Developing a Model for Disciplinary Writing Expertise in Postgraduate Teaching English as a Foreign Language Programs

Authors

1 Ph.D. in TEFL, Farhangian University, Shiraz Bahonar Branch, Shiraz, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

A challenge for many postgraduate students is to move from the state of novice observers to those of professional contributors of a particular discourse community. They need to develop certain skills, practices, and competences, the demonstration of which is mostly through writing, called disciplinary writing expertise (DWE). DWE can be examined from two aspects of nature and development. This study aims at proposing a model of disciplinary writing expertise including both the competencies of DWE and factors developing these components. In-depth interviews with 28 postgraduate students of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) were collected and research papers written by these students were used to collect data. Based on substantive considerations and the results of the content analysis, five subcomponents of DWE were identified including strategic, genre, rhetorical, subject matter and discourse community knowledge components. Meanwhile, writing strategies and goal orientations were identified as two important factors influencing the development of disciplinary writing proficiency in a foreign language context. Two questionnaires were made and piloted to endorse these two factors among 538 postgraduate TEFL students. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we proposed a model to show the relationship among these two factors and the components of DWE. The results showed that those who followed mastery goals used all types of writing strategies to develop different subcomponents of DWE. On the other hand, those who followed context and career-directed goals used strategies to develop rhetorical knowledge mostly.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

تدوین مدل دانش تخصصی نوشتاری برای دوره های تحصیلات تکمیلی در رشته‌ی آموزش زبان انگلیسی

Authors [Persian]

  • فرزانه دهقان 1
  • سید ایت الله رزمجو 2
1 دانشگاه فرهنگیان، پردیس شهید باهنر شیراز
2 دانشیار دانشکده زبانهای خارجی و زبانشناسی دانشگاه شیراز
Abstract [Persian]

چالشی که بسیاری از دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی با آن روبرو هستند تبدیل شدن از یک مشاهده­گر تازه­کار به فردی تأثیرگذار در جامعه‌ی گفتمانی تخصصی خود است. در این راستا آنها باید قادر باشند تا دانش مرتبط با تخصص خود را در قالب نوشتار به نمایش بگذارند. این نوع دانش تخصصی نگارشی را می توان از دو جنبه‌ی ماهیت و روش توسعه مورد مطالعه قرار داد. این تحقیق تلاشی در جهت تدوین مدل توسعه ای دانش تخصصی نوشتاری است. بدین منظور، مصاحبه هایی با 28 دانشجوی تحصیلات تکمیلی رشته‌ی آموزش زبان انگلیسی صورت گرفت و مقالات نوشته شده به‌وسیله‌ی آنان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. براساس تحقیقات پیشین و نتایج تحلیل محتوا مشخص شد که حوزه‌های مختلف سازنده‌ی دانش تخصصی نوشتاری شامل دانش راهکاری (فرآیند نوشتاری)، دانش انواع متون تخصصی، دانش جامعه‌ی گفتمانی ، دانش توانش بیانی زبان، و دانش موضوع درسی می‌شود. دو پرسشنامه جهت سنجش راهکارهایی که دانشجویان برای توسعه‌ی حوزه‌های مختلف دانش تخصصی نوشتاری به‌کار می‌بندند و اهدافی که در فعالیتهای نوشتاری خود دنبال می‌کنند، ساخته شد. این پرسشنامه‌ها در مرحله‌ی اصلی تحقیق (538 شرکت کننده) به‌کار رفتند و نتایج بدست آمده از طریق مدل سازی معادله ساختاری مورد واکاوی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که دانشجویانی که اهداف مهارت­محور را دنبال می‌کردند، از تمامی راهکارهایی که به توسعه‌ی حوزه­های مختلف دانش تخصصی نگارشی منجر می‌شوند استفاده می‌کنند. در عوض، دانشجویانی با اهداف محیط محور و تخصص محور بیشتر از راهکارهای توانش بیانی زبان استفاده می­کنند. این روابط در قالب یک مدل نهایی ارائه شده‌اند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • دانش تخصصی نوشتاری
  • نگارش پیشرفته‌ی دانشگاهی
  • راهکارهای نگارشی
  • نگارش در زبان دوم
Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop, & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 19-26). Ports-mouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Beaufort, A. (1999). Writing in the real world: Making the transition from school to work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Beaufort, A. (2004).  Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 136-185.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10, 475-509.

Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-41.

Carter, R. (1990). The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41(3), 265-286.

Christie, F., & Maton, C. (2011). Disciplinarity: Functional, linguistic, and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141.

Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: EFL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cumming, A., Busch, M. & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners' goals in the context of adult second-language writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 11: New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 189-208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Cumming, A., Eouanzoui, K., Gentil, G. & Yang, L. (2004). Scaling changes in learners' goals for writing improvement over an ESL course. In D. Albrechtsen, K. Haastrup, & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Writing and vocabulary in foreign language acquisition (pp. 35-50). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. 

Curnow, T. J & Liddicoat, A. J. (2010).  Assessment as learning: Engaging students in academic literacy in their first semester. ATN Assessment 08: Engaging Students with Assessment. Available online at: www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/atna/article/view/222/273

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dornyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Longman

Erling, E. J., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2010). Measuring the academic skills of university students: Evaluation of a diagnostic procedure. Assessing Writing, 15, 177-193.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

He, T. H. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(3), 407-431. 

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

Kent, T. (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principle and practice of Structural Equation Modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.

Lacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 90-98.

Lacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equation modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 673-680.

Lea, M. R, & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 157-172.

Lewis, J. (2007). Academic literacy: Principles and learning opportunities for adolescent readers. In J. Lewis, & G. Moorman (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy Instruction: Politics and Promising Practices (pp. 143-166). NY: International Reading Association.

Manchón, R. M. (2001). Trends in the conceptualizations of second language composing strategies: A critical Analysis. In R. M. Manchón, (Ed.), International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 47-70.

Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. & Murphy, L. (2007). A review of writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of first language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice (229-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., and Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-41.

Mattern, R. A. (2005). College students' goal orientations and achievement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 27-32.

Nelson, J., & Hayes. J. R. (1988). How writing context shapes college students’ strategies for writing from sources (Technical Report No. 16). Berkeley. CA: University ofCalifornia, Center for the Study of Writing.

Paton, M. (2007). Why international students are at greater risk of failure: An inconvenient truth. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 6(6), 101–111.

Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Riazi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text production and learning among Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105-137.

Roozen, K. (2010). Tracing trajectories of practice: Repurposing in one student’s developing disciplinary writing processes. Written Communication, 27(3), 318-354.

Slevin, J. F. (1988). Genre theory, academic discourse, and writing within disciplines. In L. Z. Smith (Ed.), Audits of meaning (pp. 3- 16). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62.

Was, C. (2006). Academic achievement goal-orientation: Taking into another look. Electronic Journal of research in Educational Psychology, 4(3), 10, 529-550. 

Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego: Academic Press.

Young, L. & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15, 25-68.

Yang, L., Baba, K., & Cumming, A. (2004). Activity systems for ESL writing improvement: Case studies of three Chinese and three Japanese adult learners of English. In D. Albrechtsen, K. Haastrup & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Writing and vocabulary in foreign language acquisition, Special Issue of Angles on English-Speaking World, 4, 13-33.