Building interdisciplinary bridges
MUCH: The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process
This paper describes a corpus of writing as a process (MUCH), comprising English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student texts. The corpus will contain a large number of richly annotated papers in several versions from students of different performance levels. It will also include peer and instructor feedback, as well as tools for visualising the revision process, and for analysing the writing process and the peer and instructor feedback. MUCH will make it possible to study how texts develop and change in the course of the writing process and how feedback impacts the process.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
-
2.Writing studies
- 2.1Approaches in writing studies
- 2.2Corpora and their use in writing studies
- 3.MUCH planned features
- 3.1What does MUCH contribute to the writing research community?
- 4.Building MUCH
- 4.1Data description
- 4.2Data collection and processing
- 4.3Text annotation
- 4.4Data sustainability and availability
- 5.Concluding remarks
-
Notes
-
References
References
Ädel, Annelie
2010 Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the Direct Approach. In
Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching,
Mari Carmen Campoy-Cubillo,
Begoña Belles-Fdortuño &
Maria Lluisa Gea-Valor (eds), 39–55. London: Continuum.
Alsop, Sian & Nesi, Hilary
2009 Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) Corpus.
Corpora 4(1): 71–83.
Anderson, Paul, Bergman, Becky, Bradley, Linda, Gustafson, Magnus & Matzke, Aurora
2010 Peer reviewing across the Atlantic: Patterns and trends in L1 and L2 comments made in an asynchronous online collaborative learning exchange between Technical Communication students in Sweden and in the United States.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication 24(3): 296–322.
Bazerman, Charles
2011 Standpoints: The disciplined interdisciplinarity of Writing Studies [National Council of Teachers of English].
Research in the Teaching of English 46(1): 8–21.
Berkenkotter, Carol & Huckin, Thomas N.
1995 Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition, Culture, Power. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biber, Douglas, Nekrasova, Tatiana & Horn, Brad
2011 The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. In
TOEFL iBTTM Research Report. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bick, Eckhard
2012 Towards a semantic annotation of English television news – building and evaluating a Constraint Grammar FrameNet. In
Proceedings of the 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (Bali, 7–10 November 2012). Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, 60–69.
[URL] (12 February 2016).
Charles, Maggie
2007 Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions.
Journal of English for Specific Purposes 6: 289–302.
Cho, Kwangsu, Schunn, Christian D. & Charney, Davida
2006 Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts.
Written Communication 23: 260–294.
Coxhead, Averil
2000 A new academic word list.
TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–238.
Curry, Mary Jane & Hewings, Ann
2002 Approaches to teaching writing. In
Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education,
Caroline Coffin,
Mary Jane Curry,
Sharon Goodman,
Ann Hewings,
Theresa Lillis &
Joan Swann (eds), 19–44. London: Routledge.
Duffy, John M.
2007 Writing from These Roots: Literacy in a Hmong-American Community. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Eriksson, Andreas, Finnegan, Damian, Kauppinen, Asko, Wiktorsson, Maria, Wärnsby, Anna & Withers, Peter
2012 MUCH: The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process. In
Proceedings-10th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference.
[URL] (12 February 2016).
European Commission
2013 Ethics for Researchers.
[URL] (14 November 2015).
Finnegan, Damian, Kauppinen, Asko & Wärnsby, Anna
2015 Automated feedback in a blended learning environment: Student experience and development. In
Studies in Writing, 29: Learning and Teaching Writing Online,
Mary Deane &
Teresa Guasch (eds), 31–45. Leiden: Brill.
Flower, Linda S. & Hayes, John R.
1980 The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In
Cognitive Processes in Writing,
Lee W. Gregg &
Erwin Ray Steinberg (eds) 31–50. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flowerdew, Lynne
2008 Corpus linguistics for academic literacies mediated through discussion activities. In
The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2, Speaking, Writing and Other Media Interactions,
Diane Dewhurst Belcher &
Alan Hirvela (eds), 268–287. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
Flowerdew, Lynne
2010 Using a corpus for writing instruction. In
The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics,
Anne O’Keeffe &
Michael McCarthy (eds), 444–457. London: Routledge.
Gabrielatos, Costas
2005 Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (TESL-EJ) 8(4): A–1.
Galbraith, David & Rijlaarsdam, Gert
1999 Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing.
Learning and Instruction 9: 93–108.
Gunersel, Adalet Baris, Simpson, Nancy J., Aufderheide, Karl J. & Wang, Li
2008 Effectiveness of Calibrated Peer ReviewTM for improving writing and critical thinking skills in biology undergraduate students.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8: 25–37.
Hamer, John, Purchase, Helen, Luxton-Reilly, Andrew & Denny, Paul
2014 A comparison of peer and tutor feedback.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 40(1): 151–164.
Hinkel, Eli
2004 Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hyland, Fiona
2010 Future directions in feedback on Second Language Writing: Overview and research agenda.
International Journal of English Studies 10(2): 171–182.
Hyland, Ken
2008 Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18: 41–62.
Hyland, Ken & Hyland, Fiona
2006 Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: CUP.
Hyon, Sunny
1996 Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL.
TESOL Quarterly 30: 693–722.
Krishnamurthy, Ramesh & Kosem, Iztok
2007 Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 356–373.
Martin, James Robert
1997 Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In
Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School,
Francis Christie &
James Robert Martin (eds), 3–39. London: Cassell.
Miller, Richard E.
2005 Writing at the End of the World. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Nelson, Nancy & Kinneavy, James
2003 Rhetoric. In
Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts,
James Flood,
Diane Lapp,
James R. Squire &
Julie M. Jensen (eds) 786–798. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nelson, Melissa M. & Schunn, Christian D.
2009 The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance.
Instructional Science 37(4): 375–401.
Nicol, David, Thomson, Avril & Breslin, Caroline
2014 Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39(1): 102–122.
Paltridge, Brian
2001 Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
Römer, Ute
2011 Corpus research applications in language teaching.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 205–225.
Swales, John
1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.
Vetenskapsrådet
2015 Ethical Guidelines.
[URL] (14 November 2015).
West, Cornel
2004 Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism. New York NY: Penguin.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Flowerdew, Lynne
2020.
The Academic Literacies approach to scholarly writing: a view through the lens of the ESP/Genre approach.
Studies in Higher Education 45:3
► pp. 579 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.