scholarly journals The Power of Relevant Models: Using a Corpus of Student Writing to Introduce Discipinary Practices in a First Year Compsition Course

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Jack A. Hardy ◽  
Ute R�mer ◽  
Audrey Roberson
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Goulart

Abstract While there have been many studies describing L2 academic writing, most of these studies have used corpora of first year or assessment writing (Crosthwaite 2016; Weigle & Friginal 2014). The present study seeks to describe linguistic variation in L2 writing for content classes and to compare these linguistic patterns to those found in L1 writing. A multi-dimensional (MD) analysis was conducted in two corpora, BAWE and BrAWE, extracting five dimensions. The L2 corpus contained 379 texts written by Brazilian students doing part of their undergrad in the UK and the L1 corpus contained 395 texts from BAWE. The results of this study indicate that L1 and L2 writers use similar linguistic resources to convey the purpose of university registers, with the exception of case studies, designs, exercises and research reports. This linguistic variation between L1 and L2 writers might be explained by students’ interpretation of these registers’ communicative purposes.


Author(s):  
Lauren M. Connolly

This chapter will discuss the history of instructor comments in first-year writing and consider the differences in commenting for translingual students, native English-speaking students, as well as students from various language backgrounds and experiences. The goal is to consider ways beyond simply pointing out errors in students' writing and consider the rhetorical appropriateness of the students' texts and how instructors can provide comments to students to maintain the integrity of students' language backgrounds.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni M. Carter ◽  
Todd Aldridge

Abstract Objective – The study has two aims. The first is to identify words and phrases from information literacy and rhetoric and composition that students used to justify the comparability of two sources. The second is to interpret the effectiveness of students’ application of these evaluative vocabularies and explore the implications for librarians and first-year composition instructors’ collaborations. Methods – A librarian and a first-year composition instructor taught a class on source evaluation using the language of information literacy, composition, and rhetorical analysis (i.e., classical, Aristotelian, rhetorical appeals). Students applied the information learned from the instruction session to help them locate and select two sources of comparable genre and rigor for the purpose of an essay assignment. The authors assessed this writing assignment for students’ evaluative diction to identify how they could improve their understanding of each other’s discourse. Results – The authors’ analysis of the student writing sample exposes struggles in how students understand, apply, and integrate the jargon of information literacy and rhetoric and composition. Assessment shows that students chose the language of rhetoric and composition rather than the language of information literacy, they selected the broadest and/or vaguest terms to evaluate their sources, and they applied circular reasoning when justifying their choices. When introduced to analogous concepts or terms between the two discourses, students cherry-picked the terms that allowed for the easiest, albeit, least-meaningful evaluations. Conclusion – The authors found that their unfamiliarity with each other’s discourse revealed itself in both the class and the student writing. They discovered that these miscommunications affected students’ language use in their written source evaluations. In fact, the authors conclude that this oversight in addressing the subtle differences between the two vocabularies was detrimental to student learning. To improve communication and students’ source evaluation, the authors consider developing a common vocabulary for more consistency between the two lexicons.


Author(s):  
Yi-chun Pan

This study investigated the effect of teacher error feedback on students' ability to write accurately. Three male first-year Physics graduate students at a university in Taiwan participated in this study. They were asked to write a 100-word passage about the greatest invention in human history. Within days of the teacher’s grammatical feedback, the students were required to revise their work again based on the teacher's suggested revisions. In addition, oral conferencing was conducted in order to help the students obtain a better comprehension of certain grammar points. Four weeks after the oral conferencing, the students were asked, without prior notice, to revise their original passages again. The findings reveal that the students made progress in the revised versions of their passages, but the success was not repeated in their later test versions. In other words, no positive relationship between teacher error feedback and students’ improvement in linguistic accuracy over time was observed. This suggests that teacher error feedback alone may not facilitate the learning of linguistic information. A combination of sufficient exposure to English in reading and writing, plus opportunities to practice the language, for example, may lead to better grammar.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshia Mcclantoc

I performed a study of two first-year writing classrooms and their interactions that used a fan fiction–based pedagogy. Rather than using fan fiction as class texts, this pedagogy used the fan fiction practices of reinventing and repurposing to help students better understand themselves and their community. This was done to position the students as fans themselves. Students were challenged to act as a fan would as they moved through myriad overlapping fan fiction and composition studies practices. I include descriptions of major assignments, examples of student writing, and reflections on both the successes and struggles within this classroom.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Tucker ◽  
Paul Chafe ◽  
Trina Grover ◽  
Kelly Dermody ◽  
Val Lem ◽  
...  

A first-year university and college student writing textbook that is intended to facilitate the flipped/blended classroom.<br>


1970 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Anna K. Martinović ◽  
Katica M. Balenović

The main focus of this study was to analyse article errors in the writing of first year Croatian psychology students studying English as a foreign language as part of their study programme. Article errors among learners with different proficiency levels were also analysed; moreover, errors made by students with different essay grades were compared. The results show that the category with the highest number of errors included the omission of the indefinite article. Furthermore, it was found that proficiency levels were not a significant factor concerning the average number of errors in any of the categories. Moreover, it was also shown that essay grades did not play a significant role in the number of article errors in student writing except in the category of omission of the definite article, which was found among students with lower essay grades.


Author(s):  
Brittany Cottrill

Building on the research produced by early and current computers and writing scholars, this chapter will look at the results of an analysis of both virtual- and classroom-based texts produced by nine first-year writers, five from composition I and four from composition II courses at a mid-sized, Midwestern, public university. The research included in this chapter explores the results of how blogging affected student writing in the first-year writing classroom. Specifically, this chapter focuses on the results of this study in relation to the explicit and implicit textual signals and how these textual signals complicate communication in computer mediated environments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document