This study unravels the connector patterns and mental activities that the Chinese learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) and native-English speakers display/perform upon the adoption of adversative, causal and temporal connectors while writing English argumentations, descriptions and narrations. It focuses on the ways in which the Chinese ESL learners’ thinking and connector production recursively interact in meaning-building processes. To elicit information of the writers’ mental processes, three English writing tasks with concurrent verbal reports were used as main elicitation tools. Chinese university students from Low, Mid and High proficiency levels and native-American-English users (Native) were asked to speak out their thoughts while writing English argumentations, descriptions and narrations. Data were also elicited from the retrospective verbal reports and following-up interviews which were conducted right after each writing and concurrent verbal report. Comparison of connector patterns in English texts produced by the Chinese and native-English writers suggests that the Chinese Mid and Low groups use significantly more connectors than the Native group while connector frequencies between the Chinese High and the Native group reveal no significant difference. It has been argued that the High-level students, being more linguistically skilled, can use connectors as well as other cohesive devices to form textual connections as their native-English-speaking counterparts. However, the Mid and Low-level writers, lacking abilities of manipulating other cohesive devices, tend to rely mainly on connectors. Moreover, comparison between the three Chinese groups indicates that the Mid uses significantly more connectors in English texts than the High and Low groups. The Mid group, on the one hand, is not linguistically mature enough to use various cohesive devices as skillfully as the High group, but, on the other hand, has more knowledge on the connector usage than the Low. When connectors were analyzed by category, it is found that the Chinese students use fewer adversative connectors in argumentations and narrations than the native-English writers. This pattern is found to have arisen from the Chinese students’ rigid textual development. ESL learners, due to their poor second language (L2) proficiency, cannot develop sophisticated argumentative and narrative structures. Instead of resorting to counter-arguments and reverse-order narration, they tend to simply list ideas. This could result in lower occurrences of adversative connectors in their argumentations and narrations. The data that are extracted from concurrent verbal reports reveal that the Chinese students use their first language (L1) for five mental activities: (1) initiation, (2) revision, (3) comment-making, (4) decision-making, and (5) monologue-conducting while using L2 for only two: initiation and revision. Examinations on the cognitive demand of the mental activities show that ESL learners rely more on their L1 to perform the cognitively more demanding activities such as comment-making, decision-making and monologue-conducting. Furthermore, the verbal data show that the L2 proficiency levels affect ESL writers’ mental activities in two ways. First, proficient ESL learners report larger linguistic units than the less proficient ones. Second, proficient ESL learners report higher proportions of cognitively more demanding activities than the less proficient ones. These two patterns are argued to result from the different working memory capacities of the proficient and less proficient ESL writers as well as the different ways of processing information in their working memory. Finally, a model of L2 writing process is developed to delineate how L2 proficiency, working memory and cognitive process interact and contribute to L2 writing process. Theoretically, this L2 model refines the L1 model and enriches the current understanding of the L2 writing process in three ways. First, mental activities are classified according to how much cognitive workload they demand. Such categorization is necessary because it explains ESL learners’ language choice while doing verbal reports and also explains the difficulties the learners encounter in L2 writing. Second, the L2 model separates the composing process as pre- and post-stage, which allows us to see how frequencies and types of mental activities differ in the two phases. Third, by including language choice, the L2 model addresses a wider interpretation of the mental activities in writing process. Pedagogically, the comprehensive and explanatory accounts of the connector patterns and mental activities address the problems that ESL learners have when using connectors in L2 writing. This will definitely facilitate the teaching of L2 writing.

No description available.

No description available.

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1985 M663 / Master of Arts

by Tang Kit-yi. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [1]-[13]). / by Tang Kit-yi. / Chapter CHAPTER 1 --- INTRODUCTION / Chapter 1.1 --- Background of This Study --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1.1 --- Theoretical Background --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1.2 --- Choosing S6 Students --- p.5 / Chapter 1.1.3 --- Revision Task of the Expository Writing --- p.5 / Chapter 1.2 --- Purposes of This Study --- p.6 / Chapter 1.3 --- Significance --- p.6 / Chapter 1.3.1 --- Substantive Problems of Revision in Hong Kong --- p.6 / Chapter 1.3.2 --- Significance of This Study --- p.8 / Chapter CHAPTER 2 --- LITERATURE REVIEW / Chapter 2.1 --- What is Revision: Definition and Measurement --- p.9 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Historical Perspectives of Writing & Revision --- p.9 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Definition of Revision and Related Concepts --- p.9 / Definition of Revision --- p.9 / Terms Related to Revision --- p.10 / Revision and Rewriting --- p.11 / Revision and Planning --- p.11 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Measurement of Revision: Methodology and Counting --- p.12 / Methodology --- p.12 / Counting --- p.18 / Chapter 2.2 --- How Revision Occurs: Revision Models --- p.21 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Introduction --- p.21 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- "Hayes, Flower, Schriver,Stratman & Carey's Working Model" --- p.21 / Theoretical Perspectives --- p.21 / Working Model --- p.23 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- Bereiter and Scardamalia's CDO model --- p.28 / Chapter 2.3 --- Reasons Affecting Revision: General Perspective of Revision / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Revising Own Text Vs Revising Other's Text --- p.33 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- Amount of Revision --- p.36 / Chapter 2.3.3 --- Detection Vs Diagnosis --- p.38 / Chapter 2.3.4 --- "What, Why, and How Differences in Revision: Skilled Writers Vs Unskilled Writers" --- p.40 / What are the Differences --- p.40 / Why Unskilled Revisors Cannot Perform in Expert Ways --- p.42 / How Skilled Writers Trigger Revision --- p.44 / Chapter 2.3.5 --- Instruction --- p.46 / Chapter CHAPTER 3 --- METHOD --- p.49 / Chapter 3.1 --- Research Questions --- p.51 / Chapter 3.2 --- Subjects --- p.52 / Chapter 3.3 --- Procedures --- p.53 / Chapter 3.4 --- Measures --- p.55 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Product Rating --- p.55 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Process Analysis --- p.57 / Chapter CHAPTER 4 --- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION / Chapter 4.1 --- Product Rating --- p.61 / Chapter 4.2 --- Revision Process of Hong Kong S6 Students --- p.64 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Task Definition and Task Representation --- p.64 / "Goals, Constraints and Criteria for the Texts and Plans" --- p.65 / Overall Problem Spaces --- p.70 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Evaluation --- p.81 / Evaluation in the Different Text Levels --- p.83 / Block in the Evaluation Process --- p.84 / Criteria of an Effective Evaluation Process --- p.90 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Strategy Selection and Problem Representation --- p.94 / Strategy Distribution and Delay & Ignore Strategies --- p.94 / Searching Strategy --- p.98 / Searching Strategy and Anderson's Two-Concept Theory --- p.104 / Chapter 4.3 --- Review of the Working Model --- p.114 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Task Definition and Task Representation --- p.115 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Evaluation --- p.116 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Strategy Selection and Problem Representation --- p.117 / Chapter 4.4 --- Conclusions --- p.121 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- General Summary --- p.121 / Products rating --- p.121 / Protocols analyses --- p.121 / Differences from the Working Model --- p.124 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Implications --- p.125 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Suggestion for Further Study --- p.126 / Chapter 4.4.4 --- Limitation --- p.128 / References / Appendix 1 Purposes of this study and the instruction of this think-aloud methodology / Appendix 2 Instruction of the writing and revision task (English version) / Appendix 3 Instruction of the writing and revision task (Chinese version) / Appendix 4 Retrospective questions of Task Definition / Appendix 5 Retrospective questions of Evaluation / Appendix 6 Retrospective questions of Detection of the Problem Representation / Appendix 7 Retrospective questions of Diagnosis of the Problem Representation / Appendix 8 Retrospective questions of Strategy Selection / Appendix 9 Attitude questions / Appendix 10 Cantonese version of the interview questions (Appendices 4-9) / Appendix 11 Original (Chinese) written documents of subjects 2 and 8 including: Outlines or the draft papers of the writing task First draft of the written texts / Researcher's observation notes / Appendix 12 Original (Chinese) writing task and interview protocols of subjects 2 and / Appendix 13 English-translated writing task and interview protocols of subjects 2 and / Appendix 14 Final texts of the 10 subjects

This thesis was a critical analysis of students academic second language writing at Sokoine University of Agriculture. Student writing in English as a second language in higher education has excited much interest in the English as a Second Language writing research and discussion in Tanzania. The interest was motivated by frequent criticisms from examiners regarding students literacy performance in the English as a Second Language writing in the post primary and higher education where the language of instruction is English as is configured in the Tanzanian language policy.

This thesis was a critical analysis of students academic second language writing at Sokoine University of Agriculture. Student writing in English as a second language in higher education has excited much interest in the English as a Second Language writing research and discussion in Tanzania. The interest was motivated by frequent criticisms from examiners regarding students literacy performance in the English as a Second Language writing in the post primary and higher education where the language of instruction is English as is configured in the Tanzanian language policy.

published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Lin Hin-Sze. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 154-160). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / ABSTRACT --- p.ii / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- p.v / LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES --- p.ix / CHAPTER / Chapter 1 --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Background --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- Dilemma --- p.3 / Chapter 1.3 --- Purpose --- p.4 / Chapter 1.4 --- Plan of Development --- p.5 / Chapter 2 --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.7 / Chapter 2.1 --- Feedback on Writing --- p.8 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Written Comments --- p.9 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Spoken Feedback --- p.13 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Writing Conferences / Chapter 2.2 --- Revisions --- p.20 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Revisions: Definitions and Its Role --- p.20 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- The Development of Coding System in Revision Research --- p.24 / Chapter 2.3 --- Research Gap --- p.27 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- "Studies Based on Attitude, Perception and Impression" --- p.28 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- Studies Examining the Actual Discourse of Writing Conferences --- p.29 / Chapter 2.3.3 --- Studies Relating Conferences and Students' Revisions --- p.31 / Chapter 2.3.4 --- Studies Examining Second Language Learners --- p.32 / Chapter 2.3.5 --- Lack of Research Studies in EFL Contexts --- p.33 / Chapter 3 --- METHODOLOGY --- p.35 / Chapter 3.1 --- Settings --- p.35 / Chapter 3.2 --- Participants --- p.37 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- The Writing Tutors --- p.37 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- The Student Subjects --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3 --- Data Sources and Data Collection --- p.39 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Questionnaires --- p.40 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- Writing Conference Interactions --- p.40 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- Tutors' Reports --- p.41 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- Students' Forms --- p.41 / Chapter 3.3.5 --- Students' Texts --- p.41 / Chapter 3.3.6 --- Interviews --- p.43 / Chapter 3.4 --- Data Analysis --- p.43 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Conference Data Analysis --- p.44 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Analysis of Revisions of Writings --- p.45 / Chapter 4 --- DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF WRITING CONFERENCES --- p.47 / Chapter 4.1 --- Introduction --- p.47 / Chapter 4.2 --- The Coding System --- p.48 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Development of an Integrated Coding System for Writing Conference Interactions --- p.48 / Chapter 4.2.1.1 --- "Davis, Hayward, Hunter and Wallace (1989)" --- p.48 / Chapter 4.2.1.2 --- Sperling (1989) --- p.49 / Chapter 4.2.1.3 --- Newkirk (1995) --- p.50 / Chapter 4.2.1.4 --- Walker & Elias (1987) and Walker (1992) --- p.51 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Application --- p.56 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Evaluation --- p.61 / Chapter 4.3 --- An Overview of the Results and Findings --- p.61 / Chapter 4.4 --- The Structure of Writing Conferences in the EFL Context --- p.62 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- The Overall Structure --- p.62 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Inform --- p.63 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Elicitation --- p.67 / Chapter 4.4.4 --- Reread --- p.72 / Chapter 4.4.5 --- Elaboration --- p.74 / Chapter 4.4 --- The Function of Writing Conference Talk in the EFL Context --- p.76 / Chapter 4.5.1 --- The Higher Frequency Categories --- p.77 / Chapter 4.5.1.1 --- Marker --- p.78 / Chapter 4.5.1.2 --- Explanation --- p.81 / Chapter 4.5.1.3 --- Knowledge on Revision --- p.86 / Chapter 4.5.2 --- The Low Frequency Categories --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5.2.1 --- Preliminary --- p.89 / Chapter 4.5.2.2 --- Requests --- p.91 / Chapter 4.5.2.3 --- In-conference Revisions --- p.91 / Chapter 5 --- STUDENTS' REVISION BEHAVIOR --- p.93 / Chapter 5.1 --- Overview of Results and Findings --- p.93 / Chapter 5.2 --- Comparison Across the Papers --- p.96 / Chapter 5.3 --- Types of revisions --- p.99 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Surface Changes --- p.100 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Meaning Changes --- p.102 / Chapter 5.4 --- Types of revision operations --- p.106 / Chapter 5.4.1 --- The Most Frequently Employed Operation 一 Addition --- p.110 / Chapter 5.4.2 --- The Least Frequently Employed Operations --- p.113 / Chapter 6 --- THE LINK BETWEEN WRITING CONFERENCES AND REVISIONS --- p.119 / Chapter 6.1 --- Students' Revision Activities --- p.119 / Chapter 6.1.1 --- Revision that Can Be Traced back to Conferences --- p.119 / Chapter 6.1.2 --- Suggestions in Conferences that Did Not Result in Actual Revision --- p.121 / Chapter 6.1.3 --- Revision that Cannot Be Traced back to Conferences --- p.128 / Chapter 6.2 --- The Structure of the Successful Conferences --- p.132 / Chapter 6.2.1 --- Tutors' and Students' Talk --- p.133 / Chapter 6.2.2 --- The structural categories --- p.136 / Chapter 6.3 --- The Function of Conference Talk in the Successful Conferences --- p.137 / Chapter 7 --- CONCLUSION --- p.143 / Chapter 7.1 --- Discourse Analysis of EFL Writing Conferences --- p.144 / Chapter 7.1.1 --- Allocation of Talk --- p.144 / Chapter 7.1.2 --- The Focus of Writing Conferences --- p.145 / Chapter 7.2 --- Students Revising Processes and the Relationship with the Writing Conferences --- p.146 / Chapter 7.3 --- "Strengths, Weakness and Limitations of the Study" --- p.148 / Chapter 7.4 --- Implications and Recommendations --- p.151 / Chapter 7.5 --- Contribution to this Field --- p.151 / REFERENCES --- p.154 / APPENDICES --- p.161 / Appendix 1 Exempt Protocol For Using Human Subjects in Research --- p.162 / Appendix 2 Consent Form for Student Subjects --- p.166 / Appendix 3 Consent Form for Writing Tutors --- p.167 / Appendix 4 Transcripts of Writing Conferences --- p.168 / Appendix 5 Initial and Subsequent Drafts of Students' Writings --- p.273

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education