the style dossier: strategic schemes for eap curriculum lawrie hunter kochi university of technology...
TRANSCRIPT
The style dossier: strategic schemes for EAP curriculum
Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technologyhttp://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
September 11-12, 2006
Background
Rationale
Structure
Methodology
*developed at Kochi University of Technology
Style dossier approach*Hunter
the style dossier approach
BackgroundHunter
the style dossier approach
1982, 1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo
1990- Freelance academic rewriter, Japan
1996- Super translation team member-Japanese construction ministry-World Water Forum Kyoto
1998- Referee, CATaC conferences1999- Editorial team, JALTCALL conferences2004- Editorial board, Web Based Communities
InstructorMathematics
EFL
Assoc. ProfessorEFL
Intercultural Comm.
ProfessorEFL CALL
EFL Critical thinkingESP technical writing
EAP for engineers
BackgroundHunter
the style dossier approach
Academic rewrite client attributes:
Makes few grammar errors.Can identify native-like rhetorical flow.Can identify perfectly unambiguous text.Consistently learns from error correction (coded/uncoded).Wants to learn from error correction.Writes well by mimicry.Does not decay with time away from English.Has a sense of argument.Writes unambiguous text by logic/puzzle-solving.Can identify meaning damage in rewrites.
NB: the converse of the above positive attributes exists in large(r) numbers.
Rationale1. KUT scenario2. EAP best practice3. The dossier and other
approaches
Structure
Methodology
Style dossier approach*Hunter
the style dossier approachRATIONALE
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEKUT 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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALE
Applicants are screened for academic English knowledge and skill,
BUT1. 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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALE
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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
learnerprofile learner
L2objectives
degreeprogramme
demands
KUT scenario
Hunterthe style dossier approach
learnerprofile learner
L2objectives
degreeprogramme
demands3-year limit2 refereed papers in EnglishDissertation in English
RP how-toRP supportSkill to independence
KUT scenario
Hunterthe style dossier approach
learnerprofile learner
L2objectives
degreeprogramme
demands
Variable English skill/knowledgeVariable intrinsic motivationUniform high extrinsic motivationHigh anxiety about research/completionHigh anxiety about conference presentation Communicative competence
Writing supportConference presentation support
KUT scenario
Hunterthe style dossier approach
learnerprofile learner
L2objectives
Variable English skill/knowledgeVariable intrinsic motivationUniform high extrinsic motivationHigh anxiety about research/completionHigh anxiety about conference presentation
Communicative competenceWriting supportConference presentation support
degreeprogramme
demands3-year limit2 refereed papers in EnglishDissertation in English
RP how-toRP supportL2 skill to independence
KUT scenario
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEEAP best practiceKey factors in successful academic performance
Reading
Understanding the main idea of one’s readingReaching valid conclusionsMaking critical evaluations of contentComprehending significant detailUnderstanding explicitly stated informationDetecting inferences between the lines
Writing
OrganizationSummarizationWell-formed sentencesVocabularyUsageResearch skillsEconomy ClarityProviding sufficient evidenceGrammaticalCorrectly punctuatedAbility to use 'standard' academic discourseKnowing what your tutor-examinee values (and giving it to him/her)
Taken from 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 ServiceBanerjee, 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.
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEEAP best practice: strategies
Language acquisition to near-independence.
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEEAP best practice: KUT design
I. Acquire knowledge-registers-rhetorical moves
framingrelationshipscohesion
-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
SourcesSwales & FeakGopen & SwanFerrisHalliday & HasanHunter
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEKUT scenario
2003
Swales & Feak+ grammar
TW2→RW(2 semesters)
Strategy:Work towardswriter autonomy
Observation:Need for rewritespersists
→ Strategy 2:incorporate rewritingin task flow
April 2003 to July 2003
October 2003 to January
2004
April 2004 to July 2004
April 2003 intake
No classTechnical
Writing II
Research
Writing
October 2003 intake
Technical
Writing II
Research
Writing
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYReframing: 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 structuresEditing through a checklist
Write-edit-rewrite (uncoded to coded)
Information structure mapping
Swales & Feak exercises
Research
Writing
Ambiguity
Readability (stress position, topic position)
Rhetorical moves: framing, relationships, cohesionRP structureRP 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
Hunter’s information mapsHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
<big
Description Classification
Degreecomparison
Attributecomparison
Sequence Cause-effect
Contrast
!
Candidate screeningHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Writing from Hunter's information maps
Candidate screeningHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Writing from Hunter's information maps
Candidate screeningHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Writing from Hunter's information maps
Candidate screeningHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Writing from Hunter's information maps
Candidate screeningHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Reading for meaning (but writing is main evaluation)
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALE
April 2004 to July 2004
October 2004 to January
2005
April 2005 to July 2005
April 2004 intake
Research
Writing
Technical
Writing II
October 2004 intake
Technical
Writing II
Research
Writing
April 2005 Intake
Research
Writing
Technical
Writing II
KUT scenario
2003
Swales & Feak+ grammar
TW2→RW(2 semesters)
Strategy:Work towardswriter autonomy
Observation:Need for rewritespersists
→ Strategy 2:incorporate rewritingin task flow
2004
Feedback: earlystart preferred:TW2→RW orRW→TW2
New: topic position stress position
Strategy 3:Rewriting as a major task
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEEAP best practice: strategies
Language acquisition to near-independence.
Training for researcher-
native rewriter collaboration.
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALE
2004
Feedback: earlystart preferred:TW2→RW orRW→TW2
New: topic position stress position
Strategy 2:Rewriting as a major task
2003
Swales & Feak+ grammar
TW2→RW(2 semesters)
Strategy:Work towardswriter autonomy
Observation:Need for rewritespersists
→ Strategy 2:incorporate rewritingin task flow
2005
Observations:1. Autonomy often unrealistic;2. Rewriting unsuitable for some Ss.3. RW→TW2 not a good idea.4. Native-written RPsoften badly flawed.
Strategy 4: Incorporatemodels, mimicry in task flowApril 2005
to July 2005
October 2005 to January
2006
April 2006 to July 2006
October 2005 to January
2006
April 2005 intake
Research
Writing
Technical
Writing II
October 2005 intake
Technical
Writing II
Research
Writing
April 2006 Intake
Research
Writing
Technical
Writing II
KUT scenario
Hunterthe style dossier approach
RATIONALEEAP best practice: strategies
Language acquisition to near-independence.
Training for researcher-
native rewriter collaboration.
Emphasis on use of language models:
the style dossier
Style dossier approachHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
Rationale
Structure
1. Curriculum content2. Constraints
Methodology
Curriculum contentHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
I. Receptive/productive KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS
KNOWLEDGE / METAKNOWLEDGE SKILLS Rec/Prod
Reg isters ident ifying Rs
dec iding R to be use d in cases convert ing Rx to Ry
R P P
Rhetor ica l dev ices: framing Reader s upport
Logica l cohes ion
ident ifying Rs vary ing Rs
compos ing in Rs
R P P
Rhetor ica l dev ices: per suas ion Rhetor ica l dev ices: motivating the
reader Rhetor ica l dev ices: ap pea l
ident ifying e liminat ing
avo iding
R P P
Reg isters re Resear ch Paper sect ions sparseness una mbigu ity
flow/cohes ion
P P P
Curriculum contentHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
I. DOSSIER SKILLS (receptive/productive)
Editing R-P
Identifying model text R
Extracting register appropriate language models (RAMs)
R
Adapting RAMs to own need R-P
II. DOSSIER PROCESS
CONSULT Building foundation utterance collection (pre-writing)
HIRE SERVICE Level 1: cosmetic editing
Level 2: cohesion/flow editing
Level 3: restructuring/rhetoricizing
CONSULT SERVICE
Evaluating model text (best done by editing model)
POST-SERVICE (by client/learner)
Assessing meaning preservation in a rewrite or an edit
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYReframing: 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 structuresEditing 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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYReframing: client:advisor becomes user:consultant
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 structuresEditing 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
Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledgeor skills are required
Rationale
Structure
Methodology
1. Dossier collection tasks
2. Dossier-related writing tasks
3. Dossier usage/manipulation tasks
4. Scenario constraints
Style dossier approachHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
Methodology frameHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
SSP students have three years to publish two academic research papers and write a PhD dissertation. (Please note that a paper and a dissertation require different kinds of writing.)
There are several strategies for EAP students to produce acceptable research papers:
1. Become a very good writer of academic English and write your own very good papers without help.
2. Become a pretty good writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to check your grammar.
3. Become a better, but still weak writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to do a complete rewrite for you.
4. Do not learn to write academic English well, and find a native speaker to 'ghost-write' your paper for you.
5. Steal parts of other researchers' papers and combine them to make your own paper.
Which strategies will work for you?
Class orientation handout
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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYMethodology frame
Self-assess strategy tool
Methodology frameHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved-how to talk about them.
.
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
Methodology frameHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
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 coursethrough the strategy network from entry to final user success.
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
Methodology frameHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
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 coursethrough 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*.
*Not everyone will learn to write 'from scratch' well and even those who could learn to do so may not have sufficient short-term (or even long-term) time.
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
Methodology frameHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
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 coursethrough 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
Dossier collection tasksHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
A. Research writing register models
B. Informal discussion register models
C. Glossary
Dossier collection tasksHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
A. 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
C. Glossary
Dossier collection tasksHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
A. Research writing register models
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
Dossier collection tasksHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
A. Research writing register models
B. Informal discussion register models
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.
Dossier usage / manipulation tasksHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYSummary
Scenario constraintsLearner timeLearner variabilityResearch topic granularityRP genre granularityQuality of available modelsNative rewriter availability/affordability
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYSummary
Scenario constraintsLearner timeLearner variabilityResearch topic granularityRP genre granularityQuality of available modelsNative rewriter availability/affordability
CompromisesPragmatic strategiesLearner revisioned as client, then as userInstructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant
SummaryHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
Scenario constraintsLearner timeLearner variabilityResearch topic granularityRP genre granularityQuality of available modelsNative rewriter availability/affordability
CompromisesPragmatic strategiesLearner revisioned as client, then as userInstructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant
Task arrayGrammar workInformation structure mappingRegister workRP lexis workWrite-rewriteDossier work
Practical point: RP editingHunter
the style dossier approachMETHODOLOGY
In years 2 and 3 of the 3-year doctoral programme,the students are writing refereed papers
Hunter’s policy on edit/rewrite/consult services:
1. Maximum 2 pages at a time, intro first and last2. One week notice3. Only ‘graduates’ of English writing programme4. Exceptions to 1, 2 or 3 will be referred to ‘pro’ editors.
Hunter’s 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
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYReframing: client:advisor becomes user:consultant
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 structuresEditing 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
Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledgeor skills are required
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYFinal question:class or individual?
Class: shared experience, teaching 'flow'vs.Individual: maturity, motivation, monitoring
Hunterthe style dossier approach
METHODOLOGYFinal question:class or individual?
Class: shared experience, teaching 'flow'vs.Individual: maturity, motivation, monitoring
Add granular content and multi-style tasks:Write-edit-rewrite (uncoded to coded)
Information structure mapping
Readability work
Swales & Feak exercises
Dossier collection and manipulation
= a framework for a CALL application (e.g. Moodle)?
SourcesHunter
the style dossier approachSTRUCTURE
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.