Teaching English for academic purposes at the University of Groningen

Internship report:

Teaching English for academic purposes at the University of Groningen

Thomas James Wigham S3349179

MA in Applied Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts University of Groningen

Academic supervisor:

Professor Wander Lowie

Workplace supervisor:

Professor Marjolijn Verspoor

Date: 9

July 2018

Word count: 4,177 words

Declaration of authenticity MA Applied Linguistics - 2017/2018

Internship report

Student name: Thomas James Wigham Student number: s3349179

PLAGIARISM is the presentation by a student of an assignment or piece of work which has in fact been copied in whole, in part, or in paraphrase from another student's work, or from any other source (e.g. published books or periodicals or material from Internet sites), without due acknowledgement in the text.

TEAMWORK: Students are encouraged to work with each other to develop their generic skills and increase their knowledge and understanding of the curriculum. Such teamwork includes general discussion and sharing of ideas on the curriculum. All written work must however (without specific authorization to the contrary) be done by individual students.

Students are neither permitted to copy any part of another student’s work nor permitted to allow their own work to be copied by other students.

DECLARATION

I declare that all work submitted for assessment of this internship report is my own work and

does not involve plagiarism or teamwork other than that authorised in the general terms

above or that authorised and documented for any particular piece of work.

Contents

Introduction 4

Background 4

EAP: Argumentation 4

Approaches to Language Learning 6

Personal goals 7

Internship Assignments 8

Class Teaching 8

Student Assessment 9

Course Planning and Course Evaluation 12

Review of Learning Outcomes 15

Areas for Future Development 16

Conclusion 17

Appendix A: Personal goals and assessment tools 18

Appendix B: Sample lesson plan 20

Appendix C: sample reflection form 22

Appendix D: Final observation by main course instructor 23

Appendix E: Proposed changes to writing rubric 27

Appendix F: Sample slides from Unit 3 29

Appendix G: Reading questions for unit 3 39

Appendix H: Course evaluation statistics 44

Appendix I: End-of-course report 47

References 50

Teaching English for academic purposes at the University of Groningen Introduction

Between January and June 2018, I completed an internship within the English department of the University of Groningen, to comprise a 10-ECTS course of my MA in Applied Linguistics. I chose this internship because I have previously been required to teach English for academic purposes (EAP), but at that time I had little training specifically in EAP. The primary aim of the internship was therefore to develop the competences required to plan, teach, and evaluate a full-length academic English course, as well as assessing students’

performance. This report summarizes the outcomes of that internship. It begins by describing the content of the course which I taught, EAP Argumentation, and situates this with regard to approaches in language teaching. Next, the specific goals of the internship are formulated. I then briefly describe how each of these goals was met, before reflecting on the course outcomes as a whole. I conclude by suggesting areas for my future development as an EAP teacher.

Background EAP: Argumentation

Students in the first and second years of the Bachelor’s programme in English

Language and Culture follow a series of compulsory English proficiency courses, in order to develop their spoken and written skills for both literature and linguistics. Argumentation is the third of six courses in this series, and is taken in the second semester of the first year.

Following two 5-ECTS courses which focus on students’ writing abilities in literature,

Argumentation prepares students for writing and discussion in linguistics. It runs in parallel

to the English Linguistics: Sociolinguistics course, and follows Sound Structure in the first

term, meaning that students are already able to draw on some disciplinary knowledge during the course.

The content and the structure of the course are based closely on the conclusions of Wingate (2012), who found that undergraduate students had substantial problems developing arguments in essays. This was compounded by the fact that teachers themselves were often lacked the appropriate metalanguage to diagnose student problems, resulting in vague and often unhelpful feedback (p.152). Wingate proposed an essay-writing framework which is underpinned by the writer establishing a position on a particular subject. This stance provides a clear rationale for the selection of sources, and the clarity of the writer’s position is

supported by coherent presentation (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Wingate’s (2012, p. 153) essay-writing framework.

Argumentation is designed to reflect Wingate’s recommendations. Students begin by

focusing on main ideas and the selection of relevant evidence to support a position, before

focusing on macro-level structure, sentence-level structure and aspects of lexical and

grammatical cohesion to lend clarity to their arguments. The course comprises four 3-week

modules, each based around a published article and each focusing on one of the main

focusses of argumentation outlined above. Prior to the first class, students read and prepare

the article, for discussion in the first seminar. In week 2, there is a focus on one of the aspects highlighted above by close textual analysis of the article. In the third week, students bring the first draft of a 500-word academic essay and provide and receive peer feedback based on the academic skills from the previous week. Speaking skills are developed in mock oral exams and the focus of these progresses in parallel to the writing tasks. The first article is Wingate (2012), while the remaining three concern sociolinguistic issues. The four units of the course and their relation to Wingate (2012) are shown below.

Table 1. Course structure in relation to Wingate (2012), writing tasks.

Unit Argumentation focus Relation to Wingate (2012)

Unit 1 (Wingate 2012)

Main ideas (establishing a position)

Finding support for a position Comparing / contrasting evidence

Unit 2 (Chapman 2012)

Macro-level and micro-level structure

Identifying how sources can be used

Presenting the argument in a coherent manner Unit 3 (Baker,

McEnery &

Gabrielatos)

Coherence and cohesion

Coherent presentation based on formal schemata (signposting, referencing, thematic progression, lexical cohesion etc.)

Unit 4 (Barrett) Summary of previous units

Consolidation of previous units

Approaches to Language Learning

The approach in EAP: Argumentation can broadly be situated within communicative

approaches to language learning, in that development of the language system is subordinated

to purposeful communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The approach has much in

common with content language integrated learning (CLIL) in that students develop their academic writing skills by focusing on the content of a separate discipline, namely

sociolinguistics. In the context of the broader BA programme, language is developed through extensive exposure to written articles, visual and auditory materials, class discussion, and writing tasks, making it compatible with usage-based approaches to language (e.g. Bybee, 2006; Ellis, 2002). Reading and analysis of subject-specific articles helps the students to adjust their content and formal schemata from the simpler ones they may have learned at high school (Wingate, 2012, p.147), and indeed those for literature acquired in the first term, to the appropriate schemata for sociolinguistic texts. In terms of recent classroom developments, the guided reading of articles and the necessity to write essays at home before review in class can be seen as comprising elements of a flipped classroom (Reidsema, Kavanagh, Hadgraft, &

Smith, 2017), in which lower-order content objectives are completed independently so that there is a greater focus in class on higher-order thinking skills.

Personal goals

According to the course instructors, the English proficiency courses are typically viewed in terms of four components, namely teaching, student assessment, evaluation, and course planning. Prior to the beginning of the course, and in coordination with the two course instructors, I formulated the following personal goals: (1) to develop an awareness of the main differences between teaching for general English classes and teaching for Academic Purposes, and the ability to teach appropriately for EAP classes; (2) to develop competence in designing and using rubrics for academic courses; (3) to develop the ability to reflect

critically on the strengths and weaknesses of a course in retrospect, and (4) to develop the

ability to design effective academic skills classes for students at a C1 level.

Each goal was intended to be measurable and assessable. The means by which these goals were measured and assessed are elaborated more fully in Appendix A.

Internship Assignments Class Teaching

A major component of the internship involved teaching one complete class of the Argumentation course across the whole semester. Initially, the interns observed the same lesson given to another class by an experienced course tutor. Following this, I created a lesson plan (see Appendix B) and taught my own class the following day or later the same day, after which I reflected on my performance during the class (see Appendix C).

Based on my previous teaching experience I observed a number of commonalities between EAP teaching and teaching in language classes, particularly with regard to classroom management. Because collaborative tasks play a prominent role in the EAP courses as well as in language courses, the role of the teacher for portions of the class is largely facilitative and involves ensuring that students are on task and guided to understand class content where necessary. It also involves ensuring that more enthusiastic students’

voices do not dominate and that all students have an equal opportunity to participate.

However, one important difference is that EAP courses explicitly aim to develop students’

critical thinking skills. In class, this often entailed listening carefully to what students said, assessing their understanding and responding in a way which guided their understanding of a topic. This requires the teacher both to be a careful listener and to formulate precisely worded questions which can further guide students’ understanding.

The key issues the course tutors identified in my teaching at the beginning of the

course were ensuring a balance of contributions between all students and ensuring precise

responses on my own part and on those of the students. I worked on the former objective by

nominating students from different parts of the class to speak, and by keeping an informal

record of which students had spoken most during any given lesson. In terms of the latter, I worked on precision by observing how other teachers listened and formulated their responses, and by allowing myself to respond during earlier classes in the course. I also prepared my responses to potential questions which might arise during the lessons, based on those

questions which had arisen in the observed lessons. As the semester progressed, the feedback I received from my peers and the course tutors about my interactions with students became more positive.

A final observation was carried out by the main course teacher. This showed a clear improvement in almost all areas (see Appendix D). Notably, time management arose as an area for continuing development.

Student Assessment

Assessment during the course was carried out for both oral and written skills.

Students practised mock oral exams throughout the course and were assessed by means of a final oral exam. For writing, students completed three writing assignments (WAs) for which they were given feedback, and for the final two of these WAs they also received a grade.

These assignments were also followed by a final written exam at the end of the course. The two final exams comprised 70% of the overall course grade (35% each), while the WAs comprised 25%. The final 5% of the grade comprised the Nestor quizzes which were completed every unit.

Assessment has a major influence on what is taught and how, termed washback

(Messick, 1996). As such, it is particularly important that testing and teaching are seen as

complementary (Hughes, 2003), and that both correspond closely to course outcomes. In

Argumentation, both final exams are direct tests of the abilities which are being assessed,

namely the ability to write a sociolinguistic essay and the ability to discuss sociolinguistic

issues in English. Similarly, the WAs test the ability to produce a sociolinguistic essay. The content of the course is clearly aligned to these goals, and this transparent alignment ensures that the students have confidence in the purpose of the classes and the tests. Clearly, the Nestor quizzes test student knowledge of the content of the course articles and are primarily intended to ensure students have read the relevant materials.

A key issue in grading students’ essays was consistency between raters, that is,

teachers and interns, and between assessments, known as reliability (Fulcher, 2010). One way the course ensured reliability was by using rubrics for written and spoken assessments.

Rubrics reduce subjectivity to an extent by providing clear descriptors for each construct being assessed. They also have the added advantage of ensuring that students are fully aware of the test format and what exactly is being assessed (Hughes, 2003). Arguably, good rubrics will also increase test validity in terms of isolating the precise constructs which the test is intended to measure. The rubrics in Argumentation were closely aligned with the proposals made by Wingate (2012) and the content of the course units. The main categories in the rubric (Main ideas, Structure, Coherence & Cohesion) reflected the content of each of the first three units. Within these main categories, subcategories elaborated on the specific features of an assignment at that level.

For each WA and for the written final exam, marking was preceded by a

standardization session in which the course tutors and the interns marked a set of 3 papers together, thereby ensuring that discrepancies in marking were minimized and making the tests more reliable. Marking then preceded individually, and this was followed by a final session in which any borderline or problematic essays were discussed again.

It became apparent as the course progressed that in writing, the most substantial problems were related to main ideas, even towards the end of the course. Students

experienced difficulties identifying evidence to support their stances. This was reflected in

the fact that the majority of insufficient grades in the final written exam were related to insufficient evidence to support arguments. During marking it was also noted that some of the sub-categories of the rubric itself were ambiguous with regard to selecting evidence. For example, the category “Relevance of Evidence” (see Figure 2) stated that evidence should be relevant to the argument, but no indication was given as to whether this should appear in all body paragraphs. This was problematic because it increased the potential for individual raters to deviate in their grading, harming test reliability.

Based on the two issues above, I proposed amendments to the rubrics to be used for next year (see Appendix E for the full changes). The changes to main ideas focussed on resolving ambiguities in the band descriptors, as well as making more explicit reference to the types of evidence which are considered appropriate for linguistics, as opposed to literature. An example is provided in Figure 2 below: for “Relevance of Evidence”, the updated descriptor makes it clear that evidence must be present in both body paragraphs.

Furthermore, following Wingate (2012), a more explicit reference is made to “position”

within the descriptor.

Changes were also made to the rubric for structure and coherence, by amalgamating two current sub-categories, micro-structure and flow of ideas. This change was made because there was some overlap between the two; removing this overlap should ensure that the same construct is not tested twice and therefore it will not be unduly heavily weighted in the

Relevance of Evidence (original)

The evidence is

(somewhat) irrelevant to the argument.

The evidence is relevant to

the argument. The evidence is very well- chosen and relevant.

Relevance of evidence

(proposed update)

The evidence (where present) barely supports the position in the topic sentence.

The evidence in both paragraphs is relevant to the position in the topic sentence.

The evidence in both paragraphs is very well chosen and clearly supports the position in the topic sentence.

Figure 2. Original rubric descriptors for Relevance of Evidence and proposed changes for the

following course. Proposed changes are shown in yellow.

composition of the overall grade. These changes were well received by the course tutor and, it is hoped, will be implemented in time for the start of next year’s course.

Course Planning and Course Evaluation

The final two components of the course, planning and evaluation, are considered together here because they closely inform one another and ideally form a continuous loop. I first deal with the planning of unit 3 and then move on to discuss the evaluation of this unit, as well as the evaluation of the course as a whole, before proposing changes in planning for next year’s course.

Development of Unit 3.

During previous years it became clear that the article used in the third unit of the course was proving too challenging for students. The interns were therefore tasked with selecting a new article and designing accompanying lessons, which were to focus on cohesion and coherence, the argumentation focus for unit 3.

We approached the task by first selecting a suitable article. By this stage of the course it was clear that students were still having difficulty employing appropriate evidence in their essays; therefore, we decided to select a text containing extensive numeric data and graphs.

The article agreed upon was Baker, McEnery, and Gabrielatos (2013), a corpus study of the depictions of Muslims in the UK press. Consistent with the need to promote positive

washback (Hughes, 2003), we began with the unit outcomes and assessment before planning

the classes themselves. We decided on an appropriate question for the mock exams and the

third WA, which would require students to pay close attention to the tables and graphs in the

text. Because the article contained more complex numeric data than those in previous classes,

it was decided to support learners’ understanding of these with a discussion task in the first

unit. The reading questions were designed to precede this so that students would come to

class with a basic understanding of the content. Finally, we designed the second lesson to

focus students’ attention on cohesive devices. It had been reported by the course instructors that students often over-used linking words; therefore, an effort was made to focus on a variety of other devices, including lexical cohesion. A sample of the slides we created can be found in Appendix F, and the reading questions we developed are presented in Appendix G.

In order to judge how successful this series of lessons had been, I designed specific questions to be included in our end-of-course evaluation in order to gauge students’ reactions to the unit (discussed below). Our initial observations indicated that the students had

successfully understood the article and made extensive use of the data supplied in the text, indicating that this had helped students with their use of evidence in linguistics. Furthermore, a variety of cohesive devices was seen in the students’ third writing assignment, suggesting that the analysis of cohesive devices had helped raise students’ awareness of cohesion and their ability to use cohesive devices.

Course Evaluation.

Student evaluations. Student evaluations were carried out via Google Forms in order

to allow greater flexibility in the questions asked than the Nestor system allowed. Students were asked to comment on a variety of aspects of the course, including how well the students felt they had mastered the course outcomes, the level of challenge of the articles, and the usefulness of the individual learning activities. Two separate sections were also included to evaluate the effectiveness of the redesigned unit 3 and the performance of each teacher. The mean scores from the evaluations are presented in Appendix H, along with their standard deviations.

According to the evaluations, the students generally considered that they had

mastered the learning outcomes of the course, particularly with regard to writing. The

activities were judged to be very useful, particularly discussion of the articles, completing

written assignments and receiving feedback, and the writing workshops focussed on aspects

of argumentation. Students felt that the seminars had contributed well to their understanding of the texts, had improved their writing skills, and that the course was well organized. Most students evaluated the third unit well, finding it appropriately challenging and interesting for the course. For all units, students were somewhat less satisfied with the reading questions and Nestor quizzes, though attitudes were still broadly positive. For my own class, students generally found that my explanations were clear and that I had encouraged interaction with all members of the class, again indicating that these two aspects of my teaching had seen an improvement over the course.

Final exams. Of 78 students who sat the final oral exam, 73 passed on the first

attempt. The mean score awarded was 7.4 (SD = 0.9). This meant that the overall pass rate was high. As for the final written exam, of 76 students who sat the exam, 52 passed on the first attempt, a 68% pass rate. As noted above, the majority of those scripts which did not pass were marked insufficient for main ideas, in particular for a lack of appropriate evidence.

It is possible to compare the number of pass grades in the written exam with those in the previous year: for the cohort of 2016-2017, 40 of 71 students passed on the first attempt, a 56% pass rate, somewhat lower than the 68% in 2018. This difference was not statistically significant, χ

(1, N = 147) = 2.29, p=.13); nevertheless, it suggests an improvement on the pass rate for the previous year. The average score was only marginally different between the two years: in 2018 it was 6.89 (SD = 0.72) as compared with 6.80 in the previous year (SD = 1.03). After the resit exams, five students did not satisfy the minimum requirements to pass the course, making them recidivists for the following year. Overall, therefore, the results indicate that the teaching had largely been effective at meeting the learning outcomes of the course.

Recommendations for the following course.

Based on the course evaluations and on the interns’ own feedback, I prepared a short report for the course tutor with recommendations for the following course. The full report is available in Appendix G; the main points are summarized below.

In general, the course proved effective at helping students to meet the learning outcomes. However, in terms of writing, there is a clear need to develop students’ ability to identify and select appropriate evidence. Since students often cited the author of the article directly, it would appear that students often revert to what is essentially literary analysis. For this reason, a greater distinction needs to be made between literary analysis and writing for linguistics early in the course. This can also be supported by the changes I proposed to the rubric, which will make it clearer for students what does and does not qualify as evidence for the purposes of this course. A related issue is the fact that the title “Argumentation” did not meet all students’ expectations of the course content. Indeed, uncertainty around the term argumentation is one of the issues identified by Wingate (2012) and as such, the use of the term argumentation should be dealt with more explicitly at the beginning of the course. With regard to the development of spoken skills, it was felt that the format could be changed, for example to a podcast, in order to ensure that the students have access to model texts and understand the level of argumentation required. A further recommendation was to change the format of the mock exams so that they allow more than one pair of students, to be practicing at once, thereby utilizing classroom time more effectively.

Review of Learning Outcomes

In this section I briefly review the personal goals established earlier. With regard to goal (1), the observation completed by the course instructor indicates a substantial

improvement in the quality of my teaching by the end of the course, and the high scores from

the student evaluations also suggest a high level of satisfaction with the classes I taught. For

goal (2), the changes proposed to the rubric were well accepted by the course instructor and I

am now very confident not only in grading students’ work, but also in identifying ways in which rubrics can be designed and improved. In terms of goals (3) and (4), our redesigning of unit 3 proved sufficiently successful for the materials to be used again for the following year, which indicates that they were to the standard of the rest of the Argumentation course. The observations made for course development by the instructors and the interns were broadly in line with the feedback received in the student evaluations, which suggests that our picture of the course was accurate. Based on these evaluations, I submitted my course report to the course tutor (Appendix I), which she found both to be accurate and to make useful and practical recommendations for how the course can be improved next year. I am therefore confident not only to design lessons of a course, but also to critically evaluate them and revise them based on my own observations and feedback. To conclude, the four goals I formulated earlier have been met, as demonstrated by the measures used above.

Areas for Future Development

During the internship, I noted several areas which it would be useful to concentrate on for my continuing professional development. With regard to teaching, time management arose as an issue which I need to work in future, for example by prioritizing tasks in class and removing less important exercises as necessary. I would also like to continue focusing on the quality of my interactions with students in class. One way of doing this is by making an audio recording of the lesson and analyzing the tape script afterwards. This has previously been employed to assess the quality of dialogue in communicative classrooms (see e.g. Thornbury, 1996), and could equally be employed to raise awareness of typical patterns in my

questioning. In terms of assessment, it would be interesting to conduct a small-scale action

research study into the extent to which students use our rubrics, and how useful they find the

descriptors. This could be done by questionnaire, for example. A further area I would like to

develop is my understanding of the use of technology in the classroom. During the course we often used online quiz programs and it would be useful to know to what extent students feel these are a welcome addition to the classes.

Conclusion

The internship I completed from January to June 2018 in the English department of the University of Groningen allowed me to develop the key competences necessary for teaching in EAP contexts. I now feel confident to plan lessons, select appropriate materials and evaluate these retrospectively. In addition, I believe I now have a clearer understanding of how assessment plays a complementary role to teaching and the course objectives, and I am now equipped not only to assess students’ work, but also to critically evaluate the

methods of assessment being used. In so far as my overarching aim was to develop the ability

to teach in EAP contexts, I consider the internship to have been extremely successful.

Appendix A: Personal goals and assessment tools

Goal 1: Class teaching

To develop an awareness of the main differences between teaching for general English classes (knowledge) and teaching for Academic Purposes, and the ability to teach

appropriately for EAP students (skill), by:

1. Observing class teachers and reflecting on each lesson 2. Inviting observers to attend and provide feedback 3. Creating a portfolio according to the above goals 4. Reviewing the relevant literature

This goal will be assessed by:

1. Receiving feedback from the following observers: A) course tutors, B) peer interns, C) work placement supervisor (see Appendix D)

2. Reviewing student evaluations at the end of the course (see Appendix H)

Goal 2: Student assessment

To develop an understanding of test reliability and validity (knowledge), as well as course-specific student performance, in order to develop competence in designing and using rubrics for academic courses (skill), by:

1. Reviewing the literature on validity and reliability 2. Using current rubrics to assess students’ work

3. Keeping notes on rubric use during the course and proposing changes to the rubrics for future use

This goal will be assessed by:

1. Proposing an updated rubric at the end of the course, for review by the course tutors (see Appendix E)

Goal 3: Course evaluation

To develop the ability to reflect critically on the strengths and weaknesses of a course in retrospect (skill), by:

1. Keeping a written record of class performance

2. Discussing potential problems with the main course teachers

3. Based on these issues, designing an evaluation form to target those issues which arise from the course

This goal will be assessed by:

1. Delivering a short course report to the course tutors at the end of the course, with suggestions for next year’s course for evaluation by the tutors (see Appendix I)

Goal 4: Course planning

To develop the ability to design effective academic skills classes for students at a C1 level (skill), by:

1. Discussing course design with the course tutors

2. Co-designing three lessons to comprise unit 3 of the EAP: Argumentation course

3. Soliciting feedback from the students about the unit in the course evaluations (see also Goal 1)

This goal will be assessed by:

1. Creating and teaching the three lessons of Unit 3 (see Appendices F and G) 2. Receiving feedback from course students in their evaluations (see Appendix

H)

3. Delivering a short course report to the tutors at the end of the course (see

Appendix I).

Appendix B: Sample lesson plan Stage

(what) Aim

(why) Procedure

(how) Interaction

(who) Time (how long) Introduction To introduce students to the

learning outcomes • T welcomes Ss to 1

lesson of unit 3; reminds Ss of course structure (1

lesson = discussion).

• T reminds Ss about Wingate’s framework: from main ideas, now focussing on micro-structure and cohesion

T – Ss

T – Ss

2’

Revision Quiz To review the concepts

covered in units 1 and 2 • T directs Ss to Socrative website. Ss complete the quiz individually.

• T displays answers anonymously and reviews any difficult questions.

T – Ss Individual

10’

Activation:

Newspaper headlines

To engage students with the topic of unit 3

To link students’ prior knowledge to the current topic

• T displays discussion question (Slide 3).

• Ss work in pairs to relate the newspaper headlines to their understanding of the article.

• T leads brief (2’) open class discussion

Ss – Ss Ss – T

5’

Group discussion:

data summary To ensure students

understand the content of the article

To help students to identify appropriate evidence in the text

• Ss sort themselves into groups of 2 or 3.

• T allocates each group a table or graph (see slides). (Note:

one group gets both Figure 2 and Figure 3)

• Ss summarize their data using the prompts on the board and present to the class.

• T directs class presentations of data.

Ss – Ss Ss – T T - Ss

20-25’

Discussion questions (Flexi-stage)

To further develop students’

understanding of the article by targeting specific issues in the text

• Ss work in small groups to answer the comprehension questions (see slide). (Note: to save time, assign all Ss all questions but have each group start on a different question)

• T leads plenary feedback session

Ss - Ss Ss - T

(~10’)

Lesson: 8 (Unit 3 lesson 1) Student learning objectives:

❏ I can summarise the main points of Baker et al. (2013)

❏ I can describe what is important in terms of delivery in a pair discussion

❏ I can use delivery skills in a pair discussion

Break 45’

Discussion practice

1: focus on delivery To raise students’

awareness of prosodic features and their effect on the listener

• T displays “What is this thing called love” (see slide)

• Ss use different intonation & stress patterns to give the utterance different shades of meaning

• T & Ss reflect on how meaning changed as function of delivery

• Ss look at their speaking rubric (handout) and underline differences between “insufficient” “sufficient” “good”

categories

T – Ss Ss – Ss individual

10’

Discussion practice

2: mock oral exams To allow 2 pairs to practise

for the oral exam • T displays discussion question on board

• Ss take 5-10 minutes to prepare the question, T offers support around the class

• Ss practise their mock orals under timed conditions, class listens and takes notes for feedback (Note: allocate students roles for listening)

• T directs feedback

Ss – Ss Ss – class

T – Ss Ss - T

30’ (2 pairs)

Closing the lesson To set homework and remind students of the lesson objectives

• T situates the lesson outcomes within the broader course

• T reminds Ss of content of next lesson

T - Ss 5’

End lesson 90’

Appendix C: sample reflection form

Class reflection, February 27

2018 (Unit 1 lesson 3) Were the lesson aims met?

• Students gave each other detailed feedback using the rubric and were well acquainted with the requirements of essay writing

• Students did not have time to practice their speaking. However, given the extra time on writing, I think this was justified.

Things I think went well:

• I created a generally positive atmosphere (as compared with the previous lesson)

• I elicited the relevant terms at the critical part of the lesson

• My interaction with students was better managed than last week

• The timing of the writing activities was well-paced, so that the students were kept busy and working at all times

• Rehearsing what I wanted to say meant that I was better prepared at each stage of the lesson

Things I noticed to improve:

• The groupings I picked included a bad relationship

• One student in the class can be disruptive so I didn’t always achieve a clear balance between student contributions

• I was focused on asking clear questions, which meant I couldn’t always focus on nominating different students to a precise answer

Action points:

• To continue asking clear and focused questions at each stage of the lesson by:

o Writing down key take-aways before the lesson o Mentally rehearsing beforehand what I’m going to ask

o Pausing before answering and taking time to think (take a water bottle and drink when you think)

• To push students to precision by:

o Working out who hasn’t spoken and who to nominate

o Returning to the same student to ask them for the answer they didn’t give

• To prevent disruption from one student by:

o Asking for answers from different: parts of the room / groups o Not tolerating disrespectful disruption (be on the lookout for this)

• To ensure efficient timing (classroom management) by:

o Setting times for activities before the start of the lesson o Allocating tasks priority status before the lesson

o Removing unnecessary tasks during the lesson (as necessary)

Appendix D: Final observation by main course instructor

Appendix E: Proposed changes to writing rubric

Insufficient Sufficient Good

Main Ideas

Thesis Statement/

Topic sentence

The thesis statement/topic sentence is unclear and/or does not appropriately answer the question.

There is a clear thesis statement/topic sentence that (somewhat) answers the question.

There is a clear and precisely worded thesis statement/topic sentence that clearly answers the question.

Arguments

There is no link between one or both arguments and the thesis

statement/topic sentence.

There is a link between the arguments and the thesis statement/topic sentence.

There is a clear link between the arguments and the thesis statement/topic sentence.

Quality of Evidence

Evidence chosen to support each

argument is not sufficiently specific. Most evidence chosen to support each

argument is specific. All evidence chosen to support each argument is specific.

Relevance of Evidence

The evidence is (somewhat) irrelevant

to the argument. The evidence is relevant to the

argument. The evidence is very well-chosen and

relevant.

Significance of Evidence

The link between the evidence and the argument is unclear and/or poorly explained.

There is a link between the evidence

and the argument. There is a clear link between the evidence and the argument.

Insufficient Sufficient Good

Main Ideas

Thesis Statement/

Topic sentence

The thesis statement/topic sentence is unclear and/or does not appropriately answer the question.

There is a clear thesis statement/topic sentence that (somewhat) answers the question.

There is a clear and precisely worded thesis statement/topic sentence that clearly answers the question.

Arguments

There is no link between one or both arguments and the thesis

statement/topic sentence.

There is a link between the arguments and the thesis statement/topic sentences in both paragraphs.

There is a clear link between the arguments and the thesis statement/topic sentence in both paragraphs.

Quality of Evidence

Evidence in one or both paragraphs is not sufficiently specific, or may be missing.

There is sufficiently specific evidence in both paragraphs (e.g. numeric data, diary entries, internet quotes)

All evidence used to support each argument is specific and clearly presented.

Relevance of Evidence

The evidence (where present) barely supports the position in the topic sentence.

The evidence in both paragraphs is relevant to the position in the topic sentence.

The evidence in both paragraphs is very well chosen and clearly supports the position in the topic sentence.

Significance of Evidence

The link between the evidence and the argument is missing, unclear, or poorly explained.

The link between the evidence and the argument is explained in both paragraphs.

The link between the evidence and the argument is clearly explained and elaborates on the position taken in the topic sentence.

Note. Proposed changes are made in yellow.

Structure

Essay Level

The order of the arguments is

(somewhat) illogical. The order of the arguments is

(somewhat) logical. The order of the arguments is clearly logical.

Paragraph Level

The structure of the paragraph does not go from general to specific in one or more body paragraphs.

The structure of the paragraph is largely general to specific.

The structure of the paragraph is consistently general to specific in all body paragraphs.

Cohesion

Idea linking

Ideas are not always logically linked to the next. Some sentences feel out of place or the text feels

“choppy” (disconnected).

Ideas are linked to the next in some form. No sentences feel out of place but there may be some

“choppiness”.

Each idea is logically linked to the next and there is a good “flow”

between ideas.

Cohesive Devices

(Somewhat) lacks variation in use of cohesive devices (e.g.: over-use of linking words).

Some attempt to use a variety of cohesive devices (substitution, referencing, lexical links, complex sentences, thematic progression).

Successful and natural use of a variety of cohesive devices (substitution, referencing, lexical links, complex sentences, thematic progression).

Paragraph Transitions

There is no transition between body paragraphs so the essay feels

“jumpy”.

There is a transition between the two body paragraphs but there may be some “jumpiness”.

There is a logical transition between the body paragraphs.

Structure

Essay Level

The order of the arguments is (somewhat) illogical. Arguments may be very similar or identical.

The order of the arguments is (somewhat) logical and arguments are clearly differentiated.

The order of the arguments is clearly logical. Arguments build on one another.

Paragraph Level

The structure of one or more paragraphs is illogical. Sentences may be out of place or the text feels

“choppy” (disconnected)

The structure of each paragraph is largely logical. Ideas are linked to the next in some form. Some

“choppiness” may persist.

The structure of each paragraph is consistently logical in each paragraph. Each idea is logically linked to the next and there is a good “flow” of ideas.

Cohesion

Cohesive Devices

(Somewhat) lacks variation in use of cohesive devices (e.g.: over-use of linking words).

Some attempt to use a variety of cohesive devices (substitution, referencing, lexical links, complex sentences, thematic progression).

Successful and natural use of a variety of cohesive devices (substitution, referencing, lexical links, complex sentences, thematic progression).

Paragraph Transitions

There is no transition between body paragraphs, so the essay feels

“jumpy”.

There is a transition between the two body paragraphs but there may be some “jumpiness”.

There is a logical transition between the body paragraphs.

Note. Proposed changes are made in yellow.

Appendix F: Sample slides from Unit 3

Today

› Recap of Units 1 and 2

› Discussion of Baker, Gabrielatos and McEnery (2013)

› Mock orals Lesson objectives:

❏ I can summarise the main points of Baker et al.

(2013)

❏ I can describe what is important in terms of delivery in a pair discussion

❏ I can use delivery skills in a pair discussion

Newspaper Headlines

› Read the following newspaper headlines and discuss with your partner:

• Are the connotations positive or negative (or neither)?

• Which headlines fit the patterns identified by

Baker et al. (2013)?

Work in groups.

› You’ll be given one table or diagram from the text.

› You have 5 minutes to prepare a summary of what the table / diagram shows.

• Explain what the table shows.

• Identify how the data were collected.

• Decide what conclusions can be drawn.

• Assess how this data supports the conclusions

the authors make.

Baker, P., McEnery, T., & Gabrielatos, C. (2013). Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word 'Muslim' in the British press 1998-2009. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 255-278.

Baker, P., McEnery, T., & Gabrielatos, C. (2013). Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word 'Muslim' in the British press 1998-2009. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 255-278.

Discussion Questions (Baker et al., 2013)

1. In your own words, define type, token and collocation.

2. What quantitative data were found in this study?

3. What evidence was used to analyze “Muslim community” and “Muslim world”?

4. Briefly summarize the findings of the study.

5. The authors chose to focus on the first two nouns in table 1 (community and world). Which words would you have looked at?

6. What is the thesis statement? Where can you find it?

Homework:

› Based on WA2, identify your strengths and also areas to improve for your next writing assignment.

› Create a list of academic chunks from the portion of the article corresponding to the table/diagram you examined (~10).

› Summarize the main points of Baker et al. (2013) in 4 sentences or less.

• What the study was

• What the method was

• What was found

• What conclusions were drawn

Today

Writing Workshop

› WA2: common issues

› Coherence and cohesion

› Topic and comment Lesson objectives:

❏ I can describe what makes academic writing coherent and cohesive.

❏ I can list and explain how to use 5 cohesive devices.

Coherence and cohesion

A text is cohesive if its textual elements are linked together.

A text is coherent if it makes sense.

› The aim of writing is to achieve coherence.

› Cohesion is a tool writers use to meet that

goal.

What makes this text cohesive?

Overall, the quantitative analysis found that Muslims were

frequently constructed in terms of homogeneity and connected to conflict. This finding was echoed in the qualitative analysis that showed that Muslim community and Muslim world were

frequently characterized as distinct, reasonably homogeneous entities that are quick to take offence, in tension with the UK or

‘the West’, rather than integrated, contain dangerous radical

‘elements’, and are threatened by a backlash. The terms help to create the idea of Muslims as belonging to a distinct and separate

‘imagined community’ at both the global and national level, and, thus, contribute towards a process of ‘othering’. Even articles that could be viewed as ‘well meaning’, in that they stress the

importance of integrating the Muslim community, rather than demonizing Muslims, still contribute towards this othering process.

Cohesion: lexical links

Overall, the quantitative analysis found that Muslims were

frequently constructed in terms of homogeneity and connected to conflict. This finding was echoed in the qualitative analysis that showed that Muslim community and Muslim world were

frequently characterized as distinct, reasonably homogeneous entities that are quick to take offence, in tension with the UK or

‘the West’, rather than integrated, contain dangerous radical

‘elements’, and are threatened by a backlash. The terms help to create the idea of Muslims as belonging to a distinct and separate

‘imagined community’ at both the global and national level, and, thus, contribute towards a process of ‘othering’. Even articles that could be viewed as ‘well meaning’, in that they stress the

importance of integrating the Muslim community, rather than

demonizing Muslims, still contribute towards this othering

process.

Cohesion: lexical links

Overall, the quantitative analysis found that Muslims were

frequently constructed in terms of homogeneity and connected to conflict. This finding was echoed in the qualitative analysis that showed that Muslim community and Muslim world were

frequently characterized as distinct, reasonably homogeneous entities that are quick to take offence, in tension with the UK or

‘the West’, rather than integrated, contain dangerous radical

‘elements’, and are threatened by a backlash. The terms help to create the idea of Muslims as belonging to a distinct and separate

‘imagined community’ at both the global and national level, and, thus, contribute towards a process of ‘othering’. Even articles that could be viewed as ‘well meaning’, in that they stress the

importance of integrating the Muslim community, rather than demonizing Muslims, still contribute towards this othering process.

Cohesion

Overall, the quantitative analysis found that Muslims were

frequently constructed in terms of homogeneity and connected to conflict. This finding was echoed in the qualitative analysis that showed that Muslim community and Muslim world were

frequently characterized as distinct, reasonably homogeneous entities that are quick to take offence, in tension with the UK or

‘the West’, rather than integrated, contain dangerous radical

‘elements’, and are threatened by a backlash. The terms help to create the idea of Muslims as belonging to a distinct and separate

‘imagined community’ at both the global and national level, and, thus, contribute towards a process of ‘othering’. Even articles that could be viewed as ‘well meaning’, in that they stress the

importance of integrating the Muslim community, rather than

demonizing Muslims, still contribute towards this othering

process.

How can we create cohesion within a text?

By using a variety of cohesive devices, which includes:

› Substitution

› Referencing

› Complex sentences

› Lexical links

Topic and Comment: Definitions

› Topic: the point of departure of the message

› frequently presents information which has already been mentioned.

› Comment: the second part of the clause in which the theme is developed

› usually contains unfamiliar or new information

indispensable for the progression of an argument.

Rocks were originally used to carry carved or painted messages (Benson, 1990). Scrolled

leather, onto which messages were crudely scratched, was used in later Neolithic times (Hardy, 1984). Heavy hand-copied parchment took over

in the middle ages when monks had the leisure to embellish them with fine inks and costly gold leafing (Santos, 1996).

http://writesite.elearn.usyd.edu.au/m3/m3u5/m3u5s3/m3u5s3_1.htm

Constant Theme Progression

Rocks were originally used to carry carved or painted messages.

Scrolled leather, onto which

messages were crudely scratched, was used in later Neolithic times.

Heavy hand-copied parchment took over in the middle ages when monks had the leisure to embellish them with fine inks and costly gold leafing.

http://writesite.elearn.usyd.edu.au/m3/m3u5/m3u5s3/m3u5s3_1.htm

Practice

Theme: Noun collocates of Muslim

› Write three sentences on this using the constant theme pattern.

Writing Assignment 3

Based on Baker et al. (2013), how does the UK press use the word Muslim to create a distinction between communities?

› 500-600 words

› APA formatting and referencing

› short introduction

› 2 supporting arguments (so 2 body paragraphs)

› short conclusion

Appendix G: Reading questions for unit 3

Reading questions for Baker, Gabrielatos & McEnery (2013)

This article has been chosen for three reasons: 1) it gives an example of how corpus

linguistic data can be used to understand trends in language and society; 2) it shows how to effectively represent large amounts of data and how to draw solid conclusions from them;

3) it is an example of a coherent and cohesive piece of writing, using not only linking words, but also a number of more sophisticated and subtle cohesive devices.

Before reading:

1. You might find it useful to watch this TEDx talk. Tony McEnery, the third author of the article, explains what the research focussed on and what conclusions they drew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRz6PBDHJqc

2. The study you are going to read uses several terms from corpus linguistics (a subdiscipline of linguistics which studies language through computer analysis of huge amounts of spoken and written text). Some of the terms may be unfamiliar to you, so they are listed here.

Match them to their definitions:

Quantitative Collocation Discourse analysis

Discourse prosody Tokens Collocates

Types Lemma Qualitative

1. The study of written or spoken text in order to understand the relation between text and society

2. A phenomenon whereby two (or more) words occur together more often than chance would suggest. For example, heavy and rain tend to occur together, whereas hard and rain do not.

3. A type of analysis which relies on numeric data.

4. The individual words which make up a collocation.

5. The way that seemingly neutral words can carry negative or positive associations because of the words they collocate with. For example, cause may seem neutral, but usually collocates with negative words, e.g. accident, disaster.

6. The number of actual instances of a word in a text. For example, in the sentence The cat sat on the mat, there are two instances of the word the.

7. The number of different kinds of word in a text. For example, in the sentence The cat sat on the mat, there are five different kinds of word.

8. The dictionary form of a word. For example, run, runs, running and ran are parts of the same dictionary entry, with run as the dictionary form.

9. A type of analysis that focuses on non-numeric data.

Reading Abstract

1. As we said when reading Wingate (2012), reading the abstract is a valuable exercise to help orient yourself when reading the article.

● What argument do you expect the authors to make?

● What do you think the conclusions of the article will be?

● What analysis was used?

Introduction

2. Read the “Introduction” section (page 255-257).

● Which paragraph states the purpose of the article?

● In this paragraph, the writers make reference to their methods. What are they?

(Don’t worry if you don’t understand them fully at this point.)

● The introduction section also contains three paragraphs about the readership of newspapers in the UK. Why is this included in the introduction?

3. Read the last paragraph of the “Introduction” section (page 257). The paragraph begins with “The following section”.

● What is the function of this paragraph?

● Using the paragraph, make a note of the sections you expect to encounter in the article.

● Now, quickly leaf through the article and find the headings you wrote down. How do these headings relate to each other to create overall coherence throughout the article?

● Look again at your notes on the overall structure. How does this fit the pattern of broad to specific?

Note that not all genres of writing require this kind of explanatory introductory paragraph, and that for some writers and disciplines it is dispreferred. You should pay close attention to what other writers do in your discipline(s) and what your tutors think about this type of paragraph as well.

Research on media language and Islam

4. Read the first paragraph of this section (beginning “Research that has examined…”)

● There are several different devices in this paragraph which help to make it a

cohesive paragraph. One of these is the use of linking words, but there are others as

well. Study the paragraph carefully and pick out as many cohesive devices as you can

find.

5. In the last paragraph of the research review (p.259, top of the page), Fairclough’s textually oriented discourse analysis is said to provide: (a) description of the text, (b) interpretation of discourse processes and the text, and (c) explanation of those processes and society.

● How does this relate to the idea, stated in Chapman (2012), that language can act as an index to human behaviour?

Data and Methods

6. Read the “Data and Methods” Section.

● There are 5 paragraphs. What is the purpose of each one?

● How does each paragraph build on the previous one?

7. Read the paragraph on page 260 which begins “The first stage of the analysis”.

● If you are curious about what Sketch Engine is, you might want to watch this (short) video: https://www.sketchengine.co.uk

● In the same paragraph, there is an example using the word WOMAN. How does this demonstrate Sketch Engine’s capabilities? Why is it included?

8. Read the last paragraph of this section (“A word sketch is…”)

● “A word sketch is a somewhat broad brush approach.” (p.260). How does this phrase link to the introduction section, i.e. can you find it repeated in that section?

Results: Noun collocates of Muslim

9. Before reading the analysis of Table 1, it is worth spending a few moments getting to grips with the table first. Analyses are often much easier to read once you have interpreted the data yourself. You will be responsible for summarising the tables during class!

● What do the words in the left-hand column represent?

● “Frequency” is listed in the second column. However, frequency is relative: what is the overall size of the corpus in a) number of texts, and b) number of words? (Hint:

check the methods section if you didn’t note this down the first time round.)

● According to the table, what does “Salience” mean? (The calculation is quite technical so we won’t address it here.)

● Look again at the left-hand column. Can you see words which are related? How would you categorize them into meaningful groups?

● Woman is the third most common noun found with the adjective Muslim. Does this surprise you? How does it compare with the frequency of the word man? Why do you think woman is used so often with Muslim in the UK press?

● The table shows only uses of the word Muslim as an adjective. What percentage is that of all the uses of the word Muslim in the corpus? (Hint: check the two

paragraphs above the table).

10. Read table 2.

● How does the data in table 2 relate to the data in table 1?

● Were the categories decided on by the researchers or by a computer? (Hint: you might need to look in the text)

● Are these categories similar to the ones you created for Table 1?

● Directly above the table is a paragraph which starts “What emerges from…” (p.262).

Do you agree with the conclusions the researchers draw in this paragraph?

11. The following section (pages 263-265, top of page) describes each category in greater detail, providing excerpts from newspapers for each one. According to the text, how are these categories interconnected with one another?

12. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are related to each other. Knowing how they are related can help to deepen your understanding of what they show.

● In your own words, try to explain what Figure 2 shows, and how this data was collected from the database.

● Do the same with Figure 3.

● What is the difference between the data in Figure 2 and the data in Figure 3? (Hint:

pay attention to the difference between token and type. If you still aren’t sure, go back to the pre-reading exercises.)

● Figure 4 revisualizes the data from these two Figures in a different way. Check the names of the axes of Figure 4. Now go back to Figures 2 and 3. Which axis represents Figure 2? Which axis represents figure 3?

● The authors refer to the idea of “lexical richness”. What does this mean?

Results: Muslim world and muslim community 13. Read the first two sentences of this section.

● What do you notice about how each sentence begins?

● How do these cohesive devices develop the argument in this section?

14. Look at Figure 5. Analyze it and interpret it in your own words.

● What is the authors’ explanation for the difference in frequency of the phrases Muslim community and Muslim world over the period from 1998 to 2009?

Conclusion

15. Read the Conclusion section.

● What is the function of the first three paragraphs of this section? Why are they written first, rather than later?

● Which paragraph states the findings of the study most effectively? Which two

sentences can be considered the conclusion of the article?

● Scan through these paragraphs again. What words or phrases are used to cohesively link the points the authors are making?

● Look at the topic sentence of each paragraph. How do they work to summarize the research the authors have done?

Before you finish reading: below, we’ve included the question which you’ll have to discuss in class, and write for Writing Assignment 3. You might find it useful to make some notes on this topic before you come to class.

How does the language used in British newspapers create a distinction between Muslims and the rest of society?

You might want to consider:

● What evidence can you get from the data presented in the article (specifically tables and figures)?

● What arguments can your data support?

● Which arguments would be most useful in your discussion / writing assignment?

Appendix H: Course evaluation statistics Table 2. Student evaluation data, mean scores and standard deviations

Question Statistics

Please rate the extent to which you have mastered the following outcomes:

(1 = very unconfident, 4 = very confident)

M SD

1. Being able to write a sociolinguistic essay 3.14 0.55

2. Being able to analyze and synthesize sources 3.27 0.52

3. Being able to discuss sociolinguistic issues in English 2.91 0.64

Please rate how much the following activities prepared you for the final exams:

(1 = unuseful, 4 = useful)

M SD

1. Reading questions 2.77 0.81

2. Nestor quizzes 2.80 0.77

3. Discussing articles 3.73 0.45

4. Writing workshops 3.55 0.63

5. Speaking workshops 3.43 0.63

6. Giving peer feedback 3.25 0.77

7. Receiving peer feedback 3.20 0.80

8. Receiving feedback from lecturers on written tasks 3.70 0.69

9. Completing written assignments 3.68 0.58

10. Mock oral exam 3.39 0.68

11. Mock speaking exam 3.55 0.54

Please rate the difficulty of the articles used in the course.

(1 = too easy, 4 = too difficult)

M SD

1. Wingate (2012) 2.27 0.55

2. Chapman 2.48 0.54

3. Baker, McEnery and Gabrielatos 2.61 0.59

4. Barrett 2.68 0.56

Please rate your agreement with the following statements:

(1 = disagree, 5 = fully agree)

M SD

1. The seminars helped me to better understand the material 4.16 0.78

2. The seminars contributed to the development of my oral and writing skills 3.96 0.83 3. The course contributed to my ability to conduct independent research 3.13 1.08

4. The course taught me how I can present my work 3.75 0.84

5. The course was well-organised 4.30 0.63

6. In general, I was satisfied with this course 3.88 0.81

Please rate the following questions about Unit 3:

(1 = not well at all; 5 = very well)

M SD

1. How well did the article fit into the theme of of the course? 4.09 0.77

2. How interesting was the content of the article? 3.95 1.04