The increasing interest in how stance is expressed specifically in academic writing in English has generated extensive research in the past decades. Focusing on the grammatical marking of stance, this comparative study investigates the use of stance adverbials by native (L1) and nonnative (L2) speakers of English in a corpus of student academic writing. The aim is to examine the most distinctive differences and similarities in the use of adverbial stance markers by each student group. The material comes from the British Academic Writing in English (BAWE) corpus, a collection of proficient writing by English L1 and L2 students from different firstlanguage backgrounds. Using quantitative methods and a semantically-based classification, the forms and types of stance adverbials most frequently used by the two student groups are identified and compared. The findings indicate that L1 students employ more adverbial stance markers overall, which contradicts results from previous research, but that both L1 and L2 students make use predominantly of a limited number of stance adverbials. The analysis of the most frequently used adverbials indicates underuse (e.g. perhaps) and overuse (e.g. kind of, mainly ) of specific markers on the part of the L2 group. The results partially invalidate the hypothesis tested that L2 students both rely on a narrower range of stance adverbials and employ them more frequently than L1 students.

The problem with which this investigation is concerned is that students of unequal writing ability are frequently placed in the same beginning media writing classes in college journalism. It is difficult for a teacher to be effective when the ability of the students ranges from those who cannot write clear complete sentences to others whose work already appears in newspapers and magazines. The purpose of this study is to determine whether students who are ability grouped into slow—average and advanced groups do the same, better, or worse than heterogeneously grouped students. In the spring semester of 1987, students in Journalism 1345, Media Writing laboratory, at the University of Texas at Arlington, were given a pretest to determine how well they wrote a simple news story and a simple feature story. On the basis of that test, which was graded by three raters, the students were placed in two separate ability groups in three classes. The fourth class contained students with heterogeneous abilities who were not placed in groups. At the end of the semester a posttest was given in news and feature writing. A two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the posttest scores of sixty-seven students. There was no significant difference in the posttest scores of students who were grouped homogeneously and those who were grouped heterogeneously. The difference in the scores of heterogeneously grouped advanced students and homogeneously grouped advanced students was not significantly different from the difference between the posttest scores of heterogeneously grouped slow-average students and homogeneously grouped slow-average students.

Respons från såväl lärare till elev som från elev till elev kan vara en möjlighet att utveckla elevers skrivande men kan även begränsa elevers skrivande om den inte ges på ett konstruktivt sätt. Vi fann det intressant för vår kommande yrkesroll att ta reda på vad det finns för möjligheter och fallgropar vid kamratrespons. Med det valda problemområdet vill vi fördjupa våra kunskaper i hur elevers skrivutveckling kan påverkas av kamratrespons, det vill säga hur den kan stärka eller hämma elevers skrivutveckling i en pågående skrivprocess. I gymnasieskolans kursplan för svenska 1 är ett av målen för skrivutveckling att elever ska utveckla en språkriktighet, där kamratresponsen utgör en viktig del för skrivutvecklingen (Skolverket, 2011). Till denna kunskapsöversikt har artiklar genom databassökning samlats in. Sedan har vi tillsammans granskat och valt ut relevant material. Vi har noggrant diskuterat varje artikels relevans kopplat till vår frågeställning. Resultatet av valda artiklar visar att responsen ska ges på ett konstruktivt sätt, att den som ger respons måste vara medveten om uppgiftens syfte och att det råder delade meningar om lärarrespons eller kamratrespons är mest effektivt för elevers skrivutveckling. Slutligen kan vi konstatera att dialogen utgör en central del av responsen oavsett för den som tar emot eller ger responsen samt att elever tillsammans kan överkomma uppgifters svårigheter.

This thesis examines the promise and problems of memoir in the pedagogy and practices of teaching memoir in college composition. I interviewed three University of Central Florida instructors who value memoir in composition, and who at the time of this study, were mandated to teach memoir in their composition courses. The interviews focus on three main points of interest: (1) the instructors’ motivations behind their teaching of memoir, (2) how these instructors see memoir functioning in their classes, and (3) what these instructors hope their students will gain in the process of writing the memoir essay. By analyzing these interviews, I was better able to understand the three instructors’ pedagogical choices and rationales for teaching memoir in their classes. I have also collected data and research from scholarly journal articles, books, and from my experiences teaching memoir in the composition classroom. This thesis challenges the widely accepted notion that memoir and the personal in composition scholarship, pedagogy, and teaching practices are “‘touchy-feely,’ ‘soft,’ ‘unrigorous,’ ‘mystical,’ ‘therapeutic,’ and ‘Mickey Mouse’” ways of meaning-making and teaching writing (Tompkins 214). My findings show that memoir in the classroom is richer and far more complex than it might appear at first, and that the teaching of memoir in composition can, in fact, be greater than the memoir essay itself. Even though each instructor I interviewed values the personal and believes memoir belongs in composition curriculum, it turns out that none of these instructors’ core reasons for teaching memoir was so his or her students could master writing the memoir essay, although this was important; rather the memoir essay ultimately served in the instructors’ classrooms as a conduit through which they ultimately could teach more diverse writing skills and techniques as well as intellectual concepts that truly inspired them. Since the teaching of memoir seems to be even iv more dynamic and versatile in process and pedagogy than many of the other essay genres traditionally taught in college composition, this thesis makes recommendations for how memoir needs to be viewed, written about, and taught in order to harness the promise of this essay genre more consistently in the discussion of composition pedagogy and in the teaching of memoir to our students in the composition classroom.

This dissertation involves the research of lexical bundles, sequences of three or more words likely to co-occur in a register, or situational variety of English. Bundles vary by register. The research is grounded in the study of a corpus, a collection of texts. Essays written by both professional and student writers were analyzed for four-word bundles to determine how bundles might vary. Student essays were categorized by writing level, determined by the exam for which the students were writing the essays. Results suggest that both professional and student writers use bundles more associated with the academic than the conversational register and that both the professional writers as well as the college proficient writers, those scoring higher on the exam, were more likely to use bundles to structure discourse than nonproficient college writers. Results also indicate that the proficient college writers were more likely to quote and paraphrase the source material than the nonproficient college writers. Findings are limited due to the small corpora size. Included are implications for instruction and further research.

First-year undergraduate students have vastly different perceptions of academic writing, the writing process, and the value of writing within their specific academic disciplines. These perceptions differ not only from their instructors but also from their peers. Yet, while reams of literature discuss, debate, and decipher student perspectives of writing from a scholarly point of view, the first-year student voice is conspicuously absent from this discussion. This study followed 92 first-year students through their first college composition course, English 1101, in order to capture the student perspective of how writing fits in their academic careers. The results indicate that while most students acknowledge first-year composition to be essential to their academic development, few report writing assignments in courses outside of 1101. This raises questions about how students identify writing activities and also suggests avenues for further inquiry, particularly the need for follow-up research at the culmination of their undergraduate careers.

First-year undergraduate students have vastly different perceptions of academic writing, the writing process, and the value of writing within their specific academic disciplines. These perceptions differ not only from their instructors but also from their peers. Yet, while reams of literature discuss, debate, and decipher student perspectives of writing from a scholarly point of view, the first-year student voice is conspicuously absent from this discussion. This study followed 92 first-year students through their first college composition course, English 1101, in order to capture the student perspective of how writing fits in their academic careers. The results indicate that while most students acknowledge first-year composition to be essential to their academic development, few report writing assignments in courses outside of 1101. This raises questions about how students identify writing activities and also suggests avenues for further inquiry, particularly the need for follow-up research at the culmination of their undergraduate careers.

Over the last few decades, the interpersonal dimensions of academic writing have received growing attention in the field of applied linguistics. As an important concept in academic writing, engagement has been a topic of interest to reveal how writers interact with readers to, for example, guide reasoning through arguments and to abide by conventions of politeness. Previous research has suggested that the higher students’ academic level is, the more similar their use of engagement elements in writing will be. Previous research has also suggested that for non-native speakers, cultural factors as well as interlanguage, influence how engagement features are used in written English. The primary aim of this study was to investigate which engagement patterns could be found in L1 Swedish and L1 English students’ academic writing in English, with the focus on linguistics as a subject. Using the methods of corpus linguistics, this project also strove to identify the ways patterns of engagement differed between L1 Swedish and L1 English students, and in what ways patterns of engagement varied between the students at B-levels and C-levels in written English of linguistics studies. The data for the study came from SUSEC, which is a corpus of written English that consists of texts collected at Stockholm University in Sweden and at King’s College in England. In line with previous research, the results indicate that the L1 Swedish students use more elements of engagement than the L1 English students. Results also suggest that C-level students use fewer reader pronouns than B-level students, and that Swedish C-level students use more directives than Swedish B-level students. Overall, the comparison of students with two different first languages revealed several differences on how engagement is used, which can serve to inform future research on academic writing.

This study use the theory of community of practice and the theory of mediating tools to explore how teachers develop student’s writing in the Swedish subject in Swedish upper secondary school. The aim of the study is to display the potential to learn and develop writing through participating in the community of practice that is the classroom, as well as with the help of mediational means in the classroom and in other contexts. Five teachers are interviewed on their ideas about teaching students to develop writing. Results from the study show potential for learning through communities of practice and mediational means in the teachers’ use of collaborative writing and interaction between students as well as their aspiration to connect school writing with writing in other contexts. The way in wich some teacher’s switch from collaborative and interactive work forms to individual, when the student’s texts are to be assessed and graded, could on the other hand be considered problematic. The results also imply that the teachers’ choices and positions must be understood in relation to ideas on writing expressed by the students and in the curriculum and in national writing tests.

No description available.