Purpose: To summarize the characteristics of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) vocabulary in connection to the reading-writing relationship theory.
Thesis statement: Reading can improve the process of learning to write and writing to learn.
Audience: Researchers, teachers, writers, academic students.
1. Martin (1976) classification (as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.34).
A. Research-process vocabulary
1. verbs, nouns
B. Analysis vocabulary
2. high-frequency verbs
C. Evaluation vocabulary
3. adjectives, adverbs
2. Nuttal (1996) prerequisites (as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.35)
A. Code sharing
B. L1 schemata activation
1. prior knowledge: problem solving
C. Topics, preview
1. brainstorm
2. debate
3. Conclusions.
A. Learning to read as learning to write
B. Learning to write as learning to read
C. Recognition of written language, social use
D. Promotion of language acquisition
E. Promotion of advanced literacy
Reference
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
Sep 25, 2009
Steps to academic literacy
The viewpoint that there is connection between reading and writing, and that it is structured in the first language, is supported by the Language 1 (L1) -Language 2 (L2) relationship theory. According to Ferris and Hedgcock (1998, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) skills involving reading strategies tend to favor the development of writing skills. One of the major concerns of the teaching-learning practice seems to be the integration of reading into writing so as to consolidate the abilities of the students and help them master academic literacy.
In 1985, Bloor (as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) defined four different approaches to address academic skills in reading:
Psychological approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) which involves exercises designed for simple word recognition and interpretation, i.e. rehabilitation of temporal memory-loss patients. This programme generally includes board games like a word-picture domino or flashcards/pictures with captions to help patients recover their semantic abilities.
Linguistic Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) with reference to a series of grammatical exercises involving practice of the rules of a given language. A real life example of this could be the act of reading a newspaper article, for reading-comprehension abilities require grammatical/linguistic knowledge of the language so as to be able to grasp meaning.
Content-Oriented Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) the fact of the matter is reading for a specific purpose: picture yourself when back home with a brand-new personal computer and you read the manual to figure out how to install it. You will surely scan the text quickly till you get to part that contains the relevant information you were looking for. In this example, the purpose of reading is truly specific: reading to cover one’s needs.
Pedagogically-Oriented Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) where students choose freely what to read and, even, they make choices as the speed at which the reading is done. An example of this is clearly shown in a public library, where readers or library members can read/borrow books and enjoy the process.
To conclude, it seems that the best course of action for the development of academic reading would be to make students interact with all the different approaches mentioned above. Indeed, construction of meaning involves the same cognitive processes for both reading and writing. The achievement of advanced literacy skills suggests that teachers should focus much more onto the connection between reading-writing processes to accomplish these goals.
Reference
Pintos, V. (2008). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
In 1985, Bloor (as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) defined four different approaches to address academic skills in reading:
Psychological approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) which involves exercises designed for simple word recognition and interpretation, i.e. rehabilitation of temporal memory-loss patients. This programme generally includes board games like a word-picture domino or flashcards/pictures with captions to help patients recover their semantic abilities.
Linguistic Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) with reference to a series of grammatical exercises involving practice of the rules of a given language. A real life example of this could be the act of reading a newspaper article, for reading-comprehension abilities require grammatical/linguistic knowledge of the language so as to be able to grasp meaning.
Content-Oriented Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) the fact of the matter is reading for a specific purpose: picture yourself when back home with a brand-new personal computer and you read the manual to figure out how to install it. You will surely scan the text quickly till you get to part that contains the relevant information you were looking for. In this example, the purpose of reading is truly specific: reading to cover one’s needs.
Pedagogically-Oriented Approach (Bloor, 1985, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.33) where students choose freely what to read and, even, they make choices as the speed at which the reading is done. An example of this is clearly shown in a public library, where readers or library members can read/borrow books and enjoy the process.
To conclude, it seems that the best course of action for the development of academic reading would be to make students interact with all the different approaches mentioned above. Indeed, construction of meaning involves the same cognitive processes for both reading and writing. The achievement of advanced literacy skills suggests that teachers should focus much more onto the connection between reading-writing processes to accomplish these goals.
Reference
Pintos, V. (2008). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
New policies in school´s instructional capacity
Howley and Howley’s (2005) article about promotion of high quality teaching in rural areas explores the impact of professional development on the teaching practice. The field research was sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), from the United States of America Department of Education. This paper explains the use of certain academic linguistic conventions such as special terminology and discourse markers.
To begin with, policymakers will be defined as: people who are responsible for the choice of a plan of action to follow in relation to a course of studies. This includes the goals to achieve, the educational values and the profile of the graduates.
Thus, in order to achieve these objectives, policymakers implement professional development instruction programs for teachers, which involve setting out educational policies and special arrangements to ensure high quality teaching-learning practices.
Furthermore, student achievement refers to measurable and effective results in the acquisition of educational knowledge by students. This concept involves the accomplishment of explicit goals stated in the course curriculum.
With regards to discourse markers, the ones that appeared in the text will be listed, according to their function:
- Constrast: however, nevertheless, but, despite, alternatively, (even) though, arguably.
- Structuring: fist, second.
-Adding: furthermore, in addition, moreover.
-Logical consequence: because so, as a result, because of, logically, grounded in (...).
-To introduce examples: for example, as (...) suggests.
- Summing up: in conclusion, after all.
-Degree: somewhat.
- Parallelism: at the same time.
-For emphasis: clearly, in fact.
When Howley and Howley (2005) contend that “Grounded in management approaches (...) improvement strategies involve educators (…) an ongoing process of assessment and classroom level reform” (Data-based improvement section), they basically refer to the theoretical background that supports this research study.
All things considered, this paper indicates the political concern to foster core competence in educators. Clearly, it aims at promotion of skills development that improves teaching competence in order to increase student’s achievement of educational goals. The use of specific vocabulary and discourse markers in the paper exemplifies its purpose.
Reference
Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2005). High-quality teaching: Providing for rural teacher’s professional development. The Rural Educator. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
To begin with, policymakers will be defined as: people who are responsible for the choice of a plan of action to follow in relation to a course of studies. This includes the goals to achieve, the educational values and the profile of the graduates.
Thus, in order to achieve these objectives, policymakers implement professional development instruction programs for teachers, which involve setting out educational policies and special arrangements to ensure high quality teaching-learning practices.
Furthermore, student achievement refers to measurable and effective results in the acquisition of educational knowledge by students. This concept involves the accomplishment of explicit goals stated in the course curriculum.
With regards to discourse markers, the ones that appeared in the text will be listed, according to their function:
- Constrast: however, nevertheless, but, despite, alternatively, (even) though, arguably.
- Structuring: fist, second.
-Adding: furthermore, in addition, moreover.
-Logical consequence: because so, as a result, because of, logically, grounded in (...).
-To introduce examples: for example, as (...) suggests.
- Summing up: in conclusion, after all.
-Degree: somewhat.
- Parallelism: at the same time.
-For emphasis: clearly, in fact.
When Howley and Howley (2005) contend that “Grounded in management approaches (...) improvement strategies involve educators (…) an ongoing process of assessment and classroom level reform” (Data-based improvement section), they basically refer to the theoretical background that supports this research study.
All things considered, this paper indicates the political concern to foster core competence in educators. Clearly, it aims at promotion of skills development that improves teaching competence in order to increase student’s achievement of educational goals. The use of specific vocabulary and discourse markers in the paper exemplifies its purpose.
Reference
Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2005). High-quality teaching: Providing for rural teacher’s professional development. The Rural Educator. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
Sep 24, 2009
English for academic purposes, definition and scope.
Purpose: To describe and categorize English for academic purposes.
Thesis: “English for academic purposes is concerned with those communication skills in English which are required for study purposes in formal education systems.” (ETIC 1975, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.22).
Audience: Researchers, teachers, academic writers, English for Academic Purposes Students.
1. History
1.1. First recorded use of the term 1974
2. Coverage
2.1 TENOR ( Teaching of English for No Obvious Reason)
2.1.1. EGP (English for General Purposes)
2.2. ESP (English for Specific Purposes)
2.2.1. EOP (English for Ocupational Purposes)
2.2.2. EVP (English for Vocational Purposes)
2.2.3. EPP (English for Professional Purposes)
2.2.4. EAP (English for Academic Purposes)
3. English for academic purposes. Range of students:
3.1. Higher education studies
3.2. Pre-departure courses
3.2.1. Pre-sessional
3.2.2. In-sessional
3.2.3. Courses content:
3.2.3.1. Formal teaching programs
3.2.3.2. Self-access situations
3.2.3.3. Distance-learning materials
3.2.3.4. CALL (Computer-assisted language learning)
4. English for academic purposes. Divisions:
4.1. Common core/study skills, EGAP (English for general academic purposes)
4.2. Subject-specific, ESAP (English for subject-specific academic purposes)
4.2.1. Structure, vocabulary, subject-skills and
academic conventions
4.2.1.1. Study skills definition (Richards, Platt
and Platt, 1992, as cited in Pintos 2008,
p.22)
Reference
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
Thesis: “English for academic purposes is concerned with those communication skills in English which are required for study purposes in formal education systems.” (ETIC 1975, as cited in Pintos, 2008, p.22).
Audience: Researchers, teachers, academic writers, English for Academic Purposes Students.
1. History
1.1. First recorded use of the term 1974
2. Coverage
2.1 TENOR ( Teaching of English for No Obvious Reason)
2.1.1. EGP (English for General Purposes)
2.2. ESP (English for Specific Purposes)
2.2.1. EOP (English for Ocupational Purposes)
2.2.2. EVP (English for Vocational Purposes)
2.2.3. EPP (English for Professional Purposes)
2.2.4. EAP (English for Academic Purposes)
3. English for academic purposes. Range of students:
3.1. Higher education studies
3.2. Pre-departure courses
3.2.1. Pre-sessional
3.2.2. In-sessional
3.2.3. Courses content:
3.2.3.1. Formal teaching programs
3.2.3.2. Self-access situations
3.2.3.3. Distance-learning materials
3.2.3.4. CALL (Computer-assisted language learning)
4. English for academic purposes. Divisions:
4.1. Common core/study skills, EGAP (English for general academic purposes)
4.2. Subject-specific, ESAP (English for subject-specific academic purposes)
4.2.1. Structure, vocabulary, subject-skills and
academic conventions
4.2.1.1. Study skills definition (Richards, Platt
and Platt, 1992, as cited in Pintos 2008,
p.22)
Reference
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
What is a discourse community?
Discourse community is described by many researchers and theorists such as Bizzel (1992, cited in Pintos, 2008) as a knowledge community; this is, certain values, aims, expectations and language-using practices that are socially constructed by people bounded together due to a set of conventions. Moreover, other factors like society, economy, geography and profession shape a discourse community.
In order to describe the characteristics of people who are part of a discourse community, Swales (1990) set up the following basis for acknowledgement:
Common goals: membership involves group objectives achievement and sharing interests. Interactions with the people in one's environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place. The sociocentric view of knowledge and learning holds that what we take as knowledge and how we think and express ideas are the products of the interactions of groups of people over time (Soltis, 1981, cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). It is important to note that this learning is not a unidirectional phenomenon. The community, too, changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that new members bring to it (Putnam & Borko, 2000, cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004).
Participatory mechanisms: members interact with each other. This process allows information to circulate within the community. Members also provide assessment, feedback. When discussing this issue, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) explain:
During the first academic year of the two-year program, two faculties made site visits to the teachers' classrooms. The individual teachers facilitated the purpose and structure of the site visits. For example, the faculty observed the teachers implementing models of teaching and various assessment methods, and acted as coaches regarding teachers' research projects. Additionally, teachers engaged in professional discourse and group work through face-to-face study groups, electronic bulletin board discussions and electronic chat sessions (Context of the study section, para.6).
Information exchange, that takes place within the discourse community. At this respect, Porter (1992, cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001) indicates that though discourse communities interact with each other, it is not possible to mark where a community ends and another one begins. Flexible boundaries enable discourse communities to interconnect with each other.
Community-Specific Genres, Swales (1990) states the idea of membership awareness and a given testimony provided by the members of a certain discourse community to prove it. According to Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003), the fact that discourse community members share certain characteristics such as genre and conventions highly contributes to gather them together and nurtures a sense of collective identity. Hence, development of a social language, community specific, takes place.
Highly Specialized Terminology; the development of a social language within a discourse community (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003) derives into what Kelly-Kleese (2004) defines as speech community, that uses specific language in academic contexts.
High General Level of Expertise; discourse communities not only demand but support academic literacy as well. At this respect, members should attain professional development. For example, taking into consideration professional learning communities, Howley and Howley (2005) state that “grounded in management approaches such as Total Quality Management, some improvement strategies involve educators in the establishment of standards and benchmarks followed by an ongoing process of assessment and classroom-level reform”. (Data-based improvement section).
In conclusion, a discourse community is seen as a social construction -information exchange- that should meet certain requirements to be recognized as such. Moreover, it is also defined as a social mechanism that holds people together –via sharing common goals- for a certain period of time, which depends not only on the will of its members but on the influences of another discourse community as well. Case studies often provide useful information -participatory mechanisms- about a community, mainly because of the specific literate behaviors or skills -high level of expertise, highly specialized terminology- that members of discourse communities demonstrate.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection:
Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2005). High-quality teaching: Providing for rural teacher’s professional development. The Rural Educator. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor's choice: An open memo to Community
College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved
August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college
scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow.
Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405
In order to describe the characteristics of people who are part of a discourse community, Swales (1990) set up the following basis for acknowledgement:
Common goals: membership involves group objectives achievement and sharing interests. Interactions with the people in one's environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place. The sociocentric view of knowledge and learning holds that what we take as knowledge and how we think and express ideas are the products of the interactions of groups of people over time (Soltis, 1981, cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). It is important to note that this learning is not a unidirectional phenomenon. The community, too, changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that new members bring to it (Putnam & Borko, 2000, cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004).
Participatory mechanisms: members interact with each other. This process allows information to circulate within the community. Members also provide assessment, feedback. When discussing this issue, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) explain:
During the first academic year of the two-year program, two faculties made site visits to the teachers' classrooms. The individual teachers facilitated the purpose and structure of the site visits. For example, the faculty observed the teachers implementing models of teaching and various assessment methods, and acted as coaches regarding teachers' research projects. Additionally, teachers engaged in professional discourse and group work through face-to-face study groups, electronic bulletin board discussions and electronic chat sessions (Context of the study section, para.6).
Information exchange, that takes place within the discourse community. At this respect, Porter (1992, cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001) indicates that though discourse communities interact with each other, it is not possible to mark where a community ends and another one begins. Flexible boundaries enable discourse communities to interconnect with each other.
Community-Specific Genres, Swales (1990) states the idea of membership awareness and a given testimony provided by the members of a certain discourse community to prove it. According to Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003), the fact that discourse community members share certain characteristics such as genre and conventions highly contributes to gather them together and nurtures a sense of collective identity. Hence, development of a social language, community specific, takes place.
Highly Specialized Terminology; the development of a social language within a discourse community (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003) derives into what Kelly-Kleese (2004) defines as speech community, that uses specific language in academic contexts.
High General Level of Expertise; discourse communities not only demand but support academic literacy as well. At this respect, members should attain professional development. For example, taking into consideration professional learning communities, Howley and Howley (2005) state that “grounded in management approaches such as Total Quality Management, some improvement strategies involve educators in the establishment of standards and benchmarks followed by an ongoing process of assessment and classroom-level reform”. (Data-based improvement section).
In conclusion, a discourse community is seen as a social construction -information exchange- that should meet certain requirements to be recognized as such. Moreover, it is also defined as a social mechanism that holds people together –via sharing common goals- for a certain period of time, which depends not only on the will of its members but on the influences of another discourse community as well. Case studies often provide useful information -participatory mechanisms- about a community, mainly because of the specific literate behaviors or skills -high level of expertise, highly specialized terminology- that members of discourse communities demonstrate.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection:
Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Howley, A., & Howley, C. B. (2005). High-quality teaching: Providing for rural teacher’s professional development. The Rural Educator. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor's choice: An open memo to Community
College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved
August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college
scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541
Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. [PDF document]. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow.
Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)