CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLegal Education and Practice InnovationsStudent Assessment and Feedback

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recreating Discourse Community for Appropriating HOCs in Law Undergraduates’ Academic Writing

Open access
Luhach, Suman·2020·IAFOR Journal of Education
DOI 10.22492/ije.8.4.09
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 to students 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 can fail 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 order concerns in academic writing. The paper investigates how law students behave whilst interacting in a recreated online discourse community, benefit through peer feedback, and enhance 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22492/ije.8.4.09

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 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 · DOI
  2. 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 · DOI
  3. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt. · DOI
  4. v9n8p106 · DOI
  5. 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 · DOI
  6. Bacha, N. N., & Bahous, R. (2008). Contrasting views of business students' writing needs in an EFL environment. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.05.001 · DOI
  7. Bassendowski, S. (2016). Paragogy: Emerging theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 11(4). http://cjni.net/journal/?p=5024
  8. Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors' on-script feedback comments on 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 · DOI
  9. Beaufort, A. (2008). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. University Press of Colorado.
  10. 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 and Dissertations. 1610. https:// doi.org/10.25148/etd.FI14050460 · DOI
  11. 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 · DOI
  12. Borg, Erik. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal 57(4), 398-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.398 · DOI
  13. 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
  14. Cragg, G. (1988) Law Students, discourse communities, and regression: A study of the writing 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 · DOI
  15. Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000048 · DOI
  16. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic discourse, (pp. 11-40). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821048. · DOI
  17. 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 · DOI
  18. Fife-Schaw, C. (2006). Quasi-experimental designs. In M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, C. Fife- Schaw, & A. Smith, J (Eds.). Research methods in psychology (pp. 88-103) Sage Publications.
  19. Ghahari, S., & Farokhnia, F. (2017). Triangulation of language assessment modes: Learning benefits and socio-cognitive prospects. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(3), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1342540 · DOI
  20. Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self- monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y · DOI · Paper page
  21. Griggs, K. (1996). A legal discourse community: Text centered and interdisciplinary in social and political context. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(2), 251- 269. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1050651996010002008 · DOI
  22. 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 · DOI
  23. 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 · DOI
  24. Jacobs, S. E., & Karliner, A. B. (1977). Helping writers to think: The effect of speech roles in individual conferences on the quality of thought in student writing. College English, 38(5), 489-505. https://www.jstor.org/stable/376387
  25. 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/s40593-016- 0121-0 · DOI
  26. 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 · DOI
  27. Liu, O. L., Mao, L., Frankel, L., & Xu, J. (2016). Assessing critical thinking in highereducation: The HEIghten™ approach and preliminary validity evidence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(5), 677-694. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1168358 · DOI
  28. 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
  29. Melzer, D. (2020). Understanding discourse communities. In D. Driscoll, M. Stewart & M. Vetter (Eds.) Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing 3 (pp. 100-115).
  30. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press. https://writingspaces.org/sites/default/files/writing-spaces- 3.pdf
  31. 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 · DOI
  32. Mulholland, N. (2019). Paragogy. In Re-imagining the art school: Creativity, education and the arts. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20629-1_6 · DOI
  33. 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. · DOI
  34. eelt0559 · DOI
  35. 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 · DOI
  36. 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 · DOI
  37. 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/S0378- 2166(02)00122-4 · DOI
  38. Street, B. (2004). Academic literacies and the 'new orders': Implications for research and practice in student writing in higher education. Learning & Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(1), 9-20.
  39. 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 · DOI
  40. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
  41. 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 · DOI
  42. van den Bos, A. H., & Tan, E. (2019). Effects of anonymity on online peer review in second- language writing. Computers & Education, 142, 103638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103638 · DOI
  43. 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/s40468- 016-0026-8 · DOI
  44. Wilkes, J., Godwin, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2015). Developing information literacy and academic writing skills through the collaborative design of an assessment task for first year engineering students. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(3), 164- 175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2015.1062260 · DOI
  45. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 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 · DOI

Cited by

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Luhach, S.
Corresponding author
Luhach, Suman
ORCID
Luhach, Suman
Venue
IAFOR Journal of Education
Publisher
The International Academic Forum (IAFOR)
Published
2020-11-27
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
151-170
ISSN
2187-0594 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.22492/ije.8.4.09
OpenAlex
W3106630565
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IAFOR Journal of Education (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
discourse communities, academic writing, peer feedback, peer learning, online learning management systems, argumentative essay writing, writing instruction, self-criticism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recreating Discourse Community for Appropriating HOCs in Law Undergraduates’ Academic Writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22492/ije.8.4.09
The paper
Luhach, S. (2020). Recreating Discourse Community for Appropriating HOCs in Law Undergraduates’ Academic Writing. IAFOR Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.4.09