Hunter

1
Hunters Quantum TheoryQuantum levels of
discourse structure
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures (pseudo)
2
Hunters Quantum TheoryQuantum levels of
discourse structure
Argument
Novakian mapping can do these
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures (pseudo)
3
Hunters Quantum Theory Structural granularity
in map systems
What structures are invariant across languages?
argument structures? rhetorical
structures? knowledge structures? information
structures? syntactic structures? grammatical
structures? association structures?
4
Hunters Quantum Theory Structural granularity
in map systems
What structures are invariant across languages?
argument structures? rhetorical
structures? knowledge structures? information
structures OH YES syntactic structures? grammatica
l structures? association structures?
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
5
Mapping tools for each level
1. Argument mapping tools
Argument
Information organization
a. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) mapping b.
AusThink mapping c. Robert Horns argument
mapping
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
2. Information structure mapping
Argument
Information organization
a. Hunters information structure mapping
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
6
Mapping tools for each level 1. Argument
mapping tools
What are the communicative moves in an
argument? Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST)
http//www.sil.org/mannb/rst/
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
7
Mapping tools for each level 1. Argument
mapping tools
1. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST)
mapping 2. AusThink mapping 3. Horns argument
mapping
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
8

• 1. RST mapping

Bill Manns 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.)
http//www.sil.org/mannb/rst/
RST links are rhetorical devices.
9
2. AusThink argument mapping
http//www.austhink.com/
10
3. Horns argument mapping
http//www.stanford.edu/rhorn/index.html http//w
ww.macrovu.com/
11
Mapping tools for each level
2. Information structure mapping
a. Hunters information structure mapping
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
12
Structures invariant across languages
Mohan's 'knowledge structures'
Argument
Classification Cause-effect Value
Description Sequence Choice
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
Mohan, B.A. (1986) Language and Content. Addison
and Wesley.
13
Structures invariant across languages
Argument
Information organization
Information structures
Syntax structures
Grammar structures
14
Information structures based curriculum
Say What You Mean KUT Press 2006 A writing and
mapping workbook, 5 units (5 genres) in 30
lessons

• Critical Thinking
• Asahi Press 2001
• A writing and presentation
• workbook,
• 6 units (6 genres)
• in 30 lessons

Thinking in English A writing and
presentation mapping text/workbook, 5 units (5
genres) in 30 lessons
15
Awkward intruder Cmap tools
http//cmap.ihmc.us/
Novakian links are syntactic devices.
16
FOREGROUND 'Tensions'
Global tension in Hunters mapping work   When
is mapping more effective/efficient than
text in task presentation/performance?  
17
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.
•  

18
FOREGROUND CALL parameters
Content management Course management Task
management Data management
Curriculum Content Task

Goals Motivation Content perception Task
perception Language perception Information
perception
19
FOREGROUND Whos your mama?
Content management Course management Task
management Data management
Curriculum Content Task

Goals Motivation Content perception Task
perception Language perception Information
perception
20
Quantum levels of CALL work
Task array design Metalanguage and learner
perception of syllabus Task orchestration Interfa
ce 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!
21
Found application Constructivist L2 learning
task
Open-ended and expressive tasksfree the
learner to use language that is immediately,
personally relevant.
22
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.
23
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
24
How can we present taskso as to force certain
language behaviors?
e.g. use of certain structures e.g. use of
certain types of cohesion device e.g. use of
certain register
25
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
26
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),
27
Constructivist dilemma how to constrain
constructivist task to make the learner use
target language?
28
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.
29
Using interface design to constrain
constructivist task Example 1 By constraining a
tasks 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
lthttp//www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/gt

30
Using interface design to constrain
constructivist task
Example 1 information structure mapping
lthttp//www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/gt

31
Using interface design to constrain
constructivist task
In terms of language, this mapping
symbolically constrains link content to
DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON CONTRAST SEQUENCE CAUSE-EFFECT
is ADJ is a kind of is ___er than but then so
is used to can be classified as has more ___ than whereas after that is a result of
is made of is one type of has x more ___ than however finally leads to
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
32

• Using interface design
• to constrain constructivist task
• Example 2 Constraining the labelled links in
  Cmapslthttp//cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/gt
• 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.

33
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.
34
Using interface design to constrain
constructivist task
In terms of language, this ARGUMENT mapping
constrains link content to
Citation as subject Results as subject Claim as subject
claims (that) proposes (that) implies (that) suggests (that) infers (that) observes (that) reveals (that) demonstrates (that) indicates (that) disproves proves (that) implies (that) is supported by is contradicted by is in agreement with is in opposition to assumes (that)
35
Clarify this studys purpose in terms of form of
language/information
Structure Node content Link type
Argument structure Independent clauses Rhetorical (e.g. argument) relations
Knowledge structure Nouns/noun phrases Attribute, compare, classify, sequence, cause-effect
36
Argument mappingas an inroad to task
constraint-an extreme case ofsummarizing-pers
uasive rhetoric filtered out
37
Study task constraint work Constraining learner
behavior
Central message Background information
Argument layer Target content discard
Knowledge structure layer avoid discard
38
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.
39
Study task constraint work
Phase 1 unconstrained associative
mapping Learners made association type concept
maps of the content of a text. To force
summarization, a limit of 10 nodes was imposed.
Performance was strongly uniform in terms of
node content. Generally the learners used the
lexical units (e.g. subject-verb) found in the
text. ppt 1 associational mapping
40
Study task constraint work
Phase 2 unconstrained Novakian mapping Learners
map the same text again, using Cmap
software. Object "try to represent the argument
in the Niiho paper," which was described in
the article. Maps were highly varied (chaotic
variation) in content and in link type.
41
Study task constraint work
Phase 3 constrained Novakian mapping Learners
mapped the text a third time, again using Cmap
software, but with only the argumentation links
shown below.
Citation as subject Results as subject Claim as subject
claims (that) proposes (that) implies (that) suggests (that) infers (that) observes (that) reveals (that) demonstrates (that) indicates (that) disproves proves (that) implies (that) is supported by is contradicted by is in agreement with is in opposition to assumes (that)
42
Study task constraint work
Phase 3 constrained Novakian mapping Learners
mapped the text a third time, again using Cmap
software, but with only prescribed argumentation
links. Learner product was quite uniform in
choice of links from the array above. Map
structure and content varied relatively little.
ppt 2 argument mapping
43
Study task constraint work
Conclusion Using this label-constrained mapping
approach, the subjects did successfully separate
persuasive from information-bearing text. Of
course the mapping approach is not essential to
the acquisition of that skill.
44
Study task constraint work
Phase 4 text-based argument analysis
(follow-up) Different text Same argument
structure Same link constraints
45
Study task constraint work
Mapping vs. text Mapping Subjects 13 Dyads
6.9/subject Dyads with non-list labels
0.8/subject Misuses of linking
phrases 2.85/subject Text Subjects 9 Sentence
s 3.55/subject Sentences with non-list labels
0.44/subject Misuses of linking
phrases 0.77/subject
46
Study task constraint work

• Conclusion
• The value of the mapping approach in argument
  analysis
• visual accessibility of the representation of
  text structure
• forced articulation of relations between argument
  elements
• greater speed (lower cognitive load?) than in
  text approach

47
Study task constraint work
Conclusion Informal observation of learner
behavior in constrained-link scenarios suggests
that constraining link content can lead TAW
learners to accurate, minimal summarization of
the arguments in TAW text WITHOUT
INSTRUCTION.
48
Study task constraint work

• Questions for future study
• Constrained-link maps afford valuable support to
  TAW learner analysis of text.
• Do they also afford valuable support to TAW
  learner composition processes?
• 2. What is the optimal size and content of the
  array of linking phrases for the representation
  of TAW argumentation?
• 3. Does the ad hoc representation technique
  developed here have implications for a
  multi-level model of the text-based
  representation of information structures?

49
Future work
Embed Hunters info structure mapping in Novakian
argument mapping
50
Thank you for your attention.
You can download this .ppt from http//www.lawrieh
unter.com/folder/ or http//www.core.kochi-tech.ac
.jp/hunter
Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of
Technology http//www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter
/
51

• Limiting writing task freedom by constraining
  Cmap link type
• In constructivist learning environments,
  particularly in relatively teacher-remote
  situations such as those involving Learning
  Management Systems (LMS), learner freedom can be
  an obstacle to the achievement of specific
  educational objectives. Similarly, the use of
  concept map systems based on associational links
  can result in excessive task performance freedom.
  The Cmap approach lthttp//cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/gt
  involves the use of labelled links and thus
  constrains learner behavior towards more
  articulate expression, but still the degree of
  task performance freedom is high. Only by
  constraining the nature of link labels can the
  materials designer push the learner to very
  specific language behaviors.
• A case in point in work with the informal
  technical academic English register (used for
  example in science magazines and presentation
  scripts), an important second language
  reader/writer skill is the ability to distinguish
  between (1) technical content and scientific
  argument and (2) motivating or persuasive
  rhetoric.
• This paper first lays out the literature in
  outline form, showing the range of information
  mapping and concept mapping techniques and their
  strengths and weaknesses in terms of educational
  document design.
• The central content of the paper is a
  demonstration of the author's adaptation of Cmaps
  and Cmap tools for L2 learner analysis of
  technical text and the subsequent writing of
  technical text using Cmaps for argument mapping.
  This approach resembles argument mapping as
  described at http//www.austhink.org/critical/page
  s/argument_mapping.html and rhetorical structure
  analysis, as defined at http//www.sfu.ca/rst/02an
  alyses/index.html
• but differs in that in this case link label
  content is intentionally constrained the
  resulting reduced writing freedom can be employed
  to force learners to write in very narrow
  sub-genres of technical academic writing. This
  not only constrains the learner's writing it
  also forces the task designer and the instructor
  to work in narrow niche sub-genres, which are
  arguably enabling in their specificity and
  clarity.
• 294 words

52
In constructivist learning environments,
particularly in relatively teacher-remote
situations such as those involving Learning
Management Systems (LMS), learner freedom can be
an obstacle to the achievement of specific
educational objectives. This presentation
examines information mapping and concept mapping
techniques and demonstrates the author's
adaptation of Cmap tools lthttp//cmap.coginst.uwf.
edu/gt for L2 learner analysis and writing of
technical text. Link label content is
intentionally constrained to force learners to
write in very narrow sub-genres of technical
academic writing. This also forces the task
designer and the instructor to work in narrow
niche sub-genres, which are arguably enabling in
their specificity and clarity.