Use of Cohesive Features in ESL Students' E-mail and Word-Processed Texts: A Comparative Study

As the computer is rapidly finding its way into classrooms around the world at all levels of education, teachers are trying to find effective ways to integrate this technology into their curriculum. While the effectiveness of using word processing in the teaching of writing is acknowledged, there is still no general consensus on how to use, or even whether to use, asynchronous electronic mail, leaving a number of questions unanswered. For example, when given comparable academic tasks, do students produce similar texts in the two media or do they write differently according to the medium used? In order to determine whether the medium has an effect on the language that the students produce, a discourse analysis of comparable word-processed and e-mail writing assignments was carried out, focusing on twelve cohesive features and on text length. The students involved in the study were enrolled in a higher-intermediate English as a Foreign Language course at a university in the United States. The results indicate that two of the cohesive features, as well as text length, differentiated e-mail and word-processed writing. It was also found that, while they tended to write shorter texts in both media, Arab students tended to use more of some of the cohesive features than Asian students.

[1]  Peter Master Science, Medicine, and Technology: English Grammar and Technical Writing , 1986 .

[2]  D. Tannen Spoken and written language : exploring orality and literacy , 1984 .

[3]  D. Tannen Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse , 1984 .

[4]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies: Questions for the 1990s. , 1992 .

[5]  Denise E. Murray,et al.  Conversation for Action: The Computer Terminal as Medium of Communication , 1991 .

[6]  Elinor Ochs,et al.  Planned and unplanned discourse , 1979 .

[7]  Seppo Tella,et al.  Talking Shop via E-Mail: A Thematic and Linguistic Analysis of Electronic Mail Communication. Research Report 99. , 1992 .

[8]  Denise E. Murray,et al.  Knowledge Machines: Language and Information in a Technological Society , 1995 .

[9]  Naomi S. Baron Letters by Phone or Speech by Other Means: The Linguistics of Email. , 1998 .

[10]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Explicit and implicit structuring of genres : electronic communication in a Japanese R&D organization , 1995 .

[11]  M. Halliday NOTES ON TRANSITIVITY AND THEME IN ENGLISH. PART 2 , 1967 .

[12]  Yu-mei Wang,et al.  E-Mail Dialogue Journaling in an ESL Reading and Writing Classroom , 1996 .

[13]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  E-Mail for English Teaching , 1995 .

[14]  Phillip R. Morrow,et al.  Conjunct Use in Business News Stories and Academic Journal Articles: A Comparative Study. , 1989 .

[15]  R. P. Rice The rhetoric of e-mail: an analysis of style , 1995, 1995 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. IPCC 95 Proceedings. Smooth Sailing to the Future.

[16]  James L. Collins,et al.  Writing On-Line: Using Computers in the Teaching of Writing. , 1987 .

[17]  Dawn Rodrigues,et al.  Computers and Writing: Theory, Research, Practice , 1990 .

[18]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[19]  Gail E. Hawisher Electronic meetings of the minds: Research, electronic conferences, and composition studies , 1992 .

[20]  C. Chapelle The Discourse of Computer‐Assisted Language Learning: Toward a Context for Descriptive Research , 1990 .