Writing from Academic Sources--Authorship in Writing the Critique. Project 9 (Study 2, Phase 1). Final Report.
Saved in:
| Title: | Writing from Academic Sources--Authorship in Writing the Critique. Project 9 (Study 2, Phase 1). Final Report. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Mathison, Maureen A., Spivey, Nancy Nelson, National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Berkeley, CA. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 92 |
| Publication Date: | 1993 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Academic Discourse, Case Studies, College Students, Content Area Writing, Discourse Analysis, Higher Education, Student Evaluation, Writing Achievement, Writing Evaluation, Writing Processes, Writing Research |
| Abstract: | A study examined how college students wrote a critique of a sociology article; which features of written critiques were valued most by professors in the discipline; and whether students' educational level and status predicted the quality of their critiques. Subjects, 32 students enrolled in an upper-level sociology course, read and responded by criticizing an assigned text in preparation for a classroom discussion. Written critiques were analyzed for the manner in which topics, comments, and support were configured and arranged. The critiques were also assessed for the types of evaluative commentary students made about topics, and for the textual transformations made when writing from the source article. A subset of five case study students completed additional tasks. Results indicated (1) overall, students' written critiques generally were well-organized; (2) students who selected fewer topics in their critiques developed the thematic chains in which the topics were embedded; (3) students were told to limit their critiques to two pages, which may have influenced their decisions to provide detail; (4) critiques that received the highest quality ratings provided predominantly negative commentary on the source article and backed it up with disciplinary sources of support; and (5) students who received the lowest quality ratings provided a summary of main points and personal sources of support. (Eight tables, two figures of data, a sample of classroom discourse, questionnaires, instructions for the reading-writing log, consent forms, a student critique, and instructions for rating critiques are attached. Contains 160 references. (RS) |
| Entry Date: | 1994 |
| Accession Number: | ED367987 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED367987 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED367987 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Report PubTypeId: report PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Writing from Academic Sources--Authorship in Writing the Critique. Project 9 (Study 2, Phase 1). Final Report. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathison%2C+Maureen+A%2E%22">Mathison, Maureen A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Spivey%2C+Nancy+Nelson%22">Spivey, Nancy Nelson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22National+Center+for+the+Study+of+Writing+and+Literacy%2C+Berkeley%2C+CA%2E%22">National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Berkeley, CA.</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 92 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1993 – Name: SourceSuprt Label: Sponsoring Agency Group: SrcSuprt Data: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Discourse%22">Academic Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Area+Writing%22">Content Area Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discourse+Analysis%22">Discourse Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Achievement%22">Writing Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Evaluation%22">Writing Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Research%22">Writing Research</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: A study examined how college students wrote a critique of a sociology article; which features of written critiques were valued most by professors in the discipline; and whether students' educational level and status predicted the quality of their critiques. Subjects, 32 students enrolled in an upper-level sociology course, read and responded by criticizing an assigned text in preparation for a classroom discussion. Written critiques were analyzed for the manner in which topics, comments, and support were configured and arranged. The critiques were also assessed for the types of evaluative commentary students made about topics, and for the textual transformations made when writing from the source article. A subset of five case study students completed additional tasks. Results indicated (1) overall, students' written critiques generally were well-organized; (2) students who selected fewer topics in their critiques developed the thematic chains in which the topics were embedded; (3) students were told to limit their critiques to two pages, which may have influenced their decisions to provide detail; (4) critiques that received the highest quality ratings provided predominantly negative commentary on the source article and backed it up with disciplinary sources of support; and (5) students who received the lowest quality ratings provided a summary of main points and personal sources of support. (Eight tables, two figures of data, a sample of classroom discourse, questionnaires, instructions for the reading-writing log, consent forms, a student critique, and instructions for rating critiques are attached. Contains 160 references. (RS) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1994 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED367987 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED367987 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 92 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Academic Discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Case Studies Type: general – SubjectFull: College Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Content Area Writing Type: general – SubjectFull: Discourse Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Writing Research Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Writing from Academic Sources--Authorship in Writing the Critique. Project 9 (Study 2, Phase 1). Final Report. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Berkeley, CA. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mathison, Maureen A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Spivey, Nancy Nelson IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 02 Type: published Y: 1993 |
| ResultId | 1 |
