Cover not available
Part of
Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment
Edited by Marcus Callies and Sandra Götz
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 70] 2015
► pp. 59–84

Data commentary in science writing

Using a small, specialized corpus for formative self-assessment practices

| Lund University
| Chalmers University of Technology
Data commentary, the verbal comment on visual material, is a complex area in science writing; yet, few studies in academic writing focus on it. This chapter presents an approach to the teaching and learning of data commentary in ESP writing within the science disciplines involving direct application of a small, specialized corpus of data commentaries drawn from published research articles and master’s theses, all annotated for rhetorical moves. We exemplify how formative self-assessment practices of data commentaries can be developed from corpus-informed computer-assisted learning activities combining top-down discourse analysis with bottom-up corpus analysis, and outline a methodology for self-assessment practices. Our approach illustrates how a specialized corpus and purposefully crafted learning activities can assist students in continuous self-assessment practices. Such facilitation is of crucial value today as pedagogical and curricular developments in science education increasingly emphasize students’ awareness of communicative practices.
Published online: 9 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.70.03nor
References (68)
References
Ädel, A. 2010. Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach. In Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching [Research in Corpus and Discourse], M.C. Campoy-Cubillo, B. Belles-Fortuño & M.L. Gea-Valor (eds), 39–55. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H. 2009. Commenting on results in published research articles and masters dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8(4): 241–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T.N. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V.K. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V.K., Langton, N.M. & Lung, J. 2004. Legal discourse: Opportunities and threats for corpus linguistics. In Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 16], U. Connor & T.A. Upton (eds), 203–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, F. & Pazzaglia, R. 2007. Student writing of research articles in a foreign language: Metacognition and corpora. In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on [Language and Computers 62], R. Facchinetti (ed.), 259–287. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U. & Upton, T.A. (eds). 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blåsjö, M. 2011. From percentage to prediction: University students meeting a parallel language of visuals and numerals. Ibérica 22: 123–140.Google Scholar
Bloch, J. 2009. The design of an online program for teaching about reporting verbs. Language Learning and Technology 13(1): 59–78.Google Scholar
Boud, D. & Molloy, E. 2013. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(6): 698–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brett, P. 1994. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 13(1): 47–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. & Kuo, C. 2011. A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes 30(3): 222–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2007. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 289–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus building. English for Specific Purposes 31(2): 93–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2011. Variation in corpora and its pedagogical implications. Interview with Susan Conrad. In Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 48], V. Viana, S. Zyngier & G. Barnbrook (eds), 47–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feez, S. 2002. Heritage and innovation in second language education. In Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, A.M. Johns (ed.), 43–72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. & Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices. Across Languages and Disciplines [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 148]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. 2004. The argument for using English specialized corpora. In Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 16]. U. Connor & T.A. Upton (eds), 11–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Corpus-Based Analyses of the Problem-Solution Pattern: A Phraseological Approach [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 29]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Using a corpus for writing instruction. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (eds), 444–457. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geisler, C. 1994. Literacy and expertise in the academy. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 1(1): 35–57.Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. 2004–5. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3–31.
Gilquin, G., Granger, S. & Paquot, M. 2007. Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 319–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2003. The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 538–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Meunier, F., & Dagneaux, E. 2002. The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Guinda, C.S. 2011. Integrating approaches to visual data commentary: An exploratory case study. In Researching Specialized Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 47], V. Bhatia, P. Sánchez Hernández & P. Pérez-Paredes (eds), 115–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Proximal positioning in students’ graph commentaries. In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, C.S. Guinda & K. Hyland (eds), 166–183. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41(4): 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. 2007. Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: Making the tacit explicit (Kenton Special Issue). Journal of Education 41: 59–81.Google Scholar
Johns, A.M. 2008. Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching 41(2): 237–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 24(3): 269–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 28], D. Biber, U. Connor & T.A. Upton (eds), 73–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearney, S. 2013. Improving engagement: The use of ‘authentic self- and peer-assessment for learning’ to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(7): 875–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. & Kosem, I. 2007. Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 356–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosem, I. 2008. User-friendly corpus tools for language teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, A. Frankenberg-Garcia (ed.), 183–192. Lisbon: Associação de Estudos e de Investigação do ISLA-Lisboa.Google Scholar
Lee, D. & Swales, J.M. 2006. A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes 25(1): 56–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J. 1998. Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, J.R. Martin & R. Veel (eds), 87–113. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liu, Y. & Owyong, Y.S.M. 2011. Metaphor, multiplicative meaning and the semiotic construction of scientific knowledge. Language Sciences 33(5): 822–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luzón, M.J. 2009. The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8(3): 192–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. 2012. Learning to Write/Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School: Scaffolding Democracy in Literacy Classrooms. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. 2009. Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievements in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34(3): 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 199–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordrum, L., Evans, K. & Gustafsson, M. 2013. Comparing student learning experiences of in-text commentary and rubric-articulated feedback: Strategies for formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(8): 919–940. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. 2004. Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education 9(3): 325–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2008. The UAM corpus tool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind / La Lingüística Aplicada Hoy: Comprendiendo el Lenguaje y la Mente, C.M. Bretones Callejas, S. Salaberri Ramiro, E. García Sánchez, M.E. Cortés de los Ríos, M.S. Cruz Martínez, J.F. Fernández Sánchez, J.R. Ibáñez Ibáñez, N.P. Honeyman & B. Cantizano Márquez (eds), 1433–1447. Almería: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K.L. 2005. Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Peters, S. 2011. Asserting or deflecting expertise? Exploring the rhetorical practices of master’s theses in the philosophy of education. English for Specific Purposes 30(3): 176–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poe, M., Lerner, N. & Craig, J. 2010. Learning to Communicate in Science and Engineering: Case Studies from MIT. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Posteguillo, S. 1999. The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2): 139–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M.S., Stoller, F.L., Costanza-Robinson, Molly S. & Jones, J.K. 2010. Write Like a Chemist. A Guide and Resource. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Römer, U. 2011. Corpus research applications in language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 205–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roth, W.-M. 2013. Data generation in the discovery sciences – learning from practices in an advanced research laboratory. Research in Science Education 43(4): 1617–1644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roth, W.-M., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. & Han, J.Y. 2005. Critical Graphicacy: Understanding Visual Representation Practices in School Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sadler, D.R. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18: 119–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samraj, B. 2008. A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1): 55–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.M. 2001. Preface. In Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 5], M. Ghadessy, A. Henry & R.L. Roseberry (eds), vii–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C.D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., Fisher, R. & McPhail, R. 2013. Assessment literacy and student learning: The case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(1): 44–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoller, F.L. & Robinson, M.S. 2013. Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes 32, 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. 2004. Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Essential Tasks and Skills, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Essential Tasks and Skills, 3rd edn. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. & Tribble, C. 2001. Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for Academic Purposes. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 91–105.Google Scholar
Upton, T.A. & Cohen, M.A. 2009. Discourse analysis. An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies 11(5): 585–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, J.J. 2001. A concordance- and genre-informed approach to ESP essay writing. ELT Journal 55(1): 14–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, S. 2012. Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes 31(4): 261–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, I.A. 1999. Results section of medical research articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(4): 347–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Flowerdew, Lynne
2020. The Academic Literacies approach to scholarly writing: a view through the lens of the ESP/Genre approach. Studies in Higher Education 45:3 ► pp. 579 ff. DOI logo
Jin, Bixi
2018. Rhetorical Differences in Research Article Discussion Sections of High- and Low-Impact Articles in the Field of Chemical Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 61:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. The Academic Discourse of Mechanical Engineering [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 107], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.