Preparation for the Expression of Modality in Discursive Essays

The ability to write discursive essays is a key learning objective in Modules One and Two (see C2, C4, D2 and D5 in module aims, Appendix A) and forms a major part of the assessment portfolios for the modules, equating to 30% of the final mark in each case (see section 3.5.4 and Appendix E for information on assessment tasks and writing prompts). The writing assessments are timed (1 hour in Module One and 1.5 hours in Module Two) and students are given one question in Module One, and three short answer questions in Module Two, to which they should write responses. The assessments are ‘closed’ and the questions unseen, and, the students are not able to prepare, use or integrate information from external sources.

The teaching input for the writing of discursive essays spans across all four modules. The main source of input is provided by the writing skills development coursebook, EASS Writing, which was specifically designed for developing discursive essay writing skills. However, the aim of the book was to focus more on the structural moves within the text type and less on the expression of modality. Any guidance for students on the use of modality in this genre was limited to two specific instances, the first of which was to guide the amateur writers on how to give spoken peer feedback on drafts of essays (Unit One), and the second on expressing the language of ‘cause and effect’ (Unit Six). In both instances, the language

guidance is presented as reference notes on suggested language use. It is significant that the ‘cause and effect’ section was not taught until Week 11 (Module Three), after the assessments on discursive essays had been completed. The only other source of input on modality prior to carrying out the assessment tasks is through the use of LLA across Modules One and Two. Within this coursebook, modality is taught separately as a specific language item, ‘modal perfect’ (Week 2; Unit Three), and then as part of components of other language elements (for example, conditionals, the causative, et cetera). The methodology of the coursebook is such that language practice is limited to guided tasks involving gapfill and sentence transformation type activities, which are then followed up with pair and group discussions where the learners are asked to form opinions on topics related to the themes of the units. Attention to modality is most noticeable in the communicative exponents that are taught in the Scenario Lessons of the coursebook. However, attention continues to be on spoken language and opinion formation (strongly agree or disagree) using the lexical verb think. The learners are taught to exert personal opinions strongly, but to only use hedged language when expressing deference and accepting criticism. Of the six main extended writing opportunities in the coursebook, three are relevant to academic written contexts: a text describing visual information (Unit Four), an opinion-led essay (Unit Seven) and a literature review (Unit Nine). It is only with the third of the three texts that some input is provided on modality in the form of incorporating external sources into texts using evidentials, such as the adverbial ‘according to’, the construction ‘In X’s view’ and a limited number of reporting verbs (observed, touched on, examined). This input is given in Week 6 (Module Two) which is after the first written essay assignment. Additional input on discursive essay writing was also provided in EBS in Weeks 16 and 18 (Units Eight and Ten; Module Four). Overall, the input given in EASS Writing, LLA and EBS are of limited value as sources of information for preparing the amateur writers for their written assessments on essays, as they assume that the learners are able to access external information and use referencing techniques as part of their assessment. Furthermore, the timing of the input is at odds with the assessment deadlines and the module learning aims with some input provided well after the assessed essay tasks.

The essay assessment prompts (see Appendix E) align with the types of writing tasks that the learners complete in class. However, as the design of Modules One and Two combine a general English element of language development in the morning with an academic skills element in the afternoon, there is a possibility that there will be some cross-over in style evident in the written assignments. This may go some way to explain the presence of highly personalised language, together with the expressions of strong opinions and recommendations in the amateur essays. Likewise, the over-use of modality noted in the amateur essays could be a result of the timed, closed exam style, which curtails the ability of the learners to use the skills developed in class, or to integrate sources and evidence in their

writing, as well as restricting their ability to create plans and write drafts. In such circumstances, the learners are forced to resort to the use of resources they have at hand.

The coursebook designers also appeared to assume a certain level of prior knowledge of modality, as do the pre-sessional programme designers when they excluded the lesson on ‘modal verbs’ from the programme schedule of Unit Two of LLA. This is understandable to a certain extent as, by this point in their learning, the amateur writers should be able to identify and use modal verbs through input received in prior instruction. However, a brief analysis of a selection of English Language textbooks from Pre-intermediate to Proficiency level (CEFR: A1 to C2; IELTS: 0-9) and across a variety of publishing houses (see Appendix W) suggests that the instruction modality is not much developed beyond the use of modal verbs. It is only at the higher levels that some attention is given to the learning of modality according to function. When cross-referenced for the language proficiency of the amateur writers involved in this study, all of whom obtained IELTS 5.5 (Upper Intermediate), the brief analysis would suggest that their level of knowledge of modality would be at the level of being able to go beyond identifying the core modal verbs and their associated quasi-modal verbs in order to begin to express present and past speculation, some hypothetical situations and some functions including ability, permission, obligation and prohibition. They do not typically extend knowledge to more complex constructions and this may be due to the influence on the communicative language teaching paradigm being firmly focused on mainly spoken language fluency.

The essay question in Module One asks the amateur writers to state the extent to which they agree with a particular statement. Given the practice that they have obtained prior to this is on strong opinion formation, it explains why this was type of language was evident in the texts. In Module Two, the amateur writers are encouraged to express needs, abilities and recommendations. Again, without appropriate practice the learners will use the devices they have to hand. What they do not do, as is the case with expert writers, is show a preference for expressing modalization (probability) using a variety of phraseological constructions (using referentials, GMs, reporting verbs) which are all designed to allow the writer to intersperse their text with information from external sources, and to allow the expression of greater subtlety in their writing. The expert writers also demonstrated greater awareness of intersubjectivity and the need to maintain distance between the writer and reader. The amateur writers instead used mainly subjective orientations, involving the use of median and high value modal verbs expressing meanings of modulation (particularly with meanings of obligation and ability). The strength of the assertions made, shows a willingness to close down alternative points of view (or show a lack of awareness of the need to consider them) and by extension a lack of understanding of intersubjectivity and the writer-reader relationship. This is despite clear guidance from the essay writing instructions in EASS Writing (peers and class tutor) and in some of the extended writing activities in the units of LLA: an employer, when writing a covering

letter (Unit 1.5), university undergraduates, when writing a speech (Unit 3.5), or a boss, when writing a tactful email (Unit 11.5).

As noted in section 3.5.6, the learners on this programme are international students who have recently prepared for and completed international English Language proficiency tests, with IELTS the preferred test. The writing tasks within IELTS ask the test-takers to write texts of between 150 and 250 words in length (ielts.org, 2018), a far shorter length than Masters level assignments and, like the assessments on the pre-sessional programme, these are responses to closed, unseen exam questions. The band descriptors that are used to assess the texts do not make reference at any point to the use of modality/hedging/evaluative language and as such, do not appear to be designed to be able take modality into consideration and neither do they aim to develop understanding and awareness of the sociopragmatic necessities of academic writing.

It can be concluded, therefore, that the 20-week pre-sessional programme is adequate for training amateur writers in the structural elements of writing discursive essays, but is inadequate for socialising amateur writers in the expression and use of modality within them. The language, as presented, is more appropriate for learners who need to develop General English language communication skills, where very little written practice or less nuanced language practice is needed. As such, it is insufficient as a means of preparing learners for Masters level study, where longer texts and more nuanced expressions and understanding of modality are required.