Cover not available

In:Corpora and Rhetorically Informed Text Analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScope
Edited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 94–118

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Language patterns in secondary and postsecondary student writing

 | University of Michigan
Published online: 29 June 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.109.05aul
Abstract
For as long as new college students have written English, they have done so badly. Or so, at least, is the headline story from 19th century Harvard reports to 21st century coverage. These claims keep us firmly in a language regulation paradigm focused on error, rather than a language exploration paradigm focused on knowledge and analysis: We hear a lot of complaints about what student writers can’t do, but we don’t learn much about what characterizes secondary and postsecondary writing. To do something different, this study uses DocuScope’s language cluster tool and two corpora (of incoming student Dirscted Self Placement writing and upper-level student writing, to three ends: (1) to illustrate language exploration as a productive (and fun!) orientation toward student writing at different levels, (2) to connect abstracted claims – alleged reasons that “new college students can’t write” – to rhetorical patterns in actual students’ writing, and (3) to use empirical writing data to debunk myths about college writing development. Ultimately, the study shows significant rhetorical differences between secondary and postsecondary writing that are linked to the different assignment tasks at each level. It also shows how we can use DocuScope language clusters to support students’ metacognitive awareness of secondary and postsecondary writing practices
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Lamenting student writing
  • 2.Language regulation: What are students doing so wrong?
    • 2.1“Grammar” and mechanics
    • 2.2Disorganized structure
    • 2.3Generalizations and overstatement
    • 2.4Informality
    • 2.5Who knows
    • 2.6A confusing synopsis
  • 3.Language exploration: What are students doing?
    • 3.1Secondary versus postsecondary writing tasks
  • 4.Language exploration: The study
    • 4.1The study corpora
      • 4.1.1Secondary writing by students entering the university: The DSP corpus
      • 4.1.2Successful postsecondary writing at the university: MICUSP
    • 4.2Corpus details
    • 4.3Analysis methods
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1What are significant rhetorical differences between secondary and postsecondary writing?
      • 6.1.1Postsecondary writing rhetorical patterns
      • 6.1.2Secondary writing rhetorical patterns
      • 6.1.3No significant difference and low percent difference
    • 6.2How might these differences help explain claims about student writing?
    • 6.3How might we use patterns to support students’ metacognitive awareness of different secondary and postsecondary writing practices?
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (58)
References
Anson, C. M. (2016). The Pop Warner chronicles: A case study in contextual adaptation and the transfer of writing ability. College Composition and Communication, 67(4), 518.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011). The national study of writing instruction: Methods and procedures. Center on English Learning & Achievement, Albany NY. Retrieved on 27 December, 2011 from [URL]
(2013). Writing instruction that works: Proven methods for middle and high school classrooms. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Mullis, I., & Jenkins, L. (1990). The writing report card, 1984–88: Findings from the nation’s report card. National Assessment of Educational Progress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aull, L. L. (2015a). Connecting writing and language in assessment: Examining style, tone, and argument in the US Common Core standards and in exemplary student writing. Assessing Writing, 24, 59–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Generality and certainty in undergraduate writing over time. In A. R. Gere (Ed.), Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020a). How students write: A linguistic analysis. Modern Language Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Student-centered assessment and online writing feedback: Technology in a time of crisis. Assessing Writing, 46, 100483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. N., & Lowry, E. (2017). The five-paragraph essay transmits knowledge. In C. E. Ball & D. M. Loewe (Eds.), Bad ideas about writing (pp. 214–219). West Virginia University Libraries Digital Publishing Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis. Language and Computers, 46, 47–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brereton, J. (2012). A closer look at the Harvard entrance examinations in the 1870s. In N. Elliot & L. Perelman (Eds.), Writing assessment in the 21st century: Essays in honor of Edward M. White (pp. 31–43). Hampton Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, I. L., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Genre awareness, academic argument, and transferability. The WAC Journal, 22, 65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clauss, P., & Pinto, L. (2011). Is data the plural of anecdote? Inductive arguments in composition. OSSA, 9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devitt, A. J. (2007). Transferability and genres. In C. J. Keller & C. R. Weisser (Eds.), The locations of composition (pp. 215–227). SUNY Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gannon, S. (2019). Teaching writing in the NAPLAN era: The experiences of secondary English teachers. English in Australia, 54(2), 43–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gere, A. R. (2018). Developing writers in higher education: A longitudinal study. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. (2017). Why kids can’t write. The New York Times, 2. Retrieved on 22 January 2023 from [URL]
Helberg, A., Poznahovska, M., Ishizaki, S., Kaufer, D., Werner, N., & Wetzel, D. (2018). Teaching textual awareness with DocuScope: Using corpus-driven tools and reflection to support students’ written decision-making. Assessing Writing, 38, 40–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, A. S., Briggs, L. R., & Hurlbut, B. S. (1896). Twenty years of school and college English. Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F., & West, G. K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 333–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2006). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. (2012). Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 276–296). IGI Global. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufer, D., Geisler, C., Vlachos, P., & Ishizaki, S. (2006). Mining textual knowledge for writing education and research: The DocuScope project. In Writing and Digital Media (Ch. 9, pp 115–129). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Do academics really write this way? A corpus investigation of moves and templates in “They Say/I Say”. College Composition and Communication, 67(3), 437.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcellino, W. (2019). Seniority in writing studies: A corpus analysis. Journal of Writing Analytics, 3(1), 183–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melzer, D. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of college writing. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newkirk, T. R., Cameron, T. D., & Selfe, C. L. (1976). What Johnny can’t write. A university view of freshman writing ability. English Journal, 66(8), 65–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, A., & Baker, P. (2012). Does semantic tagging identify cultural change in British and American English? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 295–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringler, H., Klebanov, B. B., & Kaufer, D. (2018). Placing writing tasks in local and global contexts: The case of argumentative writing. Journal of Writing Analytics, 2, 34–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rounsaville, A., Goldberg, R., & Bawarshi, A. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 1(32), 97–112.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2014). WordSmith Tools (Version 6.0). Oxford Univerversity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2014). “Words that you said got bigger”: English language learners’ lived experiences of deficit discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(4), 386–406.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Cultivating critical language awareness in the writing classroom. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheils, M. (1975). Why Johnny can’t write. Newsweek, 8 December, 58–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smitherman, G. (2017). Raciolinguistics,“mis-education,” and language arts teaching in the 21st century. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 32(2), 3. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stedman, L. C. (2008). The NAEP long-term trend assessment: A review of its transformation, use, and findings. Retrieved from Paper Commissioned for the 20th Anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board 1988–2008.
Stedman, L. C., Mullis, I. V., & Timpane, M. (1998). An assessment of the contemporary debate over US achievement. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 1, 53–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thaiss, C., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines. Research on the academic writing life. Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wardle, E. (2009). ‘Mutt genres’ and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765–789.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner, J. (2018). Why they can’t write: Killing the five-paragraph essay and other necessities: JHU Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wetzel, D., Brown, D., Werner, N., Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. (2021). Computer-assisted rhetorical analysis: Instructional design and formative assessment using DocuScope. The Journal of Writing Analytics, 5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue