Writing the dissertation proposal: a comparative case study of four nonnative- and two native-English-speaking doctoral students of education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The textual features of the proposals as well as the processes of producing them were influenced by the social/disciplinary contexts in which the students were situated and the personal states of the students. The processes of writing the proposal varied more among each individual student rather than between the NNS and NS speakers even though some NNS students reported that they spent more time on editing their proposals and they faced big challenges in the English language and academic writing conventions. I found, in analyzing the proposals, that differences in the students' written texts were less related to their linguistic or cultural backgrounds but more to the ideology and epistemological and methodological norms and conventions of their disciplines or programs of study. Through the lenses of 6 doctoral students of education, their dissertation proposals, and their mentors, this study describes the context, processes, and products of the students' proposal writing. It also analyzes fundamental influences on graduate students' proposal writing and areas of individual differences (besides linguistic backgrounds) among the students' writing which affected the textual features of the students' proposals and their processes of producing the proposals. Data were collected over a period of 10 months in 2 graduate programs in education in a large Canadian university from 4 nonnative-English-speaking (NNS) and 2 native-English-speaking (NS) doctoral students of education and from 5 professors who were nominated by the students and deemed most familiar with these students' thesis proposal writing. The data consist of interviews, a questionnaire completed by each student, 6 dissertation proposals, and other written documents produced by the students and their professors. The study has several implications for theory, pedagogy, and future research. The construct of NNS versus NS was problematic in practice. Both NNS and NS graduate students need ongoing support from their professors and writing instructors or services while they engage in disciplinary writing. Some NNS students may need more help with grammar, vocabulary, and styles of academic genres than their NS counterparts do. Immersion/participation in disciplinary discourse communities and explicit instructions on discipline-specific writing norms/conventions and the English language itself are of equal importance to success of the students' academic enculturation.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».