COLLABORATIVE WRITING IN THE PREPARATION OF ESL GRADUATE STUDENTS

Nigel Caplan nacaplan@udel.edu

Assistant Professor, English Language Institute

PhD Student, School of Education

http://nigelteacher.wordpress.com/handouts/sslw2012

Source:

“The Writing Process Colossal Concept Poster”http://catalog.mcdonaldpublishingcatalog.com

The Teaching-Learning Cycle

Martin, 2009; adapted from Rothery, 1996

Joint Construction

1. Pair Writing 2. Teacher-as-Scribe

Why should it work?Socio-Cultural Approaches• Writing as social practice (Coffin et al.)

• Explicit genre instruction (Martin, etc.)

• Collaborative Writing (Storch & Wigglesworth)

Cognitive Approaches• Cognitive processes of expert writers (Flower & Hayes)

• (Meta-)Cognitive Strategy Instruction (MacArthur; Graham, etc.)

Second Language Acquisition• Interaction (Gass)

• Negotiation (Pica)

• Languaging (Swain)

Context• English Language Institute at a “mid-Atlantic research-

intensive public university”• Pre-MBA (Conditionally admitted MBA students)• Reading/Writing for Graduate Programs (level VI)• Target genres: persuasive writing & data commentary

(Swales & Feak, 2012; cf also Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007)

Research Questions

1. What is the nature of the interactions in two different joint construction tasks?

2. Are the tasks qualitatively and/or quantitatively different?

3. What effects does joint construction have on the language and generic staging of ESL students’ independent writing?

Methods and Data CollectionSession IV (March-April) Session V (May-June)

Persuasive Essay Pair Writing Teacher-as-Scribe

Data Commentary Teacher-as-Scribe Pair Writing

• 12 Chinese pre-MBA students in each session• 3 of the students in Session IV repeated the course in Session V• Theme of the courses was different: technology (IV) and ethics (V)• Data collected:

• Video/audio recordings of the joint construction tasks• Pair/group writing• Diagnostic essay• Post-instruction data commentary in-class essay• Final timed essay (persuasive)

Languaging and Genre-ing?• From the teacher-as-scribe data commentary task• Genre structure:

(Context)

^ Location statement (indicative or informative)

^ As + linking clause + highlight/focus

^ Implications, interpretations

(Swales & Feak, 2012, Unit 4)

* Excerpt: end of first paragraph (focus)

Pair Writing (Data Commentary)

With increasing use of social network, some behaviors have been involved in conflicts of ethical issues by social networkers and other U.S. workers. Table 5 statistically shows the relationship between social network use and perception of ethical behavior. As can be seen, all behaviors investigated could be more easily accepted by social networkers than by other workers in U.S. The acceptance ratio of the behavior "Blog or tweet negatively about your company or colleagues" between social networkers and other workers is seven. This very high ratio has significantly indicated that social networks have lowered its users' ethical principles.

Challenges with Data Collection• Limitations of Technology• Limited collaboration in some pairs• Task Demands• Time Demands

Future Directions• How do these joint construction tasks affect independent

student writing? (Is there any evidence of transfer?)• Do pair writing and teacher-as-scribe tasks affect student

writing in distinct ways?• What might be some successful strategies to develop for

joint construction tasks in ESL graduate student writing courses?

Nigel A. Caplan

Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Delaware English Language Institute

nacaplan@udel.edu

PowerPoint and references available athttp://nigelteacher.wordpress.com

Handouts

SSLW 2012