Explore the vast range of titles available.

Step-by-step approaches for all types of writing, from essays to academic assignments to workplace emails. Includes chapters covering: fundamental grammar rules and terms; how to construct sentences and choose the right words; the best ways to approach exam essays, research papers, and professional emails; processes for editing and revising your own work to achieve the best possible result.

In recent years, a slight increase in the use of informal elements has been observed in academic writing, indicating a shift toward a more interactive connection between authors and readers in scholarly communication. Although more flexibility is found in academic texts, EFL students’ ability to develop academic writing styles has not been fully explored in the Thai context.  This research investigated the distribution of 10 informal features established by Hyland and Jiang (2017) in Thai EFL students’ academic essays and examined EFL writing instructors' perceptions of such features. The data were collected from a corpus of 147 academic essays written by Thai undergraduate English majors. EFL writing instructors’ perceptions of the use of informal features were collected through questionnaire responses. The results revealed that the most frequently occurring informal features were second-person pronouns, first-person pronouns, and sentence-initial conjunctions, respectively. While the writing instructors perceived split infinitives, unattended anaphoric pronouns, and sentence-final prepositions as highly acceptable informal features, they were unlikely to approve of contractions, sentence-initial conjunctions, and exclamations in students’ academic assignments. The findings of this study suggest pedagogical approaches that instructors emphasize a balance between established norms of academic writing and pragmatic considerations in students’ writing processes. Ultimately, more student engagement with academic writing styles should be included in writing instruction to enhance their understanding and development of academic discourse proficiency.

Automated essay scoring can produce reliable scores that are highly correlated with human scores, but is limited in its evaluation of content and other higher-order aspects of writing. The increased use of automated essay scoring in high-stakes testing underscores the need for human scoring that is focused on higher-order aspects of writing. This study experimentally evaluated several alternative procedures for eliciting distinct human scores and improving their reliability. Essays written in response to the argument and issue tasks of the Analytical Writing measure of the GRE General Test were scored by experienced raters under different conditions. Criteria for evaluation included inter-rater agreement, agreement with machine scores, and cross-task reliability. First, the use of a modified scoring rubric that focused on higher-order writing skills increased the reliability for one type of task but decreased it for another. Second, scoring in batches of similar length essays did not have any effect on scores. Third, scoring with available automated essay scores increased reliability of human scores, but also increased their similarity with automated scores. Finally, the use of a more refined 18-point scoring scale significantly increased reliability. (Verlag).

Peer feedback is introduced as an effective learning strategy, especially in large-size classes where teachers face high workloads. However, for complex tasks such as writing an argumentative essay, without support peers may not provide high-quality feedback since it requires a high level of cognitive processing, critical thinking skills, and a deep understanding of the subject. With the promising developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly after the emergence of ChatGPT, there is a global argument that whether AI tools can be seen as a new source of feedback or not for complex tasks. The answer to this question is not completely clear yet as there are limited studies and our understanding remains constrained. In this study, we used ChatGPT as a source of feedback for students' argumentative essay writing tasks and we compared the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback with peer feedback. The participant pool consisted of 74 graduate students from a Dutch university. The study unfolded in two phases: firstly, students' essay data were collected as they composed essays on one of the given topics; subsequently, peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback data were collected through engaging peers in a feedback process and using ChatGPT as a feedback source. Two coding schemes including coding schemes for essay analysis and coding schemes for feedback analysis were used to measure the quality of essays and feedback. Then, a MANOVA analysis was employed to determine any distinctions between the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. Additionally, Spearman's correlation was utilized to explore potential links between the essay quality and the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. The results showed a significant difference between feedback generated by ChatGPT and peers. While ChatGPT provided more descriptive feedback including information about how the essay is written, peers provided feedback including information about identification of the problem in the essay. The overarching look at the results suggests a potential complementary role for ChatGPT and students in the feedback process. Regarding the relationship between the quality of essays and the quality of the feedback provided by ChatGPT and peers, we found no overall significant relationship. These findings imply that the quality of the essays does not impact both ChatGPT and peer feedback quality. The implications of this study are valuable, shedding light on the prospective use of ChatGPT as a feedback source, particularly for complex tasks like argumentative essay writing. We discussed the findings and delved into the implications for future research and practical applications in educational contexts.(DIPF/Orig.).

In recent years, a slight increase in the use of informal elements has been observed in academic writing, indicating a shift toward a more interactive connection between authors and readers in scholarly communication. Although more flexibility is found in academic texts, EFL students’ ability to develop academic writing styles has not been fullyexplored in the Thai context. This research investigated the distribution of 10 informal features established by Hyland and Jiang (2017) in Thai EFL students’ academic essays and examined EFL writing instructors' perceptions of such features. The data were collected from a corpus of 147 academic essays (63,029 words) written by Thai undergraduate English majors. The survey responses were obtained from 31 EFL writing instructors regarding their perceptions of informal features collected through online questionnaire responses. The results revealed that the most frequently occurring informal features were second-person pronouns, first-person pronouns, and sentence-initial conjunctions, respectively. While the writing instructors perceived split infinitives, unattended anaphoric pronouns, and sentence-final prepositions as highly acceptable informal features, they were unlikely to approve of contractions, sentence-initial conjunctions, and exclamations in students’ academic assignments. The study combines corpus-based evidence with instructor perspectives to reveal a mismatch between students’ linguistic practices and academic writing expectations in the Thai context. It further suggests that explicit instruction in academic writing conventions should be more fully integrated into the writing curriculum to strengthen EFL students’ understanding and development of academic discourse proficiency.

We know little to what extent peer feedback strategies can be applied on a large scale in higher education for complex tasks. This study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate an online-supported peer feedback module for large-scale use to enhance higher education students’ argumentative essay writing performance. To do this, 330 students from five different courses at bachelor and master levels followed the online supported peer feedback module. In this module, students were asked to write an argumentative essay about a controversial issue, provide peer feedback for two peers, and revise their original essays based on the received feedback. Three types of data including original essay (pre-test) data, peer feedback data, and revised essay (post-test) data collected. Students also filled out the learning satisfaction questionnaire at the end of the module. The findings showed that the suggested online-supported peer feedback module was effective in improving students’ argumentative essay quality in all courses at the bachelor and master levels. The findings also showed there is a difference in the level of students’ satisfaction with the module among the courses and between the education levels. The findings of this study provide insights into and add value to the scalability of online peer feedback tools for argumentative essay writing in different contexts. Based on the findings, recommendations for future studies and educational practice are provided.

Studies on translanguaging of multilingual students have turned their attention to teachable strategies in classrooms. This study is based on the assumption that it is possible to learn from students' translanguaging strategies while developing their proficiency through a dialogical pedagogy. Based on a classroom ethnography, this article describes the translanguaging strategies of a Saudi Arabian undergraduate student in her essay writing. Her strategies are classified through thematic coding of multiple forms of data: drafts of essay, journals, classroom assignments, peer review, stimulated recall, and member check. The strategies are of 4 types: recontextualization strategies, voice strategies, interactional strategies, and textualization strategies. The study describes how the feedback of the instructor and peers can help students question their choices, think critically about diverse options, assess the effectiveness of their choices, and develop metacognitive awareness. (Verlag).

The content of argumentative essays is determined by multiple factors, but belief influences are understudied compared to topic knowledge and argument schema. We investigate how beliefs influence the inclusion of basic components in argumentative writing. A pre-screening survey identified believers and disbelievers in gun control effectiveness. In a subsequent laboratory session, subjects ( N  = 324) read a one-sided text that was either consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Subjects then reported their beliefs and wrote a 250-word argumentative essay explaining them. These essays were coded for the presence or absence of a claim, the number of reasons supporting the claim, the presence of a counterargument, text content, and other factors. 682 supplementary subjects provided approximately 10 ratings for each essay on several factors, including position, clarity, and consideration of both sides. Subjects who read a belief consistent text wrote essays that were more likely to contain a claim, more reasons, and text content. Subjects who read a belief inconsistent text were more likely to include an evaluative statement about the text and to consider both sides of the issue. Individual differences in belief change were related to the likelihood of stating a claim, the number of reasons, and likelihood of mentioning text content. Results suggest that beliefs influence the basic components of argumentation that are included in argumentative essays. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Reflection in education has seen an upsurge in research interest since as reported by Dewey (How we think, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, 1991) ground-breaking work, which plays an integral role in fostering students’ self-reflection and demonstrable learning skills. However there have not been enough studies to determine whether writing instruction from the perspective of self-reflection before action improves undergraduate students' essay writing achievement. This article investigates the effects of Ethiopian university-undergraduate students’ self-reflection before action on their essay writing achievement through the mediation of teaching writing instruction. The study's methodology involved two phases of intervention in a counterbalanced design. The participants were 47 male and female students aged 19–22, from Arba Minch University. They were assigned to a control group and an experimental group using the matched sampling technique. During the first phase, the experimental group (Group A) was instructed to engage in self-reflection-based course activities over a period of two months while the control group was not. In the second phase Group B was engaged in self-reflection-based course activities over a period of two months while Group A was kept under control. To collect data, preliminary students’ self-reflection was provided using an open-ended questionnaire, and pre- and post-tests of writing were given to both groups. Mean and standard deviation statistics were applied after the thematic analysis of the qualitative data. Additionally, a univariate analysis of variance was performed to answer the query regarding the impact of self-reflection on students' essay writing performance. The findings demonstrated that, despite the students encountering numerous difficulties during their essay-writing exercises; the self-reflection-based instruction had a significant positive impact on the participants' essay-writing achievement. In conclusion, the findings have some implications for teaching essay writing instructions.