Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Markus Rheindorf Institut für Sprachwissenschaft E-mail: [email protected] Teaching Academic Writing to Austrian

Helmut GruberBirgit Huemer

Markus RheindorfInstitut für Sprachwissenschaft

E-mail: [email protected]

Teaching Academic Writing to Austrian University Students.What Linguistics has to offer.

Helmut Gruber

Birgit Huemer

Markus Rheindorf




Introduction

Preceding projects:• Wissenschaftliches Schreiben an der Universität (1999/2000,

University of Business Administration, Dept. of Slavic Languages and University of Vienna, Dept. of Linguistics, funded by Austrian National Bank)

• Genre, Habitus and Academic Writing (2001-2004, University of Vienna, Dept. of Linguistics, funded by Austrian Science Foundation and Austrian National Bank)

Current Project:• Developing a Writing Course for Austrian University

Students (2006-2008, University of Vienna, Dept. of Linguistics, funded by Austrian Science Foundation, grant no.: L179-G03




Introduction

Main aims of the presentation:• Presentation of a modular course design based on our previous

research• Presentation of a multi-dimensional grid combining all factors

relevant in developing teaching materials for students in a blended learning framework




Theoretical Basis: Modelling text types – localization & diversification

Text type

Genre

Individual text

Abs

trac

tion

Localization

Contextually determinedlevel of specificity

Low specificity:Legal aspects, semiotic mode undecided

Medium Specificity:Disciplinary aspects, semiotic mode decided

High Specificity:Course-specific, writer-specific




Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria

Macro-structure = how the text is structured :• Systemic Functional Theory (SFL) tells something about how

a text is structured in terms of communicative acts and what function these communicative acts have (e.g. presenting state of the art of the relevant field, reporting what is known about phenomena under study, pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge, stating purpose of present study, give an overview about structure and content of the following study,...)

• Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) tells something about how text coherence is established - how parts of a text are connected or related to each other and what function these relations have. (e.g. background, condition, contrast, elaboration, justify, list, sequence, solutionhood, summary,…)

Helmut Gruber

Ich fürchte, dsas die linguistischen Kategorien viel zu umfangreich sind, außer wir erwähnen wirklich nur die Unterkategorien. Andernfalls ist das ein eigener 20 Minutenvortrag





Meta-communication = about the seminar paper:• Contextualization: places the seminar paper in the context of

university education (e.g. title, author, name of the supervisor, seminar-title, date,…)

• Structure: all features with the function of structuring the text (content, subtitles, layout (e.g. white space in between text blocs), lists,…)

• Theme orientation: comments on the theme of the seminar paper (e.g. stating the purpose of the present seminar paper, offer hypothesis, present research questions…)

• “Digressive” function: signalizes that a specific part of the seminar paper is just a comment or an excursus and not the main part of the text.





Intertextuality = connect knowledge, inform about the present state of research, establish continuity, tradition and authority among a scientific community:

• Quotation (direct and indirect)• Reference• Allusion• Collectivization





Argumentation = explicate or argue sth.:• Explaining sth.• Defining sth.• Argumentation strategies• Sophism





Modality = degree or “kind” of truth or the degree of objectivity assigned to a communicative act. In seminar papers modality occurs:

• when course participants position themselves• when they try to be objective• when they make evaluations• when they introduce another author’s perspective.





Lexis = semantic value of a word, phrase or a communicative act:

• Terminology • Style• Use of acronyms and abbreviations• Nominalizations• Use of active and passive voice




Step 1: Reconceptualizing analytical categories

Newly formulated didactic categories: • General issues of academic writing • Difference between the language of everyday life and scientific

language• The structure of a seminar paper• Connecting text-segments• Quotation and Reference• Explication and Argumentation




Step 1: Contribution of areas of analysis to didactic units

Areas of linguistic analysis Didactic units

Macro-structure (SFL, RST) Structure of a seminar paper, connecting text-segments, argumentation

Meta-communication Structure of a seminar paper, connecting text-segments, general issues of academic writing

Intertextuality Quotation and Reference

Argumentation Explication and Argumentation

Modality Difference between the language of everyday life and scientific language

Lexis Difference between the language of everyday life and scientific language

Helmut Gruber

Bei "Modality" sollte als "didactic units" auch noch "Argumentation" vorkommen

Helmut Gruber

Die Hauptüberschriften mit "Step1..." bis "Step n..." sollten bei jeder FOlie zum jeweligen Step vorkommen




Step 2: Building a modular course design

Entrance module

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Evaluation

Everyday Language vs. Language of Science: general aspects of writing process / web-based

Focus on writing: discipline-specific aspects of text structure, intertexuality, argumentation / face-to-face and web-based

Writing workshop: paralleling course or seminar / face-to-face and online exchange




Step 3: Considering the dimension of „joint actions“

Joint actions (Clark, 1996) combine different lines of activity, using language is only one of them

Other relevant activity lines:

– (Semiotic) modes of communication:• Face to face• written (textually mediated)• synchronous• asynchronous







– Communicative orientation (Koch & Österreicher, 1994):• conceptually spoken• conceptually written







– direction of communication:• monological (in terms of setting properties: no or only limited

possibilities for students’ activities during teaching activities)• dialogical (in terms of setting properties: students’ activities as a part

of teaching activity)







– n of communication partners:• 1:1• 1:n• n:n




Step 4: Considering the knowledge dimension

Types of knowledge:• encyclopedic knowledge: knowing that p (p: genres, generic

stages, types of linguistic actions, argumentative patterns, discipline specific types of valid arguments, citation conventions etc. etc.

• procedural knowledge: knowing how to p (p: drafting an outline of a paper, organising one‘s work during the semester, finding relevant literature, writing exerpts, preparing a paper presentation, preparing a first draft of the paper, revising strategies

• meta-knowldege: knowing about knowing (or not knowing) that … and how to …




Step 5: Considering the pedagogical dimension

Types of pedagogic practices:• Instructing: instructor centered, monological, 1:n, conceptually

written or spoken, synchronous or asynchronous, transmission of encyclopedic knowledge

• „Detecting“: Learning by doing („legitimate peripheral participation“, Lave & Wenger, 1993); joint activities of students and instructors, student centered, dialogical, acquisition of procedural and meta-knowledge

• „professional communities“ (Schrittesser, in press): blended learning structures which seek for a compromise between the two above extremes; limited time frame; foster „detecting“ of new content under the guide of instructors, student centered




Step 5: Considering the pedagogical dimension

Two Modes of knowledge production during pedagogic process:

• Making implicit (tacit) knowledge explicit: brainstorming in groups, working with real text examples, „detecting“ of existing knowledge

• Acquiring new knowledge (connecting to existing knowledge):

– Instructing

– Detecting




Institutional constraints

• personnel resources (2 instructors for 2 courses)• time constraints (1 semester, 1-hour course)




Step 6: Combining modes of communication to media (Holly, 1997)

Sub dimensions of joint action plane/ communication media

Hypertext (product oriented)

E-mail (discussion tool, wiki) (process oriented)

F2F – instruction (product oriented)

F2F group exercises (process oriented)

individual exercises (product oriented)

(1) conceptual mode of communication

written written & spoken spoken interaction: spoken; output: written

written

(2) semiotic modality multi-modal primarily textual (hypertext possible)

spoken interaction: spoken; output: textual

textual

(3) primary communicative function

monological dialogical monological dialogical monological

(4) n of communication partners

1:n 1:1 (personal communication) 1:n (newsgroups etc.)

1:n 1:n (student:stu-dent)

1:1 (student:in-structor)

(6) synchronicity vs. asynchronicity

asynchron-ous

asynchronous synchron-ous

synchronous asynchron-ous




Course Work designed to explicate previous knowledge and skills

• Brainstorming a topic or term

• Exercises working with a texto Describingo Detectingo Modifyingo Composing

Course Work designed to practice newly acquired knowledge and skills

• Brainstorming a topic or term

• Exercises working with a texto Classifyingo Correlating, Grading or Sequencingo Abstractingo Focused Variation

Step 7: Designing types of course work




Step 8: A taxonomy of didactic options in the teaching of academic writing

Mode of communication

pedagogical practice

type of knowledge

type of exercises

F2F

instructing (lecture)

conceptual knowledge (new concepts)/ meta(linguistic) knowledge

classify, correlating, grading or sequencing (group exercises)

detecting (group work)

conceptual knowledge (implicitly/ tacitly known concepts)/ procedural knowledge/ meta(linguistic) knowledge

abstracting, focused variation, writing (group exercises)




Step 8: A taxonomy of didactic options in the teaching of academic writing

Mode of communication

pedagogical practice

type of knowledge type of exercises

online

instructing (hypertext)

conceptual knowledge (basic concepts and additional + background information)/ meta(linguistic) knowledge

Classifying, correlating, grading or sequencing (short term, individual exercises)

Detecting(e-discussion tool)

conceptual knowledge (additional concepts which expand knowledge which was acquired in F2F workshop)/ procedural knowledge/ meta(linguistic) knowledge

abstracting, focused variation, composition (long term, group exercises)




References:Clark, Herbert (1996): Using Language. Cambrigde: C.U.P.Eggins, Suzanne and Martin, J.R. (1997): Genres and Registers of Discourse. In: Dijk, Teun

A. van (ed.): Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol.1. London: Sage, 230-256.

Gruber, H., Muntigl, P., Reisigl, M., Rheindorf, M., Wetschanow, K., Czinglar, Ch. (2006): Genre, Habitus und wissenschaftliches Schreiben. Münster: LIT Verlag.

Halliday, M.A.K.(1994): An Indroduction to Functional Grammar. London: ArnoldHolly, Werner (1997): Zur Rolle von Sprache in Medien. Semiotische und

kommunikationsstrukturelle Grundlagen. Muttersprache, 107, 64-75.Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher (1994): Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In: H. Günther and O.

Ludwig (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit: ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung 587-604. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger (1993): Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambrigde: C.U.P.Schrittesser, Ilse (in press): Die professional community: Zur Gestaltung einer geeigneten

Lernumgebung für die Entwicklung und Vertiefung professionalisierten Handelns. Eine erste Bestandsaufnahme eines von der Universität Wien geförderten anwendungsbezogenen Forschungsprojekts. To be publised in: A. Mettinger, P. Oberhuemer, C. Zwiauer: eLearning an der Universität Wien, Münster: Waxmann.

http://www.univie.ac.at/linguistics/personal/helmut/Schreibprojekt/en/index.htm

Documents

Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Markus Rheindorf Institut für Sprachwissenschaft E-mail: [email protected] Teaching Academic Writing to Austrian