The style dossier: strategic schemes for EAP curriculum Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology...

The style dossier: strategic schemes for EAP curriculum

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technologyhttp://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

September 11-12, 2006

Background

Rationale

Structure

Methodology

*developed at Kochi University of Technology

Style dossier approach*Hunter

the style dossier approach

BackgroundHunter


1982, 1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo

1990- Freelance academic rewriter, Japan

1996- Super translation team member-Japanese construction ministry-World Water Forum Kyoto

1998- Referee, CATaC conferences1999- Editorial team, JALTCALL conferences2004- Editorial board, Web Based Communities

InstructorMathematics

EFL

Assoc. ProfessorEFL

Intercultural Comm.

ProfessorEFL CALL

EFL Critical thinkingESP technical writing

EAP for engineers

BackgroundHunter


Academic rewrite client attributes:

Makes few grammar errors.Can identify native-like rhetorical flow.Can identify perfectly unambiguous text.Consistently learns from error correction (coded/uncoded).Wants to learn from error correction.Writes well by mimicry.Does not decay with time away from English.Has a sense of argument.Writes unambiguous text by logic/puzzle-solving.Can identify meaning damage in rewrites.

NB: the converse of the above positive attributes exists in large(r) numbers.

Rationale1. KUT scenario2. EAP best practice3. The dossier and other

approaches

Structure

Methodology

Style dossier approach*Hunter

the style dossier approachRATIONALE

Hunterthe style dossier approach

RATIONALEKUT scenario

Since 2002: Japanese government scholarships for foreign students in technical doctoral programmes.

! the foreign students are required to publish

2+ refereed papers and a dissertation in English

demand for new technical academic writing courses


RATIONALE

Applicants are screened for academic English knowledge and skill,

BUT1. There are no extensions in the 3 year programme 2. Research topics are highly granular. 3. Technical RP writing genres are highly granular.

further L2 acquisition to the point of near-independence during the study period is NOT a realistic strategy.

Need for a pragmatic approach.

KUT scenario


RATIONALE

KUT scenario: RP editing

In years 2 and 3 of the 3-year programme,the students are writing refereed papers.

-demand for editing/rewriting service

-only 2 native speaker faculty members


learnerprofile learner

L2objectives

degreeprogramme

demands

KUT scenario



L2objectives

degreeprogramme

demands3-year limit2 refereed papers in EnglishDissertation in English

RP how-toRP supportSkill to independence

KUT scenario



L2objectives

degreeprogramme

demands

Variable English skill/knowledgeVariable intrinsic motivationUniform high extrinsic motivationHigh anxiety about research/completionHigh anxiety about conference presentation Communicative competence

Writing supportConference presentation support

KUT scenario



L2objectives

Variable English skill/knowledgeVariable intrinsic motivationUniform high extrinsic motivationHigh anxiety about research/completionHigh anxiety about conference presentation

Communicative competenceWriting supportConference presentation support

degreeprogramme

demands3-year limit2 refereed papers in EnglishDissertation in English

RP how-toRP supportL2 skill to independence

KUT scenario


RATIONALEEAP best practiceKey factors in successful academic performance

Reading

Understanding the main idea of one’s readingReaching valid conclusionsMaking critical evaluations of contentComprehending significant detailUnderstanding explicitly stated informationDetecting inferences between the lines

Writing

OrganizationSummarizationWell-formed sentencesVocabularyUsageResearch skillsEconomy ClarityProviding sufficient evidenceGrammaticalCorrectly punctuatedAbility to use 'standard' academic discourseKnowing what your tutor-examinee values (and giving it to him/her)

Taken from Ginther, A. and Grant, L. (1996) A review of the academic needs of native English-speaking college students in the United States. Research monograph series MS-1. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing ServiceBanerjee, D. and Wall, D. (2006) Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for academic

purposes 5(2006) 50-69.


RATIONALEEAP best practice: strategies

Language acquisition to near-independence.


RATIONALEEAP best practice: KUT design

I. Acquire knowledge-registers-rhetorical moves

framingrelationshipscohesion

-readability (stress position / topic position)-language structures vs. information structures

II. Learn skills-data commentary-summarizing-using text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....-framing-using lexical units to show relationships-creating/maintaining cohesion-avoiding ambiguity-use/application of register knowledge-model mimicry-optimizing readability-editing through a checklist

SourcesSwales & FeakGopen & SwanFerrisHalliday & HasanHunter


RATIONALEKUT scenario

2003

Swales & Feak+ grammar

TW2→RW(2 semesters)

Strategy:Work towardswriter autonomy

Observation:Need for rewritespersists

→ Strategy 2:incorporate rewritingin task flow

April 2003 to July 2003

October 2003 to January

2004


April 2003 intake

No classTechnical

Writing II

Research

Writing

October 2003 intake

Technical

Writing II

Research

Writing


METHODOLOGYReframing: learner:instructor becomes client:advisor

Language knowledge Language skills Task modes

Technical

Writing II

Language structures vs. information structures

Text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....

Registers

Using text structures

Summarizing

Data commentary

Using lexical units to show info structuresEditing through a checklist

Write-edit-rewrite (uncoded to coded)

Information structure mapping

Swales & Feak exercises

Research

Writing

Ambiguity

Readability (stress position, topic position)

Rhetorical moves: framing, relationships, cohesionRP structureRP lexical units

Language features in RP sections

Optimizing readability-subject-verb proximity

-single function for 1 unit of discourse

-emphasis at syntactic closure points

Avoiding ambiguity

Creating, maintaining cohesion

Use, application of register knowledge


Readability work


Hunter’s information mapsHunter

the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE

<big

Description Classification

Degreecomparison

Attributecomparison

Sequence Cause-effect

Contrast

!

Candidate screeningHunter


Writing from Hunter's information maps

Candidate screeningHunter


Reading for meaning (but writing is main evaluation)


RATIONALE



2005


April 2004 intake

Research

Writing

Technical

Writing II

October 2004 intake

Technical

Writing II

Research

Writing

April 2005 Intake

Research

Writing

Technical

Writing II

KUT scenario

2003






2004

Feedback: earlystart preferred:TW2→RW orRW→TW2

New: topic position stress position

Strategy 3:Rewriting as a major task




Training for researcher-

native rewriter collaboration.


RATIONALE

2004

Feedback: earlystart preferred:TW2→RW orRW→TW2

New: topic position stress position

Strategy 2:Rewriting as a major task

2003






2005

Observations:1. Autonomy often unrealistic;2. Rewriting unsuitable for some Ss.3. RW→TW2 not a good idea.4. Native-written RPsoften badly flawed.

Strategy 4: Incorporatemodels, mimicry in task flowApril 2005

to July 2005


2006



2006

April 2005 intake

Research

Writing

Technical

Writing II

October 2005 intake

Technical

Writing II

Research

Writing

April 2006 Intake

Research

Writing

Technical

Writing II

KUT scenario




Training for researcher-

native rewriter collaboration.

Emphasis on use of language models:

the style dossier

Style dossier approachHunter


Rationale

Structure

1. Curriculum content2. Constraints

Methodology

Curriculum contentHunter


I. Receptive/productive KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS

KNOWLEDGE / METAKNOWLEDGE SKILLS Rec/Prod

Reg isters ident ifying Rs

dec iding R to be use d in cases convert ing Rx to Ry

R P P

Rhetor ica l dev ices: framing Reader s upport

Logica l cohes ion

ident ifying Rs vary ing Rs

compos ing in Rs

R P P

Rhetor ica l dev ices: per suas ion Rhetor ica l dev ices: motivating the

reader Rhetor ica l dev ices: ap pea l

ident ifying e liminat ing

avo iding

R P P

Reg isters re Resear ch Paper sect ions sparseness una mbigu ity

flow/cohes ion

P P P

Curriculum contentHunter


I. DOSSIER SKILLS (receptive/productive)

Editing R-P

Identifying model text R

Extracting register appropriate language models (RAMs)

R

Adapting RAMs to own need R-P

II. DOSSIER PROCESS

CONSULT Building foundation utterance collection (pre-writing)

HIRE SERVICE Level 1: cosmetic editing

Level 2: cohesion/flow editing

Level 3: restructuring/rhetoricizing

CONSULT SERVICE

Evaluating model text (best done by editing model)

POST-SERVICE (by client/learner)

Assessing meaning preservation in a rewrite or an edit


METHODOLOGYReframing: learner:instructor becomes client:advisor


Technical

Writing II



Registers


Summarizing

Data commentary





Dossier collection work

Research

Writing

Ambiguity


Rhetorical moves: framing, relationships, cohesion

RP structure

RP lexical units





Avoiding ambiguity




Readability work


Dossier manipulation


METHODOLOGYReframing: client:advisor becomes user:consultant


Technical

Writing II



Registers


Summarizing

Data commentary






Research

Writing

Ambiguity



RP structure

RP lexical units





Avoiding ambiguity




Readability work



Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledgeor skills are required

Rationale

Structure

Methodology

1. Dossier collection tasks

2. Dossier-related writing tasks

3. Dossier usage/manipulation tasks

4. Scenario constraints

Style dossier approachHunter

the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY

Methodology frameHunter


SSP students have three years to publish two academic research papers and write a PhD dissertation. (Please note that a paper and a dissertation require different kinds of writing.)

There are several strategies for EAP students to produce acceptable research papers:

1. Become a very good writer of academic English and write your own very good papers without help.

2. Become a pretty good writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to check your grammar.

3. Become a better, but still weak writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to do a complete rewrite for you.

4. Do not learn to write academic English well, and find a native speaker to 'ghost-write' your paper for you.

5. Steal parts of other researchers' papers and combine them to make your own paper.

Which strategies will work for you?

Class orientation handout

Entry Setting Final user success

Strong enough

grammar knowledge and composition skill

Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development

minor/no development

Independent writer

Model-using independent writer

Model-using aided writer

Heavily aided writer

Ongoing mentored writer

Ghost-written writer


METHODOLOGYMethodology frame

Self-assess strategy tool



1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved-how to talk about them.

.


Strong enough


Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development


Independent writer









2. Second, time and again the user must articulate anew his/her coursethrough the strategy network from entry to final user success.


Strong enough


Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development


Independent writer










3. This ongoing rearticulation consists of -self observation of success and time constraints -calculation of learning objective achievement probability*.

*Not everyone will learn to write 'from scratch' well and even those who could learn to do so may not have sufficient short-term (or even long-term) time.


Strong enough


Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development


Independent writer










3. This ongoing rearticulation consists of -self observation of success and time constraints -calculation of learning objective achievement probability*.

4. Native rewriter resource availability/affordability are also key factors in deciding strategy.


Strong enough


Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development


Independent writer






Dossier collection tasksHunter


A. Research writing register models

B. Informal discussion register models

C. Glossary




-3 or more research papers on topics very close to the learner’s research topic.

How to tell if a research paper is written in good English:1: judge for oneself if the English is good;2: consult with research supervisor about English quality 3: consult with a native speaker of English

who has some experience with technical writing.


C. Glossary





A collection of articles from science magazines or web sites -topics loosely related to one’s research.

These materials provide models for presentation language.

C. Glossary





C. Glossary

A collection of vocabulary, model phrases and model sentences which are gradually collected while reading English research reports and technical articles.

Glossary construction is appealing only to some learning styles.

Dossier-related writing tasksHunter


Paraphrasing

Quotation

Dossier usage / manipulation tasksHunter


Extracting register appropriate language models (RAMs)

Adapting RAMs to own need:

-application of model sentence structures to given content

-application of model linking devices to given content


METHODOLOGYSummary

Scenario constraintsLearner timeLearner variabilityResearch topic granularityRP genre granularityQuality of available modelsNative rewriter availability/affordability


METHODOLOGYSummary


CompromisesPragmatic strategiesLearner revisioned as client, then as userInstructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant

SummaryHunter



CompromisesPragmatic strategiesLearner revisioned as client, then as userInstructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant

Task arrayGrammar workInformation structure mappingRegister workRP lexis workWrite-rewriteDossier work

Practical point: RP editingHunter


In years 2 and 3 of the 3-year doctoral programme,the students are writing refereed papers

Hunter’s policy on edit/rewrite/consult services:

1. Maximum 2 pages at a time, intro first and last2. One week notice3. Only ‘graduates’ of English writing programme4. Exceptions to 1, 2 or 3 will be referred to ‘pro’ editors.

Hunter’s policy on presentation consult services:

1. Learner must do 3 cycles of video, critique, repair.2. Consultant will watch only video 3.3. Only ‘graduates’ of English writing programme


METHODOLOGYReframing: client:advisor becomes user:consultant


Technical

Writing II



Registers


Summarizing

Data commentary






Research

Writing

Ambiguity



RP structure

RP lexical units





Avoiding ambiguity




Readability work



Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledgeor skills are required


METHODOLOGYFinal question:class or individual?

Class: shared experience, teaching 'flow'vs.Individual: maturity, motivation, monitoring


METHODOLOGYFinal question:class or individual?

Class: shared experience, teaching 'flow'vs.Individual: maturity, motivation, monitoring

Add granular content and multi-style tasks:Write-edit-rewrite (uncoded to coded)


Readability work


Dossier collection and manipulation

= a framework for a CALL application (e.g. Moodle)?

SourcesHunter


Banerjee, D. and Wall, D. (2006) Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for academic purposes 5(2006) 50-69.

Ferris, D. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.

Ginther, A. and Grant, L. (1996) A review of the academic needs of native English-speaking college students in the United States. Research monograph series MS-1. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gopen, G.D. & Swan, J.A. (1990) The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist 78 550-558.http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/23947

Harwood, N. (2006) What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 149-161.

Hunter, L. Online resource for English for Academic Purposes:http://del.icio.us/rolenzo/eap

Koutsantoni, D. (2006) Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 19-36.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. English for specific purposes 24 (2005)

Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005) Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. System 33 (2005) 41-64.

Swales, J.M.. and Feak, C.B. (2004) Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J.M.. and Feak, C.B. (2001) English in Today's Research World: A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/23947



http://del.icio.us/rolenzo/eap




Thank you so much for your kind attention.

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technology

http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

The style dossier: strategic schemes for EAP curriculum Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology...

Documents

Transcript of The style dossier: strategic schemes for EAP curriculum Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology...