教育讲师对写作水平的期望:来自教师学术写作反馈语料库分析的启示

IF 4.5 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Huahui Zhao, Thi Ngoc Yen Dang, Natalie Finlayson
{"title":"教育讲师对写作水平的期望:来自教师学术写作反馈语料库分析的启示","authors":"Huahui Zhao,&nbsp;Thi Ngoc Yen Dang,&nbsp;Natalie Finlayson","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency is essential for instruction on Writing for Academic Purposes (WAP) that prepares university students for their written assessment in disciplinary studies. However, few studies have systematically analysed disciplinary lecturers’ feedback on academic writing to reveal their expectations about proficient disciplinary writing. This makes WAP instruction potentially disjointed with disciplinary writing and consequently, students could be ill-prepared for their writing performance in disciplinary assessment. To reveal disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency, this study developed and analysed a 104,765-word corpus of feedback provided by 41 education lecturers on 230 assignments, submitted by international postgraduates who speak English as a second/foreign language (L2). Subsequent regression analyses uncovered how various facets of writing proficiency related to coursework marks. The results showed that Education lecturers commented on a wide spectrum of elements of writing proficiency. Style, coherence, vocabulary, and effective communication were predictors that made unique and significant contributions to the overall quality of assignments. Concordance analyses revealed lecturers’ perspectives on what constitutes writing proficiency and how each component should be manifested in postgraduate disciplinary writing. The paper concludes with important implications for the development and assessment of L2 writing proficiency in Education or related fields.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 101173"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Education lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency: Insights from corpus analysis of teacher feedback on academic writing\",\"authors\":\"Huahui Zhao,&nbsp;Thi Ngoc Yen Dang,&nbsp;Natalie Finlayson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Understanding disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency is essential for instruction on Writing for Academic Purposes (WAP) that prepares university students for their written assessment in disciplinary studies. However, few studies have systematically analysed disciplinary lecturers’ feedback on academic writing to reveal their expectations about proficient disciplinary writing. This makes WAP instruction potentially disjointed with disciplinary writing and consequently, students could be ill-prepared for their writing performance in disciplinary assessment. To reveal disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency, this study developed and analysed a 104,765-word corpus of feedback provided by 41 education lecturers on 230 assignments, submitted by international postgraduates who speak English as a second/foreign language (L2). Subsequent regression analyses uncovered how various facets of writing proficiency related to coursework marks. The results showed that Education lecturers commented on a wide spectrum of elements of writing proficiency. Style, coherence, vocabulary, and effective communication were predictors that made unique and significant contributions to the overall quality of assignments. Concordance analyses revealed lecturers’ perspectives on what constitutes writing proficiency and how each component should be manifested in postgraduate disciplinary writing. The paper concludes with important implications for the development and assessment of L2 writing proficiency in Education or related fields.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Second Language Writing\",\"volume\":\"67 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Second Language Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374324000808\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Second Language Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374324000808","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

了解学科讲师对写作能力的期望对于学术写作指导(WAP)至关重要,WAP为大学生在学科研究中的书面评估做准备。然而,很少有研究系统地分析学科讲师对学术写作的反馈,以揭示他们对熟练的学科写作的期望。这使得WAP教学可能与学科写作脱节,因此,学生可能对他们在学科评估中的写作表现准备不足。为了揭示学科讲师对写作能力的期望,本研究开发并分析了41位教育讲师对230项作业提供的104,765个单词的反馈语料库,这些作业由以英语为第二语言/外语(L2)的国际研究生提交。随后的回归分析揭示了写作能力的各个方面与课程分数的关系。结果表明,教育讲师对写作能力的各种要素进行了广泛的评论。风格、连贯性、词汇和有效沟通是对作业整体质量做出独特而重要贡献的预测因素。一致性分析揭示了讲师对写作能力的构成以及每个组成部分应如何在研究生学科写作中体现的观点。本文的结论对教育或相关领域的第二语言写作能力的发展和评估具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Education lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency: Insights from corpus analysis of teacher feedback on academic writing
Understanding disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency is essential for instruction on Writing for Academic Purposes (WAP) that prepares university students for their written assessment in disciplinary studies. However, few studies have systematically analysed disciplinary lecturers’ feedback on academic writing to reveal their expectations about proficient disciplinary writing. This makes WAP instruction potentially disjointed with disciplinary writing and consequently, students could be ill-prepared for their writing performance in disciplinary assessment. To reveal disciplinary lecturers’ expectations about writing proficiency, this study developed and analysed a 104,765-word corpus of feedback provided by 41 education lecturers on 230 assignments, submitted by international postgraduates who speak English as a second/foreign language (L2). Subsequent regression analyses uncovered how various facets of writing proficiency related to coursework marks. The results showed that Education lecturers commented on a wide spectrum of elements of writing proficiency. Style, coherence, vocabulary, and effective communication were predictors that made unique and significant contributions to the overall quality of assignments. Concordance analyses revealed lecturers’ perspectives on what constitutes writing proficiency and how each component should be manifested in postgraduate disciplinary writing. The paper concludes with important implications for the development and assessment of L2 writing proficiency in Education or related fields.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
13.10%
发文量
50
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Second Language Writing is devoted to publishing theoretically grounded reports of research and discussions that represent a significant contribution to current understandings of central issues in second and foreign language writing and writing instruction. Some areas of interest are personal characteristics and attitudes of L2 writers, L2 writers'' composing processes, features of L2 writers'' texts, readers'' responses to L2 writing, assessment/evaluation of L2 writing, contexts (cultural, social, political, institutional) for L2 writing, and any other topic clearly relevant to L2 writing theory, research, or instruction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信