Abstract

Background: Contemporary research in composition studies emphasizes the constitutive power of genres. It also highlights the prevalence of the most common genre in students’ transition into advanced college writing, the argumentative essay. Consistent with most research in composition, and therefore most studies of general, first-year college writing, such research has primarily emphasized genre context. Other research, in international applied linguistics research and particularly English for Academic Purposes (EAP), has focused less on first-year writers but has likewise shown the frequent use of argumentative essays in undergraduate writing. Together, these studies suggest that the argumentative essay is represented more than other genres in early college writing development, and that any given genre favors particular discourse features in contrast with other genres students might write. A productive next step, but one not yet realized, is to bring these discussions together, in research that uses context-informed corpus analysis that investigates students’ assignment contexts and analyzes the discourse that characterizes the tasks and genres students write. This study offers an exploratory, context-informed analysis of argumentative and explanatory writing by first-year college writers. Based on the corpus findings, the article underscores discourse as an integral part of the sociocognitive practices embedded in genres, and accordingly considers new ways to conceptualize student writing genres and to inform instruction and assignment design. Research questions: Four questions guided the inquiry: What are the key discursive practices associated with annotated bibliographies and argumentative essays written by the same students in the same course? What are the key discursive practices associated with visual analyses and argumentative essays written by the same students in the same course? What are the key discursive practices associated with the two argumentative tasks in comparison with the two explanatory tasks? Finally, how might corpus-based findings inform the design of particular assignment tasks and genres in light of a range of writing goals? Methodology: The article outlines a context-informed corpus analysis of lexical and grammatical keywords in part-of-speech tagged writing by first-year college students across courses at a U.S. institution. Using information from assignment descriptions and rubrics, the study considers four projects that also represent two macro-genres: an annotated bibliography and a visual analysis, both part of the explanatory macro-genre, and two argumentative essays, both part of the argumentative macro-genre. Results: The corpus analysis identifies lexical and grammatical keywords in each of the four tasks as well as in the macro-genres of argumentative versus explanatory writing. These include generalized, interpersonal, and persuasive discourse in argumentative essays versus more specified, informational, and elaborated discourse in explanatory writing, regardless of course or task. Based on these findings, the article discusses the discursive practices prioritized in each task and each macro-genre. Conclusions: The findings, based on key discourse patterns in tasks within the same course and in macro-genres across courses, pose important questions regarding writing task design and students’ adaptation to different genres. The macro-genre keywords specifically inform exploratory sociocognitive “profiles” of argumentative and explanatory tasks, offered in the final section. These argument and explanation profiles strive to account for discourse patterns, genre networks, and purposes and processes—in other words, multiple aspects of habituated thinking and writing practices entailed in each one relative to the other. As discussed in the conclusion, the profiles aim to (1) underscore discourse patterns as integral to the work of genres, (2) highlight adaptive discourse strategies as part of students’ meta-language for writing, and (3) identify multiple, macro-level (e.g., audience), meso-level (paragraph- and section-level), and micro-level (e.g., discourse patterns) aspects of genres to help instructors identify and specify multiple goals for writing assignments.

Journal
Journal of Writing Analytics
Published
2017-01-01
DOI
10.37514/jwa-j.2017.1.1.03
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Gold
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (34)

  1. Literacy in Composition Studies
  2. Literacy in Composition Studies
  3. Literacy in Composition Studies
  4. Literacy in Composition Studies
  5. Literacy in Composition Studies
Show all 34 →
  1. Literacy in Composition Studies
  2. Literacy in Composition Studies
  3. Literacy in Composition Studies
  4. Literacy in Composition Studies
  5. Literacy in Composition Studies
  6. Literacy in Composition Studies
  7. Literacy in Composition Studies
  8. Literacy in Composition Studies
  9. Literacy in Composition Studies
  10. Literacy in Composition Studies
  11. Journal of Writing Analytics
  12. Across the Disciplines
  13. Written Communication
  14. Assessing Writing
  15. Journal of Writing Analytics
  16. Journal of Writing Analytics
  17. Journal of Writing Analytics
  18. Assessing Writing
  19. Pedagogy
  20. Journal of Writing Analytics
  21. College Composition and Communication
  22. Written Communication
  23. Journal of Writing Analytics
  24. Journal of Writing Analytics
  25. Journal of Writing Analytics
  26. Journal of Writing Analytics
  27. Journal of Writing Analytics
  28. Journal of Writing Analytics
  29. Journal of Writing Analytics

References (85) · 24 in this index

  1. Research in the Teaching of English
  2. Anson, C. M. (2008). Closed systems and standardized writing tests. College Composition and Communication, 60…
  3. College Composition and Communication
  4. Assessing Writing
  5. Aull, L. L. (2015b). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. Lond…
Show all 85 →
  1. Aull, L. L. (2015c). Linguistic attention in rhetorical genre studies and first-year writing. Composition For…
  2. Aull, L. L., Bandarage, D., & Miller, M. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corp…
     ↗
  3. Written Communication
  4. Baker, P. (2004). Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. Jour…
     ↗
  5. Barlow, M. (2004). Software for corpus access and analysis. In J. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in la…
     ↗
  6. College English
  7. Bawarshi, A. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place of invention in compositi…
     ↗
  8. Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, U…
     ↗
  9. Assessing Writing
  10. Bennett, R. E. (1991). On the meanings of constructed response. ETS Research Report Series, 1991(2).
     ↗
  11. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     ↗
  12. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A mul…
     ↗
  13. College English
  14. Bloom, L. Z. (2000). Once more to the essay: The essay canon and textbook anthologies. Symploke, 8(1), 20-35.
     ↗
  15. Bowker, L., & Pearson, J. (2002). Working with specialized language : A practical guide to using corpora. Lon…
     ↗
  16. Research in the Teaching of English
  17. Brown, D. W., & Palmer, C. C. (2015). The phrasal verb in American English: Using corpora to track down histo…
     ↗
  18. Burrows, C. D. (2011). The construction of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X in composition textbook…
  19. Burstein, J., Elliot, N., & Molloy, H. (2016). Informing automated writing evaluation using the lens of genre…
     ↗
  20. The WAC Journal
  21. Written Communication
  22. Crusius, T. W. (1999). Kenneth Burke and the conversation after philosophy. Carbondale: SIU Press.
  23. Assessing Writing
  24. Assessing Writing
  25. Research in the Teaching of English
  26. Devitt, A. J. (2015). Genre performances: John Swales' Genre analysis and rhetorical-linguistic genre studies…
     ↗
  27. Written Communication
  28. Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroo…
  29. Gabrielson, S., Gordon, B., & Engelhard Jr, G. (1995). The effects of task choice on the quality of writing o…
     ↗
  30. Assessing Writing
  31. College Composition and Communication
  32. Gonyea, R. M., & Miller, A. (2011). Clearing the air about the use of self- reported gains in institutional r…
     ↗
  33. Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multip…
  34. College English
  35. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journa…
     ↗
  36. Hardy, J. A., & Römer, U. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional an…
     ↗
  37. Heath, S. B. (1993). Rethinking the sense of the past: The essay as legacy of the epigram. In L. Odell (Ed.),…
  38. Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar : A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of Engli…
     ↗
  39. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of…
     ↗
  40. Huot, B. (2002). Rearticulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, Utah: Utah State Univers…
     ↗
  41. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(…
     ↗
  42. Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. S.…
     ↗
  43. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Secon…
     ↗
  44. Jarratt, S. C., Mack, K., Sartor, A., & Watson, S. E. (2009). Pedagogical memory: Writing, mapping, translati…
  45. Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner…
     ↗
  46. Johns, A. M. (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
     ↗
  47. Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41…
     ↗
  48. Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-level student writing in political theory and ec…
  49. Journal of Writing Research
  50. Liu, D. (2011). The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus…
     ↗
  51. Martin, J. (2002). A universe of meaning-How many practices. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Mu…
  52. McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  53. Medway, P. (2002). Fuzzy genres and community identities: The case of architecture students' sketchbooks. In …
  54. Meizlish, D., LaVaque-Manty, D., & Silver, N. (2013). Think like/Write like. In R. Thomson (Ed.), Changing th…
  55. College Composition and Communication
  56. Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167.
     ↗
  57. Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2005). Dimensions of difference: A comparison of university writing and IELTS writin…
     ↗
  58. Moxley, J. (2013). Big data, learning analytics, and social assessment. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 6(…
  59. Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse …
     ↗
  60. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge…
     ↗
  61. Oakes, M. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  62. Puma, V. D. (1986). Relationships between writer-audience proximity, register, and quality in the essays of f…
  63. Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Paper presented at the Proceed…
     ↗
  64. Written Communication
  65. Journal of Writing Research
  66. Rounsaville, A., Goldberg, R., & Bawarshi, A. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students' prior genre kno…
  67. Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reco…
  68. Scott, M. (2014). WordSmith Tools (Version 6.0). Oxford: Oxford Univerversity Press.
  69. Shum, S. B., Knight, S., McNamara, D., Allen, L., Bektik, D., & Crossley, S. (2016). Critical perspectives on…
     ↗
  70. Sparks, J. R., Song, Y., Brantley, W., & Liu, O. L. (2014). Assessing written communication in higher educati…
     ↗
  71. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings. Cambridge [England] ; New York…
  72. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     ↗
  73. Tedick, D. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English…
     ↗
  74. College Composition and Communication
  75. White, E. M., Elliot, N., & Peckham, I. (2015). Very like a whale: The assessment of writing programs. Logan,…
     ↗
  76. Research in the Teaching of English
  77. Wingate, U. (2012). 'Argument!' helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English f…
     ↗
  78. College Composition and Communication
  79. Burrows, 2011). See, for example, https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sample-questions/essay for SAT pr…
  80. Dryer's (2013) corpus study of FY composition rubrics across U.S. institutions shows that