As can be seen in Table 16, 25 students enrolled in the introductory biology course took this make-up exam scheduled on Friday at 4:00 p.m. This make-up exam was arranged to allow students who missed the regular exam, due to their evening commitments, to have a chance to take it.
At a first glance, from the "Average score(out of100)" data field, it appears that there is a big discrepancy between the scores of the last regular exam and those of the make-up exam. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the number of students who took the regular exam it's much more larger than of those who took the make-up exam. In cases like this the average score is not so eloquent. For this reason, the numbers in average score data field can be viewed as a rough estimate. Instead, three important factors that shouldn't be ignored in planning a make-up exam, and they were, are the scheduled date, the board examples, and the room environment. Taking into consideration that the students who took this make-up exam were supposed to have evening commitments during the week, Friday is wasn't really a good choice. Furthermore, the room environment can affect the students' power of concentration and in this particular case the temperature was a little bit too high. At last, the board examples, even if are not considered necessary, can help students to figure out more quickly what they are suppose to do, and thus to save them more time and be more efficient.
Looking at the data table, if there was indeed a discrepancy, I might say that a more appropriate explanation is that the make-up exam was not so well planned.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Article presentations on introductions.
Among the things I learned from article presentations on introductions, there is the fact that the moves observed in English research papers are not necessary translated in other languages. At least 3 papers had as purpose of study a comparison between RAs introductions written in a foreign language (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic) and those written in English.
These papers brought to the surface few findings that aim to this particular observation, and the most important ones are:
- cultural differences (e.g. Brazilian authors don't feel comfortable criticizing their peers. Education has a strong role in developing certain writing habits which are very different from culture to culture.);
- rhetorical organization (e.g Chinese writings are more reader-responsible in comparison with English writings that are more writer-responsible.);
- politeness theory (positive and negative face).
Another thing I learned is that Swales' (1990) CARS model applied to texts beyond introductions is largely used in English academic writing and has become more like a pedagogical tool that can help you to be successful in writing English academic papers. Even if CARS model can not be applied systematically to RAs in all disciplines, I personally consider that it offers me a strong background and a good direction to follow in my writings.
What I've found interesting and I would like to learn more about are the differences of language from a cross-cultural perspective and the use of positive and negative face (politeness theory).
These papers brought to the surface few findings that aim to this particular observation, and the most important ones are:
- cultural differences (e.g. Brazilian authors don't feel comfortable criticizing their peers. Education has a strong role in developing certain writing habits which are very different from culture to culture.);
- rhetorical organization (e.g Chinese writings are more reader-responsible in comparison with English writings that are more writer-responsible.);
- politeness theory (positive and negative face).
Another thing I learned is that Swales' (1990) CARS model applied to texts beyond introductions is largely used in English academic writing and has become more like a pedagogical tool that can help you to be successful in writing English academic papers. Even if CARS model can not be applied systematically to RAs in all disciplines, I personally consider that it offers me a strong background and a good direction to follow in my writings.
What I've found interesting and I would like to learn more about are the differences of language from a cross-cultural perspective and the use of positive and negative face (politeness theory).
Monday, February 7, 2011
Citation Theories: Move 1b
Move 1a
Citations are widely recognized as being an important and distinctive property of academic texts. As a consequence, the presence or absence of citations allows the casual reader to get an immediate sense of whether a text is an "academic" or "popular" one. Because citation is such an obvious surface phenomenon, it has been much discussed in the academic world. Indeed, there are several theories about the role and purpose of citations in academic texts.
Move 1b
This study attempts to identify the validity of six theories regarding the role and purpose of citations in academic text. The first theory is widely proposed in manuals and standard guides, the second one has some supporters, particularly in well-established fields like the sciences, and the remaining theories have been proposed by individual authors. All these theories lead into a comparison of the validity of citations in different disciplines.
The first theory seems straight forward and simple:
Citations are used to recognize and acknowledge the intellectual property rights of
authors. They are a matter of ethics and a defense against plagiarism.
I consider it to be valid for all disciplines, substituting the role of definition for the purpose of citations in academic text. While first theory is generally agreed upon, the second one," Citations are used to show respect to previous scholars. They recognize the history of the field by acknowledging previous achievements.", has a more narrow acceptance: it is considered to be more valid for sciences by indicating the fact that citations are used to show the point where a study was left off by previous researchers and used as a starting point by new researchers in the field.
While these theories have a certain degree of validity, some of the earlier theories proposed by individual authors, such as Ravetz (1971) & Bavelas (1978), lacks a strong point in the role and purpose of citations and, therefore, are less valid. In contrast, the theory of Gilbert (1977) has become valid in all disciplines by referring to citations as "tools of persuasion", distinction that aim to describe the purpose of citations and clearly makes a powerful and relevant point. A later theory, Swales (1990), states that citations "are used to create a research space for citing author", distinction that provide useful points and make the theory valid, but does not provide the features that makes it always applicable. Clearly, there is space for a great deal more discussions about validity of these theories in the academic fields of different disciplines.
Citations are widely recognized as being an important and distinctive property of academic texts. As a consequence, the presence or absence of citations allows the casual reader to get an immediate sense of whether a text is an "academic" or "popular" one. Because citation is such an obvious surface phenomenon, it has been much discussed in the academic world. Indeed, there are several theories about the role and purpose of citations in academic texts.
Move 1b
This study attempts to identify the validity of six theories regarding the role and purpose of citations in academic text. The first theory is widely proposed in manuals and standard guides, the second one has some supporters, particularly in well-established fields like the sciences, and the remaining theories have been proposed by individual authors. All these theories lead into a comparison of the validity of citations in different disciplines.
The first theory seems straight forward and simple:
Citations are used to recognize and acknowledge the intellectual property rights of
authors. They are a matter of ethics and a defense against plagiarism.
I consider it to be valid for all disciplines, substituting the role of definition for the purpose of citations in academic text. While first theory is generally agreed upon, the second one," Citations are used to show respect to previous scholars. They recognize the history of the field by acknowledging previous achievements.", has a more narrow acceptance: it is considered to be more valid for sciences by indicating the fact that citations are used to show the point where a study was left off by previous researchers and used as a starting point by new researchers in the field.
While these theories have a certain degree of validity, some of the earlier theories proposed by individual authors, such as Ravetz (1971) & Bavelas (1978), lacks a strong point in the role and purpose of citations and, therefore, are less valid. In contrast, the theory of Gilbert (1977) has become valid in all disciplines by referring to citations as "tools of persuasion", distinction that aim to describe the purpose of citations and clearly makes a powerful and relevant point. A later theory, Swales (1990), states that citations "are used to create a research space for citing author", distinction that provide useful points and make the theory valid, but does not provide the features that makes it always applicable. Clearly, there is space for a great deal more discussions about validity of these theories in the academic fields of different disciplines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)