Online Exercises:https://goo.gl/forms/iAoPJpev8ycuUfvE3

​

References: 

• Lists of connectors:

  • Ursem, R. (nd). List of Connectors. Retrieved from: http://www.dcf.ds.mpg.de/fileadmin/allgemein/interna/informationsmaterial/List_of_Connectors.pdf

  • Yoffie, S. (nd). Sentence connectors to use in writing compositions. Retrieved from: http://www.liu.edu/~/media/Files/Brooklyn/Academics/Schools/CLAS/WP/BK-WP-Sentence-Connectors-in-Writing-Comp.ashx

• Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.

• Field, Y. (1994). Cohesive conjunctions in the English writing of Cantonese speaking students from Hong Kong. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 125-139.

• Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading to Learn. London: Equinox.

​

​

Genres and argumentative essays:

 

The writing instruction above should be useful for novice writers from all disciplines, regardless of the type of essay they need to write. However, the team had identified the 'argumentation' or ‘evaluation’ genre as being one of the most problematic ones. Among the types of students’ essays we collected and analysed, as part of this project, we mostly came across the following genres (see Table 1), or types of texts, these we categorized into the following different genre families (Nesi & Gardner, 2012). Most of the teachers we spoke to confirmed that their students were often required to write essays that required students to discuss and evaluate a topic.

 

Table 1: genre families and genres encountered in the project

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

Adapted from Nesi and Gardner (2012, pp. 30-34)

 

One of the reasons for the widespread use of Essays is that they are a good tool to helps students to develop independent reasoning skills, one of the five social purposes of undergraduate texts (as specified by the UK National Education guidelines (Nesi & Gardner, 2012, p. 35)). Other social purposes are listed in Table 2:

 

Table 2: Social Purposes of different genres

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

Adapted from Nesi & Gardner (2012)

​

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) divides genres more generally into three families: analytical, factual and personal (Martin, 1989). Analytical genres include account, explanation and exposition under which a judgement is argued through providing and evaluating supporting evidence (grouped in Table 1 under ‘Essay’). The term ‘argumentative essay’ is commonly used in English courses and is also referred to as an ‘expository essay’ (Jenkins & Pico, 2006). The text might present one or various points of view, supporting one. For more information on this, you can refer to the resources provided by PolyU Library here.

   

Hirvela (2011) details two main pedagogical theories covering argumentation essays: learning to argue and arguing to learn. The former, often grounding mother tongue (L1) argumentative pedagogy, focuses on the argument as a form of reason (Toulmin, 2009). The aim is to understand the logic behind the argument and use its elements (claim, evidence, warrants, counter-arguments, and rebuttal) to build a strong case. On the other hand, the arguing to learn theory believes that the elements of the argument are just tools and the aim is not so much to know the argumentative elements but to learn how to argue (Kuhn, 2005). Whichever pedagogy is adopted in the classroom, L1 and second language (L2) students struggle with argumentative writing (Hirvela, 2017). Students need to learn to make claims, rather than just rephrase information from sources, to allow opposing voices to come through their texts, and cite them adequately, to ensure readers are addressed and aligned with the author’s argument (Pessoa, 2017). One of the issues is that Chinese English learners, in particular, have been observed to display a reluctance to use authoritative language that is negatively assessed by L1 readers (J. J. Lee & Deakin, 2016). At the same time Hong Kong students struggle with the use of hedges to tone down their assertions (Zhao, 2019). For more information on this, you can refer to the resources provided by the Department of English here.

​

Our writing instruction modules have been developed thinking about these types of essays where students have to discuss and evaluate ideas. However, most of the information should be useful in the writing of other types of texts.

​

Links to other PolyU resources:

 

Writing your MA thesis:

http://www.engl.polyu.edu.hk/academic_writing/index.html

http://www.engl.polyu.edu.hk/academic_writing/RP_structure.html  

 

Writing your Capstone project:

http://www.engl.polyu.edu.hk/BACapstoneProject/index.html  

 

Library resources 

https://libguides.lb.polyu.edu.hk/english-for-university/write  

​

 

Acknowledgements: 

​

This study is based on a  proposal by Dr. Gail Forey and funded by the Teaching and Learning Fund of the Hong Kong University Grants Committee (2017). It is supported by the Research Center for Professional Communication in English (RCPCE) of the Department of English of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

​

Thank you to all the participants who have made this study possible, in particular to students who gave us access to their writing and  colleagues who agreed to be interviewed. I am also grateful to colleagues from the ELC, Dr. Julia Chen and Dr. Grace Lim and Dr. Josephine Csete from EDC and to all the other collaborators, Dr.  Marvin Lam, Dr. William Feng, Dr, Nicholas Sampson, Dr. Shirley Ngai and Dr. Tsz Leung Yip, and to the members of the project team: Dr. Eric Cheung, Mary Johannes and Cyril Lam. Our special thanks to Kathleen McDonald who presented the video on Nominalisation.

​

​

References and Further Reading: 

​

• Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Buffalo : Multilingual Matters.

• Bowers, N., Brandon, M., & Hill, C. D. (2005). The use of a knowledge survey as an indicator of student learning in an introductory biology course. Cell biology education, 4(4), 311-322.

• Byrnes, H. (2013). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(22), 95-106.

• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).

• Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language, 159-180.

• Halliday, M. A. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93-116.

• Halliday, M. A. (1999). The notion of" context" in language education. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4, 1-24.

• Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.002

• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.

• Jenkins, H. H., & Pico, M. L. (2006). SFL and argumentative essays in ESOL. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Systemic Functional Congress (ISFC).

• Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 56-68.

• Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.

• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

• 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(C), 21-34. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

• Leedham, M. (2015). Chinese Students’ Writing in English: Using visuals and lists. English Teaching in China (ETiC), 6, 16-20.

• Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

• Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.

• Nuhfer, E. B., & Knipp, D. (2003). The Knowledge Survey: A Tool for All Reasons. To improve the academy, 21(1), 59-78.

• Pelaez-Morales, C. (2017). L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research published between 1992 and 2015. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 9-19.

• Pessoa, S. (2017). How SFL and explicit language instruction can enhance the teaching of argumentation in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 77-78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.004

• Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling : a functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 1-5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.004

• Toulmin, S. E. (2009). Return to reason. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.

• Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 1-5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.004

• Tso, A. W. B., & Ho, W. S. Y. (2018). Chances and challenges: Teaching academic writing to university students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 9(1), 67-82.

• Tso, A. W. B., Ho, W. S. Y., & Chung, J. S. K. (2016). Academic Writing for Arts and Humanities Students. New York: McGraw Hill Education.

• Zhao, C. G. (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117-126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.004

​