Nigel A. Caplan University of Delaware English Language Institute

Charles MacArthur University of Delaware School of Education

Zoi Philippakos Towson University, Educational Technology and Literacy

WRAB 2014, Paris http://nigelteacher.wordpress.com/wrab2014

Theoretical overview ◦ Genre-based writing pedagogy ◦ Cognitive strategy instruction

Collaborative Modeling/Joint Construction

◦ Context, Participants

◦ Analysis

Results

Implications

Genre-Based Writing Pedagogy

Cognitive Strategy Instruction

Collaborative Modeling Joint Construction

“Sydney School” genre pedagogy (Rose & Martin, 2012)

◦ Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday, 1996; Martin, 2009)

◦ Educational linguistics

◦ “Disadvantaged” schools in Australia

English for Academic Purposes

◦ Communicative purpose of research genres (Swales, 1990)

◦ ESL graduate students (Swales & Feak, 2012)

Martin, 2009; Rothery, 1996)

Make visible the genre’s staging and linguistic

resources

Write together, discussing choices

Plan, draft, revise

Strategies are conscious, goal-directed processes for solving problems or completing complex tasks.

Goal of strategy instruction is flexible, self-regulated use of strategies on meaningful tasks.

Research has demonstrated the value of self-regulated strategy instruction for reading and writing.

(Graham, 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Hiebert, 2010)

Draws from cognitive models of proficient writers. (Hayes, 1996; Hayes & Flower, 1980)

The goal of strategy instruction is independent, self-regulated use of strategies on meaningful tasks. (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989)

Explicit instruction and explanation of strategies and discourse knowledge. (MacArthur,

2011)

◦ Demonstrations using think-aloud modeling

◦ Collaborative practice

◦ Guided practice

Unit 5: Persuasive Writing 8

Graphic Organizer: Persuasive Writing with Opposing Position (IROC)

Issue:

Position [I say]: Opposing Position [What others say]:

Reasons [Why I say what I

say]

Evidence Reasons [Why they say

what they say]

Evidence Rebuttal [Why they are

wrong]

Differences

◦ Theoretical orientation

◦ Target population

Similarities

◦ Instructional support of low-performing students

◦ Scaffolded, explicit, direct instruction

Explanation of genre elements

Collaborative writing scaffolded by instructor

◦ Writing takes place when students are ready

What and how do

students contribute

to the writing tasks?

What types and

amounts of

scaffolding does the

instructor use?

What are the instructional

challenges for instructors and

learning challenges for students?

Cognitive Strategy Instruction Teaching-Learning Cycle

First-year undergraduates

“Basic” writing course for underprepared students in a four-year College

Argument genre

Topic: “pet from a breeder vs. a shelter”

Instructor: English faculty

Videos of two 50-minute lessons

International graduate students

Pre-matriculation intensive English program

Advanced level Data commentary

genre Instructor: ESL faculty Video of 90 minutes

from one lesson

Please write a commentary on Figure 1 in answer to this question: What are the trends in U.S. soda sales, and what do they mean? Source: Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/whytax.html

Inductive qualitative analysis from both theoretical perspectives separately, then combined

initial coding

separately

discussion and

further coding

Interpretation of

similarities and

differences

Focus Student Contributions

Instructor Scaffolding

• Content

• Writing Process/ Strategies

• Discourse/Genre

• Lexis (Vocabulary)

• Grammar

• Initiations

• Responses

• Student-to-Student sequences

• Successes

• Problems

• Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF)

• Questions

• Expansions

• Explanations

• Direct contributions

• Evaluation

Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy Instruction

Sentence construction

Language

Genre stages

Planning

Organization

Writing strategies

Self-regulation strategies

Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy Instruction

Plan 24 minutes 59 minutes

Small group content

generation – 5 Task analysis - 10

Whole class content &

organization – 17 Whole class content generation –

16

Whole class discuss

organization – 2 Organization of pro argument – 14

Content & organization of

counterargument - 19

Draft 42 minutes 18 minutes

Joint construction – 37 Introduction - 9

Review – 5 Topic sentence for pro paragraph

– 2

Counterargument - 7

Please note that to protect the privacy of our participants, photographs and transcripts cannot be published online and have been omitted from this version of our slides

Cognitive Strategy Genre Pedagogy

Review of strategy

Joint content generation

Explanation of genre

Self-regulation

Teacher “think-aloud”

Student-led content generation

Teacher-led planning

Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy

Elicitation

Recasting (explicit/implicit)

Expansion

Metalinguistic explanation

Evaluation

Vocabulary

Sentence generation

Evaluation

Similarities ◦ Overall genre structure;

◦ Collaborative writing including content generation, organization, and drafting

◦ Teacher scaffolding

Expanded IRF sequence

Preparation for initiating question

Recasting student content and language by expansion, re-elicitation

Evaluation and recasting.

Differences in focus ◦ CSI focuses primarily on cognitive strategies for

planning and revising

◦ TLC has a broader conception of genre and greater focus on lexical and grammatical features

Conclusions are reached only from two videos

Instructor differences

◦ types of knowledge; years of experience; expertise

Student differences

◦ ESLs vs Basic writers

Topic and task differences

◦ general topic vs data-driven topic

Focus on sentence-level drafting for CSI

Use of evaluation criteria and strategies in the TLC

Think-aloud modeling and self-talk in TLC

“Knowledge about language” (a.k.a. grammar) as explicit strategy in both CSI and TLC

What are the effects of the TLC approach on basic writers’ grammar and overall quality?

Would modeling explicit strategies in the TLC improve students’ understanding and writing?

Would adding a more nuanced understanding of genre to CSI improve writing?

What is the effect of “topic” and sources in both approaches?

How can teachers be effectively trained to incorporate these approaches?

Questions? Comments?

Ideas?

Nigel Caplan (nacaplan@udel.edu) Charles MacArthur (macarthu@udel.edu) Zoi Philippakos (philippakos@gmail.com) http://nigelteacher.wordpress.com/wrab2014

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 113-135.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MacArthur, C. A. (2011). Strategies instruction. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3, Applications of educational psychology to learning and teaching, (pp. 379-401). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21.

Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.

Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). Harlow, England: Longman.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.