IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Recreating Discourse Community for Appropriating HOCs in Law Undergraduates’
Academic Writing
Suman Luhach
Bennett University
India

151

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Abstract
Like any other discipline, academic writing is equally crucial for law undergraduates to master.
Project reports, argumentative essay writing on current socio-legal affairs and research paper
writing comprise requisites in academia for law learners. Students’ appropriation of higher
order concerns in academic writing is a major challenge for teachers, as the physical classroom
discourse community is typically passive and does not give enough opportunities to students
to think critically about their writing processes. The teacher is expected to provide feedback tostudents on their writing, which often leads to the creation of only one feedback centre,
restriction of the scope for varied perceptions and formation of multiple small discourses where
the teacher is the central point of reference in every discourse. Consequentially, students canfail to develop self/peer-critiques in the ongoing discourse. The present paper has its focus on
the recreation of discourse communities using a learning management system at the Law
School, Bennett University, India, to promote peer-to-peer learning for honing higher orderconcerns in academic writing. The paper investigates how law students behave whilst
interacting in a recreated online discourse community, benefit through peer feedback, andenhance their knowledge of the academic writing genre of argumentative essays, its subject
matter and rhetoric involved. The methodological triangulation of pre-test/post-test analysis,
student survey and conceptual content analysis of students’ interaction transcripts support
recreation of online discourse communities in academic writing instruction.
Keywords: academic writing, argumentative essay writing, discourse community, higher orderconcerns, law undergraduates

152

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Law undergraduates, like students of any other discipline, are expected to have alreadyacquired certain basic proficiency in writing in terms of expression and lower order concerns(LOCs) when they commence university education so that they can have a smooth transition
into the world of academic writing – argumentative essays, project reports, and research papers
among other forms of writing – across disciplines and contexts (Cumming, 1989; Griggs, 1996;
Knight et al., 2018; Paltridge, 2018; Wingate et al., 2011 ). Writing instructors at law school
expect students to understand what “specificity”, “precision” and “concision” in academic
writing are and also to understand the distinction between relevant and irrelevant knowledge
in a context and to supply discretionary information in an academic writing context (Bacha &Bahous 2008; Horowitz 1986; Street, 2004; Wilkes et al., 2015). Academic writing involves
recursive processes, comprising modifications and refinements at every stage of the writing
process, with a major focus on higher order concerns (HOCs) in writing. These modifications
are a result of continuous change in thought processes complying with feedback and selfanalysis. A peer and self-feedback mechanism is thus integral to academic writing (DeJarnatt,
2001; Guasch et al., 2013; Huisman et al., 2018; Hyland, 2013; Magno & Amarles, 2011;
Topping et al., 2000), and students usually participate in this through various interactions
happening within what is referred to as the discourse community (DC) they are part of.
Sometimes, however, either due to curricular constraints or being too teacher-centric, themechanism of interaction in a classroom DC can become hindered. When this happens,students do not get opportunities to get involved in critical thinking concerning their writing
processes and thus fail to refine the HOCs involved in their writing. These difficulties
necessitate recreation of a classroom DC to incorporate new mechanisms of feedback and tofulfil the requirements of an academic writing course in terms of making students active
contributors to the writing processes of not only their own, but also of their peers’, writing.
This also underpins a fundamental aim of higher education, to inculcate critical thinking habits
amongst college students (Andrews, 2015; Bezanilla et al, 2019; Ghanizadeh, 2017; Liu et al.,2016) – acknowledging what others think, looking beyond and understanding how tointernalise and refine thoughts, expression and writing.
It is also important to note that creation, recreation, and maintenance of DCs in academic
writing classrooms require proper considerations by the instructor. DeJarnatt (2001) suggests
integration of speech and writing for law undergraduates and advocates creation of a new DC
where “they can talk to each other about their writing” (p. 489). To ensure that the writing
process is meaningfully active within a DC, the instructor needs to understand key features ofa DC. For the current study, the researcher aimed to recreate an active DC where students canwork collaboratively for appropriation of their academic writing within the course of English
II for law undergraduates. The academic writing in law as a discipline involves specificregisters, writing process, formats, and contexts. These specific requirements of the discipline
also demand a recreated DC where there could be special attention on specific goals, genres,writing conventions, formats, and writing style (Melzer, 2020). The current researcher selected
the genre of argumentative essay writing, as the transferability and relevance of this genre toboth law undergraduates and lawyers in their career is high. Moreover, this genre works on
HOCs: a clear thesis with strong claims and supports in the form of reasoning and evidences
which are also central to other specified legal writing genres such as case comments or memos(Cragg,1988).
The recreation of a DC in the present study also underlies the evolving nature of academia andpedagogy with technological advancements and needs (Swales, 2016). Physical classrooms canbe easily supplemented and enriched with empowered online DCs on learning management
systems (LMSs) or other free online platforms.

153

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Literature Review
Discourse Community
Swales (1990) gives six features of a DC: a common public goal; a mechanism ofintercommunication; use of its mechanisms primarily to provide feedback and information; useof any genre/s for continuation of the communication; use of a lexis pertaining to a particulardiscipline; and a minimum number of members, with some required level knowledge pertaining
to the area of that DC. Subsequent research by Swales (2016) emphasised re-imagining theconcept of a DC. With the evolving nature of academia and pedagogy, he added two morefeatures to a DC: a DC develops shared understanding, which Swales (2016) quotes as “silential
relations” (p. 16), and a DC also develops a close rapport among its members, which Swales(2016) refers to as “horizons of expectation” (p.16). These features align the components oftraditional unities – writer, audience, and text – and Swales (2016) further explains that thisaddition makes it workable for all the three types (local, focal and folocal) of DCs. According
to Swales (2016), the concept of a DC is useful in language classrooms with both academic
and specific purposes. In addition, it also helps the educationists to impart oracy and literacy
skills among students, which subsequently makes them capable of accomplishing many
interdisciplinary academic tasks.
Research into DCs has shown it can also have further applications. For example, Martín (2003)
cites the educational benefits of a DC as given by Swales, but adds that a DC may possess
considerable distance among its members and the distance could be in terms of theirbackground as well as place. Despite this, a DC can work on maintaining and extendingknowledge collaboratively, as acknowledged by Duszak (1997), who stresses the sociorhetorical aspect of DCs, and emphasises that a DC having its focus on verbal skills helps inco-creation of knowledge to a great extent, with additional benefits being freedom of time andspace. Edens and Gallini (2000) experimented creating a DC in a technology-mediatedenvironment, comprised of in-service and beginning preservice teachers of educational
psychology, for constructive discussion and meaning-making that is not limited by space andtime. Benz (1996) relied on creating a DC for eleven non-English speaking college students
who were required to establish effective relationships with their teachers and their peers, tohelp manage their performances in content courses. Benz’s study also utilised a DC as apedagogical tool for honing college level English as a second language. Similarly, Abdi et al.
(2010) worked on creating an academic DC discourse community to benefit the multilingual
members in the use of metadiscourse markers.
A Discourse Community in Composition Classrooms
Beaufort (2008) gave a succinct definition of a DC while emphasising its importance in written
communication, “a social group that communicates at least in part via written texts and sharescommon goals, values, and writing standards, a specialised vocabulary and specialised genres”(p.179). Borg (2003), while discussing the nuances of a DC, specifically conveys that DCs
have significant pedagogical implications in teaching of writing and more importantly in
writing genres of English for specific purposes. According to Pogner (2005), a DC that hasdeveloped from an interpretation community became popular in writing research mainly intechnical writing among engineering academic and non-academic context. The involvement of
individuals in the community is established by the individuals using text. This amounts tocollaborative explanation of the issue/question/topic in hand and production of text around it.
The medium of discourse for such written texts has been various online platforms. Martín(2003) also elaborates that a DC extends a group’s knowledge and writing of a text. The
collaborative review of linguistic and textual features helps the group members to understandand imbibe how, as writers, they need to understand the importance of audience analysis.

154

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Basturkmen and Bitchener (2014) examined the bearing of an academic discourse community
on supervisors’ feedback on draft dissertations and analysed their feedback comments on
various aspects of writing. Duff (2010) talks of academic discourse communities helpful inlanguage socialisation in classrooms and tells that DCs are “highly intertextual”, “multimodal”
and “multilingual” in contemporary contexts (p.169). He adds that language socialisation
happening in a DC could be very transformative for a few individuals. Pogner (2003) tested a
DC for writing tasks with Danish consulting engineers, with findings that suggest writing as asocial action happens through feedback and revisions in a DC, as constructed by thecollaborative work of its members. Li (2006) highlights the importance of a DC into the EAPclassroom, where students enhance their awareness of epistemological features of disciplines
and higher order thinking skills. Parkyn (1999) emphasised the importance of students learningfrom each other and that this learning could be done by creating discourse communities forfacilitating collaborative engagement. Parkyn also suggests that teachers and students may
make use of technology for computer-based assignments, as done in their study of writing for
an electronic journal.
As teachers of academic writing at undergraduate level, teachers seek to shift the focus of theirteaching from accuracy and expression (LOCs in writing) to rhetorical functions and to larger
societal discourses (HOCs in writing). So, while addressing the concerns related to genre
approach or process approach of writing, it is important that DCs are recreated to support such
instructional shifts. University composition classes also need to focus on micro-genres such as
framing an argument. If such DCs start focusing on writing genres, and specifically micro
genres (Watanabe, 2016), they will gradually appropriate the macro-genres and the registers ofthe discipline. The teachers, thus, would be able to provide scaffolds to the students in the formof a DC that can be used to signal a focus on written texts, and where students can work toward
appropriating texts.
Higher Order Concerns in Academic Writing
In this respect a piece of academic writing is judged at two levels: higher order concerns(HOCs) and lower order concerns (LOCs) in writing. It is essential to differentiate between
meaningful writing and accurate writing (Jacobs & Karliner, 1977). Introduction of academic
writing to college undergraduates is done to engage them in critical thinking and make themwork on their HOCs in writing (Ali, 2016; Min, 2016; Van den Bos & Tan, 2019; Winder etal., 2016). The recreated DC in the present study will allow students to contemplate and interact
on specific aspects of HOCs: focus/thesis/purpose, audience, organisation, and content
development; and of LOCs: grammar (sentence structure, punctuation, prepositions, articles,
verb tense), word choice and spellings (cf. Purdue OWL, 2020).
Recreation of a Discourse Community
English II offered at Bennett Law School focuses on academic writing skills of year-I law
undergraduates. The present research has its basis in two difficulties that the instructor faced
while delivering the course. Firstly, the removal of tutorial sessions from the course plan due
to some curricular changes which resulted in negligible individualised attention and feedback
on students’ writing. Secondly, the habit of students to rely on the teacher as a panacea for theirwriting issues. These difficulties led the instructor to seek pedagogical changes aimed ataddressing the difficulties and assisting students to increase their writing abilities. Thesechanges also underpin the aim of higher education, which is to inculcate critical thinking habits
among students: moving ahead and looking beyond, understanding more, and internalising andrefining thinking process as an academic writer. Keeping this in mind, recreation of an online
DC was done as a supplementary to the existing classroom DC.

155

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

The notion of recreation of discourse community is directly related to the basic features of a
DC proposed by Swales (2016). The mechanism of intercommunication in a classroom DC
found space on forums on “i-learn” LMS (based on Moodle). Students generated content/
information by posting on the given topics and by giving feedback to each other. This recreation
is not only just associated with changes in the components of basic features that constitute a
DC but is also embedded in enhancing its dynamism and visibility.
The visibility of DCs could be even more obvious in a digital world. The integration oftechnology is common practice these days and is done to enhance the teaching and learning
experience in the traditional regular education as well as distance education. Teaching writing
skills at college needs a shift from “leading-children” to “leading-adults” in web-supported
environments and peer-to-peer learning that is better known by the term “paragogy”(Bassendowski, 2016 Mulholland, 2019). Paragogy has the underlying principle of selfdirected and anti-didactic learning process with ubiquitous web 2.0 (Alfuqaha, 2013; Corneli& Danoff, 2011). Recreation of a DC emphasises devising such new teaching methodologies
for the introduction of self-directed and peer-to-peer learning, and for the integration oftechnology for increased collaboration that works on merging traditional skills and knowledge
with digital working practices and can help building new recreated classroom DCs withenhanced dynamism and visibility. Swales (2016) also suggests that with the advancement incomputers and computer-based communication, there is a need to rethink and revisit thefeatures of a DC that he gave in 1990. He also mentions that there were some inherent flaws in
those features like it was overly static and did not give much information about how membersof the DC enter or leave a DC. Incorporating these ideas from Swales and others, the following
features are discussed in relation to the recreated DC as used in the present study:
Common goal. The recreated DC in the present research involves the set of students who arecollaborative learners on an online platform of “i-learn” LMS trying to appropriate the skill ofargumentative essay writing.
Intercommunication mechanism. Swales (2016) emphasises the need to recognise new
online modes of communication like blogs and emails and many others which can be helpfulin creating a real dynamic community. The mechanism of intercommunication in the study isrecreated online DC where written interaction happens.
Participatory mechanisms. A DC uses its mechanisms primarily to provide feedback andinformation. Students in a recreated DC generate content on the given argumentative topics
and give feedback to each other. To manage the proper functioning of the DC, the course
instructor works as a moderator who initiates the activity of written interaction by providing
topics and guidelines.
Genre. The genre in the present research is argumentative writing on some relevant socio-legal
issues. As Swales (2016) suggests, the genre in a DC is “performed, re-performed and refined”(p.15), students in the recreated DC also work towards appropriation of argumentative writing.
Lexis. For generating content on argumentative topics of socio-legal issues the registers aremostly sui generis which differ with different types of claims – fact, policy, cause and effect,
and with different types of evidences – testimonial, physical, and anecdotal among others.
Members and expertise. In a DC, members often come as novices and they change, evolve,
and attain appropriation. It is also true that there must be a ratio of beginners to experts for thecommunity to exist, continue, and appropriate knowledge. In the present study, the instructor
moderates the process of entry and progression in the online DC by creating access andmoderating the interaction.

156

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Rapport and rhythm. Once the instructor briefed students on their roles in a DC, the students
were not reminded of the task of developing arguments with proper claims, reasons, andevidences, counterclaims, and rebuttal.
Shared understanding. After being briefed on the activity by the teacher, students moved into
the flow and rhythm of the task and kept posting their content and feedback from time to time.
The recreation of an online DC as a supplement to classroom teaching is done to allow students
to get engaged in critical thinking and get attentive to HOCs in writing. It is an attempt torecreate a dynamic DC and give indications on how an instructor can decide entry and exit
form a DC meant for appropriation of any specific academic writing genre.
Methodology
The research design for the present study is a quasi-experimental design - non-equivalentControl group design (NECG) with pre-test and post-test – and the sampling technique isconsecutive sampling as in educational settings, as it is mostly impracticable to randomly
allocate the participants (Fife-Schaw, 2006; Park & Han, 2018). A total of 80 active students
participated in the study. These students were enrolled in English II course offered to first year
undergraduates in the School of Law, Bennett University, India during even Semester 201920. The present research employs methodological triangulation – pre-test/post-test, content
analysis and student survey – as multiple qualitative and quantitative methods (Ghahari &Farokhnia 2017). The study focuses on recreating a DC on the university LMS “i-learn” andanalysing the impact of this pedagogical change from various standpoints.
Research questions
The present study attempts to recreate an online DC as a supplementary to the physicalclassroom so that students can get involved in critical thinking process for appropriatingargumentative essay writing. The study was designed to address three research questions:
RQ1. Does the recreated online DC help students enhance their proficiency in HOCsof argumentative essay writing?
RQ2. What is the nature of written interaction in the recreated online DC?
RQ3. What are the students’ perceptions of the recreated online DC?
Data Collection and Analysis
Pre-test/post-test. A total of five groups of 8 students each (total 40) were made parts of an
online DC for the experimental group and 40 students of the control group continued with aphysical classroom DC. Students in both the control and experimental groups were given topics
to write argumentative essays individually, as pre-test and post-test components. The pre-test
was conducted after teaching argumentative essay writing to both groups in the classroom. The
post-test for the experimental group was conducted after they did written interaction in their
online DC, while the control group’s post-test was conducted without any recreated DC
treatment (figure 1).

157

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Figure 1. DC Recreation Timeline
An analytical rubric was designed to test the pre-test and post-test scores on 6 parameters of
HOCs in argumentative writing (table 1). The rubric defined a range of levels from 0 to 3, with0 (unacceptable), 1 (developing), 2 (accomplished) and 3 (exemplary) - for befitting
completion of each component of an argumentative essay. The total number of items in the
rubric is six, which sets the highest score for the marking rubric at 18. Three academic writing
experts were used to check the validity and reliability of the rubric. These experts agreed on
78.33 % level of ratings. Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient of reliability was .69 (p <.0.001), which
is a good level of inter-rater reliability.
Table 1: HOCs evaluation parameters for argumentative essays
S.no. HOCs

2. Thesis

Evaluation parameter for HOCs
in an argumentative essay
Attention getter/ rhetoricalelements
Thesis/purpose statement

3. Organisation and coherence

Use of cohesive devices

4.

Arrangement of paragraphs in theformat of introduction, main body,and conclusion
logical order ofclaims/counterclaims, reasons, andevidences
Quality and quantity ofClaims/counterclaims, reasons,evidences

1. Analysing Audience5.
6. Content development

158

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Variables for the pre-test and post-test analysis were:••

The independent variable (IV): Discourse community (Classroom DC for the control
group and Online DC for the experimental group)
The dependent variable (DV): Argumentative essay writing achievement levels

Online transcripts of DCs and content analysis. Online transcripts of the written interactionof online DCs provided the data to analyse the nature of interaction process through conceptual
content analysis: identifying and defining a concept and tallying its presence (Busch et al.,n.d.). The students were given separate argumentative topics on contemporary socio-legal
issues, with starting instructions regarding the content of their posts: focus on thesis statement,each thesis having at least three claims, and each claim further being supported by at least one
evidence and reason each (figure 2). These are further enriched by counterclaims and rebuttals
further supported by appropriate reasoning and evidence (figure 2). The given content guideline
also served as the basis for coding the posts.

Claim
1
Claim
3

Evidence

ReasonCounterclaim
and Rebuttal

Claim
2

Thesis Statement

Claim 1,2,3

Open End

Figure 2: Content division and coding criteria for recreated online DC
The raters were asked to code the online DC transcripts such that:••

Each post is considered a unit
Each post is identified on a single or multiple parameter: thesis, claims, evidences,
reasoning, counterclaim, and rebuttal.

The kappa statistic for inter-rater reliability was 0.708 (p< 0.001), which is a good level ofinter-rater reliability. The transcripts of online DCs were coded following the content coding
scheme (figure 2). If any content did not fit into any of the given coding criteria it wasconsidered irrelevant.
Student Survey. For analysing students’ experience of their participation in an online DC, a
student survey was also conducted. The participation in the survey was voluntary and involved
informed consent of the students ensuring confidentiality and anonymity of their responses.
Approval for the study and its publication was granted by the Dean, School of Law, Bennett
University, and the Vice Chancellor. As the survey only focused on analysing the efficacy ofan online recreated DC for better educational practice in the future, it did not cause any kindof physical, informational, or psychological harm to the students. The responses of the students
were anonymised and numbered, thus, diminishing the possibility of leaking any personal
information about them.

159

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

This survey included eleven closed-ended and four open-ended questions. The closed-ended
questions were framed to find if the online DC interaction helped the students to enhance HOCs
in writing. All closed-ended questions were framed on five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly
agree, 2 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = disagree and 5 = strongly disagree. The open-ended sectionin the survey contained questions on beneficial factors, problems faced, improvement and otheraspects the students wanted to share. The Chronbach’s alpha reliability score for the survey
was .89, which is considered good.
Results and Discussion
Pre-Test and Post-Test
Pre-test and post-test scores were analysed by performing descriptive and inferential statistics.
The mean scores of the pre-test and post-test of experimental and control groups were analysed
to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in the argumentative essay
writing performance of the students before and after the recreation of online DC. The
descriptive statistics analysed the tests on the mean, standard deviation and percentages andfinds out students’ frequency shift for each of the six components of HOCs of argumentative
essay. The inferential statistics analysed the difference in the mean gain scores of HOCs ofargumentative essay writing of the students in the post-tests of experimental and control group.
Descriptive statistics for HOCs. The results show that on average students in the experimentalgroup performed better in the post-test than pre-test for the composite scores of HOCs. In thecomposite scores of pre-test and post-test of the experimental group (table 2), the mean score
for pre-test was 10.075 and 12.85 for the post-test. The percentage increase in the mean score
for the experimental group is 27.54%. For the control group, the mean score of HOCs in pretest was 9.975 and 10.45 for the post-test. The percentage change in the HOCs mean score was
4.75% which is much less than the percentage change of 27.54% for the experimental group.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for experimental and control group on HOCS

Experimental Group

Control Group

Mean

Std. Deviation% change

Pre-test

10.075

2.795

Post-test

12.85

3.453

Pre-test

9.975

2.645

Post-test

10.45

27.54%
increasepost-test
score
4.75
increasepost-test
score

2.308

in
%
in

Component wise frequency change analysis (table 3) shows that frequency shift of students’performance sets a trend from unacceptable (0) and initial level (1) to intermediate (2) andadvanced level (3) in the experimental group. The ‘-’ sign indicates a reduction in the numberof students at the corresponding level of proficiency in HOCs; the ‘+’ sign indicates that the
number of students falling under that level of proficiency has increased and ‘N’ indicates nochange.

160

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 3: Component wise frequency shift of students in HOCs
Experimental Group
HOCs
Attention Grabber
Thesis Statement
Organisation
andcoherenceContent Development

Control Group

(0)
N

(1)
+
-

(2)
+
+

(3)
+
+
+

(0)
N
N
N

(1)
+
-

(2)
+
+

(3)
N
N
N

-

-

+

+

N

N

N

N

Frequency shifts are very less and more stagnant in the control group’s performance,suggesting that this group did not experience the dynamism experienced by the experimental,
online DC group. The online DC thus resulted in improvement and a positive shift in theexperimental group students’ proficiency in HOCs of argumentative essay writing. Frequency
shift for the control group’s students to advanced level (table 3) is “no change” for allcomponents of HOCs whereas, for the experimental group there is increase in students’proficiency for all components of HOCs.
Inferential statistics for HOCs. The research hypothesis for analysing pre-test and post-test
results is:
H1: µexperimental > µcontrol
The average score of HOCs for students who received the recreated online DC treatment isgreater than the average score of students who did not receive the treatment.
The results from an independent samples t-test indicate that students who received therecreated online DC treatment (table 4) (M = 12.85, SD= 3.453, N =40) show that this group
scored higher than students who did not receive the treatment (M = 10.45, SD = 2.308, N=40). Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.817) suggested a “large” effect size and high practicalsignificance.
Table 4: Group statistics

Test score

Group

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std.
Error
Mean

Cohen’s dexperimental
group

40

12.85

3.453

.546

0.817

control group

40

10.45

2.308

.365

The Levene’s test for equal variances yielded a p-value of .265. This means that the difference
between the variances is statistically insignificant. Thus, the independent samples t-test (table5), which showed that the difference in performance of students on HOCs of argumentative
essay writing of experimental and control group, was statistically significant, t(78)= 3.654, p =.0005, 95% CI (1.092, 3.707).

161

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

HOC

Table 5: Independent Samples t-test HOCs

Equal
variancesassumedEqual
variances notassumedLevene's Test
for Equality of
VariancesF
Sig.

t-test for Equality of Means
T

Df

Sig. (2tailed)

Mean
Differenc
e

Std.
Error
Differ
ence

1.257

3.65
4

78

.0005

2.400

.657

95%
ConfidenceInterval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
1.092 3.707

3.65
4

68

.0005

2.400

.657

1.089

.265

3.710

Inferential statistics shows that the magnitude of treatment is large for the components of HOCs
in argumentative writing. It also implies that students who are engaged in a recreated online
DC may improve significantly by shifting towards intermediate and advanced levels of
proficiency in academic writing.
Student Survey Results
The recreated online DC was well-received by students, and they agreed that it helped them tofocus on HOCs in argumentative writing by being reflective, interactive, and explorative. They
posted their claims, reasons, and evidences with more care. The online DC appeared to bettersupport their higher order thinking skills, which got reflected in their arguments. Students
agreed that incorporation of online DCs with other academic writing components would allow
them to practice writing outside classroom boundaries. Descriptive statistics results (table 6)show mean values ranging from 1 - 2.5, which supports the positive perception of the students.
Responses from students to open ended questions of the survey also support the results obtainedon closed ended questions:“It made me focus on my points and frame them more appropriately”.
“Peer feedback has influenced my arguments as their points didn't necessarily
match my points and I had arguments to prove them wrong or correct themwhenever I feel that they are wrong”.
“I got to know their stand which was an advantage while forming myarguments”.
“Yes, by their feedback I was able to think in a different perspective which mademy argument even stronger”.
“It made me understand that the reasoning and evidences should not deviate
from the claim”.
“By contradiction and rebuttals, I could refine my thinking ability”.
“It has helped me in learning how to frame an answer and present it so that itremains relevant and adds on to the discussion”.
Students also acknowledged the advantage of getting enough time to think, research and draft
their arguments logically. They found peer feedback (Huisman et al., 2018; Guasch et al., 2013)
to be highly beneficial. Through peer feedback they realised that the reasons and evidences
should never deviate from their claims and that helped them to formulate stronger arguments.

162

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for questions based on HOCs
Std. Deviation
Recreated Online DC provided favourable environment forpractising writing
It led to increase in the genre and content knowledge
It aided reflection in collaboration with readers
It helped in recognising issues and asserting position
It promoted dynamism in interaction and writing
It worked on independent thinking with interdependence
It facilitated adequate time to organise thoughts in a logical order
It helped in evaluating and constructing strong arguments
Peer feedback aided in self-reflection in argumentative writing
It helped in learning how to organise content coherently
It helped in drafting well-organised argumentative essay
Valid N (listwise)

N
40

Mean
1.97

.897

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

1.97
2.09
1.69
2.09
1.81
1.75
2.03
2.31
2.09
2.41

.695
.856
.535
.734
.693
.762
.782
1.091
.777
.979

Students enjoyed the dynamism of online DCs and experienced a sense of achievement andfulfilment. Some students felt more comfortable as it was easier for them to write their views
than to speak up in the class. Some students while acknowledging the usefulness of the online
DC, gave suggestions to make online DC interaction more structured in the way that it clearly
describes and restricts the format in which arguments had to be posted by each student alongwith maximum post criteria to ensure fair chance of participation by every member.
Conceptual Content Analysis
Conceptual content analysis was conducted for the online DC transcripts by tallying thepresence of the identified codes. It was observed that almost 75-85 percent of the interaction
on argumentative topics was centred on content development in the form of reasons, evidences,and rebuttals (figure 3 and table 7) for all the four groups on the recreated online DC. Out ofthese three, formulation of reasons to support the proposed claims contributed to the maximum
in majority of the groups. After reasoning, rebuttals were also abundantly posted, even in
response to lower numbers of counterclaims.

163

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Conceptual Content Analysis
GpI

GpII

GpIII

GpIV

350

NO. OF POSTS

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

ThesisStatement

ClaimsEvidences

Reasons

Countera
rgument

Rebuttal

Total

GpIV

7

1

13

16

2

26

65

GpIII

3

10

17

27

1

21

79

GpII

6

6

20

39

10

13

94

GpI

2

8

13

27

2

17

69

HIGHER ORDER CONCERNS IN ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING

Figure 3: Conceptual content analysis of online DC transcripts
Table 7: Percentage contribution of posts related to reasons, evidences, and rebuttals
DC GroupGroup IGroup IIGroup III
Group IV

Percentage Contribution
82.60% (reasons= 39.13%, evidences= 18.83%, rebuttals=24.64%)
76.59% (reasons= 41.48, evidences= 21.27%, rebuttals= 13.83%)
82.27% (reasons= 34.17, evidences= 21.52%, rebuttals= 26.58%)
84.16% (reasons= 24.16%, evidences= 20%, rebuttals= 40%)

Lower number of posts relating to thesis, claim and counterclaim may suggest that once
students decided their stand (for or against the argumentative topic), they focused more on
proving their position with multiple perspectives, reasons and examples in the form of data,facts and testimonials. Students also developed a habit of acknowledging the sources of theirevidences (figure 4). Being students of law, their evidence mostly comprised relevant sections,articles, and cases. For example, Group I was given the topic related to content censorship oninternet and for proving their claims students referred to section 66(A) of IT Act 2008, Article
19(2), the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Writ Petition Criminal No.167 of 2012),
the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (Writ Petition Civil no. 1031 of 2019) among
others.

164

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Figure 4: Source citation by group I on online DC
Students were also careful in maintaining coherence in their written interactions for the online
DC. This was evident from the kind of words and phrases they used while interacting: “It istrue that…”, “I agree with…”, “I continue in support of…”, “firstly…, secondly…”. Overall,
conceptual content analysis results show that students experienced an enriching interaction as
members of the online DC, and touched upon all aspects of HOCs, such as thesis, organisationand coherence, and content development. Audience analysis could not be witnessed much as
they were instructed to have written interaction on argumentative topics and no real situation
for composing a complete essay was given.
Conclusion
In agreement with Watanabe (2016), the overall results of this methodologically triangulated
research suggest that recreated online DCs can be highly effective in engaging students asactive contributors to their own, as well as their peers’, appropriation of academic writing
processes. DCs enabled them to engage in critical thinking and self-regulation that,consequently, positively influenced their performance in HOCs in writing. Pre-test and posttest results show significant improvement in HOCs in argumentative writing of law
undergraduates and they gradually evolved in considerations of audience, thesis, organisation,
coherence, and content development during the interaction process on online DC. They
acknowledged the impact on their ability to understand coherence and strong and weakargument better than what they could imbibe in the classroom. Freedom of time and space on
asynchronous mode of posts helped students in precise drafting of arguments with a lot of
research and thinking on the topic. One very important element that was noticed in theconceptual content analysis of DC’s online transcripts was that the students focused more on
justifying their positions through a lot of reasoning and ample legal instances. Counterclaims
and rebuttals challenged them to come up with stronger reasons and evidence every time. The
survey findings also supported the idea that the online DC helped them to realise that there islittle scope for their arguments’ survival if they deviated in their reasons and evidences fromthe logic of their claim. In this respect a deviation from thesis and claims could prove to bedisastrous to their arguments’ strength. Evasion of such nonconformity entailed a lot ofreflection, self-regulation, peer review, and idea generation.
DCs have had high pedagogical relevance in academic writing classrooms (Watanabe, 2016)
and if the instructors devise new ways of recreating DCs across disciplines and contexts
utilising various online platforms as per the micro-genres of academic writing (Swales, 2016),
students can certainly benefit from peer-feedbacks (Huisman et al., 2018), further hone theircritical thinking (Bezanilla et al., 2019) and contribute original and innovative ideas. The
results of this study suggest that participation in online DCs infuse confidence among students
in ways that alleviate their apprehensions about academic writing. The study implies thatstudents’ collaborative involvement in online DC interaction helps them to improve their165

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

higher order thinking skills in general and in their writing more specifically. Writing instructors
are thus encouraged to embrace variety in DC recreation, to focus on enhancing HOCs inacademic writing of undergraduates across disciplines. Future research in this area should study
the use of DCs and online DCs in other academic writing micro-genres, with a larger population
and across multiple semesters, in order to investigate the impact of DCs on the development of
HOCs and LOCs more widely.

166

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

References
Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse
communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(6), 1669–1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.001
AlFuqaha, I. N. (2013). Pedagogy redefined: Frameworks of learning approaches prevalent in
the current digital information age. i-Manager's Journal of Educational Technology,
10(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.1.2302
Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing andperception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106–121.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106
Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. In The
Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_3
Bacha, N. N., & Bahous, R. (2008). Contrasting views of business students’ writing needs inan EFL environment. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 74–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.05.001
Bassendowski, S. (2016). Paragogy: Emerging theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing
Informatics, 11(4). http://cjni.net/journal/?p=5024
Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors' on-script feedback commentson drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse
community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 432–445
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728
Beaufort, A. (2008). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing
instruction. University Press of Colorado.
Benz, C. (1996). Entering an academic discourse community: A case study of the coping
strategies of eleven English as a second language students (Publication No. 1610)[Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University]. FIU Electronic Theses andDissertations. 1610. https:// doi.org/10.25148/etd.FI14050460
Bezanilla, M. J., Fernández-Nogueira, D., Poblete, M., & Galindo-Domínguez, H. (2019).
Methodologies for teaching-learning critical thinking in higher education: The
teacher’s view. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100584.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100584
Borg, Erik. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal 57(4), 398–400.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.398
Busch, C., De Maret, P., Flynn, T., Kellum, R., Le, S., Meyers, B., Saunders, M., White, R.,& Palmquist, M. (–n.d.). Content analysis. Writing@ CSU.
https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1309&guideid=61
Corneli, J., & Danoff, C. J. (2011). Paragogy. In Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge
Conference. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper_5.pdf
Cragg, G. (1988) Law Students, discourse communities, and regression: A study of thewriting performance of first-year law students. Canadian Journal for Studies in
Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 7(3), 32–42.
https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.273
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second‐language proficiency. Language
learning, 39(1), 81–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00592.x

167

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

DeJarnatt, S. L. (2001). Law talk: speaking, writing, and entering the discourse of law. Duq.
L. Rev., 40, 489. https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol40/iss3/4
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities.
AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000048
Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse-community view.
In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse, (pp. 11–40). De
Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048.11
Edens, K. M., & Gallini, J. K. (2000). Developing a discourse community of preservice
teachers in a technology‐mediated context. The Teacher Educator, 35(4), 64–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555238
Fife- Schaw, C. (2006). Quasi-experimental designs. In M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, C. FifeSchaw, & A. Smith, J (Eds.). Research methods in psychology (pp. 88–103) Sage
Publications.
Ghahari, S., & Farokhnia, F. (2017). Triangulation of language assessment modes: Learningbenefits and socio-cognitive prospects. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(3),275–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1342540
Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, selfmonitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1),101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y
Griggs, K. (1996). A legal discourse community: Text centered and interdisciplinary in socialand political context. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(2), 251–
269. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1050651996010002008
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on
collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3),324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.273
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on
academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback
perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240–253.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
Jacobs, S. E., & Karliner, A. B. (1977). Helping writers to think: The effect of speech roles inindividual conferences on the quality of thought in student writing. College
English, 38(5), 489–505. https://www.jstor.org/stable/376387
Knight, S., Shum, S. B., Ryan, P., Sándor, Á., & Wang, X. (2018). Designing academic
writing analytics for civil law student self-assessment. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-0160121-0
Li, Y. (2006). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities:
Adoctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 15(3), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.07.001

168

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Liu, O. L., Mao, L., Frankel, L., & Xu, J. (2016). Assessing critical thinking inhighereducation: The HEIghten™ approach and preliminary validity evidence.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 677–694.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1168358
Magno, C., & Amarles, A. (2011). Teachers’ feedback practices in second language academic
writing classrooms. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological
Assessment, 6(2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2287181
Martín, P. A. M. (2003). Genre and discourse community. ES: Revista de filología inglesa,(25), 153–166.
Melzer, D. (2020). Understanding discourse communities. In D. Driscoll, M. Stewart & M.
Vetter (Eds.) Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing 3 (pp. 100–115). Anderson, South
Carolina: Parlor Press. https://writingspaces.org/sites/default/files/writing-spaces3.pdf
Min, Y. K. (2016). When "editing" becomes "educating" in ESL tutoring session. Praxis: A
Writing Center Journal, 13(2), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.15781/T2M03ZD4P
Mulholland, N. (2019). Paragogy. In Re-imagining the art school: Creativity, educationand the arts. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20629-1_6
Paltridge, B. (2018). Discourse analysis for the second language writing classroom. The
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0559
Park, Y., & Han, K. (2018). Development and evaluation of a communication enhancement
program for people with chronic schizophrenia: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest
design study. Applied Nursing Research, 42, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2018.04.007
Parkyn, D. L. (1999). Learning in the company of others: Fostering a discourse community
with a collaborative electronic journal. College Teaching, 47(3), 88–90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559909595792
Pogner, K. H. (2003). Writing and interacting in the discourse community of engineering.
Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 855–867 https://doi.org/10.1016/S03782166(02)00122-4
Pogner, K. H. (2005, June 30-July2). Discourse communities and communities of practice:
On the social context of text and knowledge production in the workplace [Paper
presentation]. 21st EGOS Colloquium. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17277778.pdf
Purdue OWL (2020, June 28) Higher Order Concerns (HOCs) and Lower Order Concerns(LOCs). https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/hocs_and_locs.htmlt
Street, B. (2004). Academic literacies and the 'new orders': Implications for research andpractice in student writing in higher education. Learning & Teaching in the Social
Sciences, 1(1), 9–20.
Swales, J. M. (2016). Reflections on the concept of discourse community. ASp. la revue du
GERAS, (69), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4774
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge
University Press.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of
academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428

169

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

van den Bos, A. H., & Tan, E. (2019). Effects of anonymity on online peer review in secondlanguage writing. Computers & Education, 142, 103638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103638
Watanabe, H. (2016). Genre analysis of writing tasks in Japanese university entrance
examinations. Language Testing in Asia, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468016-0026-8
Wilkes, J., Godwin, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2015). Developing information literacy andacademic writing skills through the collaborative design of an assessment task for firstyear engineering students. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(3), 164–
175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2015.1062260
Winder, R., Kathpalia, S. S., & Koo, S. L. (2016). Writing centre tutoring sessions:addressing students’ concerns. Educational studies, 42(4), 323–
339.https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1193476
Wingate, U., Andon, N., & Cogo, A. (2011). Embedding academic writing instruction into
subject teaching: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 69–
81.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787410387814
Corresponding author: Suman Luhach
Email: kulhari.suman87@gmail.com

170