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/