東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Composition teachers' criteria for g...

Robinson, Maisah Bint-Patrick.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Composition teachers' criteria for good writing.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Composition teachers' criteria for good writing./
Author:	Robinson, Maisah Bint-Patrick.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 1994,
Description:	150 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 55-10, Section: A, page: 3082.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International55-10A.
Subject:	Curriculum development. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9507431

Composition teachers' criteria for good writing.
Robinson, Maisah Bint-Patrick.

Composition teachers' criteria for good writing. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1994 - 150 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 55-10, Section: A, page: 3082.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgia State University, 1994.

Statement of the problem. Many composition researchers have sought to answer the ubiquitous question "What is good writing?". This descriptive study addressed this question by replicating and extending aspects of Coles and Vopat's (1985) What Makes Writing Good. The purpose of this study was to (a) investigate English and English as a Second Language (ESL) composition teachers' criteria for good writing to determine what linguistic and rhetorical features they value, (b) analyze written texts composition teachers determined to be good writing in order to identify salient linguistic features which may have influenced their judgments, and (c) provide a definition of good writing as determined by prevalent patterns that emerged from both the teachers' stated linguistic and rhetorical criteria for good writing, and linguistic features present in the written texts.Subjects--Topical Terms:

684418
Curriculum development.

Composition teachers' criteria for good writing.
LDR:03673nmm a2200325 4500 001 2118087
005 20170531095053.5
008 180830s1994 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI9507431
035 $a AAI9507431
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Robinson, Maisah Bint-Patrick. $3 3279898
245 1 0 $a Composition teachers' criteria for good writing.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 1994
300 $a 150 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 55-10, Section: A, page: 3082.
500 $a Director: Ramona Frasher.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgia State University, 1994.
520 $a Statement of the problem. Many composition researchers have sought to answer the ubiquitous question "What is good writing?". This descriptive study addressed this question by replicating and extending aspects of Coles and Vopat's (1985) What Makes Writing Good. The purpose of this study was to (a) investigate English and English as a Second Language (ESL) composition teachers' criteria for good writing to determine what linguistic and rhetorical features they value, (b) analyze written texts composition teachers determined to be good writing in order to identify salient linguistic features which may have influenced their judgments, and (c) provide a definition of good writing as determined by prevalent patterns that emerged from both the teachers' stated linguistic and rhetorical criteria for good writing, and linguistic features present in the written texts.
520 $a Methods. A questionnaire was mailed to composition teachers selected randomly from the membership of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) to solicit their aid in submitting students' texts and comments explaining their criteria for good writing. The students' texts were subjected to procedures that included textual analyses using the RightWriter computer text editor program, enumerations of T-unit lengths (minimal terminable units) using the Indexes of Syntactic Maturity (Hunt, 1965; Christensen, 1967), and tabulation of lexical cohesive ties using the Analyzing Cohesive Ties (ACT) (Halliday and Hasan, 1977).
520 $a Results. The criteria for good writing that emerged from the textual analyses and composition teachers' commentaries were comprised of 10 predominant linguistic and rhetorical features: syntactic maturity (developed and varied sentences); mechanical correctness; effective and appropriate use of language; evidence of a personal voice; cohesion/coherence; audience awareness; organization (well-developed paragraphs); effective tone; content (supporting details, specific examples, and solid topic/thesis statements); and ability to evoke human response.
520 $a Conclusions. The governing principle of this research was that effective writing can best be accomplished when the teacher and the writer recognize the underlying linguistic and rhetorical features that structure the writing process. The results of this study indicate that explicit criteria for good writing exist that composition teachers can include in their writing evaluation repertoires. If composition teachers are clear about their own writing evaluation practices, they will be better equipped to assist their students in deploying the structures and strategies that shape and extend thoughts into good compositions.
590 $a School code: 0079.
650 4 $a Curriculum development. $3 684418
650 4 $a Language arts. $3 532624
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 641065
690 $a 0727
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0745
710 2 $a Georgia State University. $3 1018518
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 55-10A.
790 $a 0079
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 1994
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9507431