Task post mortems as writing center preparation

1. 4th Symposium on Writing Centers in AsiaFebruary 4, 2012 Task post mortemsas writing center preparation Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter

2. HunterTask post mortems as writing center preparation Outline Background Curriculum design Micro writing center Task design Observations

3. Background

4. Background Maths teacher Guidance counsellor ESL maths teacher (Vancouver) EFL teacher Technical editor Super translation ESP professor (Tokyo, Tokushima, Kochi) Maths teacher trainer (Rabaul) 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.

6. KUT scenario: Writing center demand • 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

7. KUT scenario The best writing center job in the world 1. Highly motivated clients 2. Real community feeling (friends) 3. Manageable numbers: start to finish relationships 4. Action research as a lifestyle 5. Ample time, budget 6. Well managed moodle environment 7. No boss 8. Faculty not eligible (unless trained)

8. HunterTask post mortems as writing center preparation Outline Background Curriculum design Micro writing center Task design Observations

9. Design Scenario ESP EAP EY EZ EX TAW EAP HUMANITIES English for specific purposes English for academic purposes Technical academic writing

10. Design Elements • Clientele • Intake: 7-15 twice yearly • Filtering: screening for English writing skill • Variable research background • Variable EAP/publication background • Variable grammar knowledge • Variable EFL communicative skill • Variable belief in possibility of writing improvement

11. Curriculum: goal-setting What is the core issue? -client L2 knowledge/skill? -client autonomy in TAW? -client TAWfunctionality? -publication success? -ongoing L2 growth?

12. Supervisor Design Elements Clientele resources Weak TAW Strong TAW Client's own knowledge, skill Commercial editor Sup. as editor Commercial editor KUT mWC Journal reviewers editor recommend mentor (2-page) editorial help Client's peers

14. TAW best practice Writing work focusing on argument and info-structures Niche language acquisition to near-independence in TAW Training in use of language models: Style Dossier Preparation for work with an editor Preparation for work with a mentor

16. KUT design 2007 Appendices: Usage Speaking Working with an editor References Hunter, L. (2007) How Academic Writing Works. KUT Press.

17. KUT design 2009 Hunter, L. (2009) How Academic Writing Works. 2nd ed. KUT Press.

18. KUT design 2012 Hunter, L. (2012) Technical Academic Writing. Minaminokaze Press.

19. KUT scenario: learner as client Small enrolment allows a mentoring system

20. KUT scenario: learner as client Implication of learner as client: Course work must be individualized, i.e. Primary instructor:client is 1:1

21. KUT scenario

22. Language model use: Style Dossier content • 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 models • A collection of articles from science magazines or web sites • -topics loosely related to one’s research. • These materials provide models for presentation language. • C. Glossary • A 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.

23. Language model use: Style Dossier skills 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

24. Overview Scenario constraints Learner time Learner variability Research topic granularity RP genre granularity Quality of available models Native rewriter availability/affordability Compromises Pragmatic strategies Learner revisioned as client, then as user Instructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant Task array Argument work Information structure mapping Register work RP lexis work Write-rewrite Dossier work

25. HunterTask post mortems as writing center preparation Outline Background Curriculum design Micro writing center Task design Observations

27. KUT English micro writing center evolution Early years of SSP Since 2008 Large number of students Fewer students Hunter’s 2-page system Editing service impossible

28. Commercial editing services 1. Basic grammar Levels of service 2. Grammar, syntax, cohesion 3. Rhetoric check (style, communication) 1. Pricing Danger: wide variety in: 2. Quality of editing 3. Reliability

29. Practical point: micro Writing Center policy • Policy on mentoring service: • 1. Maximum 2 pages at a time, intro first and last • 2. One week notice • 3. Only ‘graduates’ of English writing programme • 4. 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 programme • 4. Recommended: mock Q&A practice

30. Editing service 2-page mentoring system coded feedback editor corrects errors for a finished paper 1~2 pages at a time much learning no learning

31. Minimum requirements for 2-page editing service requirements completion of TW2 and RW courses enough time until deadline (2+ weeks)

32. micro Writing Center 2009: Consulting volume 132 2-page edits 50 hours discussion no rejections by journals* 70 hours editing *some non-clients experienced rejections partly on the basis of language.

33. micro Writing Center 2011: Consulting volume 78 2-page edits 27 hours discussion no rejections by journals* 30 hours editing Drop in volume due to: 1. Smaller student numbers 2. Emergence of peer tutoring 3. *2 non-clients graduate late due to rejections partly on the basis of language.

34. 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

35. Observations • Use of 2-page mentoring

36. HunterTask post mortems as writing center preparation Outline Background Curriculum design Micro writing center Task design Observations

37. Overview Scenario constraints Learner time Learner variability Research topic granularity RP genre granularity Quality of available models Native rewriter availability/affordability Compromises Pragmatic strategies Learner revisioned as client, then as user Instructor revisioned as advisor, then as consultant Task array Argument work Information structure mapping Register work RP lexis work Write-rewrite Dossier work

39. Possible approaches most TAWprograms work here grammar/surface features usage/convention most TAW writers start writing here (simulacrum of argument) document format argument supporting claim RP language generation should start here research design/results 39

40. Possible approaches Maximization of TAW functionality 1 Editor/mentor prep 2 Pragmatic language curriculum 3 Strategic language curriculum - all of these hinge on argument

41. Possible approaches Maximization of TAW functionality 1 Editor/mentor prep 2 Pragmatic language curriculum 3 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 analysis To get the learner to isolate argument? Approach 2 Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media.

44. Approach 2 Text-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

45. Approach 2 Text-based analysis of argument as (mis)repesented in popular media. Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance.

46. Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance. Solution 2: Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).

47. Problem 2: Even coded feedback rewriting brings little change in client performance. Solution 2: Rewrites to perfection (or to satisfaction).

48. Problem 3: How to create generalized tasks as opposed to own-work feedback tasks? Solution 3: Post mortem group troubleshooting activities -followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties

49. 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.

50. Solution 3: Post mortem group troubleshooting activities -followed by instructor demos on observed difficulties Excerpt from instructor demo