Optimal scaffolding method for resume writing in the supplementary online writing course

References

• Anders, A. (2016). Flipping the composing process: Collaborative drafting and résumé writing. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615602251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azi, Y. (2020). Scaffolding and the teaching of writing within ZPD: Doing scaffolded writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 12(3), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v12i3.14044
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Khoo, E. (2014). Adding some TEC-VARIETY. Open World Books.
   Google Scholar
• Borgman, J., & Dockter, J. (2018). Considerations of access and design in the online writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 49, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, K. (2015). Cracking the genre of resume. GWRJournal, 4(2), 35–43
   Google Scholar
• Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 357–392. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.05
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, K. S. (2016). Flipping to teach the conceptual foundations of successful workplace writing. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615608847
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Hsu, I. C., & Wu, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of undergraduate curriculum reform for interdisciplinary learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902757203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. L., Wang, Y. P., & Kinshuk, Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, M.-H., & Byun, M. K. (2017). Nonnative English-speaking students’ lived learning experiences with MOOCs in a regular college classroom. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, I. (2017). How students’ ability levels influence the relevance and accuracy of their feedback to peers: A case study. Assessing Writing, 31, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, L. (2016). Flipping the online classroom with Web 2.0. Business & Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615602250
   Google Scholar
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• de Moura, V. F., de Souza, C. E., & Viana, A. B. N. (2021). The use of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in blended learning courses and the functional value perceived by students. Computers & Education, 161, 1 –14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding, Y., & Shen, H. (2021). English language MOOCs in China: Learners’ perspective. The EuroCALL Review, 28(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2020.13090
   Google Scholar
• Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. CALL, 30(8), 787–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
   Google Scholar
• Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. CALL, 32(5-6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362
   Google Scholar
• Edmunds, J. A., Gicheva, D., Thrift, B., & Hull, M. (2021). High tech, high touch: The impact of an online course intervention on academic performance and persistence in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, C. (1981). Writing resumes and cover letters. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 24(4), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1981.6501682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00132.x
   Google Scholar
• Figueroa-Cañas, J., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2021). Investigating the relationship between optional quizzes and final exam performance in a fully asynchronous online calculus module. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1559864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filiusa, F. M., de Kleijnb, R. A. M., Uijlb, S. G., Prinsb, F. J., van Rijena, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E. (2018). Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education, 125, 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fillenwarth, G. M., McCall, M., & Berdanier, C. (2018). Quantification of engineering disciplinary discourse in resumes: A novel genre analysis with teaching implications. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2747338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R., Ross, B., LaFerriere, R., & Martiz, A. (2017). Flipped learning, flipped satisfaction, getting the balance right. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furka, I. (2008). The curriculum vitae and the motivational letter: A rhetorical and cultural analysis. WoPaLP, 2, 18–37. http://langped.elte.hu/WoPaLParticles/W2Furka.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gabelli School of Business. (2016). Resume writing guidelines.
   Google Scholar
• Gilliland, B., Oyama, A., & Stacey, P. (2018). Second language writing in a MOOC: Affordances and missed opportunities. TESL-EJ, 22(1), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Greenly, R. (1993). How to write a resume? Technical Communication, 40(1), 42–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43095873
   Google Scholar
• Greer, M., & Harris, H. S. (2018). User-centered design as a foundation for effective online writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 49, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.006
   Google Scholar
• Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanjani, A. M., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne, K. A., Bol, L., & Pribesh, S. (2017). Can providing rubrics for writing tasks improve developing writers’ calibration accuracy? The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1299081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention–behavior gap. Distance Education, 38(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, B. (1981). The new you—Researched, resumed, and rarin’ to go. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 4(4), 160–162. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1981.6501683
   Google Scholar
• Ireland, S. (2000). The complete idiot's guide to the perfect resume. Alpha Books.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, R., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Conijn, R., & Kester, L. (2020). Supporting learners’ self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2021). Educational scalability in MOOCs: Analysing instructional designs to find best practices. Computers & Education, 161, 1 –12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leggette, H. R., McKim, B. R., & Dunsford, D. (2013). A case study of using electronic self-assessment rubrics in a core curriculum writing course. NACTA Journal, 57(2), 2–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.57.2.2
   Google Scholar
• Litterio, L. M. (2018). Uncovering student perceptions of a first-year online writing course. Computers and Composition, 47, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.006
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Monje, E., Castrillo, M. D., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2018). Understanding online interaction in language MOOCs through learning analytics. CALL, 31(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1378237
   Google Scholar
• Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2020). MOOC-based educational program and interaction in distance education: Long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1553188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nawas, A. (2020). Grading anxiety with self and peer-assessment: A mixed-method study in an Indonesian EFL context. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 224–244. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/nawas.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, V., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. CALL, 2(4), 724–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
   Google Scholar
• Popken, R. (1999). The pedagogical dissemination of a genre: The resume in American business discourse textbooks, 1914–1939. JAC, 19(1), 91–116. www.jstor.org/stable/20866224
   Google Scholar
• Pozón-López, I., Kalinic, Z., Higueras-Castillo, E., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2020). A multi-analytical approach to modeling of customer satisfaction and intention to use in MOOCs. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1003–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian, Y. (2018). Using rubrics in a university EFL process writing program: An exploratory case study. ASIAN TEFL: Journal of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.21462/asiantefl.v3i2.53
   Google Scholar
• Saeed, M. A., & Ghazali, K. (2017). Asynchronous group review of EFL writing: Interactions and text revisions. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 200–226. 10125/44618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• School, H. E. (2020). Resumes and cover letters.
   Google Scholar
• Schwieter, J. W. (2010). Developing second language writing through scaffolding in the ZPD: A magazine project for an authentic audience. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(10), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v7i10.154
   Google Scholar
• Seo, K., Dodson, S., Harandi, N. M., Roberson, N., Fels, S., & Roll, I. (2021). Active learning with online video: The impact of learning context on engagement. Computers & Education, 165, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vista, A., Care, E., & Griffin, P. (2015). A new approach towards marking large-scale complex assessments: Developing a distributed marking system that uses an automatically scaffolding and rubric-targeted interface for guided peer-review. Assessing Writing, 24, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vonna, Y., Mukminatien, N., & Laksmi, E. D. (2015). The effect of scaffolding techniques on students’ writing achievement. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, 3(3), 227–233. http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jph/article/view/4864/2401
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. In E. Hanfmann, & G. Vakar (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weerasinghe, S., Lalitha, S., & Fernando, R. L. S. (2017). Students’ satisfaction in higher education: Literature review. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-5-5-9
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J. (2012). GEPT and English language teaching and testing in Taiwan. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.553251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z., Banerjee, M., Ramirez, G., Zhu, G., & Wijekumar, K. (2019). The effectiveness of educational technology applications on adult English language learners’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. CALL, 32(11), 132–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1501069
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. F. (2018). New language knowledge construction through indirect feedback in web-based collaborative writing. CALL, 31(4), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1414852
   Google Scholar
• Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Students’ reflection on feedback in L2 writing in blended learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 235–261. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2011.14.2.235
   Google Scholar