1 / 26

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

Teaching Academic Writing to Austrian University Students. What Linguistics has to offer. Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Markus Rheindorf. Introduction. Preceding projects:

ashton
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teaching Academic Writing to Austrian University Students.What Linguistics has to offer. Helmut Gruber Birgit Huemer Markus Rheindorf

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Theoretical Basis: Modelling text types – localization & diversification Genre Contextually determinedlevel of specificity Text type Abstraction Low specificity:Legal aspects, semiotic mode undecided Medium Specificity:Disciplinary aspects, semiotic mode decided Localization High Specificity:Course-specific, writer-specific Individual text

  5. 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,…)

  6. Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria 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.

  7. Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria 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

  8. Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria Argumentation = explicate or argue sth.: • Explaining sth. • Defining sth. • Argumentation strategies • Sophism

  9. Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria 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.

  10. Theoretical Basis: Underlying linguistic criteria 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

  11. 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

  12. Step 1: Contribution of areas of analysis to didactic units

  13. Step 2: Building a modular course design Evaluation Entrance module Everyday Language vs. Language of Science: general aspects of writing process / web-based Module 1 Focus on writing: discipline-specific aspects of text structure, intertexuality, argumentation / face-to-face and web-based Module 2 Writing workshop: paralleling course or seminar / face-to-face and online exchange Module 3

  14. 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

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

  16. 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: • 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)

  17. 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: • n of communication partners: • 1:1 • 1:n • n:n

  18. 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 …

  19. 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

  20. 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

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

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

  23. Step 7: Designing types of course work Course Work designed to explicate previous knowledge and skills • Brainstorming a topic or term • Exercises working with a text • Describing • Detecting • Modifying • Composing Course Work designed to practice newly acquired knowledge and skills • Brainstorming a topic or term • Exercises working with a text • Classifying • Correlating, Grading or Sequencing • Abstracting • Focused Variation

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

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

  26. 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: Arnold Holly, 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

More Related