Thesis (M.A.)--Mississippi State University. Department of English. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

This inquiry project explores connections between mind and body in academic writing. What scholars, educators and researchers have noted about the inclusion of the body in academic study illuminates the challenges of understanding the relationship between the two. Using a framework shaped by embodiment and feminist criticality illuminates how the body is elided through schooling and educational systems, reaching a peak in higher education. An interdisciplinary review of the literature supports a broad consideration of embodiment and typical writing practices in academic settings. To better understand the body as a source of knowledge, data construction is holistic, using an embodied methodology with women who reenter graduate school later in life. Mindful awareness of the body guides the relating of writing experiences, and methods are designed with an ethic of care for participants, a spirit of co-creation, and shared experience. A narrative approach to data is used to explore where and how embodiment appears in women’s stories about academic writing. The research process reflects a time of social separation within a pandemic. By better understanding women’s embodied experiences, this project seeks to enrich and enliven the way institutions of graduate study understand writing as an embodied practice and to honor what the body knows alongside the mind.

No description available.

This thesis follows five second language (L2) students in an introductory composition class at California State University, San Bernardino. The study investigates their perceptions and responses to grammatical coded feedback provided by their writing instructor. The results showed that students wanted, expected, appreciated and understood the coded feedback that was given to them.

Chan Hing Yee Letty. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-134). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / TABLE OF CONTENTS / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- p.iv / LIST OF TABLES --- p.ix / LIST OF FIGURES --- p.x / Chapter CHAPTER 1 - --- INTRODUCTION / Chapter 1.1 --- Rational of the Study --- p.2 / Chapter 1.2 --- Research Gap --- p.3 / Chapter CHAPTER 2 - --- REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE / Chapter 2.1 --- Review of Motivation Theories and Research --- p.6 / Chapter 2.2 --- Factors that Affect Writing Motivation --- p.11 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Personal Factors --- p.11 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Environmental Factors --- p.14 / Chapter 2.3 --- Writing Development --- p.17 / Chapter 2.4 --- The Nature of Writing --- p.18 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- Theories in Writing Processes --- p.18 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- Composing Processes/Planning Process --- p.22 / Chapter 2.5 --- Motivation in Language Learning: Context in Hong Kong --- p.25 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- Education Background in Hong Kong --- p.25 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- Writing Instructions --- p.26 / Chapter 2.5.3 --- Learning Motivation --- p.27 / Chapter CHAPTER 3 - --- METHOD / Chapter 3.1 --- Research Question --- p.30 / Chapter 3.2 --- Research Design --- p.31 / Chapter 3.3. --- The Use of Methodology in the Current Study --- p.31 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Studying Motivation --- p.31 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- Studying Writing Processes --- p.33 / Chapter 3.4 --- Participants --- p.34 / Chapter 3.5 --- Data Collection Procedures --- p.35 / Chapter 3.5.1 --- Semi-structured Interviews --- p.35 / Chapter 3.5.2 --- The Composing Processes --- p.37 / Chapter 3.5.3 --- Writing Journals --- p.41 / Chapter 3.6 --- Instruments --- p.41 / Chapter 3.6.1 --- Background Information Questionnaire --- p.41 / Chapter 3.6.2 --- Motivation and Effort Questionnaire --- p.42 / Chapter 3.6.3 --- Scale of Writing Apprehension --- p.42 / Chapter 3.6.4 --- Writing Self-Efficacy Questionnaire --- p.43 / Chapter 3.7 --- Data Analysis Procedures / Chapter 3.7.1 --- Responses to the Background Information Questionnaire --- p.43 / Chapter 3.7.2 --- Responses to the Motivation and Effort Questionnaire --- p.43 / Chapter 3.7.3 --- Responses to the Scale of Writing Apprehension --- p.44 / Chapter 3.7.4 --- Responses to the Writing self-Effcacy Questionnaire --- p.44 / Chapter 3.7.5 --- The Semi-structured Interview --- p.44 / Chapter 3.7.6 --- Methods to Analyze the Data Collected in the Composing Session --- p.45 / Micro-motivation --- p.45 / Analysis of Pauses --- p.45 / Analysis of Writing Journals --- p.45 / Chapter CHAPTER 4 - --- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION --- p.48 / Chapter 4.1 --- Writing Motivation and Affect --- p.48 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Results of Motivation and Effort Questionnaire --- p.48 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Results of Scale of Writing Apprehension --- p.49 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- Results of Writing Self-Efficacy Questionnaire --- p.51 / Chapter 4.2 --- Background of the Participants --- p.52 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Daniel --- p.52 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Cintia --- p.53 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Melina --- p.54 / Chapter 4.2.4 --- Charlene --- p.55 / Chapter 4.3 --- Second Language Writing Motivation Outside the Classroom --- p.56 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Personal Level --- p.57 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Environmental Level --- p.67 / Chapter 4.4 --- Second Language Writing Motivation Inside the Classroom --- p.72 / Chapter 4.5 --- Confidence about Writing --- p.78 / Chapter 4.6 --- Micro-motivation in the Writing Task --- p.82 / Chapter 4.6.1 --- Factors Affecting Writing Motivation --- p.83 / Chapter 4.6.2 --- Factors Affecting Confidence --- p.86 / Chapter 4.6.3 --- Factors Affecting the Level of Comfort --- p.89 / Chapter 4.7 --- Writing Strategies --- p.91 / Chapter 4.8 --- Theoretical Discussions --- p.96 / Chapter 4.8.1 --- Writing Motivation: Its Relation to the Current Motivational Theories --- p.96 / Chapter 4.8.2 --- An Important Need for L2 Student Writers --- p.102 / Chapter 4.8.3 --- Theories in Writing Processes --- p.103 / Chapter 4.8.4 --- The Advantage of Personal Writing to L2 Students --- p.105 / Chapter CHAPTER 5 - --- CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION / Chapter 5.1 --- Recapitulations --- p.107 / Chapter 5.2 --- Results and conclusion --- p.109 / Chapter 5.3 --- Implications --- p.115 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Methodological Implications --- p.115 / Strengths and Weaknesses --- p.115 / Further Research --- p.116 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Pedagogical Implications --- p.117 / Creating the Basic Motivational Conditions --- p.120 / Generating Writing Motivation --- p.122 / Maintaining Writing Motivation --- p.124 / Encouraging Positive Retrospective Self-evaluation --- p.126 / Chapter 5.4 --- Conclusion --- p.127 / REFERENCE --- p.128 / APPENDIXES / APPENDIX A Background Information Questionnaire --- p.135 / APPENDIX B Consent Form of Participants --- p.137 / APPENDIX C Motivation and Effort Questionnaire --- p.138 / APPENDIX D Scale of Writing Apprehension --- p.140 / APPENDIX E Writing Self-Efficacy Questionnaire --- p.142 / APPENDIX F Instructions for Participants in the Writing Task --- p.144 / APPENDIX G Participants' Writing Sample in the Writing Task --- p.146 / APPENDIX H Instructions for Keeping a Writing Journal --- p.157 / APPENDIX I Participants' Reflective Writing Journals --- p.158 / Daniel's Journals --- p.158 / Cintia's Journals --- p.161 / Melina's Journals --- p.186 / Charlene's Journals --- p.194

This comparative case study examines how writing teachers comment on basic writing students' papers, how students respond to these comments, and how students take risks in their revising process. Four U.S., four ESOL basic writing students, and four basic writing teachers participated in the study. Three writing samples of the students' choices including drafts, revisions, and final papers were collected, coded, and analyzed to see the amount of risk-taking. Students were asked to complete the Daly and Miller's Writing Apprehension Test along with a Demographic Information Check Sheet. Each student was interviewed three times: once for each writing sample, and each teacher was interviewed once. The study revealed that students in the study appreciated teachers' written comments on their multiple-draft papers, and that teachers' comments, particularly the ones on content and organization, did help improve their writing ability and motivated these students to take risks in trying new ideas in revision. The ESOL writers tend to take fewer risks and regard revision as making lexical changes because of their unfamiliarity with the English usage and writing conventions, while the U.S. writers take more risks and view revision as a recursive process with different levels of attention.The main purpose of the study was to find out what major factors motivated students' risk-taking in their revisions so that writing teachers will be able to provide comments that motivate students to become better writers. This study will contribute to the understanding of what students really think of teachers' written comments. / Department of English