Advertisement

Engaged Young Writers

Dialogic Choices Beyond Naplan
  • Damon P. Thomas
  • Angela Thomas
  • David Moltow
Chapter
Part of the Bold Visions in Educational Research book series (BVER)

Abstract

Since 2008, it has been compulsory for all Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to complete a number of standardised tests known as the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Completed yearly, the NAPLAN tests are designed to assess students’ reading, writing, language (spelling, grammar, and punctuation), and numeracy skills (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2010).

Keywords

Rhetorical Question Point Category Australian Curriculum Systemic Functional Linguistic Small Enclosure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Tests. Retrieved from http://www.naplan.edu.au/tests/tests_landing_page.html
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). Persuasive writing marking guide. Retrieved from http://www.det.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/15765/WritingMarkingGuidepdf
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Cominos, N. (2009). “It is widely known” – dialogic features of undergraduate students’ writing in linguistics. In Proceedings of the 2009 ASFLA Conference. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Derewianka, B. M. (2007). Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 142–165). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  7. Feak, C. B. (2008). Culture shock? Genre shock? Paper presented at the British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes. University of Reading, Whiteknights, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hyland, K. (2011). Academic discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Partridge, (Eds.), The continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171–185). London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4), Article 4. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm
  12. Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students (Doctoral dissertation). Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  13. Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, J. R. (1995). Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: Packing semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, J. R. (2002). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Mesa, V., & Chang, P. (2010). The language of engagement in two highly interactive undergraduate mathematics classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 21(2), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, D. (2004). “…to meet our common challenge”: ENGAGEMENT strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus 17(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  20. Pascual, M., & Unger, L. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos, 43(73), 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swain, E. (2007). Constructing an effective “voice” in academic discussion writing: An appraisal theory perspective. In, A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 166–184). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. Swain, E. (2010). Getting engaged: Dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing. In, E. Swain (Ed.), Thresholds and potentialities of systemic functional linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and other specialised discourses (pp. 291–317). Trieste: Edizoni Unversità di Trieste.Google Scholar
  23. White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
  24. White, P. R. R. (2005). Appraisal: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Frame.htm
  25. Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damon P. Thomas
  • Angela Thomas
  • David Moltow

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations