Abstract
Writing successful academic conference abstracts is essential for PhD students to enable them to access world-class conferences for the presentation of their research. However, these students often face both discourse-structure and linguistic difficulties in writing their conference abstracts. This study evaluates the impact of genre, process, elicitation and guided learning instruction on students’ performance in academic conference abstract writing. Participants are multidisciplinary L2 PhD students at a Sino-British university. The first dataset used for the impact evaluation comprises post-intervention written abstracts collected from 10 focal students. To evaluate the instruction, a scoring descriptor instrument adapted from the university’s academic writing assessment rubric is used to grade the abstracts’ move-structure, and linguistic features of cohesion, hedging, passive, and present simple. Trends in the scores are analysed statistically. The second dataset consists of students’ questionnaire-elicited experiences of the instruction. Findings show improvements in post-intervention abstracts’ move-structures and linguistic features, which suggests pedagogical effectiveness. Questionnaire responses also display positive perceptions of the pedagogy. Due to the impact of disciplinary genre materials, disciplinary discrepancy is more evident in linguistic structures than in move structures. Writer characteristics also appear to gravitate towards a discipline-centric writing ethos due to the impact of disciplinary-genre materials and the desire to enhance the abstract’s selection chances. Thus, there is potential for language-feature functions, process writing, exact-genre materials and interactive learning process pedagogies to mediate learning and improvement in disciplinary L2 writing.
1 Introduction
This paper presents research on the extent to which a classroom instructional intervention, which employed a mixed language learning intervention model consisting of genre, process, elicitation and guided discovery, facilitated L2 PhD learners’ improvement in writing conference abstracts (henceforth CAs). Discourse moves (introduction, purpose, method, results, and conclusion) and linguistic features (cohesion, hedging, passive, and present simple) constitute the main attributes of abstract writing (Egberts and Plonsky 2015; Swales and Feak 2009). This paper argues that if language instruction can help learners to improve in the discourse moves and linguistic features of CA writing, their potential access to prestigious international conferences can be enhanced. Research related to L2 university-level learning of writing (e.g. Storch 2009) has mostly covered complete pieces of writing rather than exact genres such as abstracts, introductions, and methods. To contribute towards enriching the understanding of L2 learning of specific writing genres at the university level, this research is focused on CAs.
A fundamental motivation for this study is the perception (e.g. Povolná 2016) that CA writing can be problematic for PhD students and early career researchers, due to the typical word ceiling imposed, the stand-alone nature of CAs, and actual writing difficulties (especially for L2 learners) which are associated with the learning of CA linguistic features and discourse moves. This study conjectures that the infrequent teaching and peripheral status of CAs in the academic literacy curriculum partly account for these educational difficulties. For example, research students often receive support on an ad hoc one-to-one basis in their academic literacy needs. Given the above learning challenges, the classroom use of multiple pedagogical paradigms is viewed as paramount in helping to facilitate improvement in the writing of CAs. Following this up with instructional impact evaluation strengthens understanding about how learning can be enhanced in classroom practice on L2 acquisition of disciplinary writing. Accordingly, I aim to investigate the extent to which classroom instruction which used genre, process, elicitation and guided discovery, impacted multidisciplinary L2 PhD students’ competence in writing CA moves and linguistic features. Hyland (2009) divides multi-disciplines into hard disciplines (HD, i.e. science and engineering courses) and soft disciplines (SD, i.e. humanities and social science courses). It would also be interesting to determine the nature of the relationship between HD and SD about CA moves and linguistic features. This research is based on niche L2 (disciplinary literacy) writing acquisition. It is thus not ultimately about showing how L2 writing is shaped by L1 (Fraiberg and You 2012) because writing within the disciplines is mainly shaped by discourse-community conventions. Consequently, learners’ CAs will tend to move towards patterns which identify them with their disciplines (Swales and Feak 2009).
To be clear, this impact evaluation centres on instruction within the practice of one lesson. Nevertheless, the lesson on CA writing was delivered four times (twice per semester) to different cohorts on the English for research and publication course for PhD students during the academic year. One-lesson practice is thus selected from several practices to allow for intensive evaluation (Allwright and Bailey 1991; Ellis 2006). Intensive evaluation permits thorough pedagogical presentation and rigorous impact appraisal. It circumvents the tendency to superficially present and assess a series of different lessons, each with unique instructions and outcomes. Previous evaluation studies of language education programmes (e.g. Atherton 2006), and emerging classroom practice research in academic literacy (e.g. Millin and Millin 2018) favour studying instructional impact representing different lessons. However, a key drawback is that if instructional details are not presented alongside impact evaluation, gaps are created as to what had transpired in the teaching. This partially defeats the basis for evaluating classroom instruction impact on language learning, which should include the sharing of classroom experiences to help improve professionalism.
In the next sections I will consider relevant theoretical perspectives, literature on pertinent CA issues and L2 learning of university-level writing, the research context (the instructional intervention), and the research design. These are followed by impact evaluation based on two datasets: (a) post-instruction written CAs as graded, and (b) learners’ experiences of the instruction, elicited by a questionnaire. Results are discussed, and limitations are stated including future suggestions.
2 Relevant theoretical frameworks
Four theoretical frameworks shaped both the delivery of the instruction and the impact evaluation. The first is disciplinary literacy, which centres on competence in the use of specialised language and discourse patterns of a given discipline to identify with and participate in the expression of ideas in that discipline. It is marked by two perspectives (Rappa and Tang 2018). One considers the practices undertaken by “experts in a discipline and compares them with those of novices”, while the other, as shaped by systemic functional linguistics (SFL), investigates the role of language in a discipline’s knowledge construction and expression (Rappa and Tang 2018: 2), with the discipline as social context (Halliday 1978). The present study is underpinned by both perspectives because in CA writing, novices learn from experts, and linguistic features and discourse moves functionally aid research conceptualisation, writing and communication. This can be complex and challenging for PhD students, as pointed out earlier.
The second theoretical framework of this work covers specific-purpose genre learning and teaching in the frame of learning (Tribble 2017). I link the specific-purpose genre to genre acquisition rather than to genre awareness because genre acquisition emphasises the direct teaching and learning of specific discourse features (Johns 2011) that work uniquely in different disciplines (Hyland and Hamp-Lyons 2002). In genre acquisition, attention is given to the specific genre in focus with a view to replicating it based on its conventional systems and functions (Hyon 2017); hence the link between genre acquisition and specific purpose genre (CA writing) in this research. In contrast, genre awareness is suitable for general writing as it underscores knowledge transfer from global genre exemplars (Johns 2011). Genre-acquisition based pedagogy systematically isolates genre structure and genre-linguistic features. It is inductive and based on specific needs (Hyland 2007). It has been criticised for making the learner passive (Badger and White 2000), failing to lay bare target knowledge, preventing students from writing freely (Hyland 2007), and killing spontaneous writing in the L2 classroom (Dias and Pare 2000). Nevertheless, because L2 learners often cannot access naturalistic learning settings, it is classroom-based genre pedagogy which helps to short-cut the long route of natural-setting or “situated acquisition” (Hyland 2007: 151). Genre pedagogy is also effective where, as in CA writing, discourse community conventions inherently shape writing acquisition.
The third theoretical framework is process writing pedagogy, which permits time-lined experiential practice during which the learner mind-maps ideas, drafts, and produces the clean copy. This supports intuitive writing and strengthens implicit internalisation of disciplinary writing skills. Confidence is built through tapping the learner’s potential and previous knowledge of writing (Badger and White 2000). The process approach is criticised for prescribing the same process for all kinds of writing and for paying less attention to linguistic input (Badger and White 2000). However, this study combines process and genre such that exemplars of CA linguistic features and discourse moves contextualise the fuzziness of process, while the tendency of the genre approach to make the learner passive (Dixon 1987) is reduced by the active drafting process.
Our fourth theoretical framework is communicative language teaching (CLT), whose growth and complexity have resulted in various standpoints. Littlewood (2013: 5) distinguishes CLT perspectives focussing on what we learn (in general, language functions) and others focussing on how we learn. Howatt (1984: 279) distinguishes between “weak” and “strong” versions of CLT. The weak version (co-terminous with SFL) matches current tenets of academic literacy instruction which emphasise the rhetorical functions of language in specific genres (Alexander 2012). The classroom activities and interactions presented here were shaped by strong CLT. Linked to both CLT types, elicitation is employed to boost interaction through open-ended referential questions rather than closed display questions (Dalton-Puffer 2007). Guided learning is used, based on Frey and Fisher (2010), to provide clues and contexts for learners to then work out the language phenomenon.
3 Literature review
The CA-move schema and linguistic features used in the instruction and evaluation are detailed in Section 4.3.1. CA writing research as connected to L2 university-level education so far seems limited, with Povolná (2016) focussing on cross-cultural variation in rhetorical-structure between English native and non-native users (Czech, Slovak, Polish and Ukrainian). Whereas the native writers studied use three or more moves (introduction, purpose, methods), the Slavic-L1 writers mostly use two (introduction and purpose), as L1 conventions permit digressions that cause extensive text to be written under limited moves (Povolná 2016). Dynamic rhetorical structure (Egberts and Plonsky 2015) and the fact that some CAs are based on work in progress inform our reference to “core” moves in the post-lesson abstracts assessment. All moves are important, but for an abstract to score high points, we expect moves such as research aim and methods to be included.
Concerning the teaching of how to write abstracts, Klimova (2015) outlines instruction involving metacognitive skills, planning, logical structure and revision. Materials have been written which can be used for teaching, writing and analysing abstracts (e.g. Swales and Feak 2009), but these can be more meaningful when used in instruction and subjected to evaluation. Alvarez et al. (2015) show how six Spanish-background PhD students used peer and supervisor feedback to construct abstracts. In addition to using pedagogy handled by these authors, our instruction further appraises their impact on learning CA writing.
To finish the literature review, we turn to academic English instruction impact evaluations relevant to disciplinary literacy. This part of the review motivates our research, as CA writing instruction appraisals per se seem embryonic. Academic English-education evaluation research is scant and includes Lynch (1996) which is centred on syllabi rather than on the impact of classroom-instruction. Responding to this research scarcity, BALEAP in 2006 organised a Professional Issues Meeting at which academic English teaching was evaluated. The evaluations (e.g. Atherton 2006) are however based not on given direct classroom instruction, nor on specific disciplines. They focus on indirect sources such as post-course student feedback questionnaire, interviews, discussion, observation, and test scores aimed at macro-measuring overall two to six month pre- or in-sessional programmes. Presentations at another issues meeting (BALEAP 2017) also show apparent bias towards whole-programme evaluations. Exact in-the-classroom academic English education impact evaluation appears underrepresented, despite Ellis’s (1997) significant call for more learning-based evaluations. Programme/syllabus macro evaluations are important, but their successes are better illuminated through while-learning instruction appraisals. Undergraduate and masters learner levels have also been researched at the expense of PhD-level students, who are the focus of this research.
4 Methods
4.1 Research context
The context for this study is a classroom instruction in which genre, process, elicitation and guided learning were used to mediate CA writing (Rappa and Tang 2018 have likewise contextualised their data); the aim is to evaluate the impact of the instruction on the students’ learning of CA writing. This sub-section further clarifies pedagogical impact evaluation, criteria for impact evaluation, and learning transfer as applied to the methods of data collection and analysis in the study.
4.1.1 Classroom multi-pronged instruction and materials
The lesson was part of an English for Research and Publication course organised by the academic literacy development unit within the Centre for English Language Education (CELE) at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China (UNNC). The course aimed to develop the disciplinary literacy of PhD students and early career researchers, to empower them to write and successfully disseminate their research internationally. The eleven-week per semester non-credit bearing course was, due to high subscription, concurrently taught in two streams (for PhD students, and for early career researchers). Each week’s contact lesson per stream lasted 2 h. The academic-paper writing specific genres covered include introduction, literature review, methods, abstracts, data presentation, discussion, implications and conclusion. CA writing instruction impact is evaluated because, compared to the other specific-genres, CA is not only a complete stand-alone piece of writing (Swales and Feak 2009) but it is also subject to highly competitive conference gatekeeper review. Moreover, CAs constitute a writing challenge for PhD students (Povolná 2016).
The instruction aimed to:
Enhance the students’ understanding of CA moves in their disciplines;
Make students more aware of the linguistic features of CAs as used in their disciplines; and
Develop their ability to write CA moves and language features using interactive processes.
Teaching CA writing to mixed disciplines faces the understandable criticism that it adulterates disciplinary specificity. However, with mature PhD-level learners such a lesson helps them to better appreciate how language works differently in their disciplines when they exchange and contrast their written outputs (Swales and Feak 2009).
The rationale for any classroom pedagogy includes exact context, likely impact on students’ learning experience, and control over target genres (Johns 2011). Given these principles and students’ needs, CLT and SFL are relied upon to mediate learning. Specific materials bearing authentic, efficient and appropriate (Widdowson 1998) abstract models written by disciplinary specialists helped to address the valid criticism of how to sustain disciplinary specificity (e.g. Johns 2011).
Details of the instructional intervention are in Appendix 1. Activity 1 helped learners to understand CA physical structure (title, author name and affiliation, single paragraph and key words). Activity 2 promoted knowledge of CA moves, language features and their systemic functions, while activity 3 used a call for abstracts to foster identification and understanding conference organisers’ abstracts requirements. Activities 4 (a) and (b) respectively addressed selection of a theme and using it to frame an appropriate conference paper topic. In each activity, students were given short and clear instructions (e.g. “Identify the moves of this abstract”) and, to vary interaction, they worked individually, in pairs and in threes depending on the activity. Multiple pedagogies used include CLT, in both its focus on language function and in promoting interaction among learners (Littlewood 2013), elicitation, guided learning, process and genre writing, together with discipline-specific CA writing models.
Activity 1 is representative of the lesson’s flow, pacing and interaction. Students were first arranged in disciplinary groups of three. They were then instructed to identify the constituent parts of CAs, following which they were handed model disciplinary abstracts to work with. This sequence of grouping students, instructing and then handing out materials conforms to the classroom management tenet of task-before-text, which minimises distraction (Ellis 2006). Handing out materials and then instructing is a recipe for disorder as students then start to read or talk upon receiving materials. While students were working on the activity, the teacher circulated all groups to provide support. The activity was brought to a close after the allotted 6 min finished. At plenary, feedback was elicited through teacher questioning about the constituent parts of CAs and various students were nominated to provide answers. Students were also allowed to freely make comments and to seek clarifications related to the activity. The teacher did not respond at first but chose fellow students to react to other students’ comments and questions. The objective was to promote participatory learning, engagement and practice in a friendly atmosphere, where delivery was seamless, and the teacher was unobtrusive.
The second stage (activities 4(c) and 5; see Appendix 2) focused on redrafting pre-lesson abstracts in specific disciplines, using model phrases. Gaps in model phrases (alongside individual drafting) permitted disciplinary-specific target content. As in Swales and Feak (2009), during pair and group peer-checking, abstracts drafted by students of a given discipline (e.g. business) were checked by students of another field (e.g. engineering) in the specialism-mixed and culturally mixed class. In activity 4(c), a continuation from the activities of Table 1, students individually redraft their pre-lesson abstracts going from moves one to five. Instructions were given about the activity followed by a distribution of sample disciplinary abstracts and fixed academic phrases. The provided genre models facilitated the extensive redrafting which took place. At the end of the allotted 8 min per move, students were encouraged to proceed to the next, even if they felt they had not quite finished redrafting the previous move. This visibly minimized procrastination and promoted activity achievement, which was a source of motivation. Students were advised that they could always revisit and tidy up their drafts (e.g. during self-study). Short pauses between move drafting allowed for peer checking while the teacher showed more samples of disciplinary abstracts for students to notice and vary their drafting styles. At the end of redrafting, students exchanged their draft abstracts across different disciplines for peer checking to reinforce learning.
Model abstract | Discipline | Moves | COH | PS | PASV | HEDG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emamian 2014 | Sc & Engr (Applied Science & Tech) HD | 1, 2, 3, 4 |
and, while, when, as
(conjunctions and relative pronouns to show more neutrality and detachment from text) |
fails to, paper presents
(verbs refer to actions in the research) |
is located,
is derived (verb reference is to action in research process) |
may be used
(modal verbs are used to reflect impersonal views and to focus on methods and results) |
Gabbioneta et al. 2014 | Buss (Professions & Organisations) SD |
1, 2, 4, 5 | in this essay, thus, | we argue, we offer | might be advanced | s ome of the most |
Meakins and Wigglesworth, G. 2013 | Hum & Soc Sc (Multilingualism) SD |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
as a result, nonetheless, thus
(transition lexical items which help to reinforce argument/line of logic) |
remains high,
potential requires (verbs focus on the writing and on the argument) |
were asked,
rather often mixed (verbs express argument) |
tends to persevere,
the possibility of (lexical items keep writers close to expressed ideas, reflect writer views and denote argument) |
-
COH = Cohesion, PS = Present Simple, PASV = Passive, HEDG = Hedging.
Table 1 briefly illustrates the discipline-specific enhancement role of classroom materials in the activities.
4.1.2 Criteria for evaluating classroom instructional impact
Studies exist on language education impact (see Section 3), but most appear not to explicitly state the criteria for gauging the success or otherwise of classroom pedagogy. To contribute towards bridging this gap, I assume that a rigorous evaluation of classroom practice impact on language learning would depend on criteria such as assessing: (a) interactions among students and with the teacher, (b) teacher/task/activity instructions, (c) materials and resources used, (d) whether learner needs have been met, (e) whether the overall learning context or situation suited the specific discipline (f) learners’ feelings towards pedagogy, and (g) performance outcomes as achieved in exercises, activities and tests (e.g. Henry and Roseberry 1998). Performance outcomes, learners’ feedback on instruction and disciplinary context-specificity are the key evaluation criteria used in this research.
4.1.3 Learning transfer
To track cognition, this study used “learning transfer”, defined (James 2010; Shrestha 2017) to mean learning in a setting (physical or virtual) which then has effect on performance in another scenario (e.g. students’ final abstracts). This study relied on “near transfer” which is students’ ability to apply, in a specific assessment situation, skills and knowledge identical to those achieved in the immediate past learning context (Shrestha 2017). This paper’s attention is not only on how transfer is enhanced by genre (as in Shrestha 2017) but also on how transfer is enriched in specific disciplines by process, materials, elicitation and guided learning instruction.
4.2 Data collection
The data is from a 2-h lesson delivered to 23 PhD students (Chinese, n = 17; Japanese, n = 3; Indians, n = 2; and Nigerian, n = 1) drawn from the faculties of science and engineering, business, and humanities and social sciences. 10 focal students are however used for this research. Using stratified random sampling, they were selected from the Faculties of Science and Engineering (n = 4), Business (n = 3) Humanities and Social Sciences (n = 3). Their L1 spread is Chinese (n = 6), Japanese (n = 2), Indian (n = 1) and Nigerian (n = 1). They consented in writing to participate in the research, after ethics clearance was obtained from the university’s research ethics committee. To study instructional impact, two datasets were collected from these focal students: (a) written CAs with marks, and (b) questionnaire open responses.
Prior to the lesson, the original 23 students were given a call for conference abstracts in their disciplines and they were asked to draft an abstract on their selected conference theme. This provided insight into their pre-lesson abilities in CA writing. The 10 focal students selected for the post-intervention evaluation were requested to write a post-lesson CA using the same conference-abstracts call that was employed for their pre-lesson CA writing. For consistency, the research topics on which the pre-lesson abstracts were based remained the same for the post-lesson abstracts. Drafting what became the post-lesson CA started towards the end of the lesson (students were encouraged to work to improve their pre-lesson CAs). After the lesson, a one-month out of class re-drafting mediation continued with the 10 focal students, through formative feedback provided by the researcher via the university email and Moodle E-learning platforms. Thus, in the first dataset for this research, only the pre- and post-lesson CAs of the 10 focal students are utilised to appraise the progression in the students’ CA writing due to the impact of genre, process, elicitation and guided learning pedagogies.
The pre- and post-lesson CAs of the focal students are then assessed using a marking rubric with the following criteria, each marked 1–5: (a) Inclusion of CA structure moves; (b) Use of relevant tenses; (c) Inclusion of hedging; (d) use of passive; (e) Inclusion of cohesive markers. The rubric was adapted from UNNC’s Centre for English Language Education academic-writing assessment construct and trialled on an English for Research and Publication course. Using this grading instrument, each of the 10 focal student’s pre- and post-lesson abstracts were assessed by two other colleagues. Subjectivity in grading was further mitigated using blind marking (e.g. Millin and Millin 2018). The markers were blind in both the pre- and post-lesson CAs. In other words, both the pre- and post-lesson CAs were first-marked by one tutor followed by second-marking done by a different tutor, and the entire marking was anonymised. The second dataset consists of the focal students’ opinion statements about the impact of the lesson.
4.3 Data analysis
4.3.1 First dataset
4.3.1.1 Discourse moves
Four selected pre- and post-intervention CAs are compared by tracking learning transfer and cognition of discourse moves. A move is a functional rhetorical unit which plays a unique communicative role in the abstract (Swales and Feak 2009). Moves were identified by conducting text analysis of the pre- and post-instruction CAs, using a top-down approach (Jiang and Hyland 2017). Phrases which were likely starting points of moves (“aims to”, “the findings show”) were searched for using the concordancing software AntConc. The moves were then categorised and labelled based on the schema in Table 2, which has been found reliable (Jiang and Hyland 2017). This procedure was independently verified by a trained coder, a doctoral in education student, whose work is related to discourse analysis and the teaching of writing.
Discourse moves | Functions |
---|---|
Move 1: Introduction | Establishes context of the paper and motivates the research or discussion. |
Move 2: Purpose/Aim | Indicates purpose, thesis or hypothesis, outlines the intention behind the paper. |
Move 3: Method | Provides information on design, procedures, assumptions, approach, data, etc. |
Move 4: Product/Results | States main findings or results, the argument, or what was accomplished. |
Move 5: Conclusion/Implication | Interprets or extends results beyond scope of paper, draws inferences, points to applications or wider implications. |
4.3.1.2 Linguistic features
A text analysis of the CAs was carried out using a top-down approach to identify exemplars of cohesion, hedging, passive and present simple. These linguistic features (Table 3) are typical of CA writing (Egberts and Plonsky 2015). The identification process was independently confirmed by a trained coder and AntConc was used to further confirm the presence of the linguistic features.
Linguistic features | Functions in hard and soft disciplines (HD and SD)a | |
---|---|---|
HD | SD | |
Cohesion | conjunctions and relative pronouns to show more neutrality and detachment from text research or discussion. | transition lexical items which help to reinforce argument/line of logic |
Hedging | modal verbs are used to reflect impersonal views and to focus on methods and results | lexical items which keep writers close to expressed ideas, reflect writer views and denote argument |
Passive | verb reference is to action in research process | verbs express argument |
Present simple | verbs refer to actions in the research | verbs focus on the writing and on the argument |
-
aBased on Hyland (2009): HD = Hard Discipline (Science & Engineering); SD = Soft Discipline (Business, Humanities & Social-Science).
4.3.1.3 Analysis of marks
Participants’ marks were analysed graphically and tested for significance using paired t-test.
4.3.2 Second dataset analysis
Extracts from the questionnaire data were identified using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). The themes coincided with key issues in our research questions, which are: genre-model materials impact; the contributions of process writing; and the effects of elicitation and guided learning. The research questions (RQ) guiding the analysis of the questionnaire data are:
RQ1: To what extent do the teaching materials (model abstracts, worksheets, and conference call for abstracts) enhance learners’ writing of CAs during and outside the lesson?
RQ2: What specific linguistic features of CA writing are learnt from the lesson materials?
RQ3: What impacts did the learners feel from elicitation, guided and participatory learning employed in the lesson?
RQ4: What contributions are made to the learning of CA writing by the process of drafting abstracts inside the class as well as outside of class?
5 Results
5.1 Instructional impact on CA discourse moves and linguistic features
Focussing on changes from the pre- to post-instruction performance, selected CA extracts from the disciplines are used to depict achieved learning outcomes and the spectrum of knowledge transfer. The examples in Table 4 show that more moves are included in the post than in the pre-lesson abstracts.
Pre-lesson abstracts | Post-lesson disciplinary-specific abstracts | Examples of near learning transfers achieved in Moves (M1–M5) |
---|---|---|
Cross-reference with pedagogy in-put (activities 1, 4c and 5 in Appendices 1 and 2; also Table 1) | Discourse move as functional units in disciplinary knowledge construction and expression: M1: Introduction, M2: Aim, M3: Method(s), M4: Results, M5: Implications | |
Extract 1 (student 1, Sc & Engr) The effect of rust in filtration Basins The study looked at the problem of rust in filtration basins, and the study found that the set model contain a validity filtration strength failure predictive ability may be up to > −1 saturation index. … . Research found presence of the toxic metals in water, poor water quality and damage to piping (M1, M3, M5 missing) |
Filtration basins are vital to water systems and their corrosive impacts may be worth studying. This research examines basin filtration rust and its impact on system reliability. Using a dissolution rate model , the corrosion index of five water filtration basins is examined and it is shown through the set model’s forecast validity that filtration basins’ oxidation strength failure could be as high as > −1 saturation index with toxic metals presence above acceptable levels. … Other results include poor water aesthetics, and piping impairment. |
|
Extract 2 (student 9, Hum & Soc Sc) Approaches to teaching English as L2 in China The ways of teaching English to L2 users in the Chinese context keeps remaining vital. The Chinese context which has been often described as teacher-centred however keep showing that oral drills, role-play and sometimes allowing L1 to be used can helpfully promote the learning of English. … In a changing learning context, these methods in limits could be used in class to support English learning (M2, M3 missing) |
Classroom approaches used in teaching English to Chinese are probably changing, and this study aims to show that non-teacher centred methods are increasingly in use. In consequence , to collect data, classroom observation of a middle school is carried out and notes are taken of teaching methods used. Subsequently , it is found that oral drills, role-play and L1 are used to deliver English Language learning. … Arguably , this has positive impact on learners’ improvement. |
|
Post-lesson changes in move-structure are evident. Table 4 also shows examples of near learning transfers achieved. The pre-lesson CAs mostly contain two moves (Povolná 2016), which are extensively written on. The post-instruction improvements reflect the novice writers’ shift towards a disciplinary community writing ethos. Table 5 shows outcomes in linguistic features as compared to the pre-lesson.
Extract | Discipline | Stage | COH | PS | PASV | HEDG |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E1 | Sc & Engr | Pre-lesson | and, the | - | - | may |
Post-lesson | and, it, this, other | research examines, are vital | is examined, is shown | may be, could be | ||
E2 | Hum & Soc Sc | Pre-lesson | However | …Chinese context keeps* | could be used | in limits |
Post-lesson |
in consequence,
consequently |
study aims | is carried out |
probably,
arguably |
The pre-lesson CA linguistic features on Table 5 have conjunctions as cohesive markers, a dearth of the present simple, and verb errors in the use of passives and modals (Storch 2009). There are however improvements in the post-lesson functional linguistic features, and disciplinary knowledge is better constructed and communicated. The amount of learning transfers in genre-moves and language features (Tables 4 and 5) which can be correlated with the instructional input (Appendices 1 and 2; Table 1) reflects the L2 students’ use of knowledge acquired through process-genre, elicitation, and guided learning instruction, which enhanced individual learner potential (Shrestha 2017). Learning is further evidenced through post-lesson scores attained by the participants. Figures 1 and 2 show the learning outcome scores for moves and language respectively, graded 1 to 5 using the descriptors. A pair of bars (pre-lesson versus post-lesson) represents the performance of one student in each move (Figure 1) and linguistic feature (Figure 2). The numbers in the coloured bar-segments signify the score obtained for that given move or linguistic feature.
The instruction first aimed to enhance students’ understanding of CA moves. Figure 1 shows high outcomes in the post-lesson CA moves. Results of a t-test show a significant difference exists between the pre-lesson (M = 2.5, SD = 6.7) and the post lesson (M = 5.2, SD = 4.5) performances; t(9) = 15.2, p < 0.05.
The instructional intervention also sought to develop, in students, further awareness of CA linguistic features in their disciplines. Figure 2 confirms a significant difference in the linguistic features scores between the pre-lesson (M = 2.2, SD = 5.2) and the post-lesson (M = 5.0, SD = 5.5) performances; t(9) = 16.7, p < 0.05. Utilizing only the post-lesson results, a comparison between the hard disciplines (M = 4.6, SD = 0.5) and the soft disciplines (M = 4.7, SD = 0.4) performances shows no significant difference in CA moves; t(39) = 0.7, p < 0.05. Also, employing only the post-lesson scores, a comparison of the hard disciplines (M = 3.6, SD = 0.6) and the soft disciplines (M = 4.6, SD = 0.4) however reveals a significant difference in linguistic features; t(28) = 5.1, p < 0.05. Achievement of the lesson’s third aim, which is to develop the ability to write abstracts using an interactive drafting process, is supported by Tables 4 and 5 results, which can be interpreted – tentatively, since there is no control group – to imply that the students improved due to the instruction. Further outcomes on the instruction’s third aim are analysed in the questionnaire responses in the next section.
5.2 Results from questionnaire responses
The questionnaire results are presented under the themes of impact linked to genre-materials, influences of process writing, and the effects of elicitation, and guided learning on CA writing.
5.2.1 Impact of genre models
With respect to RQ 1 (To what extent do the teaching materials model abstracts, worksheets, and conference call for abstracts enhance learners’ writing of CAs during and outside the lesson?) and RQ2 (What specific linguistic features of CA writing are learnt from the lesson materials?), the students mainly feel that they gained from the abstract model-materials while drafting their abstracts. The students below report that the materials helped them to understand the exact structural and linguistic features of CAs. Such understanding of the language features and their functions helped to mould the students’ CA writing in their disciplines.
Student 3: The example abstracts in the exercises gave me a clear idea about how to write conference abstract in my area; the dos and don’ts of abstract. The materials refer to previous academic literature [model abstracts] as examples. Actually, quite understandable.
Student 5: I liked the instructions about sentences and structure because I followed the direction to understand the parts of an abstract.
Student 10: The exercise [ Appendix 2 , activity 4c] with some language and phrases was a good method to help us pick up the specific phrases. I will be happy to have a bank of related usages.
From comments by the students quoted below, deconstructing each model abstract into exact moves helped them to notice CA’s functional systemic-building units and how these are coherently written.
Student 1: The division of abstracts from different academic areas into key parts gave us good examples to follow in our different abstracts as PhD students. So, the lesson was very useful in learning conference abstracts and abstracts for journal and other purposes.
Student 8: The exercise [ Table 1 , activity 2] helped me to produce my work in five stages by referring to the five mentioned aspects [moves].
Student 9: I have always thought I had all it is needed to write an abstract. However, this lecture helped/showed me how to split the writing process into components for simplification
Student 4: Using the conference call for abstracts to draft helped us to streamline the structures of our own abstracts.
An example of disciplinary sensitivity shown while carrying out the classroom practice exercises is seen from student 2 below, who feels that language aspects such as the present simple, hedging, and cohesion might perhaps uniquely occur and function in his/her engineering discipline.
Student 2: This is crucial but I thought the language differs for different schools/faculties [ Appendix 2 , activity 5].
Student 7: Concerning the language needed for academic abstracts in my area, I think this part is extremely helpful. This is exactly why I attended the lecture.
5.2.2 Contributions of process writing
Considering the impact of the process approach on learning CA writing is tied to determining the success of the third lesson aim: to develop students’ ability to write CA moves and language features using interactive processes. The evaluation is also linked to answering RQ4: What contributions are made to the learning of CA writing by the process of drafting abstracts inside the class as well as outside of class? The process approach, as used in the instruction, is perceived to be an orderly learning tool which promotes and supports regular self-practice in CA writing. For example, the students quoted below view the approach as being systematic and efficient in aiding their learning of CA writing.
Student 10: It is good to know the process. It was step by step to help me write out the abstract.
Student 2: The process although time consuming but very beneficial
Student 2: Working on our drafts in stages in class then receiving feedback (later via email) helped me to have more confidence in writing an abstract on my own in my area. The feedback I got made me eliminate more mistakes and I produced a better abstract at the end.
Student 2 finds process writing to be painstaking. This calls attention to the point that even among PhD-level L2 students, the rigours of the draft-process are often found perplexing. L2 students whose L1s use a set of logographic written marks (e.g. Mandarin which is mostly logosyllabic) and organisation dissimilar to English might find the re-drafting process boring even if word-processing is involved. However, learning to write in stages remains ideal (Badger and White 2000).
5.2.3 Effects of elicitation and guided learning
Reactions to the impact of participatory learning are presented below within the context of RQ3: What impacts did the learners feel from elicitation, guided and participatory learning employed in the instruction?
Student 3: Well, we just talked to our neighbours (pair/group work) and since we are from different background, we learned well from others. I have a clearer idea about how to write an abstract.
Student 5: Group and individual exercises, were very helpful in elaborating the structure and language of abstracts in my field
Student 6: Group work helped me to finish the work more quickly. I liked it OK.
Student 9: Sometimes in the lesson, the teacher gave us indirect suggestions and we then guessed the right concepts and definitions. This confirmed our feeling of knowing because we were told openly.
Student 10: The teacher did not directly tell us the meaning of an abstract. We like brainstormed in small groups and provided answers and most of the accepted comments which students made to the whole class were like those we discussed in our groups and we became more confident
Elicitation and guiding learners to acquire knowledge and to practice it are viewed as effective (students 9 and 10 above). The techniques got them to initiate and to consolidate their knowledge of abstract moves and language. Beyond that, pair and group work helped to promote peer learning in contrast to a more teacher-fronted style.
6 Pedagogical implications
Results covering our lesson aims and findings from our first and second research questions imply that genre pedagogy can provide models based upon which learners can sculpt their own abstracts. This effectively modified the writing approach of the L2 PhD-level learners. Their improvement via genre pedagogy appears inspired by their quest to connect personal writing approaches to discipline-specific writing styles, especially given the high-stakes nature of the selection process which CAs undergo. The authentic, discipline-specific materials serve as stimuli, analysed by learners, which then facilitate awareness, acquisition, practice and production. Classroom-based, specific-purpose genre acquisition (Johns 2011) suits PhD-level students’ learning, as it is inductive thus providing exemplar language, content and exact context to learn from.
Another critical implication of genre materials in the students’ learning of CA writing is the sustenance of disciplinary specificity (Hyland and Hamp-Lyons 2002). Where an urgent need exists for learners from different disciplines to be instructed together in a lesson, such a mix does not essentially entail specificity dilution, especially if pedagogical sensitivity is shown by using discipline-divergent, authentic and effective materials to enhance learning. A mixed class augments the sharing of learning experience by mature learners and raises awareness of disciplinary differences through peer comparison of written work. In addition, CLT-based interactive classroom activities went a step further to boost disciplinary contextualisation in the mixed-disciplinary classroom.
Results regarding our fourth research question indicate that the redrafting attribute of process writing permitted constructive individual drafting. Consequently, time could be found during individual writing to separately draw from disciplinary-specific model materials. The view that process writing fully works in a single lesson might be contested; however, greater consensus could be reached on the view that the classroom is a good point where students can begin to learn discourse moves and linguistic features, which can then inform out-of-class autonomous work. Further, combining the two approaches addresses Badger and White’s (2000) criticisms, in that a genre approach reduced the vagueness of a process approach, while the process approach lessened the tendency of the genre approach to make learners passive.
Data regarding RQ3 indicate that despite the criticism that elicitation is time wasting (Nunan 1991), in this research it was perceived as being effective. For example, combined with guided learning, it helped L2 students to autonomously become aware of the term “abstract” (see Table 1), instead of being directly told its meaning and features. Speedy nomination of students during feedback prevented delays. To avoid overdependence on pair and group work for interactive learning, elicitation and guided learning can be skilfully used to vary instruction.
Analogous outcomes in CA moves were achieved by the SD and HD learners. This shows that the students from both disciplines could learn and apply the CA structure-moves with little variation. Sharper differences between the HD and SD in the type and quantity of linguistic items learnt and used could be due to the HD preference for the research process to dictate language choice, whereas SD permits intervention in the process to convey authorial views (Hyland 2009). Implicitly, genre and process approaches remain significant to instructing and learning university-level writing. One pedagogy is not preeminent over the other. L2 learner-needs and contexts should dictate pedagogical choices in the disciplinary literacy development classroom. The relationship between discourse/linguistic features and their functions as structural and meaningful building blocks of writing (Halliday 1978) in language pedagogy can be interpreted in three ways judging by our research. The features function as instructional target language; as CA writing practice units; and in the evaluation stage as impact analytic units.
We infer from this study’s instruction and its evaluation that researching a single classroom practice allows for some focus on specifics (Allwright and Bailey 1991) such as exact activities and interactions capable of clarifying generalisations made about pedagogy. For example, contrary to generalisations that CLT can have no positive impact on learning in some settings such as China (Hu 2002), this study, through its specific focus, showed that CLT-based pair and group work interactions proved effective among the mature PhD-level Chinese participants.
7 Conclusion
Multiple classroom instructional paradigms have advantages (Allwright and Bailey 1991), which include the maximisation of learning opportunities for learners. The impact of genre-process, elicitation and guided learning pedagogy, as evaluated in this study, proved effective among L2 PhD students in learning CA writing in their specific disciplines. However, a limitation of researching multiple pedagogy paradigms within one lesson is that each pedagogy is not investigated in as much detail as might be desirable. Future single-lesson pedagogy research in disciplinary literacy could therefore focus on one or two instructional paradigms to allow for more profoundly intensive analyses.
About the author
Dr. Godwin Ioratim-Uba is an Assistant Professor at the School of Education & English, University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China. His research and teaching interests include EAP, language education, teaching pronunciation, best classroom practices/strategies, and the impact of classroom practices.
References
Alexander, Olwyn. 2012. Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2). 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.001.Search in Google Scholar
Allwright, Dick & Kathleen Bailey. 1991. Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez, Manuela, Mari Boillos & Erlantz Velasco. 2015. The process of building the abstract of a paper in the context of a writing workshop for PhDs. Procedia 178. 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.137.Search in Google Scholar
Atherton, Barbara. 2006. Balancing needs: How successful can a pre-sessional course be?. In Andy Gillett & Liz Wray (eds.), Assessing the effectiveness of EAP programmes, 12–33. London: BALEAP.Search in Google Scholar
Badger, Richard & Goodith White. 2000. A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54(2). 153–160.10.1093/elt/54.2.153Search in Google Scholar
BALEAP. 2017. Evaluating the effectiveness of EAP: University of Edinburgh, 18 March. https://www.baleap.org/event/evaluating-effectiveness-eap (accessed 8 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Braun, Virginia & Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2). 77–101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235356393_Using_thematic_analysis_in_psychology (accessed 12 July 2020).10.1191/1478088706qp063oaSearch in Google Scholar
Briscoe, Forrest & Andrew Von Nordenflycht. 2014. Which path to power?. Journal of Professions and Organization 1(1). 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jot003.Search in Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007. Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.20Search in Google Scholar
Dias, P. Freedman & Pare, Anthony (eds.) 2000. Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, John. 1987. The question of genres. In Ian Reid (ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates, 9–21. Deakin, Australia: Deakin University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse & Luke Plonsky. 2015. Success in the abstract: Exploring linguistic and stylistic predictors of conference abstract ratings. Corpora 10(3). 291–313. https://10.3366/cor.2015.0079.10.3366/cor.2015.0079Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 1997. SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2006. Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 83–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512.Search in Google Scholar
Emamian, Vahid. 2014. Outage analysis of a multi-user spatial diversity system in a shadow- fade propagating channel. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology 4(1). 40–53. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2014/5131.Search in Google Scholar
Essau, Cecilia. 2014. Call for papers for the 9th international conference on child and adolescent psychopathology. Available at: https://careappointments.com/education-training/93151/call-for-papers-for-9th-international-conference-on-child-and-adolescent-psychopathology/ (accessed 11 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Fraiberg, Steve & Xiaoye You. 2012. A multilingual and multimodal framework for studying L2 writing. EFL Writing Teaching and Research 1(1). 22–33.10.1080/10572252.2013.735635Search in Google Scholar
Frey, Nancy & Douglas Fisher. 2010. Identifying instructional moves during guided learning. The Reading Teacher 64(2). 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.2.1.Search in Google Scholar
Gabbioneta, Claudia, Rajshree Prakash & Royston Greenwood. 2014. Sustained corporate corruption and processes of institutional ascription within professional networks. Journal of Professions and Organization 1(1). 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jot002.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Henry, Alex & Robert Roseberry. 1998. An evaluation of genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly 32(1). 147–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587913.Search in Google Scholar
Howatt, Anthony. 1984. A History of english language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Guangwei. 2002. Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15(2). 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666636.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 16. 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2009. Writing in the disciplines: Research evidence for specificity. Taiwan International ESP Journal 1(1). 5–22.10.18485/esptoday.2017.5.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Liz Hamp-Lyons. 2002. EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1). 1–12.10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00002-4Search in Google Scholar
Hyon, Sunny. 2017. Introducing genre and English for Specific Purposes. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315761152.Search in Google Scholar
IEEE-Nano. 2014. 14th International Conference on Nanotechnology. Call for abstracts. https://web.archive.org/web/20160819230038/https://ieeenano2014.org/Information_files/callforpapers.pdf (accessed 11 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
James, Mark. 2010. An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general academic- purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(4). 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Kevin & Ken Hyland. 2017. Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes 46. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Johns, Ann. 2011. The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental but contested instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 20. 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.003.Search in Google Scholar
King, Jim. 2013. Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied Linguistics 34(4). 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin.ams043.Search in Google Scholar
Klimova, Bianka. 2015. Teaching English abstract writing effectively. Procedia 186. 908–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.113.Search in Google Scholar
Littlewood, William. 2013. Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for communication oriented language teaching. English Teaching 68(3). 3–25. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.3.Search in Google Scholar
Lynch, Brian. 1996. Language program evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2013. How much input is enough? Correlating comprehension and child language input in an endangered language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(2). 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.733010.Search in Google Scholar
Millin, Tracy & Mark Millin. 2018. English academic writing convergence for academically weaker senior secondary school students: Possibility or pipe-dream?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.002.Search in Google Scholar
Nunan, David. 1991. Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Povolná, Renata. 2016. Cross-cultural analysis of conference abstracts. Discourse and Interaction 9(1). 29–48. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2016-1-29.Search in Google Scholar
Rappa, Natasha & Koko-Sing Tang. 2018. Integrating disciplinary-specific genre structure in discourse strategies to support disciplinary literacy. Linguistics and Education 43. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.12.003.Search in Google Scholar
Shrestha, Prithvi. 2017. Investigating the learning transfer of genre features and conceptual knowledge from an academic literacy course to business studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002.Search in Google Scholar
Storch, Neomy. 2009. The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18. 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John & Christine Feak. 2009. Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.10.3998/mpub.309332Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John, Vera, Irvin & Christine Feak. 2009. Online commentary for abstracts and the writing of abstracts. https://www.press.umich.edu/elt/compsite/ETRW/9780472033355-commentary.pdf (accessed 12 July 2020).10.3998/mpub.309332Search in Google Scholar
Tribble, Christopher. 2017. ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25. 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003.Search in Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 1998. Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly 32. 705–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588001.Search in Google Scholar
Activities (pre-drafting) | Instructions (rationale) | Interaction (rationale) | Multiple methods, approaches, techniques | Genre-model (authentic discipline) material provided | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Activity 1
Using an abstract model to understand of overall genre components (e.g. title, usually a single paragraph, key words, etc.). |
Identify the entire component parts of this abstract (to activate abstract genre schemata) | In threes (to stimulate lively discussion and promote additional perspectives Swales et al. 2009 |
|
Abstracts: King 2013; Briscoe and von Nordenflycht 2014 | ||
Activity 2
Using an abstract model to become aware of the genre’s structural moves |
Identify the rhetorical moves of this abstract (to promote analysis, awareness and understanding of abstract moves) | Individually, then compare with a partner (to encourage individual input from specific discipline followed by peer learning, and contrast across different discipline) |
|
Abstracts: King 2013; Briscoe and von Nordenflycht 2014 | ||
Activity 3
Use “call for papers” to locate abstract requirements |
Find the “call for abstract” content in this “call for papers” (to provide students with examples of abstract writing specific context) | In pairs (to promote peer interaction across specific disciplines) |
|
Calls for papers: Essau 2014; IEEE-Nano 2014 | ||
Activity 4a
Limiting conference paper topic |
From the “call for papers” select a theme on which to base your paper abstract (to further limit context to specialised area) | Individually, then compare in threes (to foster peer learning and build learner confidence) |
|
Calls for papers: Essau 2014; IEEE-Nano 2014 | ||
Activity 4b
Brainstorm for ideas to formulate conference paper topic |
First, keeping selected theme in mind, write down key words about your topic. Think of current significant issues, not previously (fully) dwelt on. Second, with emphasis on verbs and verb phrases, form a topic of 8 to 10 words (to formulate a topic relevant to a conference theme/sub-theme) | Individually, then compare in threes (to foster independence within specialist field and to promote understanding of discipline-specific language) |
|
– |
Activities (while-drafting) | Instructions (rationale) | Interaction (rationale) | Multimethod/Approach/Technique | Genre model/authentic, specialist material |
---|---|---|---|---|
Activity 4c
Draft your research problem/ context (move 1) |
Draft research motivation (not more than 2 short sentences, one could be a complex sentence). State the problem/gap and why it is significant/new (to promote practice and drafting) | Individually (to foster independence in disciplinary area) |
|
Sample phrases: “This paper focuses on/reports … which has…”* (complex sentence) |
Draft your research aim/purpose/problem (move 2) |
In not more than 2 short (preferably simple/compound) sentences state exactly what you aim to do (to practice drafting study aim in the genre as part of the writing process) | Individually (to foster independence in own disciplinary area) |
|
Sample: “Thus/and, the paper aims to examine the question/issue/problem of … as regards…”* (COH, PS) Specify participants, location/context, and possibly theoretical framework |
Draft your method/procedure used (move 3) |
In not more than 2 sentences (simple/compound), state the research methods used (to practice drafting methodology) | Individually (to create independence and focus on specific disciplinary methodology) |
|
Sample phrases: “We used…/… was adopted to collect data and analysis was carried out through…”* (PASV) |
Draft findings/results (move 4) |
State key findings/arguments as substantiated. Simple and compound sentences will help you to be explicit (to further instil confidence in drafting abstract moves) | Individually (to promote drafting in specialist area and to foster experiential learning) |
|
e.g. “This paper challenges the argument that…/paper reports… . Our findings also show that…”* (PS) |
Draft implications of your research key findings (move 5) |
State how your research impacts, improves society and/or the research area, and how it can shape the future (to learn ending an abstract by stating the research’s vital consequences) | Individually (to promote more practice in specialist area and encourage empirical learning). Exchange and check full draft in cross-discipline groups (to promote peer checking across specialist fields, Swales et al. 2009 ); to focus on own discipline unique discourse features by contrasting own abstract with those from other disciplines |
|
e.g. “One valuable insight which this research provides regarding… is that…”* (PS) Furthermore/then, the findings may be useful in treating…”* (COH, HEDG) |
Activity 5 Raising awareness of language features | Read the following abstract in your field and underline: (a) Present simple, (b) Cautious language (hedging), (c) Passive, (d) Specialist keywords, (e) Coherence and cohesion (to sensitise learners to the language and structure of abstracts) | Individually. Then check your answers in pairs (to inspire experiential and peer learning) |
|
Abstracts: King 2013; Essau 2014; Gabbioneta et al. 2014; Meakins and Wigglesworth 2013 |
-
*Sample phrases are “hard” and “soft” discipline (Hyland 2009) related.
© 2020 Godwin Ioratim-Uba, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.