Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts

The study examined textual and language features of discussion texts written by university students. The discussion texts were written by 100 students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes course at a Malaysian university. The advantages-disadvantages essay was analysed using Feez’s (1998) fr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ting, Su Hie, Chai, Ai Sze
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Issues in Language Studies 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/1/Ai%20Sze.pdf
http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.unimas.ir.578
record_format eprints
spelling my.unimas.ir.5782022-05-12T08:21:56Z http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/ Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts Ting, Su Hie Chai, Ai Sze LB Theory and practice of education LB2300 Higher Education The study examined textual and language features of discussion texts written by university students. The discussion texts were written by 100 students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes course at a Malaysian university. The advantages-disadvantages essay was analysed using Feez’s (1998) framework for discussion texts. The results showed that about half of the students were unable to state the issue clearly in the introduction and assess the issue based on foregoing arguments in the conclusion. For the arguments, the topic sentences and supporting details were satisfactory. Analysis of the language features in the student discussion texts revealed that conditional clauses were seldom used to present hypothetical situations to move the arguments forward but connectors were frequently used, particularly “because”. More causal connectors were used than sequential connectors because of the need for reasoning in discussion texts. Shifts in arguments were signaled using adversative connectors but these were used less frequently than additive connectors for connecting similar ideas. The discussion texts were also characterised by the frequent use of modal verbs for hedging and boosting, mainly “can” and “will”. The study shows that while the student texts had the relevant language features of discussions, they sometimes lacked the characteristic textual structure of discussion texts. Issues in Language Studies 2013 Article NonPeerReviewed text en http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/1/Ai%20Sze.pdf Ting, Su Hie and Chai, Ai Sze (2013) Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts. Issues in Language Studies, 2 (2). pp. 67-81. ISSN 2180-2726
institution Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
building Centre for Academic Information Services (CAIS)
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
content_source UNIMAS Institutional Repository
url_provider http://ir.unimas.my/
language English
topic LB Theory and practice of education
LB2300 Higher Education
spellingShingle LB Theory and practice of education
LB2300 Higher Education
Ting, Su Hie
Chai, Ai Sze
Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
description The study examined textual and language features of discussion texts written by university students. The discussion texts were written by 100 students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes course at a Malaysian university. The advantages-disadvantages essay was analysed using Feez’s (1998) framework for discussion texts. The results showed that about half of the students were unable to state the issue clearly in the introduction and assess the issue based on foregoing arguments in the conclusion. For the arguments, the topic sentences and supporting details were satisfactory. Analysis of the language features in the student discussion texts revealed that conditional clauses were seldom used to present hypothetical situations to move the arguments forward but connectors were frequently used, particularly “because”. More causal connectors were used than sequential connectors because of the need for reasoning in discussion texts. Shifts in arguments were signaled using adversative connectors but these were used less frequently than additive connectors for connecting similar ideas. The discussion texts were also characterised by the frequent use of modal verbs for hedging and boosting, mainly “can” and “will”. The study shows that while the student texts had the relevant language features of discussions, they sometimes lacked the characteristic textual structure of discussion texts.
format Article
author Ting, Su Hie
Chai, Ai Sze
author_facet Ting, Su Hie
Chai, Ai Sze
author_sort Ting, Su Hie
title Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
title_short Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
title_full Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
title_fullStr Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
title_full_unstemmed Textual and language features of students’ written Discussion texts
title_sort textual and language features of students’ written discussion texts
publisher Issues in Language Studies
publishDate 2013
url http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/1/Ai%20Sze.pdf
http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/578/
_version_ 1732948935887028224
score 13.252575