Thesis (M.A.)--University of Victoria (Canada), 2001. / Adviser: John H. Esling. Includes bibliographical references.

Abstract It is now widely recognized that promotionalism permeates scholarly discourse. Yet a systematic account of rhetorical and linguistic means, which researchers across disciplines deploy to achieve this effect, is still to be developed. The present thesis attempts to contribute to the investigation of strategies and exponents of the promotional (meta)discourse in the humanities. In particular, it compares and contrasts research articles in language and literary studies published in North American academic journals during 2001-2006. This inquiry demonstrates that in both disciplines scholars utilize two rhetorical strategies to publicize their work: first, positive evaluation of one’s own study and of those investigations in which the current study is grounded and second, negative evaluation of dissenting views. A combination of both strategies is used to widen the gap between one’s contribution and (erroneous) alternative treatments. Among lexicogrammatical and discourse devices employed in both disciplines are evaluative lexis reinforced by derivational and inflectional morphology, coordination, comment clauses, personal pronouns, lexical cohesion, and discourse chunks sequencing. Distribution of promotional elements across article sections and moves in the two disciplines, however, differs. On the whole, the thesis reconfirms the advantage of specificity in teaching academic literacies advocated by many applied linguists and provides actual patterns that can be incorporated into writing curriculum.

Abstract It is now widely recognized that promotionalism permeates scholarly discourse. Yet a systematic account of rhetorical and linguistic means, which researchers across disciplines deploy to achieve this effect, is still to be developed. The present thesis attempts to contribute to the investigation of strategies and exponents of the promotional (meta)discourse in the humanities. In particular, it compares and contrasts research articles in language and literary studies published in North American academic journals during 2001-2006. This inquiry demonstrates that in both disciplines scholars utilize two rhetorical strategies to publicize their work: first, positive evaluation of one’s own study and of those investigations in which the current study is grounded and second, negative evaluation of dissenting views. A combination of both strategies is used to widen the gap between one’s contribution and (erroneous) alternative treatments. Among lexicogrammatical and discourse devices employed in both disciplines are evaluative lexis reinforced by derivational and inflectional morphology, coordination, comment clauses, personal pronouns, lexical cohesion, and discourse chunks sequencing. Distribution of promotional elements across article sections and moves in the two disciplines, however, differs. On the whole, the thesis reconfirms the advantage of specificity in teaching academic literacies advocated by many applied linguists and provides actual patterns that can be incorporated into writing curriculum.

This study analyses students' use of formative feedback through a case study of a foundation-type academic literacy module at the University of Zululand. The research paradigm incorporates both a critical and a constructivist perspective, and a qualitative approach. The data collected were transcripts of interviews conducted with students towards the end of the third term, 2004, for the module. During the interviews the students described how they used respondent feedback on short, draft pieces of writing. They referred to their portfolio of writing which was with them. Students write short pieces, or end notes, after each lecture in order to show their understanding of academic concepts based on the content of Political Philosophy; they must rewrite after carefully noting respondents' comments on their work; and they, with tutor supervision, write group end notes for responders. The meta-level understanding underpinning the modules is an academic literacies approach. The transcripts were analysed using discourse analysis. Findings are that the students interviewed tend to use the feedback as if they are corrections, rather than what the feedback ideally aims at, which is by a writing dialogue, to help students to develop students' awareness of the discipline's conventions for academic writing, together and through construction of coherent meaning in their writing. The students' interpretive framing of their use of the respondent ii feedback are perhaps aligned with dominant institutional practices which tend to understand apparent student problems in learning in the university in terms of problems with student language, where language merely carries meaning, rather than being integral to the construction of meaning. The variable quality of the respondent feedback for the students interviewed also suggests some responders might also understand student writing in terms of problems in language as separate from construction of meaning. The implications of this study are to encourage an institutional understanding of the importance of using formative feedback to assist student access to the university and to success. Further, it challenges the dominant institutional and wider understanding of student difficulty as primarily stemming from lack of language proficiency. Finally, it recognizes the complexities of student selfreflexive understanding of the role of using formative feedback in their writing. / Thesis (M.Ed.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2006.

Critical thinking skills have been identified as learning outcomes expected of students for most courses of tertiary education in many countries including Malaysia. One of the courses where critical thinking is required is academic writing. Producing academic writing which is well argued, insightful, thought-provoking, characterised by evidence and wide reading is a challenge for undergraduate students. Not only do the students need to have a good command of the language, they also need to be critical as they examine viewpoints, facts and arguments and synthesise them. This thesis explores several approaches to developing critical thinking skills in an academic writing course for undergraduate students. The use of a rubric or a checklist and discussion with peers were identified in the study to support the development of critical thinking. Their potency was explored in a quasi- experimental study involving undergraduate students taking English for Academic Writing course. The three treatments groups were: peer review where students used a checklist and discussed their ideas; peer evaluation where students used the rubric and discussed their ideas and evaluations; self-evaluation where students used the rubric but did not discuss their ideas. The level of critical thinking for each groups and a control group who received no treatment, was measured before and after learning interventions using two instruments: the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (CCTT-X) and the English for Academic Writing term paper. In addition, students’ and instructors’ perspectives on the learning activities were elicited by means of questionnaires and interviews. Classroom observations were also carried out. The rubric which was used in the peer evaluation and self-evaluation activities is called the Critical Thinking for Academic Writing Analytical Rubric (CAWAR). It contains 12 criteria with descriptions of the two ends of performance domains i.e. the best and the weakest points and a commentary space. The checklist used in the peer review activity, on the other hand, replicates the CAWAR except that it does not have the grading element. The study found that all treatments showed some potential for fostering the development of critical thinking skills. Theoretically, it is argued that peer evaluation has the greatest potential of the three treatments provided that both teachers and students understand the value of collaborative learning and the importance of giving sufficient time for discussion. The introduction of either the rubric or checklist or promoting peer discussion has promoted critical thinking in an academic writing course.

The provision of written lecturer feedback at the draft stage of a draft-response-redraft process is an extensively used tool in the process genre approach to teaching academic writing. It is also regarded as an important vehicle for mediating access to the academic discourse community for students. This study has as its foundation the view that knowledge and learning is socially constructed and therefore, it is believed that the process of learning academic writing is closely related to a process of acculturation into the world of academic discourse (Quinn, 2000). There is a need to be aware that while students need these skills to succeed in the academic context, we need to be critical of the process of apprenticeship that takes place. Research has shown that although the process genre approach is widely used, the effectiveness of the intervention and the precise impact of this on the students and their essay writing skills have yet to be fully explored. This study uses a case study methodology, including an analysis of usable feedback points (Hyland, 1998) to evaluate the effectiveness of the draft-response-redraft process in facilitating the acquisition of academic writing skills and mediating access to the academic discourse community. The effectiveness of written lecturer feedback on student essays at the draft stage for twelve students doing a first year level tertiary Media Course (with the teaching of academic writing skills as a stated outcome) is explored. A survey of the responses of ninety students doing the course and a focus group discussion with nine students provide a context for a more detailed case study of the essays and responses of twelve students. These students were selected in order to obtain a range of age, gender, mother tongue, schooling background and marking lecturer in the data. The findings show that written feedback is perceived by the students to be valuable and most feel positive about participating in a draft-feedback-response process. However, the relationship between feedback points and improvement is not clear. Individual student factors and the dynamic interaction that takes place make every case unique. The evidence in this study supports the theory that re-writing facilitates improvement (Fathman and Whalley, 1990; Polio et al 1998 and Robb et al 1998) and shows that even brief or sketchy feedback does stimulate revision and can result in writing improvement, although whether this process assists in the long-term development of academic writing skills is the subject for another study. This study supports research which indicates that the dynamic interaction between lecturer and student in the draft-response-redraft process can facilitate the acquisition of academic literacy and mediate access to the academic discourse community. The data did, however, highlight aspects of the process that need to be implemented in order for the positive potential of the learning experience to be fully realised. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2006.

Thesis (M.A.)--Cincinnati Christian Seminary, 1986. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 224-225).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Melbourne, Dept. of Language, Literacy and Arts Education, Faculty of Education, 2005. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Rhode Island, 2007. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-147).

"Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration from the Naval Postgraduate School, December 2008." / Advisor(s): Suchan, Jim ; Simon, Cary. "December 2008." "MBA professional report"--Cover. Description based on title screen as viewed on January 28, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-59). Also available in print.