaging students’ attention can improve editing skills, or it may be a reflection of the characteristics of those students; however, the design of this study does not allow us to draw a specific conclusion. Moreover, prior researchers on note taking (Benton, Kiewra, Whitfill, & Dennison, 1993) have indicated that participants who wrote essays with their topic notes available prepared more cohesive documents than did students without their notes available. Thus, in the present study, it seems probable that having the notes available during the error-correction assessment contributed to the effect of note taking beyond the influence of students’ prior involvement in taking notes.
Previous researchers have indicated that multiple techniques (e.g., workshops, lectures, feedback, error correction exercises) enhance students’ writing skills (Boscolo et al., 2007; Fallahi et al., 2006; Gianaros, 2006; Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007). The use of workshops, in particular, has extended to multiple disci- plines and student populations. For example, nursing students with English as a second language (Salamonson, Koch, Weaver, Everett, & Jackson, 2010), ethnically diverse 12th- grade students preparing essays for college admissions (Early, DeCosta-Smith, & Valdespino, 2010), graduate students in clinical psychology (Drotar, 2000), and psychology majors learning to write concisely (Dermer, Lopez, & Messling, 2009) have all benefited from participation in a workshop.
Despite limitations related to self-selection, convenience sam- pling, and small sample sizes within each condition (n¼ 13–
20), the present research suggests that workshops targeted at basic editing and APA-style skills would also bolster students’
writing proficiency in disciplines using APA style for formal writing.
For psychology specifically, we designed the workshops to supplement instruction in research methods or upper-level courses that include writing assignments. Although the work- shops were evaluated using introductory psychology students, including only 14% psychology majors, there is little reason to suspect that results would not apply to students in other psy- chology courses as well. However, questions remain regarding where in psychology curricula workshops would fit best (e.g., the initial methodology course), options for implementation (in class, possibly with assessments as homework, or online, including computerized assessments), and willingness of stu- dents to participate in supplemental workshops for which no credit is offered. Indeed, although brief workshops such as ours provide opportunities for scaffolding student development in particular aspects of the writing process, challenges of schedul- ing such workshops and requesting or enforcing attendance may counterbalance these benefits (Marek & Jorgensen, 2012). Perhaps one way to address both the class time and attendance issues would be to develop online versions of the workshops that students complete for credit as homework assignments.
Although a separate class devoted to discipline-specific writing is an appealing option for providing writing instruction and practice, faculty workload, budgetary issues, and curricula
constraints may limit its feasibility in institutions where work- shops seem viable. However, further research is necessary to evaluate the potential effectiveness of online workshops and to reveal the ‘‘ideal’’ frequency for scheduling and encouraging attendance at workshops. Because grammar and APA-style rules may be easier for students to grasp than would skills related to organization and logical construction of evidence- based arguments (Stellmack et al., 2012), the frequency may differ for various aspects of writing. We encourage institutions to face the challenge of providing students with systematic opportunities to strengthen their discipline-specific writing skills (Dunn et al., 2007) and to practice newly acquired skills.
Acknowledgment
We thank Christina Tzortzinakis and Zeth Countryman for their help initiating these workshops and with the first presentation of these results in poster format for SETOP 2011.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. We did not expect so many students to answer ‘‘yes’’ in response to the question ‘‘Have you ever been exposed to APA-style rules before?’’ Students may have responded ‘‘yes’’ because they assumed they should know about the rules or because they had actually been exposed to APA style in prior courses in their major (e.g., Nursing).
2. For more details, the full set of materials can be downloaded from the first author’s web link (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16322643/
APA_Workshops_Materials.zip).
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Benton, S. L., Kiewra, K. A., Whitfill, J. M., & Dennison, R. (1993).
Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 85, 267–280. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.85.2.267
Bohay, M., Blakely, D. P., Tamplin, A. K., & Radvansky, G. A.
(2011). Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology, 124, 63–73. doi:10.5406/amerjp- syc.124.1.0063
Boscolo, P., Arfe, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students’ academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 419–438. doi:10.1080/03075070701476092 Calhoun, L. G., & Selby, J. W. (1979). Writing in psychology: A sep- arate course? Teaching of Psychology, 6, 232. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top0604_11
Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note taking versus note hav- ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 900–904. doi:10.
1037/0022-0663.67.6.900
Conners, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Keele do research. College Communication and Composition, 39, 395–409. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc
Dermer, M. L., Lopez, S. L., & Messling, P. (2009). Fluency training a writing skill: Editing for concision. The Psychological Record, 59, 3–20. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol59/iss1/1 Drabick, D. A., Weisberg, R., Paul, L., & Bubier, J. L. (2007). Keep- ing it short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facili- tate learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172–176. doi:10.1080/
00986280701498558
Drotar, D. (2000). Training professional psychologists to write and publish: The utility of a writers’ workshop seminar. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 453–457. doi:10.1037/
0735-7028.31.4.453
Dugard, P., & Todman, J. (1995). Analysis of pretest–posttest control group designs in educational research. Educational Psychology, 15, 181–199. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/EdPsych Dunn, D. S., McCarthy, M. A., Baker, S., Halonen, J. S., & Hill, G. W.,
IV. (2007). Quality benchmarks in undergraduate psychology programs. American Psychologist, 62, 650–670. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.62.7.650
Early, J., DeCosta-Smith, M., & Valdespino, A. (2010). Write your ticket to college: A genre-based college admission essay work- shop for ethnically diverse, underserved students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 209–219. doi:10.1598/JAAL.
54.3.6
Fallahi, C. R., Wood, R. M., Austad, C. S., & Fallahi, H. (2006).
A program for improving undergraduate psychology students’
basic writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 171–175. doi:
10.1207/s15328023top3303_3
Gianaros, P. J. (2006). A seminar on scientific writing for students, postdoctoral trainees, and junior faculty. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 120–123. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3302_8
Goddard, P. (2003). Implementing and evaluating a writing course for psychology majors. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 25–29. doi:10.
1207/S15328023TOP3001_04
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer.
American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
41.10.1106
Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students’ writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 305–315. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.305
Kellogg, R. T., & Raulerson, B. A., III. (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 237–242. doi:10.3758/BF03194058
Luttrell, V. R., Bufkin, J. L., Eastman, V. J., & Miller, R. (2010).
Teaching scientific writing: Measuring student learning in an intensive APA skills course. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 193–195. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.488531
Madigan, R., Johnson, S., & Linton, P. (1995). The language of psy- chology: APA style as epistemology. American Psychologist, 50, 428–436. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.6.428
Marek, P., & Jorgensen, T. D. (2012, February). What ever happened to the second ‘R? A preliminary glimpse into psychology chairs’
perceptions of students’ writing skills. Poster presentation at XXIV Annual Southeastern Conference on the Teaching of Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Salamonson, Y., Koch, J., Weaver, R., Everett, B., & Jackson, D.
(2010). Embedded academic writing support for nursing students with English as a second language. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 413–421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05158.x
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data anal- ysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Stellmack, M. A., Keenan, N. K., Sandidge, R. R., Sippl, A.L, & Kon- heim-Kalkstein, Y. L. (2012). Review, revise, and resubmit: The effects of self-critique, peer review, and instructor feedback on stu- dent writing. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 235–244. doi:10.1177/
0098628312456589
