1 / 55

Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology lawriehunter

Publish or perish as an instruction-end learning opportunity. Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://lawriehunter.com. Publish or perish as an instruction-end learning opportunity

pink
Download Presentation

Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology lawriehunter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Publish or perish as an instruction-end learning opportunity Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://lawriehunter.com

  2. Publish or perish as an instruction-end learning opportunity The strong external constraints placed on the technical academic writing program reported here demand a highly pragmatic approach to curriculum and instructional design. External constraints, plus the intense nature of technical doctorate research, do not allow sufficient time for grammar study to any useful extent. However, the small size of the semi-annual cohort makes a number of innovative curriculum interventions feasible. Central learner needs were identified as (1) practical writing skills for the creation of publishable papers; (2) a support network to enable learner navigation through the mentor/editor writing center decision matrix; and (3) a writing program to prepare the learner for work with support personnel and to build composition skills (analytical skills centered around argument and coherence skills focusing on readability) for the learner's professional future.  Within the above program, grammar was made a peripheral concern; argument the center of readability work; and witting mimicry of model language a major tool. Emphasis was placed on meta-language to enable learners to take a 'witting client' position in interactions with support services.  To date more than half of the participants have made use of the writing center services; among those, more than half have achieved semi-autonomy in the writing of research papers in their niche topic areas. These results suggest that the readability curriculum may have broader applicability.

  3. No need to take notes :^o You can download this powerpoint (and many more) from http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ or http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ or http://www.slideshare.net/rolenzo

  4. Dimensions of Media Object Compehensibility Island of Shikoku Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ KUT

  5. Background 1982, 1987: Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo 1990-now: Freelance academic rewriter, Japan 1996-now: Super translation team member -Japanese construction ministry -World Water Forum Kyoto -Interviews editor, Information Design Jnl. 1998- Referee, CATaC conferences 1999- Editorial team, JALTCALL conferences 2004- Editorial board, Web Based Communities 2009- Referee, CALL journal Instructor Mathematics EFL Assoc. Professor EFL Intercultural Comm. Professor EFL CALL EFL Critical thinking ESP technical writing EAP for engineers

  6. CONSTRAINTS

  7. KUT TAW scenario • Since 2002: • - Japanese government scholarships • - for foreign students • - in technical doctoral programmes. • ! Graduation requirements: • - 2+ refereed papers in top journals • - dissertation in English Further L2 acquisition to the point of near-independence during the study period is NOT a realistic strategy.

  8. SCENARIO ESP EAP EY EZ EX TAW EAP HUMANITIES English for specific purposes English for academic purposes Technical academic writing

  9. OUTLINE 1 Found problem: highly constrained TAW 2 Needs analysis: learner profile 3 Framing: possible solutions

  10. Found problem: constrained TAW Needs analysis: learner profile Framing: possible solutions Found problem How to maximize TAW functionality? -language instruction? -pragmatic writing instruction? -mimicry training? -argumentation instruction? -learner use of editor service? -learner use of mentor service?

  11. Found problem: constrained TAW Needs analysis: learner profile Framing: possible solutions Found problem How to maximize TAW functionality? -language instruction? -pragmatic writing instruction? -mimicry training? -argumentation instruction? -learner use of editor service? -learner use of mentor service? What is the core issue here? -how to maximize publication success? -how to maximize ongoing growth?

  12. NEEDS

  13. Found problem: constrained TAW Needs analysis: learner profile Framing: possible solutions Needs analysis Learner profile TAW objectives Variable English skill/knowledge Variable intrinsic motivation Uniform high extrinsic motivation High anxiety about research/completion High anxiety about conference presentation Communicative competence Writing support Conference presentation support RP how-to RP support TAW skill to independence Degree programme demands 3-year limit 2 refereed papers in English Dissertation in English

  14. Found problem: constrained TAW Needs analysis: learner profile Framing: possible solutions EAP best practice Key factors in successful academic performance 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 Service 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.

  15. TAW writing: needs analysis Language skills Argument sequencing Info-structured sentence generation Mimicry of model language NOTICING Knowledge Niche grammar structures Niche rhetorical structures General register repertoires (distinguishing formal academic from informal academic) Research Paper text structure and information structure Facilities Concordance & collocation resources Model research papers (annotated*) *c.f. Brown and Brown’s ‘annotation’

  16. SOLUTIONS

  17. Found problem: constrained TAW Needs analysis: learner profile Framing: possible solutions Possible solutions Maximization of TAW functionality 1 Editor/mentor prep 2 Pragmatic language curriculum 3 Strategic language curriculum - Note: all of these hinge on argument and accessibility

  18. 2007 curriculum

  19. 2009 curriculum

  20. PhD English writing classes: editor's eye curriculum Textbook: How Academic Writing Works (2nd edition) by Hunter, KUT Press. Required also: Science Research Writing by Glasman-Deal, Imperial College Press. Former textbook: Academic Writing for Graduate Students by Swales and Feak (U. of Michigan Press) Key concepts: 1. How to write to the standard of the target journal. 2. How to write maximally readable Formal Academic English. 3. How to use the writing techniques in model papers. (cf. noticing) Support is given in checking English quality in model papers. 4. How to communicate with a writing mentor or editor. 5. How to correct one's English using mentor feedback. How to check that an editor has not damaged the meaning in the paper.

  21. REFRAME

  22. Reframing: learner:instructor becomes client:advisor

  23. Reframing: learner:instructor becomes client:advisor

  24. STYLE DOSSIER WORK

  25. Dossier collection tasks A. Research writing register models B. Informal discussion register models C. Glossary

  26. Dossier collection tasks A. Research writing register models - EEK! B. Informal discussion register models C. Glossary (EEK: take a look in the horse’s mouth)

  27. Reframing: client:advisor becomes user:consultant Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledge or skills are required

  28. LEARNER AS CLIENT

  29. Editing service Hunter's 2-page Edit System coded feedback editor corrects errors for a finished paper 1-2 pages at a time much learning basically no learning

  30. Uncoded feedback Coded feedback type of error is marked editor corrects errors for a finished paper editor asks questions client must correct the problems no client effort

  31. 2009 at KUT: Hunter's consulting 132 2-page edits 50 hours discussion no rejections by journals 70 hours editing

  32. Minimum requirements for 2-page editing service The client must have: Completed TW2 and RW courses Enough time until deadline (2+ weeks)

  33. Editing service: entry criteria Academic editing 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: learners with the converse of the above positive attributes exist in large(r) numbers.

  34. Methodology frame Self-assess strategy tool

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

  36. Hunterthe style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY Methodology frame 1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved -how to talk about them. • 2. Second, time and again • the user must articulate anew his/her course • through the strategy network • from entry to final user success.

  37. Methodology frame 1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved -how to talk about them. • 2. Second, time and again • the user must articulate anew his/her course • through the strategy network • from entry to final user success. • 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.

  38. Methodology frame 1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved -how to talk about them. • 2. Second, time and again • the user must articulate anew his/her course • through the strategy network • from entry to final user success. • 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.

  39. SUMMARY

  40. Summary Scenario constraints Learner time Learner variability Research topic granularity RP genre granularity Quality of available models Native rewriter availability/affordability

  41. Summary Scenario constraints Learner time Learner variability Research topic granularity RP genre granularity Quality of available models Native rewriter availability/affordability Compromises Pragmatic strategies Learner revisioned as client, then as user Instructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant

  42. Hunterthe style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY Summary Scenario constraints Learner time Learner variability Research topic granularity RP genre granularity Quality of available models Native rewriter availability/affordability Compromises Pragmatic strategies Learner revisioned as client, then as user Instructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant Task array Grammar work Information structure mapping Register work RP lexis work Write-rewrite Dossier work

  43. PERFUNCTORY CONCLUSION

  44. Inconclusive conclusion How to balance Linguistic bottom-up construction and the scaffolding of noticing ?

More Related