how previous student work can support future · setting the scene... •pm1es3 – personal and...

© University of Reading 2008 www.reading.ac.uk

How previous student work can support future student learning Sonia Hood, Anne Vicary, Erika Delbecque, Samantha Weston

Study Advice – Sonia Hood

Session aims

1. Showcase effective collaborative

working to develop skills

2. Evaluate effectiveness and uses

of student example text

3. Discussion on values/issues in

creating a Reading Corpus

2


Setting the scene...

• PM1ES3 – personal and professional development

– Previously run Autumn Term Part 2

– Disjointed timetabling

– Zero credit therefore perceived as “worthless”

– Covers a range of topics, but not put into context

• CV writing

• Interview skills

• Interpreting information from papers

• Finding appropriate references

• Good referencing practice

• Plagiarism

• Use of digital resources, online searching techniques

3


Current academic literacies methodology

• Many different writing genres within the University

• We need to do more than ‘academic socialisation’

• Teach genre within target context (Sloan and Porter,

2007; Wingate, 2006)

• Enable all students to understand genres better by

devising scaffolded materials to elicit and encourage:

1 learner comparison of a range of written responses to the same task

(rhetorical structure, language style, citation techniques)

2 learner understanding and analysis of lecturer comments and grading system

3 greater awareness of language details (possibly via concordancing)

4 more proficient creation of students’ own texts

4


Text construction cycle

5

A teaching/learning cycle for secondary school (Rothery and Stenglin 1994:8, cited in Martin, 2000: 119). Used in Tribble and Wingate, 2013.


Preparation (Erika)

• Research skills session: finding, evaluating and selecting

suitable academic sources

– Introduction of case study

– Use of student exemplars

– Selection of resources

6


Sample case study

A 60-year old patient recovering in hospital from a heart

valve replacement operation presented with fever and

apparent pneumonia. Blood agar culture yielded large,

round golden-yellow haemolytic colonies, similar to those

formed by Staphylococcus. Further investigation revealed

that the microbe was spherical bacterium and tended to

form clusters. The patient did not respond to treatment

with penicillin or methicillin.

• 1. What is a nosocomial infection?

• 2. What microorganism is most likely the cause of the

infection?

7


Deconstruction Discuss the similarities and differences between the two texts. Which one got A+ and which one C- for the: ‘Bacteria including molecular detail’ criterion?

A nosocomial infection can be defined as one that is

acquired by a person in hospital who was initially

admitted for a reason other than that infection. It can

also be described as an infection that occurs in hospital

or other health care facility that was not present or

incubate in the person before they were admitted. These

infections can also present after the patient has been

discharged. ¹

After taking into consideration the properties of the

bacterium it can be determined that the microorganism

that is causing the infection is MRSA (methicillin

resistant staphylococcus aureus). This bacterium is a

strain of staphylococcus aureus that is resistant to the

metacillin family of β-lactam drugs, with the majority of

MRSA strains also being resistant to most other

antibacterial agents such as macrolides, aminoglycosides

and other β-lactam drugs such as the newest

cepholosporins.³ The bacteria cause an infection when it

gets into the body through a break in the skin or an open

surgical wound¹º.

Background

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) works by colonising after

breaching the host cells, although this method is not completely

understood, S. aureus adheres to the host cells and can even evade

an immune response. (Wertheim, HF et al., 2005). S. aureus has

multiple surface proteins called ‘microbial surface components

recognising adhesive matrix molecules’ (MSCRAMMs) that regulate

host tissue adherence. (Gordon, R.J. Lowy, FD,2008). The disease

itself is caused by Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) (Gladstone,GP;

Van Heyningen, WE,1957). The PVL factor, which is encoded in a

prophage (a virus integrated in the bacterials chromosome) is a

toxin that lyses white blood cell causing tissue necrosis and

infection. It secretes two proteins, LukS-P and LukF-PV, which act as

subunits in the membrane of the host defence cells, they fit together

forming a ring with the central pore where the cell contents leak

acting as a superantigen (a defense mechanism against the immune

system (Melles, DC., et al. 2006).

Identification

The patient could have a nosocomial infection, due to a recent

surgery. Nosocomial infection is an infection transmitted within a

hospital. This – as well as the fact that the patient did not respond to

methicillin treatment- increases the chance that the microorganism

causing the infection is Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

(MRSA) (Stefaan et al, 2009, p. 1388-1400). S. Pneumonia is the

most common cause of pneumonia; however upon gram stain they

appear as lancet shaped diplococci (Ryan, K.J. &Ray, C. J. pp.460-464,

2004), and it is MRSA that forms spherical bacterium and forms

cocci group like clusters (Stefaan et al.2009, p.1388-1400).

8


Joint construction

In a workshop:

In groups students asked to answer part of a past case study. They were given: – Past case study

– Range of resources that they could use

With the aim of:

Practise key skills required for scientific writing 1. Locating key information

2. Making effective notes

3. Using evidence

4. Paraphrasing information

5. Referencing correctly

6. Writing a coherent report

Facilitators (including a member of academic staff) intervened as necessary

9


Session Outline

Students worked in groups to answer a past case study

• Decide on part of the case study to answer

• Select relevant information

• Incorporate evidence into a paragraph

Then

• Offered them a past student (marked)example

• Asked them to reflect on their own work

• Review their learning


Feedback

11

Very helpful and I feel my grades will improve because of today

I would definitely recommend this to the students who didn’t turn up

Enjoyed the examples to emphasise the points put across

Examples of different work was helpful


Changes we would make

• Make course “compulsory” even if zero credit

• Market better – context is paramount!

• Run over three shorter days?

• Smaller groups to teach in?

• More peer-to-peer or near-peer teaching (NHS evidence

champions etc.)

• Less ambitious tasks

12


Discussion: creating a subject-specific corpus.

Why? – ready access to discipline-specific learner-centred academic

literacy workshop materials (texts and grading)

– permissions already given so extracts can be used for other

classroom-based teaching

– word documents can be analysed for key language features

• Other benefits?

• Difficulties?

13


References

• Sloan, D., and Porter, E. (2010) ‘Changing international

student and business staff perceptions of in-sessional

EAP: using the CEM model’. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes 9(3), pp.198-210.

• Tribble, C & Wingate, U. (2013) ‘From text to corpus – A

genre-based approach to academic literacy

construction’. System 41, pp.307-321.

• Wingate, U. (2006) ‘Doing Away with 'Study Skills’’.

Teaching in Higher Education 11(4), pp.457-469.

14

how previous student work can support future · setting the scene... •pm1es3 – personal and...

Documents