BALEAP PIM: SpeakingDate: 9th June 2018Venue: INTO Newcastle UniversityPlenary speaker: Professor Steve Walsh

Thanks to our sponsors

In the Reception area, there are stands from the following organisations:

• Macmillan Education

• Cambridge Assessment English

• National Geographic Learning

Please visit the stands.

In addition, we thank:

• INTO Newcastle University for providing use of the building

• National Geographic Learning for notebooks and lanyards

• Cambridge Assessment English for conference bags

• TELC for water bottles (fill these up at taps on the 1st and 3rd floor)

Contents

Welcome .......................................................................................................... 1

Schedule ........................................................................................................ 2

Opening Plenary ........................................................................................ 5

Closing Panel ............................................................................................... 6

Presentations & Workshops ................................................................... 7

Space for Notes ......................................................................................... 30

Practical Information ............................................................................. 36

The Next PIM ............................................................................................ 37

Welcome to Newcastle and to a PIM on Speaking

INTO Newcastle University is very pleased to be hosting this event at a time when the importance of speaking skills in academic study has risen significantly. A skim through any university module catalogue reveals a widespread integration of speaking skills in learning and assessment across the curriculum. This change necessarily creates a significant challenge for students and tutors alike.

The purpose of this PIM is to consider how best to identify and manage the needs of international students in the development, support and assessment of speaking skills in our classrooms, and we are excited to be offering such a wide and varied range of sessions in response to the theme.

The plenary speaker Professor Steve Walsh will open the day with a talk on Developing Classroom Interactional Competence across Disciplines.

Most of the parallel sessions fall broadly into one of these areas:

• Student needs

• Classroom practice

• Assessment

In the final session of the day, we will hold a panel discussion, to which we hope you will contribute by asking questions of the panel. You can simply ask your questions in the session, or you can submit them to the organisers, to a box in the catering area, or via Twitter using the hashtag below. BALEAP Chair Maxine Gillway will moderate the panel.

To extend the discussion beyond the participants in Newcastle on the day, we encourage you to tweet about the day using the following hashtag:

#BALEAPpimNCL

We hope you find the day useful, inspiring and enjoyable. For any practical questions, please ask one of the team or one of our student helpers.

The PIM Team

1

Tim

eLe

ctur

e Th

eatr

e 2

(LT

2)

Roo

m 1

(IN

TO1

.07

)R

oom

2 (

INTO

2.0

5)

Roo

m 3

(IN

TO3

.08

)

9.0

0 -

9.4

5R

egis

trat

ion

(Rec

epti

on A

rea

on g

roun

d fl

oor)

– te

a/co

ffee

pro

vide

d

9.4

5 -

10

.00

Wel

com

e (L

T2)

10

.00

- 1

0.5

0Pl

enar

y (L

T2):

Stev

e W

alsh

(New

cast

le) D

evel

opin

g Cl

assr

oom

Inte

ract

iona

l Com

pete

nce

acro

ss D

isci

plin

es

10

.55

-11

.20

Gar

y R

iley-

Jone

s (G

olds

mit

hs, U

nive

rsit

y of

Lon

don)

‘I w

ant

to k

now

wha

t’s

goin

g on

in t

heir

head

s’:

The

Rol

e of

Spe

akin

g in

Crit

ical

Thi

nkin

g in

A

rt E

duca

tion

and

its

Rel

evan

ce t

o EA

P. A

Wor

k in

Pro

gres

s

Dr

Bla

ir M

atth

ews

(Bri

stol

)

Ass

essi

ng S

emin

ar

Res

pons

es t

hrou

gh

Rec

orde

d A

udio

Dea

k K

irkh

am (

Leed

s)

Dya

dic

writ

ing

as

conv

ersa

tion

al s

imul

atio

n:

usin

g pa

ir-ba

sed

writ

ing

as p

repa

rato

ry w

ork

for

inte

ract

iona

l spe

akin

g ac

tivi

ties

Jing

(Alic

e) S

han

(Edi

nbur

gh)

Chin

ese

post

grad

uate

st

uden

ts’ n

eeds

for

ora

l pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in E

nglis

h in

th

e U

K

11

.20

-11

.50

Ref

resh

men

ts a

nd p

ublis

her e

xhib

itio

n (R

ecep

tion

are

a)

11

.50

-12

.15

Kat

heri

ne H

igh

(Bri

stol

)

Impr

ovin

g di

scip

line-

spec

ific

spea

king

ski

lls f

or

inte

rnat

iona

l fou

ndat

ion

stud

ents

Chri

s H

eady

(IN

TO,

New

cast

le)

Smal

l gro

up c

onse

nsus

di

scus

sion

tas

ks;

Conv

ersa

tion

Ana

lysi

s dr

iven

crit

eria

.

Eliz

abet

h A

llen

&

Chri

stin

e Le

e (B

rist

ol)

Talk

ing

abou

t te

xts:

Usi

ng

Rea

ding

and

Lis

teni

ng

Circ

les

to p

rovi

de s

tude

nts

wit

h a

mea

ning

ful

purp

ose

to e

ngag

e w

ith

text

s in

sem

inar

s an

d pr

esen

tati

ons.

Dr

Edm

und

Jone

s &

A

nnab

elle

Pin

ning

ton

(Cam

brid

ge E

nglis

h)

A v

alid

ity

stud

y of

a

prot

otyp

e au

tom

ated

En

glis

h sp

eaki

ng t

est

Sche

dule

2

Tim

eLe

ctur

e Th

eatr

e 2

(LT

2)

Roo

m 1

(IN

TO1

.07

)R

oom

2 (

INTO

2.0

5)

Roo

m 3

(IN

TO3

.08

)

12

.25

-12

.50

Dr

Julie

Har

till

(Im

peri

al

Colle

ge)

‘Eng

lish

as a

too

l not

just

an

obj

ecti

ve’:

deve

lopi

ng

inte

ract

ion

and

auto

nom

y on

a p

re-s

essi

onal

cou

rse

Hel

en G

rins

ell &

Cl

are

Alb

ans

(IN

TO,

New

cast

le)

‘Mak

ing

it re

al’:

A

prac

titi

oner

app

roac

h to

as

sess

ing

inte

rnat

iona

l fi

rst-

year

und

ergr

adua

te

spea

king

ski

lls

Hel

en O

akes

(G

lasg

ow)

Prep

arin

g pr

e-m

edic

al/

dent

al/v

eter

inar

y st

uden

ts f

or t

heir

facu

lty

inte

rvie

ws:

a re

flec

tive

ap

proa

ch

(Wor

ksho

p)

Dr

Iris

Sch

alle

r-Sc

hwan

er (

Frib

ourg

)

Ora

l sem

inar

ski

lls:

Spea

king

tas

ks f

or

acad

emic

sel

f-po

siti

onin

g in

ELF

uni

vers

ity

cont

exts

12

.50

-14

.00

Lunc

h (R

ecep

tion

are

a)

14

.00

-14

.45

Chri

s Sm

ith

(She

ffiel

d)

Des

igni

ng c

riter

ia t

o as

sess

EA

P sp

eaki

ng t

asks

(W

orks

hop)

Gem

ma

Arc

her

(Str

athc

lyde

)

Brin

ging

pro

nunc

iati

on

back

to

the

pre-

sess

iona

l pr

ogra

mm

e: re

flec

tion

s an

d st

rate

gies

fro

m a

5

-wee

k st

udy

Geo

rgin

a Ll

oyd

&

Pam

ela

McI

ldow

ie (

St

And

rew

s)

Sim

ulat

ed c

onso

lidat

ions

on

a m

edic

al p

athw

ay

prog

ram

me:

ana

lysi

ng

wha

t co

nsti

tute

s a

‘goo

d’

perf

orm

er

14

.55

-15

.20

Dr

Kat

rien

Der

oey

(Lux

embo

urg)

Des

igni

ng p

erso

naliz

ed,

inte

ract

ive

mat

eria

ls f

or

pres

enta

tion

ski

lls

Liz

Chiu

(Im

peri

al

Colle

ge)

Pre-

sess

iona

l ass

essm

ent

of s

poke

n En

glis

h fo

r ST

EM p

ostg

radu

ates

Reb

ecca

Wel

land

(B

ath)

Fost

erin

g cr

itic

al a

nd

mea

ning

ful r

espo

nses

in

stu

dent

sem

inar

di

scus

sion

s

Step

hen

Hug

hes

(She

ffiel

d H

alla

m)

Facu

lty

pers

pect

ives

on

inte

rnat

iona

l stu

dent

s’

spea

kisn

g sk

ills:

ch

alle

nges

; pos

sibl

e ca

uses

of

chal

leng

es a

nd

how

pre

-ses

sion

al c

ours

es

coul

d he

lp.

2

3

Tim

eLe

ctur

e Th

eatr

e 2

(LT

2)

Roo

m 1

(IN

TO1

.07

)R

oom

2 (

INTO

2.0

5)

Roo

m 3

(IN

TO3

.08

)

15

.20

-15

.40

Coff

ee (R

ecep

tion

are

a)

15

.40

-16

.05

Gar

y H

erna

ndez

(Le

eds)

Hea

rd a

nd n

ot (o

nly)

see

n:

deve

lopi

ng s

tude

nt o

ral

part

icip

atio

n

Sand

ra S

trig

el

(New

cast

le)

Spea

king

in t

he s

ubje

ct

clas

sroo

m: C

LIL

refl

ecti

ve

prac

tice

for

pat

hway

co

nten

t te

ache

rs

Shar

on S

mit

h (I

mpe

rial

Co

llege

)

Tim

e-re

leva

nt s

uppo

rt f

or

PhD

stu

dent

s in

STE

M:

deve

lopi

ng in

tera

ctio

nal

com

pete

nce

wit

hin

a ra

nge

of a

cade

mic

sc

enar

ios

alon

g th

e Ph

D

jour

ney

Dr

Mar

ion

Her

on

(Sur

rey)

‘Com

mun

icat

ing

in a

bu

sine

ss-li

ke w

ay’:

deve

lopi

ng o

racy

ski

lls in

hi

gher

edu

cati

on

16

.15

-17

.00

Clos

ing

pane

l Lec

ture

The

atre

2 (L

T2)

4

Opening Plenary

Developing Classroom Interactional Competence across DisciplinesSteve Walsh, Newcastle University

In this talk, I consider how Classroom Interactional Competence (CIC) can be described and developed across a range of academic contexts, focusing specifically on small group sessions such as seminars and tutorials. CIC is defined as ‘teachers’ and learners’ ability to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning’ (Walsh, 2013, 124). Adopting a sociocultural perspective on learning and using constructs from this theoretical perspective, I present a number of features of CIC and consider how an understanding of the construct can lead to more dialogic, engaged learning environments. In particular, and using data from the NUCASE (Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English), we will consider how CIC varies from one discipline to another.

In EAP settings, there are a number of ways in which CIC manifests itself. Firstly, and from a teacher’s perspective, a teacher who demonstrates CIC uses language which is both convergent to the pedagogic goal of the moment and which is appropriate to the learners. Secondly, CIC facilitates ‘space for learning’ (Walsh and Li, 2012), where learners are given adequate space to participate in the discourse, to contribute to the class conversation and to receive feedback on their contributions. Thirdly, CIC entails teachers being able to shape learner contributions by scaffolding, paraphrasing, reiterating and so on.

We’ll be looking at a number of data extracts to identify instances of CIC and evaluating its significance from both a teaching/learning and teacher education perspective. We’ll also consider the implications of this research for materials development, assessment and curriculum design.

Steve Walsh is Professor and Head of Applied Linguistics and Communication in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, UK. He has been involved in English Language Teaching and teacher education for more than 30 years in a range of overseas contexts. His research interests include classroom discourse, teacher development and second language teacher education.

5

Closing Panel

In the final session of the day, we will hold a panel discussion. This will be moderated by Maxine Gillway, the current Chair of BALEAP. The panel will pull together themes arising from the day and reflect on new directions.

We hope you will contribute by asking questions of the panel. You can simply ask your questions in the session, or you can submit them to the organisers, to a box in the catering area, or via Twitter using the hashtag below:

#BALEAPpimNCL

6

Presentations and Workshops

Time 10.55-11.20

Full Title‘I want to know what’s going on in their heads’: The Role of Speaking in Critical Thinking in Art Education and its Relevance to EAP. A Work in Progress.

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Gary Riley-Jones (Goldsmiths, University of London)

Summary

In my research into Critical Thinking in Art Education and its relevance to English for Academic Purposes (EAP), one of the things that has struck me is the importance given to speaking and specifically to the ‘Crit’. In the Crit, students are required to discuss their artwork and take questions from an audience that can comprise students not just from their own year but also from other years, or those from other related Art programmes, visiting artists or staff.

Within this context, the focus of my presentation is why a ‘pedagogy’ such as the Crit, with its origins in the nineteenth century, is regarded as so central to Art Education and ultimately to Critical Thinking. Consequently, if we regard Critical Thinking as central to our own practice in EAP, the question is whether such an understanding of speaking allows a further more principled justification of this skill in EAP.

In this very initial research, I will first give a brief history and define what form the Crit takes in contemporary Art Education, briefly outline which forms of criticality are valourised in Fine Art and then go on to discuss these ideas from the perspective of Applied Linguistics in terms of how such an approach to criticality can be understood and what relevance it might have to EAP. I will then present some EAP listening materials based on a TED talk and discuss how they could be made more suitable for an approach with a speaking focus and one that more actively engages with Critical Thinking.

Bio

Gary is a Senior Lecturer in English for Academic Purposes at Goldsmiths, University of London and an EdD student at University College London. He is also BALEAP TEAP Officer.

7

Time 10.55-11.20

Full Title Assessing Seminar Responses through Recorded Audio

Room Room 1

Speaker Dr Blair Matthews (Bristol)

Summary

Participation in academic seminars is a necessary requirement for being able to take an active role in university. However, seminar discussions are extremely difficult to assess because so much depends on the dynamics of the group (which may be beyond the control of the learner). They are also practically difficult to organise and there is a need to provide some way of assessment that can feed forward into student learning.

In this presentation, I will describe a means of assessment which requires students to record an audio of a seminar response in an asynchronous dialogue. This allows students to be able to think about features of speech, such as turn-taking and pronunciation for their assessment. This has washback advantages in that students can record, listen and re-record their contributions before submitting. It also provides teachers with an electronic copy of students’ work for feedback, training or standardisation purposes.

While the recorded seminar response is not a natural form of spoken discourse, it does provide a very useful assessment and teaching instrument.

Bio

Blair Matthews is an EAP tutor at the Centre for English Language and Foundation Studies at University of Bristol. He tweets under @blairteacher.

8

Time 10.55-11.20

Full Title Dyadic writing as conversational simulation: using pair-based writing as preparatory work for interactional speaking activities

Room Room 2

Speaker Deak Kirkham (Leeds)

Summary

Spontaneous speech in an interactional context (as opposed to, say, monologic speaking activities such as presentations) whether it be in dyadic or large-group contexts poses various challenges for adult second language learners (Aleksandrzak, 2011). Often theorised in terms of interactional competence (IC; e.g. Couper-Kuhling & Selting 2001), the challenges inherent in this mode of speaking-and-listening may include the following: affective challenges (e.g. nervousness); cognitive factors (e.g. speed of processing or retrieval); lexico-grammatical resource; content knowledge (or any combination of the above). Writing as a modality, by contrast, affords time for research into, reflection upon and shaping of the intended message, which in turn serves to remove the cognitive and affective stress factors.

Drawing on the tradition of dyadic (or tandem) writing, this presentation examines the use of dyadic writing as simulated conversational interaction to prepare for ‘real’, interactional talk in an adult second language learning context. Dyadic writing as simulated conversation is understood to involve written ‘conversations’ between two learners operationalised as A writing (or typing) their ‘utterance’, passing it to B who ‘replies’ again in writing (and so on). The delay design feature of writing and its concomitant affective and cognitive benefits are argued to counter potential barriers to, and eo ipso provide scaffolded practice for, speaking activities of in principle any kind.

With commentaries on data sets drawn from the researcher’s own dyadic writing conversational simulations in both Esperanto (as a learner) and English (as a tutor), the modality is claimed to address the four challenges above. The presentation will detail the pedagogy itself, offer analysis of its benefits and finally address limitations and areas for further work.

Bio

Deak Kirkham is a Lecturer in EAP. Particular interests include learner identity, and pedagogies of complex grammatical structures. Beyond EAP he is an Esperant(olog)ist, aspiring polyglot and construction grammar devotee.

9

Time 10.55-11.20

Full Title Chinese postgraduate students’ needs for oral participation in English in the UK

Room Room 3

Speaker Jing (Alice) Shan (Edinburgh)

Summary

The current study aims to investigate Chinese postgraduate students’ needs in relation to oral participation in English during their sojourns in the UK. Drawing from theory and research on the fields of international education and English language education, especially regarding international student experience, English for specific purposes, and needs analysis, this study adopts a qualitative approach to the inquiry with characterises of ethnography. Data are collected from interviews with 20 Chinese postgraduate (PhD & Masters) students across 10 different schools in a Russell Group university, followed by 2 focus groups with the interview participants and 1 focus group with university staff by adopting a creative method. These data are also complemented by 35 additional interviews from another research project conducted by the researcher in the same university.

Overall, the study revealed that Chinese postgraduate students have various types of needs in relation to oral participation in specific academic and social contexts. Such needs arise from what was required of them during their studies, the opportunities they encountered in everyday lives, as well as their individual motivations regarding English language development and studying overseas as a whole. Their needs for oral participation are influenced by a wide range of factors, such as personalities, intercultural communication experience, academic competence, field of study, language skills, social networks, other interlocutors, as well as frequency and intensity of exposure to the English-speaking environment. Despite the fact that there are many commonalities among the student cohort in their needs for oral participation, there are also some differences between them. Moreover, PhD students and Masters students exhibited certain distinctive differences, which provided empirical evidence to support treating the postgraduate student cohort’s language needs strategically rather than a whole.

BioJing is a former English teacher in China, who is currently doing her PhD in the University of Edinburgh in the field of English language education and internationalisation of higher education.

10

Time 11.50-12.15

Full Title Improving discipline-specific speaking skills for international foundation students

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Katherine High (Bristol)

Summary

Regardless of language level, foundation students often lack confidence in speaking as they do not understand the conventions of different speaking activities, resulting in decreased confidence and motivation levels (Alexander et al., 2008). In order to increase awareness of such conventions, Basturkmen (1999) highlights the importance of analysing the salient features of spoken discourse of academic discussions to better enable students in their contributions.

This presentation will outline how the features of spoken discourse have been successfully analysed to develop discipline-specific speaking skills for students hoping to progress into Law and Social Sciences on the International Foundation Programme at The University of Bristol. In particular, the presentation will focus on a scaffolded approach to developing the sub-skills required for general academic speaking such as seminars and presentations, in addition to the more challenging skills needed to effectively contribute in a moot debate. This advanced speaking activity requires students to grapple with highly complex and often controversial legal topics in front of a panel of judges. A further challenge for this course has been to meet the needs of a multi-level EAP class and successful strategies for addressing these will be offered.

Student feedback on confidence levels will also be shared and there will be an opportunity for further reflection and discussion on helping students to manage uncertainty and tolerate ambiguity surrounding the content of academic speaking, which are both highly transferable skills for any academic discipline as well as students’ future careers.

Bio

Katherine is in an EAP Tutor at the University of Bristol teaching on and writing materials for the International Foundation Programme and in-sessional courses. She has a background in designing, delivering and managing training in the legal sector.

11

Time 11.50-12.15

Full Title Small group consensus discussion tasks; Conversation Analysis driven criteria.

Room Room 1

Speaker Chris Heady (INTO, Newcastle)

Summary

INTO Newcastle Foundation Programme EAP modules have for a long time used a consensus style task as a speaking assessment. Using a form of CA methodology, I analysed a range of performances from our Architecture pathway. An MA thesis then developed into a project to upgrade our speaking criteria. I will briefly consider the theoretical contexts and before reflecting on how the new criteria were then developed, trialled, refined and implemented. The opportunities for further extensions and or refinements will be considered as will the practical and philosophical limitations.

BioMA Applied Linguistics at Newcastle got me interested in concept of co-constructed performances, and the need to review our interactive speaking marking criteria.

12

Time 11.50-12.15

Full TitleTalking about texts: Using Reading and Listening Circles to provide students with a meaningful purpose to engage with texts in seminars and presentations.

Room Room 2

Speaker Elizabeth Allen & Christine Lee (Bristol)

Summary

This presentation shows how Daniel’s (1994, 2002), Furr’s (2004) and Seburn’s (2016) Reading/Literature Circles have been adapted and extended into Reading and Listening Circles on an undergraduate language unit and then an EAP foundation unit to provide students with a clear purpose to discuss texts in seminars and to present their critical evaluation of them to their peers.

The talk will outline the process of Reading and Listening Circles by describing how students select an appropriate written text and connected lecture, and then analyse them through different cognitive lenses by being allocated specific ‘roles’. This use of roles means that when students come together in seminar groups to discuss the texts, they are contributing from different perspectives. As a result, the students engage more effectively in seminars as they have responsibility for communicating their view of the text, as required by their role. In addition, the seminar has a clear purpose: to come to a shared understanding. This understanding is then explained to the other groups in a formal presentation as a critical response to the texts. After repeating this process, students synthesize the ideas from all four texts and critically evaluate the procedure of using Reading and Listening Circles, which is then presented to others as a poster. Because students select their own discipline-specific written texts and lectures to analyse and discuss, this approach makes it possible to give an EGAP unit a more ESAP focus, increasing student engagement.

The presentation will conclude with the students’ evaluation of Reading and Listening Circles showing that the students believe this approach clearly develops their seminar and presentation skills. This approach is now being extended to other programmes at the University of Bristol, including a post-graduate unit.

Bio

Elizabeth Allen is an EAP Coordinator at the University of Bristol, a BALEAP Senior Fellow, and an HEA Fellow. Her current interests are student collaboration and student autonomy.

Christine is an EAP Tutor, teaching on the International Foundation, Pre-sessional and Academic Language and Literacy Programmes at the University of Bristol. Her current interests are Listening and Communication Skills.

13

Time 11.50-12.15

Full Title A validity study of a prototype automated English speaking test

Room Room 3

Speaker Dr Edmund Jones & Annabelle Pinnington (Cambridge English)

Summary

Automated assessment of speaking has become feasible thanks to advances in automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and other areas of machine learning. Computer-delivered English speaking tests supported by auto-marking technology could be used in preparatory programmes at universities and would be much cheaper and easier to administer than human-marked tests. As with all machine learning methods, reliability of test scores would also be improved since the auto-marker is completely consistent over time. This paper reports on a large-scale validation study of a prototype automated English speaking test. Approximately 3500 English language learners from 23 countries sat the internet-based test and completed a post-test survey. Most participants were at level B1 or B2. Their speaking performances were marked by both the auto-marker and certificated human examiners.

Based on the test and survey data, we will report findings on three research questions. Firstly, how well do the test tasks represent the target language use domain? Secondly, how similar are the auto-marker scores to the human scores, which we regard as the gold standard? For this question we will present commonly used statistical measures such as correlations as well as the more interpretable “limits of agreement” method used in medical research. Thirdly, does talking to a computer change candidates’ behaviours? We will end by discussing future developments in the prototype test, such as overcoming current limitations in construct coverage, dealing with cheating or subversion, and possible next-generation tests using a symbiosis of humans and technology.

Bio

Edmund Jones taught English in Japan for three years and has a PhD in statistics. Since 2017 he has been working in the research department of Cambridge Assessment English.

Annabelle Pinnington taught English for eight years in Russia, Indonesia and Malaysia. She has been working in Cambridge Assessment English since 2014 and now specialises in multi-level computer-based testing.

14

Time 12.25-12.50

Full Title ‘English as a tool not just an objective’: developing interaction and autonomy on a pre-sessional course

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Dr Julie Hartill (Imperial College)

Summary

Over the last two years we have carried out a large-scale review of our pre-sessional courses to better support the transition of postgraduate international students into Imperial and the STEM community. A key question in this review, prompted by informal discussions with academic staff from receiving departments, was how to re-design the independent study component so that it promotes greater student autonomy and at the same time incorporates a significant spoken element.

In this presentation I report on the design, development and implementation of our new course component which we call Study Time and Coaching. This novel component combines elements of peer learning, task-based learning, functional discourse and reflection on learning to build pre-sessional students’ confidence to communicate in English so that they can go on to work and interact effectively on postgraduate STEM courses. It encompasses student-directed group discussions and collaborative note-taking tasks for lecture follow up; individual study time to focus on areas of language improvement; student-led group study time, in which students complete meaningful real-world tasks and rehearsal study tasks; and an online learning journal, which forms the basis of one-to-one meetings for study advice and feedback with a nominated coach. Together these activities create rich and varied communicative needs and generate a wide range of student-student and student-teacher interactions.

I also outline the factors in our needs analysis that led to this development, set out the aims and the intended learning outcomes, and draw on student and tutor feedback to evaluate the success of this new approach. In particular, I highlight its potential to encourage strategic language learners to view English not as a classroom subject but rather as an essential a tool for STEM communication and academic success.

Bio

Julie is Director of Pre-sessional Courses and has recently led a large-scale review of the assessed pre-sessional. She works mainly with postgraduate students coordinating Master’s in-sessional provision throughout the year.

15

Time 12.25-12.50

Full Title ‘Making it real’: innovation in Year 1 EAP Speaking Assessment

Room Room 1

Speaker Helen Grinsell & Clare Albans (INTO, Newcastle)

Summary

International students on our Year One Business Programme are accustomed to consensus-reaching tasks which are construed as presenting monologic opinions with little genuine interaction or construction of a meaningful, developed argument. This highlights the difficulties that international students of different linguistic abilities can face with ‘interaction’ in an L2 academic seminar setting.

Our aim was to identify how assessment of speaking can happen so as to not disadvantage students with lower language ability but, at the same time, to make the assessment meaningful and add value to using English.

A new academic seminar task was developed and piloted to move towards truly assessing students’ ability to fully participate in academic seminars. This meant 1) using subject content – understanding of it and how it relates to further reading, 2) relating to and building on peer contributions in order to build an argument and construct their understanding of the seminar topic, and 3) to draw their attention to the importance of academic speaking; using language in situationally appropriate ways.

Findings over the pilot year AY 2015-16, involving seminar skills lesson input and the seminar assessment, indicated that more interaction was happening, more naturally in most cases, and student talk was more content responsible. This resulted in students completing the seminar skills lessons, and the seminar assessment, with new insights into the subject content and more understanding of effective seminar behaviour.

Student performance has meant further scrutiny of current assessment criteria and the positive backwash effects on semester 1 and 2 seminar skills practice in order to support students in extending their repertoire of language in an academic context and developing their seminar behaviour.

Bio

Helen has been an EAP teacher at INTO Newcastle University for 12 years. She is Module Leader of the English for Academic Purposes module on the International Year One – Business Programme and has a particular interest in developing and assessing seminar speaking skills for the international first-year undergraduate students.

Clare is both an EAP and subject teacher who has worked in a variety of teaching roles at INTO Newcastle University since 2012. She is currently developing and teaching the EAP and Music in Context modules for the new Graduate Diploma in Music course, which had its first intake in January 2018

16

Time 12.25-12.50

Full Title Preparing pre-medical/dental/veterinary students for their faculty interviews: a reflective approach

Room Room 2

Speaker Helen Oakes (Glasgow)

Summary

In this workshop, we will look at some activities to help prepare students on a foundation or pre-medical/dental course for their faculty interviews. These activities encourage the students to develop their self-analysis and reflection skills and oral competency.

We will consider a range of techniques for this, including:

• The CAR and STAR approaches to behavioural and competency questions;

» CAR – Context / Action / Result

» STAR – Situation / Task / Action / Result

• Peer ‘interviewing’ using example questions taken from online sources;

• Analysing Graduate Attributes and relating them to possible interview questions;

• Using reflective writing frameworks to encourage self-reflection; this also helps students develop a more reflective approach to interview questions. The frameworks are adapted from ones originally developed for reflective writing in medical education and nursing/clinical practice situations.

These activities have been successfully used with students on an in-sessional EAP for students of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences course which is part of their pre-entry programme.

BioHelen is a University of Glasgow English for Academic Study lecturer with an interest in enabling students to become confident speakers. She convenes an EAP course for Arabic pre-med students.

Time 12.25-12.50

Full Title ‘Making it real’: innovation in Year 1 EAP Speaking Assessment

Room Room 1

Speaker Helen Grinsell & Clare Albans (INTO, Newcastle)

Summary

International students on our Year One Business Programme are accustomed to consensus-reaching tasks which are construed as presenting monologic opinions with little genuine interaction or construction of a meaningful, developed argument. This highlights the difficulties that international students of different linguistic abilities can face with ‘interaction’ in an L2 academic seminar setting.

Our aim was to identify how assessment of speaking can happen so as to not disadvantage students with lower language ability but, at the same time, to make the assessment meaningful and add value to using English.

A new academic seminar task was developed and piloted to move towards truly assessing students’ ability to fully participate in academic seminars. This meant 1) using subject content – understanding of it and how it relates to further reading, 2) relating to and building on peer contributions in order to build an argument and construct their understanding of the seminar topic, and 3) to draw their attention to the importance of academic speaking; using language in situationally appropriate ways.

Findings over the pilot year AY 2015-16, involving seminar skills lesson input and the seminar assessment, indicated that more interaction was happening, more naturally in most cases, and student talk was more content responsible. This resulted in students completing the seminar skills lessons, and the seminar assessment, with new insights into the subject content and more understanding of effective seminar behaviour.

Student performance has meant further scrutiny of current assessment criteria and the positive backwash effects on semester 1 and 2 seminar skills practice in order to support students in extending their repertoire of language in an academic context and developing their seminar behaviour.

Bio

Helen has been an EAP teacher at INTO Newcastle University for 12 years. She is Module Leader of the English for Academic Purposes module on the International Year One – Business Programme and has a particular interest in developing and assessing seminar speaking skills for the international first-year undergraduate students.

Clare is both an EAP and subject teacher who has worked in a variety of teaching roles at INTO Newcastle University since 2012. She is currently developing and teaching the EAP and Music in Context modules for the new Graduate Diploma in Music course, which had its first intake in January 2018

17

Time 12.25-12.50

Full Title Oral seminar skills: Speaking tasks for academic self-positioning in ELF university contexts

Room Room 3

Speaker Dr Iris Schaller-Schwaner (Fribourg)

Summary

Academic speaking is becoming ever more important and diverse in terms of audiences and language backgrounds and less predictable in what additional language users of English may have to do orally as students/members of their disciplines or professionals in their fields. While there are generic purposes, genres and conventions one can prepare learners for, the essence of what it means to be a multilingual student or academic is agentively developed through somatic experiences of academic self-positioning in English in ‘on record’ speech. This contribution discusses the rationale for and a selection of speaking tasks developed in an EAP course at B2-C1 CEFR level exploring and developing oral seminar skills for multilingual Swiss and international students in an ELF context, an institutionally bilingual Swiss university in which English is an additional academic lingua franca at a nexus of covert and overt forms of multilingualism.

The presentation will provide some insights into the specific university habitat and how ELF agency and self-positioning emerged in parallel with bottom-up ELF. Its main focus, however, will be on concrete tasks designed in a course for students from across the university to enable their autonomous self-positioning while integrating mind and mouth and developing a voice and a take. Lightbulb moments deriving from how students realized the tasks will be shared, tasks which require the learner to do something in English that breaks new ground for them as users of English and refine and expand their multilingual repertoire.

BioAs a lecturer in EFL Iris has designed and taught EAP courses for various target groups. Her research includes ELF in multilingual contexts, EAP oral skills, and grammar teaching.

18

Time 14.00-14.45

Full Title Designing criteria to assess EAP speaking tasks (workshop)

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Chris Smith (Sheffield)

Summary

This session will explore various axes by which marking criteria can be designed for assessing EAP speaking tasks. Participants will have the opportunity to discuss and analyse different examples of criteria and consider them from various perspectives.

Firstly, we will consider the differences and issues between holistic, analytic and criterion-holistic rating scales, discussing the advantages and problems of each. Truly analytic criteria are the most accurate, but also the most time-consuming to use.

Secondly, we will discuss different assessment tasks, both integrated and ‘pure’ speaking tasks, and discuss to what extent different activities are tests of language, or tasks to be completed and therefore consider the importance that language should have in the associated ratings scales.

Thirdly, we will discuss different criteria, such as pronunciation, fluency and listening comprehension, and think about whether they should be included on ratings scales for different assessments.

Fourthly, we will think about levels. In a basic sense, an assessment only needs to indicate pass or fail, but ratings scales often have many more levels, sometimes to satisfy institutional requirements. This will be analysed and some commonly held assumptions about what numbers mean will be challenged.

Finally, we will look at the way criteria are written, comparing ratings scales with CEFR descriptors, and some common problems in the wording of ratings scales.

Bio Chris is Director of Studies for the summer pre-sessional course at the University of Sheffield, English Language Teaching Centre.

19

Time 14.00-14.45

Full Title Bringing pronunciation back to the pre-sessional programme: reflections and strategies from a 5-week study

Room Room 1

Speaker Gemma Archer (Strathclyde)

Summary

Pronunciation instruction and practice is an integral part of our students’ oral development, yet it is a frequently relegated classroom activity with only 6% of class time reported to be spent engaging in it (Foote, Holtby, & Derwing, 2011). In the EAP classroom, particularly during courses such as pre-sessional programmes where students have to pass an oral assessment, this lack of phonological input is particularly worrisome. What is more, when we consider the vast amount of communicative tasks we ask our students to perform on a daily basis, i.e. ‘compare your answers’, ‘discuss with a partner’, ‘give peer feedback’, it is once again surprising to consider the lack of time devoted to it; its absence having the potential to silence our students due to their lack of confidence in their own voice.

Having once been lacking in pronunciation training, unsure of how or where I should integrate it within my busy pre-sessional syllabus and daunted by the accent mismatch between my voice and those of available teaching materials, in 2016 I undertook my own 5-week classroom-based pronunciation study. The primary goal of this research was to identify the most effective model for my pre-sessional students’ perceptive and productive uptake. However, aside from these results, the research enabled me to design materials which suited the needs of my EAP learners and evaluate useful techniques.

Based upon this experience, my presentation is organised around the following three points:

1. The issues preventing teachers from including pronunciation practice beyond ‘listen and repeat’ taken from my own experience, from literature and qualitative data.

2. The 5-week pronunciation study, its rationale, contents and results.

3. Reflections: the implications of the results for EAP teachers, plus practical replicable strategies which were successfully administered in the study and can be implemented in any EAP lesson.

BioGemma Archer is an EAP teacher and Pre-sessional co-ordinator at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. She is also the editor of IATEFL Pronunciation SIG’s bi-annual journal ‘Speak Out!’.

20

Time 14.00-14.45

Full Title Simulated consolidations on a medical pathway programme: analysing what constitutes a ‘good’ performer

Room Room 2

Speaker Georgina Lloyd & Pamela McIldowie (St Andrews)

Summary

Discourse analysis is paramount to the pedagogies of English for Specific Purposes (ESP). How this discourse analysis is conducted is an area of contention leading some to ask how we can coordinate emic and etic perspectives (Coffin and Donahue, 2012). One framework which aims to bridge these two perspectives is linguistic ethnography (Creese, 2008; Roberts, Atkins and Hawthorne, 2014). ‘Linguistic ethnography argues that ethnography can benefit from the analytical frameworks provided by linguistics, while linguistics can benefit from the processes of reflexive sensitivity required in ethnography’ (Creese, 2008: 232).

This paper demonstrates how a linguistic ethnographic framework can be used to scrutinise speaking assessments within language learning pedagogies. It outlines the approach used in the speaker’s Master’s dissertation and demonstrates how this draws on conversation analysis and other discourse analyses, as well as ethnography to provide an innovative and effective framework for unpacking the practice of assessing speaking. By revealing some of the results and impact the speaker argues that to effectively critique any speaking assessment, the social context in which the language is managed needs to be understood.

This paper focuses on an oral assessment taken by students of The International Foundation for Medicine (IFM) programme, an English for Specific (Academic) Purposes course that seeks to prepare international students for the study of medicine at a UK university. The Role-play Assessment (RPA) is used on the course to assess students’ (clinical) communication skills. A sample of twelve video recordings were transcribed and subjected to broad-based and micro-level linguistic analyses. Ethnographic data was also collected from the key three stakeholders in the exam: the students, the simulated patients and the assessors.

Bio

Georgina is currently the Director of Summer Schools and EAP Teaching Fellow at the University of St Andrews, where she works on a variety of pre-sessional and in-sessional programmes, as well as leading the Research Methods module on the MLitt in ELT. Georgina is CELTA and PGCE qualified, and recently completed her Masters in TESOL.

Pamela is a Teaching Fellow at the University of St Andrews. Her main focus is working with students on the International Foundation Programme for Medicine. Previously, she has worked in a variety of international contexts, both HE and British Council.

21

Time 14.55-15.20

Full Title Designing personalized, interactive materials for presentation skills

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Dr Katrien Deroey (Luxembourg)

Summary

In this talk I demonstrate how we can design and adapt materials for presentation skills to build on students’ individual needs and disciplinary backgrounds in an interactive way. The context for this is a conference skills course I’ve designed and successfully taught for several years. The PhD students on this course vary greatly in their presentation skills, experience and disciplinary background.

After an overview of the course content and format, I illustrate how students’ own presentations and research can be integrated so as to enhance personal relevance and interactivity. Aspects of this personalized, interactive course design include filming student presentations, structured peer feedback and reflection, a pre-course questionnaire, and tasks requiring them to work with their conference calls, research, texts, visuals and experiences.

I conclude with a summary of course feedback, highlighting what students reported as being particularly useful and what they would add or change.

Bio

Katrien is a senior lecturer in applied linguistics and language teaching. She’s vice-head and course director of English at the University of Luxembourg Language Centre, where she also works as an EAP researcher and practitioner.

22

Time 14.55-15.20

Full Title Pre-sessional assessment of spoken English for STEM postgraduates

Room Room 1

Speaker Liz Chiu (Imperial College)

Summary

In this session we will explain the rationale for our change from assessment by presentation to assessment by viva, and show how this has enhanced the development of speaking skills on our assessed pre-sessional courses. Our primary aim is to enable high achieving STEM PGs to develop spoken English competence that is fit-for-purpose and demonstrate this under assessment conditions.

Over many years we found that a presentations format for assessment encouraged and reinforced learning strategies that relied heavily on memorisation and failed to develop interactional competence, and so in 2014 we moved to assessment by viva and introduced the Test of Spoken English. This is a learning-oriented assessment which builds on iterative cycles of feedback and improvement through key pre-sessional speaking tasks, but also feeds forward to future studies. It has been designed to prepare students for university interactions and assessments, and so has a positive washback for the preparation of speaking skills on the course.

Assessment criteria comprise interaction, communication, language and delivery, with the result that memorised speech carries little weight and students need to adopt a more realistic approach to spoken English if they are to be successful. Throughout the course there is a focus on groupwork and collaboration, cultural orientation towards the use of spoken English rather than L1, and interactive events which require spontaneous, unprepared speech for communicating science in English. The 10-minute presentation has been kept as a valuable speaking opportunity without the worry of assessment for students and this experience can be reflected upon as useful preparation for their studies.

We have found that preparation for the viva gives our talented science students confidence to communicate complex topics under test conditions. This positive experience can stand them in good stead for their future studies and careers.

Bio

Liz is Assistant Director of 12 and 6-week pre-sessional courses with year-round responsibility for designing and coordinating speaking and listening courses for students, researchers and academic staff, and for producing online courses.

23

Time 14.55-15.20

Full Title Fostering critical and meaningful responses in student seminar discussions

Room Room 2

Speaker Rebecca Welland (Bath)

Summary

Adjusting to the demands of university level interaction and critical response can be challenging for anyone, but for students who are operating in a second language and a foreign learning culture, the task is likely to be still more demanding. Whilst students with little prior experience of classroom discussions may lack the confidence to speak out and find it difficult to respond spontaneously to others’ ideas, those with more practice in speaking tasks and therefore, greater confidence and fluency, may need to learn how to listen to others and participate in a discussion without dominating. Both groups of learners are likely to face challenges in expressing a critical, concise and evidenced argument.

This paper draws on my experience working on seminar discussion skills with Chinese undergraduate students from Hong Kong and Mainland China on the new skills-based first year undergraduate course ‘Core University English’ (CUE), introduced in 2012 within the new 4-year curriculum at the University of Hong Kong. It will focus on two main areas of student challenge: the ability to respond critically to others, questioning ideas, exploring alternative perspectives and proposing counter-arguments; and the ability to respond genuinely to other students without, for instance, reading out a prepared, rehearsed speech.

The first part of the paper will briefly describe how the CUE discussion task and its final grading criteria reflect a focus on critical response and meaningful interaction. It will also touch upon how these concepts might be formalized so that they are clearly understood for assessment purposes. The second part of the paper will focus on some simple activities and approaches which I have used on the above course in Hong Kong and also with pre-sessional students in the UK to help promote student awareness and competence in these two important areas.

Bio

Rebecca has taught English at universities in Austria, Hong Kong and UK since 1992. She has co-authored an English skills textbook and her current interests include reflection and the needs of quiet students.

24

Time 14.55-15.20

Full TitleFaculty perspectives on international students’ speakisng skills: challenges; possible causes of challenges and how pre-sessional courses could help.

Room Room 3

Speaker Stephen Hughes (Sheffield Hallam)

Summary

Faculty academic staff have regular contact with international students and are well placed to comment on the effects of students’ language skills on success within their discipline.

In order to gather perceptions of how post-pre-sessional students’ English speaking skills affect their ability to study successfully on courses, academic staff at one post-92 UK university were invited to discuss their insights and experiences of working with these students. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews using questions which were seen in advance, Participants were also encouraged to raise their own particular concerns.

The data generated a number of themes relating to the possible causes of challenges facing international students. These will be presented as student-oriented barriers; caused by issues related to the production of language and the effects of students’ previous learning experience; and faculty instigated barriers to effective speaking such as speaking too fast in lectures. The data also produced a number of discipline staff recommendations on how pre-sessional courses could help to prepare students for future study by preparing students to interact in English inside and outside the classroom, engage in peer learning, interact with their tutors, and engage in preparation for seminars. Staff also highlighted the importance of liaising with academic departments to introduce students to staff and to introduce discipline terminology.

Finally, I will outline how the pre-sessional programme attempts to address some of the discipline tutor concerns, for example by including regular discipline lectures in the teaching programme raising staff awareness by communicating the main findings of this research during staff induction.

Bio

Stephen works at the TESOL centre at Sheffield Hallam University. He has extensive EAP teaching experience, and is currently employed as part of the summer and autumn pre-sessional management team, and as a tutor on various in-sessional programmes.

25

Time 15.40-16.05

Full Title Heard and not (only) seen: developing student oral participation

Room Lecture Theatre 2 (LT2)

Speaker Gary Hernandez (Leeds)

Summary

Trying to facilitate and encourage students to invest in oral participation exercises which require them to speak (up) on an academic subject/topic/text confidently in a classroom setting can be challenging. Indeed, anecdotal evidence from lecturers at many departments points to the desire for international students to speak more in seminar settings and speak without fear of being ‘wrong’. In an EAP pre-sessional context if a course can meet the challenge of increasing student investment then the prospects of international students transitioning to their departments as competent academic participants should increase.

One of the ongoing tensions amongst EAP practitioners at the University of Leeds (and probably elsewhere) with regard to content-based pre-sessional programmes is the extent to which content should be ‘taught’ by EAP practitioners. Drawing on research (Norton and Gao, 2008) which examines international student motivation and empowerment in classroom speaking contexts and using a model of investment (Darvin and Norton, 2015) as a framework, this presentation argues that EAP practitioners should be ‘dealing with’ content (if not ‘teaching it’) especially if they are not ‘experts’ in the field. The argument continues that not being an expert actually encourages investment and confidence amongst students to speak about their related academic topic as there is not the ‘asymmetry’ that might be present in destination departments. The corollary of this increase in confidence and practice in speaking may be wide-ranging and profound as it may help in developing academic identity. The presentation further asserts that speaking should read communicative competency and that in an EAP pre-sessional context this includes the ability to take risks and confidence in having thoughts challenged and debated.

Bio

Gary Hernandez is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Leeds. Interests include how students do (or do not) transition into destination departments along with bespoke pre-sessional course design.

26

Time 15.40-16.05

Full Title Speaking in the subject classroom: CLIL reflective practice for pathway content teachers

Room Room 1

Speaker Sandra Strigel (Newcastle)

Summary

This session reports on a doctoral research project undertaken in the context of a UK HE pathway programme. It provides an overview how Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) strategies informed a series of reflective practice workshops for subject teachers from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds who had no prior experience of English language teaching. Emphasis will be specifically on how the CLIL reflective practice sessions were used to raise teachers’ language awareness with regards to their teaching approach and management of spoken classroom interaction.

It will be shown how through reflection on their own classroom data (e.g. transcripts and audio recordings) the teachers began to rethink their routines and practices to encourage greater student engagement and create interactional space for students to practise their speaking skills. The session will further highlight teachers’ reservations and institutional barriers with regards to the implementation of some of the proposed CLIL strategies. It will conclude with suggestions how future professional development activities can be organised, what kind of institutional support might be needed and how opportunities to raise subject teachers’ language awareness further could be created through collaboration with EAP staff.

BioI am an EdD student at Newcastle University. In the past, I have worked as a TESOL lecturer and Academic / EAP pathway tutor in the UK, as well as a CLIL teacher in Germany.

27

Time 15.40-16.05

Full TitleTime-relevant support for PhD students in STEM: developing interactional competence within a range of academic scenarios along the PhD journey

Room Room 2

Speaker Sharon Smith (Imperial College)

Summary

This presentation details the development of Imperial’s PhD Effective Speaking courses. Providing PhD students in STEM with relevant and timely opportunities to improve interactional competence can prove challenging for EAP teachers, particularly as the levels of technical complexity can appear daunting and STEM students are often time poor. Typically, much work on interactional competence focuses on what to do, while practice in how to do STEM speaking is limited primarily to presentation skills.

Using feedback from supervisors, student questionnaires and focus groups, we identified four key points where support in interactional competence would be beneficial for PhD students to deal with the various speech acts in the STEM research context and that occur along the PhD student pathway. We then devised a series of targeted four-week courses with a parallel goal of providing detailed feedback and advice for ongoing work.

This workshop highlights the various challenges involved in bringing together students from different STEM disciplines for such support. More importantly, it also details a range of benefits of our courses for PhD students who are often working in quite isolated ways and with few opportunities to discuss their research on a daily basis. We show how PhD students from different disciplines can provide a ‘better’ audience than the EAP teacher to comment on, engage in and respond to technical content. We also consider how this set up allows students to take advantage of differences and overlaps to develop the skills needed to adjust appropriately to the knowledge base, experience and linguistic competencies of others in the group. Finally, we consider how the teacher manages feedback to individual students and creates activities to promote genuine exchanges of information about STEM research.

BioI have responsibility for designing and coordinating PhD speaking courses and for overseeing courses for visiting researchers and academic staff.

28

Time 15.40-16.05

Full Title ‘Communicating in a business-like way’: developing oracy skills in higher education

Room Room 3

Speaker Dr Marion Heron (Surrey)

Summary

Oracy skills (speaking and listening skills) have been the focus of studies in compulsory educational contexts, yet there is little transfer of research findings or an active research agenda on oracy skills in higher education (HE). The changing nature of pedagogy in HE to more active learning approaches inevitably places demands on students in terms of speaking skills (Doherty, Kettle, May & Caukill, 2011). Lectures are becoming more interactive (Roberts, 2017), and seminars require a high level of verbal participation (Engin, 2017). Assessment of oral skills is also prevalent in the UK (Gillett & Hammond, 2009), and a particularly common form of oral assessment is oral presentations (Joughin, 2007). At the same time, studies on employability cite speaking and listening skills as one of the top soft skills valued in the workplace.

Within this growing need for effective speaking skills in both an academic context and the workplace, this presentation describes a study which aimed to explore how two teachers developed oracy skills in a first year and a final year business undergraduate module. In both modules, half the final assessment was based on group oral presentations and this study examined how the teachers incorporated oracy skills in the content, pedagogy and assessment of the module. Frameworks such as the Oracy Skills Framework (Mercer, Warwick & Ahmad, 2017) were used to analyse the features of oracy tutors believed were important, and to examine alignment between content, pedagogy, assessment and beliefs about oracy. The presentation presents the results of the study and concludes with implications for EAP provision and suggestions for embedding oracy skills more explicitly into the undergraduate curriculum.

Bio

Marion Heron has taught EAP both in the UK and internationally. She is currently in the Department of Higher Education at the University of Surrey where she works with staff across the university on teaching and learning practice.

29

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

30

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

31

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

32

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

33

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

34

Notes

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................... .

......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

35

Practical Information

Travel

The PIM takes place in the INTO Centre, which is located on the main Newcastle University Campus, just opposite Haymarket Metro Station. If you arrive by train, take the northbound metro to Haymarket (two stops); if you fly to Newcastle, the metro from the airport to Haymarket takes ca. 25 minutes. As you come up the escalator and through the barrier, turn right, cross at the traffic light and you’re there. For more information about Newcastle and getting around, please see the following links:

www.ncl.ac.uk/about/visit/travel/#directions

https://www.newcastlegateshead.com/dbimgs/metro_map.pdf

www.ncl.ac.uk/about/visit/maps/

www.newcastlegateshead.com

36

Baleap PIM Saturday, November 24

Academic Literacies and EAP: Same or different?

… run jointly with ALDinHE (Association for Learning Development in Higher Education) to explore areas of contrast and overlap in our remits, roles, and practices Call for papers coming soon…