published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

How does argumentive writing develop as young adolescents examine evidence and engage in rich peer discourse on a succession of four topics (13 class sessions each) over an academic year? Three classes participated, one randomly assigned to a control group and two to experimental groups. In a supporting-evidence experimental group, students only examined evidence that supported their own favored position on a topic. In a mixed-evidence experimental group, students examined multiple types of evidence that supported their position, weakened their position, supported the opposing position, or weakened the opposing position. A control group was not provided any evidence. In individual final essays on each of the topics, both experimental groups included more evidence-based statements and were more successful in using evidence functionally to address a claim, compared to the control group. The experimental groups did not differ from one another in the employment of evidence-based arguments that supported their own position and both groups surpassed the control group in this regard. The mixed-evidence group exceeded the supporting-evidence and control groups in the successful use of evidence that weakened the opposing position; the supporting-evidence group also surpassed the control group in this regard. In use of evidence that supported the opposing position there was an effect of time, with performance improving over time, and an interaction between time and condition with the mixed-evidence group surpassing the control group by topic four. (There was low incidence of, and no significant effects for, use of evidence that weakened own position.) In a final year-end transfer assessment, all students wrote on a novel topic and had access to the same set of mixed evidence. Evidence use on this essay showed a condition effect, with the mixed-evidence intervention group using more evidence than either of the other two groups (who did not differ from one another). However, in contrast to their essay writing on the topics with which they had deep engagement during the intervention itself, these essays by the mixed-evidence group on a novel topic included with little exception only evidence to support their own position. Even though they were able to show their skill in using the range of types of evidence when they had gained familiarity with the topic, the lack of experience with the transfer topic limited their ability to fully implement their skills in using evidence in argument. These findings suggest that students’ argumentive writing, specifically with respect to the use of evidence, benefits from experience with a variety of forms of evidence, including evidence that weakens as well as supports claims. More broadly, these findings support dialogic argumentation as a productive technique in the development of student’s individual argumentive writing.

 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

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

The purpose of this study was to determine whether Socratic questioning, an approach that builds critical thinking skills and fosters learning by constructing new knowledge, was an effective tool for improving student perceptions of the writing process. The main research question that was examined in this study was: How can Socratic questioning improve students' perceptions of writing and the writing process? Qualitative research methods were used as a framework for the design of this study as well as purposeful student sampling, triangulation of three data sources, and an extensive coding process. Findings from the study support that Socratic questioning can positively impact students: the first major finding was that student perceptions of the writing process improved, and the second major finding was that student perceptions of their own identities as writers improved as well. After the study, students found that being an effective writer was possible and that evaluation of one's writing was a vital part of becoming a better writer. Most importantly, after participating in this study, students believed themselves to be writers.

This practitioner research study uses qualitative data collection and analysis methods to explore student engagement with critical and multimodal literacy curriculum in the context of a writing course focused on storytelling. This research addresses the issue of deficit framing in schools serving Youths of Color and the negative characterizations that lead to assumptions about their learning capability based upon their racialized identity. As a result of these deficit discourses, Youths of Color are often positioned as at risk by educators, an assumption which often results in schools that lack intellectually robust and culturally relevant learning opportunities. In an effort to surface and disrupt deficit discourses, I looked to literacy theories such as critical, multimodal, and community literacies, which seek to expand the literacies valued in schools serving youth of color. To frame my inquiry, I asked: (1) What are students’ perspectives and inquiries regarding race, class, gender, and other social framings, and how do these change over time? and (2) How does this research inform my growing understanding of what it means to teach well? Over the course of one school year, I engaged with a group of 10 students in a school labeled as “in need of improvement” in a critically focused, multimodal storytelling curriculum designed to allow student interest and engagement with social issues as a guide for planning learning experiences. By collecting and analyzing student artifacts, discussion transcripts, interview data, and correspondence surrounding critical incidents over the course of the school year, I found that students used storytelling practices to critique social issues in both the surrounding city and the school community, displaying a plethora of Community Cultural Wealth which disrupts assumptions about Youths of Color. Despite this evidence of student Cultural Wealth, I found that the school culture was not a Culturally Sustaining atmosphere due to the over-reliance on compliance to district reform plans strictly aligned to discourses of standardization and accountability. These findings bridge the theory practice gap to help inform administrators, educators, and researchers alike by displaying the extensive daily effects societal education discourses have on students’ day-to-day educational experiences.

Dialogic argument activities have been shown to facilitate the development of argumentative writing in young adolescents. The present study investigates the extent to which collaborative writing has a further facilitative effect, serving as a bridge between the dialogic and individual writing contexts. Over the course of one school year, a total of 54 students in two low-performing 7th grade classes participated in a twice-weekly dialogic argument curriculum of known effectiveness that included various kinds of dialogic activities addressing a sequence of four topics an individual essay as the culminating activity for each of the topics. In a quasi-experimental design, one class was randomly chosen as an experimental group and the other as a comparison group. The participation of the two classes in the curriculum was identical except that in one class students had an additional activity toward the end of each 15-session topic unit, during which they were asked to collaborate with a classmate who held the opposing view on the topic and produce a jointly written essay. The comparison group also wrote an interim essay but did so individually rather than collaboratively. Compared to students who only wrote individually, collaborative writers performed better on their subsequent final individual essays on the topic. They anticipated the arguments of the other side better, and countered them using an integrative argumentation structure more often. Further, they repeated ideas less often and had more unique idea units in their essays. To explore the collaborative processes possibly underlying the differences between the groups, analyses of digital voice recordings from the collaborative writing activity were examined. In addition, the transfer of ideas from the collaborative to subsequent individual essays was examined. The recordings of verbal dialogue between the pair engaged in collaborative essay writing show an increase over the year in metacognitive dialogue pertaining to their task. Furthermore, in their subsequent individually-written essays, students utilized and built on ideas presented by their partner. Most notable was inclusion in the individual essay of arguments and evidence supporting the opposing partner’s position, particularly when the ideas presented supported the opposite side of the argument. Both of these developments support the view that collaborative writing aids in the development of an argumentative mindset that transforms inter-individual dialogue into intra-individual reflection.

published_or_final_version / Applied English Studies / Master / Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics

This action research study aimed to improve teaching and learning of argumentative writing through a process-genre approach. Learners were carefully guided through the processes of writing the argumentative genre, with the focus being on teaching of the genre and on the structural conventions of writing arguments. Participants were a class of grade nine learners who speak English as a first language. They were chosen for this study as Grade Nine is a crucial year for writing development before learners enter the senior phase and are met with heightened expectations in the curriculum, that often they struggle to meet, as their writing has not been sufficiently developed to an academic level. The focus of writing in Grade Nine is on narrative and prose, so this writing intervention, in which a teaching module was developed in collaboration with the 1eamers, aimed to broaden their writing skills and provide them with a head start in leaming the fine art of argumentation, as this is a useful skill to acquire for purposes even beyond the classroom. Genre theorists advocate the importance of teaching genres to leamers at a young age, as it allows them access into different communities of discourse, as they become aware and understand the conventions held by a patiicular community, and realize the purpose of different styles of writing for effectively communicating, which prepares them to meet the expectations of their audience. Teaching the structures of different genres therefore allows the writer, and the audience, a framework for understanding the text. The process approach has been widely used by educators as it focuses on explicit teaching of writing processes that are fundamental to leamers' development in writing. Learners need to be carefully guided from the initial stages, to the more complex stages (especially in argumentative writing which has been deemed the most complex genre for learners to master) in order to understand the complexities of constructing an essay in a cohesive way, as they need to consider multiple aspects of writing, such as the linguistic features, rhetorical features and structural features of the genre and unify them into a sound argument. This takes time, practice and revision, and extensive feedback is required. The process-genre approach proved to be successful in this study, as leamers showed remarkable improvements in their writing from the initial stages of writing to the final drafts of their essays. The findings revealed that explicit teaching of genres and structural elements of writing is vital for ensuring learners' development. Learners require modelling of the genre, scaffolding and careful guidance through step-by-step processes in order to build confidence and express their ideas effectively in written text. The findings indicate the relevance of using the process-genre approach for teaching and learning and that teaching and learning writing is indeed a process that needs more time and practice that is cUiTently allocated in the curriculum.