Preparing Future Academics (PFA) Portfolio

CLAIM 1 – Choose appropriate teaching strategies to meet particular student needs and context.

The main learning outcome was to enable student to analyse the difference between formal and

informal language. The original task used a paper-based activity (see attached below). While the

original task was perfectly adequate I sensed at this late stage in the term there was a sense of group

burn-out. A main factor causing this was the upcoming assignments and exam. Based on my teaching

experience I realized that if I wanted them to obtain core knowledge from the lesson I would have to

create a more engaging way of distinguishing between formal and informal language. I quickly

decided to use the technique of group collaboration and brainstorming to broach the concept. By

implementing a social group discussion regarding writing difficulties this allowed students to be heard

and to hear others similar experience with academic English. I went around the room asking each

student to reflect on their greatest difficulty in writing academic English. Each student spoke and as

they did the class began to hear commonalities amongst their classmates. The first part of the task

illustrated to the students that their writing constraints were similar to those of their classmates and

therefore, they were not alone in their difficulties. Furthermore, to co-construct (Vygotsky, 1962)

language starting from a point of social interaction of the knowledge and extending to create

knowledge that is employed in a practical manner (Habermas, 1971) allowed for a more relevant

exercise of an abstract concept.

Next, I then used the difficulties they had just vocalized as a means to underline differences in

academic language. I employed a multimodal method of understanding, not only on a target level but

on a personal level, the differences in formal and informal academic language. Moreover,

acknowledging Entwistle and Smith‘s (2002) viewpoint that there is a difference between ‘target

understanding’ and ‘personal understanding’ I chose to create a new task that would be relevant and

engaging. Their theory argues that for the student there is a difference between understanding

concepts and being able to apply them in practice. This is particularly relevant to MA TESOL

international students. For while they are somewhat proficient in English, they lack the practical

understanding of the UK academic culture and context. I am highlighting the UK academic culture

and context as it varies from that of the Chinese and even the North American academic culture. Thus,

language is used differently in different cultural contexts. Lecturing to students in various

international settings afforded me an opportunity to experience the socio-cultural difference in

language and writing of students. It also allowed me to understand the similarities across cultures.

One key similarity was the students extensive use of modern technology such as cell phones. Thus, I

had a moment of epiphany.

Students use texting constantly therefore, it is a tool that is relevant to their environment. I choose to

first have students ‘notice the gap’ between formal and informal language (Marton, F., Hounsell, D. &

Entwistle, 1997; Schmidt, 2001). However, I felt I had to first personalize the abstractness of the

linguistic concepts. To do this I used two pedagogical approaches often employed in language

teaching; first the concept of group collaboration in writing (Rose, H., 2009) which included oral and

writing brainstorming. Second, I used a multi-modal approach to facilitate a greater learning

experience (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Finally, at the end of the lesson I also included the use of peer

review and collaboration.

Procedure:

Following the group discussion instead of introducing a worksheet on academic writing, I asked each

student to take out his or her mobile phone. Next, I instructed them to use casual language and text a

friend in the class one or two sentences about their writing difficulties. For the few students without

cell phones I asked them to write on paper as if they were texting. After this they sent the texts

message to their friend in the class. The next step was to have the student who received the text to

translate the sentence from informal sentence structures into formal academic writing. The final step

was the reading aloud to the class of the old sentence followed by the newly constructed sentence (see

attached evidence 1). This process contained the following pedagogical elements; the sentences had

relevance to the student, using the technology engaged them, allowing to hear as well as see the

difference in words and used facilitated a greater comprehension, the shared group experience gave a

feeling of a common problem to overcome, and more than one learning style was accessed.

Conclusion

This task is in line with the UK Professional Standards Framework by “demonstrating an

understanding of the student learning experience through engagement such as the ability to engage in

practices related to those areas of activity and research” (Fry & Ketteridge, 2003, p. 470). While this

is not a strategy that could be implemented on a daily basis, it is one method in overcoming common

group difficulties. The class size is 21 therefore this is not for implementation in a lecture but rather is

useful in a seminar context. This process contained the following pedagogical elements; the sentences

had relevance to the student, using the technology engaged them, allowing to hear as well as see the

difference in words used facilitated a greater comprehension, the shared group experience gave a

feeling of a common problem to overcome, and more than one learning style was accessed (see

evidence 2). If I were to do this again I would write down particular problems on the board to provide

an opportunity not just for oral communication but also reading and the taking of notes aids in

remembering and acquiring the content.

Centre for English Language Teaching

ELS - Educational Studies

Session 6: Style in Academic Writing

Aims:

Group collaboration with sentence structure

Engaging learning through multimodal use and relevant personal problem solving

Session Outcomes:

Identify the differences between formal academic sentence construction and informal

sentence construction

Peer review other students work for errors

Synthesize and implement conceptual vocabulary

Original Task 1:

1. Characteristics of academic style

There is a considerable difference between informal spoken and formal written academic English.

Consider the following two extracts and pick out the characteristics of the written academic style

which distinguish it from the informal spoken style.

A

Well, it used to be said that reading in a second language was so similar to reading in a first language

that it was just a slower version of the same thing. Are there two parallel processes involved or are

they the same processes for reading in first and second languages? For sure, there are similarities

between the two but there are a lot of differences as well. And, because we can’t see what’s going on

inside students’ heads when they read, we teachers have to make even more effort to work out the

process and to help our students understand that process too.

B

Although reading in the L1 shares numerous important basic elements with reading in a second or

foreign language, the processes also differ greatly. Intriguing questions involve whether there are two

parallel cognitive processes at work, or whether there are processing strategies that accommodate both

first and second languages. Despite these interests, second language research on reading, is frequently

dismissed as being marginal and derivative from first language reading. Reading in a second

language, for example, was often viewed as merely a slower version of doing the same task in the

native language. Such comparisons, however, imply that second language tasks are mapping tasks –

that is replacing one mode of behaviour with another. While it is true that the L1 and L2 reading

process have similarities, it is also important to recognize that many factors come into play, which in

turn make second language reading a phenomenon unto itself. Despite the similarities between

reading in an L1 and reading in an L2, a number of complex variables make the process of L1

different from L2. As the reading process is essentially "unobservable", teachers need to make

significant efforts in the classroom to understand their students' reading behaviour and be able to help

students understand such behaviour as well. It is, therefore, important that teachers know as much as

possible about the cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds of their readers since many of

these factors influence reading in an L2 context.

MODIFICATION TO Task 1: (evidence 1)

TASK 1 – Part A

TEACHER: Ask the students to brainstorm the differences between academic and non-academic

language. Elicit from the students answers.

TEACHER: Ask students what the difference between undergraduate and graduate level in

university. Discuss differences as a group.

TEACHER: Ask each student to reflect about his or her greatest difficulty with academic English

then individually have each students discuss their difficulties. As this occurs the class will began to

hear commonalities amongst their classmates.

TEACHER: After students’ description of their problem give quick advice to aid overcoming his or

her problem.

TASK 1 - Part B

Following the discussion on English difficulties the teacher instructs each student to take out his or

her mobile phone. NOTE -(If they do not have a mobile phone, they can use a piece of paper.) Make

sure everyone has a partner.

Explain to the students using casual language and to text a friend in the class one or two sentences

regarding their writing difficulty.

Emphasize the purpose is to write as if they were texting. Make sure the students writing on paper do

the same.

Then they send the texts message to another member of the class.

Task 3:

Have the students who received the text to change the sentence into formal academic language as if

they are writing an essay.

Task 4:

The final step is to ask each student to read out the old sentence followed by the new sentence. (If

need be help with adjusting either grammatical errors or vocabulary mismatches.)

Most likely reading all the sentences might be too time-consuming however, randomly selecting

students is a useful way to manage the class. This can lead into instruction of grammar, sentence

structure, academic vocabulary or transition sentences.

Gather examples and send to the students by e-mail so that they can reflect on the differences.

Assessment:

1) Ask each student to reflect on the process. Did they like it? What would they change?

2) Ask them to write a poorly constructed sentence for use in a mini-quiz at the end of the term.

They should also write a “correct version”(answer) of the same sentence.

CAT – Reflective Questionnaire: (evidence 2)

1) Think about the previous lesson where the teacher asked you to use your mobile phone

to write a sentence. How did you feel doing this activity?

2) How did you feel after this activity?

3) Do you feel it helped your understanding of formal and informal language (give a score

out of 10) __________?

4) How could this lesson be improved?

5) Did the teacher give enough a) feedback (score 1-10)_____ b) guidance (score of 1-10)

______ c) instruction (score 1-10)

References

Cope, B. &. Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: The beginning of an idea. In B. C. Kalantzis, Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). London: Routledge.

Entwistle, N.J., & Smith, C. A., (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding:mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology

Fry, H. & Ketteridge, S. (2003). ‘Teaching portfolios’, in H. Fry, S.W. Ketteridge and S. Marshall (eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice (pp. 242-252), London: Routledge.

Marton, F. Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, (1997). The Experience of Learning, Scottish Academic Press, Edniburgh.

Rose, H., (2009). EAP 1:  Forging collaborative learning in a student-centered curriculum.  In College of Business BBL (Ed.)  Integrating English Education and Business Studies. Rikkyo University, Japan. (retrieved online May, 18, 2011) http://rikkyo.academia.edu/HeathRose/Papers/431610/EAP_1_Forging_collaborative_learning_in_a_student-centered_curriculum )

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Preparing Future Academics (PFA) Portfolio

CLAIM 2 – Construct session plans including learning outcomes, content and feedback

mechanisms.

Structuring MA Social Policy Language Support module (Two Term module)

Designing and delivering this three-term session module provided me with an opportunity to explore

specific measurable learning outcomes based on active verbs and context (Clegg, K., 2010, in a

lecture). The original overall session plans for the term module was based on content vocabulary,

reading strategies, writing needs and some speaking skills. I created the session plan to include

materials from the course content (evidence 3). This allowed students to gain academic language

skills through accessing course content. The relevance of the materials created engagement with the

language task and allowed them to use prior knowledge to construct meaning (Ivanic, Clark,

Rimmershaw, 2000). Furthermore, after the first term I implemented formative assessment and

reflective practices within the course structure (Nicol, D.J., MacFarlane-Dick, D., 2006).

Overall, based on the evidence gathered from the student evaluations the course provided engaging

and meaningful tasks and opportunities to allow students to practice their academic language (see

attached evidence 4). This course was initially designed, using relevant content rather than just

generic EAP skills activities. The students’ needs were generally similar thus allowing me to tailor the

course to the suit the group needs. I designed the session plans to revolve around reading, writing, and

speaking skills with conceptual vocabulary being reviewed weekly. I tried to avoid general topics to

academic reading and writing and instead employ a systematic approach to enable the students to

better comprehend the concepts, skills, strategies and structures that varied which were specific to

their department (Wisek, 1998). Moreover, I included the use of their formative practice essay in the

lessons on academic writing and essay organization.

However, the shortness of the length of the term (only 9 sessions) prohibited this module to be

completely effective. The conceptual vocabulary had to be removed as a learning outcome due to the

lack of time. In the spring term I incorporated specific lesson aims and measurable learning outcomes.

I developed more of an overview that I used to structure lessons more succinctly. Being asked to

continue teaching the students I wanted to assess the students needs so at the beginning of the spring

term I implemented a questionnaire regarding the class content and structure. The feedback was

helpful and will be discussed further under the assessment section. The information gleaned from this

process highlighted a missing need from more specific learning outcomes based on principles of

critical reading, writing practice and speaking practice. I revamped the learning outcomes to be more

specific and not just general aims (De Corte, 2000).

The spring term session plan I created was also more focused. After attending the structuring and

design course I was able to focus on learning outcomes that are measurable. Also giving them

opportunity to get feedback from the teacher regarding their writing became an important change to

the session design. In the class I allowed for reading, writing and speaking. I also wanted to provide

more practice and feedback on formative written tasks. However, I did not want to overload them

with too much extra work. Therefore, I designated 20 minutes at the end of class for reflective

writing. These weekly reflective writings were marked for grammatical, language and structure errors.

The following lesson I gave oral and written feedback regarding the reflections. Furthermore, I used

the students’ reflections to aid in attending to needs that might have been overlooked. This new

component to the session plan allowed for immediate reflection on content while at the same time

facilitating regular writing practice. The reflection questions are based on the content of the lesson

and ask for critical analysis of language and content issues.

In line with the Professional Standards Framework my session plans now reflected the use of core

knowledge to engage in practices related to their areas of activity. The learning outcomes and tasks

pushed the students to assess and critically analyse journal articles and types of evidence used in

Social Policy which will later be applied to their dissertation.

(Evidence 3)

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY & SOCIAL WORK

Module Title: Social Policy Academic Language and Content Lectures

Module Convenor: Dr John Hudson

Module Tutor: Nettie Boivin

Duration of Module: One Term (autumn)

Students: MA in Social Policy

MRes Social Policy

MA in Comparative and International Social Policy

Option for MPhil/PhD Social Policy

Weekly Programme: One weekly Wednesday morning lecture

Assessment: One practice essay of not more than 3,500 words to be handed in on Wednesday of Week 6 of the autumn term.

This is a non-assessed essay designed to provide formative, rather than summative, feedback.

Module Objectives:

to facilitate the introduction of key concepts and theories employed in the ‘policy analysis’ seminar

to synthesize the reading of conceptual knowledge and apply it to the writing of social policy issues

Module Outcomes:

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

to assess and synthesize conceptual vocabularies and theories social and international comparative policies

to effectively implement and acquire conventionally accepted academic written and spoken discourse

to critically analyze and assess readings, articles and other texts

to construct sophisticated arguments/stances housed within the context and structure of the social policy

Module Format:

The module consists of a weekly 2-hour lecture. The weekly lectures cover related conceptual terminology and key theories from the ‘policy analysis and context’ modules. The lectures will consist of four distinct components; academic vocabulary and conceptual terms, critical reading analysis, academic writing including stance, context, structure and audience, and seminar/presentation for the academic field.

The lectures will include weekly introductions to key conceptual vocabulary in preparation for the Friday ‘policy analysis’ lecture. Furthermore, there will be review of previous terms as well as academic vocabulary.

Candidates will discover ‘how to’ read and analysis critically and efficiently in preparation for the later literature review. Reading genres and styles will be investigated. Moreover, accessing critical reading through strategic methods will be covered.

Introduction to the framework of UK academic writing style which include such factors as; stance/argument, context and structure, genre/audience, and design of succinct thesis statements will be facilitated. The more theoretically driven ‘policy analysis’ component forms the ostensible focus of the assessment – the practice essay questions ask candidates to engage directly with the theories outlined.

The lectures will include mini-presentations and seminar style discussions, along with the understanding effective academic presentation styles.

Key Reading

Handouts and textbook passages will be used in class.

Module Website

This module has its own dedicated section of the Yorkshare VLE.

This will be updated each week and will carry copies of each week’s lecture slides plus links to useful resources and materials.

ASSESSMENT

Assessed Essay

Students are required to complete one piece of work for this module. Answer one question, in no more than 3,500 words to be submitted to the tutor by the deadline indicated. It is not assessed and is designed to provide some broad feedback. Answer one of the following questions in no more than 3,500 words, and your essay to your tutor by week 6 of the autumn term:

1. Does employment policy in the UK support the unemployed or police them?

2. Does the UK have a post-Fordist welfare state?

3. Another question agreed with one of the module convenors

Week-by-Week

1. Social Policy Context Lectures (10.15-approx 12.15)

Wk Date Topic

2 20rd October Introduction- Learning the Language of Academic Culture!

3 27th October Conceptual vocabulary, text analysis, and understanding audience for writing

4 3rd November Academic and conceptual vocabulary review, journal structure and format, and organizing written context and structure

5 10th November Review of conceptual vocabulary and theories, how to construct written stance/viewpoint/argument and thesis statements

6 17th November Reading for position, written genre and audience,

7 24th November effective seminar techniques, paraphrasing versus plagiarism

8 1st December Effective presentation skills, written feedback

9 8th December Review of vocabulary and concepts, disagreeing in a seminar, reviewing thesis and stance in reading and writing

10 15th December Presentation and seminar practice sessions, essay assistance,

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY & SOCIAL WORK

Module Title: Social Policy Academic Language and Content Lectures

Module Convenor: Dr John Hudson

Module Tutor: Nettie Boivin

Duration of Module: Term Two (Spring)

Students: MA in Social Policy

MRes Social Policy

MA in Comparative and International Social Policy

Option for MPhil/PhD Social Policy

Weekly Programme: One weekly Wednesday morning lecture

Assessment: Reflective learning logs and needs assessments designed to provide formative, rather than summative, feedback.

Module Objectives:

Comprehension of the structures and approaches needed for dissertation writing

To analyse journal articles for various theories, writing signposts, and methodological approaches

to explore some of the key academic structures, contexts and genres used in the social policy department

Module Outcomes:

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

to comprehend and use effectively conventionally accepted academic written and spoken discourse

to be able to critically analyze and assess readings, articles and other texts

to construct sophisticated arguments/stances housed within the context and structure of the social policy

Module Format:

The module consists of a weekly 2 hour lecture. The weekly lecture covers writing and academic presentation, and research skills. Organizing for effective presentations, use of proper presentation vocabulary as well as differences in both listening and speaking to presentation and seminars.

Candidates will discover ‘how to’ read and analysis critically and efficiently in preparation for the later literature review. Reading genres and styles will be investigated. Moreover, accessing critical reading through strategic methods will be covered.

The lectures will include mini-presentations and seminar style discussions, along with the understanding effective academic presentation styles.

Key Reading

Handouts and textbook passages will be used in class.

Module Website

This module has its own dedicated section of the Yorkshare VLE.

This will be updated each week and will carry copies of each week’s lecture slides plus links to useful resources and materials.

ASSESSMENT

Assessed Reflective Critical Analysis Papers

Week-by-Week

1. Social Policy Context Lectures (10.15-approx 12.15)

Wk Date Topic

2 19th January Review – Needs Analysis for this Term

3 26th October Differences between vocabulary and seminars. Understanding audience for presentations and seminars-

Understanding the question

4 2nd February Journal structure and format, and organizing written paragraphs and structure- How to outline for a presentation

5 9th February Preparing to lead a seminar. Review of how to construct written stance/viewpoint/argument and thesis statements (using the essay questions)

6 16th February Reading for viewpoint- How to present a viewpoint in presentations- giving mini-presentations

7 23rd February Effective seminar techniques, review of paraphrasing versus plagiarism

8 2nd March Giving Effective presentation skills –Outlines of essays

9 9th March Presentation and seminar practice sessions, essay assistance.

10 16th March Only if needed

(Evidence 4)

Needs Assessment:1) What area do you most feel you need to work on

AREA IMPORTANCE (write 1-10 in the space below) 1= not important 10= important

Reading

Writing

Speaking

Listening

Seminar Discussions

Presentations

Other

2) Would you like more small assessed homework tasks?

3) If so, for what skill (reading, writing, listening, speaking)?

4) What kinds of activities would you like to do?

5) Are you having difficulty with course vocabulary, theories or concepts?

6) Are you having trouble with seminars

References

Clegg, K. (2010) In Structuring and Designing Session Plans (Seminar December, 2010).

De Corte (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice. Learning and Instruction,10, 249-266.

Ivanic, R.,Clark,R., and Rimmershaw, R., (2000). What am I supposed to make of this? The messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments, in: M.R. Lea and B. Stierer, (Eds) Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts (Buckingham, SHRE/Open University Press).

Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulatedlearning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in HigherEducation, 31(2), 199-218

Wiske, M.S., (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M.S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: linking researchwith practice(pp. 61-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.