Journal Review ; Writing in the university: education, knowledge and reputation By Ken Hyland
In the abstract section in this paper it challenges the broad view that writing is somehow part of a more serious aspect of university life - conducting research and teaching students. Seeing literacy as embedded in individual disciplinary beliefs and practices, rather than generic skills that students fail to develop in school, helps explain the difficulties students and academics have in controlling the conventions of disciplinary discourse. In the end, and in an important sense, we are what we write, and we need to understand the unique ways our disciplines deal with colleagues and submit arguments, because through language academics and students conceptualize their subjects and debate their claims persuasively.
In the article that I read in the literature review section, it was inserted or put together with an introduction. The author draws on some of the research he has done over the past ten years, the author has explored what it means to write in the academy and believes that it is important to build knowledge, educate students and negotiate a professional academic career. By seeing literacy as embedded in individual disciplinary beliefs and practices, instead of generic skills that students fail to develop in school, helps explain the difficulties students and academics have in controlling the conventions of disciplinary discourse. I think this article was first written and reviewed by the author because there was no prior research.
The method used is the results obtained from several studies that he has done for the last ten years. His research on various academic genres over the past decade illustrates some of the ways that writers in various disciplines represent themselves, their work and their readers in very different ways. A corpus of 240 research articles with 1.5 million words, for example, shows that around 75% of all features that mark the author's visibility, such as self-mention, personal evaluation and explicit interaction with readers, occur in humanities and social sciences (Hyland 2005b). This is what is characterized by Foucault (1974) as a neo-classical search for univocal discourse - one-to-one correspondence between words and categories of objects, which links the rise of science with 18th century interest in dictionaries, grammar, and scientific taxonomy. Simply put, the relative impersonality of scientific discourse is not the absence of rhetoric but different types of rhetoric, based, like all persuasive writings, on the assumed consensus on how language can be used in a particular community. The problem with such broad generalizations is that it is too easy to overemphasize differences and blame culture for students' writing difficulties. For example, a few years ago John Milton and the author explored a corpus of 1,800 level A examination papers (high school matriculation exams) by Hong Kong (HK) and UK (UK) school graduates for HEDGES and BOOSTERS (Hyland & Milton 1997). In the study we found that although both groups of students used the same number of devices as a whole, around one in every 50 words, UK students (almost all native speakers of English) used more than a third as much as hedges and HK students nearly doubled. because a lot of boosters.
Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution between certainty, probability and likelihood of items in the text of the two groups, with dark bars showing the percentages respectively used by Hong Kong students and light bars used by English students. We can see from this that HK students are more likely to be certain, while British students express more cautious statements as probabilities. Both groups expressed the same possibility.
Although this may seem like a small point, such differences are not always seen as the preferred alternative way to express ideas in different languages, but have a pragmatic consequence.
The results obtained in the form of the fact that the writing of Hong Kong students seems to be far more powerful can direct English-speaking readers, approaching a text with another set of expectations, to make negative moral or cultural judgments about the author. Take this example from the corpus of Hong Kong students:
(1) There is strong evidence of a module relationship between EQ and academic performance. High EQ is definitely an advantage in any area of life and we all know that someone with high EQ can certainly manage their own feelings well and deal effectively with others. The fact that trends from abroad always affect Hong Kong people means that schools now have to teach boys to be equal to women. They have the right to express emotions.
The abundant reinforcement in this example (underlined) can make the writer appear too assertive, too confident, and maybe even dogmatic. In contrast, the use of larger (underlined) hedges in the sample of native English speakers below is more in line with what we expected, so we associate positive qualities with the author, see subtlety, caution and openness with the reader's view:
(2) Britain is perhaps one of the few countries in the world where the constitution is not written. This might seem rather irregular and although it has worked quite well until now, I suggest that this might not be realistic for longer and maybe we might need a Bill of Rights because it's in the US.
We must be aware of the possible negative effects of our unconscious expectations, but I do not believe these differences are really the result of cultural differences. In contrast, contrasting rhetoric experts, who compare cross-language writing, often expect Chinese students, to sink as they should be in the conception of the Buddha's face, to be more careful and more appreciative than strict and decisive English writers (see Hinkel 1997 ). In fact, proficiency seems to play a large role in this outcome, with the use of these forms by higher grade students approaching the estimated use of native English speakers. Looking more closely at reasons through interviews with students and high school textbook studies, we found that these Hong Kong writers overly generalized what they taught about the need to direct when writing in English.
Broadly speaking, the main points that the author wants to convey here are, examining a large number of examples and interviewing students can tell them a lot about students' learning experiences, their understanding of writing, and how they respond to writing assignments in English.
In the conclusions written by the author it seems that the applied linguist overly concerned with the object of his trade and felt guilty for overemphasizing the impact of writing on the academy. It is important to stress that this paper is not just an abstract skill, but a core aspect of the epistemological framework of our field and our identity as academics. We are what we write, and we need to understand the typical ways our disciplines identify problems, ask questions, handle literature, criticize colleagues, and present arguments. In short things: academics' own knowledge, discipline and professional careers are ultimately built through the way we write. To do this is to improve our practice and ensure that teaching academic discourse is not artificially divorced from teaching academic subjects.
Ref : 10.1017/S0261444811000036, Published online: 02 March 2011
In the article that I read in the literature review section, it was inserted or put together with an introduction. The author draws on some of the research he has done over the past ten years, the author has explored what it means to write in the academy and believes that it is important to build knowledge, educate students and negotiate a professional academic career. By seeing literacy as embedded in individual disciplinary beliefs and practices, instead of generic skills that students fail to develop in school, helps explain the difficulties students and academics have in controlling the conventions of disciplinary discourse. I think this article was first written and reviewed by the author because there was no prior research.
The method used is the results obtained from several studies that he has done for the last ten years. His research on various academic genres over the past decade illustrates some of the ways that writers in various disciplines represent themselves, their work and their readers in very different ways. A corpus of 240 research articles with 1.5 million words, for example, shows that around 75% of all features that mark the author's visibility, such as self-mention, personal evaluation and explicit interaction with readers, occur in humanities and social sciences (Hyland 2005b). This is what is characterized by Foucault (1974) as a neo-classical search for univocal discourse - one-to-one correspondence between words and categories of objects, which links the rise of science with 18th century interest in dictionaries, grammar, and scientific taxonomy. Simply put, the relative impersonality of scientific discourse is not the absence of rhetoric but different types of rhetoric, based, like all persuasive writings, on the assumed consensus on how language can be used in a particular community. The problem with such broad generalizations is that it is too easy to overemphasize differences and blame culture for students' writing difficulties. For example, a few years ago John Milton and the author explored a corpus of 1,800 level A examination papers (high school matriculation exams) by Hong Kong (HK) and UK (UK) school graduates for HEDGES and BOOSTERS (Hyland & Milton 1997). In the study we found that although both groups of students used the same number of devices as a whole, around one in every 50 words, UK students (almost all native speakers of English) used more than a third as much as hedges and HK students nearly doubled. because a lot of boosters.
Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution between certainty, probability and likelihood of items in the text of the two groups, with dark bars showing the percentages respectively used by Hong Kong students and light bars used by English students. We can see from this that HK students are more likely to be certain, while British students express more cautious statements as probabilities. Both groups expressed the same possibility.
Although this may seem like a small point, such differences are not always seen as the preferred alternative way to express ideas in different languages, but have a pragmatic consequence.
The results obtained in the form of the fact that the writing of Hong Kong students seems to be far more powerful can direct English-speaking readers, approaching a text with another set of expectations, to make negative moral or cultural judgments about the author. Take this example from the corpus of Hong Kong students:
(1) There is strong evidence of a module relationship between EQ and academic performance. High EQ is definitely an advantage in any area of life and we all know that someone with high EQ can certainly manage their own feelings well and deal effectively with others. The fact that trends from abroad always affect Hong Kong people means that schools now have to teach boys to be equal to women. They have the right to express emotions.
The abundant reinforcement in this example (underlined) can make the writer appear too assertive, too confident, and maybe even dogmatic. In contrast, the use of larger (underlined) hedges in the sample of native English speakers below is more in line with what we expected, so we associate positive qualities with the author, see subtlety, caution and openness with the reader's view:
(2) Britain is perhaps one of the few countries in the world where the constitution is not written. This might seem rather irregular and although it has worked quite well until now, I suggest that this might not be realistic for longer and maybe we might need a Bill of Rights because it's in the US.
We must be aware of the possible negative effects of our unconscious expectations, but I do not believe these differences are really the result of cultural differences. In contrast, contrasting rhetoric experts, who compare cross-language writing, often expect Chinese students, to sink as they should be in the conception of the Buddha's face, to be more careful and more appreciative than strict and decisive English writers (see Hinkel 1997 ). In fact, proficiency seems to play a large role in this outcome, with the use of these forms by higher grade students approaching the estimated use of native English speakers. Looking more closely at reasons through interviews with students and high school textbook studies, we found that these Hong Kong writers overly generalized what they taught about the need to direct when writing in English.
Broadly speaking, the main points that the author wants to convey here are, examining a large number of examples and interviewing students can tell them a lot about students' learning experiences, their understanding of writing, and how they respond to writing assignments in English.
In the conclusions written by the author it seems that the applied linguist overly concerned with the object of his trade and felt guilty for overemphasizing the impact of writing on the academy. It is important to stress that this paper is not just an abstract skill, but a core aspect of the epistemological framework of our field and our identity as academics. We are what we write, and we need to understand the typical ways our disciplines identify problems, ask questions, handle literature, criticize colleagues, and present arguments. In short things: academics' own knowledge, discipline and professional careers are ultimately built through the way we write. To do this is to improve our practice and ensure that teaching academic discourse is not artificially divorced from teaching academic subjects.
Ref : 10.1017/S0261444811000036, Published online: 02 March 2011
Komentar
Posting Komentar