Teaching Academic Writing
I was recently asked to outline my approach to teaching academic writing. I am sure that with more experience, both practical and theoretical, this current outline will grow and adapt. However, this is where I am now and this piece will serve as a record upon which future me could reflect.
Current approach
Keeping in mind that ‘EAP classes cannot produce fully developed
academic writers,’ my main aim is to raise students’ awareness of what is
involved in academic writing and help them see how they might continue to develop
as academic writers beyond the EAP course (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer,
2018, p. 200). Generally, students might share certain concerns about academic
writing, which can help us to plan a scheme of work. Some of these concerns
relate to language structures, academic style, and collating, summarising and
paraphrasing other writers’ ideas to build arguments. On the other hand,
teachers might be concerned about subject-specific technical terms that might
be unfamiliar to them, and how to stop plagiarism (Alexander et al., 2018).
Taking all this into account, I generally follow a genre-process
approach when teaching academic writing. In practice, I help students to move
away from the idea that they need to have ‘perfect grammar’ and use ‘rare vocabulary,’
and instead get them to focus on the content and purpose of academic writing. Alexander
et al. (2018) state that academic writing must be as clear as possible, with
the writer seeking to minimise ambiguity. This focus away from language structures,
although of course not entirely, means that regardless of students’ level of
competence, they can be taught to write with clarity and simplicity. Bruce
(2008, p. 2) emphasises that teachers help students develop discourse
competence in writing, which he defines as ‘an integration of aspects...of
linguistic knowledge with pragmatic knowledge and conventionalized forms of
communication.’
Students also need to learn how to present information in a text in
a logical and effective way (Alexander et al., 2018). What this means is that
often students do not know how to ‘channel’ the flow of information so that
their arguments can be easily understood, and they need to be shown how to do
this by deconstructing model texts.
Apart from the need to set a clear communicative purpose for
writing, teachers also need to make students aware that they are writing for an
audience. Additionally, they need to find out how a particular type of writing
is realised in their particular discipline. For example, an essay in Marketing
might be different from one in Zoology. However, generally, an
academic essay is ‘a written response to a focused question,’ and students need
to collate information from various sources to realise this response (Jackson et
al., as cited in Alexander et al., 2018). This means that it is crucial that
students become familiar with the citation conventions particular to their
discipline.
Writing is a cyclical process and students need to be made aware of
this. They need to understand that their first output is not the final version.
It is essential that they be given feedback on drafts, but should also be
tasked with self- and peer-assessment. In order to fulfil this, they must
become familiar with the writing task requirements and assessment criteria.
One-to-one pedagogy
Regarding one-to-one teaching, it is important that teachers keep
their student from becoming too dependent on them. Teachers are valuable
resources, but should have the aim to help students take more and more
responsibility for their own learning. In other words, teachers should be careful not to ‘do the writing for the student.’ This means that tasks must be designed with
doable challenges and appropriate scaffolding. The role of scaffolding is not simply
to make tasks easier, but to help students advance to challenges of increasing
complexity (Bondi, 2016; Gibbons, 2015; Hyland, 2006; Stoller, 2016). While
this is good practice overall, it is especially important in one-to-one
contexts.
Synchronous and asynchronous online contexts
In synchronous online contexts, students need as much group
practice/discussion as possible. Teachers can put students in breakout rooms to
consolidate tasks worked on asynchronously. These might include choosing
sources, paraphrasing, summarising, and synthesising information. Rather than
lecture, the teacher acts as facilitator in these online lessons. Ideally,
these online sessions should not be longer than sixty minutes. This is to keep
student engagement as high as possible. To ensure engagement on asynchronous
tasks, students need to work collaboratively as much as possible. For example,
they might be instructed to upload a paragraph they are working on to the
university VLE for students in their group to comment on. However, above all
else, students need to be made aware of the relevance of these tasks to them
and their target situation. This should help keep them engaged.
Conclusion
As a novice EAP practitioner (less than 5 years' experience), I realise that there might be many gaps in my knowledge, particularly when it comes to teaching academic writing. However, the fact that there is still so much room for growth and development is precisely what motivates me on this journey.
References
Alexander, O.,
Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2018). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to
principles and practice (2nd ed.). Reading, England:
Garnet.
Bondi, M. (2016).
Textbooks. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
English for academic purposes (pp. 323-334). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic
writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London, UK: Continuum.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding
language scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream
classroom (2nd Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Stoller, F. L. (2016). EAP Materials and
Tasks. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 577-591). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Comments
Post a Comment