Case Study on Persuasiveness of Argument Texts Written by Proficient and Less Proficient Malaysian Undergraduates

Authors

  • Su Hie Ting Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Humaira Raslie Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
  • Leong Jin Jee Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2011.8.4

Keywords:

Argument texts, English proficiency, academic writing, university

Abstract

Purpose â€“ Research has shown that university students, particularly non-native speakers of English, encounter difficulties with various academic text-types and often lack the ability to organise the information in a structure considered effective by the discourse community or to use the significant language features of the text-type effectively to achieve the intended purpose. The study examined the persuasiveness of argument texts written by proficient and less-proficient undergraduates in a Malaysian university. The aspects examined were the organisational structure of the text and the language features significant for fulfilling the persuasive purpose of the text.
 
Method â€“ Forty argument texts were analysed: 22 written by undergraduates who were more profi cient in English, and 18 by less proficient undergraduates. The analysis focused on the organization of the content of the argument text as well as selected language features, namely, connectors, modal verbs and passive voice.
 
Findings â€“ The results showed that the proficient undergraduates used the structure considered effective for argument texts but the writing of the less-proficient group was characterised by unclear or absence of statement of stance and restatement of stance. To achieve the persuasive purpose of the text, the proficient undergraduates made use of connectors, modal verbs and passive voice more than the less-proficient group. However, the connectors ‘because’, ‘so’ and ‘besides’ were often used in a manner similar to spoken language, and there was an overdependence on the modal verbs ‘can’ and ‘will’. The lack of conditionals and nominalisations was obvious for both groups, suggesting that these are more difficult language features to master and greater pedagogical attention is needed.
 
Significance– The paper explores differentiated focus in the teaching of academic writing at university level for students with high and low proficiency in English.
 

References

Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: A systemic-functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research. RELC Journal, 40, 211. Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract

Aouladomar, F., & Saint-Dizier, P. (n.d.). Towards generating procedural texts: An exploration of their rhetorical and argumentative structure. Retrieved from http://www.irit. www.mjli.uum.edu.my fr/~Patrick.Saint-Dizier/ publi_fichier/EWNLG05.pdf

Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cullip, P. F., & Carol, D. (2002). Tailoring an EAP course to disciplinary needs: The UNIMAS effort. The English Teacher, XXVIII [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2002/wp05.htm

Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 739-757.

Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121–150.

Fontan, L., & Saint-Dizier, P. (n.d.). An analysis of the persuasive strength of arguments in procedural texts. Retrieved from http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb09/Proceedings/ PERSUASIVE/FILES/SAINT-DIZIERP.pdf

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Cammeray, NSW: Antipodean Educational Enterprise.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing. London: Longman.

Guinda, C. S. (2003). Contractual role of modality as convergence strategy in technical research articles. RESLA, 16, 219–233.

Jackson, L., Meyer, W., & Parkinson, J. (2006). A study of the writing tasks and reading assigned to undergraduate science students at a South African University. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 260–281.

Jenkins, H. H., & Pico, M. L. (2006). SFL and argumentative essays in ESOL. Proceedings of 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, 155.

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361–386.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5–29.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445–462.

Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. www.mjli.uum.edu.my

Lee, M. Y. P. (2003). Structure and cohesion of English narratives by Nordic and Chinese students. Inordlyd, 31(2), 290–302.

Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317–339.

Mustafa, R., Mahadhir, M., & Ting, S. H. (2009). English for social and academic purposes. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: McGraw-Hill.

Nakamura, J. (1993). Quantitative comparison of modals in the Brown and LOB corpora. International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME) Journal, 12, 15-26.

Sidaway, R. (2006). The genre-based approach to teaching writing. English (Spring Volume), 24–27.

Sigel, T. (2009). How passive voice weakens your scholarly argument. Journal of Management Development, 28(5), 478–480.

Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (2005). What’s yours and what’s mine: Determining intellectual attribution in scientific text. Retrieved from http://delivery.acm.org/ 10.1145/1120000/1117796/p9-teufel.pdf

Thompson, P. (1997). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Ting, S. H., Kamil, S. M., Ho, A. P., Tuah, A. S. B. M., & Campbell, Y. M. (2009). English for social purposes (2nd ed.). Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: McGraw-Hill.

Ting, S. H., & Law, L. (2008). Genre-based approach to teaching English for Academic Purposes: Changes in undergraduates’ academic writing. Proceedings of International Conference on Teaching and Learning, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Tee, P. F. (2008a). English for Academic Purposes and quality of undergraduates’ academic writing. Proceedings of 2nd National Conference on “Skills and Competencies in Education: Emerging issues, trends, challenges and directions” (NCSCE 2008). Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Tee, P. F. (2008b). TESL undergraduates’ ability to handle academic text-types at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Asiatic Journal of Languages and Literatures, 2(2), 85–100.

Ting, S. H., & Tee, P. F. (2009). Organisational and grammatical features of explanations written by Biology undergraduates. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on English Language Teaching (ELT-CON). Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Wilson, A. (2005). Modal verbs in written Indian English: A quantitative and comparative analysis of the Kolhapur corpus www.mjli.uum.edu.my using correspondence analysis. International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME) Journal, 29, 151–170.

Zadeh, E. A. (2006). The role of textual signals in L2 text comprehension, ESP Malaysia, 12, 1–18.

Zhu, W. (2004). Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 111–35.

Downloads

Published

31-01-2011

Issue

Vol. 8 (2011): Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 8, 2011

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Ting, S. H., Raslie, H., & Jee, L. J. (2011). Case Study on Persuasiveness of Argument Texts Written by Proficient and Less Proficient Malaysian Undergraduates. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 71-92. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2011.8.4

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-23
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/mjli2011.8.4 OpenAlex W7208721303