1 / 12

MULTIFUNCTIONAL SOFTWARE IN L2 ACADEMIC WRITING: TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT.

MULTIFUNCTIONAL SOFTWARE IN L2 ACADEMIC WRITING: TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT. Svetlana Strinyuk, Associate Professor, Department of English National Research University Higher School of Economics Russian Federation strinyuk@hse.ru

hien
Download Presentation

MULTIFUNCTIONAL SOFTWARE IN L2 ACADEMIC WRITING: TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT.

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. MULTIFUNCTIONAL SOFTWARE IN L2 ACADEMIC WRITING: TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT. Svetlana Strinyuk, Associate Professor, Department of English National Research University Higher School of Economics Russian Federation strinyuk@hse.ru ViacheslavLanin, Senior Lecturer, Department of Information Technologies in Business National Research University Higher School of Economics Russian Federation vlanin@hse.ru

  2. Acknowledgments The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2017- 2018 (grant №17-05-0020) and by the Russian Academic Excellence Project "5-100".

  3. Teaching – challenges • the novelty of the discipline • natural limitations of L2 learners • natural limitations teachers face with in Russia: • lack of practice • limited language environment

  4. IELTS, TOEFL, GRE grading • assess relevantly some rubrics • coherence/cohesion • do not grade • meeting genre conventions • complexity and adequacy of syntactic, grammar and vocabulary level • correct choice of syntactic patterns • stylistic relevance of the texts produced by advanced graduate students remain unaddressed.

  5. Academic writing in Russian curricula logical, persuasive formal writing, with excessive use of terminology and passive voice, avoiding phrasal verbs and short forms.

  6. Tools for Education • software tools (desktop, mobile and web applications, language labs etc. • grammar and spelling check But do not assess register and style

  7. Writing assessment Weigle (2011) • What to test/assess in academic writing? To be exact, which language (grammar, vocabulary, communicative function, etc.) to evaluate? • Which criteria and standards will be used? Is scoring valid and reliable? • Considering practical implications of the data received for both teaching and research purposes the following questions should be addressed: • How can the information received from the assessment task be used? • What can be done with the information got from the assessment task? • Who will use the information that assessment task provides?

  8. Methodology annotations set (see appendix 1) was implemented to experimental and model corpora both produced within the framework of the same subject domain – computer science, but on different level of writing expertise. two specialized corpora a corpus of model writing a learner’s experimental corpus The model corpus is a collection of the articles published in most prominent academic journals in Computer science . Model Corporpus– is a collection of articles (21 items, 56438 words) in computer science, published in peer-reviewed journals. Experimental Corpora – is a collection of L2 Russian students’ research proposals (28 items, 44 942 words) based on their final research papers written as a part of complex assessment for the final examination in English.

  9. Comparison of Model and Experimental Corpora

  10. Practical Implications • The results of the research can be used in academic writing analysis to identify most significant features of domain academic discourse and will allow to evaluate the quality of papers written by students against a number of standardized formal criteria.

  11. References • Johns, T. (1991), ‘From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in • the context of data-driven learning.’ In: T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom • Concordancing. English Language Research Journal, 4: 27-45. • Weigle, S.C. (2011) Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Jeffries, L. and McIntyre, D., (2010) Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Leech, G. and Short, M., ([1981] 2007) Style in fi ction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Harlow: Pearson Education. • McIntyre, D. and Busse, B., eds. (2010) Language and style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. • Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. • Helen Sword (2012). Stylish Academic Writing, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. • Thompson P (2002). Modal verbs in academic writing Language and Computers 42 (1), 305-325 • Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Longman. • Gilquin, G. & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1): 41-61, 2008

More Related