scholarly journals EAL Writers and Peer Tutors: Pedagogies that Resist the “Broken Writer” Myth

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Goldrick-Jones ◽  
Daniel Chang
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Roundtable Discussion ◽  
Peer Tutors ◽  
Writing Genres ◽  
Language Membership ◽  
Pedagogical Approaches

Writing centres offer a safe space for writers, including English-as-additional-language (EAL) students, to negotiate meaning and become more <luent with academic writing genres. However, a disconnect still exists between the writer-centred principles that inform WC tutoring practice and the pervasive myth that writing centres repair “broken” writing. An analysis of data from a writing centre’s client reports, as well as peer tutors’ comments and student writing samples, indicates that a student’s language membership does not predict types of writing challenges or errors. This <inding inspired a roundtable discussion about pedagogical approaches that not only empower EAL students but help writing centres resist the “broken writer” myth.

scholarly journals Stance and modals of obligation and necessity in academic writing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Parkinson
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Modal Auxiliaries ◽  
Objective Meaning ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Variation has been demonstrated in modal use between written and spoken registers and between disciplines. This article investigates variation within a discipline by comparing modals of obligation and necessity used in three science genres. Obligation modals project strong authoritative stance, thus contrasting with the tendency in academic writing towards tentativeness. The modal auxiliaries must and should and quasi-modals have to and need to are investigated using student writing from the BAWE (British Academic Written English) corpus and a corpus of published research articles. Findings include a dearth of obligation modals in the empirical genres (research articles and laboratory reports). Also a greater prominence was found of dynamic modal meaning (where necessity arises from circumstances) rather than deontic meaning (where the necessity arises from human authority or rules). A further finding is the prominence of objective meaning in the science register compared with the International Corpus of English (Collins 2009a).

Register variation in L1 and L2 student writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Goulart
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
First Year ◽  
Five Dimensions ◽  
Register Variation ◽  
Linguistic Resources ◽  
Brazilian Students ◽  
The Uk ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract While there have been many studies describing L2 academic writing, most of these studies have used corpora of first year or assessment writing (Crosthwaite 2016; Weigle & Friginal 2014). The present study seeks to describe linguistic variation in L2 writing for content classes and to compare these linguistic patterns to those found in L1 writing. A multi-dimensional (MD) analysis was conducted in two corpora, BAWE and BrAWE, extracting five dimensions. The L2 corpus contained 379 texts written by Brazilian students doing part of their undergrad in the UK and the L1 corpus contained 395 texts from BAWE. The results of this study indicate that L1 and L2 writers use similar linguistic resources to convey the purpose of university registers, with the exception of case studies, designs, exercises and research reports. This linguistic variation between L1 and L2 writers might be explained by students’ interpretation of these registers’ communicative purposes.

Teacher Self-Assessment of Feedback Practices in an EFL Academic Writing Class - A Reflective Case Study

2017 ◽  
pp. 162-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eddy White
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Teacher Feedback ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
English Writing ◽  
Teacher Commentary ◽  
Feedback Interventions ◽  
Giving Feedback

Unlike studies of teacher feedback on student writing, research into teacher self-assessment of their own feedback practices is quite rare in the assessment literature. In this reflective case study, the researcher/teacher systematically analyzed feedback practices to clearly determine the form and kind of formative feedback being provided on student essays, and also to compare these feedback practices to recommended practice from the feedback literature. The research took place in an academic English writing course for third-year students at a Japanese university. A close examination of the teacher feedback on the first draft of 21 student essays was undertaken, and more than 800 feedback interventions were identified and coded. Results of this investigation show a number of patterns of practice in giving feedback, including; extensive use of questions in teacher commentary, very limited use of praise comments, and varying amounts of feedback provided on individual essays. Results also show that the feedback practices discovered through this investigation align well with recommended best practice. The case study positions the teacher as ‘learner' in this feedback process, and calls for similar published research describing in detail what teachers do when providing feedback to students on their work.

Using Online Writing Communities to Teach Writing MOOCs

2017 ◽  
pp. 317-330
Author(s):  
Rebekah Shultz Colby
Keyword(s):  
Online Courses ◽  
Technical Writing ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Rhetorical Situation ◽  
Online Writing ◽  
Teacher Authority ◽  
Writing Genres ◽  
Style Guides ◽  
Writing Communities ◽  
Pedagogical Approaches

The immense enrollment capacity of massive open online courses (MOOCs) radically decenters student and teacher authority in the writing classroom. However, online writing communities teach each other how to write effectively within that community, a type of writing instruction which could be leveraged in a MOOC. The author qualitatively coded the types of writing questions and feedback posted on a technical writing forum, Technical Writing World and discovered that writing questions focused on technical writing genres, style guides, documentation practices, lower order concerns, and revision or outsourcing of work. Responses often directed the original poster to research the rhetorical situation within a specific company. The author then outlined three pedagogical approaches for writing MOOCs: students could ask writing questions from professionals on similar writing websites, conduct qualitative studies of similar online writing communities to learn their underlying writing values, and participate in MOOCs that were organized to be communities of practice.

Linguistic Markers of Stance and Genre in Upper-Level Student Writing

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Aull
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Linguistic Markers ◽  
Writing Research ◽  
Upper Level ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Student

Stance is a growing focus of academic writing research and an important aspect of writing development in higher education. Research on student writing to date has explored stance across different levels, language backgrounds, and disciplines, but has rarely focused on stance features across genres. This article explores stance marker use between two important genre families in higher education—persuasive argumentative writing and analytic explanatory writing—based on corpus linguistic analysis of late undergraduate and early graduate-level writing in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP). The specific stance markers in the study, both epistemic and textual cues, have been shown to distinguish student writing across levels; this study, then, extends the analysis to consider the comparative use of these markers across genres. The findings show two stance expectations persistent across genres as well as significant distinctions between argumentative and explanatory writing vis-à-vis stance markers that intensify and contrast. The findings thus point to important considerations for instruction, assignment design, and future research.

A multidimensional analysis of student writing in Black South African English

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertus van Rooy
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Multidimensional Analysis ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Multidimensional Model ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Black South African ◽  
Processing Strategies ◽  
Reference Corpus

Evidence for the status of Black South African English (BlSAfE) as a variety of English is ambiguous. This paper examines 67 linguistic features of a corpus of BlSAfE student writing, the Tswana Learner English Corpus (TLE), in comparison to a Standard English reference corpus, the Louvain Corpus of Native English Speaking Students (LOCNESS), within the framework of Biber’s (1988) multidimensional model, to determine if evidence for indigenisation and systematicity exists. Linguistic features that occur more frequently in LOCNESS than the TLE suggest that LOCNESS is characterised by greater elaboration of information and information density, more syntactically complex subordination, more reference cohesion and more specialised meanings. The TLE shows evidence of greater involvement of reader and writer of the text, although some features of informality also occur in LOCNESS. Based on comparison of the coefficients of variation in the two corpora, it is concluded that they exhibit similar ranges of variation and that variety status cannot be denied to BlSAfE on the grounds of variability. The application of the multidimensional model shows that the reference corpus, LOCNESS, is similar to academic writing in four of the six dimensions, but differs in being more involved in style and more overtly persuasive. Superficially, the TLE appears to be quite similar to LOCNESS in terms of the various dimensions, but closer examination reveals a number of differences, which largely confirm the findings that were made on the basis of individual feature comparisons: The TLE carries a lower informational density, and information is more often presented in hypothetical ways. It shows a number of similarities with the style and the information processing strategies attributed to spoken registers, but it still remains very clearly distinguishable from spoken language. Many similarities between the corpora are observed, which should be attributed to the register features of student writing. The paper concludes that there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge BlSAfE as a variety of English, on the ground of the stylistic differences between the TLE and LOCNESS, particularly its greater interpersonal as opposed to informational focus, as well as discourse-functional differences in the use of linguistic forms.

scholarly journals Research in Writing Instruction and Assessment: Current and needed research to improve student writing

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
MJ Outcault Hill ◽  
Robert Caldwell
Keyword(s):  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Teaching Methods ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Writing Skills ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Alternative Teaching

Discussions among educators at almost any level will invariably result in one point of agreement: students at all levels are under-prepared in writing skills. Unfortunately, this is a conclusion that also predominates much of the research literature on the improvement of student writing as well. Despite the importance attached to high-stakes academic writing skills, research has contributed little insight about the challenges students face with academic writing tasks. Llosa, Beck, and Zhao (2011) point out that the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges found that this lack of understanding of the writing process was so significant that they identified writing as, the “Neglected ‘R’ (National Commission on Writing, 2003; Llosa, Beck and Zhao, 2011). In the following paper, authors Caldwell and Outcault Hill present a broad review of the areas of research into the writing process and assessment of writing and suggest areas where further research is needed. Their discussion focuses on 1) Research related to the influence of Cognitive function on the writing process, 2) Research into teaching various genres such as exposition, argument, narrative, analysis, and creative writing, 3) Research on the assessment of writing, and finally, 4) Research on alternative teaching methods.

scholarly journals Where is the Support? Learning Support for Multimodal Digital Writing Assignments by Writing Centres in Canadian Higher Education

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Bell ◽  
Brian Hotson
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Digital Writing ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Multimodal Composing ◽  
Canadian Higher Education ◽  
Video And Audio

Writing centres play a vital role in supporting all forms of student academic writing in higher education (HE) institutions, including digital writing projects (DWPs)—multiliterate and multimodal, often video-and-audio-based projects, produced using digital technologies. The importance of writing support for multimodal composing is evident in emerging research on both the multi-skilled practices of writer-designers and the conceptual shifts involved in their adoption. Currently, no research exists regarding the Canadian context of writing centre support for DWPs. To address this, we conducted two surveys: one of 22 Canadian writing centres asking about DWPs prevalence, technology and skills readiness, and DWP awareness; and one of faculty at a large Canadian university, asking about DWPs prevalence and frequency and types of DWP assignments. We find a significant disconnect between the number of DWPs being assigned by faculty and the number being supported in writing centres. We also find a significant lack of writing centre preparedness for supporting DWPs. This paper calls, with some urgency, for writing centres to invest in the reality of student writing in Canadian HE, to begin developing instructional materials, equipment, and skilled staff to support DWPs.

scholarly journals Expressions of Criticality in Expert and Student Writing: A Corpus Contrastive Analysis of Literature Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Muna Liyana Binti Mohamad Tarmizi ◽  
Anealka Aziz Hussin
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Applied Linguistics ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Student Writers ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Integral Role

Literature review in academic writing plays an integral role in demonstrating writers’ knowledge about a field of study as well as in informing the writers of influential researchers and research groups in the field. More importantly, writers are expected to critically analyze previous studies related to their topic. Despite its importance to the academic text, student writers find it challenging to establish a critical stance and to provide evaluative judgment when reviewing the literature. This paper presents a contrastive analysis of student and expert writers’ expressions of criticality in literature review sections of 8 applied linguistics master theses from UiTM (a Malaysian public university) and 62 literature reviews of research journal articles from a similar field (i.e., Language and Communication, English for Academic Purposes and Applied Linguistics). Corpus techniques are used to identify the most common expressions of criticality used by these two groups of writers. The corpus was analyzed using detailed consistency analysis and concordance software from WordSmith Tools (Scott, 2012). Findings revealed that student writers prefer to use hedges and boosters to express criticality and the evaluations they make tend to sound more reporting rather than analyzing and synthesizing the resources critically. Results from this study are beneficial for constructing pedagogical instructions and guidelines for student writers in their critical analysis of the literature review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document