Engaging electronically: Using cmc to develop students’ argumentation skills in higher education

Language and Education

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 32-49

  Coffin, Caroline ^a   Hewings, Ann ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Electronic conferencing; Essay writing; Functional linguistics

Indexed keywords

EID: 14044276917     PISSN: 09500782     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500780508668803     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Christie, F., and Martin, J. R., 1997. Genre and Institutions, Social Processes in the Workplace and School, London:Cassell.
2. Clark, R. E., 1983. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4):445–59.
3. Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., and Swann, J., 2003. Teaching Writing in Higher Education, London:Routledge.
4. Costello, P., ed. 1995. Competing and Consensual Voices:The Theory and Practice of Argument, Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
5. Donohue, J., 2002. Genre-based literacy pedagogy:The nature and value of genre knowledge in teaching and learning writing on a university first year media studies course, Luton University. Unpublished PhD Thesis
6. Halliday, M., 1985/1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London:Edward Arnold.
7. Halliday, M. A.K., and Matthiessen, C. M.I.M., 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning:A Language Based Approach to Cognition, London:Cassell.
8. Harasim, L., 1989. “ On-line education:A new domain ”. In Mindweave:Communication, Computers and Distance Education, Edited by:Mason, R., and Kaye, A., 50–62. Oxford:Pergamon.
9. Henri, F., 1995. “ Distance learning and computer mediated communication:Interactive, quasi-interactive or monologue? ”. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Edited by:O'Malley, C., 145–61. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
10. Hewings, A., and Coffin, C., 2004. “ Grammarin the construction of on-line discussion messages ”. In Applied English Grammar:Functional and Corpus Approaches, Edited by:Coffin, C., Hewings, A., and O'Halloran, K. A., London:Hodder-Arnold.
11. Hyland, K., 1999. “ Disciplinary discourses:Writer stance in research articles ”. In Writing:Texts, Processes and Practices, Edited by:Candlin, C. N., and Hyland, K., 99–121. London and New York:Longman.
12. Kaye, A. R., 1990. Computer Conferencing and Mass Distance Education (1), Milton Keynes:Open University. CITE Report No. 98
13. Lea, M., 2001. Computer conferencing and assessment:New ways of writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26 (2):163–81.
14. Light, P., Colbourn, C., and Light, V., 1997. Computer mediated tutorial support for conventional university courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13:219–27.
15. Lillis, T., 2001. Student Writing. Access, Regulation, Desire, London:Routledge.
16. Love, K., 1999. “ Unpacking arguments:The need for a metalanguage ”. In Responding to Student Writing:Continuing Conversations, Edited by:Doecke, B., 195–216. Norwood, South Australia:Australian Association for the Teaching of English.
17. Martin, J. R., 1992. English Text:System and Structure, Amsterdam:Benjamins.
18. Martin, J. R., 2000. “ Beyond exchange:APPRAISAL systems in English ”. In Evaluation in Text, Edited by:Hunston, S., and Thompson, G., 142–75. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
19. Mercer, N. M., Wegerif, R., and Dawes, L., 1999. Children and the development of reason in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25 (1):95–112.
20. Mitchell, S., 1994. The Teaching and Learning of Argument in Sixth Forms and Higher Education, Final Report, Hull:Centre for Studies in Rhetoric, School of Education, University of Hull.
21. Mitchell, S., and Andrews, R., eds. 2000. Learning to Argue, Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/ Cook.
22. Painter, C., 2002. Sharing, questioning, task setting:The impact of different tutorial strategies in electronic conferencing. Seminar paper presented at the Open University. 2002, UK.
23. Painter, C., Coffin, C., and Hewings, A., 2003. Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer conferencing:A case study. Distance Education, 24 (2):159–74.
24. QCA. 1999. Improving Writing at Key Stages 3 and 4, London:Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
25. QCA. 2000. Language for Learning in Key Stage 3, London:Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
26. Riddle, M., 1997. The Quality of Argument, London:Middlesex University School of Lifelong Learning.
27. Tolmie, A., and Anderson, A., 1998. Information technology and peer based tutorials. Psychologist, 11:381–4.
28. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., and Zarefsky, D., 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory:A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. van Eemeren, F. H., ed. 2001. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press.
30. Veel, R., and Coffin, C., 1996. “ Learning to think like an historian:The language of secondary school history ”. In Literacy in Society, Edited by:Hasan, R., and Williams, G., 191–231. London:Longman.
31. Vygotsky, L. S., 1988. Thought and Language, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
32. White, P. R.R., 2002. “ Appraisal -the language of evaluation and stance ”. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Edited by:Verschueren, J., Östman, J., Blommaert, J., and Bulcaen, C., 1–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
33. White, P. R.R., 2003b. Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23 (3):259–84. (Special Edition on Appraisal)
34. Wilson, T., and Whitelock, D., 1998. What are the perceived benefits of participating in a computer mediated communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students?. Computers and Education, 30:259–69. Engaging Electronically 49