Lawrie Hunter
Kochi University ofTechnology, Kochi, Japan
By prescribing document structure,
by prescribing text structure,
by prescribing format details,
we can broaden EFL students' awareness of informationstructures and writing genres asthe foundation for www research tasks.
This paper describes the culminating task in a four-monthCALL based introduction to English composition at a Japanese technicaluniversity. In this task the students are asked to find L2 text chunks whichfit into a rhetorical structure, quite different from the usualtopic-plus-language-structure type L2 writing task. This task works because thestudents themselves have designed the rhetorical structure using a generictemplate provided in the course materials.
The salient aspects of this task from the
learner's perspective are:
1. Syllabus orchestration toward the
2. Primary focus on the information organization aspects ofthe problem, with linguistic aspects kept in the background.
3. Research tasks including choice of appropriate text,adaptation of text to rhetorical structures, and citation of all sources.
The process might be mapped as follows:
Though the world wide web (www) has grown into an extensive,rich, readily available source of information, using this resource well in EFLCALL is difficult. EFL studentshave difficulty with the sheer volume of information and the“sophistication” of native English. Many search tasks proveunappealing to the sensitivities of Japanese university students: their Englishbackground is insufficient for them to express their knowledge handily inEnglish, insufficient for them to read at the level of sophistication theypossess in their first language (L1), Japanese.
This paper describes the design and enactment of scaffolded1www research tasks. Groups of four students build a structure for a four-pagedocument dealing with a topic which they are studying (in their L1, Japanese)at the time. The students in this case are environmental systems engineeringmajors, and the topics are narrow, pro-con type issues lying within the broadtheme of pollution.
The design of the task
The group task is fully documented at
http://www.info.kochi-tech.ac.jp/lawrie/call4/proconmag/index.htm
Student groups choose from three different plans, but usethe same rhetorical structure template:
Plan A: paper research (30 points)
"Food labelling in Kochi Prefecture"
Information source: Daily Yomiuri (Japanese) article fromstudent notes.
This task is easy, because the information is in Japanese,and because it is a non-web task. The points are low enough to discourage allbut the computer avoiders.
Plan B: www Research (35 points)
"Japan should use daylight saving"
http://www.kids.infoplease.lycos.com/ce5/CE014153.html
http://www.nsc.gov.au/InfoServ/Ileaflet/il27.htm
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
http://www.webexhibits.com/daylightsaving/b.html
http://www.dstc.qut.edu.au/DST/marg/daylight.html
http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/dst.html
http://timeanddate.com/time/aboutdst.html
http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html
www, using English yahoo (www.yahoo.com).
Slogan: "You can learn real research skills inEnglish."
The essence of the task: reading and selecting
First language writers take ideas from various sources,assimilate those ideas internally, decide a document structure and finallycompose. Relatively low level L2writers follow a different route from the finding of ideas to the end point ofcomposing. As a result, this writing task has two macro components: reading anddocument design. Essentialfeatures of the task are:
1. Severetime constraint (which encourages English web searching rather than Japaneseweb search and translation).
2. Detailedprescription of document structure (page and paragraph content).
3. Severetext volume constraint (which forces summarization).
4. Explicitprimary emphasis on document design (reader interest, clear informationstructure, good text-graphics balance).
5. Pageownership (each student is responsible for the production of one page).
Prescribing document structure
The students receive a statement of the task (see Fig. 1)which dictates the nformation structure of the document to be produced (e.g.pro-con). The students apply background knowledge which they have acquired inL1 to create the rhetorical structure of a group document to be written in L2.When a web research task is scaffolded by means of a prescribed documentstructure and a narrowed topic, the EFL students searching the English web muststruggle to find, in all that web text, the text that means what they want tosay. The primary task components are:
1. Decidingwhat information is needed for the various (prescribed) sections of thedocument.
2. Searching(in L2) for information on the topic.
3. Selectingchunks of found text which express the ideas which the students have generatedin L1.
Prescribing text structure
A template for each page is much more efficientcommunication than detailed written instructions; the instructions for thewriting
of each section should be brief and idiom
free. At this stage the template provides support for thestudents' web searching, ratherthan for composition.
Once the chunks of raw text have been located, a number ofother issues must be confronted:
1. Voice
2. Point of view
3. Intended message
4. Complex document structure
5. Rhetoric/metaphor
6. Source validity, reliabilityand authority
Which of these issues is discussed, and to what depth theyare discussed, depends on the students' L2 writing skill and linguisticknowledge, and on the amount of time available for rewriting and smoothing.Here the teacher can provide extensive support as a writing consultant, but thestudents remain the "experts" on the topic.
Prescribing format
After the students have assembled the various sections oftheir pages from copied text chunks, and after they have blended the chunksinto reasonable drafts of paragraphs, the focus of activity shifts toformat. A few carefully craftedsample magazines supply the students with ample guidance as
to phrasing and section-to-section blending.
Eliminate plagiarism, legitimize extensive quotes:
After the students have created reasonably structured andlinked paragraphs and pages, the issue of citation and ownership
will probably have fallen into the background. The studentsshould be prompted to check their citations again.
Discussions of web research tasks often rotate around the topic of plagiarism. But writing must always involve some form of imitation: we almost always take some ideas from somewhere and later assimilate, arrange and compose.
Low level L2 writers have more to do between finding ideasand composing. The degree and manner of transformation are the key expert-novicedifferences.
If we start with the skills of quoting and acknowledgingsources, we are then in a position to work to develop student writing as theskin around quotes (the quotes growing shorter as student writing skill growsstronger).
Conversion of structure signals
Attention must given also to the structure signals lyingwithin the chunks of copied text. Text structure signals are relatively easy toidentify and rewrite. For example "...the above graph..." needs to berewritten if the graph has not been copied into the student document, or if itis in a different relative position in the document. Much more difficult forthe novice writer are knowledge structure signals, which refer to informationstructure. For example, "In conclusion..." is easily misread and leftin a piece of writing which is not drawing a conclusion at all; similarly,"...relatively difficult.." is a comparison signal but has noreferent noun or phrase as would be the case for "...more difficultthan...".
Extension: give the students true ownership of the text
After the first version of the document is complete, thestudents have ownership of the document structure, but the writing is in mostcases not genuinely theirs. To various sections of their pages from copied textchunks, and after they have blended the chunks into reasonable drafts ofparagraphs, the focus of activity shifts to format. A few carefully crafted sample magazines supply the studentswith ample guidance as
to phrasing and section-to-section blending.
Eliminate plagiarism, legitimize extensive quotes:
After the students have created reasonably structured andlinked paragraphs and pages, the issue of citation and ownership
will probably have fallen into the background. The studentsshould be prompted to check their citations again.
Discussions of web research tasks often rotate around thetopic of plagiarism. But writing must always involve some form of imitation: wealmost always take some ideas from somewhere and later assimilate, arrange andcompose.
Low level L2 writers have more to do between finding ideasand composing. The degree and manner of transformation are the keyexpert-novice differences.
If we start with the skills of quoting and acknowledgingsources, we are then in a position to work to develop student writing as theskin around quotes (the quotes growing shorter as student writing skill growsstronger).
Conversion of structure signals
Attention must given also to the structure signals lyingwithin the chunks of copied text. Text structure signals are relatively easy toidentify and rewrite. For example "...the above graph..." needs to berewritten if the graph has not been copied into the student document, or if itis in a different relative position in the document. Much more difficult forthe novice writer are knowledge structure signals, which refer to informationstructure. For example, "In conclusion..." is easily misread and leftin a piece of writing which is not drawing a conclusion at all; similarly,"...relatively difficult.." is a comparison signal but has noreferent noun or phrase as would be the case for "...more difficultthan...".
Extension: give the students true ownership of the text
After the first version of the document is complete, thestudents have ownership of the document structure, but the writing is in mostcases not genuinely theirs. To emphasize student writing, a second type of taskis necessary. The following are two possible formats for that second phase:
Format 1. Second version—writing from an outline ofthe original
1. Studentsmake the document into a template.
2. Studentsmake an outline of the content.
3. Studentsrewrite from the outline only (without reference to the original).
Format 2. Template completion from memory:
1. Studentsmake the document into a template (hollow out all the text fields).
2. Studentsrewrite from memory with a strong time limitation.
Motivation and instructional approach
The three-class time limit pushes the groups towards moreglobal, strategic thinking about topic and design. This can be supported by theprovision of templates for decision making, design and brainstorming, but infact the students generally do not need more than a briefing about theimplications of the time constraint.
At the end of the three session project work, there is a 20minute "exhibition" in which all student work (hard copy display allowsfor high socialization) is presented for class perusal.
This exhibition takes place at the end of a 30 classsemester: it is the fourth in-class exhibition of student work in the program.It's the second group project.
Observation: students searching the English web struggle tofind, in all that web text, the text that means what they want to say. Thoughthe task is difficult, motivation has been observed to be strong. Thisassignment is the last in a two quarter CALL writing program. The students havecompleted all the work that is evaluated for points: this last assignment isnot for points. Yet, without exaggeration, all of the students work diligently(even coming to the lab early) throughout the three lab sessions given to thiswork.
Encouraging students to use English web searches isrelatively easy, given the time constraint. The teacher compares twostrategies:
1. Students searchL1 web, then translate to English.
2. Studentssearch English web, then adapt text.
Given this demonstration of time utility, most students (even previously stubborn L1 searchers) used English search engines and began to look at English sites.
Structures of information (knowledge structures)
In leading the students towards research skill, it isimportant to focus on the structures of information. What informationstructures are there to choose from? An excellent approach to informationstructures and writing genres can be built around systemic functionallinguistics, which is well introduced in Butt et al
Mohan's (1986) Language and Content:
1. Description / classification
2. Comparison / contrast
3. Sequence (narration,procedure)
4. Cause and effect
5. Evaluation
-proand con
-sidesof an issue
(lesspolar than pro and con)
Syllabus orchestration toward the
The two quarter course content is all information structurebased. Assignments are as follows:
Quarter 1
1. The Real Me (HyperCard stack):
description in past, present, future.
2. Our Hometowns (HyperCard stack):
comparison/contrast (pair task)
3. Typing test stack
(completion exercises using genres)
Quarter 2
4. Email writing tasks (3):
evaluating sides of an issue
5. Pro con magazine
(group paper publication)pro and con
6. Typing test stack
(completion exercises using genres)
Documentation
Please follow the Writing 3 and Writing 4 links from <http://www.info.kochi-tech.ac.jp/lawrie/classes/>for a sense of the presentation of these tasks to the students. Also, Hunter(1999) provides a detailed look at the all-important signalling of textstructure and information structure by means of signal words and expressions.See <http://www.info.kochi-tech.ac.jp/lawrie/signalindex.htm> for an HTMLpresentation on structure signalling.
Feedback and inquiries are welcome! Contact the author at<lawrie@info.kochi-tech.ac.jp>.
Sources
Adler, M.J. and Van Doren, C. (1981) Howto read a book.
Badger, R. and White, G. (2000) Aprocess genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal vol. 54/2: 153-160.