首页> 外文学位 >An activity-theory analysis of how college students revise after writing center conferences.
【24h】

An activity-theory analysis of how college students revise after writing center conferences.

机译:活动理论分析大学生在撰写中心会议后如何进行修改。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Although researchers in composition studies have examined the instructional conditions that help students revise successfully, there is little published scholarship about how college students use feedback from a peer tutor in the revising process. Thus, I designed a qualitative, collective case study to investigate how students revised after writing center conferences. I used the conceptual framework of activity theory to analyze the entire system of student revision. I used the concept of situation definition to examine how students' understanding of writing conferences and rhetorical concepts, such as revision, changed (or did not change) during the writing conference. I analyzed the revisions with a taxonomy from a study by Faigley and Witte (1981).;The findings of this study were centered on two different groups of students who had writing center conferences: those who had specific goals for their writing conferences and those who did not. Students who did not have specific goals for their conferences ceded authority to the writing consultant (the title that this writing center used instead of "peer tutor") who they believed could identify and correct sentence-level errors. When these students revised, they almost always integrated direct feedback about how to correct errors in grammar and mechanics because they believed that their instructors valued writing that was free of errors. But these students only integrated indirect feedback about microstructure revisions if they believed that the revisions were important to other aspects of the activity system such as their instructors. Students rarely made macrostructure revisions, but writing consultants rarely discussed this kind of revision.;The writing consultants and the students without specific goals for their conferences had different situation definitions of the purpose of a writing conference and how to meaningfully revise their writing. The writing consultants did not try to promote situation re-definition by moving the discussion away from the text toward a conversation about the strategies that the student used to produce the draft. The conducted the conference at the level of the student in order to fulfill the student's agenda. This contradicted the main philosophy of the writing center, which was that a conference should be a productive conversation about the ideas in a piece of writing.;The second group of students, who had specific goals for their conferences, consisted of writing consultants who also had writing conferences with other writing consultants. Writing consultants shared the same situation definition of the purpose of a writing conference and this led to them having productive conversations that framed the act of revision in a more complex way than "revising for the instructor." However, their conferences were focused on how to revise the text, so the consultants also did not try to promote situation re-definition to help their peers develop new writing strategies.;The faculty in this research study had differing conceptions of the purpose of the writing center, but their situation definition was closer to that of the students who believed that the writing center was for helping students edit their texts. Instructors used the writing center as a resource to help their students revise their writing, but those who believed the writing center was only for basic writing assignments did not use the writing center or relied on writing consultants with specialized knowledge to help them.;An important implication of this research is that peer tutors should be trained to elicit the students' situation definitions of what a writing conference is for and what it means to meaningfully revise. In this way, peer tutors can structure an activity that focuses on helping students to develop situation definitions that are more appropriate for successfully revising their academic writing and for completing future writing projects. Writing centers can also work to help instructors develop more appropriate situation definitions of what a writing conference can do for their students.
机译:尽管作文研究的研究人员已经研究了可以帮助学生成功进行修改的教学条件,但是关于大学生如何在修改过程中使用来自同伴导师的反馈的学术论文很少。因此,我设计了一个定性的集体案例研究,以研究学生在撰写中心会议后如何进行修订。我使用活动理论的概念框架来分析学生修订的整个系统。我使用情境定义的概念来检查学生在写作会议期间对写作会议的理解和修辞观念(例如修订)如何变化(或没有变化)。我根据Faigley和Witte(1981)的一项研究,使用分类法对修订进行了分析;该研究的结果集中于两个有写作中心会议的学生群体:那些有特定写作目标的学生和那些从事写作会议的学生。没有。没有特定会议目标的学生将权限授予写作顾问(该写作中心使用的标题是“同行导师”,但他们认为他们可以识别并纠正句子级的错误)。当这些学生进行修订时,他们几乎总是集成了有关如何纠正语法和力学错误的直接反馈,因为他们相信老师会重视没有错误的写作。但是,如果这些学生认为修订对活动系统的其他方面(例如他们的老师)很重要,那么他们只会集成有关微观结构修订的间接反馈。学生很少进行宏观结构的修订,但是写作顾问很少讨论这种修订。;写作顾问和没有特定会议目标的学生对写作会议的目的以及如何有意义地修改写作有不同的情况定义。写作顾问并没有试图通过将讨论从课文转移到关于学生用来制定草案的策略的对话来促进重新定义情境。为了完成学生的日程,在学生级别进行了会议。这与写作中心的主要哲学思想相矛盾,即写作会议应该是一篇关于写作思想的富有成果的对话;第二组学生的会议有特定的目标,他们由写作顾问组成,他们还与其他写作顾问举行过写作会议。写作顾问对于写作会议的目的具有相同的情况定义,这导致他们进行了富有成效的对话,这些对话以比“为指导老师修改”更为复杂的方式来构成修订行为。但是,他们的会议集中在如何修改文本上,因此顾问们也没有尝试促进情境的重新定义来帮助他们的同龄人开发新的写作策略。写作中心,但他们的情况定义与认为写作中心是用于帮助学生编辑其文本的学生的定义更接近。讲师使用写作中心作为资源来帮助学生修改他们的写作,但是那些认为写作中心仅用于基本写作任务的人则没有使用写作中心或依靠具有专业知识的写作顾问来帮助他们。这项研究的含义是,应该培训同伴导师,以使学生对写作会议的目的和有意义地进行修改的意义做出定义。通过这种方式,同伴导师可以组织一项活动,着重于帮助学生制定更适合成功修改其学术写作并完成未来写作项目的情境定义。写作中心还可以帮助教师制定更合适的情境定义,以说明写作会议可以为学生做些什么。

著录项

  • 作者单位

    The University of Iowa.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Iowa.;
  • 学科 Education Language and Literature.;Education Educational Psychology.;Language Rhetoric and Composition.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2011
  • 页码 317 p.
  • 总页数 317
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号