Hunter’s Quantum Theory Quantum levels of discourse structure

1. Hunter’s Quantum TheoryQuantum levels of discourse structure Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures (pseudo)

2. Hunter’s Quantum TheoryQuantum levels of discourse structure Argument Novakian mapping can do these Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures (pseudo)

3. Hunter’s Quantum TheoryStructural granularity in map systems What structures are invariant across languages? argument structures? rhetorical structures? knowledge structures? information structures? syntactic structures? grammatical structures? association structures?

4. Hunter’s Quantum TheoryStructural granularity in map systems What structures are invariant across languages? argument structures? rhetorical structures? knowledge structures? information structures OH YES syntactic structures? grammatical structures? association structures? Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

5. Mapping tools for each level 1. Argument mapping tools Argument Information organization a. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) mapping b. AusThink mapping c. Robert Horn’s argument mapping Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures 2. Information structure mapping Argument Information organization a. Hunter’s information structure mapping Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

6. Mapping tools for each level1. Argument mapping tools What are the communicative moves in an argument? Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) http://www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/ Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

7. Mapping tools for each level1. Argument mapping tools 1. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) mapping 2. AusThink mapping 3. Horn’s argument mapping Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

8. 1. RSTmapping Bill Mann’s Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) uses various sorts of "building blocks" to describe texts. The principal block type deals with "nuclearity" and "relations" (often called coherence relations in the linguistic literature.) http://www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/ RST links are rhetorical devices.

9. 2. AusThink argument mapping http://www.austhink.com/

10. 3. Horn’s argument mapping http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/index.html http://www.macrovu.com/

11. Mapping tools for each level 2. Information structure mapping a. Hunter’s information structure mapping Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

12. Structures invariant across languages Mohan's 'knowledge structures' Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures Mohan, B.A. (1986) Language and Content. Addison and Wesley.

13. Structures invariant across languages Argument Information organization Information structures Syntax structures Grammar structures

14. Information structures based curriculum Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 A writing and presentation workbook, 6 units (6 genres) in 30 lessons Say What You Mean KUT Press 2006 A writing and mapping workbook, 5 units (5 genres) in 30 lessons Thinking in English A writing and presentation mapping text/workbook, 5 units (5 genres) in 30 lessons

15. Awkward intruder: Cmap tools http://cmap.ihmc.us/ Novakian links are syntactic devices.

16. FOREGROUND: 'Tensions' Global tension in Hunter’s mapping work: When is mapping more effective/efficient than text in task presentation/performance?

17. FOREGROUND: 'Tensions' • Uses of Concept Mapping (really) • 1. For abstraction. • 2. For a focus on information-linking functions. • 3. In scenarios where text is too dense or too clumsy for easy learner access to information structures. • 4. To downplay text orchestration.

18. FOREGROUND: CALL parameters Content management Course management Task management Data management Curriculum Content Task Goals Motivation Content perception Task perception Language perception Information perception

19. FOREGROUND: Who’s your mama? Content management Course management Task management Data management Curriculum Content Task Goals Motivation Content perception Task perception Language perception Information perception

20. Quantum levels of CALL work Task array design Metalanguage and learner perception of syllabus Task orchestration Interface design and learner perception of task flow Task design Interaction design and learner perception of task Learner perception of language learning Learner perception of language Learner perception of information Micro-cognitionis little explored!

21. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant.

22. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant. BUT they also allow the learner to write freely in terms of -content -information structure and -rhetorical structure.

23. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant. BUT they also allow the learner to write freely in terms of -content -information structure and -rhetorical structure. Not alwaysa good thing

24. How can we present taskso as to forcecertain* language behaviors? *e.g. use of certain structures e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device e.g. use of certain register

25. How can we present taskso as to force certain* language behaviors?Information mapping systemsallow us to usefully present task content in a low-text manner. *e.g. use of certain structures e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device e.g. use of certain register

26. Constructivist dilemma: learner freedom vs. specific objectives In constructivist learning environments*, learner freedom can be an obstacle to the achievement of specific educational objectives. *particularly in relatively teacher-remote situations such as situation involving Learning Management Systems (LMS),

27. Constructivist dilemma: how to constrain constructivist task to make the learner use target language?

28. Constructivist dilemma: how to constrain constructivist task to make the learner use target language? One answer: use interface design. -e.g. mapping -somehow constrain map structure. -somehow constrain map content.

29. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 1: By constraining a task’s information content and information structure, we can push the writer into a narrow range of sentence types, a micro-genre. Case in point: information structure mapping <http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>

30. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 1: information structure mapping <http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>

31. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task In terms of language, this mapping symbolically constrains link content to

32. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 2: Constraining the labelled links in Cmaps<http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/> to lead the learner directly to logical structures. Case in point: leading the learner to create an abstract argument analysis. Case in point: leading the learner to separate technical content and scientific argument and motivating or persuasive rhetoric.

33. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Example 2: leading the learner to create an abstract argument analysis.

34. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task In terms of language, this ARGUMENT mapping constrains link content to

35. Clarify this study’s purpose in terms of form of language/information

36. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Argument mappingas an inroad to task constraint-an extreme case ofsummarizing-persuasive rhetoric filtered out

37. Study: task constraint work Constraining learner behavior

38. Study: task constraint work Using link labels to constrain learner behavior Allow only links which signal the information structures which constitute the register* *Here the register is TAW, and the degree of abstraction is maximum, i.e. argument.

39. Study: task constraint work Phase 1: unconstrained associative mapping Learners made association type concept maps of the content of a text. To force summarization, a limit of 10 nodes was imposed. Performance was strongly uniform in terms of node content. Generally the learners used the lexical units (e.g. subject-verb) found in the text. ppt 1: associational mapping

40. Study: task constraint work Phase 2: unconstrained Novakian mapping Learners map the same text again, using Cmap software. Object: "try to represent the argument in the Niiho paper," which was described in the article. Maps were highly varied (chaotic variation) in content and in link type.

41. Study: task constraint work Phase 3: constrained Novakian mapping Learners mapped the text a third time, again using Cmap software, but with only the argumentation links shown below.

42. Study: task constraint work Phase 3: constrained Novakian mapping Learners mapped the text a third time, again using Cmap software, but with only prescribed argumentation links. Learner product was quite uniform in choice of links from the array above. Map structure and content varied relatively little. ppt 2: argument mapping

43. Study: task constraint work Conclusion Using this label-constrained mapping approach, the subjects did successfully separate persuasive from information-bearing text. Of course the mapping approach is not essential to the acquisition of that skill.

44. Study: task constraint work Phase 4: text-based argument analysis (follow-up) Different text Same argument structure Same link constraints

45. Study: task constraint work Mapping vs. text Mapping Subjects 13 Dyads 6.9/subject Dyads with non-list labels 0.8/subject Misuses of linking phrases 2.85/subject Text Subjects 9 Sentences 3.55/subject Sentences with non-list labels 0.44/subject Misuses of linking phrases 0.77/subject

46. Study: task constraint work Conclusion The value of the mapping approach in argument analysis: visual accessibility of the representation of text structure forced articulation of relations between argument elements greater speed (lower cognitive load?) than in text approach

47. Study: task constraint work Conclusion Informal observation of learner behavior in constrained-link scenarios suggests that constraining link content can lead TAW learners to accurate, minimal summarization of the arguments in TAW text WITHOUT INSTRUCTION.

48. Study: task constraint work Questions for future study: Constrained-link maps afford valuable support to TAW learner analysis of text. Do they also afford valuable support to TAW learner composition processes? 2. What is the optimal size and content of the array of linking phrases for the representation of TAW argumentation? 3. Does the ad hoc representation technique developed here have implications for a multi-level model of the text-based representation of information structures?

49. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Future work Embed Hunter’s info structure mapping in Novakian argument mapping

50. Thank you for your attention. You can download this .ppt from http://www.lawriehunter.com/folder/ or http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/