Post on 23-May-2022
Nigel A. Caplan University of Delaware English Language Institute
Charles MacArthur University of Delaware School of Education
Zoi Philippakos Towson University, Educational Technology and Literacy
WRAB 2014, Paris http://nigelteacher.wordpress.com/wrab2014
Theoretical overview ◦ Genre-based writing pedagogy ◦ Cognitive strategy instruction
Collaborative Modeling/Joint Construction
◦ Context, Participants
◦ Analysis
Results
Implications
Genre-Based Writing Pedagogy
Cognitive Strategy Instruction
Collaborative Modeling Joint Construction
“Sydney School” genre pedagogy (Rose & Martin, 2012)
◦ Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday, 1996; Martin, 2009)
◦ Educational linguistics
◦ “Disadvantaged” schools in Australia
English for Academic Purposes
◦ Communicative purpose of research genres (Swales, 1990)
◦ ESL graduate students (Swales & Feak, 2012)
Martin, 2009; Rothery, 1996)
Make visible the genre’s staging and linguistic
resources
Write together, discussing choices
Plan, draft, revise
Strategies are conscious, goal-directed processes for solving problems or completing complex tasks.
Goal of strategy instruction is flexible, self-regulated use of strategies on meaningful tasks.
Research has demonstrated the value of self-regulated strategy instruction for reading and writing.
(Graham, 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Hiebert, 2010)
Draws from cognitive models of proficient writers. (Hayes, 1996; Hayes & Flower, 1980)
The goal of strategy instruction is independent, self-regulated use of strategies on meaningful tasks. (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989)
Explicit instruction and explanation of strategies and discourse knowledge. (MacArthur,
2011)
◦ Demonstrations using think-aloud modeling
◦ Collaborative practice
◦ Guided practice
Unit 5: Persuasive Writing 8
Graphic Organizer: Persuasive Writing with Opposing Position (IROC)
Issue:
Position [I say]: Opposing Position [What others say]:
Reasons [Why I say what I
say]
Evidence Reasons [Why they say
what they say]
Evidence Rebuttal [Why they are
wrong]
Differences
◦ Theoretical orientation
◦ Target population
Similarities
◦ Instructional support of low-performing students
◦ Scaffolded, explicit, direct instruction
Explanation of genre elements
Collaborative writing scaffolded by instructor
◦ Writing takes place when students are ready
What and how do
students contribute
to the writing tasks?
What types and
amounts of
scaffolding does the
instructor use?
What are the instructional
challenges for instructors and
learning challenges for students?
Cognitive Strategy Instruction Teaching-Learning Cycle
First-year undergraduates
“Basic” writing course for underprepared students in a four-year College
Argument genre
Topic: “pet from a breeder vs. a shelter”
Instructor: English faculty
Videos of two 50-minute lessons
International graduate students
Pre-matriculation intensive English program
Advanced level Data commentary
genre Instructor: ESL faculty Video of 90 minutes
from one lesson
Please write a commentary on Figure 1 in answer to this question: What are the trends in U.S. soda sales, and what do they mean? Source: Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/whytax.html
Inductive qualitative analysis from both theoretical perspectives separately, then combined
initial coding
separately
discussion and
further coding
Interpretation of
similarities and
differences
Focus Student Contributions
Instructor Scaffolding
• Content
• Writing Process/ Strategies
• Discourse/Genre
• Lexis (Vocabulary)
• Grammar
• Initiations
• Responses
• Student-to-Student sequences
• Successes
• Problems
• Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF)
• Questions
• Expansions
• Explanations
• Direct contributions
• Evaluation
Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy Instruction
Sentence construction
Language
Genre stages
Planning
Organization
Writing strategies
Self-regulation strategies
Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy Instruction
Plan 24 minutes 59 minutes
Small group content
generation – 5 Task analysis - 10
Whole class content &
organization – 17 Whole class content generation –
16
Whole class discuss
organization – 2 Organization of pro argument – 14
Content & organization of
counterargument - 19
Draft 42 minutes 18 minutes
Joint construction – 37 Introduction - 9
Review – 5 Topic sentence for pro paragraph
– 2
Counterargument - 7
Please note that to protect the privacy of our participants, photographs and transcripts cannot be published online and have been omitted from this version of our slides
Cognitive Strategy Genre Pedagogy
Review of strategy
Joint content generation
Explanation of genre
Self-regulation
Teacher “think-aloud”
Student-led content generation
Teacher-led planning
Genre Pedagogy Cognitive Strategy
Elicitation
Recasting (explicit/implicit)
Expansion
Metalinguistic explanation
Evaluation
Vocabulary
Sentence generation
Evaluation
Similarities ◦ Overall genre structure;
◦ Collaborative writing including content generation, organization, and drafting
◦ Teacher scaffolding
Expanded IRF sequence
Preparation for initiating question
Recasting student content and language by expansion, re-elicitation
Evaluation and recasting.
Differences in focus ◦ CSI focuses primarily on cognitive strategies for
planning and revising
◦ TLC has a broader conception of genre and greater focus on lexical and grammatical features
Conclusions are reached only from two videos
Instructor differences
◦ types of knowledge; years of experience; expertise
Student differences
◦ ESLs vs Basic writers
Topic and task differences
◦ general topic vs data-driven topic
Focus on sentence-level drafting for CSI
Use of evaluation criteria and strategies in the TLC
Think-aloud modeling and self-talk in TLC
“Knowledge about language” (a.k.a. grammar) as explicit strategy in both CSI and TLC
What are the effects of the TLC approach on basic writers’ grammar and overall quality?
Would modeling explicit strategies in the TLC improve students’ understanding and writing?
Would adding a more nuanced understanding of genre to CSI improve writing?
What is the effect of “topic” and sources in both approaches?
How can teachers be effectively trained to incorporate these approaches?
Questions? Comments?
Ideas?
Nigel Caplan (nacaplan@udel.edu) Charles MacArthur (macarthu@udel.edu) Zoi Philippakos (philippakos@gmail.com) http://nigelteacher.wordpress.com/wrab2014
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 113-135.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacArthur, C. A. (2011). Strategies instruction. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3, Applications of educational psychology to learning and teaching, (pp. 379-401). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. London: Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). Harlow, England: Longman.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.