by Tang Wai-yu. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 95-102). / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --- p.i / ABSTRACT --- p.ii / TABLE OF CONTENT --- p.iv / LISTS OF TABLES --- p.vii / LISTS OF FIGURES --- p.viii / CHAPTER / Chapter 1 --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Background of the Study --- p.1 / Purpose of the Study --- p.3 / Significance of the Study --- p.4 / Chapter 2 --- REVIEW OF LITERATURE --- p.6 / Macrostructure Theory --- p.6 / Micro structure of Discourse --- p.6 / Macrostructure and Macrorules --- p.7 / Macro-operations --- p.8 / Cognitive Operations to Summarization --- p.11 / Brown & Day's Macrorules of Summarization --- p.11 / N. S. Johnson's Six Operations --- p.14 / Training Studies on Improving Summarization --- p.17 / Traditional Training Practice --- p.17 / Explicit Instruction Progrrammes --- p.18 / Mapping and Questioning Techniques --- p.19 / Direct Instruction Training --- p.20 / Research Studies of Direct Instruction --- p.22 / Instruction in Metacognition Strategies --- p.25 / Definition of Metacognition --- p.25 / Metacognitive Instruction --- p.27 / Summarization of Expository Text --- p.32 / Sensitivity to Text Structure --- p.33 / Fostering Awareness of Expository Text Structure --- p.35 / Scoring of Summarization of Expository Text --- p.38 / Summary Rule Usage Criteria --- p.38 / Identification of Main Idea --- p.40 / Quality of Writing --- p.40 / Chapter 3 --- METHOD --- p.42 / Definitions --- p.42 / Hypotheses --- p.44 / Subject --- p.44 / Materials --- p.45 / Rulesheets --- p.45 / Training and Testing passages --- p.46 / Questionnaire --- p.48 / Procedure --- p.48 / Pilot Study --- p.48 / Pretest --- p.50 / The Training Programme --- p.50 / Instructional principles --- p.50 / Strategies training --- p.51 / Instructional procedures --- p.52 / Control group --- p.54 / Posttest --- p.55 / Scoring --- p.55 / Rule Use --- p.55 / Main Idea --- p.56 / Quality of Writing --- p.56 / Data Analysis --- p.57 / Chapter 4 --- RESULTS --- p.59 / Reliability and Descriptive Statistics of Summary Test Scores --- p.59 / The Effect of the Training Programme on the Main Idea Score --- p.61 / Effects of the Training Programme on the Rule Use Scores --- p.63 / Effects of the Training Programme on the Writing Skill Scores --- p.66 / Effect of the Training Programme on Knowledge of Metacognitive Strategies --- p.72 / Chapter 5 --- DISCUSSION --- p.76 / Acquisition of Macrorules --- p.78 / Formulation of Main Ideas --- p.82 / Acquisition of Writing Skills --- p.84 / Acquisition of Metacognitive Strategies in Summarization --- p.85 / Chapter 6 --- LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS --- p.87 / Summary --- p.87 / Limitations --- p.89 / Instructional Implications --- p.90 / Awareness of Task Goals --- p.90 / Sensitivity to Importance --- p.90 / Use of Macrorules for Summarization --- p.91 / Selection of Materials --- p.92 / Recommendation for Future Research --- p.93 / REFERENCES --- p.95 / APPENDICES --- p.103

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Lehigh University, 2001. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 164).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Logos Evangelical Seminary, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 216-226).

This study investigated differences among student writers at three grade levels (i.e., 6, 8, and 10), and between expert writers and students, in terms of (a) the extent to which argument structures were used in their persuasive texts, (b) the complexity of these argument structures (as measured by depth and elaboration), and (c) the use of general semantic structures and conjunctive ties to represent argument substructures. In addition, the study determined the predictive relationship between the holistic scores assigned to student texts and argument structure measures. To identify and analyze argument structure a model was developed that could account for the variability in structure observed across a range of persuasive writing situations. The model was a modified version of Toulmin's (1958) schematic, and its characteristics were defined using categories derived from a theory of semantic representation in discourse. / Results of the structural analyses indicated that (a) argument was the predominant organizational structure for expert and student writers, (b) over 80% of students produced elaborated arguments involving some form of opposition, (c) experts produced more arguments and more complex arguments than students, and (d) expert texts contained relatively higher frequencies for warrants, countered rebuttals, and modals, and student use of these argument substructures increased with grade level. The general semantic and linguistic analyses revealed the following patterns particular to experts: (a) the use of identification types of claims, (b) an increased use of modals and decreased use of opinions as marks of argumentation, and (c) an infrequent use of causal conjunctions to mark data structures. Results of a forward stepwise regression analysis revealed that argument structure complexity accounted for 40% of the variance associated with quality ratings assigned to students' texts. Two other variables were significant predictors: number of supporting structures and number of opposing structures. / The results were interpreted from a rhetorical perspective: the developmental and expertise-related patterns of performance associated with the use of particular argument substructures, and the representation of these substructures were seen as reflecting an awareness of and ability to manipulate one's audience---skills that are necessary to achieve the goals of persuasive discourse.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Logos Evangelical Seminary, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 216-226).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1943. / Vita. Bibliography: p. 105-107.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 157-163).

This study explored the effects of metacognitive strategies on expository writing performance and metacognitive awareness of sixth graders. Metacognitive knowledge refers to students' ability to talk and write about the variables operating in expository tasks, the availability and appropriateness of strategies for producing expository text and how aspects of writing interact with the appropriateness of strategies available to the writer. High and low ability students were assigned to an experimental group who received instruction in metacognitive awareness strategies or to a control group. Three different types of measures included writing performance measures of syntax, mechanics and semantics/pragmatics; metacognitive awareness measures; and individual differences measures. The syntax and mechanics measures and the individual differences measures were standardized by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Results indicated no significant differences in either writing performance or metacognitive awareness for the two groups. Possible causal factors emerged: Expository writing performance was shown to be situation specific; a group design did not allow for a clear description of what factors contributed to the uneven performances; writers may not have performed well since a functional context and a source of motivation were lacking. Writing assessment and research design became the central issues of this study. Any comparison of two pieces of writing cannot reflect a writer's competence. Contextual factors influence the writer's performance on any task and a research design needs to allow for description of those factors.