Metadiscourse and Contrastive Rhetoric in Academic Writing: Evaluation of a Small Academic Corpus

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 317
Author(s):  
Jabreel Asghar
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Contrastive Rhetoric ◽  
Writing Evaluation

The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations

ReCALL ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysel Saricaoglu
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Writing Evaluation ◽  
Cause And Effect ◽  
Specific Feedback ◽  
Signed Rank Test ◽  
Automated Feedback ◽  
The Impact

AbstractEven though current technologies allow for automated feedback, evaluating content and generating discourse-specific feedback is still a challenge for automated systems, which explains the gap in research investigating the effect of such feedback. This study explores the impact of automated formative feedback on the improvement of English as a second language (ESL) learners’ written causal explanations within two cause-and-effect essays and across pre- and post-tests. Pre- and post-test drafts, feedback reports for first and revised drafts from the automated writing evaluation system, and screen-capturing videos collected from 31 students enrolled in two sections of an advanced-low-level academic writing class were analyzed through descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Findings revealed statistically significant changes in learners’ causal explanations within one cause-and-effect essay while no significant improvement was observed across pre- and post-tests. The findings of this study offer not only insights into how to further improve automated discourse-specific feedback but also pedagogical implications for better learning outcomes.

The interaction of discipline and culture in academic writing

2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zosia Golebiowski ◽  
Anthony J. Liddicoat
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Contrastive Rhetoric ◽  
Just Culture ◽  
Academic Texts ◽  
Text Production ◽  
Culturally Based ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Text Construction

Abstract Work in contrastive rhetoric has often sought to examine the impact of culturally-based writing conventions on text production and has outlined cultural differences in texts in different languages. At the same time, the study of specialised languages has often claimed a degree of uniformity in text construction both at the level of culture and at the level of the discipline. It appears however that approaches which consider just culture or just discipline miss part of the picture. This paper argues that considerations of discipline and culture are complex and interrelated and that this complexity and interrelationship can be seen at several different levels in specialised academic texts.

scholarly journals Online Open-Source Writing Aid as a Pedagogical Tool

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 126
Author(s):  
Beata Lewis Sevcikova
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
College Level ◽  
Writing Evaluation ◽  
Automated Writing Evaluation ◽  
Online Tools ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Automated Feedback

The present research offers an assessment of the online open source tools used in the L2 academic writing, teaching, and learning environment. As fairly little research has been conducted on how to best use online automated proofreaders for educational purposes, the objective of this study is to examine the potential of such online tools. Unlike most studies focusing on Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE), this research concentrates only on the online, open-source writing aide, grammar, spelling and writing style improvement tools available either for free or as paid versions. The accessibility and ability to check language mistakes in academic writings such as college-level essays in real time motivates both, teachers and students. The findings of this empirical-based study indicate that despite some bias, computerized feedback facilitates language learning, assists in improving the quality of writing, and increases student confidence and motivation. The current study can help with the understanding of students’ needs in writing, as well as in their perception of automated feedback.

scholarly journals Cultural Collisions in L2 Academic Writing

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Steinman
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Contrastive Rhetoric ◽  
Esl Writing ◽  
Discourse Practices ◽  
Technical Issues ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
Writing Instructors

Learning to write in English for academic purposes presents a significant challenge for non-native speakers. Not only must they deal with the obvious linguistic and technical issues such as syntax, vocabulary, and format, but they must also become familiar with Western notions of academic rhetoric. (West or Western in this article refer primarily to North America.) Collisions of cultures are experienced when the discourse practices L2 writers are expected to reproduce clash with what they know, believe, and value in their L1 writing. For this article I reviewed a range of literature that addresses writing and culture. Described by researchers and by L2 writers are collisions regarding voice, organization, reader/ writer responsibility, topic, and identity. Implications for writing pedagogy include awareness of contrastive rhetoric on the part of ESL writing instructors; instructors' acknowledgment of and appreciation for the prior knowledge that students bring from their L1; realization on the part of ESL writing instructors that Western notions of,for example, voice are indeed just notions and are simply one way among many of expressing oneself; and a need for open discussion with students about how they might incorporate standard Western notions of writing without compromising their own identity.

scholarly journals UTILIZING GRAMMARLY IN EVALUATING ACADEMIC WRITING: A NARRATIVE RESEARCH ON EFL STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Muhamad Nova
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Evaluation Program ◽  
Writing Evaluation ◽  
Automated Writing Evaluation ◽  
Free Service ◽  
Efl Students

With the development of technology, any writer now can easily check their academic writing with automated writing evaluation program. Though, the utilization of this program may bring both benefits and drawbacks. Thus, a consideration of its strengths and weaknesses is needed. To fill the need, this study aimed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Grammarly program as an automated writing evaluation program in evaluating academic writing. Using a narrative inquiry in exploring three Indonesian postgraduate students’ experiences by conducting interview and documentation, the result showed that this program has provided useful color-coded feedback with explanation and example, ease of account access, high rate of evaluation speed, and free service for evaluating academic writing. However, some caveats were also found in this program utilization, such as several misleading feedbacks, weaknesses on detecting the type of English and reference list, and lack of context and content evaluation experienced, which became the weaknesses of this program. Further investigation on the efficiency of the feedback given by Grammarly in improving students’ writing quality is needed.

scholarly journals An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Devices Used in Academic Discourse Focusing on English Theses at the University of Namibia

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Naftal K.T. Haufiku ◽  
Jairos Kangira
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
English Language ◽  
Academic Discourse ◽  
Contrastive Rhetoric ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Unequal Distribution ◽  
Master Of Arts ◽  
The University ◽  
Type 3

<p><em>This paper explored the application of hedges and boosters in all ten theses of the Master of Arts in English Studies submitted and examined at the University of Namibia between 2014 and 2015. A mixed research approach was chosen because of the descriptive nature of this study. This method also gave an in-depth understanding of issues such as why research writers prefer some types of hedging and boosting devices over the others, and why some theses chapters have certain types of hedges and boosters. The study only examined three chapters of the theses: the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. Hyland’s (2004) taxonomy of hedges and boosters was used to analyse the types of hedges and boosters used. Kaplan’s (1997) Contrastive Rhetoric Theory was used to explain how researchers use hedges and boosters to express their uncertainties and certainties respectively. The study revealed that writers prefer Type 3 of hedges and boosters in all the three chapters. It further revealed that there is an unequal distribution of hedges and boosters among writers. Finally, the paper concluded that the preference of Type 3 may have been caused by the fact that since Type 3 does not have boosting devices writers find it less threatening to employ it in order to conform to the accepted academic writing style. The unequal distribution may also suggest that writers in academic discourse are not proficient in the English language.</em></p>

scholarly journals UTILIZING GRAMMARLY IN EVALUATING ACADEMIC WRITING: A NARRATIVE RESEARCH ON EFL STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Muhamad Nova
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Evaluation Program ◽  
Writing Evaluation ◽  
Automated Writing Evaluation ◽  
Free Service ◽  
Efl Students

With the development of technology, any writer now can easily check their academic writing with automated writing evaluation program. Though, the utilization of this program may bring both benefits and drawbacks. Thus, a consideration of its strengths and weaknesses is needed. To fill the need, this study aimed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Grammarly program as an automated writing evaluation program in evaluating academic writing. Using a narrative inquiry in exploring three Indonesian postgraduate students’ experiences by conducting interview and documentation, the result showed that this program has provided useful color-coded feedback with explanation and example, ease of account access, high rate of evaluation speed, and free service for evaluating academic writing. However, some caveats were also found in this program utilization, such as several misleading feedbacks, weaknesses on detecting the type of English and reference list, and lack of context and content evaluation experienced, which became the weaknesses of this program. Further investigation on the efficiency of the feedback given by Grammarly in improving students’ writing quality is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document