Research paper final draft (1500 words)

Prepare PowerPoint presentation Review of Study Skills portfolio

Research portfolio: reflection form Submission of study skills portfolio

9 & 10 Writing exam

PowerPoint presentation Writing a dissertation or thesis Lectures only: no writing requirement other than note taking.

PowerPoint presentation on research findings Research Portfolio submission

Extensive feedback provided; students view their papers but cannot keep them

Providing an overview of dissertation and thesis writing. Deciding where to start: formulating research questions and hypotheses. Structuring a research introduction. Writing a literature review. Avoiding plagiarism. Describing materials and methods. Recording results. Planning and writing a discussion section. Planning and writing a conclusion. Writing an abstract.

Note: Adapted from Academic English and Study Skills Program [Swan University] CELT Module 1.

The ESP school (Swales, 1990), for example, proposes a useful model which provides guidance for structuring introductions in academic texts using three moves and a number of alternative steps. The model, which is known as “Creating a Research Space” (C.A.R.S model) provides a framework to help students craft logical, coherent introductions. To support the SFL genre movement, Callaghan and Rothery (1988, p. 39) produced a flexible teaching learning cycle that consists of three phases that facilitate the development of genre knowledge and

identification of the schematic stages of factual texts. The first phase is for teachers to model text construction. The second involves the teacher and students

constructing texts through joint negotiation. In the third stage, students construct texts independently. The EAPP program focuses on scaffolding, as well as direct and discovery approaches to teaching genre and teacher modelling is used by a number of EAPP teachers.

Pedagogical Approaches and Theoretical Perspectives

In his own research, the principal EAPP program designer reviewed elements of the research portfolio (Johnson, 2010). In discussing the portfolio, he concludes that “… the research paper portfolio has largely helped students to accomplish the task of constructing a research paper. However, the lack of a clearly articulated theoretical framework for the portfolio has led to some problems in the teaching and learning environment it supports.” (p. 45). The author’s comment refers mainly to teacher-unfamiliarity with elements of the theoretical framework, or their interpretation of the methods and techniques it incorporates. In subsequent chapters, Johnson investigated cognitive-constructivist, sociocultural and pragmatic-semiotic theories to identify “the potential for a pragmatic-semiotic perspective to provide a more suitable theoretical framework for the design of effective research programs” (p. 1).

Despite Johnson’s reservations regarding the theoretical framework of the research portfolio, an examination of all components of the EAPP program shows that it is supported by strong pedagogical approaches and is based on sound, interwoven theoretical perspectives and epistemological influences. Constructivist

theory—which takes into account both the students’ cognitive development, as well as the socio-cultural context in which they are studying and have previously

studied—is clearly represented in the program. In addition to these cognitive- constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives, a pragmatic-semiotic perspective combines with an inquiry-based approach. This not only encourages students to analyse and synthesise sourced material, but also to be original in their reasoning and approach to research which is based on a strong epistemological foundation. The influence of constructivist theory can also be detected in the diagramming software which assists students to explore, connect and structure ideas.

Constructivist Influences in the EAPP program.

Constructivist theory has been significantly influenced by the findings of a number of prominent researchers. Piaget’s developmental theory (1977) gave birth to the cognitive-constructivist approach to learning; whereas, Vygotsky’s (1978) and Bruner’s (1990) views on social and cultural influences added a socio-cultural aspect to the constructivism. Kaplan’s contrastive rhetoric studies in the 1960s and the rhetorical genre movement that occurred in the early 1980s added a further dimension to socio-cultural constructivist thinking. All of these theorists view learning as an active process in which learners constantly process, negotiate and reconstruct information and meaning when convincing evidence, contradictory to what they currently believe, is presented to them. That is, they believe that students construct and gain knowledge through their experiences, rather than by reproducing information provided to them. So, although the literature articulates constructivist influences in various ways, there is significant commonality between the

characteristics of cognitive-constructivism, socio-cultural constructivism and pragmatic-semiotic constructivism.

Cognitive-constructivist influences in the EAPP program.

A cognitive-constructivist perspective on writing is concerned with the cyclical nature of how ideas originate and change and how students process information. It provides a window through which students can view knowledge. With this in mind, academic articles from the Course Book, combine with several additional readings, to provide multiple perspectives through which students can view current, real-life

global issues that affect all cultures. In addition, the Course Book includes

questions designed to prompt students to examine and discuss unstated assumptions and to take a stance on issues, thus transforming their existing ideas. Other tasks, such as debating, provide issues that require students to argue from either a

concessive, positive or negative point of view. Further tasks are based on discussing problems and solutions and comparing and contrasting advantages and

disadvantages.

As an aid for information processing and to support long-term memory, the program uses educational technologies and diagrammatic tools, such as Inspiration diagrams, to show how ideas link. Additionally, graphic organisers are included in the Course Book to assist students to identify and use rhetorical patterns for both writing and text analysis and to illustrate the hierarchical nature of information. Students are encouraged to link information in diagrams using suitable academic verbs, transition signals, signposting, conjunctive adverbs and subordinating words.

Information processing is also encouraged through process writing, the recursive nature of which assists students to reach writing goals by analysing, planning, structuring and reviewing tasks, as new insights emerge and previously held notions change. Writing requirements progress from simple to complex. The program begins with a series of brief tasks, the first of which is based on recounting a personal experience. More extensive essays varying in complexity and in the degree of secondary research required are then included.

The Study Skills Portfolio compels students not only to plan, but also provides them with a view of their progress in thinking and writing skills. This occurs as they assume control of the writing process by reflecting on teacher-coded errors in their writing, correcting the errors and submitting their corrected copies as a component of their Study Skills Portfolios.

Socio-cultural constructivist influences in the EAPP program. The role of social processes as a mechanism for learning how to write

writing styles and shape the genres that students internalise. In this sense, culture is considered not only as an entity that varies across countries, but also as a

community of practice (Wenger, 1998); that is, it also embraces the differences in writing expectations that exist across faculties.

EAPP teachers are aware of contrastive rhetoric research and are, therefore, sensitive to proposed cultural differences in writing styles. Students, too, examine cultural variations in writing reported by Ballard and Clanchy (1984) and the seminal work of Kaplan (1966) to analyse and discuss the extent to which these theories can be considered valid and to decide if they associate any of the writing styles with their own culture.

The EAPP program also combines a systematic, functional approach to genre (Martin, 1987) with an ESP approach (Swales & Feak, 2004). The functional approach provides a learning sequence through which to highlight the purposes of the rhetorical features of various genres. The ESP approach highlights the moves and steps required to organise ideas writers wish to express academically.

Inspiration-software, scaffolding and exemplar texts within the Course Books are particularly helpful for students whose cultural writing styles differ from the English linear model. It allows students to make connections between ideas and provides them with a visual overview of concepts that need to be hierarchically organised and transferred into their written texts.

As stated earlier, there is significant agreement between cognitive and socio- cultural constructivist philosophy. However, Vygotsky (1978) placed a greater emphasis on collaboration and the social context of learning. Rather than viewing learning as solely the transmission of knowledge, Vygotsky regarded it as an internal process of interpretation and mediation in which learners create new understandings based on their past experiences which can be modified by their interactions with peers, teachers and others. He proposed that students gain an advantage from working together because, not only are they able to draw on a larger collective memory but also, the resulting peer collaboration exposes them to the various processes by which knowledge can be gained and structured.

Furthermore, interactions between students and teachers, combined with teacher modelling, provide explanations and shared thinking (Englert, Mariage & Dunsmore, 2006). According to Palincsar (1998), these elements lead to deeper cognitive processing and the acquisition of new strategies and knowledge. This view accords with Driscoll (2000) who, in discussing some of the key tenets of constructivism, identifies the importance attributed to a socio-cultural learning environment as a means of facilitating higher order thinking, metacognitive development and reflection on learning experiences.

Vygotsky’s theory also identifies two developmental levels of learning. The first, which he referred to as the actual level, includes knowledge and tasks that a student can currently demonstrate independently. The second, he identified as the student’s potential level of development. To further explain the potential level of development, Vygotsky introduced the construct of a zone of proximal

development (ZPD) and the concept of scaffolding. His premise was that teachers can more successfully assist students to reach their potential (ZPD) by structuring learning experiences that provide scaffolding and allow for interactions between peers and the teacher (Hyland, 2003, p. 21).

Socio-cultural constructivist influences are strongly represented in the EAPP program. Group work and discussion form an integral part of each Course Book lesson. For example, exemplar texts are provided and analysed, via group

discussion, as a means of drawing attention to text structure, rhetorical features and specialist vocabulary. Several of these discussions, in conjunction with student-led seminars, are structured to assist with building background information to inform writing tasks, of which some are collective writing activities. Prior to the

submission of writing assignments, the timetable allows for a number of combined peer and one-on-one teacher feedback periods.

Research activities are also conducted in collaboration with others.

Collaborative groups meet regularly to help each other construct knowledge and to discuss ideas and progress. During these meetings, the teacher is regarded as part of the research group and intervenes only to share knowledge, or when requested. In

this way, teachers act as a channel to writing development, including electronic forms of information access. However, technology is not only used to connect students to useful knowledge, but also to create dialogue between group members and teachers. For example, students are required to submit their group research project questionnaires and minutes of group meetings to a teacher assigned to provide advice and constructive feedback.

The role of collaboration in developing critical thinking skills is also

recognised in the program. Critical thinking skills are developed over four sessions using case studies. Students first examine and discuss a diagram featuring elements of thought and a checklist for reasoning which they relate to real life situations. This is followed by a discussion that focuses on published universal intellectual standards, which are then linked to a template for analysing the logic of an article. The fourth session introduces criteria for evaluating reasoning which students, working in small groups, use to critique a series of short, real-life texts to decide if the reasoning behind the claims made in the texts is logical and supported.

Pragmatic-semiotic constructivist influences in the EAPP program. A pragmatic-semiotic constructivist perspective is one which encourages students to experiment with, explore and reinterpret the ideas of others as a way of creating their own meanings and developing their own theories and ideas. To conduct research, the ideas of others need to be challenged and questioned and students need to reflect on their beliefs and practices. Pragmatics encourages this by referring to the ways in which context contributes to new meanings that can be gained from reading the work of others, while semiotics refers to the way knowledge is constructed dynamically as researchers interact with the ideas of others (Queroz & Merrell, 2006). This view underpins the research section of the EAPP program. Student research groups meet regularly to discuss the articles they have read, to debate ideas and to refine their thinking. Additionally, at each step of the research process, they are required to conduct a formal, oral presentation of their research progress to their teacher and research group who question and offer ideas and suggestions.

According to Johnson (2010), practices such as these are vital because cognitive-constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives are mainly concerned with the construction of meaning and knowledge. Although he acknowledges that both views play an important role by assisting students with diagrammatic reasoning, scaffolding ideas and communication with peers and teachers, he questions whether either perspective provides sufficient understanding of the research process. For example, neither of these perspectives explains how researchers develop new ideas to add to the body of knowledge that already exists. He further states that, while the cognitive-constructivist influence focuses on problem-solving and provides students with a useful, recursive process in which to build internal schemas and organise previously unstructured knowledge, it “fails to fully take into account the role of language, which is particularly problematic for international students…” (p. 203). It also “fails to give an adequate account of reflective thinking, inferencing, and the kind of creative, critical skills involved in research.” (p. 204).

Likewise, he believes that the socio-cultural constructivist view adds a useful dimension to understanding research writing. It helps students to identify the role that discussion, comparison, debate, scaffolding and genre studies play in assisting

writers to consider other points of view and to understand the cultural expectations of the academic community. However, Johnson believes that this perspective can encourage teachers to focus on product and to teach prescriptively, rather than view research as a method of enquiry that evolves from experimentation with language.

For these reasons, Johnson proposes that a pragmatic-semiotic constructivist perspective offers a more comprehensive and suitable framework for the design of an effective research writing program. A pragmatic-semiotic constructivist view

recognises that, while knowledge from academic sources is mediated and interpreted by culturally coded signs, it is not meant to be static, nor should it be simply

accepted, learned and reported.

Pragmatic-semiotic constructivists explain that students move from questioning an idea or concept, to constructing meaning from it by using three acts of inference: deductive inference, inductive inference and abductive inference. Deductive

inference is concerned with ensuring that arguments are logical and claims are supported by evidence. Inductive inference involves testing the ideas of others through secondary research and abductive inference refers to new ideas that result from deductive and inductive inferences.

Further evidence of pragmatic-semiotic constructivist influences can be identified in the EAPP program, particularly through the use of portfolios that trace phases of the students’ development of ideas and the processes they have followed and also promotes reflective practices. Diagrammatic reasoning also features strongly through brainstorming, technological tools, scaffolding and thinking skill activities (Hoffman, 2004; Kankkunen, 2001).

Epistemological influences in the EAPP program.

The epistemological view of knowledge is that it is generated from four different sources; intuitive, authoritative, logical and empirical sources (Darlaston- Jones, 2007). For example, contrary to intuitive knowledge, which is based on intuition, feelings and beliefs, authoritative knowledge is based on sources provided by significant others who are expert in the field. Logical knowledge, on the other hand, is gained through logic and reasoning, while empirical knowledge is based on demonstrable, objective facts determined through observation, valid and reliable secondary sources and/or experimentation. Questions perform a significant role prior to, during and following Course Book lessons as a strategy for generating knowledge from each of the knowledge sources: intuitive, authoritative, logical and empirical.

This epistemological delineation of knowledge forms the basis of the EAPP program essay writing and research requirements. To complete their Research Portfolio tasks, students are required to use intuitive knowledge to choose a

problem, write a research question and focus questions and form a hypothesis. They use authoritative knowledge when reviewing secondary sources and deciding on professional literature to analyse, summarise and synthesise. Empirical knowledge is gained through the research process and logical knowledge arises from the

reasoning that applies to the conclusions reached regarding whether their hypothesis is supported or rejected.

A similar approach is used to complete the primary research, group task in Module 1. Students gain authoritative knowledge by reviewing professional literature contained in the core Course Book. They use intuitive knowledge to construct questionnaires and interview questions and empirical knowledge from answers provided by the respondents. To write their reports and to present their findings, they must use logical knowledge to come to a conclusion and authoritative knowledge to support their claims.

Summary

Chapter 2 provided positive and negative aspects of the two widely debated placement options currently perceived as alternatives for EAL students entering Australian universities; that is, either entry into an EAP program or direct entry into faculties commonly. This chapter has also provided a context for considering a third option by examining the components and dominant theoretical perspectives underpinning an existing EAPP program. Such an examination can assist in deciding whether it is reasonable to consider, and possible to construct, a

comprehensive pathway program that addresses multi-faceted, cross-faculty needs.

Chapter 3, a review of published research literature, investigates aspects of program design that will need to be considered in creating an eclectic EAPP program. Additionally, claims made in support of direct entry into faculty and claims made in support of initial entry into an EAP adjunct course are explored further.