This document discusses an alternative approach to teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP) where the instructor takes on the role of an editor and the learner becomes their client. The traditional EAP classroom model is ineffective for learners who need to publish research for graduation requirements due to varying English abilities. Reframing the relationship as editor and client allows for more individualized instruction focused on addressing specific writing problems preventing publication. Through developing curriculum, materials, and a methodology focused on raising client awareness of writing problems and their ability to identify and remedy issues, over 10 years most clients in this program became semi-autonomous academic writers by graduation.

1. The editor as EAP instructor:
Publication as a learning objective
Lawrie Hunter
National Graduate Research Institute for Policy Studies
http://lawriehunter.com
lawriehunter@gmail.com

2. This powerpoint is designed to be read later,
so as Hunter speaks,
please try to catch
the GESTALT of each slide
... and do download the file from
www.slideshare.net/rolenzo/presentations
Hunter
Editor as EAP instructor

3. The editor as EAP instructor: publication as a learning objective
In a 'have-to' technical academic writing instruction scenario (i.e. where the learner of
academic writing is facing a do-or-die graduation requirement of publication in a substantial
academic journal), the learner's primary objective, to successfully publish her research
findings in an academic journal, clashes with the instructor's primary objective, that the
learner become a semi-autonomous academic writer.
The variety of client profiles within even a small academic writing class, in terms of
background, linguistic intelligence (cf. Gardner's multiple), English skills, time available and
intention strength (will), make it extremely difficult to pursue either of the above objectives
by means of the classroom or group instruction model. Some manner of individualization,
within a framework of writing knowledge and skills to be acquired, is undeniably necessary.
This paper presents an in-place solution to the above "dilemma": an alternative to the
dominant EAP instruction paradigm: reframe the instructor as an editor, and the learner as a
client. The enactment of this alternative paradigm, over a ten year period, involved
development of curriculum, materials, tasks, and most importantly methodology. The
methodology is strongly focused on the raising of client consciousness of the writing
problems (not 'errors') that are barriers to publication (these do not include grammar), and on
the development of the client's ability to identify instances of those problems, and to remedy
them. Qualitative results will be presented. Spoiler: this story has a happy ending.

4. 4
SCENARIO
ESPESP
EAPEAP
EAP
HUMANITIES
EAP
HUMANITIES
TAWTAW
EXEX EYEY EZEZ
English for specific purposes
English for academic purposes
Technical academic writing

5. Case study:
Cmaps in academic writing
Asian EAP PhD students of
academic writing for management.
KUT

6. 6
Dimensions of
Media Object Compehensibility
Lawrie Hunter
Kochi University of Technology
http://www.core.kochi-
tech.ac.jp/hunter/
KUT
Island of Shikoku

7. Background (editor focus)
1982, 1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo
1990- Freelance academic rewriter, Japan
1996- Super translation team member
-Japanese construction ministry
-World Water Forum Kyoto
1998-2006 Interviews editor, Document Design
(evolved to Information Design Journal)
1998- Referee, CATaC conferences
1999- Editorial team, JALTCALL conferences
2004- Editorial board, Web Based Communities
Instructor
Mathematics
EFL
Assoc. Professor
EFL
Intercultural Comm.
Professor
EFL CALL
EFL Critical thinking
ESP technical writing
EAP for engineers

8. Editor view (pattern recognition paradigm)
Academic rewrite client attributes:
1 Makes few grammar errors.
2 Can identify native-like rhetorical flow.
3 Can identify ambiguity in text.
4 Consistently learns from error correction (coded/uncoded).
5 Wants to learn from error correction.
6 Writes well by mimicry.
7 Does not decay with time away from English.
8 Has a sense of argument.
9 Writes unambiguous text by logic/puzzle-solving.
10 Can identify meaning damage in editor rewrites.
NB: the converse of the above positive attributes
exists in large(r) numbers.

9. KUT scenario
Since 2002: Japanese government scholarships
for foreign students in technical doctoral programmes.
!the foreign students are required to publish
2+ refereed papers and a dissertation in English
demand for new technical academic writing courses

10. Applicants are screened for academic English knowledge and skill,
BUT
1. There are no extensions in the 3 year programme
2. Research topics are highly granular.
3. Technical RP writing genres are highly granular.
further L2 acquisition
to the point of near-independence
during the study period
is NOT a realistic strategy.
Need for a pragmatic approach.
KUT scenario

11. KUT scenario: RP editing
In years 2 and 3 of the 3-year programme,
the students are writing refereed papers.
-demand for editing/rewriting service
-only 2 native speaker faculty members

12. learner
profile learner
L2
objectives
Communicative competence
Writing support
Conference presentation support
degree
programme
demands
3-year limit
2 refereed papers in English
Dissertation in English
RP how-to
RP support
L2 skill to quasi-independence
KUT scenario
Variable English skill/knowledge
Variable intrinsic motivation
Uniform high extrinsic motivation
High anxiety about research/completion
High anxiety about conference presentation

13. Of the clients who ‘engaged’ in the program,
more than half
were semi-autonomous by graduation.*
*Note: not by the end of the writing program
Results

14. Journal
reviewer
Peer
editor
Research
supervisor
Writing
instructor
Self
editor
Allies OpponentsNeutral
Paid
editor
The real game: PUBLISHING
Writing
center

15. Journal
reviewer
Peer
editor
Research
supervisor
Writing
instructor
Self
editor
Allies OpponentsNeutral
Paid
editor
CHANGE the game?
Writing
center

16. DESIGN (end product)(editor view)
1 What product?
Publishable RP, nothing else
2 What standard?
Look in journals (style dossier approach)
3 What client skills?
Top-down / driver’s seat / emergency ward?
4 Instructor role?
teacher / editor-mentor / editor-angel

17. Client
needs
accessible
writing
sound
argument
production
strategy
readable
text
explicit
cohesion
clarity logicality
mimicry,
conformity
assistance
DESIGN Publishable RP, nothing else

18. Research
complete
Your paper:
many grammar
problems?
Find an
editor
Editor
checks
English
Decide
services
grammar
only
readability
argument
Did the editor
damage your
meaning?
no
no
Decide
feedback
code
Mentor gives
feedback on
2 pages
SUBMIT!
Perfect?
no
You revise
next 2
pages
yes
Paper
finished?
no
You
revise
Do you want to
learn in this
process?
no
yes
Find a
mentor
yes
yes
Did you do
dossier work
and apply the
patterns to your
writing?
no
Did you do
lots of rewrites
in TW2RW
HW?
no
yes
Do you
know how to
repair all the basic
meaning
problems
?
no
yes
yes
yes
Can you
write the paper
by yourself?
I think so
no
write
the
paper
Is it good
enough to
submit?
SUBMIT!
SUBMIT!
yes
not sure
DESIGN
Driver’s seat

19. DESIGN
Look in journals
(style dossier approach)
Free service:
editor/instructor
uses coded highlighting
to indicate problems with
-grammar
-formal academic English (FAE)
-readability
Volume: one chunk per page
Client task: infer reason for
each highlight.

20. Audience Abstractness
Rhetoric Document structure
Register Summarization
FAE Abstracts
Rhetoric vs information Introductions
Conventions Readability
Usage Information structures
Lexical units Voice
Collocation Aspect
Corpus Reference/antecedent
Concordance Parallelism
Style guides Nominalization
Subordinate clauses
Accessibility Eliminating vagueness
Information organization Eliminating ambiguity
General-specific S-V separation
SPSE S-V agreement
Paragraph development
Cohesion Ethicality
Readability Avoiding plagiarism
Citation
Purpose of writing Model language use
Claim Paraphrasing
Hedging Style Dossier
Data commentary
Conclusion writing Survival
Argument Working with an editor
RPaper structure Working with a mentor
Communication moves 2-page system
Moves in the intro section
Discussion section moves
DESIGN
Driver’s seat
Client needs:
a. knowledge
(to identify
problems)
and
b. skills
(to evaluate
and repair
problems)

21. DESIGN (infrastructure)
1 Client perception/language (pattern recognition)
Concept bank for interaction
Metalanguage for interaction
2 Client strategic skills (for critical reading/writing)
Mimicry / analysis (pattern recognition)
3 Simulations (classroom task/evaluation)
Production /analytical skills (macro/micro)

22. DESIGN
Remember:
School is just
a set of
simulations.

23. Swales and Feak
Academic Writing
for Graduate Students
I cannot thank enough:
Swales and Feak,
for sorting everything EAP
into actionable bits.
And setting me
on my way
with TAW
for PhD students.
1994
2004
2012

24. EAP best practice: KUT design 2007
I. Acquire knowledge
-registers
-rhetorical moves
framing
relationships
cohesion
-readability (stress position / topic position)
-language structures vs. information structures
II. Learn skills
-data commentary
-summarizing
-using text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....
-framing
-using lexical units to show relationships
-creating/maintaining cohesion
-avoiding ambiguity
-use/application of register knowledge
-model mimicry
-optimizing readability
-editing through a checklist
Sources
Swales & Feak
Gopen & Swan
Ferris
Halliday & Hasan
Hunter

25. Appendices:
Usage
Speaking
Working with an editor
References
Hunter, L. (2007) How Academic Writing Works. KUT Press.
KUT design 2007

26. Hunter, L. (2009) How Academic Writing Works. 2nd
ed. KUT Press.
KUT design 2009

27. Hunter, L. (2012) Technical Academic Writing. Minaminokaze Press.
KUT design 2012
Purpose Systems /
Principles
Techniques and tools
Communicating
to your target
audience
3.1 Audience
2.1 Register
2.2 FAE (formal academic English)
2.3 IAE (informal academic English)
2.4 Basic Writing
Rules
2.5 Usage
2.6 Collocation,
corpus and
concordance
2.7 Lexical units
2.8 Sequence and voice
2.9 Aspect
2.10 Style guides
2.11 The Academic Word List (AWL)
and other lists
4.1 Readability
4.2 Subject-verb separation
4.3 Topic-stress
4.4 What readers expect
4.5 Paragraph development
4.6 Metaphor: closeness is strength
4.8 Pronoun reference
4.9 Logical connectors and
conjunctions
4.7 Cohesion
4.7.1 Topic-based cohesion
4.7.2 Rhetorical cohesion
5.1 Information
organization
structures
5.2 General to specific (GS)
5.3 Situation-problem-solution-
evaluation (SPSE)
VI Clarity
6.1 Parallelism
6.2 Nominalization
6.3 Subordinate clauses
6.4 Eliminating vagueness
6.5 Eliminating ambiguity
Arguing the
validity of your
claim
3.2 Argument
3.2.1 Causation
and
correlation
3.3 Argument in
TAW
3.4 Claim
3.5 Hedging
3.6 Argument maps
3.7 Summarizing
3.7.1 Separating rhetoric, background
and core content
3.7.2 Mapping a summary of a paper
3.7.3 The abstract
3.8 Data commentaries
3.9 Communication moves
3.9.1 Moves in the sections of a paper
Being ethical
7.1 Avoiding
plagiarism
7.2 Citation
7.3 Using model language ethically
7.4 Paraphrasing

28. Reframing:
learner:instructor becomes client:advisor
Language
knowledge
Language skills Task modes
Technical
Writing II
( first
semester)
Language structures
vs. information
structures
Text structures: G-S,
P-P-S, ....
Registers
Using text structures
Summarizing
Data commentary
Using lexical units to show info structures
Editing through a checklist
Write-edit-rewrite
(uncoded to coded)
to perfection
Argument identification
and summary
Swales & Feak exercises
Dossier collection work
Research
Writing
(second
semester)
Ambiguity
Readability (stress
position, topic
position)
Rhetorical moves:
framing, relationships,
cohesion
RP structure
RP lexical units
Language features in RP sections
Optimizing readability
-subject-verb proximity
-single function for 1 unit of discourse
-emphasis at syntactic closure points
Avoiding ambiguity
Creating, maintaining cohesion
Use, application of register knowledge
Write-edit-rewrite
(uncoded to coded)
to perfection
Readability work
Swales & Feak exercises
Dossier manipulation

29. 29
EAP teaching approach
grammar/surface features
document format
argument
supporting claim
research
design/results
most TAW
writers start
writing here
(simulacrum
of argument)
RP language
generation
should start
here
most TAW
programs
work here
usage/convention

30. 30
TAW best practice
Niche language
acquisition to
near-independence
in TAW
Writing work
focusing on
argument and
info-structures
Training in
the use of
language models:
Style Dossier
Preparation
for work with
an editor
Preparation
for work with
a mentor
Writing to
perfection
(perfection by
some definition)

31. DESIGN
Coded feedback
Parameters:
publication barriers
Client behavior:
-problem solving
-pattern recognition

32. DESIGN
Driver’s seat
-tracking
one’s own
progress

33. Driver’s seat
-planning
one’s own
learning
Noticing
Audience
Conventions
Abstractness
Accessibility
Ethicality
Rhetoric
Registers
Usage
Lexical units
Collocation
Corpus
Concordance
Style guides
Arguments
RP structure
Communication
moves
Moves in the
introduction
Conclusion
Document
structure
Summarization
Abstracts
Introductions
Survival
Info organizations
General-specific
SPSE
Paragraph development
Cohesion
Readability
Information Structures
Information Structure
signals
Voice
Aspect
Avoiding plagiarism
Citation
Using model language
Paraphrasing
The Style Dossier
Working with an editor
Working with a mentor
The 2 page system
Clarity Rhetoric
vs.
information Parallelism
Nominalization
Subordinate clauses
Eliminating vagueness
Eliminating ambiguity
FAE
Hedging
Data commentary
Discussion
moves
Claim
Purpose of
writing

34. 34
Goal: maximization of client’s TAW functionality
1 Prep for working with editor/mentor
2 Pragmatic language knowledge/skills
3 Strategic skills
TASK DESIGN approaches

35. 35
Traditional approach:
1.Client performs task, writes.
2. Instructor identifies errors.
3. Game over (!)
(assumption:
client learns from correction)

36. 36
Editor approach:
1.Client performs task, writes
2.Editor identifies problems
3.Client repairs problems
4.Editor checks client’s repair,
checks for new problems
Repeat 3, 4 to perfection*
*What standard of perfection?

37. Editor approach 1:
Rewrites to perfection
(or to satisfaction*)
Benchmark: 8 = good enough to give to an editor
*satisfaction: ‘good enough for purpose X’

38. Task design
Text-based analysis of argument as
(mis)repesented in popular media (today’s task).
"Inferred content" task
-forces close reading
-forces critical interpretation
-forces analytical application of
-scientific method structure
-argument structure
-demands FAE
-allows editor to focus on RP sections
-for rhetorical structure
-for writing conventions

39. E.g.: excerpt from instructor demo
Editor approach 2:
Post mortem from HW errors:
-group troubleshooting activities
-then instructor demo’s on observed difficulties

40. E.g. post mortem tasks (open-ended):
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.
Editor approach 3:
Post mortem from HW errors:
-group troubleshooting activities
-then instructor demo’s on observed difficulties

41. Problem:
Post mortem tasks lack course content focus
Solution:
Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks.
Make a focused task for each ‘found’ error.

42. Editor approach 4:
Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks.
Make a convergent task for each ‘found’ error.
E.g. focused post mortem tasks (convergent tasks)
1 Repair the underlined errors (are they information errors or language errors?).
2 These are someone's first two sentences: can you remove the redundancy?
3 Is this report of the results accurate?
4 Rephrase the last part of this sentence to make it readable FAE:
5 Correct the pronoun reference problem here.
6 Check the tense of all the verbs here.
7 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?
8 This sentence is too abstract. How would you give it more information value?
9 Clean up this summary to make it more factual.
10 Make the underlined bit factually correct.
11 What's wrong with the verbs in this sentence? Think about what caused the actions.
12 The writer of this sentence relied on the phrasing of the article, and used persuasive/entertaining
phrases. Make this into FAE.
13 Combine the first two sentences and make a better logical connection in the information.
Then rephrase the underlined bit to make it more explicit.
14 Check the underlined words for accuracy and readability.
15 What kind of sentence is the second one? (Core, background, persuasive)
16 Rewrite the underlined bit to make it explicit.
17 For the underlined bit, check the parallelism and eliminate vagueness in the phrase.

43. Reframing:
learner:instructor becomes client:advisor
Language knowledge Language skills Task modes
Technical
Writing II
Language structures vs.
information structures
Text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....
Registers
Using text structures
Summarizing
Data commentary
Using lexical units to show
info structures
Editing through a checklist
Write-edit-rewrite
(uncoded to coded)
Information structure
mapping
Swales & Feak exercises
Dossier collection work
Research
Writing
Ambiguity
Readability (stress position, topic
position)
Rhetorical moves:
framing, relationships, cohesion
RP structure
RP lexical units
Language features in RP
sections
Optimizing readability
-subject-verb proximity
-single function for 1 unit of
discourse
-emphasis at syntactic closure
points
Avoiding ambiguity
Creating, maintaining
cohesion
Use, application of register
knowledge
Write-edit-rewrite
(uncoded to coded)
Readability work
Swales & Feak exercises
Dossier manipulation

44. Entry Setting Final user success
Strong enough
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Some
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Insufficient
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
time constraints
latent development
minor/no
development
Independent writer
Model-using independent
writer
Model-using aided writer
Heavily aided writer
Ongoing mentored writer
Ghost-written writer
DESIGN driver’s seat
Self-assessment strategy tool

45. Entry Setting Final user success
Strong enough
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Some
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Insufficient
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
time constraints
latent development
minor/no
development
Independent writer
Model-using independent
writer
Model-using aided writer
Heavily aided writer
Ongoing mentored writer
Ghost-written writer
DESIGN driver’s seat
Self-assessment strategy tool

46. 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.
Entry Setting Final user success
Strong enough
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Some
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
Insufficient
grammar knowledge
and composition skill
time constraints
latent development
minor/no
development
Independent writer
Model-using independent
writer
Model-using aided writer
Heavily aided writer
Ongoing mentored writer
Ghost-written writer
DESIGN: driver’s seat

47. Research
complete
Your paper:
many grammar
problems?
Find an
editor
Editor
checks
English
Decide
services
grammar
only
readability
argument
Did the editor
damage your
meaning?
no
no
Decide
feedback
code
Mentor gives
feedback on
2 pages
SUBMIT!
Perfect?
no
You revise
next 2
pages
yes
Paper
finished?
no
You
revise
Do you want to
learn in this
process?
no
yes
Find a
mentor
yes
yes
Did you do
dossier work
and apply the
patterns to your
writing?
no
Did you do
lots of rewrites
in TW2RW
HW?
no
yes
Do you
know how to
repair all the basic
meaning
problems
?
no
yes
yes
yes
Can you
write the paper
by yourself?
I think so
no
write
the
paper
Is it good
enough to
submit?
SUBMIT!
SUBMIT!
yes
not sure
NOT A SIMULATION: driver’s seat

48. Summary: simulation design
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

49. DESIGN: transition to driver’s seat

50. In years 2 and 3 of the 3-year doctoral programme,
the students are writing refereed papers
Hunter’s policy on RP edit/rewrite/consult services:
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.
NOT A SIMULATION: driver’s seat
RP editing service (writing center)

51. Changing times for TAW and EAP
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz4006916

52. Sources
https://lawriehunter.com/taw-book/general-links/
https://lawriehunter.com/taw-book/argument-tools/
https://lawriehunter.com/taw-book/usage/
Hunter’s online resource for English for Academic Purposes:
http://del.icio.us/rolenzo/eap
Links list from Lebrun, “Scientific Writing” (http://www.scientific-writing.com/)
summarized and energized at
https://lawriehunter.com/taw-book/lebrun-links/

53. Sources
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.
Glasman-Deal, H. (2010) Science Research Writing. Imperial College Press.
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.
Lebrun, J-L. (2007) Scientific writing: A reader and writer's guide. World Scientific.
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.

54. Thank you so much
for your kind attention.
Write me! I share.
Lawrie Hunter
Editor/mentor, Center for Professional Communication,
National Graduate Research Institute for Policy Studies
http://grips.ac.jp
http://lawriehunter.com
lawriehunter@gmail.com
Powerpoints on SlideShare (view and download)
Videos on youtube
Weblinks on Delicious