• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Task post mortems as writing center preparation
 

Task post mortems as writing center preparation

on

  • 432 views

Presented at the 4th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia, Tokyo, 12.02.04. ...

Presented at the 4th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia, Tokyo, 12.02.04.
Exploring means of aiding second language writers of English technical academic writing to develop the noticing and cohesion skills to become semi-autonomous writers of research papers.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
432
Views on SlideShare
431
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://bb9.tamucc.edu 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

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

    Task post mortems as writing center preparation Task post mortems as writing center preparation Presentation Transcript

    • Task post mortems as writing center preparation Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter 4 th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia February 4, 2012
          • Background
          • Curriculum design
          • Micro writing center
          • Task design
          • Observations
      Outline Hunter Task post mortems as writing center preparation
    • Background Canada 1971~ Maths instructor Guidance counsellor Maths teacher trainer (PNG) ESL maths teacher 1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo 1990~ Freelance academic rewriter, Japan Japan 1990~ Assoc. professor, English 1993~ Assoc. professor, English, intercultural communication 1996~ Super translation team: Japanese construction ministry World Water Forum Kyoto Advertising industry Major universities 1996~ founder, KUT EFL CALL EFL Critical thinking ESP technical writing EAP for engineers 2004~ Journal reviewer: CALL , Web Based Communities, JALL, IJLT 1999~2006 Interviews editor: Document Design/Information Design Journal 1998~ Conference referee: CATaC, IADIS, JALTCALL
    • Background Maths teacher trainer (Rabaul) Maths teacher Guidance counsellor ESL maths teacher (Vancouver) EFL teacher Technical editor Super translation ESP professor (Tokyo, Tokushima, Kochi) ESL maths teacher (Cairns)
    • KUT scenario
      • Since 2002:
      • - Japanese government scholarships
      • - for foreign students
      • - in technical doctoral programmes.
      • ! Graduation requirements:
      • - 2+ refereed papers in top journals
      • - NO extensions
      • - dissertation in English
          • Further L2 acquisition to the point of near-independence
          • during the study period
          • is NOT a realistic strategy.
      • 3-year programme
      • In years 2 and 3,
      • the students are writing top-journal papers.
          • => demand for editing/rewriting service
          • => only 2 native speaker faculty members
      KUT scenario: Writing center demand
    • KUT scenario The best writing center job in the world 1. Highly motivated clients 2. Real community feeling (friends) 3. Manageable numbers: start to finish relationships 4. Action research as a lifestyle 5. Ample time, budget 6. Well managed moodle environment 7. No boss 8. Faculty not eligible (unless trained)
          • Background
          • Curriculum design
          • Micro writing center
          • Task design
          • Observations
      Outline Hunter Task post mortems as writing center preparation
    • Design Scenario ESP EAP EAP HUMANITIES TAW EX EY EZ English for specific purposes English for academic purposes Technical academic writing
    • Design Elements
      • Clientele
      • Intake: 7-15 twice yearly
      • Filtering: screening for English writing skill
      • Variable research background
      • Variable EAP/publication background
      • Variable grammar knowledge
      • Variable EFL communicative skill
      • Variable belief in possibility of writing improvement
    • What is the core issue? -client L2 knowledge/skill? -client autonomy in TAW? -client TAW functionality? -publication success? -ongoing L2 growth? Curriculum: goal-setting
    • Design Elements Clientele resources Client's own knowledge, skill Supervisor Weak TAW Strong TAW Commercial editor Commercial editor Sup. as editor KUT mWC editor recommend mentor (2-page) Journal reviewers editorial help Client's peers
    •  
    • TAW best practice Niche language acquisition to near-independence in TAW Writing work focusing on argument and info-structures Training in use of language models: Style Dossier Preparation for work with an editor Preparation for work with a mentor
    •  
    • KUT design 2007 Appendices: Usage Speaking Working with an editor References Hunter, L. (2007) How Academic Writing Works. KUT Press.
    • Hunter, L. (2009) How Academic Writing Works. 2 nd ed. KUT Press. KUT design 2009
    • Hunter, L. (2012) Technical Academic Writing. Minaminokaze Press. KUT design 2012
    • KUT scenario: learner as client Small enrolment allows a mentoring system
    • KUT scenario: learner as client Implication of learner as client: Course work must be individualized, i.e. Primary instructor:client is 1:1
    • KUT scenario
    • Language model use: Style Dossier content
      • Research writing register models
        • -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.
      • B. Informal discussion register models
      • 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
      • 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.
    • Paraphrasing Quotation 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 Language model use: Style Dossier skills
    • Overview 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 Argument work Information structure mapping Register work RP lexis work Write-rewrite Dossier work
          • Background
          • Curriculum design
          • Micro writing center
          • Task design
          • Observations
      Outline Hunter Task post mortems as writing center preparation
    •  
    • KUT English micro writing center evolution Early years of SSP Large number of students Editing service impossible Since 2008 Fewer students Hunter ’s 2-page system
    • Commercial editing services Danger: wide variety in: 1. Basic grammar Levels of service 2. Grammar, syntax, cohesion 3. Rhetoric check (style, communication) 1. Pricing 2. Quality of editing 3. Reliability
    • Practical point: micro Writing Center policy
      • Policy on mentoring service:
      • 1. Maximum 2 pages at a time, intro first and last
      • 2. One week notice
      • 3. Only ‘graduates’ of English writing programme
      • 4. Exceptions to 1, 2 or 3 will be referred to ‘pro’ editors.
      • 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
      • 4. Recommended: mock Q&A practice
    • 2-page mentoring system editor corrects errors for a finished paper no learning coded feedback 1~2 pages at a time much learning Editing service
    • requirements completion of TW2 and RW courses Minimum requirements for 2-page editing service enough time until deadline (2+ weeks)
    • no rejections by journals* 132 2-page edits 70 hours editing micro Writing Center 2009: Consulting volume 50 hours discussion *some non-clients experienced rejections partly on the basis of language.
    • no rejections by journals* 78 2-page edits 30 hours editing micro Writing Center 2011: Consulting volume 27 hours discussion Drop in volume due to: 1. Smaller student numbers 2. Emergence of peer tutoring 3. *2 non-clients graduate late due to rejections partly on the basis of language.
      • Observations
          • Use of 2-page mentoring
          • Some clients became peer mentors/peer editors
          • -did the in-class post mortems train them?
          • After the 1-year program, student requests
          • were framed in ‘editor/mentor strategy’ genre
      • Observations
          • Use of 2-page mentoring
      Papers consulted Clients consulted 2-page iterations Dossier checks 2008 15 12 55 7 2009 28 21 157 16 2010 21 15 61 10 2011 22 14 61 15
          • Background
          • Curriculum design
          • Micro writing center
          • Task design
          • Observations
      Outline Hunter Task post mortems as writing center preparation
    • Overview 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 Argument work Information structure mapping Register work RP lexis work Write-rewrite Dossier work
    •  
    • grammar/surface features usage/convention document format argument supporting claim Possible approaches research design/results most TAW writers start writing here (simulacrum of argument) RP language generation should start here most TAW programs work here
    • Possible approaches Maximization of TAW functionality 1 Editor/mentor prep 2 Pragmatic language curriculum 3 Strategic language curriculum - all of these hinge on argument
    • Possible approaches Maximization of TAW functionality 1 Editor/mentor prep 2 Pragmatic language curriculum 3 Strategic language curriculum - all of these hinge on argument But argument work is blocked by -text complexity -masking of argument by text -abstract nature of most materials
    • Approach 1: Writing task focus: isolation of argument Problem 1: How to constrain text analysis? How to get the learner to isolate argument?
    • Approach 1: Writing task focus: isolation of argument Problem 1: How to constrain text analysis To get the learner to isolate argument? Approach 2 Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media.
    • Approach 2 Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media. "Inferred content" task -forces close reading -forces critical interpretation -forces analytical application of -scientific method structure -argument structure -demands FAE -allows instructor to focus on RP section -for rhetorical structure -for writing conventions
    • Approach 2 Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media. Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance.
    • Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance. Solution 2: Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).
    • Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance. Solution 2: Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).
    • Problem 3: How to create generalized tasks as opposed to own-work feedback tasks? Solution 3: Post mortem group troubleshooting activities -followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties
    • Solution 3: Post mortem group troubleshooting activities -followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties Sample post mortem tasks: Discuss the underlined parts:   1. University professors seem to have a heavy workload. They must do academic work like conducting original researching and publishing refereed papers. At the same time , they must teach and supervise students’ research, and even do administrative work as well. 2. These heavy tasks may cause professors to have stress related health problems and young people may not want to work in universities. In conclusion , professors should specialize in one of the three kinds of work. 3. University professors are expected to do original research, and to publish research papers in refereed journals. However , professors must teach classes and supervise student research as well. Professors must also do administrative work such as serving on committees. As a result , young people may not want to work in universities.
    • Solution 3: Post mortem group troubleshooting activities -followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties Excerpt from instructor demo
    • Problem 4: How to bring a course content focus to PM tasks? Solution 4: Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks. Make a focused task for each ‘found’ error.
    • Solution 4: Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks. Make a focused task for each ‘found’ error. Sample focused post mortem tasks   Repair the underlined errors (are they information errors or language errors?). These are someone's first two sentences: can you remove the redundancy? Is this report of the results accurate? Rephrase the last part of this sentence to make it readable FAE: Correct the pronoun reference problem here. Check the tense of all the verbs here. The second sentence does not contain much information, but it is important. How would you rearrange sentences 1 and 2 to make tight, readable FAE? This sentence is too abstract. How would you give it more information value? Clean up this summary to make it more factual. Make the underlined bit factually correct. What's wrong with the verbs in this sentence? Think about what caused the actions.   The writer of this sentence relied on the phrasing of the article, and used persuasive/entertaining phrases. Make this into FAE.   Combine the first two sentences and make a better logical connection in the information. Then rephrase the underlined bit to make it more explicit.   Check the underlined words for accuracy and readability.   What kind of sentence is the second one? (Core, background, persuasive) Rewrite the underlined bit to make it explicit. For the underlined bit , check the parallelism and eliminate vagueness in the phrase. TW2 2011 HW 12.0 Post mortem   Repair the underlined errors (are they information errors or language errors?).   After watching a tennis player hitting a ball to either the left or right of a video camera, participants were asked to determine the direction of the ball intermediately . The result shows that the participants responded to the question slower and made significantly more decision errors when a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball.   These are someone's first two sentences: can you remove the redundancy?   Some tennis players make grunts in order to distract their opponents. Grunts in professional tennis are thought to cause negative effect on the opponent’s ability to concentrate on strokes.   Is this report of the results accurate?   When white noise occurred in the same time with strokes, the number of wrong and slow decisions increased. Rephrase the last part of this sentence to make it readable FAE:   It suggested that the noise caused the decrease of correctness and speed of stroke perceiving .   Correct the pronoun reference problem here.   Three hundred and eighty-four video clips of a tennis player hitting a ball to a video camera were shown to 33 students, in some of which a loud white noise was played while the racquet hit the ball.   Check the tense of all the verbs here.   When an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck , participants are significantly slower and make significantly more decision errors. These results show that a grunt blocks multi-sensory abilities of opponents and distracted the opponents.   The second sentence does not contain much information, but it is important. How would you rearrange sentences 1 and 2 to make tight, readable FAE?   Recently in the world of tennis there has been debate about the claim that grunting during service has negative effects on the attention of the opponent. Aiming to confirm this, the study Sinnet (2010) was conducted .   This sentence is too abstract. How would you give it more information value? In the study, white noises and videos were used to analyze the response capacity of the subjects.   Clean up this summary to make it more factual.   The students were asked to determine the location of the ball immediately. The results show that the grunts block the ability to pay attention to the ball and make the opponents return the ball difficult.   Make the underlined bit factually correct.   A study of loud grunts by tennis players claims that grunts during service in tennis distract the receiver and reduce reaction time.   What's wrong with the verbs in this sentence? Think about what caused the actions.   When the white noise occurred, the participants slowed reaction time and made more decision errors.   The writer of this sentence relied on the phrasing of the article, and used persuasive/entertaining phrases. Make this into FAE.   Sinnett proposed that a grunt can’t allow people to place all their attention on what’s happening, and blocks the ability to pay attention to a multi-sensory event.   Combine the first two sentences and make a better logical connection in the information. Then rephrase the underlined bit to make it more explicit.   For some of the shots, a loud white noise was played as the racquet hit the ball. More decision errors were made by the participants. Grunting could cause a tennis player to perceive a ball incorrectly .   Check the underlined words for accuracy and readability.   Sinnet realized an experiment to determine the effect of loud grunts on the subjects’ concentration, and he extrapolated the results to tennis players.   What kind of sentence is the second one? (Core, background, persuasive)   Students are significantly slower and make significantly more decision errors when an additional sound occurs at the same time as when the ball is struck. A growing body of research shows that noise distracts people from their ability of paying attention to what is happening.   Rewrite the underlined bit to make it explicit. Sinnett studied the effect of loud grunts on people's ability .   For the underlined bit , check the parallelism and eliminate vagueness in the phrase.  
          • Background
          • Curriculum design
          • Micro writing center
          • Task design
          • Observations
      Outline Hunter Task post mortems as writing center preparation
      • Survey feedback (January 26, 2012)
          • Group PM activity not useful
          • Narrow PM task better than open-ended
          • Teacher demos (with multiple answers) good
          • - after students have attempted the PM tasks
          • 3 students in 12 reported emergence of noticing
          • -do take notes on language features while reading
          • -notes per paper: hesitant reporting
      • Future research question
          • Do emergent language noticers
          • become peer mentors
          • more frequently than non-noticers?
      • Suspicions
          • Argument clarity is key
          • Journal language standards are softening
          • Peer support is growing
          • Peer discourse is increasingly savvy
    • Sources Hunter the style dossier approach STRUCTURE 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.
    • Thank you so much for your kind attention. Don't hesitate to write me. Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/