Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center

on

  • 117 views

Presented at Writing Centers Association of Japan annual conference, Oberlin Univ., Machida, Tokyo. ...

Presented at Writing Centers Association of Japan annual conference, Oberlin Univ., Machida, Tokyo.
Emphasizing the difference between humanities/social science writing centers and sci-tech writing centers. A world of difference.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
117
Views on SlideShare
117
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center Presentation Transcript

  • Ears to hear with: The Instructed writing center 6th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia Obirin College, TOKY O Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://lawriehunter.com
  • No need to take notes (:^0) All materials can be downloaded from Hunter’s websites http://lawriehunter.com/ http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/ and many more ppts available at http://slideshare.net/rolenzo/
  • Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center SUMMARY Within the negotiations of a writing center consultation, the mentor can choose from a wide range of frames for support, and from a number of degrees of abstractness as well. Many of the strategies that the mentor might select, and many of the knowledge/skill perspectives as well, require that the client have specific items of knowledge and skill in place. This paper provides tentative, in-place answers to the problem of the client unprepared to received much of the help that the mentor might offer, in the form a curriculum that might be a requirement for certain writing center services. ABSTRACT Within the negotiations of a writing center consultation, the mentor can choose from a wide range of frames for support, including rhetorical approaches, cohesion and readability considerations, and techniques for using model language from existing papers, to mention but a few. Many of the strategies that the mentor might select, and many of the knowledge/skill perspectives as well, require that the client have specific items of knowledge and skill in place. This paper presents an existing long-in-use curriculum intended as intensive preparation/requirement for extensive writing center consultation for scholarship PhD students in engineering and management/policy at a Japanese university. The content of the curriculum is based on client needs, in particular accessible writing, sound argument and production strategy. For each these three needs, a series of interventions are provided. For accessible writing, knowledge and skills for production of readable text and explicit cohesion are acquired through instruction, exercises and mentor scenario simulations. Similar grounding is provided for the crafting of clarity and logicality as elements of sound argument. The primary elements of production strategy (mimicry, conformity and assistance) practiced in detailed pragmatic simulations. By the end of the one-semester course, the would-be writing center client is capable of confidently working with text, in the form of text analysis work (separating levels of abstraction) and communication moves analysis work, as well as more fine grained work with cohesion, readability, clarity and precision. As a result, a considerable portion of the wide range of advice that the writing center mentor might offer will not fall on deaf ears.
  • Case study: Cmaps in academic writing Asian EAP PhD students of academic writing for management. KUT
  • Dimensions of Island of Shikoku Media Object Compehensibility KUT Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochitech.ac.jp/hunter/ 5
  • KUT EAP scenario Foreign PhD students 2003-2013 China Thailand Banglades h Vietnam Cambodia Mongolia Spain Czech India Indonesia Jordan Myanmar Nepal Niger Pakistan Sri Lanka Uzbekistan TOTAL 93 14 5 9 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 140
  • KUT EAP scenario Since 2003: - Japanese government scholarships - for foreign students - in technical doctoral programmes. ! Graduation requirements: - 2+ refereed papers in top journals - dissertation in English L2 study during the PhD program is NOT a realistic strategy. 7
  • What do writing centers DO? -consultations
  • consultations
  • What do W.Ctr. clients WANT? -mentoring -editing -rewriting -ghostwriting
  • What do W.Ctr. clients GET? -1~2 hits @ 45 min -strategic advice
  • Typical WCtr client need WCtr consult client need WCtr consult client free
  • Whom do W.Ctrs. serve? -typically, humanities -typically, narrators
  • Can W.Ctrs. serve sci-tech? -S-Ts want to be heard -S-Ts want strategies -S-Ts might want English
  • Writing center constraints -money -time -client numbers
  • Today: What do W.Ctr. tutors want to say?
  • Today: What can W.Ctr. clients hear?
  • Typical W.Ctr. conundrums: -no time -unprepared clients
  • Extreme case: KUT writing center
  • Extreme case: KUT writing center -enough time -enough money
  • in a perfect world..
  • in a perfect world.. T: optimal learning C: optimal success
  • KUT Client profile TL reading -slow -persistent -compliant L1 persuasion: -by repetition -by continuation -unsignalled L1: first language TL: target language TL writing -jumbled -unsignalled -malsignalled
  • KUT Client strategies Argument construction -using L1 skills -using L1 knowledge L1: first language TL: target language Writing: use model TL -for structure -for style -for cohesion -for logic -for proof
  • Extreme case: KUT writing center -maximize client learning -maximize client success
  • Typical WCtr client need WCtr consult client need WCtr consult client free KUT WCtr 1-2 semesters instruction client need TAW mentor: 2-page bits, multiple iterations research supervisor: confirm content
  • What do KUT W.Ctr. clients NEED?
  • TAW needed knowledge (identify problems) and skills (evaluate and repair) Audience Rhetoric Register FAE Rhetoric vs information         Conventions Usage Lexical units Collocation Corpus Concordance Style guides             Accessibility Information organization General-specific SPSE Paragraph development Cohesion Readability             Purpose of writing Claim Hedging Data commentary Conclusion writing Argument RPaper structure Communication moves Moves in the intro section Discussion section moves                   Abstractness Document structure Summarization Abstracts Introductions         Readability Information structures Voice Aspect Reference/antecedent Parallelism Nominalization Subordinate clauses Eliminating vagueness Eliminating ambiguity S-V separation S-V agreement                       Ethicality Avoiding plagiarism Citation Model language use Paraphrasing Style Dossier           Survival Working with an editor Working with a mentor 2-page system      
  • Client needs accessible writing readable text explicit cohesion sound argument clarity logicality production strategy mimicry, conformity assistance
  • KUT writing center interventions
  • Client needs accessible writing readable text explicit cohesion Intervention: instruction, exercises, low-text tools sound argument clarity logicality Intervention: instruction, exercises, mapping production strategy mimicry, conformity assistance Intervention: instruction, exercises, simulations
  • Client needs accessible writing sound argument readable text Exercises: -topic/stress -S-V separation -old/new -pronoun reference -logical connectors production strategy explicit cohesion Exercises: -topic based cohesion -pronoun reference -logical connectors Tools: -cohesion charts
  • Client needs accessible writing sound argument clarity Exercises: -parallelism -nominalization -subordinate clauses -eliminating vagueness -eliminating ambiguity production strategy logicality Exercises: -claim and hedging -summarizing -data commentary Tools: Argument maps
  • Client needs accessible writing mimicry Exercises: -paraphrasing -concordance -citation -lexical units Activity: -dossier creation sound argument conformity Exercises: -register (FAE) -usage Tools: -style guides -word lists production strategy assistance Activity: -self assessment -editor/mentor -coded feedback -communication
  • Case study Instructor interventions HW feedback: -edit surface -critique structure -critique cohesion -critique argument Analytical work: -analyze model TL -summarize model TL Construction work -cluster of concepts -find structure -create expression L1: first language TL: target language HW: homework tasks
  • Possible EAP teaching approach grammar/surface features usage/convention document format argument supporting claim researchers start writing here research design/results 36
  • EAP teaching approach grammar/surface features usage/convention Most writing instruction starts here document format argument supporting claim researchers start writing here research design/results KUT writing instruction starts here 37
  • Thank you for your attention. Please write to me. I'm happy to share/teach/collaborate. Download this .ppt and many others from http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/ or view/download at http://slideshare.net/rolenzo/ Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology lawriehunter.com