Does online instruction in discourse conventions of literary analysis affect L2 students’ critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal study
A longitudinal study
Keywords:Critical stance, discourse conventions of literary criticism, evaluation, longitudinal corpus, online instruction
The purpose of this study is to explore L2 students’ longitudinal development of critical stance patterns in academic writing as a result of their exposure to online instruction in the discourse conventions of literary criticism. The data consisted of a 75661-word longitudinal corpus of 63 essay assignments, collected over 7 weeks’ instruction via pre-, during- and post-instruction google classroom submissions. Applying Martin & White’s (2005) appraisal taxonomy, the data was analyzed for frequency and wording differences using manual coding of attitude, graduation, and engagement markers through UAM Corpus Tool. The results show a significant longitudinal decrease in the use of linguistic resources which express personal feelings and make the construed evaluative meanings forceful and compelling. This shows that the teaching and the learning methods employed in the online instruction may have impacted L2 students’ ability to develop a formal style of academic writing; the results also indicate a less significant longitudinal increase in the use of linguistic resources that construe a register-appropriate critical stance, such as the use of attitude sub-types of judgment and appreciation. This shows that the teaching and learning methods employed in the online instruction may not have impacted L2 students’ ability to develop a register-appropriate critical stance. These findings have far-reaching implications for the use of online mode to make explicit the discourse conventions of literary criticism to L2 students. They show the extent to which the integration of certain teaching and learning methods in online instruction has an impact on L2 students' academic writing.
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055
Bruce, I. J. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in methods sections of research articles: a corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.12.001
Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 153-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 38-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.005.
Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010
Evangeline, J. C. K., & Ganesh, K. (2016). A need analysis of technical writing skills of engineering students in India. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 26, p. 01090). EDP Sciences.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written communication, 5(4), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004002
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Hood, S. (2006). The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 37-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001
Hood, S. (2010). Appraising Research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Hood, S. (2012). Voice and stance as appraisal: Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 51-68). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Humphrey, S. L., & Economou, D. (2015). Peeling the onion–A textual model of critical analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.01.004
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2013). ESP and Writing. In Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (Eds.). The handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 95-114). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and Reader Positioning in Upper-Level Student Writing in Political Theory and Economics (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan.
Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication, 31(1), 27-57. DOI: 10.1177/0741088313515170
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Using corpus results to guide the discourse-based interview: A study of one student's awareness of stance in academic writing in philosophy. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 119-148. Doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.04.
Lee, S. H. (2008). Attitude in undergraduate persuasive essays. Prospect: an Australian journal of TESOL, 23(3), 43-58. https://researchoutput.scu.edu.au.
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP.
Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Construing the invisible: Specialized literary practices in junior secondary English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text-The Hague Then Amsterdam Then Berlin, 23(2), 285-312. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2017). Emergent argument: A functional approach to analysing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(1), 42-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013
O’ Donnel, M. (2007). UAM Corpus Tool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, [Ind.]: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rothery J. and Stenglin, M. (2000). Interpreting literature: The role of appraisal. In Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Language perspectives, L. Unsworth (ed.), 222-224. London: Cassel.
Vijayakumar, C. (2018). Achieving academic proficiency standards in higher education through corpus-based language teaching. Journal of English Language Teaching, 60(5), 3-10.
White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. TEXT-THE HAGUE THEN AMSTERDAM THEN BERLIN-, 23(2), 259-284.
Wilder, L. (2002). “Get Comfortable With Uncertainty” A Study of the Conventional Values of Literary Analysis in an Undergraduate Literature Course. Written Communication, 19(1), 175-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108830201900106
Wilder, L. (2005). “The rhetoric of literary criticism” revisited: Mistaken critics, complex contexts, and social justice. Written Communication, 22(1), 76-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088304272751
Wilder, L. (2006). " Into the Laboratories of the University": A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Publication of the Modern Language Association. Rhetoric Review, 25(2), 162-184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327981rr2502_3.
Wilder, L., & Wolfe, J. (2009). Sharing the tacit rhetorical knowledge of the literary scholar: The effects of making disciplinary conventions explicit in undergraduate writing about literature courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 170-209. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784356
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical Strategies and Genre Conventions in Literary Studies: Teaching and Writing in the Disciplines. Southern Illinois University: Southern Illinois University Press.
Wingate, U., Andon, N., & Cogo, A. (2011). Embedding academic writing instruction into subject teaching: A case study. Active learning in higher education, 12(1), 69-81. DOI: 10.1177/1469787410387814
Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A'literacy’journey. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(1), 26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
Wu, S. M. 2007). The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for academic purposes, 6(3), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006
Xie, J. (2016). Direct or indirect? Critical or uncritical? Evaluation in Chinese English-major MA thesis literature reviews. Journal of English for academic purposes, 23, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Clément Ndoricimpa, Dilip P. Barad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.