Cover not available

In:New Approaches to English Linguistics: Building bridges
Edited by Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja and Sarah Chevalier
[Studies in Language Companion Series 177] 2016
► pp. 197–211

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

Building interdisciplinary bridges

MUCH: The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process

 | Malmö University
 | Malmö University
 | Chalmers University of Technology
 | Malmö University
 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Gothenburg
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.177.08war
This paper describes a corpus of writing as a process (MUCH), comprising English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student texts. The corpus will contain a large number of richly annotated papers in several versions from students of different performance levels. It will also include peer and instructor feedback, as well as tools for visualising the revision process, and for analysing the writing process and the peer and instructor feedback. MUCH will make it possible to study how texts develop and change in the course of the writing process and how feedback impacts the process.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Writing studies
    • 2.1Approaches in writing studies
    • 2.2Corpora and their use in writing studies
  • 3.MUCH planned features
    • 3.1What does MUCH contribute to the writing research community?
  • 4.Building MUCH
    • 4.1Data description
    • 4.2Data collection and processing
    • 4.3Text annotation
    • 4.4Data sustainability and availability
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
Ädel, Annelie. 2010. Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the Direct Approach. In Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching, Mari Carmen Campoy-Cubillo, Begoña Belles-Fdortuño & Maria Lluisa Gea-Valor (eds), 39–55. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alsop, Sian & Nesi, Hilary. 2009. Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) Corpus. Corpora 4(1): 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Paul, Bergman, Becky, Bradley, Linda, Gustafson, Magnus & Matzke, Aurora. 2010. Peer reviewing across the Atlantic: Patterns and trends in L1 and L2 comments made in an asynchronous online collaborative learning exchange between Technical Communication students in Sweden and in the United States. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 24(3): 296–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 2011. Standpoints: The disciplined interdisciplinarity of Writing Studies [National Council of Teachers of English]. Research in the Teaching of English 46(1): 8–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol & Huckin, Thomas N.. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition, Culture, Power. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Nekrasova, Tatiana & Horn, Brad. 2011. The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. In TOEFL iBTTM Research Report. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bick, Eckhard. 2012. Towards a semantic annotation of English television news – building and evaluating a Constraint Grammar FrameNet. In Proceedings of the 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (Bali, 7–10 November 2012). Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, 60–69. <[URL]> (12 February 2016).
Charles, Maggie. 2007. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 6: 289–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Kwangsu, Schunn, Christian D. & Charney, Davida. 2006. Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication 23: 260–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, Averil. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curry, Mary Jane & Hewings, Ann. 2002. Approaches to teaching writing. In Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education, Caroline Coffin, Mary Jane Curry, Sharon Goodman, Ann Hewings, Theresa Lillis & Joan Swann (eds), 19–44. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, John M. 2007. Writing from These Roots: Literacy in a Hmong-American Community. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eriksson, Andreas, Finnegan, Damian, Kauppinen, Asko, Wiktorsson, Maria, Wärnsby, Anna & Withers, Peter. 2012. MUCH: The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process. In Proceedings-10th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference. <[URL]> (12 February 2016).
European Commission. 2013. Ethics for Researchers. <[URL]> (14 November 2015).
Finnegan, Damian, Kauppinen, Asko & Wärnsby, Anna. 2015. Automated feedback in a blended learning environment: Student experience and development. In Studies in Writing, 29: Learning and Teaching Writing Online, Mary Deane & Teresa Guasch (eds), 31–45. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flower, Linda S. & Hayes, John R. 1980. The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Cognitive Processes in Writing, Lee W. Gregg & Erwin Ray Steinberg (eds) 31–50. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, Lynne. 2008. Corpus linguistics for academic literacies mediated through discussion activities. In The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2, Speaking, Writing and Other Media Interactions, Diane Dewhurst Belcher & Alan Hirvela (eds), 268–287. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Using a corpus for writing instruction. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keeffe & Michael McCarthy (eds), 444–457. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, Costas. 2005. Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (TESL-EJ) 8(4): A–1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, David & Rijlaarsdam, Gert. 1999. Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction 9: 93–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunersel, Adalet Baris, Simpson, Nancy J., Aufderheide, Karl J. & Wang, Li. 2008. Effectiveness of Calibrated Peer ReviewTM for improving writing and critical thinking skills in biology undergraduate students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8: 25–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamer, John, Purchase, Helen, Luxton-Reilly, Andrew & Denny, Paul. 2014. A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 40(1): 151–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 2004. Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Fiona. 2010. Future directions in feedback on Second Language Writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies 10(2): 171–182.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Hyland, Fiona. 2006. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyon, Sunny. 1996. Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 30: 693–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, Ramesh & Kosem, Iztok. 2007. Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 356–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Francis Christie & James Robert Martin (eds), 3–39. London: Cassell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Richard E. 2005. Writing at the End of the World. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, Nancy & Kinneavy, James. 2003. Rhetoric. In Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, James Flood, Diane Lapp, James R. Squire & Julie M. Jensen (eds) 786–798. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, Melissa M. & Schunn, Christian D. 2009. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science 37(4): 375–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicol, David, Thomson, Avril & Breslin, Caroline. 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39(1): 102–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2001. Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2011. Corpus research applications in language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 205–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vetenskapsrådet. 2015. Ethical Guidelines. [URL]> (14 November 2015).
West, Cornel. 2004. Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. New York NY: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Flowerdew, Lynne
2020. The Academic Literacies approach to scholarly writing: a view through the lens of the ESP/Genre approach. Studies in Higher Education 45:3 ► pp. 579 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue