Second language (L2) writing is a subfield within the field of applied linguistics concerned with applying knowledge and insights from linguistics, psychology, and education to develop teaching approaches for those who need to acquire L2 writing skills for academic or work purposes (Belcher, 2012). Much research on L2 writers over the past five decades has been focused on students in university contexts (Ferris, 2018) in part because universities are often not equipped to meet students’ needs for academic writing support in writing courses (Cimasko & Reichelt, 2011; Kubota & Abels, 2006). One student need pertains to the learning of discourse organization to create coherent text. This issue is of particular concern to EFL undergraduates who often experience difficulty with organizational patterns when writing in English (Tang, 2012).In response to this student need, the current study investigated the effectiveness of the explicit teaching of coherence in EFL undergraduates’ research writing in English with a pre- and post-intervention embedded mixed-methods design of three study groups of Japanese undergraduate students. More specifically, the study involved two experimental groups—a process-genre group and process-writing group—and a comparison group. The teaching program for these three groups differed in the combination of classroom instruction (i.e., coherence-focused process-genre approach or process writing) and written teacher feedback (i.e., coherence-focused or meaning-focused) they received. A total of 36 third-year female undergraduate English majors participated in this study. Writing samples were collected at three points throughout one semester and analyzed based on three measures of writing coherence: reader-based logical development, reader-based cohesion, and text-based coherence. The reader-based measures of an analytic rubric were used by human raters in evaluating reader-based coherence in the writing samples. Rasch measurement was used to assess the rubric’s functioning via a Rasch principal components analysis (Linacre, 2019). In addition, the Rasch model was used to identify raters who were too lenient or too severe and calculate fair average measures of the ratings using Many-Facets Rasch analysis (Linacre, 2014). These ratings were then analyzed and investigated for changes across time and between groups. The text-based coherence measure for each writing sample was obtained via a form of textual analysis called topical structure analysis. Mixed-design ANOVAs were used to analyze the three measures to investigate statistical differences within-group and between-groups differences. In addition, a Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to investigate if raters’ assessment of logicality correlates with their assessment of cohesion usage in student samples of research writing. Results from the statistical analyses revealed that the process-genre group was the only group out of all three groups in this study to have made statistically significant improvements on coherence in their research writing during the course of study. To help explain the results of the statistical analyses, qualitative data collected from background questionnaires, rater’s questionnaires, reflective journals, and student interviews were coded and analyzed. The findings indicated that the process-genre group was able to develop coherence at the sentence, paragraph, and discourse levels. Further, a comparison of the results from both the reader-based and text-based perspectives of coherence suggested that coherence development achieved by the process-genre group (i.e., improvement in both logical development and cohesion) was due to the treatment they received as observations from their background questionnaire reflective journal responses and interview data suggested that they appeared to be unaware of the concept of coherence prior to the study. However, as the treatment started, they gradually acquired knowledge and skills for creating coherence, first at the sentence level, then at the paragraph level, and toward the end of the study, at the discourse level. The improvements made by the process-genre group appeared to be related to the changes observed in their perception of coherence throughout the treatment period. The qualitative findings indicated that their perceptions changed from a focus on the relevance of information included in their writing in the beginning of the treatment period to an expanded understanding of coherence as a genre-specific concept that is important in making their writing reader-friendly by using both local and global cohesion and coherence devices. As to the other two groups in this study, the qualitative findings from the background questionnaire responses and interview data suggested that unlike the process-genre group, the process writing group’s coherence development was limited to the sentence and paragraph levels, and that of the comparison group only at the sentence level. The fact that these two groups failed to develop their knowledge and skills in writing coherently at the discourse level might explain the non-significant statistical results for the within-group and between-group analyses conducted with those groups. In sum, the findings showed that the development of coherence in EFL undergraduate research writing is influenced by writing program design. Particularly, the program needs to explicitly teach coherence through a systematically designed curriculum that includes the teaching of both useful genre knowledge and skills for writing coherently. In addition to teaching the textual construction of coherence, because coherence is a reader-based concept, its crucial role in producing research writing that is logical in the eyes of readers also needs to be reinforced in the teacher feedback given to learners. Such a program where both the instruction and the teacher feedback are focused on form (i.e., coherence in research writing) enables learners to improve coherence in their writing as they progress through the drafting cycle of writing and revising in the program. / Teaching & Learning

Jump-Start Your Writing' offers an interdisciplinary insight into the craft of academic writing. The booklet supports students with and without writing experience in writing all types of academic texts during their studies, such as term papers, protocols, document theses, and final theses. The booklet contains a compilation of collected methods, tips and checklists from six years of work at the Writing Center of Dresden University of Technology.:Basics 7 Work Phases in Scientific Writing Projects 8 1 Orientation and Planning 11 Checklist Meeting with Supervisors 12 Clustering 14 Table for the Delimination of your Topic 16 Three-Step-Exercise 19 2 Collecting and Arranging Materials 21 Reading Strategies 22 Critical Reading 23 Four Column Reading – A Technique to Excerpt Literature 25 3 Developping Text Structures 27 Structuring your Work with IMRaD 28 Flash Exposé 31 The Sticky Note Method to Plan your Writing Project 33 4 Producing Text (“Rough Draft“) 35 Thread of Thought and Text Path 36 Scientific Language 38 Freewriting 41 Argumentation in Scientific Texts 43 5 Revising Text and Getting Feedback 45 Text Revision 46 Checklist Revising the Structure of your Academic Work 48 Constructive Feedback 49 6 Final Corrections 53 Formal Correctness, Orthography and Grammar 54 7 Time and Self-Management 57 Writing Types: Structure Followers and Structure Creators 58 Writing Habits 61 Setting Goals with the SMART Method 64 Planning your Writing Time with the Tomato Technique 65 Bibliography 68

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Die Starthilfe Schreiben bietet einen fachübergreifenden Einblick in das Handwerk des wissenschaftlichen Schreibens und unterstützt Studierende mit und ohne Schreiberfahrung beim Verfassen sämtlicher wissenschaftlicher Textsorten im Studium, beispielsweise Hausarbeiten, Protokollen, Belegen und Abschlussarbeiten. Die Broschüre enthält gesammelte Methoden, Tipps und Checklisten aus sechs Jahren Schreibzentrumsarbeit des Schreibzentrums der TU Dresden.:Grundlagen 8 Arbeitsphasen bei wissenschaftlichen Schreibprojekten 9 1 Orientieren & Planen 12 Checkliste Absprachen mit Lehrenden 13 Clustering 15 Eingrenzungs-, Vorwissen-, und Fragentabelle 17 Dreischritt 20 2 Material sammeln & bearbeiten 22 Lesestrategien 23 Kritisches Lesen 24 Vier-Spalten-Lesen – eine Exzerpiertechnik 26 3 Textstrukturen erarbeiten 28 Gliederung mithilfe von IMRaD 29 Blitzexposé 32 Schreibprojekte planen mit der Klebezettelmethode 34 4 Text produzieren (Rohtexten) 36 Roter Faden und Textpfad 37 Wissenschaftssprache 39 Freewriting 42 Argumentation in wissenschaftlichen Texten 44 5 Text überarbeiten und Feedback einholen 46 Texte überarbeiten 47 Checkliste strukturelle Überarbeitung 49 Konstruktives Feedback: Textfeedback einholen und geben 51 6 Abschließende Korrekturen 55 Checkliste formale Richtigkeit, Rechtschreibung, Grammatik 56 7 Zeit- und Selbstmanagement 58 Schreibtypen: strukturfolgend & strukturschaffend 59 Schreibgewohnheiten 62 Ziele setzen mit der SMART-Methode 65 Die Schreibzeit planen mit der Tomaten-Technik 66 Bibliografie 69

No description available.

This study investigates the capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT 3.5 and 4, to evaluate citations in scholarly papers. Given the importance of accurate citations in academic writing, the goal was to determine how well these models can assist in verifying citations. A series of experiments were conducted using a dataset of our own creation. This dataset includes the three main citation categories: Direct Quotation, Paraphrasing, and Summarising, along with subcategories such as minimal and long source text.  In the preliminary experiment, ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated perfect accuracy, while ChatGPT 4 showed a tendency towards false positives. Further experiments with an extended dataset revealed that ChatGPT 4 excels in correctly identifying valid citations, particularly with longer and more complex texts, but is also more prone to wrong predictions. ChatGPT 3.5, on the other hand, provided a more balanced performance across different text lengths, with both models achieving an accuracy rate of 90.7%. The reliability experiments indicated that ChatGPT 4 is more consistent in its responses compared to ChatGPT 3.5, although it also had a higher rate of consistent wrong predictions.  This study highlights the potential of LLMs to assist scholars in citation verification, suggesting a hybrid approach where ChatGPT 4 is used for initial scans and ChatGPT 3.5 for final verification, paving the way for automating this process. Additionally, this study contributes a dataset that can be further expanded and tested on, offering a valuable resource for future research in this domain.

Thesis (DAppLing)--Macquarie University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Dept. of Linguistics, 2009. / Bibliography: p. 208-233. / Introduction -- Conceptual frameworks: language competence and the acquisition of modality -- Generic frameworks: speech, writing and electronic communication -- Linguistic frameworks: modality and related concepts -- Research design and methodologies -- FTDs in the ACAD and BB corpora -- Learner's use of FTDs in discoursal context and their individual repertoires -- Conclusions and implications. / While natural interaction is one of the important components that lead to successful language learning (Vygotsky 1978, 1986), communication in classroom practice in Thailand is mostly teacher-centered and not genuinely interactive. Online group communication is different because it allows learners to exercise interpersonal communicative skills through interaction and meaning negotiation, as in reciprocal speech situations. At the same time it gives learners time to think and produce language without having to face the kind of pressure they feel in face-to-face classroom discussion. The language learner's competence is thus likely to be enhanced by opportunities to communicate online, and to be more visible there than in academic contexts, although there is a dearth of experimental research to show this. One way of investigating the pedagogical potential of bulletin board discussions is to focus on the interpersonal linguistic devices used in textual interactions (Biber 1988). -- The purpose of this research is to find out whether students communicating online in bulletin board writing will exercise their repertoires of linguistic fine-tuning devices (hedges, modals, and intensifiers) more extensively than when writing academic essays. This was expected because hedges, modals and intensifiers are likely to be found in interactive discussions (Holmes 1983), while academic tasks do not create such an environment. Though hedges and modal devices are also found in academic genres (Salager-Meyer 1994, Hyland 1998), those used tend to be academic in function rather than communicative. -- In order to compare the frequency and variety of the fine-tuning devices used by learners in the two mediums, data was gathered from 39 Thai students of English at Kasetsart University, from (1) their discussions in online bulletin boards and (2) their academic essays. Tasks were assigned on parallel topics in three text types (narrative, explanatory, argumentative) for both mediums. The amount of writing was normalized to create comparable text lengths. Measures used in the quantitative analysis included tallying of the types and tokens of the experimental linguistic items, with the help of the AntConc 2007 computer concordancer. Samples of written texts from the two mediums were also analyzed qualitatively and compared in terms of their discourse structure (stages, moves and speech acts), to see which functional segments support or prompt particular types of pragmatic devices. -- The findings confirm that in electronic bulletin boards the students exercise their repertoires of fine-tuning devices more frequently, and use a greater variety of pragmatic functions than in academic essays. This is probably because online discussion fosters interactions that are more typical of speech (Crystal 2006), and its structure allows for a series of interpersonal moves which have no place in academic tasks. Text-type also emerged as a significant factor: writing argumentative texts prompted greater use of modals and intensifiers than the narrative and explanatory ones. Thus students' communicative competence showed itself most fully in the argumentative online assignments, and was not so evident in academic and expository essays. Frequent use of modal and intensifying elements was also found to correlate with the students' English proficiency grades, and how regularly they wrote online. This incidentally shows the importance of exposure to L2 in language acquisition, and that lower-proficiency learners need more opportunities to exercise their L2 resources in interactive discourse, in order to develop competence in using them. -- These research findings support Long's (1996) 'Interaction Hypothesis', that learners learn best in situations that cater for interaction; and Swain's (1985) 'Output Hypothesis', that learners need the chance to exercise their language naturally in a variety of contexts -through academic tasks as well as social interactions, which are equally important for language education. Extended performance opportunities undoubtedly feed back into the learner's communicative competence. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / xi, 389 p. ill