Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego and San Diego State University, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 228-245).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2003. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xiv, 146 p. Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: Wayne K. Hoy, College of Education. Includes bibliographical references (p. 132-140).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-108).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 88-95).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

An appropriate representation of self is crucial in reporting past research, establishing a committed writer stance, and persuading the reader in academic writing. While research has suggested an underuse of authorial reference in student writing at the university level, less attention has been devoted to students preparing to enter university. In this study, I seek to investigate students’ usage and perceptions of reporting verbs along a continuum of authorial power at a community college in Hong Kong. Based on a revised averral framework by Charles (2006b) and the reporting verb taxonomy by Hyland (2002a), an analysis was performed on 614 academic written assignments (compared with proficient writing by native-speaking students in the UK in both frequency and textual examination), 697 questionnaires, and interviews with 13 students and three teachers. Findings reveal that the community college students were impassioned opinion holders characterized by an overuse of first person I in a cognitive, affective, and factive fashion. However, they overlooked the potential of ‘mitigated’ expressions of self-mention (such as it is argued that) and discourse verbs such as argue and suggest to develop an argumentative ethos and dialogic interaction essential in effective reader engagement. A misunderstanding of the purpose of academic writing, an insensitivity to reporting verbs, and a categorical forbiddance of self-mention by teachers appear to be the main reasons for not further developing a writer presence by Hong Kong students. In view of the low language proficiency of the students, conflicting writing guides, and teachers’ nonchalance about providing help, teaching recommendations were offered with the use of learner corpora and non-academic materials. / published_or_final_version / Applied English Studies / Master / Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics

The primary purpose of this study was to measure differences in student achievement as a result of using different types of worksheets. The worksheets were designed to incite different ways of processing textual information. Students across five randomly selected fifth-grade classrooms were divided into three equal levels on the basis of reading achievement scores. Within levels, students were randomly assigned to treatments, consisting of different types of worksheets. The treatment was conducted for three days and consisted of students completing one of three different kinds of worksheets following teacher reading of a lesson from the social studies textbook. The types of worksheets included: (1) "drill" designed to elicit recall or recognition of factual information, (2) "comprehension" designed to promote understanding of concepts, and (3) "structuring" requiring students to select main ideas from the textual material. The dependent variables included: (1) an achievement posttest, (2) a follow-up achievement test administered four weeks following treatment, (3) engaged learning time (ELT), (4) allocated learning time, and (5) measures of student attitude toward the worksheets. The posttest consisted of equal numbers of items in four categories: (1) recall or recognition items identical or similar to questions asked on the "drill" worksheets (RN subscale), (2) items calling for recall or recognition of factual information not included on any of the worksheets (RI subscale), (3) comprehension items similar to those on the comprehension worksheets (CN subscale), and (4) comprehension items reflecting material not included on any of the worksheets (CI subscale). The follow-up achievement measure consisted of five items from each of the categories used for the posttest divided into recognition and recall (R) and comprehension (C) subscales. In terms of student achievement, the results indicated: (1) No significant differences were found among treatment groups on the posttest. (2) High and middle ability readers performed better than low ability readers on the posttest (p < .01) (2)High and middle ability readers performed better than low ability readers on the posttest (p <.01). (3) Across students, performance was highest for the RN subscale of the posttest (p < .01). Students also performed better on the RI and CN subscales than on the CI subscale (p < .01). (4) Regardless of treatment, high and middle ability readers out-performed low ability readers on the R subscale of the follow-up test (p < .01). (5) High ability readers in the drill and comprehension groups performed significantly better than low abilty readers in the drill and comprehension groups ont he C subscale of the follow-up test (p < .05). Examination of the time variables revealed that: (1) Students in the structuring group alloted more time to task completion than students in the drill or comprehension groups (p < .01). (2) Low ability readers alloted more time to task completion than high ability readers (p < .01). (3) ELT was least for high ability readers in the drill group, idfferences being significant between that group and: (1)low ability readers in the drill group (p < .01), (2)high and middle ability readers in the structuring group (p < .05), and (3)all levels of readers in the comprehension group (p < .05). One measure of attitude toward the worksheets revealed a significant difference among groups (p < .01). More students int he drill group perceived the worksheets to be of an appropriate or high interest level than did students in the structuring and comprehension groups.