A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Deviant Usage of Mood and Modality in Argumentative Essays of Second Year Students of Berekum College of Education

Christopher Gyau

doi:10.19044/esj.2022.v18n9p20

Christopher Gyau Berekum College Of Education, Ghana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2022.v18n9p20

Keywords: Argumentative essays, mood and modality, students, writing, English

Abstract

The aim of the study was to find out the quantitative approach to the study of deviant usages of mood and modality in argumentative essays of second year students of Berekum College of Education in the Ashanti region of Ghana. The main objectives of the study were to investigate the causes of Berekum College of Education students’ inability to use mood and modality features appropriately to write good argumentative essays, identify the specific challenges the students are confronted with and the main causes of their lack of interest for argumentative essays. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 150 second year students of Berekum College of Education by way of questionnaires, an in-class essay test, summary test and objective test. These were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The findings reveal that there was no exposure to the appropriate use of mood and modality as well as argumentative essays at the pre-college level of their education. The findings also indicate that students were simply of the view that their tutors must serve as role models in the use of the features of mood and modality in all their discussions and deliberations to enable students learn the practicalities of the usage of the concepts from them. It also discloses that second-year students of Berekum College of Education lack interest in writing argumentative essays, and are unable to make appropriate use of mood and modality to be successful in the writing of such essays. It is therefore recommended that students should practise the concepts they are taught to enhance their understanding of mood and modality and their usage in argumentative essays while English tutors avail themselves for in-service training, workshops and seminars to abreast themselves of new trends of teaching language classes, especially in dealing with mood and modality in argumentative essays.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX Statistics

References

1. Aarts, B. (2012). The subjunctive conundrum in English. Folia Linguistica, 46(1), 1–20.
2. Abate, S. (2017). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press.
3. Allan, K. (2001). Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
4. Asterhan, C. S. C. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation:
The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54(1), 66–78.
5. Asterhan, C. S. C., Schwarz, B.B. & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375–397.
6. Auwera, J.V.D. & Aguilar, A.Z. (2016). The History of Modality and Mood. In Jan Nuyts and Johan Van Der Auwera (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Bayerlein, L. (2014). Students’ feedback preferences: How do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 916–931.
8. Bergman, L. (2017). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
9. Berry, M. (1975). Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. London: Batsford.
10. Biber, D., Johanssson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
11. Bybee, J.L. & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Cai, G. 1999, 'Texts in contexts: understanding Chinese students' English compositions. In C.
13. R. Cooper & L. Odell (eds), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp279-297). National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana,.
14. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47
15. Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). NNS students' arguments in English: Observations in formal and informal contexts', Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 19-35.
16. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
17. Clark, R. (2009). *Leo Tuai: A comparative lexical study of North and Central Vanuatu languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
18. Coates, J. (1983). Semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
19. Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of arguments in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229-246.
20. Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227.
21. Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348–359.
22. De-Luca, E. (2016). Common European framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Depraetere, I. & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and Modality in English. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp.269-291). Oxford-Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
24. Dourado, J. (2017). A Pedagogic Grammar of the English Verb: A Handbook for the German Secondary Teacher of English. Tübingen: G.Narr.
25. El-Henawy, W. M., Dadour, E.-S. M., Salem, M. M., & El-Bassuony, J. M. (2012). The effectiveness of using self-regulation strategies on developing argumentative writing of EFL prospective teachers. Journal of the Egyptian Association for Reading and Knowledge, 27(1), 1–28.
26. English, F. (1999). What do students really say in their essays? In C. Jones, J. Turner & B. Street (eds), Students Writing in the University: Cultural and Epistemological Issues, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
27. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470.
28. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
29. Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful level in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144.
30. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
31. Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2002). An Introduction to English Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
32. Harries, H., & Cunningham, D. (1994). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. International Language of Linguistics, 2(3), 103-124.
33. He, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality markers in Chinese research articles. Chinese Lexical Semantics, 77(17), 199–208.
34. Heydarnia, R. & Nader, A.B. (2015). A comparative study of mood and modality in academic writing: male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 6(6), 87-96
35. Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,.
36. Hooks, A. S. (2010). A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. London: Oxford University Press.
37. Hoye, L.F. (2005). You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions, Part II. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1481–1506.
38. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book Routledge, London
40. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266.
41. Knapp, P. & M. Watkins (1994). The genre of arguing, Context Text Grammar: Teaching the genres and grammar of school writing in infants and primary
classrooms. University of Wollongong Library: ereadings.
42. Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse Processes, 18, 211–230.
43. Kuhn, H. (1994). Students’ grammar, teachers’ grammar, learners’ Grammar”. In M. Bygate, Tonkyn & E. Williams (eds.), Grammar and the Language Teacher (17-30). Hartfordshire: Prentice Hall.
44. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45. Lukomskaya, L. (2015). Using mentor texts to teach argumentative writing through writing conferences. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Education and human development master’s theses. (No. 553)
46. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Murcia, G., & Olshtain, R. (1998). “Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate.” Argumentation & Advocacy, 35(2), 76-89.
48. Nippold, E. A. (2000). A synopsis of English syntax (2nd ed.). The Hague: Mouton.
49. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31(1), 20–31.
50. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H.J.A., Mulder, M.,& Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.
51. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.
52. Nworgu, B. G. (2006). Educational research: Basic issues and methodology. Ibadan, Nigerian: Wisdom Publishers Ltd.
53. Ozagac, N. (2004). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Palmer, F.R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contemporary English (pp.1–17). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
56. Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). Emergent arguments: A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(1), 42–55.
57. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
58. Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.
59. Schneider, M. (2015). Qualitative research through case studies. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
60. Strang, Z. (1969). A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates. Unpublished Thesis.
61. Surjowati, R. (2016). Modality meanings in student’s argumentative writings. International Conference on Teacher Training and Education, 1(1), 196-201
62. Tanaka, E. (2016), ‘The Subjunctive in British and American English’, ICAME Journal 12, 27-36.
63. Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851–860.
64. Traugott, E.C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp.29-70). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
65. Yemeh, N. (2007). Communication Skills Vol. 2 (2nd ed). Winneba: Ask Africa Books and Co. Ltd.
66. Yuyun, I. (2010). A mood and modality analysis of arguments in senior high school debating. Paper presented at Seventh Conference on English Studies (CONEST 7). Jakarta
67. Ziegeler, D.P. (2012). Towards a composite definition of nominal modality. In Werner Abraham and Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Covert Patterns of Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Series.
68. Zutshi, A., Parris, M.A., & Creed A. (2007). Questioning the future of paper and online survey questionnaires for management research. Burwood, VIC, Australia: Deakin University. Department of Business and Law.