Presented at Writing Centers Association of Japan annual conference, Oberlin Univ., Machida, Tokyo.
Emphasizing the difference between humanities/social science writing centers and sci-tech writing centers. A world of difference.
1. Ears
to hear with:
The Instructed writing
center
6th Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia
Obirin College, TOKY O
Lawrie Hunter
Kochi University of Technology
http://lawriehunter.com
2. No need to take notes (:^0)
All materials can be downloaded
from Hunter’s websites
http://lawriehunter.com/
http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/
and many more ppts available at
http://slideshare.net/rolenzo/
3. Ears to hear with: The instructed writing center
SUMMARY
Within the negotiations of a writing center consultation, the mentor can choose from a wide range
of frames for support, and from a number of degrees of abstractness as well. Many of the
strategies that the mentor might select, and many of the knowledge/skill perspectives as well,
require that the client have specific items of knowledge and skill in place. This paper provides
tentative, in-place answers to the problem of the client unprepared to received much of the help
that the mentor might offer, in the form a curriculum that might be a requirement for certain
writing center services.
ABSTRACT
Within the negotiations of a writing center consultation, the mentor can choose from a wide range
of frames for support, including rhetorical approaches, cohesion and readability considerations,
and techniques for using model language from existing papers, to mention but a few. Many of the
strategies that the mentor might select, and many of the knowledge/skill perspectives as well,
require that the client have specific items of knowledge and skill in place.
This paper presents an existing long-in-use curriculum intended as intensive
preparation/requirement for extensive writing center consultation for scholarship PhD students in
engineering and management/policy at a Japanese university.
The content of the curriculum is based on client needs, in particular accessible writing, sound
argument and production strategy. For each these three needs, a series of interventions are
provided. For accessible writing, knowledge and skills for production of readable text and explicit
cohesion are acquired through instruction, exercises and mentor scenario simulations. Similar
grounding is provided for the crafting of clarity and logicality as elements of sound argument.
The primary elements of production strategy (mimicry, conformity and assistance) practiced in
detailed pragmatic simulations.
By the end of the one-semester course, the would-be writing center client is capable of
confidently working with text, in the form of text analysis work (separating levels of abstraction)
and communication moves analysis work, as well as more fine grained work with cohesion,
readability, clarity and precision. As a result, a considerable portion of the wide range of advice
that the writing center mentor might offer will not fall on deaf ears.
4. Case study:
Cmaps in academic writing
Asian EAP PhD students of
academic writing for management.
KUT
5. Dimensions of
Island of Shikoku
Media Object Compehensibility
KUT
Lawrie Hunter
Kochi University of Technology
http://www.core.kochitech.ac.jp/hunter/
5
6. KUT EAP scenario
Foreign PhD students
2003-2013
China
Thailand
Banglades
h
Vietnam
Cambodia
Mongolia
Spain
Czech
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Myanmar
Nepal
Niger
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Uzbekistan
TOTAL
93
14
5
9
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
140
7. KUT EAP scenario
Since 2003:
- Japanese government scholarships
- for foreign students
- in technical doctoral programmes.
!
Graduation requirements:
- 2+ refereed papers in top journals
- dissertation in English
L2 study
during the PhD program
is NOT a realistic strategy.
7
28. TAW
needed
knowledge
(identify
problems)
and
skills
(evaluate
and repair)
Audience
Rhetoric
Register
FAE
Rhetoric vs information
Conventions
Usage
Lexical units
Collocation
Corpus
Concordance
Style guides
Accessibility
Information organization
General-specific
SPSE
Paragraph development
Cohesion
Readability
Purpose of writing
Claim
Hedging
Data commentary
Conclusion writing
Argument
RPaper structure
Communication moves
Moves in the intro section
Discussion section moves
Abstractness
Document structure
Summarization
Abstracts
Introductions
Readability
Information structures
Voice
Aspect
Reference/antecedent
Parallelism
Nominalization
Subordinate clauses
Eliminating vagueness
Eliminating ambiguity
S-V separation
S-V agreement
Ethicality
Avoiding plagiarism
Citation
Model language use
Paraphrasing
Style Dossier
Survival
Working with an editor
Working with a mentor
2-page system
35. Case study
Instructor
interventions
HW feedback:
-edit surface
-critique structure
-critique cohesion
-critique argument
Analytical work:
-analyze model TL
-summarize model TL
Construction work
-cluster of concepts
-find structure
-create expression
L1: first language
TL: target language
HW: homework tasks
36. Possible EAP teaching approach
grammar/surface features
usage/convention
document format
argument
supporting claim
researchers
start writing
here
research
design/results
36
37. EAP teaching approach
grammar/surface features
usage/convention
Most
writing
instruction
starts here
document format
argument
supporting claim
researchers
start writing
here
research
design/results
KUT
writing
instruction
starts here
37
38. Thank you for your attention.
Please write to me.
I'm happy to share/teach/collaborate.
Download this .ppt and many others
from
http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/
or view/download at
http://slideshare.net/rolenzo/
Lawrie Hunter
Kochi University of Technology
lawriehunter.com