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

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 359-372). / Microfiche. / xii, 372 leaves, bound 29 cm

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Auburn University, 2009. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 130-141).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 2001. / Title from title page screen, viewed March 28, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Dent Rhodes (chair), Susan Davis Lenski, Valeri Farmer-Dougan, Deborah Mounts. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-247) and abstract. Also available in print.

Doctorat en sciences psychologiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished