Kaasõppija tagasiside kui akadeemiliste tekstide kvaliteeti mõjutav tegur

Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.Tekstiloomeoskus on vajalik oskus. Kaasaaegse tehnoloogia arenguga seoses on selle olulisus võrreldes varasemaga suurenenud. Kirjalikud tekstid ühendavad inimesi suuremal määral kui me mõnikümmend aastat tagasi oleksime osanud ette kujutada. Kuna tekstiloome tähtsus meie igapäevaelus üha kasvab, oleme me tunnistajateks ka tekstiloome uurimise kui teadusliku suuna arenemisele ning kasvule. Tekstiloome (interdistsiplinaarne) uurimine areneb uutesse suundadesse, tekivad uued žanrid, arendatakse välja uusi rakendusi ja nutikaid tehnoloogiaid. Haridussüsteemi üks eesmärke on õpetada tekstide loomist. Tekstiloome on keerukas protsess ning selle oskuse omandamine võtab aastaid. Kõrghariduses tuleb õppijate tekstiloome oskusi edasi arendada, õpetades üliõpilasi looma tekste akadeemilistest žanrites, ning toetada teadmise loomist kirjaliku eneseväljenduse teel. Siinne väitekiri on välja kasvanud praktilisest vajadusest uurida tekstiloomeprotsessi Eesti kontekstis. Vajadus sellise uurimuse järele ilmnes õpetades tekstiloomet kõrgharidussüsteemis, kus kirjaliku väljendusoskuse uurimine on suuresti alles lapsekingades. Siinses väitekirjas uuritakse tagasiside mõju tekstiloomeprotsessile sama teksti mustandite eri versioonides. Peamiste uurimistulemustena selgus, et parandusi soodustavad kaht tüüpi kommentaarid: 1) kui tagasisidestaja toob kommentaaris välja konkreetse probleemi ning pakub võimaliku muudatuse ning 2) kommentaarid, mis korduvad eri isikute tagasisides. Kuigi need tulemused võivad näida iseenesest mõistetavad, näitab praktika vastupidist. Kaasõppijate tekstide tagasisidestamine ei ole meie haridussüsteemis tavaline, see nõuab spetsiaalseid oskusi, sh keelelisi vahendeid, mida tuleb kõrgkoolides õpetada.Writing is considered an essential skill to have. With the emergence of modern technology perhaps even more so than in the past. Writing connects us at a larger scale than we could have ever imagined just three decades ago. The World Wide Web offers a plethora of written text increasing daily exponentially in size. Not surprisingly, with the increasing demands writing has in our daily communication through media such as e-mail, text messages, or Facebook post, we see the field of writing research expanding into multiple directions, with new genres emerging, disciplines being crossed, writing and communication tools being developed, and intelligent writing technology being created. Education in general has a responsibility to teach writing to students. Writing, as we know, is a complex task and one that takes years to develop and master. Higher education, more specifically, has the responsibility to further hone the writing skills of their students through the practice of specific academic genres presented as example texts for reading and knowledge creation through writing. This study emerges from the practice of teaching writing to students in a higher educational establishment where the practice of writing is common, but the teaching of writing is still an emerging discipline. This study, therefore, investigates writing by applying a research approach informed by current writing theories and writing models. The results pinpoint two characteristic features that determine observable revision in subsequent drafts: a reviewer instructing with an explicit example what the writers should revise in a subsequent draft and multiple reviewers informing the writer about the same aspect in the text that needs revision in a subsequent draft. Although it seems obvious, practice demonstrates that it is not. In the context of this study, students giving each other peer feedback is not common practice and students often lack the language of evaluation. As a result, students provide feedback which is not effective and in some degrees harmful. Therefore, it is important to support students to give effective peer reviews, once we know what is considered effective

Using author-devised cover letters instead of instructor-devised rubrics to generate useful written peer feedback comments

This study uses both qualitative and quantitative research methods in a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether the principled use of author-devised cover letters (CLs) within doctorate writing groups can result in more useful reviewer feedback comments than would be attained through the use of instructor-devised writing assessment rubrics. In this context, CLs are self-devised written documents that help the reviewers give the author useful and critical written feedback comments. Twenty participants in different discipline-specific writing groups were given explicit instruction about the importance and content of CLs during the peer feedback process. Their perceptions of a useful CL were obtained from post-course questionnaires and analysed qualitatively. In addition, their CLs at various stages of the feedback process were analysed quantitatively for genre, social presence, and evidence of teaching instruction, and compared to the CLs produced by 20 PhD students in similar writing groups who received minimal CL instruction. The study found that author-devised CLs, as opposed to instructor-devised rubrics, can allow the authors the flexibility of providing text-specific background details, requesting reviewer help on specific textual aspects, using social presence to develop a sense of writing community, and provide reflection upon their own writing

Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts

Although peer review is a common practice in writing classrooms, there are still few studies that analyze written patterns in students’ peer reviews across multiple institutional contexts. Based on a sample of approximately 50,000 peer reviews written by students at the University of South Florida (USF), Malmö University (MAU), and the University of Tartu (UT), this study examines how students formulate criticism and praise, negotiate power relations, and express authority and expertise in reviewing their peers’ writing. The study specifically focuses on features of affective language, including adjectives, expressions of suggestion, boosters and hedges, cognitive verbs, personal pronouns, and adversative transitions. The results show that across all three contexts, the peer reviews contain a blend of foci, including descriptions and evaluations of peer texts, directives or suggestions for revisions, responses to the writer or the text, and indications of reader interpretations. Across all three contexts, peer reviews also contain more positively glossed responses than negatively glossed responses. By contrast, certain features of affective language pattern idiosyncratically in different contexts; these distinctions can be explained variously according to writer experience, nativeness, and institutional context. The findings carry implications for continued research and for instructional guidance for student peer review

Centralised Support for Writing, Research, Learning and Teaching: Case Studies of Existing Models across Europe

COST Action 15221 has at its core the development of conversations and research around the shared territory of support for, and development of, writing, research, learning and teaching. Throughout the Action, Short-term Scientific Missions (STSMs) and other networking tools provided opportunities for dialogue and research across participating institutions, which illuminated intersections across European institutions and contributed to institutional transformation based on shared experiences. Informed by this dialogue and the experience of participating in the Action, the case studies herein present an overview of the centralised supports for writing, research, learning and teaching at their respective institutions, focusing on the purposes, processes, knowledge and scholarship, skills, and values which drive the ethos and mission of the centralised supports. The case studies examine the interoperability and synergies across the four key centralised supports for writing, research, learning and teaching at each institution, commenting on the effectiveness, efficiency and complementarity of these centralised supports and considering the opportunities and challenges associated with the model present at each institution. This collection of case studies provides a rich overview of the models of centralised supports in writing, research, learning and teaching in place across the COST Action. It should be noted that, as the case studies are an interpretation of the institutional models through an individual lens, the case studies represent the author’s/authors’ own understanding of the model and not that of the institution

Cross-linguistic patterns of metadiscourse: Disciplinary similarities and section-based differences

This study examines metadiscourse markers across a corpus of Estonian and Lithuanian journal articles in the field of linguistics. We aim to 1) compare the global use of all the metadiscourse markers across the languages and texts, making distinctions between these languages and specific academic journals, and 2) to discern whether similar and/or different patterns can be identified across the languages and whether such patterns also manifest across various academic journals. We find that Estonian writers use self-mentions more frequently in methods sections than Lithuanian counterparts. Comparing journals, the Lithuanian journal Kalbotyra shows more transition markers, code glosses, and endophoric markers, while the Estonian ERÜ aastaraamat relies more on transition markers in results and discussion sections. Despite discipline similarities, variations emerge in specific sections and interpersonal categories across languages and journals. The study provides insights into metadiscourse patterns and their role in different languages and academic contexts, offering potential guidance for future research and practice in non-English academic writing. *** "Metadiskursuse mustrite keeltevaheline võrdlus: valdkondlikud sarnasused ja artikliosade erinevused" Artikkel käsitleb metadiskursuse markereid eesti ja leedu keeleteaduslikes ajakirjades. Meie eesmärk on 1) võrrelda kõigi metadiskursuse markerite üldist kasutust tekstides keeliti, otsides nii keeltes kui ka ajakirjade kaupa ilmnevaid erinevusi, ning 2) leida keeliti võimalikud sarnased ja/või erinevad mustrid ja selgitada välja, kas need mustrid tulevad esile ka eri ajakirjades. Tulemused näitavad, et eesti autorid kasutavad artiklite meetodiosas enesele osutamisi (ingl self mentions) sagedamini kui leedu autorid. Ajakirjade võrdluses leidub leedu ajakirjas Kalbotyra rohkem sidususmarkereid (transition markers), täpsustavaid markereid (code glosses) ja tekstisiseseid viiteid (endophoric markers), samal ajal kui Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamatus jäävad sellised lugejat juhatavad markerid rohkem tulemuste ja arutelu osadesse. Vaatamata valdkondlikele sarnasustele ilmneb siiski erinevusi teatud artikliosades ja interpersonaalse metadiskursuse kategooriates nii keeliti kui ka ajakirjade lõikes. Uurimus heidab valgust metadiskursuse kasutusmustritele ja nende rollile eri keeltes ja akadeemilistes kontekstides ning võib olla edaspidi suunanäitajaks mitteingliskeelsete akadeemiliste tekstide uurijatele ja praktikutele

Final Action Dissemination (FAD) Report of COST Action 15221 – We ReLaTe

This is the final report of COST Action 15221 – Advancing effective institutional models towards cohesive teaching, learning, research and writing development or ‘We ReLaTe’. The purpose of the report is to present the outputs and outcomes of the Action in fulfilment of the Action’s research and capacity building objectives. The report has been written for any reader interested in the work of a COST Action and for any reader interested in the provision of professional development/learning support for higher education staff in writing, research, learning and teaching which was the topic of the Action

Letter from the Editors

This special issue of Educare is published in collaboration with NB!Write, The Nordic and Baltic Writing in Higher Education Network, who aim to consolidate and disseminate writing research and pedagogy and forge new collaborations in the region. Therefore, in this issue of Educare, the Reader will find contributions investigating how writing and the teaching of writing are embedded and supported in different international, national, local and institutional models. The issue consists of three research articles, three position papers and an interview. The focus is on the recent initiatives in the Nordic and Baltic region, but other European contexts of relevance to the regional writing initiatives are also represented. More specifically, the contributing authors explicitly situate writing issues in particular institutional contexts, explore writing support and development of student writing and instructor competency and articulate strategies to make this work sustainable

Letter from the Editors

This special issue of Educare is published in collaboration with NB!Write, The Nordic and Baltic Writing in Higher Education Network, who aim to consolidate and disseminate writing research and pedagogy and forge new collaborations in the region. Therefore, in this issue of Educare, the Reader will find contributions investigating how writing and the teaching of writing are embedded and supported in different international, national, local and institutional models. The issue consists of three research articles, three position papers and an interview. The focus is on the recent initiatives in the Nordic and Baltic region, but other European contexts of relevance to the regional writing initiatives are also represented. More specifically, the contributing authors explicitly situate writing issues in particular institutional contexts, explore writing support and development of student writing and instructor competency and articulate strategies to make this work sustainable

Letter from the Editors

This special issue of Educare is published in collaboration with NB!Write, The Nordic and Baltic Writing in Higher Education Network, who aim to consolidate and disseminate writing research and pedagogy and forge new collaborations in the region. Therefore, in this issue of Educare, the Reader will find contributions investigating how writing and the teaching of writing are embedded and supported in different international, national, local and institutional models. The issue consists of three research articles, three position papers and an interview. The focus is on the recent initiatives in the Nordic and Baltic region, but other European contexts of relevance to the regional writing initiatives are also represented. More specifically, the contributing authors explicitly situate writing issues in particular institutional contexts, explore writing support and development of student writing and instructor competency and articulate strategies to make this work sustainable