Volume 4, Issue 4 (12-2019)
IJREE 2019, 4(4): 55-69 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ndoricimpa C. Scaffolding ESL Tertiary Students’ Challenges with Essay Genre: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. IJREE 2019; 4 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-209-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-209-en.html
Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, Gujarat State, India
Abstract: (5096 Views)
Essay genres are often employed to assess learning at higher education. Students are sometimes required to write essay in examinations and assignments. The expectations of assessors in writing essays are students’ ability to present analytical and reasoned arguments and to engage with alternative viewpoints. In fact, in evaluating essays, assessors consider the extent to which a student is able to meet these expectations. However, students may have challenges meeting these expectations and instructors, particularly instructors in the discipline, may not be prepared to provide students with an explicit linguistic description of how these expectations are met. Thus, this study draws from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to scaffold students’ challenges in meeting the expectations of essay genre. In fact, it uses Dreyfus et al’s (2010) 3 x 3 linguistic toolkit to analyze essays written by postgraduate students in the department of English at one university in India. The 3 x 3 linguistic toolkit is used to zoom in student’s challenges in controlling the resources of SFL’s three metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal, and textual) at the level of whole text, paragraph, and sentence. After the analysis, the findings revealed that students face challenges controlling the resources of the three modes of meaning at all levels. These challenges include difficulties in grammar, lexical choices, punctuation, following expected organization, answering the question, the use of signposts to create a coherent text, and the use of engagement resources to develop a consistent argument. This study has implications for teaching and assessing academic writing.
Keywords: academic writing , argumentative writing , essay genre , second language writing , systemic functional linguistics
References
1. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus- [DOI:10.1177/0741088314527055]
2. based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183. doi: 10.1177/0741088314527055 [DOI:10.1177/0741088314527055]
3. Bennet, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: a survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 43-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003]
4. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003]
5. Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 42(1), 12-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005]
6. Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for academic purposes, 10(3), 140-151. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005]
7. Channock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, [DOI:10.1080/135625100114984]
8. 20(2), 157-173. [DOI:10.1080/135625100114984]
9. Cheung, L. M. E. (2017). Development of evaluative stance and voice in postgraduate academic writing. A Ph. D
10. thesis: The Hong Kong Polytechnique University.
11. Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Writing for different disciplines. In C. Coffin, M. J. Curry, S. Goodman, A.
12. Hewings, T. Lillis, & J. Swann (Eds.), Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education (pp. 45-
13. 72). London: Routledge
14. Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: the role of asynchronous conferencing
15. 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]
16. Deaking, L., & Lee, J.J., (2016). Interaction in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse
17. in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of second language writing, 33(3), 21-34.
18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004]
19. De Oliveira, I. C. (2011). Knowing and writing school history: The language of students' expository writing and
20. teachers' expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information age publishing.
21. Dreyfus at al. (2010). The 3 x 3: Setting up a linguistic toolkit for teaching academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N.K.
22. Knight (Eds.). Appliable linguistics (PP. 185-199). London: Continuum.
23. Dreyfus et al. (2016). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE project. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-137-31000-2]
24. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
25. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 2nd edn, London and
26. Melbourne: Arnold, 1994. 3rd edn (revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen), London: Arnold, 2004.
27. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed). London: Hodder Arnold.
28. Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). New Ways of Meaning: A Challenge to Applied Linguistics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED324960
29. Hewings, M. (2010). Materials for university essay writing. In N. Hardwood (Ed.), English language teaching
30. materials: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge university press.
31. Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66-78. [DOI:10.1177/003368829002100105]
32. doi: 10.1177/003368829002100105 [DOI:10.1177/003368829002100105]
33. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
34. Hyland, K. (2016). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English
35. grammar to speaker of other languages.New York: Routledge.
36. Lancaster, Z. (2014). Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper-level student writing in the disciplines. Written [DOI:10.1177/0741088313515170]
37. Communication, 31(1), 27-57. doi: 10.1177/0741088313515170 [DOI:10.1177/0741088313515170]
38. Martin, J. R. (1986). Grammaticalising ecology: The politics of baby seals and Kangaroos. Sydney studies in society
39. and culture, 3.
40. Martin, J. R. (1992a). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reprinted by Peking University [DOI:10.1075/z.59]
41. Press, 2004.
42. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Aappraisal in English. New York: Palgrave
43. Macmillan.
44. Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003]
45. Martin, J. R. (2009). Discourse studies. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. W. Jonathan (eds), Continuum Companion to
46. Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 154-166). London: Continuum International Publishing group.
47. Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students' [DOI:10.1177/0033688206071316]
48. argumentation. RELC journal, 37(3), 329-353. doi: 10.1177/0033688206071316 [DOI:10.1177/0033688206071316]
49. Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2017). Emergent argument: A functional approach to analysing student
50. challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(1), 42-55.
51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013]
52. Mohammed, A. S. (2015). Conjunctions as cohesive devices in the writings of English as second language learners. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.182]
53. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208(5), 74-81. www.sciencedirect.com.
54. Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2005). Dimensions of differences: A comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.02.001]
55. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 43-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2004.02.001]
56. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge,
57. England: Cambridge University Press.
58. Pessoa, S. (2017). How SFL and explicit language instruction can enhance the teaching of argumentation in the [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.004]
59. disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 100(36), 77-78. doi: 10.106/j.jslw.2017.05.004. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.004]
60. Sawalmeh, M. H. M. (2013). Error analysis of written English essays: The case of students of the preparatory year
61. program in Saudi Arabia. English for Specific Purposes World, 14(40), 1-17. http://www.esp-world.info
62. Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A 'literacy' [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006]
63. journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26-37. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006]
64. Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 121-143. www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap [DOI:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00013-9]
65. Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31-48. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
