The purpose of this study was to investigate social science doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward different characteristics of written feedback and written feedback providers for their academic writing. Moreover, it aimed to provide an explanatory model to describe the relationships between these perceptions and attitudes, students' revision decisions, and other potentially relevant factors in their written feedback practices. The investigation was informed by two theoretical frameworks: principles of instructional design and conditions of learning, and situated learning and communities of practice. The study used a mixed methods approach in which qualitative data collection and analysis was followed by quantitative data collection and analysis. The main purpose of the qualitative phase was to develop a background to build a questionnaire to be used in the quantitative phase. The qualitative data were collected through interviews with 15 participants. Grounded theory data analysis methods were adapted in the qualitative analysis of the data. The quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire with 276 participants in two large mountain west public universities. Descriptive and multivariate correlational data analyses were employed for the analysis of the quantitative data. The results of this study provided descriptive information on doctoral students' preferences for different types of written feedback and their perceptions and attitudes toward different characteristics of written feedback providers. Moreover, the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis results showed that that there are several factors in the feedback practices of the doctoral students that have significant influences on some other factors in these feedback practices. An eight-factor model was developed constituting the following factors: (a) attitudes toward critical/negative written feedback, (b) motivations for academic writing, (c) perceptions of opportunities to write academic papers with faculty members in the department, (d) attitudes toward asking and searching for written feedback for academic papers, (e) attitudes toward feedback providers' willingness and time to give feedback when asking for written feedback, (f) attitudes toward feedback providers' personality when asking for written feedback, (g) revision decisions considering the external issues while examining the written feedback, and (h) revision decisions considering the written feedback characteristics and the need for the revisions while examining the written feedback.

Abstract not available

Two surveys were conducted at the University of Canberra in 1992 to seek the views of faculty on issues regarding academic writing. The first survey sought to ascertain what criteria faculty employ when marking student writing. It asked faculty to indicate the importance of certain key features in the writing of university students. These key features were: Content, Argument, Style, Organisation, Communicative Ability, Vocabulary, Use of Literature and Punctuation. Faculty were requested to rank the importance of aspects of each of the nine key features. The second survey asked faculty to assess an actual assignment written by an overseas student, using the structure of the nine key features of writing as above. Faculty were invited to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment which they were assessing. The aim of the surveys was to better inform teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes, who prepare overseas students for study at university. EAP teachers need to know the expectations of faculty, in order to give overseas students a realistic view of what faculty expect from their assignments and the kinds of. weaknesses which faculty find in overseas students' writing. The survey found that content-related features such as Content, Argument, Organisation and Communicative Ability were considered more important than form features such as Punctuation, Grammar, Style and Vocabulary. Use of Literature was found to be a very important feature in some faculties but not in all. Surprisingly, Style was the feature which evoked the greatest variety of responses from faculty; however, in general faculty agreed that Style had to be appropriate to the topic or task, rather than there being a set format for academic writing. From a factor analysis of data, four underlying principles for academic writing were derived. These principles were: relevance, appropriacy, accuracy and clarity. Thus, academic writing, according to the faculty surveyed, should be: 1) relevant to the topic and to the internal argument of the assigment; 2) appropriate in the style, tone and use of literature; 3) accurate in its vocabulary, grammar and referencing system. 4) clear in its argument and organisation of ideas. For the most part, faculty responded favourably to the overseas student assignments, which were assessed in the second questionnaire. Faculty indicated that the main weakness in overseas student writing was in their argument. The surveys also found differences between different Faculties in the importance they place on these key features. It was postulated that the Science Faculties (Applied Science, Environmental Design and Information Science and Engineering) would be fairly similar in their views on writing, as would the Humanities Faculties (Communication, Education and Management). This was found to be only partly true. The views of Information Science and Engineering faculty were found to be more similar in many of their attitudes to the views of the Humanities faculty. However, in some ways, their views were unique and unlike any other Faculty. In particular. Information Science and Engineering faculty place little emphasis on writing as a method of assessment and, perhaps as a consequence, even less on the use of literature in writing From the survey, it also appeared that, in general, faculty make some allowances for the fact that overseas students are L2 speakers. They tend to overlook mechanical errors so long as the content is acceptable.

Writing is one of the four macro language skills which a student of language should master. However it remains the one receiving the least attention so far in Vietnamese teaching of English. Senior students of English at a college or university are required to demonstrate in writing that they have mastered their studies; therefore, writing plays an important role in their academic success. It is noted that "learning to write fluently and expressively is the most difficult of the macroskills for all language users regardless of whether the language in question is a first, second or foreign language" (Nunan: 1989:35). Therefore, writing English, especially for academic purposes , remains difficult for Vietnamese students. Obviously, such writing, as a study skill, affects the learning process, hence, the effectiveness of the training. Writing ability in general, and EAP writing in particular, need attention right from the teacher training stage, and then at the teaching stage at schools. This study reviews the theory of writing and the teaching of writing, with strong emphasis on the writing process to identify the point where a teacher of writing should intervene to yield the optimum effect - to develop students' writing ability by developing their awareness of the strategies which can be applied to writing for academic purposes, including strategies in analysis of their own writing as both process and product. The study examines the teaching of English, writing and academic writing in the Vietnamese perspective and identifies the problems in reference to the theoretical bases in an eclectic manner. A syllabus is suggested to cater for the needs of the target population.

University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of English

Coherence in written discourse has been a problematic concept for many English Language Teachers when teaching to write in English. It is considered as a crucial part of academic written discourse, which students are expected to master to be able to pursue their academic studies. This study aims to examine how much the coherence-related difficulties/problems of Turkish EFL students in writing English essays are related to writing Turkish essays. The subjects for this study were chosen from the upper-intermediate level students at the Preparatory Program of Istanbul Bilgi University. For a detailed understanding of the nature of the coherence-related difficulties/problems of students&rsquo / Turkish and English essays, this study suggests a pragmatic analysis, involving the use of Grice&rsquo / s Cooperative Principle and maxims and sub-maxims of Cooperation. This study was conducted in the middle of 2005-2006 Academic Year with the participation of 20 students who were chosen randomly. Each student was asked to write an essay in English on a given topic from their weekly program. Threeweeks later, the same students were asked to write essays on the same topic in Turkish. Thus, 20 English essays and 20 Turkish essays (i.e., Total 40 essays) were collected as data for this study. The essays were rated for coherence by three different raters. All English essays were analyzed by one monolingual Americanrater and one bilingual (Turkish and English) rater. Similarly, all Turkish essays were analyzed by one monolingual Turkish rater and the same bilingual (Turkish and English) rater. The coherence ratings showed that there is a positive significant correlation between the coherence judgments of monolingual raters and the bilingual rater, which means that both monolingual raters and the bilingual rater agree on the similar coherence judgments. Next, the essays were analyzed in light of the Gricean Maxims to find the violations of each maxim in each essay by the researcher. In the comparison of maxim violations and the coherence judgments of the raters, the maxim of Relation was found to be the most significant maxim that affected the coherence judgments of the raters both for Turkish and English essays. In addition, Manner maxim was significant for Turkish essays and Quantity maxim was significant for English essays. However, in the comparison of the violation of individual maxims in Turkish and English essays, the violation of Relation maxim in English essays was found to correlate with the violation of Relation, Quality and Quantity maxims in Turkish essays. Similarly, violation of Manner maxim in English essays was also found to correlate with the violation of Quantity and Relation maxims. On the other hand, the violation of Manner maxim in Turkish essays was found to correlate with the violation of Quantity maxim in English essays. In conclusion, by looking at these relationships between Turkish essays and English essays, it may be argued that students may have inadequacies in writing skills or may lack some writing skills in Turkish, which may cause inadequacies in English academic writing skills. However, this study suggests the same study be replicated in different contexts and with larger sample sizes, similar research studies be conducted in Turkish writing instruction in the contexts of Turkish Secondary Education, and further studies be conducted on the effect of Relation and Manner maxims on other maxims.

Thesis (MTech (Faculty of Education))--Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 112-121). Also available online.

Not available / text

The purpose of this action research study is to challenge accepted practice in ESL writing with the implementation of an experimental syllabus informed by a sociocultural approach, specifically Vygotsky's (1987) assertion of the key role that awareness and control of theoretical concepts plays in cognitive development. Following Gal'perin and Davydov, the classroom approach implemented here is essentially concerned with L2 development as the internalization, appropriation and control of conceptual meaning in the context of the goal-oriented activities of teaching and learning. This research and pedagogy calls attention to the importance of the quality and sequence of instruction, in which full and explicit attention is given to an abstract conceptual framework before learners proceed to explore concrete instantiations of the abstract concepts in question.Halliday's (1978) social semiotic understanding of language, text and context was the central concept presented to a mixed ESL and native-speaking composition class, and various activities and exercises were designed in keeping with the principles guiding this 16-week research project. Learners made use of didactic models and verbalization activities, including extensive collaborative writing, as they worked with the concepts and explored the ways in which the target academic discourse reflects Halliday's theory of language in use. These concepts were then applied in the writing of research, re-writing for a new audience, and reflection papers. Writing development was tracked using T-Unit analysis, lexical density measures, rhetorical move analysis and the ratings from three expert raters, who graded the resulting papers for language use, analysis and organization. In analysis, this proficiency development is related to evidence of re-mediated thought as the students collaborate to complete the assigned writing tasks.The findings of three case studies provide general support for the implementation of concept-based instruction and a theoretical and explicit attention to requisite aspects of the target discourse in ESL writing pedagogy. There is clear evidence that the concept-based approach fosters awareness and control over relevant features of the target language necessary for successful participation in academic discourse communities.

Universities in South Africa as yet do not provide multilingual education. For many students this means they have to use their second or additional language for the Discourse of the academic world. This dissertation investigates one Honours / Masters module offered by a lecturer in the theology department. It describes, in the form of a case study, how the lecturer uses the oracy skills (listening and speaking) to scaffold the students into the appropriate use of Academic Discourse. This lecturer uses the practicality of fieldwork, the intensity of emotional work and the flexibility of the spoken discourse to guide students into the reflexivity and criticality of the Academic Discourse. The data is discussed in terms of discourse analysis, genre theory and academic literacy, together with current understanding of feedback during process writing. My focus is on oral feedback. The results of this study indicate that the lecturer, and the students who took his module, felt satisfied that a greater depth of theological and linguistic criticality and reflexivity had been reached. The focus of this dissertation was on the students' uptake of the oral feedback given by the lecturer. It was the process that was explored rather than the final written product. Further research could investigate how much the students' writing improves as a result of intervention such as this. The lecturer's pedagogy maximised the language skills used in the Preacher (hortatory) Discourse that have something in common with the skills required in Academic (expository) Discourse. This dissertation concludes that these skills should be maintained while also developing the other skills required for Academic Discourse. These skills include the ability to be detached and uninvolved. However, if this detachment is to be achieved, the student needs first to be fully involved in the process so that transformation and appropriation can take place. This comes about through critical reflection - the hallmark of Academic Discourse. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2007.