published_or_final_version / Curriculum Studies / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

 The main goal of this paper is to study the difficulties Hong Kong secondary school students have using adjective patterns correctly in their writing. It also aims to explore the effectiveness of teaching strategies employed to improve their use of this aspect of English and to test the hypothesis that learners who are taught the concept of linking meaning and pattern in adjectives will be better able to use adjective patterns correctly in writing. 　　A case study of 60 Hong Kong Form 5 students’ writing was carried out. The data come from their exam essays, pre-test, post-test, questionnaire and interviews. To assist them in improving their use of adjective patterns in writing, workshops were run for the students who were divided into a control group and an experimental group of 30 students each. The findings suggest that the students had three main difficulties using adjective patterns correctly in writing: not knowing which grammatical structure to use, blending or mixing up two adjective patterns and not knowing which preposition to use. The findings also suggest that the teaching strategies had a beneficial effect on the correct use of adjective patterns in the 60 Form 5 students’ writing. In addition, the hypothesis posed seems to be somewhat tenable. 　　This paper ends by summarizing the main findings and pointing out the limitations of the study like time and logistic constraints. Also, it suggests possible implications for classroom teaching and for future research such as the need for larger-scale research on other aspects like underuse of adjective patterns in Hong Kong secondary school students’ writing. / published_or_final_version / Applied English Studies / Master / Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics

Not available / text

This dissertation examines the writing! literacy practices of a small group of first year Bachelor of Education Honours students, who registered for the Language in Learning and Teaching module, as first year students, in 1998. The primary sources of data were (a) questionnaires (focusing on existing literacy practices with which students engage outside of the university context), (b) Literate Life Histories, and (c) individual interviews. The purpose of the research was to consider the 'fit' between students' literacy practices outside of the university and those demanded within the university. Explicitly linked to this was a consideration of the extent to which assessment processes could or should be modified to accommodate this 'fit'. Drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1965,1972,1991,1992), and his notions of habitus, field and capital, Critical Linguistics and Critical Pedagogy, the study explores the concept of 'difference', notions of literacy and institutionalised power. It also offers suggestions for a pedagogical framework that might effectively foreground a critical position in relation to these issues. Findings from this study indicate that very few literacy practices with which student engage 'fit' directly with those demanded of them by the university. Despite this, students 'take on' the academic literacy demands of the university relatively uncritically and do not attach undue emphasis to this aspect of their performance. What is of particular significance to them are the experiences of empowerment they enjoy during their studies, and the' capital' they take with them in the form of a recognised university qualification. Staff, on the other hand, tend to foreground the need to master academic discourse in order to 'succeed', and rate general student performance as low and inadequate against this criterion. These discrepancies and contradictions between what students perceive their sojourn in the B.Ed Hons programme to be about, and their notions of what constitutes 'success' vis a vis that of staff, make for thought provoking and important considerations, particularly with regard to future research possibilities. / Thesis (M.A.) - University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2001.

For years, basic writers have been identified and labeled as remedial. Several alternative approaches have had limited success in terms of developing basic writers' skills. My study explores the potential of in-class tutoring to serve as an educational alternative to working with basic writers. Once Ball State's in-class tutoring was in place, I was faced with evaluating and justifying in-class tutoring in terms of department pedagogies, Writing Center goals, and effect on basic writers. However, in order to understand the Writing Center's role in basic writing programs, I had to design a study which would incorporate the most important factors of evaluation: assessment data and observation. My study identified key factors of in-class tutoring, to justify the continued existence and development of in-class tutoring at Ball State and possibly beyond. By breaking my analysis down into two areas, assessment data and observation, I isolated the individual aspects which affected the program. Although this data does not offer conclusive evidence about the program itself, the assessment data offers some interesting patterns of growth, and the observational data proved to be useful in terms of evaluating the program from an administrative perspective. My analysis of the issues and data lead me to conclude that in-class tutoring is worth evaluating and researching. / Department of English

This study examines the writing of six first grade children (three girls and three boys of varying abilities) in a "whole language" classroom where writing was modelled daily during "Morning News" and "writing skills" were taught in context. Conducted from a socio-psycholinguistic/emergent writing perspective, this study addresses two major questions: (1) What are the functions and forms of writing in first grade? (2) In what ways do these functions and forms change throughout the first-grade year? All of the children's writing produced during "Writing Workshop" time was analyzed to determine writing functions, structure (genres, structures of text, syntax and sentence patterns), and orthography (segmentation, punctuation marks, capitalization, and spelling). Interrelationships between function and the various levels of form were examined, as were changes throughout the school year. Analytical categories were developed from previous studies and from the data. Evidence was found to support the following conclusions: (1) First grade children write for a variety of purposes. Changes in function appear to be due to children's interests and preferences rather than to their development. There is a trend towards multifunctionalism in first grade writing. (2) Children compose written discourses from the beginning of first grade. (3) Discourse-level structure increases in both variety and complexity from beginning to end of first grade. (4) Segmentation increases in conventionality, with sentence segmentation becoming conventional before word segmentation. (5) Punctuation, capitalization, phonemic segmentation and representation, and spelling become increasingly conventional. (6) Discourse- and sentence-level forms "follow" function, but orthography does not. Changes in orthography are due to development and writing experience. (7) In a comparison of texts produced by children considered by the teacher at the beginning of the year to be "advanced" in development to those of children considered to be "average" or "delayed" in development, at the end of first grade, "advanced" children: (1) write in more complex genres, with more complex text structures; (2) use a greater variety of sentence patterns and punctuation marks; (3) write more conventionally in terms of segmentation, punctuation marks, capitalization and spelling. Thus, the study provides insight into how children develop as writers and the relationship between functions and various aspects of the development of form. / Graduate

In this study an attempt is made to describe and illuminate the attitude of both pupils and teachers to the introduction of a cognitivist process approach to the teaching of written literacy in one standard in a multi-cuI tural Eastern Cape Model C secondary school. Because the cognitivist process approach to the teaching of written literacy was to complement already existing strategies for the teaching of written literacy, the research took the form of collaborative action research in three standard nine English classrooms. Teacher- and pupil diaries were the main means of data collection. Two spirals of action research were conducted in an attempt to identify difficulties and improve practice. Diaries and discussion revealed a positive response to the drafting, revision and editing processes which researchers had already identified as the processes which skilled writers use in creating text. Acknowledgement of the benefits to be derived from peer response as audience was also established. Anomalies relating to the grouping of pupils for peer-editing were found to be a key issue in determining the relative success of the project. Difficulties were also found to exist in the ability of some of the pupils to engage effectively in peer-peer and teacher-peer negotiation of text. Possible reasons for these difficulties have been identified , and further research into the nature of the inherent power relationships which exist implicitly in a multi-cultural educational setting and impede negotiation would be necessary to appreciate fully the difficulties experienced.

Ho Chi-ho. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 150-155). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.i / ABSTRACT --- p.ii / Chapter CHAPTER 1: --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Introduction of the Process Approach: An Innovation in Writing Instruction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- Introduction of Peer Response: A Crucial Element of the Process Approach --- p.4 / Chapter CHAPTER 2: --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.8 / Chapter 2.1 --- Benefits of Peer Response --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2 --- Problems of Peer Response --- p.10 / Chapter 2.3 --- Teachers' and/or Students' Perceptions of Peer Response --- p.11 / Chapter 2.4 --- Comparison of Teacher Response with Peer Response --- p.14 / Chapter 2.5 --- """Product"" of Peer Response: Its Effectiveness on Students' Revisions of Their Drafts" --- p.16 / Chapter 2.6 --- """Process"" of Peer Response: The Implementation Process" --- p.17 / Chapter 2.7 --- Other Aspects of Peer Response --- p.18 / Chapter CHAPTER 3: --- METHODOLOGY --- p.21 / Chapter 3.1 --- Research Questions --- p.21 / Chapter 3.2 --- Research Approach --- p.21 / Chapter 3.3 --- Research Participants --- p.22 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Profile of the Participants --- p.22 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- Knowledge and Experience of Process Writing and Peer Response of the Participants --- p.25 / Chapter 3.4 --- Research Instruments --- p.26 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Semi-structured Interviews (With the Participating Teachers) --- p.27 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Classroom Observations --- p.27 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- Researcher-teacher Meetings --- p.28 / Chapter 3.4.4 --- Questionnaire Survey (With the Participating Students) --- p.29 / Chapter 3.4.5 --- Researcher-student Meetings --- p.29 / Chapter 3.5 --- Research Procedures --- p.30 / Chapter 3.5.1 --- Stage 1: Teacher Training --- p.31 / Chapter 3.5.2 --- Stage 2: Student Training --- p.32 / Chapter 3.5.3 --- Stage 3: Data Collection --- p.32 / Chapter 3.6 --- The English Lessons and Writing Classes --- p.33 / Chapter CHAPTER 4: --- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS --- p.35 / Chapter 4.1 --- Challenges Faced by the Participating Teachers throughout the Implementation of Peer Response --- p.36 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Challenges Faced by All the Teachers (Common Challenges) --- p.36 / Chapter 4.1.1.1 --- A Lack of Time to Implement Peer Response in Class --- p.36 / Chapter 4.1.1.2 --- An Increase in Workload Due to Preparation and Follow-up Work --- p.44 / Chapter 4.1.1.3 --- A Heavy Demand on Students --- p.50 / Chapter 4.1.1.4 --- A Lack of Confidence to Implement Peer Response --- p.53 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Challenges Faced by Individual Teachers (Individual Challenges) --- p.55 / Chapter 4.1.2.1 --- Impact of the Traditional Writing Instruction and Assessment Method --- p.56 / Chapter 4.1.2.2 --- Students' Low English Proficiency --- p.58 / Chapter 4.1.2.3 --- Students' Tendency to Focus on Language throughout the Process --- p.60 / Chapter 4.2 --- Challenges Faced by the Participating Students throughout the Experience of Peer Response --- p.67 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Challenges Faced by the Majority of Students (Common Challenges) --- p.67 / Chapter 4.2.1.1 --- A Lack of Time to Complete the Peer Response Tasks --- p.67 / Chapter 4.2.1.2 --- A Lack of Opportunities to Discuss Responses with Peers --- p.72 / Chapter 4.2.1.3 --- A Lack of Confidence in Giving Responses and Incorporating Peers' Responses --- p.75 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Challenges Faced by Individual or Individual Groups of Students (Individual Challenges) --- p.80 / Chapter 4.2.2.1 --- Impact of the Traditional Writing Instruction and Assessment Method --- p.80 / Chapter 4.2.2.2 --- Impact of Traditional Chinese Culture --- p.82 / Chapter 4.3 --- Attitudes of the Participating Teachers toward Peer Response before and after the Implementation --- p.84 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Attitudes toward the Preparation of Peer Response --- p.85 / Chapter 4.3.1.1 --- Attitudes toward the Preparation of Peer Response Materials and Tasks --- p.85 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- Attitudes toward Student Training --- p.90 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Attitudes toward the Implementation of Peer Response in the Classroom --- p.94 / Chapter 4.3.2.1 --- Attitudes toward Language Use --- p.94 / Chapter 4.3.2.2 --- Attitudes toward Time Management --- p.97 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Attitudes toward the Follow-up Work of Peer Response --- p.100 / Chapter 4.3.4 --- Attitudes toward Peer Response As a Whole --- p.102 / Chapter 4.3.4.1 --- Attitudes toward the Idea of Peer Response --- p.103 / Chapter 4.3.4.2 --- Attitudes toward the Applicability of Peer Response --- p.105 / Chapter 4.4 --- Attitudes of the Participating Students toward Peer Response after Their First Experience and after They Have Experienced It for One and a Half School Terms --- p.115 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Attitudes toward Reading Peers' Compositions --- p.115 / Chapter 4.4.1.1 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Enjoyment When Reading Peers' Compositions --- p.115 / Chapter 4.4.1.2 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Understanding of Peers' Compositions --- p.118 / Chapter 4.4.1.3 --- Attitudes toward the Benefits of Reading Peers' Compositions --- p.120 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Attitudes toward Giving Responses to Peers' Compositions --- p.121 / Chapter 4.4.2.1 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Enjoyment When Giving Responses to Peers' Compositions --- p.122 / Chapter 4.4.2.2 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Comfort and Confidence When Giving Responses to Peers' Compositions --- p.123 / Chapter 4.4.2.3 --- Attitudes toward the Benefits of Giving Responses to Peers' Compositions --- p.125 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Attitudes toward Reading Peers' Responses --- p.126 / Chapter 4.4.3.1 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Enjoyment When Reading Peers' Responses --- p.127 / Chapter 4.4.3.2 --- Attitudes toward the Degree of Understanding of Peers' Responses --- p.127 / Chapter 4.4.3.3 --- Attitudes toward the Reliability of Peers' Responses --- p.128 / Chapter 4.4.4 --- Attitudes toward Peer Response As a Whole --- p.131 / Chapter 4.4.4.1 --- Attitudes toward Their Seriousness throughout the Peer Response Process --- p.131 / Chapter 4.4.4.2 --- Attitudes toward the Benefits of Peer Response --- p.132 / Chapter 4.4.4.3 --- Attitudes toward Their Willingness to Have Peer Responsein Future --- p.133 / Chapter CHAPTER 5: --- CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS --- p.136 / Chapter 5.1 --- Conclusions --- p.136 / Chapter 5.2 --- Implications --- p.137 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Pedagogical Implications --- p.138 / Chapter 5.2.1.1 --- Maintain a Balance between Theoretical and Practical Emphases during Teacher Training and Student Training --- p.138 / Chapter 5.2.1.2 --- Provide Students with Specific Instructions and Demonstrations --- p.139 / Chapter 5.2.1.3 --- Establish a Strong Linkage between Peer Response and Prewriting Activities --- p.140 / Chapter 5.2.1.4 --- Implement Peer Response Flexibly --- p.141 / Chapter 5.2.1.5 --- Consider the Multiple and Long-term Benefits of Peer Response --- p.144 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Research Implications --- p.145 / Chapter 5.2.2.1 --- Limitations of This Study --- p.145 / Chapter 5.2.2.1.1 --- Uneven Input Received by the Three Teachers from the Researcher --- p.145 / Chapter 5.2.2.1.2 --- Slightly Short Data Collection Period --- p.146 / Chapter 5.2.2.1.3 --- Lack of a Pilot Study --- p.146 / Chapter 5.2.2.1.4 --- Similar/Identical Teaching Context of the Participating Teachers --- p.147 / Chapter 5.2.2.2 --- Suggestions for Future Research --- p.147 / REFERENCES --- p.150 / APPENDICES / Appendix A: Questions for Pre-study Interviews with Teachers --- p.156 / Appendix B: Classroom Observation Guide --- p.157 / Appendix C: Questions for Researcher-teacher Meetings --- p.160 / Appendix D1: Questionnaire (How do you feel after your first experience of peer response?) --- p.162 / Appendix D2: Questionnaire (How do you feel after experiencing peer response for one and a half school terms?) --- p.165 / Appendix E: Questions for Researcher-student Meetings --- p.168 / Appendix F: Guidelines concerning the Time Allocation of the Teaching of Each Composition (Provided by the English Department of the school) --- p.170 / Appendix G1: Sample Peer Response Sheet (For Composition 1) --- p.171 / Appendix G2: Sample Peer Response Sheet (For Composition 2) --- p.172 / Appendix G3: Sample Peer Response Sheet (For Composition 3) --- p.173

In the interest of fostering deep student transactions with texts, the purpose of this research is to study a particular approach to teaching writing, and to observe and investigate the impact of a dramatic shift in the methods and frequency of assignment of writing in a college-level philosophy class, and the ways in which the students and instructor negotiate this new territory and these different demands over three cohort years, from Fall 2014 to Spring 2017. This dissertation is an empirical study of what happens when an inquiry-based apprenticeship approach to teaching academic writing (Blau 2011) is employed in a required sophomore- level interdisciplinary humanities course in a highly selective college. This classroom research project seeks to undertake an examination of whether students can be successfully inducted into the academic community through a particular assignment in a Philosophy course. This writing assignment, the “commentary,” encourages students to focus on questions and therefore functions as an instance of writing-to-learn, which belongs to a long tradition across disciplines and cultures. This dissertation will also undertake an examination of the potential capacity of the commentary to create an academic discourse community of practice that supports critical reading and interpreting of literary and philosophical texts. The strategy of this new method is to have the students write twice-weekly 300-500 word commentaries of exploratory and sometimes argumentative writing on assigned texts twice a week, posting the writing in an online discussion board. They receive responses immediately, from each other, and get credit for completing the assignment (on time, relevant, and of appropriate length). The instructor never replies to their postings and never grades their postings on a scale or for quality. Students simply earn credit for completing the full number of required commentaries. The research is not experimental, but rather a qualitative observation of the effects of an approach established by the instructor in this class and in other similar classes as an adaptation of a model for learning academic writing through participation in an authentic academic discourse (Blau). The approach represents an enactment of situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger) in a college classroom and is constructed to advance academic learning while providing an opportunity for situated performative assessment indistinct from instruction. The place of the commentary in this course is established in a literary and historical context as it is authorized, valorized, and illuminated by a tradition of writing-to-learn grounded in the ideas of Isocrates, Quintilian, Cicero, and Montaigne. It is also supported by current seminal research in writing instruction, including James Moffett’s theory of abstraction in writing (1983), Sheridan Blau’s pedagogical applications of apprenticeship systems (2011), James Gee’s theories of discourse analysis (2001), and John Dewey’s “How We Think” (1910). Where decorum permits, there will be deeper meditations and excursions into and elaborations on the auto-ethnographic metacognitive writing of Michel de Montaigne, exploring the history of the practice of writing to learn and its relationship to critical thinking and Dewey. My analysis is situated in examining the culture of writing in this class and the markers of growth in thinking in student writing, using tools out of ethnography and the tradition of teacher research. Based on asking the initial question, “What happens when students write regular commentaries on their reading of difficult texts?” analysis of the collected student writing explores students’ attempts to channel curiosity into productive interpretive techniques, embrace uncertainty, make meaning and connections, and grow in the capacity to welcome and seek out productive confusion and doubt. I will focus primarily on whether this assignment contributes to the construction of a class culture whose implicit and explicit rules, conventions, and patterns of interaction are consistent with those that characterize the knowledge-building communities of the kind that colleges and universities aspire to in their departments, organized research units, and professional associations. I am also interested in exploring whether this shift in the culture of writing impacts whether students come to perceive themselves as contributors to the construction of knowledge as members of an academic community.

Thesis PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.