A Case Study of ESP Practice: Towards Better Tutoring of College Student Graduation Thesis Abstract and Introduction Writing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research is a case study approach towards the better tutoring of college student graduation thesis abstract and introduction writing as English for Specific Purposes practice. Based on the situation in Shanghai University of Electric Power (SUEP), this study starts with the exploration of what was claimed by Vijay K Bhatia as something of which “even expert members of the academic community sometimes fail to make a proper distinction” (Bhatia, 1993, p.76), that is, the differences between two genres of academic writing, namely, abstract and introduction. Thirty-five pairs of SUEP student abstracts and introductions, chosen at random, were analyzed, ten SUEP thesis tutors were given a questionnaire about their way of tutoring in thesis writing, and ten currently-used reference books for essay writing were reviewed, in order to see whether any problems actually exist in real thesis writing and tutoring practice. In the research, three main defects were found indeed in the student abstracts and introductions: (a) failure to observe proper moves normally adopted to realize the communicative functions of the abstract and introduction, (b) content misplacement and, (c) irrelevant ideas in the two parts of the essay. These problems seem to have resulted from the students’ unawareness or confusion of the two different genres of writing. Thesis tutors and reference materials checked in this study, however, were found not to pay enough attention to the distinction either, thus echoing Bhatia’s statement mentioned above. Then, after a careful discussion of differences between abstract and introduction from a comparative perspective, this study concludes that the following factors might be decisive to improve the situation: (a) specific move-based requirements for abstract and introduction writing in students’ essay writing, (b) thesis tutors’ awareness of the necessity to help students notice and realize these differences as a demonstration of academic writing competence, (c) practical related reference materials for students, (d) reasonable assessment standards to consolidate the necessity of the distinction, (e) lectures to teach such important points as move-structure, and commonly used phraseology in each move, and (f) further attention to similar issues such as citation, referencing and conclusion to see if they are also dealt with according to internationally accepted academic practice in students’ essay writing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».