Comments
Description
Transcript
Document 1783525
Grammar in St Andrews BALEAP PIM to be held at the School of Medicine University of St Andrews, Medical and Biological Science Building, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TF on Saturday 20 June 2015 from 09:30 to 16:40 Publishers’ Displays Attendees will be able to view displays from Garnet and Cambridge English Lunch and Refreshments Lunch and afternoon coffee will be served in the Exhibition Area Abstracts Plenary Speaker ********************************* 10:00 -‐ 11:10*********************************** Dr Jim Donohue, Queen Mary University of London Lecture Theatre Grammar as meaning-‐making in context: a language as social semiotic-‐based approach. Over 50 years ago, Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens (1964) published The Linguistic sciences and language teaching, in which they outlined the theory of register, the idea that language varies systematically according to contexts of use. Register is a functional perspective on language and became one of the central planks of English for Specific and Academic purposes (See Swales, 2001:44; Wingate & Tribble, 2012:486). Although register was sometimes seen in terms of variation in lexical occurrences across different contexts – for example, bank in economics collocating with money, credit, loans, etc and bank in geography collocating with river, sedimentation, erosion, etc. -‐ Halliday regarded register as lexico-‐grammatical variation i.e. variation in patterns of lexicogrammar across whole texts. Since The Linguistic sciences and language teaching was published, register-‐based approaches to understanding and teaching about whole texts in context in EAP have been joined by genre-‐based approaches. Genre-‐based approaches were also informed by Halliday (cf. Halliday and Hasan (1985) but the work of Swales, Bhatia, Dudley-‐Evans and others has probably been more widely recognised in EAP teaching and research. In the move towards genre-‐based approaches, the nature and role of grammar and of knowledge about grammar in EAP has become problematised. A key aspect of genre description is to focus on the communicative functions that texts perform in contexts, but traditional models of grammar are formal rather than functional. In contrast, the grammar that Halliday presented in the 60s, and which has continued to be developed since, provides a functional model of grammar. Systemic functional linguistics, as it is called, is oriented towards how texts make meaning in context by realising register and genre. Like traditional grammar, it is concerned with clause structure but it differs from traditional grammar in a number of ways. While acknowledging that there are structural conventions which control the ways that words are combined into clauses, SFL emphasises the choices that are entailed in constructing clauses. These include choices from within many paradigmatic system networks of language – for example, polarity, the choice between language forms that realise positive or negative meanings. Such linguistic choices are made not simply in relation to the clause in which they occur, but also in relation to the surrounding text in which the clause occurs, and also in relation to the context in which the text occurs. SFL thus sees grammar as a meaning making resource which is systematically oriented towards discourse in context through linguistic patterning that goes beyond the individual clause. To treat grammar as a meaning-‐making resource in this way is to see language as a social semiotic with grammar at its centre (see Coffin and Donohue, 2014). That is, lexicogrammatical choices are choices in which form and meaning are fused. In Coffin and Donohue (2014) the notion that language is a social semiotic is described as a threshold concept (after Meyer and Land, 2005): difficult to grasp but potentially transformative as well as troublesome when it is. This presentation will explore how grammar can usefully be described in contexts of disciplinary meaning making, drawing on SFL to do so, and provide some illustrations of how these descriptions can be used in supporting the development of students’ and teachers’ repertoires of meaning making in disciplinary contexts through a language as social semiotic approach. Coffin, C. & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic-‐based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Oxford: Wiley. Also available as a supplement to Language Learning journal in their monograph series, June 2014, Volume 64, Issue s1, Pages vii–xi, 1–308 Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. (1985). Language context and text: Aspects of language in a social-‐semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M.A.K., A. McIntosh, and P. Strevens. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. Meyer, J.H.F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-‐388. Swales, J.M. (2001) ‘EAP related linguistic research an intellectual history’, pps 42-‐54, Flowerdew, J and Peacock, M, (eds) Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wingate, U. & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37 (4), 481-‐495 Biodata Between 2006-‐14, Jim Donohue was Head of Open English Language Teaching in the Department of Languages at The Open University UK. Jim now works at Queen Mary, University of London, as a member of the Thinking Writing team within Learning Development, promoting awareness of the role of writing in higher education. He has researched in the fields of academic and professional communication using systemic functional linguistics approaches and drawing on experience of applying Paulo Freirean perspectives in adult and community education settings. He is particularly interested in how linguistics can be used to enhance learner-‐centred and experiential learning. He is currently secretary of the committee of the European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing. Jim is co-‐author of A language as social semiotic-‐based approach to teaching and learning in higher education ((Wiley-‐Blackwell, 2014, with Coffin) and Exploring Grammar: From Formal to Functional (Routledge, 2009, with Coffin and North). He has published in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (and was co-‐editor with Coffin of the special issue, English for Academic Purposes: contributions from Systemic Functional Linguistics and Academic Literacies), Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, English for Specific Purposes, and Writing & Pedagogy. http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/person/jpmd3.html http://www.learningdevelopment.qmul.ac.uk/aboutus Presenters ***************************Session 1: 11:15 -‐ 11:55****************************** Jenny Kemp, University of Leicester Lecture Theatre Using concordances to raise awareness of grammatical patterns. Abstract Concordances can be used to explore grammatical patterns, both in the classroom and as a self-‐study tool. This practical workshop will not only demonstrate some effective classroom tasks, but also help participants to raise their own awareness of the wealth of information that concordances can provide. Summary This practical workshop will take place in a computer room. It is aimed at those whose experience and confidence in using concordances is limited. After a brief introduction which will refer to the work of John Sinclair, Susan Hunston and others, participants will discuss some examples of printed classroom tasks. They will then complete some hands-‐on tasks on websites such as Tom Cobb’s Lextutor and Mark Davies’ byu-‐bnc. These tasks will be ones they can easily adapt for use with their own students. Biodata Jenny Kemp is a Senior Fellow of BALEAP and the Higher Education Academy, and has recently assumed the role of BALEAP TEAP officer. She is also lecturer in EAP at the University of Leicester, where her current roles include directing a presessional, writing materials, supporting Law students and encouraging professional development. Jenny is also doing a PhD in Education, developing a discipline-‐specific vocabulary core for Law. Gad Lim, Cambridge English Seminar Room 1 Assessing Grammar in Academic Writing. How can we appropriately assess grammar in academic writing? It will be argued that assessment instruments need to fit assessment contexts. With that in mind, we will look at example writing assessment criteria developed for particular contexts, and how grammar is accounted for and evaluated in these. Summary How can we appropriately assess grammar in academic writing? It will be argued that assessment instruments need to fit assessment contexts, and this should explain why particular tests take the form they do and why they are marked in particular ways. To illustrate this, we will look at example writing assessment tasks and criteria, noting distinctive features that indicate the contexts in which they are used. We then focus on how grammar is elicited and evaluated in these. Academic writing represents a specific contextual use of grammar, and we consider the ways that assessment criteria can be made to flexibly account for and evaluate this. Biodata Gad is Principal Research and Validation Manager at Cambridge English, where he leads research on writing assessment and on IELTS. His research is informed by many years of experience as an examiner, item writer, test designer, and test development manager. He has also taught in higher education and trained language teachers and testers in Asia, Australia, North America, and Europe. Gad reviews for all major language testing journals, and has published on language teaching, performance testing, raters and rating scales, test validation, standard setting, and on the CEFR. His PhD is from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Louise Green, UCL Institute of Education Seminar Room 2 Inclusion and diplomacy in error correction: Acknowledging student expertise The purpose of this workshop is to explore ways in which grammatical error correction can be approached in a manner that recognises, affirms and includes knowledge and language teaching experience brought to the classroom by non-‐native speaker teachers of English on a pre-‐sessional course for postgraduate students in the field of Education. Summary The effectiveness, or not, of correcting students’ grammatical ‘errors’ in writing has been hotly debated (eg. Truscott, 1996, 1999; Ferris, 1999) and more recently explored in relation to second language acquisition theory (Polio, 2012) as well as in terms of its application in particular contexts (Ferris et al., 2013; Bitchener et al., 2005; Bitchener & Knock, 2010). Whether or not explicit grammar correction works, students often appear to expect it in some form (Zhou, 2009) and programme tutors sometimes voice expectations that grammatical accuracy should be dealt with in EAP units and writing centres. Carroll (2006), among others, warns of potential loss of confidence experienced by non-‐native speaker students in the early stages of their courses when their language skills seem to let them down, in spite of their having achieved required language entry levels. This might be particularly hard for mature postgraduate students who are experienced teachers of English in their home countries. As such, error correction related to language accuracy arguably needs to be approached with particular consideration and sensitivity, and perhaps there are ways of harnessing such students’ expert knowledge of English grammar which can build confidence and empower these learners in the pre-‐ sessional classroom. This research workshop therefore seeks to explore strategies and offer a forum for discussion to share ideas on: -‐ balancing a perceived need for improved accuracy with realistic goals (Zhou, 2009) for development in students’ writing -‐ ways to improve grammatical accuracy in writing with sensitivity to avoid loss of face among linguistics ‘experts’ -‐ developing inclusive conversations around academic writing which empower non-‐native teachers of English References Bitchener, J., Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. Bitchener, J., Young, S., and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 227–258. Carroll, J. (2006) ‘Lightening the load’ Teaching in English, learning in English. In Carroll, J. and Ryan, J. Teaching International Students, Improving Learning for All. Abingdon: Routledge Ferris, D. (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996), Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-‐11 Ferris, D.R., Liu, H., Sinha, A. and Senna, M. (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307-‐329 Polio, C. (2012) The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate, Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 275-‐389 Truscott, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 Writing Classes, Language Learning 46, 327-‐369 Truscott, J. (1999) The case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A response to Ferris, Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 111-‐122 Zhou, A. A. (2009) What adult ESL learners say about improving grammar and vocabulary in their writing for academic purposes, Language Awareness, 18, 31–46 Biodata I am Academic Writing Tutor and e-‐Learning Developer at the Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education. I am also joint programme lead on the Preparation to Academic Studies in Higher Education pre-‐sessional course for postgraduate students. I teach on a range of courses that support academic writing in the field of Education. Prior to this post, I worked at Oxford Brookes University as EAP Tutor and Educational Developer. I also spent 10 years as an EFL & ESP teacher and teacher trainer in France, Eastern Europe and the former USSR, mainly working for the British Council. Jonathan Fitchett & Rebecca Coleman, University of Kent Meeting Room 1 Humanising EAP grammar teaching through drama and song. We attempt to show how the use of two methodologies not readily associated with EAP, namely the use of drama and song, can indeed engage students both cognitively and affectively. In considering possible applications for the use of these methods, we stress the necessity for engaging input of grammar to be incorporated into English for Academic Purposes (EAP) teaching methodology. Summary This workshop will consider ways in which to encourage the use of both drama and song in the EAP classroom. A major challenge for tutors is how to render the teaching of grammar in EAP to be more engaging and relevant to students’ interests and needs without a) compromising effectiveness and b) appearing to be irrelevant to the academic needs of the students. In this session, delegates will be exposed to (and have the opportunity to reflect on) strategies for using drama and song effectively as a learning tool, with particular focus on the teaching of grammar. The workshop will include an overview of what we have experienced in our teaching, the problems that could be faced, and a brief analysis of possible applications. Biodata Jonathan Fitchett is an EAP tutor at the University of Kent with a background in theatre and performance. He is currently studying for a PhD in the linguistics of playwriting. Ms Rebecca Coleman is an EAP Tutor and a CELTA Tutor at the University of Kent with a background in verbal memory and popular song and a Masters in his domain. She is currently teaching and convening on IFP, In-‐sessional and teacher training programmes. Kerry Tavakoli, ELT, University of St Andrews Meeting Room 2 A different class of writing. Whatever approach we take to providing language input for our students, their writing continues to show significant weaknesses in many cases. Much of this is their inability to understand what they read and transfer this to their own writing. In addition to various classroom activities, the only way out seems to be individual tutorials to work on essay drafts. Summary This presentation considers the lack of transfer of language input into student writing, and identifies a combination of reading for writing, microwriting and writing as class activities to prepare students for the writing of a variety of assignments, rather than the traditional discrete reading, writing, grammar and vocabulary classes. These assignments are drafted and form the basis of individual tutorials, as a result of which students are more likely to act on feedback; they understand the feedback better, have a chance to explain what they want to say when their meaning is unclear or ambiguous, appreciate the teacher’s attention, and their confidence is boosted. They gain more from a 20 minute tutorial than from a 90 minute class, and thus it is proposed that the tutorial should be a regular part of the timetable. The presentation also looks at the importance of Flow theory, so as to remind us of the need to use interesting and relevant materials, and to show the students at every stage why they are doing each task. Biodata Kerry has been teaching EAP to both UGs and PGs for 15 years, specializing in reading and integrating reading, writing and background content knowledge. She also lectures in Linguistics, with a particular interest in Second Language Acquisition. She is a member of the BALEAP Executive Committee, and a regular attender of PIMS and conferences. Kerry has been teaching EAP to both UGs and PGs for 15 years, specializing in reading and integrating reading, writing and background content knowledge. She also lectures in Linguistics, with a particular interest in Second Language Acquisition. She is a member of the BALEAP Executive Committee, and a regular attender of PIMS and conferences. ***************************Session 2: 12:00 -‐ 12:40****************************** Jenifer Spencer, Freelancer Lecture Theatre Reporting surveys, interviews and questionnaires-‐ problems in grammar or problems in epistemology? This workshop illustrates some tricky grammar choices in reporting the results of research based on surveys and interviews and examines the epistemological issues underlying some of these choices. With the help of the workshop participants, it will then explore how we can use existing materials and classroom practices to help develop students’ language resources to deal with these problems. Summary Surveys, interviews and questionnaires are now used in fields as diverse as physics, IT and environmental studies as well as the social sciences. A common research pattern is to triangulate findings from interviews, surveys and from the literature, analyse the data through statistical techniques or coding software and then validate the resulting model through expert review panels. In reporting such work, students face complex grammatical choices, involving reporting several layers of agency, opinion and fact. Published research papers, where results are presented in condensed form, may not provide appropriate models. There are tricky epistemological choices in using the language to show the degree to which the writer can generalise, using the present tense, and what is limited to the original ‘snapshot’ obtained from a particular sample at a particular time, shown by past forms. In ‘grey areas’, an experienced writer might avoid possible awkward choices, for example by the use of tenseless forms, such as modals, impersonal forms and reduced relative clauses. There are also dilemmas in terms of singular or plural. A small stretch of text may involve multiple agents: the researcher, participants and other agents whose behaviour the respondents are reporting. Participants may alternately be regarded as a sample or as individuals, particularly when quotes from interviews are interleaved as commentary on the statistical data from the surveys. This workshop explores these difficulties through specific examples in case studies from the results sections of Masters and PhD theses. The later part of the workshop will explore, with the participation of the audience, ways in which this issue can be incorporated into the already overcrowded EAP syllabus and classroom practice. Examples from current EAP course books will be used to suggest how existing material can be exploited to develop students’ language resources for dealing with these issues. Biodata Jenifer Spencer co-‐authored EAP Essentials (Garnet Education, 2008), together with Olwyn Alexander and Sue Argent. She has taught EAP for over 15 years, and was involved in developing and delivering TEAP training courses at Heriot-‐Watt University and recently at Sheffield University. As a freelance materials developer, she has developed course materials for several UK universities, and engaged in editorial work for various publishers. She also works 1:1 with students on research writing skills, which provides a valuable insight into the challenges of research writing for students from different language and cultural backgrounds. Tony Prince, Norwich Institute for Language Education Seminar Room 1 Classroom application of corpus research: considering 'University Language' This workshop makes suggestions as to how the findings of corpus based research into EAP writing and speaking can be applied to classroom practice. Summary While corpus based research provides much information as to the key features of EAP, it is not always clear as to how these can be used in the classroom, or applied to materials production. This workshop will suggest how frameworks for understanding the key features of academic text -‐ such as that suggested by Andy Gillet in UEfAP -‐ can be used to organise and prioritise this research. The aim is to help students to understand the function of grammar in creating academic style, rather than having them focus on the form. Biodata Tony Prince is Academic Director at NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education). He is responsible for teacher training and projects related to tertiary education, having spent 15 years working in and managing programmes involving academic English at the University of East Anglia. He has designed and delivered a wide variety of consultancy projects, most recently in Georgia and across Russia. Anne Vicary & Deborah Murphy, University of Reading Seminar Room 2 Can’t do/won’t do! Bridging the gap between knowledge and understanding. International students are often reluctant to apply new grammatical concepts to their academic writing. This action research project explores why this is the case and offers possible solutions. Summary Feedback from academic staff teaching on degree programmes shows that some international students are prevented from conveying meaning in their writing due to a limited grammar range and a lack of grammatical control. This suggests that understanding how to use grammar accurately may be a real problem for some students even though they may have completed a pre-‐sessional course. We therefore decided to investigate why some pre-‐sessional students between the range of 5.0-‐5.5 IELTS (or equivalent) seem unable to understand how to use grammatical structures taught in the pre-‐ sessional classroom within their pre-‐sessional essay writing. While some respond well to grammar instruction, self-‐study tasks and teacher feedback, others cannot or are unwilling to engage. They continue to use language that they feel comfortable with and often ignore advice on grammar usage. We wanted to generate insights into the reasons why students find it difficult to apply grammatical concepts to their essay writing and engage with feedback. To this end, we carried out a small-‐scale action research project with pre-‐sessional students. We conducted semi-‐structured interviews with individual students and gained further evidence from a focus group. This presentation will give an overview of the results of this interesting piece of research and offer some practical student-‐centred solutions to bridge the gap between ‘knowing’ grammar and being able to understand how to use it accurately and appropriately in writing. Biodata Both Anne Vicary and Deborah Murphy work at the International Study and Language Institute at the University of Reading. Anne is the author of Grammar for Writing, part of the Garnet EAS series and is an EAP lecturer and in-‐sessional English Programme postgraduate co-‐ordinator. Deborah is an EAP lecturer and co-‐ordinates the writing syllabus for the pre-‐sessional language programme. Elaine Lopez, University of Leeds Meeting Room 1 Does the grammar used in essays accurately represent linguistic knowledge? This paper reports on the grammatical development of 50 Chinese learners during a 10 week pre-‐ sessional course. Learners’ knowledge of articles was tested at the start and end of the course, and a disparity found between their written accuracy and performance on two experimental tasks. I will examine what these seemingly anomalous results mean for grammar instruction on pre-‐sessional courses. Summary This presentation will present data from my PhD research, which measured the grammatical development of pre-‐sessional learners as part of a large scale intervention study. I measured the effect of explicit instruction on article acquisition amongst Chinese learners of English (n=50) studying on a UK-‐based pre-‐sessional EAP course. Three groups of learners were given three different types of grammar instruction with the intention of applying theoretical linguistic research to the language classroom. All groups made a statistically significant improvement when measured by a written elicitation task and the majority of learners also improved significantly on a timed judgment task. The learners written work, however, told a different story. An analysis of essays submitted for formative assessment on the pre-‐sessional course showed an increase in the number of errors during the course. The reason for these disparate results will be examined, and I will suggest that learners’ accuracy in their written work may not provide an accurate picture of their linguistic knowledge. The implications of these results for teaching and examining writing on pre-‐sessional EAP courses will also be considered. Biodata Elaine Lopez is a teaching fellow in TESOL at the University of Leeds, and recently completed a PhD in linguistics at the University of York. She has taught EAP for 6 years and previously taught EFL in Mexico and Indonesia. ***************************Session 3: 13:50 -‐ 14:30****************************** Cathy Benson & David Caulton, University of Edinburgh Lecture Theatre Grammar for Academic Writing : an in-‐sessional EAP course. At the ELTC we have run for many years an in-‐sessional course on Grammar for Academic Writing. We propose to present the course itself -‐ its rationale, content, and delivery -‐ for comment, and discuss ways of evaluating the effectiveness of an EAP Grammar course. Summary Grammar for Academic Writing has run for many years as both a face-‐to-‐face course and an on-‐line course. It aims to cover some of the key areas of English grammar typically found in academic writing, and thereby to help participants enhance the accuracy and appropriacy of their written academic English. It combines input with discussion and practice, and a weekly assignment on which they receive tutor feedback. Hitherto, the success of the course has been measured by the (almost invariably positive) student evaluations, but we are now exploring ways of examining more systematically the course’s effectiveness in terms of its impact on student performance. Some of the methods we are considering are: a comparison of students’ writing at the beginning and end of the course, a pre-‐ and post-‐test of discrete items presented during the course, and pre-‐ and post-‐tests at the beginning and end of each unit. The first of these will be piloted this semester, with the caveat that none of these methods can provide evidence of sustained improvement, for which we would need to “track” the students through the rest of their programmes of study. We hope to explore this possibility in the future. We also intend to hold a focus group with current students to try to obtain a deeper understanding of the perceived usefulness of the course, and to ascertain their motivation in choosing to follow the course. At the BALEAP PIM, we would hope to present the (very exploratory) findings from the analysis of changes in students’ performance on the writing tasks, and from the focus group. Biodata Cathy Benson and David Caulton have taught at ELTC (formerly IALS), University of Edinburgh. We both teach on a range of EGAP and ESAP courses, both pre-‐sessional and in-‐sessional. David is deputy Section Head of ESP, with a particular interest in Business English both for professionals and for students. He also teaches and designs materials for the International Foundation Programme. Cathy is involved in teacher education, for example she runs an in-‐service course on the teaching of grammar, as well as courses for university lecturers who teach their subjects through the medium of English in a variety of countries. Katherine Taylor, University of Leeds Seminar Room 1 Providing In-‐Sessional Doctoral Support: Caring about Grammar, Caring for Students Summary The expectations of supervisors and examiners etc. for students to communicate with clarity and accuracy, particularly in writing, are very apparent. What is less evident is how these expectations are reconciled with the constraints of university/doctoral systems (including the setting of quite modest language proficiency entry requirements) and the realities of students’ lives; and where the responsibility -‐ and time -‐ for effecting reconciliation lies. In this session, I share, and invite discussion of, my attempts at such reconciliatory work with students: ostensibly supporting them in improving their grammatical competency through the in-‐sessional provision I have developed, but also becoming entangled, less visibily, in the broader remit of caring for students. Biodata I am responsible for in-‐sessional support specifically for doctoral students, having recently developed a series of discrete writing courses and workshops for these students. I am currently in the process of doing a part-‐time PhD in practice-‐based learning. Klaus Mundt, University of Nottingham Seminar Room 2 Mike Groves, University of Bath Handle, but handle with care: Google Translate in EAP This presentation examines the impact of a potentially paradigmatic technological shift in EAP. It proposes embracing the use of Google Translate as useful tool in developing the proficiency and literacy of EAP students through increased and personalised critical language study. Students using such technology seems an inevitable development outside the classroom, and instead of vilifying it as an unethical shortcut, it could be utilised to facilitate the development of the students’ language proficiency. Key words: Google Translate, EAP writing, critical language study, proficiency Summary Technology has been playing an ever growing role in language teaching and learning, in particular with the emergence of free software applications (cf Ho, Anderson & Leong, 2010). Google Translate is one of these applications, and it is accessible to all users with an internet connection. Considering the attraction such applications have for language learners, we argue that it is likely that they will utilise Google Translate to help them produce their academic assignments, both in EAP and degree courses. In a recent study (Groves & Mundt, 2015), it was found that the application is at present unable to produce error-‐free texts, but, measured against international testing standards, there was evidence of stretches of text that achieved grammatical accuracy that would meet the minimum requirements for university entry at a wide range of universities. While on the one hand this might be grounds for concern, as it may undermine a number of core principles of language teaching, it also may open up opportunities to engage with language teaching from a different, more personalised angle that puts the student much more in charge of their own writing the development of the writing competence through critical language study (cf Fairclough, 1989). We thus argue that, rather than perceiving this technology as a threat, it may be integrated into EAP classroom practice in a targeted manner to facilitate both the development of grammatical proficiency and deeper academic literacy. This will be illustrated with data and practical suggestions in this presentation. References Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman Groves, M. & Mundt, K. (2015) Friend or Foe? Google Translate in Language for Academic Purposes. English for Specific Purposes. 37, 112-‐121 Ho, C., Anderson, K. & Leong, A. (eds.) (2010) Transforming Literacies and Language: Multimodality and Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Continuum Biodata Klaus Mundt teaches EAP and Translation at the University of Nottingham, UK. He holds an MA in Southeast Asian studies and an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT. His research interests range from cultural aspects of communication to L1 transfer and communicative competence. Mike Groves is the insessional course leader at the Academic Skills Centre at the University of Bath. He has specific interest in the nexus of learner autonomy and technological advancements. Michèle le Roux, INTO Glasgow Caledonian University Meeting Room 1 Doing and Making Punctuation Work. Summary Punctuation often occupies a marginal place on EAP courses, and appears almost as an afterthought in assessment criteria. Teachers may also lack confidence in explaining the finer points of punctuation. Drawing on my experience as both an EAP teacher and an editor in the publishing industry, I will explore how a punctuation strand can be woven into an EAP syllabus and how punctuation work can be integrated with and used to develop grammatical accuracy and nuance, discourse coherence and referencing skills. I will share some punctuation awareness and practice activities which I have developed and used with my students, and will invite discussion of what a principled EAP punctuation syllabus might look like. Biodata Michèle le Roux has taught English Language, Literature and EAP at universities in Japan, China, France and the UK. She has designed and led teacher development programmes, including acting as convenor of the London University British Institute in Paris Certificate in TEFL. After several years working as a development editor in the publishing industry, she now teaches pre-‐sessional, in-‐ sessional and pathway courses at British HE institutions. Herself a perpetual student, she has recently embarked on a distance learning MA in Systematic and Philosophical Theology at Nottingham University. ***************************Session 4: 14:35 -‐ 15:15****************************** Sheena Gardner, Coventry University Lecture Theatre Explorations of Grammar in the BAWE Corpus of Academic English The BAWE corpus of proficient student writing from across disciplines and years of study at four English universities can be freely accessed by students, teachers and researchers via www.coventry.ac.uk/BAWE. This session will demonstrate how the corpus can be used to investigate the grammar of academic English through examples that illustrate a range of possible questions and techniques. Summary This session will begin with an overview of the BAWE corpus of proficient student writing. The corpus includes 2800 assignments from students in almost 28 disciplines over four levels of study. Full details are available at www.coventry.ac.uk/BAWE. I will then demonstrate how a range of different questions about the grammar of academic English can be answered with evidence from the corpus. These include, for example, simple searches for discourse markers, comparisons of phrasal verbs across disciplines, sketch differences of similar lexical items that occur in different grammatical constructions, an investigation of usage such as ‘data is’ vs ‘data are’, and multidimensional register analysis of grammatical features that are salient in different genre families. Through these searches, different techniques for accessing and for analysing corpus data will be demonstrated. Some of these searches can easily and freely be conducted by students and teachers in class, while others require more time and work. Biodata Sheena Gardner started teaching EAP at the University of St Andrews, where she also completed a PhD in Linguistics. She has since been involved in ELT (EFL, EAP, EAL, ESL, TEFL, TESL, TEAL, TEAP) in Europe, Africa, North America and Asia. She is now Professor of Applied Linguistics, and Head of the Department of English and Languages at Coventry University. Her research in educational linguistics, which draws extensively on systemic functional linguistics, is centred around academic genres in the BAWE corpus of university student writing and young learner classroom discourse. Marion O’Hara, Royal Holloway, University of London Seminar Room 1 Developing an effective Grammar and Vocabulary in-‐sessional course The goal of this course development is to equip students with practical tools to improve clarity and accuracy in their academic writing. Grammatical forms and academic vocabulary are not approached separately. Instead, lexico grammatical features identified as most needed in academic writing are taught in context within a function-‐based syllabus. The success of this new course will also be evaluated in this presentation. Summary This presentation intends to report and reflect on the development of two new in-‐sessional English for Academic Purposes courses Royal Holloway University's Centre for the Development of Academic Skills (CeDAS). These courses replace a less popular longer Academic Grammar course, and are based on academic research highlighting the need for a clear link between grammar and writing tasks, as well as the necessity of integrating vocabulary within the teaching of academic grammar (e.g. Coxhead & Byrd, 2007). A functional approach was used as a basis for syllabus writing, with an emphasis on lexicogrammatical features identified as most frequently used in academic writing (Biber & Reppen, 2002), but also on features identified as crucial to clarity in academic writing (Dudley-‐Evans & St John, 2012). Members of the CeDAS teaching team's long experience was also taken into account, as well as a sampling of student writing and course feedback data. The presentation will look at the rationale for the design of the new courses, taking into account local constraints, students' needs and research highlights. It will then present the characteristics of the courses themselves within the context of our provision, and attempt to evaluate their success from the point of view of both students and staff. Possible further modifications will also be mentioned. Finally, suggestions for the development of similar courses will be presented for discussion. Biodata Marion Engrand-‐O'Hara has been teaching languages for 20 years, including 13 in an academic context; however, her involvement in EAP is more recent (4 years). With a background in Sociology, and after a Masters' in French and Second Language Acquisition at the University of Arizona, USA, she taught French and English in Prague, Czech Republic and Brighton. In 2001 she completed a PGCE (Adults) at the University of Surrey, before starting as a French language tutor at Royal Holloway, where she now teaches EAP. Nola Dennis, Loughborough University Seminar Room 2 Home students can’t write: fix their grammar please! I reflect on how ‘grammar’ provision for home students has developed at Loughborough University. Many students and some academics seem unable to articulate the problems they find with writing, and as a result simply classify those problems as grammar. Through engagement with student writing, I attempt to consider “what exactly is ‘grammar’ in the context of home student academic writing”. Summary The English Language Support Service at Loughborough University started providing generic grammar support for home students in response to a call from academics across the campus that many students were unable to write. Students were sent by their tutors or came of their own accord to generic grammar workshops having been told that their grammar was ‘bad’, but many of the students were unable to articulate exactly what that meant. It seemed to us that some of those academics were also unable to articulate exactly what the problem was with their students’ writing. This talk will give a reflective review of how the ‘grammar’ provision for home students at Loughborough University has developed since I started it in 2011. In addition to the generic workshops, we have recently been working with a small number of academic departments to provide bespoke provision for their students. In that time, we have seen various examples of student writing, and have engaged in the discourse analysis of those texts in an attempt to establish what students are required to produce in those departments. I reflect on what has been learned the more that we have worked with academics and got to know home students a little better. I attempt to consider “what exactly is ‘grammar’ in the context of home student academic writing” at Loughborough University. Biodata Nola Dennis is the Senior EAP Lecturer at Loughborough University. She is a BALEAP Senior Fellow & Mentor. Darran Shaw, INTO Newcastle Meeting Room 1 Students' use of their L1 to develop explicit linguistic knowledge. This research project reports on a quasi-‐experimental study in which Chinese Presessional students completed a consciousness-‐raising (CR) task designed to develop explicit knowledge of defining relative clauses. A grammaticality judgment test was administered before completion of the CR task, immediately after, and again four weeks later to identify gains in explicit knowledge. Summary This workshop will begin by reviewing the roles of the students’ use of their L1 in class as well as that of CR tasks in SLA. The research design will then be outlined and data collection tools described. Finally, the main findings will be presented and implications discussed. Biodata Darran Shaw taught EFL in Italy, Greece, Germany, Spain and Qatar, was DoS in Poland and delivered CELTA and DELTA courses in the UK, Ukraine and Lithuania. He joined INTO Newcastle in 2009 where he completed his MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and is currently Pre-‐sessional Programme Manager. **************************Q&A Session: 15:40 -‐ 16:30***************** Jim Donohue Between 2006-‐14, Jim Donohue was Head of Open English Language Teaching in the Department of Languages at The Open University UK. Jim now works at Queen Mary, University of London, as a member of the Thinking Writing team within Learning Development, promoting awareness of the role of writing in higher education. He has researched in the fields of academic and professional communication using systemic functional linguistics approaches and drawing on experience of applying Paulo Freirean perspectives in adult and community education settings. He is particularly interested in how linguistics can be used to enhance learner-‐centred and experiential learning. He is currently secretary of the committee of the European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing. Jim is co-‐author of A language as social semiotic-‐based approach to teaching and learning in higher education ((Wiley-‐Blackwell, 2014, with Coffin) and Exploring Grammar: From Formal to Functional (Routledge, 2009, with Coffin and North). He has published in the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (and was co-‐editor with Coffin of the special issue, English for Academic Purposes: contributions from Systemic Functional Linguistics and Academic Literacies), Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, English for Specific Purposes, and Writing & Pedagogy. Jenifer Spencer Jenifer Spencer co-‐authored EAP Essentials (Garnet Education, 2008), together with Olwyn Alexander and Sue Argent. She has taught EAP for over 15 years, and was involved in developing and delivering TEAP training courses at Heriot-‐Watt University and recently at Sheffield University. As a freelance materials developer, she has developed course materials for several UK universities, and engaged in editorial work for various publishers. She also works 1:1 with students on research writing skills, which provides a valuable insight into the challenges of research writing for students from different language and cultural backgrounds. Maxine Gillway Maxine Gillway is the Deputy Director of the Centre for English Language and Foundation Studies at the University of Bristol and an ordinary member of the BALEAP Executive Committee. Since starting out in language testing in the 1990s at Bilkent University, Turkey, she has worked to develop assessment literacy among EAP teachers in the UAE and the UK. Anne Vicary Anne Vicary works at the International Study and Language Institute at the University of Reading. Anne is the author of Grammar for Writing, part of the Garnet EAS series and is an EAP lecturer and in-‐ sessional English Programme postgraduate co-‐ordinator. Tony Prince Tony Prince is Academic Director at NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education). He is responsible for teacher training and projects related to tertiary education, having spent 15 years working in and managing programmes involving academic English at the University of East Anglia. He has designed and delivered a wide variety of consultancy projects, most recently in Georgia and across Russia. List of Participants Alexander Argent Beeson Bain Bailey Benson Bray Brett Brewer Brooks Bu Caulton Chen Coleman Cowan Cui Cui Dennis Ding Doig Donohue Fitchett Fleming Fowler Gao Gardener George-‐Bryant Gillway First Name Olwyn Sue Matthew Janice Rebecca Cathy Julie Claire Sarah Janie Lei David Yongqiong Rebecca Richard Le Jueting Nola Zhibin Ros Jim Jonathan Lorna Joe Yang Sheena Kerith Maxine Green Groves Groves Gulinaer Harvey Huang Hughes Kemp Kirk Kirkham Knox le Roux Louise Mike Mike Kulaixi Jonathan Junli John Jenny Carolyn Deak Val Michèle Li Li Li Li Li Lim Meizhen Jing Xiaoli Jianjun Bo Gad Litaiji Liu Liu Litaiji Quanding Bo Surname Institution Heriot-‐Watt University Freelance Glasgow International College York St John University University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen University of Bristol University of Reading University of St Andrews -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ University of Kent University of Aberdeen -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Loughborough University University of St Andrews Queen Mary University of London University of Kent University of St Andrews INTO Newcastle University -‐-‐ -‐-‐ University of St Andrews University of Bristol UCL Institute of Education -‐-‐ University of Bath -‐-‐ University of St Andrews -‐-‐ University of St Andrews University of Leicester UCL Institute of Education -‐-‐ University of Aberdeen INTO at Glasgow Caledonian University -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Cambridge English Language Assessment -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Contact email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ [email protected] [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ [email protected] kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk -‐-‐ [email protected] kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk [email protected] k [email protected] -‐-‐ [email protected] -‐-‐ kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk -‐-‐ kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk -‐-‐ [email protected] -‐-‐ [email protected] [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Long Lopez Lu Lu Ma Magee Malcolm Smith Martineau Mcboyle Mundt Jun Elaine Yan Ping Yan Jane Ally Charlie Alison Klaus -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ University of St Andrews University of St Andrews York St John University University of Aberdeen University of Nottingham Mundt Murphy O'Hara Klaus Deborah Marion Olsson Petra Ping Poulson Prince Qin Qin Reichard Richardson Riley-‐Jones Rui Shaw Shaw Song Spencer Spencer Tavakoli Taylor Vicary Vicary Wang Wang Wang Wang Wang Wang Wu Wu Yan Ye Yunxia Zhang Zhang Zhang Zhang Zhang Zhao Zhou Zhou Zhu Zhu Yuanchun Clare Tony Xuefei Sheng Bella Jane Gary Tao Darran Amanda Jie Jenifer Sheila Kerry Katherine Anne Anne Lili Jianning Yonghua Jing Li Shuli Lingyun Wei Ping Jun Sun Tingfang Juan Lijie Chengcheng Wei Xianghui Lijun Hongjie E Haiyan -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Royal Holloway, University of London Cambridge English Language Assessment -‐-‐ University of Leeds -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ INTO Newcastle University Heriot-‐Watt University Goldsmiths, University of London -‐-‐ INTO University of Newcastle University of Dundee -‐-‐ -‐-‐ Nottingham Trent University University of St Andrews -‐-‐ University of Reading -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk [email protected] [email protected] .uk -‐-‐ -‐-‐ [email protected] Olsson.P@cambridgeenglish. org -‐-‐ [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ [email protected] g.riley-‐[email protected] -‐-‐ [email protected] [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ kt9@st-‐andrews.ac.uk -‐-‐ [email protected] -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐