“Think in my mind and write from my heart”:

1. “Think in my mind and write from my heart”: Exploring student-centered college English writing pedagogy “写我所思记我所感”—以学生为主体的大学英语写作教学实践探索 吉林大学 战菊 张凤娟 潘海英 jzhan@jlu.edu.cn

2. Outline • Background • Purpose of the study • Theoretical basis • Issues being addressed • Course design • Findings and course features • Discussion • Conclusion • References

3. Background • EFL teaching reform based on the College English Curriculum Requirements (2004, 2007) • College English courses: twice a week; 90 minutes each time • Writing is marginalized. Few writing courses available. • Students experience difficulties in learning to write in English. • Their performance in the writing section of high-stakes English tests (e.g., CET 4/6) is far from being satisfactory.

4. Background • Role of writing instruction - Improve writing skills - Enhance thinking capacity, including critical thinking ability - Contribute to overall language development by enhancing accuracy, word choice, grammar, etc.

5. Purpose of the study • To explore ways • to integrate writing into college English curriculum • to teach writing effectively and engagingly • to maximize the role of written output in English language learning

6. Theoretical basis • SLA theories - Output hypothesis (Swain, 1985) “the act of producing language (speaking or writing) constitutes, under certain circumstances, part of the process of second language learning.” - Output driven hypothesis (文秋芳,2008) Originally proposed for English majors, but applicable to non-English majors too. Three sub-hypotheses: • Output is equally, if not more effective than, input in promoting learners’ language proficiency. • The training of productive skills of speaking, writing and translation is more practical and relevant than that of receptive skills of reading and listening in terms of preparing students for future profession. • Output driven model of integrated language teaching is more effective than teaching of isolated skills.

7. Theoretical basis • Social constructivism • Students: • writer’s voice, experiences, interest, identity & context • Individual cognitive, social activity, enculturation • Collaborative writing and learning • Teacher: facilitator and coach rather than transmitter • Neo-humanistic perspective • Learner’s inner life, cultural diversity • The whole person • Student choice & autonomy, feelings and interests, self-actualization, cooperation 7

8. Issues being addressed 1. How to maximize the role of written output in English learning when integrating writing into college English curriculum? 2. How to teach writing effectively and engagingly through the English Writing Course? 8

9. Research design • Case study • Methods - Interview - Class observation - Documents: student writing, class notes and reflection pieces course feedback email and QQ correspondence instructor courseware, course books and other teaching materials

10. Participants • Teacher participants

11. Participants • Student participants

12. Course description • It started in 2008 as a selective course for non-English major undergraduate students. • It consists of ten sessions, each lasting 2.5 hours. • It features team teaching, with five members co-teaching and alternating. • Differing from traditional product oriented writing courses, it is designed with the assumption that writing is not a mere skill, but a complex intellectual and social process. • Students are encouraged to use writing as a powerful tool of thinking, learning, discovering and communicating; learn to “think in my mind and write from my heart” so as to “enrich life by writing”.

13. Findings • How to maximize the role of written output in English learning when integrating writing into college English curriculum? • Holisticinstructional practices • Skills integration: read to write, listen to write, talk to write (文秋芳,2008) • Multiple goals: learn to write; write to learn, to express oneself, to socialize, to discover • Multi-dimensions of learning: cognitive, metacognitive, social, affective

14. Findings 2. How to teach writing effectively and engagingly through the English Writing Course? ---Design Student centered writing pedagogy • Choosing teaching materials and writing topics, designing class activities & teaching procedure • A dynamic approach: from process approach to process-genre approach • Involving students in class activities, projects, feedback, evaluation & reflection of learning • Drawing on students’ experience and interest • Using technology to appeal to the “digital natives” • Individualized instruction that addresses every student’s concerns • Bonding between instructor & students

15. Feature 1: Raising metalinguistic awareness • Explicit discussion of writing features and writing process, such as the project of using a diagram to represent the writing process • Student reflection at the end of every class Think about the following questions and write your answers. It is not necessarily a complete essay. Two short paragraphs will do. • What are the most important things you have learned in this session? • What is the one thing that you still do not understand about writing or the writing course? • Final student presentation on one’s best piece and the journey of learning to write throughout this course

16. For Example: Project: Diagrammatic representation of the process of writing • No stupid questions or things in this class (Feel free to be as creative as you want). • No framework (You can conceive of the whole writing process in any way you like, using any image, drawing, or metaphor)

17. Writing: many different processes & components Clark & Ivanič (1999)

19. Feature 2:Writing on topics of interest • Some topics chosen by students • How to maintain good relationship with roommates • How to date a girl friend in college • Associations in the university • The importance of managing time in university • How to deal with the problem about Internet addiction • From sub-healthy to healthy

20. Feature 3:Use technology to appeal to the “digital natives” • Based on the characteristics of the post-90s generation who are skilled in using new media and technology (“digital natives”, Prensky, 2001), encourage students to • use writing software, online dictionaries andwriting websites • practise skills for searching evidence on the Internet • use class email account to share each other’s writing • communicate with the instructor through QQ

21. Feature 4: multiple feedback and individualized instruction • Multiple sources of feedback: teacher, student, self • Multiple form of feedback and individualized instruction - Not just feedback on students’ writing products - But feedback on the writing problems and concerns of the students from the instructor, who summarizes students’ problems in the reflection pieces and addresses them next class. E.g., • How can I write creatively about some topics I am not familiar with? • The expressions looked up in the dictionary sometimes seem strange when I put them together. • How to write better with limited vocabulary size?

22. Feature 5: bonding between the instructor and students • Appeal to emotion, establish bond with students • Email message 1: Hello, everyone! Attached are the ppt slides for the previous session. It is so nice to spend the last week with you and I hope you can enjoy the class. See you on Friday! Chris • Email message 2: Dear everyone, Attached are the ppt slides we need today, the last genre you are going to learn and have a writing practice on, I promise. Hang on there! See you tonight! Chris

23. Discussion: holistic, dynamic input • Knowledge of genre, features of good writing, writing strategies, etc. • Writing samples from students and other sources • Reading and listening materials for writing • Idea generation by brainstorming, outlining through student discussion and other activities • Involving students emotionally, cognitively and socially through in class and out of class interaction

24. Discussion: diverse, optimal output • Output - Five writing projects, 3 drafts for each - Journal writing - Presentation on best piece and journey of learning to write throughout the course - Oral discussion of writing • Maximize the quality of output - Use technology and other learning resources for writing - Feedback from teacher, students and self - Feedback on both students’ writing products and writing concerns and problems from teacher - Reflection

25. Discussion:writing as part of students’ learning & life Learn to write: better awareness of good writing, writing strategies and conventions, more evidence-based (use references more often than before) Write to learn: realizing the value of writing in English learning Write to enrich life: developing personal bond with writing, using it as a means to socialize, to communicate, to express oneself, to discover Technology in writing and English learning Affective development: more confident and passionate about writing and language learning, from passive to active learning, more inquisitive, taking more initiative in learning Think critically, questioning 25

26. Feedback from students 我觉得我们这门课真的很好，特别是老师的精彩授课和同学们的积极参与，这样的课程是我以前从未参加过的。毕竟我的英语不是很好，显得不能完全接受课程内容，但总体上还是学到很多东西，认识很多别的学院的同学，特别是课程上讲的英语写作技巧和你的对我的作文批语，都使我受益匪浅。真的很感谢老师！感谢老师的精彩授课！感谢老师对我的帮助！你的敬业让给我们佩服！

27. Feedback from students Dear Ms. Ding: These are the whole assignments of the English writing course. Although these assignments drive me a little crazy sometimes，I appreciate the process of writing. It is a pity that we did not take a photo for all of the students and you, since we have learnt, discussed and shared for more than a month.

28. Conclusion: CHED • CHED : Curriculum, Holistic, Engaging, Dynamic • More importance attached to written output and more EFL writing courses • Further research on the role of writing in English and curriculum development • Proficiency & humanism (self, emotional & social development) • Motivation & engagement from both teachers and learners • Dynamic and open, student-centered in course design and implementation 28

29. References • Arnold, J. 1998. Towards more humanistic English teaching. ELT Journal, 52(3), 235-242. • Badger, R., & White, G. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal,54(2): 153- 60. • Hyland, K. 2003. Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 17-29. • Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5):1-6. • Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House. • Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. • 文秋芳. 输出驱动假设与英语专业技能课程改革.外语界, 2008(2):2-9.

30. 30