No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research identifies what proficient writers know and do by the end of their freshman year in college and raises the kind of questions that improve the articulation of English instruction.

This thesis reviews literature regarding English writing placement assessment and its impact on at-risk (under-prepared) college students.

This thesis reviews literature regarding English writing placement assessment and its impact on at-risk (under-prepared) college students.

First-year composition (FYC) courses are a backbone of undergraduate instruction, with nearly every institution of higher education requiring a version of the course. The majority of FYC courses assign reading, especially the reading of contemporary essays, for students to respond to in their own writing. However, a common concern among compositionists who focus on reading is that composition studies as a whole does not, and has not, focused enough on reading theories and pedagogies in FYC. Using a method of close reading and analyses, and borrowing from post-qualitative research the idea of reflexivity, this study examines texts in composition studies and adjacent fields, published primarily from the mid-20th century to the present, to explore how reading is, and has been, understood in relationship to writing and composition. Further, this study explores pedagogical and theoretical consequences of the “place” of reading in FYC. It ultimately contends that the marginalization of reading in composition studies as well as FYC limits both the pedagogical and reading possibilities of this universally required course.

This study was designed to test five hypotheses in order to answer the following general research questions: 1) Are measures of syntactic complexity valid indices of ESL writing quality as measured by the holistic rating of student essays? 2) Would a measure of frequency and seriousness of error reflect evaluators' perceptions of ESL writing quality?

Current research in English/language arts advocates the incorporation of writing in content areas across the curriculum as a means of learning content as well as a means of evaluating content mastery. Focusing on the content area of social studies and acknowledging the importance of the text as a teaching tool, this study examined to what degree and in what manner selected social studies textbooks incorporated writing. Texts selected for the study were nationally published history textbooks which had been adopted for use in the state of Virginia at grades seven and eleven, where the teaching of United States history is mandated in Virginia. Accompanying the basal textbook as a primary tool of instruction is the complementary teacher manual or guide. Using Britton’s categories for functions of writing (i.e., Expressive, Transactional and Poetic) and Donlan’s four categories of writing particular to the social studies (i.e., Reporting, Exposition, Narration and Argumentation), an analysis was made of writing assignments offered via selected social studies textbooks and their accompanying teacher manuals. Text packages selected for the study reflected those U.S. history texts adopted for use in Virginia at grades seven and eleven. The treatment of writing in the selected textbook packages was examined to determine the reflection of current research and theory in the area of composition. Findings paralleled the national Applebee study of 1981 finding that most writing required in secondary schools was of a Transactional nature, most often requiring students to report or explain information, seldom requiring creative writing as with Narration. Moreover, examination of state and national social studies professional journals revealed relatively little support in instructing social studies educators on how to include writing in this content area. / Ed. D.