task post mortems as writing center preparation
DESCRIPTION
Presented at the 4th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia, Tokyo, 12.02.04. Exploring means of aiding second language writers of English technical academic writing to develop the noticing and cohesion skills to become semi-autonomous writers of research papers.TRANSCRIPT
Task post mortemsas writing center
preparation
Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technologyhttp://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter
4th Symposium on Writing Centers in AsiaFebruary 4, 2012
Background
Curriculum design
Micro writing center
Task design
Observations
OutlineHunter
Task post mortemsas writing center preparation
Background
Canada 1971~Maths instructorGuidance counsellorMaths teacher trainer (PNG)ESL maths teacher
1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo1990~ Freelance academic rewriter, Japan
Japan1990~ Assoc. professor, English1993~ Assoc. professor, English, intercultural communication
1996~ Super translation team:Japanese construction
ministryWorld Water Forum KyotoAdvertising industryMajor universities
1996~ founder, KUTEFL CALLEFL Critical thinkingESP technical writingEAP for engineers
2004~ Journal reviewer: CALL, Web Based Communities, JALL, IJLT1999~2006 Interviews editor: Document Design/Information Design Journal1998~ Conference referee: CATaC, IADIS, JALTCALL
Background
Maths teacher trainer (Rabaul)
Maths teacherGuidance counsellor
ESL maths teacher(Vancouver)
EFL teacherTechnical editorSuper translationESP professor(Tokyo, Tokushima, Kochi)
ESL maths teacher (Cairns)
5
KUT scenario
Since 2002: - Japanese government scholarships
- for foreign students - in technical doctoral programmes.
! Graduation requirements:
- 2+ refereed papers in top journals- NO extensions- dissertation in English
Further L2 acquisition to the point of near-independence
during the study period is NOT a realistic strategy.
3-year programme
In years 2 and 3,the students are writing top-journal papers.
=> demand for editing/rewriting service
=> only 2 native speaker faculty members
KUT scenario:
Writing center demand
7
KUT scenario
The best writing center job in the world
1. Highly motivated clients2. Real community feeling (friends)3. Manageable numbers: start to finish relationships4. Action research as a lifestyle5. Ample time, budget6. Well managed moodle environment7. No boss8. Faculty not eligible (unless trained)
Background
Curriculum design
Micro writing center
Task design
Observations
OutlineHunter
Task post mortemsas writing center preparation
9
Design Scenario
ESPESP
EAPEAP
EAPHUMANITIES
EAPHUMANITIESTAWTAW
EXEX EYEY EZEZ
English for specific purposesEnglish for academic purposesTechnical academic writing
10
Design Elements
Clientele
Intake: 7-15 twice yearlyFiltering: screening for English writing skill
Variable research backgroundVariable EAP/publication backgroundVariable grammar knowledgeVariable EFL communicative skillVariable belief in possibility of writing improvement
11
What is the core issue?
-client L2 knowledge/skill?-client autonomy in TAW?-client TAW functionality?-publication success?-ongoing L2 growth?
Curriculum: goal-setting
12
Design Elements
Clientele resources
Client's ownknowledge,
skill
Client's ownknowledge,
skill
SupervisorSupervisor
WeakTAWWeakTAW
Strong TAW
Strong TAW
Commercial editor
Commercial editor
Commercial editor
Commercial editor
Sup. as editor
Sup. as editor
KUT mWCKUT mWC
editorrecommend
editorrecommend
mentor(2-page)mentor
(2-page)
Journal reviewersJournal
reviewers
editorialhelp
editorialhelp
Client'speers
Client'speers
14
TAW best practice
Niche languageacquisition to
near-independencein TAW
Writing workfocusing on
argument andinfo-structures
Training in use of
language models:Style Dossier
Preparationfor work with
an editor
Preparationfor work with
a mentor
KUT design 2007
Appendices: Usage Speaking Working with an editor References
Hunter, L. (2007) How Academic Writing Works. KUT Press.
Hunter, L. (2009) How Academic Writing Works. 2nd ed. KUT Press.
KUT design 2009
Hunter, L. (2012) Technical Academic Writing. Minaminokaze Press.
KUT design 2012
KUT scenario: learner as client
Small enrolment allows a mentoring system
KUT scenario: learner as client
Implication of learner as client:
Course work must be individualized,
i.e. Primary instructor:client is 1:1
KUT scenario
Language model use: Style Dossier content
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 modelsA collection of articles from science magazines or web sites
-topics loosely related to one’s research. These materials provide models for presentation language.
C. GlossaryA 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.
Paraphrasing
Quotation
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
Language model use: Style Dossier skills
Overview
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 arrayArgument workInformation structure mappingRegister workRP lexis workWrite-rewriteDossier work
Background
Curriculum design
Micro writing center
Task design
Observations
OutlineHunter
Task post mortemsas writing center preparation
KUT English micro writing center evolution
Early years of SSP
Large number of students
Editing serviceimpossible
Since2008
Fewer students
Hunter’s 2-page system
Commercial editing services
Danger:wide variety in:
1. Basic grammar
Levels of service2. Grammar, syntax, cohesion
3. Rhetoric check (style, communication)
1. Pricing
2. Quality of editing
3. Reliability
Practical point: micro Writing Center policy
Policy on mentoring service:
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.
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 programme4. Recommended: mock Q&A practice
2-page mentoring system
editor corrects errors
for a finished paper
no learning
coded feedback
1~2 pagesat a time
much learning
Editingservice
requirements
completion of TW2 and RWcourses
Minimum requirements for 2-page editing service
enough time until deadline
(2+ weeks)
no rejections by journals*
1322-pageedits
70 hoursediting
micro Writing Center 2009:Consulting volume
50 hours discussion
*some non-clients experienced rejections partly on the basis of language.
no rejections by journals*
782-pageedits
30 hoursediting
micro Writing Center 2011:Consulting volume
27 hours discussion
Drop in volume due to:1. Smaller student numbers2. Emergence of peer tutoring3.
*2 non-clients graduate late due to rejections partly on the basis of language.
Observations
Use of 2-page mentoring
Some clients became peer mentors/peer editors-did the in-class post mortems train them?
After the 1-year program, student requests were framed in ‘editor/mentor strategy’ genre
Observations
Use of 2-page mentoring
Papers consulted
Clients consulted
2-page iterations
Dossier checks
2008 15 12 55 7
2009 28 21 157 16
2010 21 15 61 10
2011 22 14 61 15
Background
Curriculum design
Micro writing center
Task design
Observations
OutlineHunter
Task post mortemsas writing center preparation
Overview
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 arrayArgument workInformation structure mappingRegister workRP lexis workWrite-rewriteDossier work
grammar/surface features
usage/convention
document format
argumentsupporting claim
39
Possible approaches
research design/results
most TAW writers start writing here
(simulacrum of argument)
RP language generation should start here
most TAWprograms work here
40
Possible approachesMaximization of TAW functionality
1 Editor/mentor prep2 Pragmatic language curriculum3 Strategic language curriculum
- all of these hinge on argument
41
Possible approachesMaximization of TAW functionality
1 Editor/mentor prep2 Pragmatic language curriculum3 Strategic language curriculum
- all of these hinge on argument
But argument work is blocked by -text complexity-masking of argument by text-abstract nature of most materials
42
Approach 1:Writing task focus: isolation of argument
Problem 1:How to constrain text analysis?How to get the learner to isolate argument?
43
Approach 1:Writing task focus: isolation of argument
Problem 1:How to constrain text analysisTo get the learner to isolate argument?
Approach 2Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media.
Approach 2Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media.
"Inferred content" task
-forces close reading-forces critical interpretation-forces analytical application of
-scientific method structure-argument structure
-demands FAE-allows instructor to focus on RP section
-for rhetorical structure-for writing conventions
Approach 2Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media.
Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewritingbrings little change in client performance.
Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewritingbrings little change in client performance.
Solution 2:Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).
Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewritingbrings little change in client performance.
Solution 2:Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).
Problem 3: How to create generalized tasksas opposed to own-work feedback tasks?
Solution 3:Post mortem group troubleshooting activities
-followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties
Solution 3:Post mortem group troubleshooting activities
-followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties
Sample post mortem tasks:
Discuss the underlined parts: 1. University professors seem to have a heavy workload. They must do academic work like conducting original researching and publishing refereed papers. At the same time, they must teach and supervise students’ research, and even do administrative work as well. 2. These heavy tasks may cause professors to have stress related health problems and young people may not want to work in universities. In conclusion, professors should specialize in one of the three kinds of work.3. University professors are expected to do original research, and to publish research papers in refereed journals. However, professors must teach classes and supervise student research as well. Professors must also do administrative work such as serving on committees. As a result, young people may not want to work in universities.
Solution 3:Post mortem group troubleshooting activities
-followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties
Excerpt from instructor demo
Problem 4: How to bring a course content focus to PM tasks?
Solution 4:Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks.Make a focused task for each ‘found’ error.
Solution 4:Eliminate open ended troubleshooting tasks.Make a focused task for each ‘found’ error.
Sample focused post mortem tasks Repair the underlined errors (are they information errors or language errors?).These are someone's first two sentences: can you remove the redundancy?Is this report of the results accurate?Rephrase the last part of this sentence to make it readable FAE: Correct the pronoun reference problem here.Check the tense of all the verbs here.The second sentence does not contain much information, but it is important. How would you rearrange sentences 1 and 2 to make tight, readable FAE?This sentence is too abstract. How would you give it more information value?Clean up this summary to make it more factual.Make the underlined bit factually correct.What's wrong with the verbs in this sentence? Think about what caused the actions. The writer of this sentence relied on the phrasing of the article, and used persuasive/entertaining phrases. Make this into FAE. Combine the first two sentences and make a better logical connection in the information. Then rephrase the underlined bit to make it more explicit. Check the underlined words for accuracy and readability. What kind of sentence is the second one? (Core, background, persuasive)Rewrite the underlined bit to make it explicit. For the underlined bit, check the parallelism and eliminate vagueness in the phrase.
Background
Curriculum design
Micro writing center
Task design
Observations
OutlineHunter
Task post mortemsas writing center preparation
Survey feedback (January 26, 2012)
Group PM activity not useful
Narrow PM task better than open-ended
Teacher demos (with multiple answers) good-after students have attempted the PM tasks
3 students in 12 reported emergence of noticing -do take notes on language features while reading
-notes per paper: hesitant reporting
Future research question
Do emergent language noticersbecome peer mentors more frequently than non-noticers?
Suspicions
Argument clarity is keyJournal language standards are softening
Peer support is growing Peer discourse is increasingly savvy
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.
Thank you so much for your kind attention.
Don't hesitate to write me.
Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technology
http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/