The role of individualisation in teaching writing to mixeddiscipline insessional students

1
The role of individualisation in teaching writing
to mixed-discipline in-sessional students
BALEAP/SATEFL PIM 15th June, 2002 Heriot Watt
University

• John Morgan
• University of Wales Aberystwyth

2
Abstract (1)

• University students at all levels need to be able
  to develop their own writing skills through
  focusing on the generic patterns of
  subject-specific text in their own academic
  field. In EAP this has long been a contentious
  issue as teachers may not be familiar with the
  discourse conventions of the fields of study that
  their students must communicate within. The
  problem is made more acute in multi-disciplinary
  classes where sample texts used in teaching
  writing skills may not reflect the interests and
  needs of all students.

3
Abstract (2)

• This discussion is based on an approach to this
  issue developed for two ten-credit undergraduate
  writing modules for overseas students and a host
  of specific post graduate in-sessional and
  research training seminars (for mixed groups of
  non-native and native speakers of English) at the
  University of Wales Aberystwyth. Through
  processes of individualisation (Trimble, 1985),
  students work with functional, structural and
  rhetorical layers of writing within a discourse
  community focus.

4
Abstract (3)

• By working with case studies in their own fields,
  students inform choices made in their own writing
  in a more appropriate manner, which through
  individualised planning and writing tasks allows
  the teacher to address the individual needs of a
  multi-disciplinary group. This works in parallel
  to the subject specific essays they need to write
  for other academic modules and facilitates a
  greater learner-centred focus on the development
  of writing skills.

5
Students

• Full time (3 years)
• Erasmus exchange (1 or 2 semesters)
• Others by specific arrangement with departments
  (e.g. M-Level, PhD)

6
Departments Faculties to date over 2 academic
years

• Management Business 22 (Soc. Sc.)
• International Politics 19 (Soc. Sc.)
• Rural Studies 14 (Sc.)
• Theatre, Film TV Studies 12 (Arts)
• Computer Science 4 (Sc.)
• Law 3 (Soc. Sc.)
• Information Library Studies 2 (Soc. Sc.)
• Fine Arts 1 (Arts)

7
Aim

• Each student may have to write up to 3 or 4
  essays in a given semester with only this writing
  programme as support. The principle aim is to
  facilitate independent awareness of discourse
  features of discipline-specific text and use of
  strategies and techniques for the planning and
  development of essays within these academic
  fields.

8
Case studies

• Students identify set writing tasks for which
  they have already been allocated a reading list
• They nominate an essay topic that they are
  interested in working on during the course
• They choose a sample text (preferably a shorter
  journal article) to observe patterns of language
  use
• This forms the initial basis of a portfolio of
  case studies and writing tasks
• They write a critical review of the article to
  ascertain its usefulness as a case study

9
Individualisation (1)

• Work on a common concept in writing (whole group)
• Identify similar patterns in sample text
  (individual ? pair/group work)
• Observe patterns in text chosen by individuals
  (individual ? pair/group work)

10
Individualisation (2)

• Comment on similarities and variations to common
  concept (specific or similar interest groups)
• Make generalizations about the usefulness of
  these patterns to subject-specific writing tasks
  (specific or similar interest groups)

11
Individualisation (3)

• Compare patterns of own academic field with those
  of other academic fields (mixed interest groups)
• Plan, draft and redraft text for their chosen
  essay topic in parallel with the writing task
  under discussion

12
Major processing layers

• Interpreting tasks ? departmental expectations
• Planning structure and purpose ? organisation of
  the essay interpreted through the aims
• Developing argument ? rhetorical approach to task
  in light of reader expectations
• Utilising language ? grammatical and lexical
  choice in relation to chosen argument
• Drafting, proofreading and editing ? making final
  choices in accordance with all preceding layers

13
Some examples of common concepts (from 40 x 1hr
module lessons over 2 semesters)

• Argument of fact (Huckin Olsen, 1991)
• Introductions (Swales, 1990) conclusions
• Use of integral and non-integral citations
  (Swales, 1990)
• Choices for structuring the main body of the
  essay
• Critical layers in writing (description,
  commentary, discussion analysis)
• Specific language use (e.g. noun phrase sentence
  patterns active vs. passive voice)

14
Writing tasks

• Students work with a sequence of graded tasks
  that form the progression of planning, drafting
  and redrafting the essay they are working on.
• By monitoring the progress of graded tasks over
  an extended period (currently 2 years), it is
  possible to see the effectiveness of allowing
  greater autonomy or increasing the explicitness
  of tuition for any given writing task

15
Sample graded tasks

• Written task based on set reading (Crusius
  Channell, 1998) describe the chracteristics of
  your discourse community
• Draft a defining paragraph for a key issue in
  your essay topic
• Create a functional draft plan of your essay
  introduction

16
More graded tasks

• Choose and paraphrase a text from a published
  source
• Choose a case study paper and write a critical
  review
• Report on citation techniques in the case study
• Create a full draft of an essay introduction

17
More graded tasks

• Plan and draft the main body of your essay
• Write a conclusion for your essay
• Write an abstract for your essay
• Write the final draft, checking bibliography,
  punctuation and other language features

18
References

• Crusius, T.W. Channell, C.E. (1998). The Aims
  of Argument (2nd Edition). Mountain View Ca
  Mayfield.
• Huckin, T.N. Olsen, L.A. (1991). Technical
  Writing and Professional Communication for
  Nonnative Speakers of English (2nd Edition). New
  York McGraw Hill.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis English in
  Academic and Research Setting. Cambridge CUP.
• Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and
  Technology A Discourse Approach. Cambridge CUP.