NADEOSA CONFERENCE PAPER: AUGUST 2006
AUTHOR: Gerda Mischke (Unisa)
TITLE: Using corpus software to evaluate ODL materials: calibrating higher
education study guides in terms of student-centredness
Abstract
The principle aim of this paper is to demonstrate that corpus software can be used to
evaluate the student-centredness of open distance learning (ODL) study material.
This aim is linked directly with the shift in South Africa from an objectivistic, contentcentred teaching approach towards an outcomes-based, student-centred one. In
view of the educational context in which the research project is situated, some of the
most relevant pedagogic principles underlying the notion of student-centredness are
considered. A well motivated argument is then formulated about how these
principles can be interpreted in linguistic terms and some of the most probable
linguistic markers (characteristics) of student-centredness identified. These markers
are then used to analyse and compare the discourse of six different distance
education study guides developed at the University of South Africa. The analyses
are done by using a corpus software program: WordSmith Tools 3.0. The research
results obtained are then compared and their significance tested by means of a oneway Chi2 test. Conclusions drawn are that: the pedagogic principles underlying the
notion of student-centredness can successfully be interpreted in linguistic terms; the
linguistic markers of student-centredness can be used to electronically calibrate ODL
study guides in terms of their relative student-centredness.
INTRODUCTION
The publication of the South African Government Education White Paper 3 (Republic
of South Africa, 1995) lead to the transformation of the higher education system in
1
South Africa. This transformation involved, amongst other matters, the adoption of a
new teaching policy, which proposes a shift from an objectivistic, content-centred
teaching approach towards an outcomes-based, student- or learner-centred
approach. The association of an outcomes-based approach to teaching with student
centredness is affirmed by the South African Government Gazette (Republic of South
Africa, 1997), which states that an outcomes-based approach to teaching >goes
beyond ensuring that all learners achieve the set outcomes. It involves them as
participants in curriculum and learning, responds to their learning styles and cultures,
and builds on their life experiences and needs=.
In responding to this change, lecturers at the University of South Africa (Unisa), the
largest distance education institution in the country, had to align their print based
teaching strategies with this new teaching paradigm. However, whilst the shift from
an objectivistic, content-centred teaching approach towards an outcomes-based,
student-centred one has become to be acknowledged as the official teaching policy
at Unisa, few mechanisms exist to determine to what extent Unisa has indeed
aligned its teaching strategies with the Government=s proposed teaching paradigm.
This problem should be viewed against the reality that, whilst there is a drive within
Unisa to promote student-centred learning through multimedia packages which
include online learning, CDs, videos, and digital video drives, the vast majority of
Unisa students come from disadvantaged communities with no or little access to
multimedia facilities. The result is that the printed teaching text or study guide is still
the most influential and often the only medium through which teaching takes place at
the university.
The implication of the largely print-based mode of teaching at Unisa is that any
attempt to determine in a stable and reliable way whether there is an increased move
2
towards student-centredness at Unisa, has to involve at least three different steps.
Firstly, the pedagogical principles underlying the notion of student-centredness have
to be considered; secondly, these principles have to be interpreted in linguistic terms
in order to be able to evaluate the student-centredness of print-based study material;
thirdly, a mechanism has to be developed to compare print-based texts objectively in
terms of their linguistic features. The aim of this paper is to address these needs.
This aim is elaborated upon below.
AIM
The principle aim of this paper is to demonstrate that corpus software can be used to
evaluate the student-centredness of open distance learning (ODL) study material.
This principle aim rests upon the secondary aims to:
highlight some of the pedagogical principles underlying the notion of studentcentredness;
interpret the notion of student-centredness in linguistic terms;
develop an analytic framework that allows for a corpus-based exploration of
the principles underlying the notion of student-centredness;
Before I address the principle aim, I first explore the secondary aims below.
SOME PEDAGOGICAL VIEWS UNDERLYING THE NOTION OF STUDENTCENTREDNESS
A brief exploration of some of the views underlying student-centredness
reveals that the notion of student-centred derives from an educational shift in
focus from the central importance of teaching towards the central importance
3
of learning. Therefore, transformational educationists advocate a move away
from didactic teaching methods, and towards active student participation in
teaching and learning processes.
Pedagogical principles supporting a student-centred approach to teaching and
learning are captured in transformative learning theory (e.g. Cranton, 1994, 1997,
2000; Mezirow, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000) and tenets such as: constructivism
(e.g. Bruner, 1960, 1966, 1973, 1986, 1990, 1996; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) and wholeperson learning (e.g. Dirkx, 2001; Heron, 1992, 1996; Taylor, 2001; Yorks and Kasl,
2002). Mezirow (1991, 1995) discusses the concept of transformative learning by
pointing to three main instigators of transformation: disorienting experiences,
reflection, and affect. Mezirow (1991:94) points out that transformation >begins
when we encounter experiences, often in an emotionally charged situation, that fail to
fit our expectations=. On the other hand, reflection leads to transformation as it >is
involved in problem solving, problem posing and transformation of meaning schemes
and perspectives= (Mezirow, 1991:117). He maintains that the transformative power
of affect is demonstrated by psychological assumptions arising >from anxiety
generated by parental prohibitions learned under traumatic circumstances in
childhood= (Mezirow, 1991:144). Mezirow (1996:162B166) also contends that
transformative learning is based on action-orientated experience, which is developed
in a communicative way through negotiated meaning making.
Transformative principles of learning also underpin a constructivist approach to
learning. In considering some of the views advanced in constructivism, Bruner
(1960, 1966, 1973, 1986, 1990, 1996) stresses that learning is an active process in
which students construct new ideas or concepts, which result from their current and
4
past knowledge and worldview. When taken from the point of view of the teacher or
instructor, constructivism implies that the instructor should guide students to discover
principles by themselves within the context of a given situation. The instructor and
student should interactively engage in dialogue and the task of the instructor is to
appreciatively present information to be learned in a format appropriate to the
learner's current state of understanding. As a result, the curriculum should be
organised in such a fashion that the student continually builds upon previous
experiences in a negotiated fashion (Bruner, 1996).
The theory underlying whole-person learning advocates that cognition derives from
the reality that emotion forms the foundation upon which all learning rests (Dirkx,
2001; Heron, 1992, 1996; Taylor, 2001; Yorks and Kasl, 2002). Heron (1992)
explains that the human psyche or mind has four primary modes of functioning that
are all simultaneously alert during the process of learning. For effective learning to
occur, all four modes of functioning (also called modes of psyche), namely the
affective, imaginal, conceptual and practical are essential. Each mode includes two
processes: ‘The affective mode embraces feeling and emotion [...] The imaginal
mode comprises intuition and imagery [...] The conceptual mode includes reflection
and discrimination. And the practical mode involves intention and action’ (Heron,
1992: 14-15). Learning is thus optimally facilitated when students are involved in an
emotional, imaginal and practical way in the learning process.
Common themes flowing from transformative theory, constructivism and wholeperson learning involve: the development of experience by being emotionally and
practically involved in certain tasks (e.g. Bruner, 1960, 1966, 1973, 1986, 1990,
1996; Honebein, 1996; Taylor, 1998, 2001); the notion of critical reflection through
5
guided dialogue (e.g. Taylor, 1998; 2001); an emphasis on the interrelationship
between emotion (attitude) and cognition (e.g. Dirkx, 2001; Heron, 1992; Yorks and
Kasl, 2002); and the self-authoring of emotion and experience (Pizzolato, 2003) .
Of particular interest is that notions such as involvement, interaction, attitude and the
negotiation of attitude play such a central role in pedagogical views on studentcentredness. In fact, these notions receive so much attention that it can be accepted
that for a text to be student centred it should be involved, interactive, attitudinal and
sensitive to the negotiation of attitude.
As a result of the centrality of these notions to the theories underlying a studentcentred approach to teaching, I consider involvement, interaction, attitude and the
facilitation of attitude to be of paramount importance in creating a rich learning
environment. As a result, I have argued that a move towards student-centredness in
study guides will be noticeable through discourse that is involved, interactive,
attitudinal and sensitive to the negotiation of attitude. However, in order to determine
how ‘involved’ and interactional print-based distance education study guides are and
how the attitude expressed is facilitated or negotiated, I had to determine what the
linguistic depiction of these notions are. That is, I had to determine what the
linguistic characteristics are of texts that are ‘involved’, interactive and sensitive to
the negotiation of attitude. I present these insights below.
LINGUISTIC FEATURES REPRESENTING THE NOTION OF STUDENTCENTREDNESS
6
In seeking a linguistic interpretation of the involvement, interaction, attitude and the
negotiation of attitude, I consider the findings of linguists who have analysed
involved, interactive and attitudinal discourses.
In exploring how the social presence of discourse participants is signalled
linguistically, scholars such as Chafe (1982, 1985, 1986), Poynton (1985), Stubbs
(1982) and Tannen (1982, 1985) compared spoken and written language. In this
regard, Chafe observes the following differences: ‘[...] speakers are usually in faceto-face interaction with their interlocutors, whereas writers are usually isolated from
their audiences, both spatially and temporally. The result is an opposition that I have
referred to as the involvement of spoken language versus the detachment of written’
(Chafe, 1985:116). Chafe (1985:116) thus uses the term involvement to refer to the
>humanised= nature of conversations and concludes that because written texts lack
this manifestation, they show signs of detachment rather than involvement.
Poynton (1985) explores the difference between spoken and written language and in
similar fashion to Chafe (1985) she also reaches the conclusion that there are
particular language features whereby speakers acknowledge the social presence of
their discourse participants in the discourse. Linguists are in agreement that such
language features include reference to the self and the other, expressions of emotion
as well as personal opinions and attitudes. Labov (1972:378), for instance, observes
that in discourse the social presence of discourse participants is signified through
intensifiers (e.g. all, completely, everything), negatives (e.g. I do not agree), modals
(e.g. you might be right), questions (e.g. do you agree?), attributive adjectives (e.g. it
is true) and clauses introduced by subordinators (e.g. if it is true ...).
Stubbs (1986:1) refers to such features as language which is used >to express
personal beliefs and adopt positions, to express agreement and disagreement with
7
others, to make personal and social allegiances, contracts and commitments, or
alternatively, to disassociate the speaker from points of view and to remain vague or
uncommitted=. He classifies such language features as modal grammar or point of
view, and observes that they include the meanings depicted by vague language,
ways to be explicit, the modal meaning of private verbs and by questions.
Instead of looking at how conversations differ from written texts, scholars such as
Brown and Levinson (1987), Bybee and Fleischmann (1995), Chafe and Nichols
(1986), Drubig (2001), Halliday (1970) and Palmer (1986), look at the way in which
the >involvement= of interlocutors is signified in spoken as well as written discourse
from a semantic point of view. The quoted scholars indicate that speakers or writers
signal their own, as well as their addressees= social presence (or >involvement=) in
a discourse also by indicating to their addressees the truth value of their propositions.
The language features they associate with truth evaluation include expressive
vocabulary (e.g. really, indeed, not at all), exaggerations (e.g. totally, completely,
extremely), modal grammar (e.g. may, might, perhaps), and vague language (e.g.
sort of, almost, more or less).
In considering the views of the scholars referred to above, Biber (1988) explores the
notion of >involvement= by analysing spoken and written discourses of many
functional types. A major value of Biber=s (1988) findings to the present paper is that
he identified 23 features Biber (1988) which tend to group together in texts that are
involved in nature (Biber, 1988:105). In expanding on the notion of >involvement=,
Biber remarks: ‘Involvement refers to those linguistic features which reflect the fact
that speaker and listener typically interact with one another, while writer and reader
typically do not. Due to this interaction, speakers often make direct reference to the
listener (by use of second person pronouns, questions, imperatives, etc.), and they
8
are typically concerned with the expression of their own thoughts and feelings (e.g.,
marked by use of first person pronouns, affective forms such as emphatics and
amplifiers, and cognitive verbs such as think and feel) [...]’ (Biber, 1988:43).
As can be seen from this remark, Biber=s findings confirm the association that is
drawn in the present study between >involvement= and >social presence=. As a
result, my point of departure is that a linguistic exploration of student-centredness
implicitly comprises an exploration of the features associated with textual
>involvement=. In this regard, the features that Biber (1988) associates with
>involvement= serve as a benchmark.
While scholars such as those mentioned above focus largely on >involvement= from
a lexical perspective, scholars such as Martin (1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2004) and
White (1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) associate such attitudinal language with the notion of
interpersonal negotiation. They suggest that speakers or writers signal their own as
well as their addressees= social presence or >involvement= in a discourse by using
evaluative or attitudinal language. Such attitudinal language relates not only to the
continual evaluation of the truth value of their statements, but also to the indication of
how things affect them emotionally. Such emotions relate to the feelings they
express (e.g. I fear, I hope), how appealing or unappealing they find things (e.g. a
beautiful flower, a terrible mistake), and how moral or immoral they regard people to
be (e.g. he is a criminal, she is a real saint). Their point of departure is that
>emotions, judgements, and values, are sites around which negotiation might take
place= (Martin, 2000:145). Of concern are all language features that are affective
and attitudinal.
9
If we consider against this background the fundamental premise of transformative
theory, that: (a) learning is the product of shifts occurring in a student=s world-view
when challenged emotionally through interactive discourse (Mezirow, 1996) and: (b)
the affective mode of the human psyche provides the basis upon which all learning
rests (Heron, 1992; Kilgore, 2001; Yorks and Kasl, 2002), then it can be assumed
that in student-centred texts, ‘involved’, interactive and affective or attitudinal
language should be used more often in student-centred stuffy guides than in contentcentred ones.
Biber’s (1988) research and the research of Martin (1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2004)
and White (1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) is important in this regard. The list of 23
features Biber associates with ‘involvement’ includes features associated by Martin
and White with interaction and the expression and negotiation of attitude. Therefore,
the analytic framework I used to calibrate Unisa study guides with regard to their
relative student-centredness is largely based on the features Biber (1988) associates
positively with >involvement=. Below I discuss this framework in more detail.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND DATA CORPUS
Above I made an association between the pedagogical notion of student-centredness
and the linguistic representation of >involvement=, interaction, attitude and the
negotiation of attitude. I also mentioned that the hypothesis I present in this paper is
that a move from content-centredness towards student-centredness shows up in
texts through the way in which such texts display linguistic features associated with
>involvement=, interaction, attitude and the negotiation of attitude. Therefore, I
calibrated Unisa study guides with regard to their relative student-centredness by
doing electronic counts of the number of features each guide has that are positively
10
associated by Biber (1988) with ‘involvement’ and by Martin (1995, 1997, 2000,
2002, 2004) and White (1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) with attitude. Such features
include:

private verbs ─ that is, verbs used for the expression of intellectual states
(e.g. learn, mean, reflect, think), nonobservable intellectual acts (e.g. agree,
decide, determine, discover, find), sensory experiences (e.g. hear, see) and
affective or emotional states (e.g. hope, fear, feel),

contractions (contractions of the verb ‘to be’, including: ‘d, ‘ll, ‘m, ‘re, ‘s, ‘ve,
n’t, it’s),

second person pronouns (you, your, yourself, yourselves, and all contracted
forms),

analytic negation (all instances of not and contractions with *n’t),

demonstrative pronouns (that, these, this and those),

general emphatics (for sure, a lot, such a, such as, just, really, most, and
more),

first person pronouns (I, me, we, us, my, our, myself, ourselves and all
contracted forms),

pronoun it, causative subordination (because),

discourse particles (now, anyhow, anyway, and anyways),

indefinite pronouns (e.g. anybody, anyone, anything, everybody, everyone,
everything,

general hedges (about, something like, more or less, almost, maybe, sort of,
and kind of),

amplifiers (e.g. absolutely, badly, bitterly, completely, deeply, enormously,
entirely, extremely),

wh-questions (what, when, where, which, who, whose, why and how),
possibility modals (can, could, may, and might),
11

adverbs (e.g. afterwards, again, earlier, aboard, above, and all adverbs
ending on –ly),

conditional subordination (if and unless).
I used these features to calibrate six Unisa study guides with regard to their relative
student-centredness. The details of the guides analysed are provided below ─ based
on their copyright dates, a differentiation is made between the guides of a particular
department by referring to the >old= as opposed to the >new= guide. In this regard
the >old= guide is the one developed before a student-centred approach to teaching
was adopted at Unisa while the >new= guide is the guide developed after the
adoption of such an approach. Accordingly, the old guide is assumed to be more
content centred than the new one, which is assumed to be more student centred:
Departments of Industrial Psychology
(a) Organisational and Career Psychology. Only study guide for
IPS202-D. Copyright: 1984, revised edition: 1991 (old Industrial
Psychology study guide).
(b) Career Psychology. Only study guide for IOP303-V. Copyright:
2002 (new Industrial Psychology study guide).
For convenience, I abbreviate the course codes of these two guides in my
discussions. The old guide (IPS202-D) is referred to as the IPS guide and the new
guide (IOP303-V) as the IOP guide.
Department of Anthropology, archaeology, geography and environmental
studies
12
(a) Socio-Cultural Anthropology. Only study guide for SKA202-4.
Copyright 1992 (old Anthropology study guide).
(b) Socio-Cultural Solutions to Problems of Human Adaptation. Only
Study Guide for APY202-J. Copyright: 2003 (new Anthropology study
guide).
When necessary I refer to the old guide (SKA202-4) as the SKA guide and to the
new guide (APY202-Y) as the APY guide.
Department of Psychology
(a) Social Psychology. Only study guide for PSY313-D. Copyright:
1995 (old Psychology study guide).
(b) Re-Imagining Community. Only study guide for PYC205-A.
Copyright: 2001 (new Psychology study guide).
The course codes of these two guides are abbreviated to PSY for the old guide
(PSY313-D) and PYC (PYC205-A) in tables and discussions.
I traced the ‘involvement’ features of these guides by using the WordList program of
WordSmith Tools 3.0. WordSmith Tools is an integrated suite of programs for
analysing a large corpus of texts. It consists of word listing and word concordancing
facilities. The WordList tool generates lists of all the words of a particular text and
indicates the frequency of occurrence of each word. The following word list
illustrates how the programme orders all the words in a text alphabetically, numbers
each word (N) according to its position in the list and indicates the real number of
instances (Freq) of each word in the text:
13
WordList extract
N
Word
Freq.
1522
XENOPHOBIA
2
1523
YEARS
9
1524
YES
8
1525
YET
9
1526
YOU
551
1527
YOU'D
2
1528
YOU'LL
2
1529
YOU'RE
14
1530
YOU'VE
7
1531
YOUR
386
1532
YOURS
3
1533
YOURSELF
21
In considering the words associated with student-centredness in the analysed text,
words were traced in lists such as these by means of the >search= function of the
WordList program. This research function operates in similar fashion to the >find=
function of word processing programs. By giving a search command, the WordList Tool
searches through all the words in the word list and displays the word searched and the
frequency with which it occurs in a given text. These counts were then added
together to get the total score for a particular feature. The data obtained
quantitatively from the old and the new guides was then compared and the
significance of the results was tested by means of a one-way Chi2 test. Chi2 analysis
is used to compare two or more frequencies to investigate the probability that their
values depart from what would be expected by chance alone.
14
As the mere discovery of a discrepancy is not necessarily significant, the magnitude
of the value of Chi2 is considered. The higher the Chi2 value, the more significant the
discrepancy. Discrepancy levels were taken as significant when the Chi2 test
suggested a 0.05 possibility of error (p < 0.05). Discrepancy levels were, on the
other hand, taken as very significant when the Chi2 test suggested a 0.01 possibility
of error (p < 0.01). The research results obtained are reported below.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
I have mentioned that the principles underlying Transformative Theory,
constructivism, whole-person learning and cooperative inquiry suggest that learning
is best facilitated when the social presence of students is acknowledged in the
knowledge construction process. In this regard, social presence as a subjective
quality of a communication medium signalled by features such as interaction,
‘involvement’, the expression and negotiation of attitude. As a result, my point of
departure is that a move from content-centredness towards student-centredness
shows up most clearly in distance education study guides through the way in which
such texts display linguistic features associated with >involvement=, interaction,
attitude and the negotiation of attitude
Attached to this paper are four Excel spreadsheets displaying the research findings.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the research results obtained by testing this hypothesis.
Table 4 shows the research findings obtained by comparing the total figures for all
the old and new guides. The data presented in the collective tables illustrate that the
counts for the various features show that the new guides have very significantly
higher counts for linguistic features associated with student-centredness.
15
Table 4 shows that the most distinguishing features between the old and new guides
are very significantly higher counts for: private verbs, contractions, second person
pronouns, general emphatics, first person pronouns, amplifiers, WH questions,
possibility modals and adverbs. In contrast, the old guides have very significantly
higher counts for we used with exclusive reference. Below I highlight some matters
of particular significance.
Very significant high counts for the private verbs: think, feel, find, consider and
reflect occur in the new study guides. These verbs very often collocate with personal
pronouns, particularly second person pronouns or first person singular pronouns
referring to someone with whom the student can associate. The preference for these
particular collocations fits nicely into the principles advanced in transformative
learning theory. For instance, examples such as: I think I am an important link ...;
you might have felt a bit exposed; Did you find it easy? ... if you consider the above
...; and ... you are in a position to reflect on these stories, show that these verbs can
be associated with a consideration of alternative viewpoints (e.g. I think I am an
important link ..), with the expression of attitudes and emotions (e.g. ... you might
have felt a bit exposed; Did you find it easy?), and with cooperative inquiry (e.g. ... if
you consider the above ...; you are in a position to reflect on these stories).
These examples show that through reflection on experience, the student is prompted
to construct a personal understanding of relevant structures of meaning derived from
his or her active participation in real world environments. Such emphasis on
experience and reflection derives from the belief that reflection during and after
action is considered an important mental process required to transform experience
into knowledge.
16
The very significant use of general emphatics (e.g. more, most) and amplifiers (e.g.
strongly, much, as well as) in all the guides can also be associated with the principles
underlying transformative learning theory. Emphatics and amplifiers boost or grade
attitudinal meaning and as such they indicate heightened emotion and are used by
speakers or writers to signal their own opinion and to elicit a response from an
addressee. As a result, emphatics and amplifiers are strongly associated with
interpersonal interaction and interpersonal negotiation. The grading of attitudinal
meaning compels students to take a stance and in the process they transform their
existing frames of reference (e.g. In the process of doing so, you may become more
aware of your own value system; What single event changed your life most
significantly?; You will realise that the decisions you make today might strongly
impact on the success of your career; These examples as well as others might
influence your way of thinking to such an extent that…).
Very significantly high counts for of wh-questions directed at the student clearly
illustrate the student-centredness of the new guides (e.g. What does each aspect of
it tell you about the possible causes of malnutrition?; How do you personally
experience being a black person, woman, a gay person, elderly person, etc; Why, in
your opinion, should the death penalty be reinstated in South Africa? Very
significantly higher counts for contractions in student-centred texts signal the more
informal and personal nature of such texts (e.g. You're welcome to do so; You're free
to do that too; Of course you'd like to show off some of your better and more
interesting work).
Possibility modals (e.g. may, might, can, could) and adverbs such as probably and
generally occur with very significantly higher counts in student-centred texts and can
be linked directly the accommodation of multiple (or alternative perspectives on
reality, which is a characteristic of transformative learning environments (e.g. It may
17
not be possible to gather together the same kind of diverse group in your community;
If you simply leave the answers in your portfolio, they might not be of much use; This
could be difficult; Such a person tends to be a hard worker and is generally highly
motivated and energetic).
Very significantly higher counts for the adverb today were also found in the new
guides. This indicates that present-day issues are addressed – a phenomenon
which can closely be associated with an acknowledgement of the student’s presence
in the discourse (e.g. How do the environmental crises of the past compare with
those we experience today? What are the differences between the criminal
tendencies you experience today as opposed to those you experienced ten year
ago?; If you could change one dramatic aspect of your life today, what would that
be?).
The limited scope of this paper does not allow for a full discussion of the findings,
however, the data presented support the conclusion drawn by Hubbard (2001:232)
that: ‘It would appear that macrosocial changes have affected the ethos of Unisa as
a distance learning institution and that this changing ethos is being reflected in one of
its most important discourses, namely that of its study guides’.
CONCLUSION
It was demonstrated in this paper that an analytical framework that would enhance
our current understanding of the linguistic basis of the notion student-centredness in
the context of distance learning texts, needs to allow for an analysis of language
features associated with ‘involvement’, attitude and solidarity negotiation. However,
distance education teaching texts comprise large corpora of data. As such analyses
are virtually impossible if not conducted in an automated way, the present study
18
proposes that the analysis of texts in terms of their relative student-centredness can
best be done by means of a framework that allows for an automated, corpus-based
analysis of data and a calibration of texts in terms of their relative studentcentredness.
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. 1960. The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. 1966. Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. 1973. Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, J. & Fleischmann, S. 1995 (eds). Modality and grammar in discourse.
Typological Studies in Language 32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W.L. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral
literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.) 1982. Spoken and written language: exploring orality
and literacy. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation: 35-53.
Chafe, W.L. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speech
and writing. In Olson, R. Torrance, N. & Hildyard, A. (eds) 1985. Literacy, language,
and learning: the nature and consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 105-123.
20
Chafe, W.L. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In
Chafe, W.L. & Nichols, J. (eds) 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of
epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation: 261-272.
Chafe, W.L. & Nichols, J. (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of
epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Cranton, P. 1994. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: a guide for
educators of adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cranton, P. 2000. Individual differences and transformative learning. In Mezirow, J. &
Associates (eds) 2000. Learning as transformation: rethinking adult learning and
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 181-204.
Cranton, P. (ed.). 1997. Transformative learning in action: insights from practice.
New directions for adult and continuing education 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass:
79-88.
Dirkx, J.M. 2001. The power of feelings: emotion, imagination, and the construction
of meaning in adult learning. In Merriam, S.B. (ed.) 2001. The ‘new’ update on adult
learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 63-72.
Drubig, H.B. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality.
http://www.sfb441.uni-tuebingen.de/b2/papers/DrubigModality.pdf. Accessed on
07/06/2005.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration
of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6:322-361.
Heron, J. 1992. Feeling and personhood: psychology in another key. Newbury Park,
California: Sage.
Heron, J. 1996. Co-operative inquiry: research into the human condition. London:
Sage.
21
Honebein, P.C. 1996. Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning
environments. In Wilson, B.G. (ed.) 1996. Constructivist learning environments: case
studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications: 11-24.
Hubbard, E.H. 2001. Interaction as >involvement= in writing for students: a corpus
linguistic analysis of key readability features=. South African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies 19:231-240.
Kilgore, W. 2001. Critical and postmodern perspectives on adult learning. In Merriam,
S.B. (ed.). The ‘new’ update to adult learning theory 89:53-61.
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the inner city: studies in black English vernacular.
University of Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press.
Martin, J.R. 1995. Interpersonal meaning, persuasion and public discourse: packing
semiotic punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 15:33-67.
Martin, J.R. 1997. Analysing genre: functional parameters. In Christie, F. & Martin,
J.R. (eds) 1997. Genre and institutions: social processes in the workplace and
school. London: Cassell: 3-39.
Martin, J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S &
Thompson, G. (eds) 2000. Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of
discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 142-175.
Martin, J.R. 2002. Writing history: Constructing time and value in discourse. In
Schleppegrell, M.J. & Colombi, M.C. (eds) 2002. Developing advanced literacy in first
and second languages: meaning and power. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum: 87-118.
Martin, J.R. 2004. Mourning: how we get aligned. Discourse & Society. London: Sage
Publications: 321-344.
Mezirow, J. 1981. A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education,
32 (1):3-27.
22
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. 1994. Understanding Transformative Theory. Adult Learning Quarterly,
44:222-232.
Mezirow, J. 1995. Transformation theory of adult learning, in Welton, M.R. (ed.)
1995. In defense of the lifeworld. Albany: State University of New York Press:39-70.
Mezirow, J. 1996. Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Learning Quarterly,
46:158-172.
Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning to think like an adult. In Mezirow, J. & Associates (eds)
2000. Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in process. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass:3-33.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pizzolato, J. E. 2003. Developing self-authorship: exploring the experiences of highrisk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44 (6):1-16.
Poynton, C. 1985. Language and gender: making the difference. Australia, Geelong,
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Stubbs, M. 1982. Written language and society: some particular cases and general
observations. In Nystrand, M. (ed.) 1982. What writers know: the language, process,
and structure of written discourse. New York: Academic Press: 31-55.
Stubbs, M. 1986. A matter of prolonged fieldwork: towards a model grammar of
English. Applied Linguistics 7 (1):1-25.
Tannen, D. 1982. Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy. New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D. 1985. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In
Olson, D.R., Torrance, N. & Hildyard, A. (eds) 1985. Literacy, language and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 124-147.
23
Taylor, E.W. 1998. Transformative learning: a critical review. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Information Series No. 374: Columbus,
Ohio.
Taylor, E.W. 2001. Transformative learning theory: a neurobiological perspective of
the role of emotions and unconscious ways of knowing. International Journal of
Lifelong Education 20 (3):218-236.
Taylor, P. G. 2000. Changing expectations: Preparing students for flexible learning.
The International Journal of Academic Development 5 (2):107-115.
Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and language. Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
Massachusetts. (Reprint: 1985).
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
White, P.R. 1998. Telling media tales: the news story as rhetoric. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.
White, P.R. 2000. Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of
modality and hedging. In Coulthard, M. Cotterill, J. & Rock, F. (eds) 2000. Working
with dialog. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 67-80.
White, P.R. 2002. Appraisal B the language of evaluation and stance. In
Verschueren, J. Östman, J. Blommaert, J. & Bulcaen, C. (eds.) 2002. The handbook
of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 1-27.
White, P.R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of
intersubjective stance. Text, Special Edition: 1-25.
Yorks, L. & Kasl, E. 2002. Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning:
reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly 53
(3):176-192.
24
Table 1: Counts for features associated with student-centredness: Industrial
Psychology
INVOLVEMENT COUNTS: INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY
FEATURES
IPS202-D (1991)
IOP303-V (2002)
Private verbs
231
369
Contractions
3
35
2nd person pronouns
197
304
Analytic negation
97
122
Demonstrative pronouns
91
General emphatics
126
149
1st
person pronouns
**
**
**
**
54
111
571
Pronoun it
146
137
Causative subordination
17
25
Discourse particles
13
15
Indefinite pronouns
24
26
General hedges
4
9
Amplifiers
wh-questions
Possibility modals
Adverbs
Conditional subordination
TOTAL
52
139
136
234
52
1674
139
128
181
278
49
2591
**
**
*
*
**
(Differences between the two guides were taken to be significant if the p value was smaller than 0.05 [*:
p≤0.05], and as very significant when the p value was smaller than 0.01 [**: p≤0.01]) .
25
Table 2: Counts for features associated with student-centredness: Anthropology
FEATURES
Private verbs
INVOLVEMENT COUNTS: ANTHROPOLOGY
SKA202-4 (1992)
APY202-J (2003)
343
666
**
**
**
Contractions
0
16
2nd person pronouns
72
350
Analytic negation
260
225
Demonstrative pronouns
154
130
General emphatics
163
368
1st person pronouns
139
436
Pronoun it
267
268
Causative subordination
86
66
Discourse particles
8
21
Indefinite pronouns
27
46
General hedges
2
8
Amplifiers
127
163
**
wh-questions
Possibility modals
Adverbs
Conditional subordination
TOTAL
36
251
631
52
2618
133
291
825
65
4077
**
**
**
*
*
**
**
(Differences between the two guides were taken to be significant if the p value was smaller than 0.05 [*:
p≤0.05], and as very significant when the p value was smaller than 0.01 [**: p≤0.01]) .
26
Table 3: Counts for features associated with student-centredness: Psychology
FEATURES
Private verbs
Contractions
INVOLVEMENT COUNTS: PSYCHOLOGY
PSY313-D (1995)
PYC205-A (2001)
501
473
6
132
**
**
**
2nd person pronouns
386
962
Analytic negation
128
179
Demonstrative pronouns
62
82
General emphatics
82
183
1st
294
430
Pronoun it
144
210
Causative subordination
47
Discourse particles
28
51
Indefinite pronouns
52
83
General hedges
6
12
Amplifiers
65
107
**
wh-questions
Possibility modals
Adverbs
Conditional subordination
TOTAL
111
94
398
71
2474
201
173
288
92
3674
**
**
person pronouns
**
**
**
**
**
16
*
*
**
(Differences between the two guides were taken to be significant if the p value was smaller than 0.05 [*:
p≤0.05], and as very significant when the p value was smaller than 0.01 [**: p≤0.01]).
27
Table 4: Counts for features associated with student-centredness: all study guides
POSITIVE FEATURES
Private verbs
Contractions
INVOLVEMENT COUNTS: ALL
OLD GUIDES
NEW GUIDES
1076
1508
9
183
**
**
**
2nd person pronouns
654
1616
Analytic negation
486
526
Demonstrative pronouns
307
General emphatics
371
700
1st
543
1437
Pronoun it
557
615
Causative subordination
149
Discourse particles
48
87
Indefinite pronouns
103
155
General hedges
11
29
Amplifiers
244
409
**
wh-questions
Possibility modals
Adverbs
Conditional subordination
TOTAL
287
482
1263
175
6765
462
645
1391
206
10342
**
**
**
person pronouns
*
*
266
**
**
*
107
*
*
**
(Differences between the two guides were taken to be significant if the p value was smaller than 0.05 [*:
p≤0.05], and as very significant when the p value was smaller than 0.01 [**: p≤0.01]) .
28