Volume 8, Issue 2 (6-2023)
IJREE 2023, 8(2): 67-81 |
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, Nduwimana A. The Impact of Genre-based Pedagogy in the Development of Critical Stance in MBA Students’ Writing. IJREE 2023; 8 (2)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-776-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-776-en.html
Ecole Normale Supérieure du Burundi, Burundi
Abstract: (1027 Views)
There has been a debate over the use of genre-based pedagogy to develop university students’ ability to create valued meaning in academic writing. Some researchers support an implicit genre-based instruction while others support an explicit genre-based instruction. However, few empirical studies move beyond this debate to investigate the effectiveness of genre-based approach to developing university students’ academic writing skills. Therefore, this study investigates the impact of genre-based pedagogy in developing MBA students’ ability to construe critical stance in their writing. The data consisted of 28219 words corpus of 40 essay assignments, collected pre-genre-based course and post-genre-based course. Using Hyland’ s (2005) model of intersubjective positioning and Martin and White’s (2005) theory of evaluation in discourse, the data were analyzed for the distribution of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and disclaim markers through manual coding using UAM corpus tool. The results showed a significant decrease in the use of key linguistic resources that function to make a text informal. In addition, the results showed a less significant increase and a less significant decrease in the use of key linguistic resources that function to construe critical stance in academic writing. These results have implication for the use of genre-based pedagogy in developing students’ ability to create valued meaning in academic writing. They show the extent to which genre-based pedagogy, implemented at the beginning or during subject learning, impacts students’ academic writing skills.
Keywords: academic writing, critical stance, disciplinary writing, discourse community, genre-based pedagogy
References
1. 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 [DOI:10.1177/0741088314527055]
2. Bruce, I. J. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in methods sections of research articles: a corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 38-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.12.001]
3. Bruce, I. (2010). Textual and discoursal resources used in the essay genre in sociology and English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 153-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.011]
4. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005]
5. Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer's guide. Macquarie University: NCELTR.
6. Carstens, A. (2009). The effectiveness of genre-based approaches in teaching academic writing: Subject-specific versus cross-disciplinary emphases (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
7. Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 203-218. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004]
8. Cheng, A. (2008). Analyzing genre exemplars in preparation for writing: The case of an L2 graduate student in the ESP genre-based instructional framework of academic literacy. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 50-71. doi:10.1093/applin/amm021 [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm021]
9. Cheng, A. (2011). Language features as the pathways to genre: Students' attention to non-prototypical features and its implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 69-82. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.002]
10. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010]
11. El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M. (2022). Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(44), 1-21. [DOI:10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0]
12. Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 222-264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171225
13. Gee, S. (1997). Teaching writing: A genre-based approach. In: Fulcher, G. (Ed.). Writing in the English language classroom. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe ELT, pp. 24-40.
14. Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156. [DOI:10.2307/3587913]
15. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001]
16. Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan [DOI:10.1057/9780230274662]
17. 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. [DOI:10.1057/9781137030825_4]
18. Huang, J. C. (2014). Learning to write for publication in English through genre-based [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2014.05.010]
19. pedagogy: A case in Taiwan. System, 45, 175-186. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2014.05.010]
20. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.01.004]
21. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin and K. Hyland (eds), Writing: texts, processes and practices (pp. 99-121). London: Longman [DOI:10.4324/9781315840390-6]
22. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
23. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365 [DOI:10.1177/1461445605050365]
24. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005]
25. Hyland, K. (2013). ESP and writing. In Paltridge, B. & Starfield, S. (Eds.). The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 95-114). Oxford: Blackwell. [DOI:10.1002/9781118339855.ch5]
26. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722. [DOI:10.2307/3587930]
27. Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). 'The fact that': Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280858429_%27The_fact_that%27_Stance_nouns_in_disciplinary_writing [DOI:10.1177/1461445615590719]
28. Johns, A. M. (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [DOI:10.4324/9781410604262]
29. Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge, UK: CUP. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524810.014]
30. Karimpour, S. (2021). Language proficiency and EAP students' writing quality: Contributions of explicit and implicit genre-based instruction. Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 199-211. doi: 10.22080/ISELT.2021.21978.1017
31. Kuzmenkova, J., & Erykina, M. (2022). Complex genre-based methodology for teaching academic writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 37-55. doi:10.30466/ijltr.2022.121121
32. Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-Level student writing in political theory and economics (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan.
33. 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 [DOI:10.1177/0741088313515170]
34. 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 [DOI:10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.04]
35. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004]
36. Lin, B. (2006). Genre-based teaching and Vygotskian principles in EFL: The case of a university writing course. Asian EFL journal, 8(3).
37. Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In: Hasan, R. & Williams, A.G. (Eds). Literacy in society. London: Longman, pp. 308-338.
38. Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text-The Hague Then Amsterdam Then Berlin, 23(2), 285-312. [DOI:10.1515/text.2003.012]
39. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230511910]
41. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013]
42. Ndoricimpa, C. (2019). Construing criticality in essay genre in English literature. International Journal of English Learning and Teaching Skills, 2(1), 845-868. https://www.ijeltsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/64.-Construing-criticality-in-essay-genre-in-English-literature.pdf [DOI:10.15864/ijelts.2106]
43. Ndoricimpa, C., & Barad, D. P. (2021). Does online instruction in discourse conventions of literary analysis affect L2 students' critical stance in academic writing? A longitudinal study. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(4), 66-87. https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/66
44. O' Donnel, M. (2007). UAM Corpus Tool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
45. Paltridge, B. (2002). Genre, text type, and the English for academic purposes (EAP) classroom. In A. M. Johns (ed.): Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A socio-historical account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Ramos, K. A. (2015). Using genre pedagogy to teach adolescent English learners to write academic persuasive essays. Journal of Education, 195(2), 19-35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44510449 [DOI:10.1177/002205741519500205]
48. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today's research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [DOI:10.3998/mpub.9059]
50. Szenes, E. (2017). The linguistic construction of business reasoning: Towards a language- based model of decision-making in undergraduate business (Doctoral dissertation).
51. White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259-284. [DOI:10.1515/text.2003.011]
52. Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Southern Illinois University: Southern Illinois University Press.
53. 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
54. 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. [DOI:10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00013-9]
55. 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 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.001]
56. Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers' genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111-133. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001]
57. Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: Sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36-53. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872]
58. Zare, M., & Biria, R. (2018). Contributory role of critical thinking in enhancing reading comprehension ability of Iranian ESP students. IJREE, 3(3), 21-28. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-94-en.html [DOI:10.29252/ijree.3.3.21]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
