Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorVan der Walt, J.L.
dc.contributor.advisorVan Rooy, A.L.
dc.contributor.authorMeintjes, Zanétte
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-30T13:02:16Z
dc.date.available2015-11-30T13:02:16Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/15415
dc.descriptionPhD (English), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015en_US
dc.description.abstractDie Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysstelsel maak in die primêre en sekondêre taalkurrikulums voorsiening vir die ontwikkeling en vaslegging van verskillende skryfvaardighede. Ten spyte hiervan blyk dit dat talle eerstejaarstudente met toetrede tot universiteit, nie oor die nodige vaardigheid beskik om tekste te skryf wat aan die gebruiklike konvensies en standaarde van ʼn akademiese diskoergemeenskap voldoen nie. Daarom gaan die navorser van hierdie studie uit van die standpunt dat universiteite ʼn voortgesette bydrae behoort te lewer in die verdere ontwikkeling van eerstejaarstudente se skryfvaardigheid ná hulle skoolopleiding, om hulle sodoende in staat te stel om effektief binne ʼn universiteitskonteks te kan kommunikeer. In hierdie studie is ondersoek ingestel na die wyse waarop Afrikaanssprekende eerstejaarstudente konjunksiemerkers in hulle argumentatiewe skryfwerk gebruik. Daar is spesifiek gefokus op die eksplisiete gebruik van dertien konjunksiemerkerkategorieё en hulle onderskeie merkers wat oor al drie die dele (die inleiding, inhoudelike gedeelte en slot) van ʼn argument gebruik kan word, ten einde koherensie tussen al die komponente daarvan (stelling/gevolgtrekking, data, waarborg, ondersteuning, weerlegging en kwalifisering) te bewerkstellig. Die tipe argumentatiewe konjunksiemerkers wat deur die studiepopulasie gebruik is, die funksionele gepastheid daarvan, en die frekwensie van gebruik het onder die soeklig gekom. Vir die doel hiervan, is ʼn lys van tweehonderd ses-en-negentig (296) Afrikaanse argumentatiewe konjunksiemerkers saamgestel. Dit is saamgestel op grond van inligting wat uit die literatuur bekom is, sowel as ʼn handanalise van ʼn honderd argumentatiewe skryfstukke (Fase 1 van die empiriese ondersoek). Hierna is die merkers onder dertien argumentatiewe konjunksiemerkerkategorieë ingedeel en in ʼn analiseraamwerk opgeneem. Die empiriese ondersoek het plaasgevind binne die bestek van korpuslinguistiek. ʼn Korpusgebaseerde navorsingsontwerp is gebruik, en daarom is die data eenmalig ingesamel. Die kwantitatiewe ontledingstegniek daarvan (met behulp van WordSmith Tools, weergawe 5) het as hooffokus van die ondersoek gedien (Fase 2 van die empiriese ondersoek). ʼn Leerderkorpus bestaande uit sewehonderd een-en-dertig argumentatiewe skryfstukke met ʼn woordtelling van 437 580 woorde is ontleed. Tydens die analise is die frekwensie van gebruik, asook die funksionele en niefunksionele gebruik van die konjunksiemerkers vasgestel. Bo en behalwe hierdie analise is die skryfstukke ook deur drie onafhanklike nasieners aan die hand van ʼn analitiese nasienskema geëvalueer (Fase 3 van die empiriese ondersoek). Die data wat hieruit bekom is, is gebruik om statistiese verbande (deur middel van ʼn korrelasie-analise) te trek tussen die punte wat die nasieners toegeken het, en die data wat uit die hoofanalise bekom is (Fase 4 van die ondersoek). Deur hierdie analises kon vasgestel word of eerstejaarstudente se vaardigheid in die skryf van koherente argumente verder ontwikkel behoort te word, en indien wel, watter merkers onderrig moet word. Die resultate van die empiriese ondersoek het getoon dat die studiepopulasie nie oor die nodige vaardigheid beskik het om al die argumentatiewe konjunksiemerkerkategorieё en hulle onderskeie merkers korrek te gebruik nie. Slegs een van die kategorieë (begronding/redegewend) en sy merkers het getoon dat verdere onderrig nie nodig is nie. Al die ander kategorieë behoort wel onderrig te word. Die studiepopulasie se gebruik van hierdie kategorieë kon nie koherensie oor al drie die dele van die argument, en tussen al die komponente daarvan bewerkstellig nie. Dit het verder ook geblyk dat slegs ʼn beperkte aantal van die konjunksiemerkers deur die studiepopulasie gebruik is. Die resultate van die korrelasie-analise (Fases 2 en 3) het getoon dat daar slegs matige verskille was in die gebruik van vier konjunksiemerkerkategorieё tussen die skrywers wat 65% en hoër, die wat tussen 50% en 64%, en diegene wat 49% en laer vir hulle skryfstukke ontvang het. Daar is dus bevind dat eerstejaarstudente se vaardigheid in die skryf van koherente argumentatiewe tekste ná hulle skoolopleiding steeds verder ontwikkel behoort te word. Daarom stel die navorser enkele voorbeelde van onderrigaktiwiteite voor wat vir hierdie doel gebruik kan word.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe South African education system makes provision for the development and establishment of various writing skills in both the primary and secondary language curriculums. In spite of this, it seems that numerous first-year students, when they enter university, do not possess the requisite skills to write texts that conform to the usual conventions and standards of an academic discourse community. The researcher of this study is therefore of the opinion that universities ought to make a continued contribution to the further development of first-years‟ writing skills after their schooling in order to enable them to communicate effectively in a university environment. This study investigated the ways in which Afrikaans-speaking first-year students use conjunction markers in their argumentative writing. The specific focus was the use of thirteen conjunction marker categories and their respective markers that could be used in all three levels (introduction, body and conclusion) of an argument, in order to achieve coherence among all their components (claim/conclusion, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal and qualification). The type of argumentative conjunction markers used by the study population, their functional appropriateness and their frequency of use were investigated. A list of two hundred and ninety six Afrikaans argumentative conjunction markers was compiled for this purpose. It was compiled on the basis of information obtained from a literature survey as well as a manual analysis of one hundred argumentative writing tasks (phase 1 of the empirical investigation). After this, the markers were divided into thirteen argumentative conjunction marker categories and included in a framework for analysis. The empirical investigation took place within the ambit of corpus linguistics. A corpus-based research design was used, and the design was therefore a cross-sectional one. The quantitative analysis of the data (using WordSmith Tools, version 5) was the main focus of the study (phase 2 of the empirical investigation). A learner corpus consisting of seven hundred and thirty one argumentative assignments with a word count of 437 580 was analysed. During the analysis, the frequency of use as well as the functional and non-functional use of the conjunction markers was established. In addition to this analysis, the assignments were assessed by three Abstract v independent markers by means of an analytic marking scheme (phase 3 of the empirical study). The data emanating from this phase were used to establish statistical links (by way of a correlation analysis) between the marks assigned by the markers and the data from the main analysis (phase 4 of the study). These analyses enabled the researcher to establish whether first-years‟ skills in the writing of coherent arguments should be further developed and, if so, which markers should be taught. The results of the empirical investigation showed that the study population did not possess the necessary skills to use all the argumentative conjunction marker categories and their respective markers correctly. Only one of the categories (grounding/causal) and its markers proved not to require any further instruction. All the other categories ought to be taught. The study population‟s use of these categories did not bring about coherence over all three levels of the argument, including their respective components. Furthermore, only a limited number of conjunction markers were used by the study population. The results of the correlation analysis (phases 2 and 3) showed that there were only marginal differences in the use of four conjunction markers between writers that received a mark of 65% and higher, those that received between 50% and 64%, and those that received 48% and less for their assignments. It was therefore found that first-year students‟ skills in the writing of coherent argumentative text should be further developed. In conclusion, the researcher proposes a number of teaching activities that can be used for this purpose.
dc.language.isootheren_US
dc.subjectAkademiese skryfvaardighedeen_US
dc.subjectAkademiese taalkonvensiesen_US
dc.subjectAkademiese geletterdheiden_US
dc.subjectAkademiese diskoersgemeenskapen_US
dc.subjectAkademiese diskoersen_US
dc.subjectAkademiese argumenten_US
dc.subjectKohesieen_US
dc.subjectKoherensieen_US
dc.subjectArgumentatiewe konjunksiemerkersen_US
dc.subjectOnderrigaktiwiteiteen_US
dc.subjectAcademic writing skills
dc.subjectAcademic language convention
dc.subjectAcademic literacy
dc.subjectAcademic discourse community
dc.subjectAcademic discourse
dc.subjectAcademic argument
dc.subjectCohesion
dc.subjectCoherence
dc.subjectArgumentative conjunction markers
dc.subjectTeaching activities
dc.titleKoherensie in die argumentatiewe skryfwerk van eerstejaarstudente : 'n teksgebaseerde ondersoekafr
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.thesistypeDoctoralen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record