<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2013-05-18T11:32:46Z</responseDate><request identifier="oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/9798" metadataPrefix="mets" verb="GetRecord">http://www.tdx.cat/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/9798</identifier><datestamp>2011-04-13T07:43:11Z</datestamp><setSpec>hdl_10803_433</setSpec></header><metadata><mets OBJID="hdl:10803/9798" LABEL="DSpace Item" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/METS/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/METS/ http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets.xsd http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-0.xsd">
 <metsHdr CREATEDATE="2013-05-18T13:32:46">
  <agent ROLE="CUSTODIAN" TYPE="ORGANIZATION">
   <name>TDX/TDR</name>
  </agent>
 </metsHdr>
 <dmdSec ID="DMD_hdl_10803/9798">
  <mdWrap MDTYPE="MODS">
   <xmlData><mods:name><mods:namePart>Universitat de València. Departament de Filologia Anglesa i Alemanya</mods:namePart></mods:name>
<mods:name><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role><mods:namePart>Cabrejas Peñuelas, Ana Belén</mods:namePart></mods:name>
<mods:extension><mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2011-04-12T19:05:16Z</mods:dateAccessioned></mods:extension>
<mods:extension><mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2009-09-25</mods:dateAvailable></mods:extension>
<mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2006-02-10</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo>
<mods:extension><mods:dateSubmitted encoding="iso8601">2009-09-25</mods:dateSubmitted></mods:extension>
<mods:identifier>V-2807-2009</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="isbn">9788437073033</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="uri">http://www.tdx.cat/TDX-0925109-115941</mods:identifier>
<mods:identifier type="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/10803/9798</mods:identifier>
<mods:abstract>The aim of the investigation is to portray a composite picture of the native and&lt;br/&gt;non-native expert and novice writers' composing and revising processes as they wrote&lt;br/&gt;an argumentative essay in English. Analyses of the experienced and novice writers'&lt;br/&gt;revision processes served to answer four main questions posed at the beginning of the&lt;br/&gt;experimental study: 1. When did revisions occur during the composing process? 2.&lt;br/&gt;Were there any similarities and differences in the categories of revision the subjects&lt;br/&gt;employed? 3. Were there any similarities and differences in the techniques the subjects&lt;br/&gt;employed? and 4. Were there any similarities and differences in the purposes of the&lt;br/&gt;subjects' revisions? These questions were also posed to compare the native and nonnative&lt;br/&gt;expert writers and the native and non-native novice writers.&lt;br/&gt;The results indicate that the native and non-native experienced and novice&lt;br/&gt;writers in this study made changes in the first and second writing sessions, in the four&lt;br/&gt;writing cycles, and in the combinations pre-draft/first draft and between draft/final draft,&lt;br/&gt;although they revised to different extends. Both writer groups coincided in their&lt;br/&gt;preference for the word level over the surface, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph and&lt;br/&gt;global levels. The experienced subjects, however, revised at the higher discourse levels&lt;br/&gt;more often than the novice writers did. No important differences were concluded&lt;br/&gt;between both writer types in the techniques used for revising. Per purposes of revision,&lt;br/&gt;both the expert and novice writers revised with an informational purpose in mind,&lt;br/&gt;although they differed in their preference for the rest of purposes of revision: while the&lt;br/&gt;expert writers made higher proportions of meaning revisions, the novice showed a&lt;br/&gt;tendency for formal changes. Further comparisons indicate there were also similarities&lt;br/&gt;between both types of writers: the unskilled writers in this study were also aware of the&lt;br/&gt;need for making content revisions. Indeed, they made some attempts at improving&lt;br/&gt;meaning through sentence, paragraph and global revisions, although they failed to&lt;br/&gt;achieve success.&lt;br/&gt;The native and non-native experienced subjects coincided in their preference for&lt;br/&gt;the word level across drafts and writing sessions. The rest of the levels occurred in&lt;br/&gt;descending order as the discourse level ascended from the word to the global level.&lt;br/&gt;Global changes were often avoided as they needed more cognitive effort. They also&lt;br/&gt;showed interest for the surface level, although they seemed to have the cognitive ability&lt;br/&gt;to manage form and content at the same time. Additions and substitutions of&lt;br/&gt;information prevailed over the rest, since the writers hardly ever deleted to start again.&lt;br/&gt;Despite the similarities between the native and non-native expert writers, further&lt;br/&gt;comparisons reveal that the native expert subject showed more concern with meaning,&lt;br/&gt;while the non-native were worried about grammatical correctness, which may be due to&lt;br/&gt;the greater emphasis that they receive in L2 writing classes. Also, the subjects displayed&lt;br/&gt;different revision patterns, which supports the belief that there is no single revision&lt;br/&gt;pattern resulting in successful prose.&lt;br/&gt;The native novice subjects made higher percentages of final version revisions,&lt;br/&gt;while the non-native were more inclined to making premature revisions, coupled with&lt;br/&gt;large numbers of revisions in an attempt to reduce the cognitive load that revising&lt;br/&gt;entailed on their minds. The pre-draft, between-draft and the combinations of drafts&lt;br/&gt;were virtually of no importance and, thus, the writers did not go back and forth between&lt;br/&gt;their essays and outlines to add changes or to check how well the drafts matched their&lt;br/&gt;outlines. Yet, both writer types redirected their attention to meaning towards the latest&lt;br/&gt;stages of writing and, therefore, they were not insensitive to revision at the higher&lt;br/&gt;discourse levels, contrary to the beliefs commonly held for novice writers.</mods:abstract>
<mods:abstract>El objetivo de esta investigación es describir los procesos de escritura y&lt;br/&gt;aprendizaje de escritores nativos y no nativos expertos e inexpertos mientras escribían&lt;br/&gt;un texto argumentativo en inglés. El análisis de los procesos de revisión de los&lt;br/&gt;escritores experimentados y menos experimentados sirven como punto de partida para&lt;br/&gt;contestar cuatro preguntas principales: 1. ¿Cuándo se dan las revisiones en el proceso de&lt;br/&gt;escritura? 2. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las categorías de revisión que los&lt;br/&gt;participantes usaron? 3. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las técnicas que los&lt;br/&gt;participantes emplearon? 4. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en los propósitos de las&lt;br/&gt;revisiones de los participantes? Estas mismas preguntas se plantearon para observar las&lt;br/&gt;similitudes y diferencias entre los escritores experimentados nativos y no nativos y entre&lt;br/&gt;los escritores no experimentados nativos y no nativos de inglés.&lt;br/&gt;Los resultados indican que los escritores expertos y no expertos nativos y no&lt;br/&gt;nativos de este estudio hicieron cambios en las dos sesiones de escritura, en los cuatro&lt;br/&gt;ciclos de escritura, así como en las combinaciones guion/primer borrador y borrador&lt;br/&gt;intermedio/borrador final aunque revisaron en diferente medida. Los escritores&lt;br/&gt;experimentados, sin embargo, revisaron a niveles discusivos más altos con más&lt;br/&gt;frecuencia que los menos experimentados, aunque los menos expertos no son&lt;br/&gt;completamente inconscientes de la necesidad de hacer revisiones de significado.&lt;br/&gt;Los escritores experimentados y menos experimentados nativos y no nativos&lt;br/&gt;coincidieron en su preferencia por la revisión a nivel de la palabra en todos los&lt;br/&gt;borradores y sesiones de escritura. No hicieron cambios que afectaran la estructura&lt;br/&gt;global del texto puesto que implicaban un mayor esfuerzo cognitivo. A pesar de las&lt;br/&gt;similitudes los escritores expertos nativos mostraron un mayor interés por el&lt;br/&gt;significado, mientras los no nativos se preocuparon de la corrección gramatical de sus&lt;br/&gt;textos.&lt;br/&gt;Los escritores nativos no expertos hicieron un mayor número de revisiones en el&lt;br/&gt;borrador final que los no nativos menos experimentados, mientras éstos revisaron en&lt;br/&gt;fases demasiado avanzadas del proceso de escritura además de hacer un gran número de&lt;br/&gt;ellas en un intento de reducir la carga cognitiva que revisar imponía en sus mentes.&lt;br/&gt;Ambos se centraron en la comunicación de significado en las fases finales de escritura.</mods:abstract>
<mods:physicalDescription><mods:internetMediaType>application/pdf</mods:internetMediaType></mods:physicalDescription>
<mods:language><mods:languageTerm authority="rfc3066">eng</mods:languageTerm></mods:language>
<mods:originInfo><mods:publisher>Universitat de València</mods:publisher></mods:originInfo>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">ADVERTIMENT. L'accés als continguts d'aquesta tesi doctoral i la seva utilització ha de respectar els drets de la persona autora. Pot ser utilitzada per a consulta o estudi personal, així com en activitats o materials d'investigació i docència en els termes establerts a l'art. 32 del Text Refós de la Llei de Propietat Intel·lectual (RDL 1/1996). Per altres utilitzacions es requereix l'autorització prèvia i expressa de la persona autora. En qualsevol cas, en la utilització dels seus continguts caldrà indicar de forma clara el nom i cognoms de la persona autora i el títol de la tesi doctoral. No s'autoritza la seva reproducció o altres formes d'explotació efectuades amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva comunicació pública des d'un lloc aliè al servei TDX. Tampoc s'autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant als continguts de la tesi com als seus resums i índexs.</mods:accessCondition>
<mods:relatedItem type="original">TDX (Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa)</mods:relatedItem>
<mods:subject authority="local">Facultat de Filologia</mods:subject>
<mods:titleInfo>A comparision of the revising processes of spanish speakers and english native writers: similarities and differences.</mods:titleInfo>
<mods:genre>info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis</mods:genre>
<mods:genre>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</mods:genre>
</xmlData>
  </mdWrap>
 </dmdSec>
 <amdSec ID="TMD_hdl_10803/9798"/>
 <fileSec>
  <fileGrp USE="ORIGINAL">
   <file ID="10803_9798_1" MIMETYPE="application/pdf" SIZE="9823108" CHECKSUM="ec9fd77683d7ffea2037ba2643f4cb90" CHECKSUMTYPE="MD5" OWNERID="http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/10803/9798/1/cabrejas.pdf" GROUPID="GROUP_10803_9798_1">
    <FLocat LOCTYPE="URL" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/10803/9798/1/cabrejas.pdf"/>
   </file>
  </fileGrp>
  <fileGrp USE="TEXT">
   <file ID="10803_9798_2" MIMETYPE="text/plain" SIZE="1221808" CHECKSUM="1b1d1c26d9ae781e8ebb331d21777a90" CHECKSUMTYPE="MD5" OWNERID="http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/10803/9798/2/cabrejas.pdf.txt" GROUPID="GROUP_10803_9798_1">
    <FLocat LOCTYPE="URL" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/10803/9798/2/cabrejas.pdf.txt"/>
   </file>
  </fileGrp>
 </fileSec>
 <structMap>
  <div/>
 </structMap>
</mets>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>