Designing an academic writing manual for teacher education in Cameroon Daniel Nkemleke

1. Designing an academic writing manual for teacher education in Cameroon Daniel Nkemleke University of Yaoundé 1/TU-Chemnitz Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

2. Outline • Motivation • Goals 3. Theories 4. Modules 5. References Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

3. 1. Motivation Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

4. Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

5. 2. Goals 1: ability to write “successfully” in the following 4 contexts • Finding admission into a university abroad Statements of purpose Personal statements • Finding one’s voice in the academic community Communicating with other researchers Writing reviews • Growing in the career and establishing a profile Grant applications Letters of recommendation • Supporting the Publication Process Manuscript submissions Responding to reviewers and editors Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

6. Books and monographs 2: ability to write “successfully” in the following 9 genres Research proposals Term papers Grant proposals Theses and dissertations Conference presentations Books and monographs Conference Presentations Research articles Abstracts Statements of intent Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

7. 3. Theories of writing: a mosaic Contrastive rhetoric (writing across cultures), Kaplan 1966 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

8. Contrastive Linguistics in the Classroom • Language is cultural experiences • L1 patterns transfer to L2 • Awareness of L1, L2 differences can improve language skills Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

9. The Process Approach The Genre Approach The Product Approach ? Social constructivism „janus-face“?? New directions: corpus tools & web writing Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

10. Communicative Events Communicative Purposes Discourse Communities Genre Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

11. A generic example: the CARS Model (Swales 1990:141) Declining rhetorical effort Weakening knowledge claims Increasing explicitness Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

12. NEW DIRECTIONS: Corpus tools & Web writing Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

13. A corpus-based Approach : „Language focus“ vs. „genre focus“ Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

14. Reading helps writing? Eye-tracking on the web Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

15. Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

16. Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

17. Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

18. Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

19. Social constructivism: Writing is learning „how to mean“ (Halliday 1975) Learning is a search for meaning. Learning must start with the issues around which students are actively trying to construct meaning. What does it all mean? Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

20. How constructivism impact development of writing skills Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

21. Critical thining skills (Elder & Richard 2002) • Categorization • Decoding significance • Clarifying meaning • Examining ideas • Identifying arguments • Analyzing arguments • Assessing claims • Assessing arguments • Querying evidence • Conjecturing alternatives • Drawing conclusions • Stating results • Justifying procedures • Presenting arguments • Self-examination • Self-correction • Interpretation • Analysis • Evaluation • Inference • Explanation • Self-regulation Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

22. Application: A Synthesis of theories? (https://www.google.de/search?q=PPT%3B+Academic+writing, accessed.10.07.13) Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

23. 4. Modules • MOD1: The writing assignment process • MOD2: Writing effective sentences • MOD3: Academic writing style • MOD4: Critical thinking and writing • MOD5: Structure of academic registers Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

24. Duration of Project: 3 Years Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

25. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

26. 5. References Elder, Linda and Richard Paul, R. University Library:Universal Intellectual Standards. Critical Thinking Consortium.Foundation for Critical Thinking. 28 May 2002 Faigley L (1986) Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College English 48: 527-42. Ferris D (2003) Responding to writing. In B Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.119-140. Ferris D & Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flower L & Hayes JR (1981a) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication 32: 365-387. Flower L & Hayes JR (1981b) Plans that guide the composing process. In C.H. Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication Vol 2. Writing: Process, Development and Communication. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.39-58. Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold. Hyland K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 17-29. Ivanič R (2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language & Education 18(3): 220-245 Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education. Language Learning 16(1):1-20. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Susser, B. (1994) Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(1): 31-47. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White RV & Arndt V (1991) Process Writing. Harlow: Longman. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). What we know about emotional intelligence: how it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Zamel V (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17: 165-187 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz