Examining argumentative coherence in essays by undergraduate students of English as a foreign language in Mainland China and their English speaking peers in the United States

I conducted this study to provide insights toward deepening understanding of association between culture and writing by building, assessing, and refining a conceptual model of second language writing. To do this, I examined culture and coherence as well as the relationship between them through a mixed methods research design. Coherence has been an important and complex concept in ESL/EFL writing. I intended to study the concept of coherence in the research context of contrastive rhetoric, comparing the coherence quality in argumentative essays written by undergraduates in Mainland China and their U.S. peers. In order to analyze the complex concept of coherence, I synthesized five linguistic theories of coherence: Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory, Carroll's theory of coherence, Enkvist's theory of coherence, Topical Structure Analysis, and Toulmin's Model. Based upon the synthesis, 16 variables were generated. Across these 16 variables, Hotelling t-test statistical analysis was conducted to predict differences in argumentative coherence between essays written by two groups of participants. In order to complement the statistical analysis, I conducted 30 interviews of the writers in the studies. Participants' responses were analyzed with open and axial coding. By analyzing the empirical data, I refined the conceptual model by adding more categories and establishing associations among them. The study found that U.S. students made use of more pronominal reference. Chinese students adopted more lexical devices of reiteration and extended paralleling progression. The interview data implied that the difference may be associated with the difference in linguistic features and rhetorical conventions in Chinese and English. As far as Toulmin's Model is concerned, Chinese students scored higher on data than their U.S. peers. According to the interview data, this may be due to the fact that Toulmin's Model, modified as three elements of arguments, have been widely and long taught in Chinese writing instruction while U.S. interview participants said that they were not taught to write essays according to Toulmin's Model. Implications were generated from the process of textual data analysis and the formulation of structural model defining coherence. These implications were aimed at informing writing instruction, assessment, peer-review, and self-revision.

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^