Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

1. Cmap link label constraint forthe structural narrowing of constructivist second language tasks Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

2. No need to write!Download ev.e.ry.thing fromlawriehunter.com or lawrie's KUT web site

3. Vive le lateral thinking Thank you, Mother.

5. EFL (English as a foreign language)

6. EFL (English as a foreign language) ERFL (English as a REALLY foreign language) -NOT adding to existing knowledge -entering other language as a 'door' EAP TAW

7. EFL (English as a foreign language) ERFL (English as a REALLY foreign language) -NOT adding to existing knowledge -entering other language as a 'door' False beginners (微妙, bimyou, subtle)

8. EFL (English as a foreign language) ERFL (English as a REALLY foreign language) Constructivist task

9. EFL (English as a foreign language) ERFL (English as a REALLY foreign language) Constructivist task Task constraint Critical Thinking (2001) Thinking in English (2008) -Mohan's (1986) knowledge structures -information structures

10. DIVERSION 1Mathematics view of "mapping" Map one set onto another -one-to-one (or not) -orthogonal (or not)

11. DIVERSION 2Quantum levels of mapping Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping

12. DIVERSION 2Quantum levels of mapping Argument mapping Novakian mapping lives here I think Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping

13. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems Mind maps are associative Every link says "reminds me of" No possible structural granularity

14. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems Mind maps are associative Every link says "reminds me of" No possible structural granularity Novakian maps are articulated associative No inherent structural granularity

15. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems Question: don't we want structural link granularity?

16. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems Question: don't we want structural link granularity? Question: if so, -what structural constraint must we impose?

17. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems Question: don't we want structural link granularity? Question: if so, -what structural constraint must we impose? Hint: what are the structures that are invariant across languages?

18. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems What structures are invariant across languages? argument structures? rhetorical structures? knowledge structures? information structures? syntactic structures? grammatical structures? association structures?

19. DIVERSION 3Structural granularity in map systems What structures are invariant across languages? argument structures? rhetorical structures? knowledge structures? information structure OH YES syntactic structures? grammatical structures? association structures?

20. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Structures invariant across languages Mohan's 'knowledge structures' Mohan, B.A. (1986) Language and Content. Addison and Wesley.

21. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Structures invariant across languages

22. Information structures based curriculum Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 A writing and presentation workbook, 6 units (6 genres) in 30 lessons Say What You Mean KUT Press 2006 A writing and mapping workbook, 5 units (5 genres) in 30 lessons Thinking in English A writing and presentation mapping text/workbook, 5 units (5 genres) in 30 lessons

23. FOREGROUND: 'Tensions' Global tension in Hunter’s mapping work: When is mapping more effective/efficient than text in task presentation/performance?

24. FOREGROUND: 'Tensions' • Uses of Concept Mapping (really) • 1. For abstraction. • 2. For a focus on information-linking functions. • 3. In scenarios where text is too dense or too clumsy for easy learner access to information structures. • 4. To downplay text orchestration.

25. FOREGROUND: CALL parameters Content management Course management Task management Data management Curriculum Content Task Goals Motivation Content perception Task perception Language perception Information perception

26. FOREGROUND: Who’s your mama? Content management Course management Task management Data management Curriculum Content Task Goals Motivation Content perception Task perception Language perception Information perception

27. Quantum levels of CALL work Task array design Metalanguage and learner perception of syllabus Task orchestration Interface design and learner perception of task flow Task design Interaction design and learner perception of task Learner perception of language learning Learner perception of language Learner perception of information Micro-cognitionis little explored!

28. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant.

29. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant. BUT they also allow the learner to write freely in terms of -content -information structure and -rhetorical structure.

30. Found application: Constructivist L2 learning task Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasksfree the learner to use language that is immediately, personally relevant. BUT they also allow the learner to write freely in terms of -content -information structure and -rhetorical structure. Not alwaysa good thing

31. How can we present taskso as to forcecertain* language behaviors? *e.g. use of certain structures e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device e.g. use of certain register

32. How can we present taskso as to force certain* language behaviors?Information mapping systemsallow us to usefully present task content in a low-text manner. *e.g. use of certain structures e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device e.g. use of certain register

33. Constructivist dilemma: learner freedom vs. specific objectives In constructivist learning environments*, learner freedom can be an obstacle to the achievement of specific educational objectives. *particularly in relatively teacher-remote situations such as situation involving Learning Management Systems (LMS),

34. Constructivist dilemma: how to constrain constructivist task to make the learner use target language?

35. Constructivist dilemma: how to constrain constructivist task to make the learner use target language? One answer: use interface design. -e.g. mapping -somehow constrain map structure. -somehow constrain map content.

36. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 1: By constraining a task’s information content and information structure, we can push the writer into a narrow range of sentence types, a micro-genre. Case in point: information structure mapping <http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>

37. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 1: information structure mapping <http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>

38. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task In terms of language, this mapping symbolically constrains link content to

39. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Example 2: Constraining the labelled links in Cmaps<http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/> to lead the learner directly to logical structures. Case in point: leading the learner to create an abstract argument analysis. Case in point: leading the learner to separate technical content and scientific argument and motivating or persuasive rhetoric.

40. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Example 2: leading the learner to create an abstract argument analysis.

41. Using interface design to constrain constructivist task In terms of language, this ARGUMENT mapping constrains link content to

42. Clarify this study’s purpose in terms of form of language/information

43. Argument mapping Information structure mapping Syntactic mapping Grammatical mapping (pseudo) Association mapping Argument mappingas an inroad to task constraint-an extreme case ofsummarizing-persuasive rhetoric filtered out

44. Horn’s argument mapping http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/index.html http://www.macrovu.com/

45. AusThink argument mapping http://www.austhink.com/

46. Rationale argument mapping http://www.austhink.com/

47. RSTmapping Bill Mann’s Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) uses various sorts of "building blocks" to describe texts. The principal block type deals with "nuclearity" and "relations" (often called coherence relations in the linguistic literature.) www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/ RST links are rhetorical devices.

48. Cmap tools http://cmap.ihmc.us/ Novakian links are syntactic devices.

49. Study: task constraint work Constraining learner behavior

50. Study: task constraint work Using link labels to constrain learner behavior Allow only links which signal the information structures which constitute the register* *Here the register is TAW, and the degree of abstraction is maximum, i.e. argument.