Quantifying Disciplinary Voices: An Automated Approach to Interactional Metadiscourse in Successful Student Writing

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyung-Jo Yoon ◽  
Ute Römer
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Advanced Level ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Successful Student ◽  
Advanced Students ◽  
Automated Processing ◽  
Novice Writers ◽  
Level Student ◽  
Study Offer

This article reports on a study that explored cross-disciplinary variation in the use of metadiscourse markers in advanced-level student writing, put forward as a realistic target for novice writers. Starting from the stance and engagement categories included in Hyland’s model, we first conducted a comprehensive quantitative analysis of interactional metadiscourse across disciplines. For this analysis, we used an automated processing tool that generates quantity scores for each metadiscourse category. We then carried out a detailed qualitative analysis of selected items that contributed significantly to these category scores. The data for our analyses come from a corpus of 829 student papers from 16 different disciplines. The results showed notable differences in students’ use of metadiscourse features across academic divisions and disciplines. We suggest that this offers evidence of advanced students’ ability to express interactional strategies that are in line with disciplinary expectations. We also found, however, that disciplines that fall into the same academic division were not necessarily similar in their use of interactional metadiscourse, which calls into question the usefulness of existing disciplinary groupings. The findings of this study offer insights into how to build an appropriate writerly stance in different academic communities.

Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP)

Corpora ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A. Hardy ◽  
Ute Römer
Keyword(s):  
Dimensional Analysis ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Successful Student ◽  
Communicative Functions ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Procedural Discourse ◽  
Upper Level ◽  
Procedural Evaluation ◽  
Level Student

The purpose of this study was to uncover sets of co-occurring, lexico-grammatical features to help to characterise successful student writing. The writing was captured by the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP, 2009) and was taken from sixteen disciplines. MICUSP is a corpus of A-graded, upper-level student papers of different disciplines and paper types ( O'Donnell and Römer, 2012 ; and Römer and O'Donnell, 2011 ). Following Biber (1988) , we used a multi-dimensional analysis to identify dimensions of frequently co-occurring features that best account for cross-disciplinary variation in MICUSP. The four functional dimensions of MICUSP appear to distinguish between: (1) Involved, Academic Narrative versus Descriptive, Informational Discourse; (2) Expression of Opinions and Mental Processes; (3) Situation-Dependent, Non-Procedural Evaluation versus Procedural Discourse; and (4) Production of Possibility Statement and Argumentation. Along with a description of the methodology, this paper defines the features that constitute the factors, which have been labelled based on their communicative functions. Similarities and differences at the disciplinary and genre-specific levels are discussed as are the implications for discipline-specific and register-based pedagogies.

L2 Theme development in Discursive and Experimental undergraduate student writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Chen ◽  
Sheena Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Student ◽  
Systemic Functional Linguistics ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
Experimental Writing ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Report Writing ◽  
Functional Linguistics ◽  
Successful Student ◽  
Lexical Density

Abstract To complement earlier studies of writing development in the BAWE corpus of successful student writing (Nesi & Gardner 2012; Staples et al. 2016), we examine the Systemic Functional Linguistics notion of Theme as used by L2 writers across first- and third-year and in two distinctive discourse types: persuasive/argumentative Discursive writing of assignments in the soft disciplines and Experimental report writing of assignments in the hard sciences. Theme analysis reveals more substantial differences across the two discourse types than between first- and third-year L2 undergraduate writing. Textual Themes are consistently more frequent than interpersonal Themes, and some variance is found within subcategories of each. Significant differences in lexical density occur across third-year discourse types and between first- and third-year Experimental writing where a predominance of N+N topical Themes is also found. These findings are important as previous research has tended to focus on L1 Discursive writing.

scholarly journals Corpus analysis of phraseology in an A1 level textbook of German as a foreign language

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (22) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Maria Rosario Bautista Zambrana
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
German Language ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Productive Activities ◽  
Written Texts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Lexical Competence ◽  
Level Student

This paper aims to analyse the extent to which the textbook for German as a foreign language DaF kompakt A1 (Sander et al., 2011) complies with the recommendations of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) (hereafter CEFR) in respect to lexical competence and sociolinguistic competence in receptive and productive activities, specifically with regard to phraseological units. In this respect, we have focused on sentential formulae and fixed frames present in a corpus containing the textbook materials, and we have checked whether those fixed expressions correspond to the phraseological and sociolinguistic compe-tences that are expected in the Framework for an A1 level student of German language. To this end, we have compiled a corpus of the textbook receptive and productive materials, made up by three subcorpora: one for the written texts, one for the oral texts, and a third subcorpus containing exercises. We have performed a quantitative analysis (by means of AntConc 3.4.4 [Anthony, 2016] and kfNgram [Fletcher, 2007]), and a qualitative one. Our results suggest that the textbook complies with the recommendations of the CEFR.

Linguistic Markers of Stance and Genre in Upper-Level Student Writing

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Aull
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Linguistic Markers ◽  
Writing Research ◽  
Upper Level ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Level Student

Stance is a growing focus of academic writing research and an important aspect of writing development in higher education. Research on student writing to date has explored stance across different levels, language backgrounds, and disciplines, but has rarely focused on stance features across genres. This article explores stance marker use between two important genre families in higher education—persuasive argumentative writing and analytic explanatory writing—based on corpus linguistic analysis of late undergraduate and early graduate-level writing in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP). The specific stance markers in the study, both epistemic and textual cues, have been shown to distinguish student writing across levels; this study, then, extends the analysis to consider the comparative use of these markers across genres. The findings show two stance expectations persistent across genres as well as significant distinctions between argumentative and explanatory writing vis-à-vis stance markers that intensify and contrast. The findings thus point to important considerations for instruction, assignment design, and future research.

Pedagogical strategies for developing interpretive language about images

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-118
Author(s):  
Louise Ravelli
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Tertiary Level ◽  
Multimodal Texts ◽  
Pedagogical Strategies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
English Curriculum ◽  
Successful Student ◽  
Strong Relation

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on pedagogical strategies which support the teaching of critical analysis of visual and multimodal texts in a tertiary-level course for Arts students. Design/methodology/approach The paper describes strategies which focus on developing students’ abilities to express interpretive critique, as opposed to mere description. These strategies give students strong scaffolding towards success in their interpretive writing. The course in question is a tertiary-level Arts course which teaches Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2006) approach to “reading images” in relation to contemporary media texts. The basic structure of the course is described, along with the macro steps which underpin the pedagogy. Examples of highly successful and less successful student writing are compared to reveal the key components of effective interpretive answers. Findings In addition to the normal expectations regarding essay structure and style, and in addition to mastery of the technicality of the course, successful and less successful student writing depends on their mastery of a specific set of moves within the essay. These moves integrate textual observations with clear explanations and a strong relation to interpretation. Practical implications While the course and strategies discussed are for tertiary-level students, the strategies described are adaptable to primary and secondary levels also. Multimodal texts are an integral part of the English curriculum, and all teachers need to explore strategies for enabling their students’ critical engagement with such texts. Originality/value Visual and multimodal texts are an exciting and also challenging part of English curricula, and new analytical frameworks and pedagogical strategies are needed to tackle these texts. In particular, the gap between simply describing visual resources (applying the tools) and critical analysis (using the tools) is vast, and specific pedagogical strategies are needed to help students develop the necessary interpretive language.

scholarly journals Ekspressiv grammatik

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
Hans Arndt
Keyword(s):  
Expressive Writing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Structural Flexibility ◽  
Advanced Students ◽  
The One ◽  
Pedagogical Grammar ◽  
Point Of Departure

The aim of this paper is to consider how to present pedagogical grammar (PG) for advanced students. Taking its point of departure in the lack of structural flexibility often instantiated in student writing, the paper discusses the requirements for an advanced PG, compared to those for theoretical grammar on the one hand and for a beginner's PG on the other. It goes on to outline how an advanced PG can be formulated so as to support and enhance more expressive writing.

scholarly journals That's writing talk: An insight into the Academic Writing Readers Group

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Bell
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Community Of Practice ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Academic Communities ◽  
Common Practices ◽  
Practice Approach ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Insight Into

Despite being comprised of 'academic communities' Higher Education often provides academics from different disciplines with few opportunities to discuss common practices or concerns.. Some issues, such as student writing, are so widespread, that there is however a need for staff to have the opportunity to work collaboratively. A focused community or network provides staff with the opportunity to share good practice and develop new ideas. Such a group has been established at Nottingham Trent University to explore the issue of student writing. This article examines the 'Academic Writing Readers Group' and discusses the challenges and benefits of using a community of practice approach to the issue of student writing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document