1July 19-21, 2013 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

1July 19-21, 2013 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz

Outline

1. Motivation

2. Goals

3. Theories

4. Modules

5. References

July 19-21, 2013 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz 2

1. Motivation



2. Goals


Finding admission into a university abroadStatements of purposePersonal statements

Finding one’s voice in the academic communityCommunicating with other researchersWriting reviews

Growing in the career and establishing a profileGrant applicationsLetters of recommendation

Supporting the Publication ProcessManuscript submissionsResponding to reviewers and editors

1: ability to write “successfully” in the following 4 contexts


2: ability to write “successfully” in the following 9 genres

Books and monographs

Books and monographs

Theses and dissertations

Research articles

Research proposals

Conference Presentations

Grant proposals

Abstracts

Term papers

Conference presentations

Statements of intent

3. Theories of writing: a mosaic

Contrastive rhetoric (writing across cultures), Kaplan 1966


• Language is cultural experiences

• L1 patterns transfer to L2

• Awareness of L1, L2 differences can improve language skills


Contrastive Linguistics in the Classroom

The Process Approach

The Genre Approach

The post-Kaplan era? From product to genre, end of journey?

?

New directions: corpus tools & web

writing

The Product Approach

Social constructivism „janus-face“??


Communicative Events

Discourse CommunitiesCommunicative Purposes


Genre

Establishing a Territory

Step 1: Claiming centrality (and/or)

Step 2: Making topic generalization(s) (and/or)

Step 3: Reviewing items of previous research

Move Two: Establishing a niche

Step 1A: Counter-claiming (or)

Step 1B: Indicating a gap (or)

Step 1C: Question-raising (or)

Step 1D: Continuing a tradition

Move Three: Occupying the niche

Step 1A: Outlining purposes (or)

Step 1B: Announcing present research

Step 2: Announcing particular findings

Step 3: Indicating RA structure

Declining rhetorical effort

Weakening knowledge claims

Increasing explicitness

A generic example: the CARS Model (Swales 1990:141)


NEW DIRECTIONS: Corpus tools & Web writing


A corpus-based Approach : „Language focus“ vs. „genre focus“


Reading helps writing? Eye-tracking on the web



http://www.weblogg-ed.com/





What does it all mean?

Learning is a search for meaning. Learning must start with the

issues around which students are actively trying to construct

meaning.

Social constructivism: Writing is learning „how to mean“ (Halliday 1975)


How constructivism impact development of writing skills


Critical thining skills (Elder & Richard 2002)

CategorizationDecoding significanceClarifying meaning

Examining ideasIdentifying argumentsAnalyzing arguments

Assessing claimsAssessing arguments

Querying evidenceConjecturing alternativesDrawing conclusions

Stating resultsJustifying proceduresPresenting arguments

Self-examinationSelf-correction

Interpretation

Analysis

Evaluation

Inference

Explanation

Self-regulation

Application: A Synthesis of theories? (https://www.google.de/search?q=PPT%3B+Academic+writing, accessed.10.07.13)


4. Modules


MOD1: The writing assignment process MOD2: Writing effective sentences MOD3: Academic writing style MOD4: Critical thinking and writing MOD5: Structure of academic registers


Duration of Project: 3 Years


THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

5. References

Elder, Linda and Richard Paul, R. University Library: Universal Intellectual Standards. Critical Thinking

Consortium. Foundation for Critical Thinking. 28 May 2002 Faigley L (1986) Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College English 48: 527-42.

Ferris D (2003) Responding to writing. In B Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.119-140.

Ferris D & Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower L & Hayes JR (1981a) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication 32: 365-387.

Flower L & Hayes JR (1981b) Plans that guide the composing process. In C.H. Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (eds.), Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication Vol 2. Writing: Process, Development and Communication. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.39-58.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Hyland K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 17-29.

Ivanič R (2004) Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language & Education 18(3): 220-245Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education. Language Learning 16(1):1-20.Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms . San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Susser, B. (1994) Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(1): 31-47.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White RV & Arndt V (1991) Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). What we know about emotional intelligence: how it

affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Zamel V (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17: 165-187


Documents

1July 19-21, 2013 Language Colloquium TU-Chemnitz