Sandra Aluísio, Iris Barcelos, Jander Sampaio and Osvaldo N. Oliveira Jr. NILC

1. How to Learn the Many Unwritten “Rules of the Game” of the Academic Discourse: A Hybrid Approach Based on Critiques and Cases to Support Scientific Writing Sandra Aluísio, Iris Barcelos, Jander Sampaio and Osvaldo N. Oliveira Jr. NILC Universidade de São Paulo BRAZIL

2. Facts • Academics must write in English – lingua franca of Science. • The need to write scientific papers in English represents a considerable barrier for non-native English authors. ICALT'2001

3. The main difficulties faced by Brazilian writers • Lexical • Misuse of false cognates and homophone words; lack or misuse of idioms and other collocations employed in scientific texts. • Syntactic • Use of grammatical constructions from mother language; word by word translation; over-long/over-complex sentences. • Textual • Use of rhetorical structures or strategies of the mother language; misuse of logical relations between sentences or phases; lack of references. ICALT'2001

4. First Draft? • Books and software tools provide help for text post-edition or hints on how to write a paper. • But normally fail to provide a “hands on” approach that helps the author in producing a first draft. • To write scientific papers in English it may not be enough: • To be fluent in English in another text genre • To know the global structure of papers in the mother tongue ICALT'2001

5. Resources & Tools in AMADEUS Authoring Writing Learning Assessing Processes Reference Tool Support Tool Critiquing Tool CAPTEAP Module Control Tools Standard expressions and chunks of texts Schematic structures Strategies to write paragraphs Critiques based on criteria for papers submission Question items Resources ICALT'2001

6. Reference Tool • Works as a lexical database consultation of canned expressions and sentences from well-written texts • which are annotated according to the schemactic structure of paper sections. • Aimed at • (1) researchers who are familiar with the academic writing but still need some feedback • (2) proficient or near-proficient English users who need to write under the constraint of time • Limitation • failed to help less experienced writers, mainly because such users had difficulties in localizing expressions, collocations and cohesive links appropriate to their needs. ICALT'2001

7. Support Tool • Implemented as a case-based system which works in co-operation with the user through a three-step procedure: • i) gathering of features of a paper section • ii) selection of the best-match case, following case recovery by the system • iii) revision on the selected case in order to insert the user’s own text. • Effective • in helping users to ensure cohesion and coherence of small chunks of text. • Limitation • failed to present feedback to the user choices ICALT'2001

8. CAPTEAP Module • Computer Assessment System which may function • as a self-assessment tool, allowing users to monitor their progress • as a summative tool for English proficiency tests (EPTs) • Devised to assess skills novice researchers really need: • (1) to understand and produce technical writing in English, (2) to recognise the schemata for the academic discourse. ICALT'2001

9. Critiquing Tool • Works collaboratively in cycles • the user presents a product to the system and the system gives feedback through critiques for improving the product. • Effective • in indicating the most appropriate sequences of the schematic components, suited for a particular audience and purpose, in the various sections of a paper. • as a teaching resource for practitioners working with EAP • Community chosen • researchers from Computer-Human Interaction • the annotated papers came from the CHI’96 short papers session ICALT'2001

10. Theoretical Background • Critiquing Systems • comprises agents, generally one computer and one user, working in collaboration. • Research in EAP • focused on the nature of success in writing • writing is considered a social act that can take place only within a specific context and audience ICALT'2001

11. Acquisition/Identification of the objects Case Base Guidelines Objective Differential Analyzer Analytic Analyzer Product Critiquing Strategies Presentation Modifications Critique Architecture COMPUTER USER Analysis ICALT'2001

12. Schematic Components of an Introduction Critiques ICALT'2001

13. Specific Components of an Introduction ICALT'2001

14. Case Recovered ICALT'2001

15. Reusing the Tool in New Domains • 1.Perform corpus analysis of papers from a given scientific community and annotate the corpus according to the components identified. The corpus is to be used by the Differential Analyzer recover similar cases. • 2.Rewrite guidelines from the Call for Papers or Instructions for Authors sections in the form of rules, which are to be employed by the Analytic Analyzer. • 3. Employ the shell of the collaborative tool to obtain the interface and appropriate interaction mode. • 4. Test the tool, now including new knowledge, in terms of the communication with the user. ICALT'2001

16. Final Remarks • We described • AMADEUS – suite of tools for distinct types of users, with different needs • Hybrid Approach to develop the Critiquing Tool (critiques + cases) • Advantages of a Collaborative Paradigm • Learner as an actor • Learner chooses when to access the tool • Interaction encouraged • Final aim is to help novice writers to achieve a cohesive paper structure, in a collaborative environment • Further research is to extend to other research areas/communities and evaluate efficacy. Download from http://nilc.icmc.sc.usp.br/projects.html#AMADEUS ICALT'2001