This classroom-based interpretive inquiry investigates how two academic writing instructors with disciplinary backgrounds in English Literature and English Education teach writing to graduate students with other disciplinary backgrounds. The instructors' teaching practices are conceptualized within a Vygotskian socio-cultural framework. Relevant educational issues are situated within two fields of education, Second Language Education and L1 writing instruction. This inquiry challenges the polarized views of writing instruction reflected in the second language literature. The research participants were two writing instructors and two focal students in one class. Data collected and analyzed include 70 hours of classroom-based observations in two classes over a semester, 12 hours of interviews with the research participants over 16 months, and documents such as course handouts, the focal students' portfolios, teacher audio-taped and written feedback to student drafts. Findings indicate that the writing instructors provided writing instruction and writing opportunities both in the specific disciplinary discourses of their students and other discourses. The instructors' goal-directed teaching practices were informed by their own generalist and discipline-sensitive evaluative orientations toward academic writing instruction at postsecondary levels. The instructors' evolving individual beliefs, perceptions, and practices were shown to be related to embedding sets of nested institutional contexts, such as developments in composition and education theory, and the changing theoretical orientations of the instructors' teaching units. Despite the instructors' different emphases on discipline-specific and general features of writing, findings suggest that both instructors mediated the students' appropriation of disciplinary discourses.

This thesis has analyzed 50 English compositions written by Japanese college students in order to determine some of the reasons for semantic errors which occur in the student themes. Five major categories of semantic errors were identified: (A) Semantically Wrong Choice of Lexical Items, (B) Omission of Words or Phrases Semantically Necessary, (C) Errors with the Structure of Phrases and Clauses, (D) Words Used in the Wrong Form Class, (E) Errors in Idiomatic Usage. From this analysis, it has been determined that the major cause of error was semantically wrong choice of lexical items, the choice of verbs, determiners, and P-words being particularly troublesome.This analysis also revealed that some of the causes for semantic errors were native language interference, differences in meaning distinctions and scopes of meaning in one language or the other, incomplete knowledge of grammatical and lexical restrictions of words, interference within English itself, and cultural interference. It was also evident that semantic errors related to the teaching methods used in most Japanese secondary schools. Reliance on the grammar-translation method in the junior high and senior high schools did not provide students with enough competence for them to write free compositions at the university level.Finally, this thesis offers brief suggestions on ways a teacher of EFL to Japanese students might teach some of these problem areas and improve the English writing ability of Japanese college level students.

The purpose of the study was to compare effects of two types of teacher feedback on two specific writing behaviors of fourth grade children.Experimental design of the study compared two groups using pretest/posttest measures: (1) Experimental Group I contained two intact classrooms with a total of forty-four fourth grade children. Treatment for this group involved having children write stories on a twice-weekly basis and receive a written and oral comment from the writing teacher about production of the stories. (2) Experimental Group II contained two intact classrooms totaling fifty-one fourth grade children. Treatment for this group involved having children write stories on a twice-weekly basis and receive only written comments from the teacher about production of the stories. No control group was used in this study.Objective data obtained for analysis were derived from the measurement instrument, a rating scale, specifically developed for this study. The instrument measured four writing behaviors--originality, vocabulary, content and mechanics. Only content and mechanics were used in treatment. Each of these behaviors were rated on a seven-point scale, with seven the highest and one the lowest. The highest rating indicated maximal use and the lowest minimal use of a specific writing behavior.The instrument appeared to have a high face validity. Examination of the items on the rating scale showed that they dealt with observable writing behaviors. To establish reliability of the instrument all compositions written were evaluated by a set of raters who were subjected to a series of training sessions in use of the instrument. Further, checks on reliability were made during seven of the fourteen writing sessions in the study. The reliability obtained by using the Cronback-Alpha Internal Consistency Index was obtained for each of the writing behaviors. Reliability coefficients were (1) Originality .99, (2) Vocabulary .84, (3) Content .84, and (4) Mechanics .62.A writing teacher was hired and trained by the experimenter to use a standard format for stimulating writing behavior. Once compositions were rated by the raters two controlled written comments were placed on compositions by the experimenter. Control over comments were achieved through development of a series of prepared feedback guides. A guide was prepared for the two writing behaviors subjected to experimental manipulation: content and mechanics. Comments were corrective in nature and contained information about content and mechanics of the composition. Comments also gave the reader suggestions for composition improvement.When compositions were returned in each experimental group treatment was administered by the writing teacher. In Experimental Group I each of the children was given an oral comment, in the form of a brief conference with the writing teacher, which accompanied the written comment. In Experimental Group II all of the children were told to look at written comments, no further reference was made about the compositions. A general statement of priase about the classes compositions as a whole was given to both groups.The following hypotheses were tested:Hypothesis I. There is no significant difference between the adjusted posttest meansof Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II for the writing behavior content.Hypothesis II. There is no significant difference between the adjusted posttest meansof Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II for the writing behavior mechanics.To test the hypothesis an analysis of covariance was used. The pretest served as the covariate and the posttest as the criterion. For each hypothesis the obtained F-ratio did not exceed the tabled F-value for significance at the .05 level of rejections. The null hypotheses were not rejected.

The purpose of this study was to determine what effects The Christensen Rhetoric Program, a method of teaching sentence and paragraph development, (1) had upon the attitudes of college freshmen toward written composition and (2) had upon their persistence in using free modifiers after a lapse of time and instruction.

In ESL writing, a controversy has existed on whether or not an assignment plays an important role when students produce their writings. Plausible arguments have been also made on the matter of amount of information given in a writing assignment. But so far, there have been no convincing data to show a favor of either side in any case.This study is designed to examine the importance of assignment and the relationship between information load and the quality of ESL student writings by analyzing compositions written by ESL students. For the collection of data, 150 students who were randomly selected from two Korean universities. They were asked to write an essay in response to three different types of writing assignments in information load and topic kind.The data were analyzed by two well trained ESL teachers with the method of holistic evaluation. The data were evaluated in nine areas of quality with a binary scale (Yes and No) and in general quality with a 1 to 6 scale. The result of data evaluation was analyzed statistically using SPSS-X. Cross tabulations were used to check for relationship between information load and general impression score, between information load and binary question scores, and between binary question scores and general impression scores. Regression techniques were used to characterize the significant relationships. In performing all calculations, a paper's score will be the sum of the individual graders' scores.The results of data analysis demonstrate that ESL students prefer a subjective topic despite the level of information load. Nevertheless, their preference is not directly related to the quality of their writings. ESL students produce higher quality of writings as they are given less information. Finally, the importance of an assignment in ESL writing classes is supported by the marking of students' higher scores in dichotomous questions.The study also discusses problems and causes of difficulties, in Korean ESL, for utilizing the method of writing education as a means of teaching the English language. The study also points out the importance of a teacher training program and suggests variables which should be considered for producing a better quality teacher training program in the Korean ESL situation. / Department of English

The purpose of this study was to compare the writing produced by first-grade students in three different social settings with assigned and unassigned topics. The three different social interaction patterns were: (a) writing while interacting with an adult, (b) writing while interacting with peers, and (c) writing by themselves.The sample consisted of 14 first graders in two classrooms in a university laboratory school in a midwestern school district. During a 6-week period, as the children composed, audio-taping and written observations were taken. At the end of the study, interviews with the children were conducted.The 84 written products were rated using the Smith-Ingersoll Holistic Rating Scale and analyzed for number of words, vocabulary, spelling, number of T-units, and number of words per T-unit. Multivariate analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to test three null hypotheses at the .05 level of significance. The three null hypotheses were not rejected, leading to the following conclusions:1. First graders in this study achieved equally well in writing when they wrote with a teacher or with peers or individually.2. The first graders achieved equally well in writing when they wrote on an assigned or unassigned topic.3. There was no statistically significant interaction between the three social contexts and topic choice among the first graders in this study.Observational data suggested that writing seems to have such unique relationships to individuals that responses in different social settings vary at different times and situations. The multiplicity of factors which impinged on the performance of the child made it difficult to isolate any single factor out of the total learning-writing environment.Recommendations for additional research include replication and expansion of this research with children at various grade levels. In addition, recommendations are made for future research to examine a variety of other factors which might influence writing performance and frequency of writing in the classroom. / Department of Elementary Education

This study was designed first to describe the writing processes and products of students in grades 7, 8, and 9 and second to explore patterns of differences related to cognitive development. From the 117 students enrolled at a midwestern university laboratory school who voluntarily completed the Arlin Test of Formal Reasoning, 12 subjects were chosen on the basis of sex, grade, and test score.Each subject individually wrote four letters. A talk-aloud procedure was employed during three sessions and stimulated recall was used during the last session. Finally, all subjects were interviewed.Audio tapes of interviews and videotapes of writing sessions were transcribed. Final copies of texts were typed. Interview responses were examined and summarized. The letters were rated holistically and scored for audience awareness. Counts of words, T-units, and clauses were conducted. Verbalizations in protocols were coded. Further, all data produced during stimulated recall were examined for information about time use, fluency, and pausing, as well as revising and editing.The data revealed that writers considered themselves capable, but the papers received mediocre ratings and scores. The analysis of products showed that subjects wrote more in response to an expressive/informative task, but syntax was more mature on information and persuasion.Overall, formal thinkers wrote more syntactically mature discourse and usually received higher ratings. The analysis of processes data failed to reveal consistent differences, but there were many similarities. The subjects prewrote mentally and focused on producing text quickly. They reread text and edited often, but they rarely revised. Descriptions of processes and rhetorical principles were vague. Although the writers employed many strategies, had some intuitive sense of purpose and audience, and made decisions on the basis of many factors, they lacked control over their composing activities and were unable to transfer strategies from one task to the next.The study concluded with a series of recommendations for composition instruction and further research, particularly a call for teaching the processes of composing at the middle school level and for measuring the effects of this instruction against the baseline of data provided in this study. / Department of Secondary, Higher, and Foundations of Education

The purpose of this study was to analyze the content and organization of freshman composition curricula in Illinois public junior colleges during the school year, 1973-74. This study was a part of a larger investigation of English instruction in Illinois education -- at elementary, junior high, high school, and college levels -- sponsored by an articulation committee appointed by the Illinois Association of Teachers of English and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. All five tracks of junior college composition (transfer, remedial, honors, vocational-technical, and adult) were investigated, and data were collected about English requirements for graduation, tracks of composition offered, placement and exemption methods, course syllabi, textbooks, course content, teaching methods, bases used for assigning final grades, and innovative content and methods.English department chairmen and composition instructors from 38 of the 47 public junior colleges participated by completing questionnaires. Additional information was collected from catalogs and freshman English course syllabi from those 38 junior colleges.The findings of the study revealed that tae most common organizational pattern was a three track system -- transfer, remedial, and vocational--technical. Only a few junior colleges offered honorscomposition or adult composition. Some composition credit was required for various degree programs at most junior colleges; little or no composition was required for certificate programs.While most junior colleges had course syllabi for all tracks of composition and the instructors reportedly included the content items specified in the syllabi, the content of the various composition courses was much more diverse than the syllabi indicated. For each track of composition the instructors' questionnaires asked instructors to rate the relative importance of 46 separate content items divided into six general areas (composition study, language study, literature study, reading skills, oral skills, and study skills). Nearly all of the 46 separate items listed in the instructors' questionnaires were reportedly included in the various composition tracks at most junior colleges.While the ratings of the instructors revealed that the content of almost all composition courses was very diverse, the following items were of most importance:1. In the first term transfer course -- the writing of exposition, paragraphs, and thesis statements; the Study of usage; and the reading of essays.2. In the second term transfer course -- the writing of exposition, thesis statements, argumentation, outlines, and a research paper; and the reading and analysis of short stories, poems, and drama.3. In the remedial courses -- the study of usage and syntax; the writing of exposition, paragraphs, and thesis statements; and the study of vocabulary and reading comprehension.4. In the first term honors course -- the writing of exposition; the study of usage; the reading and discussion of essays; and the study of context analysis.5. In the second term honors course -- the writing of a research paper; the study of context analysis; and the reading and analysis of short stories, poems, and drama.6. In the vocational-technical courses -- the writing of business correspondence, technical reports and paragraphs; the study of usage; and the study of various oral skills.7. In the adult course -- the writing of exposition, narration, argumentation, and a research paper; and the study of usage.The bases used for assigning final grades in the various courses supported the instructors' emphasis on writing and, in a few cases, usage, but classroom attendance and participation were also important in the assignment of grades. Instructors employed the individual conference, lecture, and discussion as the principal teaching methods.

The unresolved nineteenth-century debate--"is rhetoric an art or a science?"--hashindered our attempt to establish an inclusive research paradigm for rhetoric and composition. The newly dominant paradigm is quickly narrowing to prefer the qualitative designs that suit our literary ideals, relieve our math and statistics anxiety, and fulfill political ideologies. Such qualitative work has given us great insight into the mind of the researcher, a stronger voice to the individual, and a powerful tool for groups traditionally oppressed by our field.At the same time, however, our field needs quantitative research that examines the scope of certain issues or that tests the effectiveness of solutions to problems, and we should remain prepared to understand such research from other fields. But the quantitative/qualitative division in composition cannot be healed through "methodological pluralism" or by examining the epistemologies governing those methodological choices.A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification (Annis, 1978) provides a new lens through which we may recontextualize the competing epistemologies our field has outlined, providing a new decision-making framework through which we may appreciate the intersection of research issues (issue/question, purpose, method, and publication) and rhetorical issues (writer, audience, and subject) that form the varied contexts for our work: contexts highlighted in a matrix of questions representing a Contextualist Research Paradigm for Rhetoric and Composition.To illustrate such a paradigm, Eileen Oliver's (1995) "The Writing Quality of Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Graders, and College Freshmen: Does Rhetorical Specification in Writing Prompts Make a Difference?" is reprinted with an interview with Oliver, in which she detailed the context for her study. To further demonstrate a Contextualist Paradigm at work, my own study--"Red Ink / Blue Ink: Does it Really Make a Difference?"--responds to the largely untested anecdotal evidence that discourages writing teachers' use of red pens.A Contextualist Research Paradigm is necessary for composition to heal the artificial divisions between qualitative and quantitative research, to direct our attention fully to context rather than politics, form, and numbers, and to conduct not only the research we like, but also the research we and our students need. / Department of English

Typescript. / Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1986. / Bibliography: 149-156. / xi, 156 leaves, bound ill. 29 cm