/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) student writing (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: student writing
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt154 - : Cheng (2002) and Zhang (2004) identified the problematic use of Theme and thematic progression in Chinese English learner writing and showed how coherence in such writing could be improved by revising the problems with the use of Theme and thematic progression. Cheng (2002) contended that a major reason for the lack of coherence in Chinese students' English writing was inappropriate thematic choices and thematic progression. He found that one third of the 58 student writing samples under investigation featured infrequent use of Themes that were not connected either to preceding Themes or succeeding Themes and thematic progressions that had not yet been identified . Zhang (2004) examined a total of 50 English writing samples produced by 50 second year college English majors and found that 42.07% of the Themes were confusing, which led to incoherence in writing. She also found the same problems that Cheng (2002) identified in learner writings, i.e., Themes that were not connected either to
2
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt177 - : Wall, D., Nickson, A., Jordan, R., Allwright, J., & Houghton, D. (1988). Developing student writing: A subject tutor and writing tutors compare points of view . In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process and product: ELT document 129 (pp. 117-129). Hong Kong: Macmillan Education [ [102]Links ]
3
paper VE_Núcleotxt23 - : 11. Hyslop, N. (1990). Evaluating student writing: Methods and measurement [Revista en línea], Eric Digest . Disponible: [42]http://www.ericdigests.org/pre9214/writing.htm [Consulta: 2005, octubre 31] [ [43]Links ]
4
paper corpusSignostxt594 - : To help students better understand SFL and improve their writing, it will be beneficial for teachers to provide their students with written feedback connected to SFL’s constructs (see also ^[55]Humphrey & Macnaught, 2016). For example, teachers can use register variables to contextualize student writing: ‘mode’ to remind their students to avoid fragmentary expressions in writing ; ‘tenor’ to remind their students about the proper strategies to use in interacting with their audience; and ‘field’ to remind their students not to wander off from the topic. Meanwhile, teachers can remind their students about meaning making in their writing: using appropriate linguistic choices (i.e., vocabulary/grammar) in achieving the three dimensions of content (i.e., ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning, and textual meaning) for different types of writing. For example, teachers can remind their students of the choice of proper modal verbs or evaluative words at the interpersonal dimension or of cohesive
5
paper corpusSignostxt498 - : Paré, A., Starke-Meyerring, D. & McAlpine, L. (2011). Knowledge and identity work in the supervision of Doctoral student writing: Shaping rhetorical subjects . En D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in Knowledge Societies (pp. 215-236). Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse & Parlor Press. [ [129]Links ]
Evaluando al candidato student writing:
2) thematic: 5
3) remind: 5
4) themes: 5
7) teachers: 4
8) cheng: 3
student writing
Lengua: eng
Frec: 93
Docs: 67
Nombre propio: / 93 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario:
Puntaje: 0.731 = ( + (1+4.52356195605701) / (1+6.55458885167764)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| student writing |
: -------; (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. : -------; Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 191-205. : 16. Hewitt, G. (1995). A portfolio primer: Teaching, collecting, and assessing student writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. : 40. Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. New York: Routledge. : Aktas, R. & Cortés, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3-14. : Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337-354. : Basturkmen, H., & von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: Observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic argumentative writing task.Journal of English for Academic Purposes,16, 14-22. : Bitchener, J. Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 14, 191-205. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 : Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267-296. : Coffin, C. (2003). Giving feedback on student writing. In: offin, C. Teaching academic writing. Routledge: London. : Crossley, S., Muldner, K. & McNamara, D. (2016). Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication, 33(3), 328-354. : Derewianka, B. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent student writing. En A. McCabe, M. O´Donnell y R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp.142-165). Nueva York: Continuum. : Donahue, C. (2005). Student writing as negotiation. En T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s) textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp. 137-164). New York: Springer. : Fathman, A., and Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form versus Content. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 9, 178-190. : Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. : Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. : Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan : UMP. [130]https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290 : Ferris, Dana. (2003). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. : Freedman, S.W. (1987b). Response to student writing. Research Report No. 23. Urbana (IL), USA: National Council of Teachers of English. : Furneaux, C., Paran, A., y Fairfax, B. 2007. “Teacher stance as refiected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries”. En International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45 (1), pp. 69-94. : Furneaux, Clare; Paran, Amos, and Fairfax, Beverly. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. IRAL, 45, 69-94. : Gardner, S. & Nesi, H. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25-52. : Kennedy-Kalafatis, S., & Carleton, D. (1996). Encouraging peer dialogue in the geography classroom: Peer editing to improve student writing. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(3), 323. : Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23(2), (p. 157). : Lea, M. R. & Stierer, B. (2000). Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press. : Lea, M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172. : Lea, M., y Stierer, B. (Eds.) (1999). New Contexts for Student Writing in Higher Education. Buckingham, uk: Open University Press. : Lea, M., y Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172. Recuperado de [173]https://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/documents/qualifications/studwritinginhe.pdf : Lee, J. J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 Undergraduate Student Writing: Interactional Metadiscourse in Successful and Less-Successful Argumentative Essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33(C), 21-34. : Lillis, T. (2001). Student Writing. Access, Regulation, Desire. Londres, Inglaterra: Routledge . : Lillis, T. (2003). Student Writing as 'Academic Literacies': Drawing on Bakhtin to Move from Critique to Design. Journal Language and Education 17(3), (pp. 192-201). Consultado 28/11/2011 en: [75]http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/Lillis_Article2.pdf : Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. New York: Routledge. : Nesi, H. y Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines. Student writing in higher education. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press. : Ruggles, T. M. (2012). Masters level graduate student writing groups: Exploring academic identity. Tesis doctoral inédita, Arizona State University, Tempe (AZ), USA. : Scollon, R., Tsang, W.K., Li, D., Yung, V., and Jones, R. (1998). Voice, appropriation and discourse representation in a student writing task. Linguistics and Education, 9(3): 227-250. : Steinhart, D. (2001). Summary Street: An intelligent tutoring system for improving student writing through the use of latent semantic analysis. Tesis doctoral, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. : Straub, R. & Lunsford, R. (1995). 12 Readers reading: Responding to student writing. Cresskill, NH: Hampton. : Vantage Learning Tech. (2000). A study of expert scoring and intellimetric scoring accuracy for dimensional scoring of grade 11 student writing responses. Technical Report RB-397, Vantage Learning Technology, Newtown, Philadelphia, U.S.A. : Wagner, S. (2011). Concessives and contrastives in student writing: L1, L2 and genre differences. In J. Schmied (Ed.), Academic Writing in Europe: Empirical Perspectives (pp. 23-49). Göttingen: Cuvillier. : Wikborg, E. (1990). "Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division". In Connor, U., Johns, A.M (Eds.). Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectiva. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. : Yoon, H., y Römer, U. (2020). Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication, 37(2), 1-37. [280]https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319898672 : Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.19,79-101. USA. |