• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Concept mapping and text analysis (WRAB3 poster)
 

Concept mapping and text analysis (WRAB3 poster)

on

  • 178 views

A low text representation of the content of text can reveal rhetorical structure or orchestration (or their absence). Cmap representation can have a valuable place in the writing center toolkit.

A low text representation of the content of text can reveal rhetorical structure or orchestration (or their absence). Cmap representation can have a valuable place in the writing center toolkit.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
178
Views on SlideShare
178
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Dear Lawrie, it seems we are working to a similar issue with different perspectives and cultural basis (yours are more powerful than mine). I am defining the strategy from daily class action-research, anyway I would like to understand better the matter with your help in Skype.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Concept mapping and text analysis (WRAB3 poster) Concept mapping and text analysis (WRAB3 poster) Presentation Transcript

    • Writing Research Across Borders III Concept mapping and text analysis -a composite tool for EAP writers and mentors Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology
    • Problem: argument block Engineering EAP PhD students have trouble articulating their arguments. Factors 1.The structure of an engineering RP is not the structure of an argument. 2. Continuous text does not reveal rhetorical structure. 3. Teaching argument leads poorly to abstraction skill.
    • Intervention 2: Use Cmap Tools -force articulation of relations between core content elements (The link relations are only communication moves verbs from argument discourse.)
    • Study 1: interventions 1 and 2 Map source text Critique the map Make a consensus map Write a summary from map Results Lack of rhetorical awareness led to the inclusion of background information in summaries. Absence of visual metaphors led to narrative order confusion.
    • Intervention 3: identify core text
    • Intervention 4: Institute visual metaphors abstract overarching more important less important concrete subordinate more salient rhetorical flow argument direction less salient passage through time cause-effect
    • Study 2: Instruction in text analysis interventions 3 and 4 Map source text Write a summary from map Results Core content dominant in summaries; sentence order much better. Some learners extended the process to a second text analysis for further abstraction.
    • Reflection Teachers of writing: -built-in bias against low-text work? Outreach: just ask me! Whatever Lawrie Hunter you need. I love to help. Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter http://lawriehunter.com
    • Concept mapping and text analysis: A composite tool for EAP writers and mentors This presentation demonstrates how a low text representation of the content of text can reveal rhetorical structure or orchestration (or their absence). It also argues that Cmap representation can have a valuable place in the writing center toolkit. Cmap representation has gained a wide usership, particularly in science education, thanks to the popularity of the freeware Cmap Tools. Cmap Tools forces the user to label each link between two nodes with a phrase specifying the relation between those nodes. As well, applying several visual metaphors (e.g., up is abstract, down is concrete; up is overarching, down is subordinate) can make the representation even more compressed. This presents an altogether more powerful representation than mind maps. This presentation reports several cases of fruitful application of Cmap Tools, wherein EAP learners of academic writing discovered intellectual leverage in mapping. In each case the learners drew constrained maps of the content of a text (academic or popular genre), critiqued their maps, arrived at consensus on an accurate mapping, and then set out to write a new version of the text based only on the content of the map. In each case the subsequent work was rich regarding writing strategy and proactive use of tools. The learners developed their own approaches, cycling between moves analysis and concept mapping as they worked to unpack text that they had initially identified as 'good models'. In each case too the end product was significantly closer to the target form. The observations made here point to numerous applications in EAP writing, and suggest that the Cmap deserves a place amongst the essential tools for EAP instruction and writing center work, being of particular use in the analysis of source texts where the identification of rhetorical orchestration is difficult; where argument is often masked by other rhetorical devices; and in situations where one's thinking about an approach to a problem is complex and difficult to encode directly in extended text.
    • Concept mapping and text analysis: A composite tool for EAP writers and mentors This presentation demonstrates how a low text representation of the content of text can reveal rhetorical structure or orchestration (or their absence). It also argues that Cmap representation can have a valuable place in the writing center toolkit. Cmap representation has gained a wide usership, particularly in science education, thanks to the popularity of the freeware Cmap Tools. Cmap Tools forces the user to label each link between two nodes with a phrase specifying the relation between those nodes. As well, applying several visual metaphors (e.g., up is abstract, down is concrete; up is overarching, down is subordinate) can make the representation even more compressed. This presents an altogether more powerful representation than mind maps. This presentation reports several cases of fruitful application of Cmap Tools, wherein EAP learners of academic writing discovered intellectual leverage in mapping. In each case the learners drew constrained maps of the content of a text (academic or popular genre), critiqued their maps, arrived at consensus on an accurate mapping, and then set out to write a new version of the text based only on the content of the map. In each case the subsequent work was rich regarding writing strategy and proactive use of tools. The learners developed their own approaches, cycling between moves analysis and concept mapping as they worked to unpack text that they had initially identified as 'good models'. In each case too the end product was significantly closer to the target form. The observations made here point to numerous applications in EAP writing, and suggest that the Cmap deserves a place amongst the essential tools for EAP instruction and writing center work, being of particular use in the analysis of source texts where the identification of rhetorical orchestration is difficult; where argument is often masked by other rhetorical devices; and in situations where one's thinking about an approach to a problem is complex and difficult to encode directly in extended text.