Tracing the Benefits of Self Annotation in Genre-based Writing

Abstract

Self-annotation writing is an important tool as it plays the dual roles of encouraging the students to act as reviewers of their own texts and of providing their instructor with a means of better understanding their descriptions and explanations for the design of their texts. However, although annotation writing has appeared in the literature as a pedagogical tool, the studies systematically examining learners’ self annotation writing practices are scant. This study, therefore, aims to gain insights into the benefits of self-annotation writing embedded in genre-based writing activities of a group of EFL learners. The participants’ literacy narratives, self annotation excerpts and their post-instruction views on self-annotation writing were qualitatively analyzed. The findings indicated several benefits of annotation writing, corroborating some previous studies. It is suggested that training learners to articulate their intentions in annotations should be prioritized so that self annotation might work properly as a tool for awareness-raising and learner autonomy

Keywords

• Self annotation, genre-based writing, self assessment, authorial maturity, student-teacher communication

Kaynakça

1. Beck, J.P. (1982). Asking students to annotate their own papers. College Composition and Communication, 33(3), 322-326.
2. Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for Specific Purposes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 165- 186.
3. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bhatia, V. K. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (21-40). Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
5. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
6. Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent language learning programs: The value of annotated samples. Assessing Writing, 10, 174-191.
7. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
8. Charles, M. (1990). Responding to problems in written English using a student self-monitoring technique. ELT Journal, 44(4), 286-293.

9. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 76-89.
10. 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, 287-307.
11. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Cram, B. (1995). Self-assessment: From theory to practice. In: G. Brindley (Ed.), Language assessment in action: Developing a workshop guide for teachers (pp. 271–305). NCELTR: Sydney, NSW.
13. Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal, 54(3), 235-244.
14. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Ferris, D.R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher responses in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
16. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
17. Halliday, M. A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
18. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 162-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hamption Press.
20. Henry, A. & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 147-156.
21. Hirvela, A., & Pierson, H. (2000). Portfolios: Vehicles for authentic self-assessment. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 13-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Hyland, K. (2003a). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
23. Hyland, K. (2003b). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
25. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173- 192.
26. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 148-164.
27. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: CUP.
28. Johns, A. M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R. M., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., Reiff, M. J., et al. (2006). Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 234-249.
29. Kroll, B. (1991). Teaching writing in the ESL context. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 257-263). New York: Newbury House.
30. Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 52(4), 282-289.
32. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
33. Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6 (1), 1–13.
34. Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom. ELT Journal, 50(3), 237-243.
35. Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. Pang, T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: a comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A.M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 145-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 89-101.
38. Porter, C., & Cleland, J. (1995). The portfolio as a learning strategy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
39. Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407- 430.
40. Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (1996). Patterns of NNS student annotations when identifying areas of concern in their writing. System, 24(3), 323-336.
41. Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (1997). Student annotations: What NNS and NS university students say about their own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 245-264.
42. Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
43. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. NY: Cambridge University Press.
45. Swales, J. & Lindemann, S. (2002). Teaching the literature review to international graduate students. In A.M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 105-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. White, E.M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing: Recent advances in understanding, evaluating, and improving student performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. Yaylı, D. (2011). From genre awareness to cross-genre awareness: A study in an EFL context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 121-129.