Internship report:
Teaching English for Academic Purposes at the University of Groningen
Name: Kathleen Scherer Student numberr: s3593452
MA in Applied Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts University of Groningen
Academic supervisor: Merel Keijzer Workplace supervisor: Marije Michel
Date: August 2020
Word count: 4,456 words
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 3
Background ... 5
EAP: Argumentation... 5
Pedagogical approaches to academic writing ... 8
Personal Goals ... 10
Internship Responsibilities ... 11
Classroom instruction... 11
Student assessment ... 13
Lesson planning ... 14
Review of Skills Acquired ... 15
Future Developments ... 16
Conclusion ... 18
References ... 19
Appendix A ... 20
Appendix B ... 23
Introduction
The Department of Applied Linguistics at the RUG provided an abundance of opportunities to fulfill 10-ECTS alongside the completion of my M.A. thesis. These options included additional language-related classes in various departments, teaching pedagogy courses such as CALL (computer assisted language learning) as well as a plethora of internship
assignments, all of which presented equally valuable learning opportunities in the field of applied linguistics. However, it was, and remains, my intention to continue my teaching career in North Holland upon completion of my M.A. program, so I found the EAP internship (English for Academic Purposes) in the Department of English Language and Culture to be an ideal
opportunity for both my academic and professional development. While I had previously taught academic English in various international contexts for many years prior to my study at the RUG, it was those experiences that aided in my keen awareness that teaching pedagogy is not always one-size fits all. This is most especially the case in multilingual and multicultural settings where the modes of teaching and means of assessment vary greatly from one country and cultural context to the next. In other words, it was valuable for me to explore teaching academic English in a Dutch university specifically in order for me to be fully equipped to teach in that very context.
In addition to my academic and professional goals, was my growing interest in the exceptionally high levels of English proficiency in The Netherlands. This observation coupled with theoretical approaches to the relationship between second language development and psychological processes, such as working memory, provided an ideal language demographic not only for me to better acquaint myself with the Dutch style of language learning, teaching and
assessment, but also better understand the complexity of cognition and bilingualism. As such, the internship placement with EAP, coupled with the research I conducted for my MA thesis, were insightfully compatible during the completion of my M.A. program.
For my research, I was particularly interested in the ways in which working memory capacity influences second language development. With theoretical approaches to working memory as the backdrop, I explored different kinds of pedagogical approaches to L2 academic writing, which included multisensory input in the planning and formulation stages of writing in order to potentially enhance academic writing performance. More specifically, working memory is a key aspect of L2 writing processes and students possess varying degrees of working memory capacity. The use of multisensory input to accommodate the varying degrees of limitations in processing verbal and visual material may enable students to better formulate and construct written texts. For this reason the EAP: Argumentation internship placement was the ideal context to enhance my teaching skills as well as explore the role of working memory in the L2 writing process. The internship afforded me the ability to collect working memory span scores, analyze the writing the students produced and additionally, design tasks, prompts, and seminar materials that would potentially improve the students’ argumentative essay compositions.
The following report is a reflection of the work I completed as an intern with the English department’s Argumentation course. I will first review the underlying goals and aims of
Argumentation and relate that to theoretically informed L2 teaching pedagogy. This will set the backdrop for a discussion of my responsibilities throughout the internship, a review of the learning outcomes and finally a discussion of future directions as an EAP teacher in Argumentation.
Background EAP: Argumentation
First and second year bachelor students in the Department of English Language and Culture are required to follow a series of English proficiency courses in order to develop their written and spoken English language skills in literary and linguistic genres. Following two 5- ECTS courses which focus on students’ development of literary analysis, Argumentation introduces students to academic writing and discussion in the field of linguistics and is taught parallel to English Linguistics: Sociolinguistics as well as Sound Structure in the first semester.
Thus, as students begin Argumentation, it is assumed that students are able to draw on previously learned knowledge in the field of linguistics and implement it throughout the Argumentation course.
Argumentation focuses on writing a structured sociolinguistic essay in an academic style with well-founded argumentation and accurate and conventional documentation of sources (APA), as well as discussing sociolinguistic topics with sound argumentation in an academic style. By the end of the course, students are able to write a coherent and well-structured sociolinguistic essay in academic English with solid argumentation (CEFR level C1), analyze and synthesize sources to support their argument, and discuss sociolinguistic issues in English, in an academic style (CEFR level C1).
The framework for Argumentation is heavily based on Wingate’s 2012 article,
‘Argument!’ Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Through analysis of student and teacher questionnaires, Wingate (2012) found that students often lack a clear understanding of what argumentation is and therefore struggle in developing clear positions in their argumentative writing. This problem is exacerbated by the unclear and vague metalanguage
teachers use to facilitate understanding throughout the writing process which often results in unhelpful feedback (p. 152). As such, Wingate proposes an essay-writing framework that focuses on students developing an argumentative essay by taking a position on a particular topic. This focus then provides a clear rationale for selecting and integrating relevant sources, supported by coherent presentation (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Essay Writing Framework (Wingate, 2012, p. 153)
EAP: Argumentation is designed primarily to reflect Wingate’s suggestions for argumentative, academic essay writing where students first focus on the main idea and the selection of relevant sources to support the main position. This is followed by attention to various macro and micro level structures of the essay to include paragraph cohesion, sentence structure, and grammatical accuracy. The course is comprised of four 3-week modules with one 2 hour meeting per week and each week alternates between a lecture and a writing seminar. The lecture component is essentially a discussion and comprehension check of a pre-assigned article related to argumentation and sociolinguistics (one article for each of the four units). The writing
seminar follows the lecture topic but additionally focuses on in depth analysis of the
argumentation presented in the article from that unit. The second half of each writing seminar encourages students to autonomously (and in groups) begin their own writing process with a prompt related to the article (see Table 1) in the same style and argumentative framework.
Students are expected to produce three complete 500-word writing assignments by the end of the course. The beginning stages of each writing assignment (brainstorming, planning, organization, and formulation) are often facilitated by group discussions of the argumentation presented in the article. In the third week of each of the 4 modules, students bring a copy of their first draft of a 500-word essay to provide and receive peer feedback based on the writing skills and knowledge of the topic cultivated from the first two weeks prior. Each of the 4 modules and their relation to Wingate (2012) are shown below.
Table 1. Argumentation course structure reflecting Wingate (2012) Unit 0 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 source use
Presenting the argument in a coherent manner Unit 3 (Baker,
McEnery &
Gabrielatos, 2013)
Coherence and cohesion
Coherent presentation based on formal schemata (signposting, referencing, thematic progression, lexical cohesion etc.)
Unit 4 (Barrett, 1998)
Summary of previous units
Consolidation of previous units
Pedagogical approaches to academic writing
L2 academic writing is a highly complex task and requires a culmination of skills, both behavioral and cognitive, cultivated throughout the developmental trajectory of language
learning (i.e. semantics, syntax, pragmatics, planning, organization, revision, etc.). Research has shown that L2 writing places a uniquely and heavy demand on the WM’s limited capacity to simultaneously attend to multiple task-related ideas at once (Kellogg, 1996). This is in addition to managing concurrent activation of both the L1 and the L2 in the bilingual lexicon throughout the stages of writing. As such, it is important to design writing courses that tend to the cognitive functions of the multilingual mind to best facilitate the L2 writing process. Crucial to writing and discussion performance is that when a student possesses sufficient previous knowledge about a topic, a lower cognitive effort is required (Kellogg, 2001). This is of particular interest, as it pertains to the kind of input the student receives just prior to the stages of formulation as well as the way in which the information is presented to trigger the most efficient WM functions.
The design of EAP: Argumentation follows a communicative approach to language learning, where L2 writing and discussion skills are cultivated in meaningful and purposeful contexts. In this way, the Argumentation course reflects content language integrated learning (CLIL) which is rooted in emergentist and usage-based approaches to language learning. Such approaches highlight valuable contributions, across disciplines and within language research, in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of language development. In Argumentation, L2 writing
and discussion skills emerge in language related fields such as sociolinguistics. In the broader scope of the BA program, the academic style of spoken and written language skills become entrenched via extensive exposure to written scholarly articles, audio and audiovisual materials, group discussions, video recorded partner discussions and written tasks.
As such, Argumentation is well founded in emergentist theories that attribute language development primarily to an interaction with the environment where a priori development serves as a conduit for future development (Bybee, 2010). Such manifestations of development may be less apparent in the early stages of language learning, however, as access to more complex forms and structures increases (via interaction with the language environment and entrenchment of conventionally used forms), the greater the ability to more precisely select the necessary forms required for a particular task, thus making development more likely (and apparent). The
entrenchment of conventionally used forms is supported by usage-based language theories (Ellis, 2013) which suggests that frequency of exposure and subsequent use leads to automatization (i.e.
processing time and error rate decrease). Automatization allows a limited capacity system to direct and redirect attentional resources, thus paving the way for more development. However, written composition is a uniquely complex cognitive and behavioral skill to cultivate. This is primarily because the ability to generate new ideas and compose them in a coherent and
sequential order is something that can never be fully automatized, no matter how entrenched the writing process becomes. As such, it is especially important to design academic writing courses that consider the complex cognitive and behavioral functioning that L2 writing requires. The unique complexity of L2 writing is largely attributed to the fact that writing demands
simultaneous attention to multiple task-related ideas at once as well as concurrent activation of the bilingual lexicon, which specifically taxes the limited capacity of working memory.
Personal Goals
After review of Argumentation curriculum and in consultation with EAP instructors, four components of the internship were identified: instruction, assessment, evaluation, and planning.
The overarching goal, for me, was to be able to independently teach EAP at the University of Groningen. As such, the following skills to be developed were identified:
1. Comprehensive understanding and execution of bachelor level teaching pedagogy, curriculum, classroom management, and assessment standards at the University of Groningen.
2. Collaborative design of bachelor-level teaching materials to contribute to the EAP program as needed.
3. Implementation of lesson plans informed by communicative, task-based teaching methodology.
Each of the three skills to be developed were measurable and assessable:
1. Meetings two times per week (more when necessary) with EAP coaches to collaborate and prepare lessons based heavily on reflection of the prior academic year.
2. Classroom observations and feedback by EAP coaches and internship supervisors.
3. Collaborative consensus with EAP coaches on student assessment, evaluation, and feedback.
Internship Responsibilities
Classroom instruction
The primary responsibility of my EAP internship was independently teaching and assessing of one of the four Argumentation student groups. Prior to independently teaching and assessing at the start of the second of the four 3-week modules, it was my responsibility to observe the main instructor, take notes, and provide concrete observations of the students as well as suggest areas for improvement in the future. In this way, the goal of my observations
throughout the first module was two-fold. I was preparing myself to take over the teaching and assessment of one of the student groups while simultaneously providing the instructors with feedback in terms of pace, student interaction, and facilitating comprehension of the material.
The two main instructors and I would meet after each class to make necessary changes to the plans, brainstorm areas of improvement, and discuss overall observations of the students and the class.
In line with the research goals of my M.A. thesis regarding the relationship between working memory capacity and academic writing performance and the potential effect of multisensory input in the formulation and planning stage of the writing process, I designed a writing task, which included a multisensory writing prompt. Indeed, if multisensory input reduces the processing load on a limited capacity system and/or enhances WM functioning, it may encourage more cognitively integrated teaching methodologies and assessment models.
More specifically, I designed the tasks to trigger multisensory input processing with the material presented in line with a CLIL and TBLT informed classroom. Unlike the more common input and assessment strategies used in academic classrooms, which often include reading an article,
having a discussion and then assigning a writing task, the goal of the multisensory writing prompt was to provide students with multiple modes of multisensory input via written text, audio, and audiovisual material related to a sociolinguistic topic. This input included reading academic text, but was not limited to academic text (see Appendix A). The goal of this lesson was less related to a means of assessment of students writing performance, but more of a pilot study to inform future Argumentation material for classroom presentation as well as multisensory writing prompts as a means of assessment.
Into the third week of the second module, all classes were switched to virtual learning due to COVID-19 limitations. These limitations dramatically changed the teaching component of the internship and required the reallocation of support needed by instructors in many areas. As a result, the multisensory pilot study was not carried out. After much deliberation, it was decided that the lectures would be pre-recorded and posted to Nestor, for all of the cohorts of
Argumentation to watch at once. This meant that only one instructor was needed for the recording (the presentation of the material) and additional support was needed during the
seminar component of the course. For the seminar, it was decided that one teacher would proctor the seminar on live video via blackboard collaborate and the other two instructors, myself
included, would play a role in the “background” managing and assisting all 80 students with technical difficulties, pre-organizing and assigning breakout sessions, and monitoring the breakout sessions with a primary goal of facilitating comprehension and productivity. While these necessary changes were not in line with the original skills to be developed, they did provide an opportunity to learn best practices for online learning environments and I emerged with an unexpected and new-found skill set for facilitating online learning and teaching. As the
2020 school year approaches, with many COVID-19 limitations still in place, I am sufficiently equipped to teach EAP courses online.
Student assessment
Alongside the changes to classroom instruction, were changes to student assessment in the form of reallocating instructor responsibilities. Over continued collaboration and virtual meetings with the other EAP instructors, it was decided that I would be solely responsible for the evaluation and feedback of the oral mock examinations as well as the final oral examination for the entire Argumentation cohort. I would additionally participate in the reading and grading of the written assessments in the event that a third reader was needed for final marks.
The most important aspect in assessment of the mock exams was concrete, explicit feedback in order to practically prepare students for the final oral exam by continually calling student’s attention to the grading rubric for what constitutes a good academic discussion (see Appendix B). Beyond the scope of merely a passing mark, was feedback given in the form of suggestions or “pro-tips” for preparing academic discussions naturally, confidently, and
persuasively. In other words, my purpose was not strictly helping students to pass their exam by telling them what they failed to do correctly, but by providing them with feedback, which highlighted what they did well, providing pinpoint examples from their discussions that were opportunities for further improvement. This kind of feedback is a long and arduous task, not only in the context of Argumentation discussions, but in teaching pedagogy in general. It was through this endeavor, eventually confirmed by the student's performance on the final oral exam, that I came to realize how important feedback is to the development of student performance. In a final note, I took it upon myself to read the student’s written submissions and observe the
corresponding marks for my own benefit to better understand the grading rubric as well as the writing abilities of the students. This was beneficial to my professional development as I followed the grading of other, more experienced EAP teachers as well as my general
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of individual students throughout the writing process.
Lesson planning
While the framework for Argumentation already exists with appropriate course
objectives, effective curriculum and appropriate class materials, the EAP staff is always looking for ways to improve and implement the most effective means of teaching academic writing and discussion informed by communicative, task-based teaching methodology. As a result, the primary focus as it pertains to classroom planning, was identifying weaknesses from years prior and determining their effectiveness and relevance in the context of the current student cohort.
This often meant that during the weekly staff meetings, we would work through the PowerPoint slides for the upcoming lesson and make adjustments not only the way in which the material was presented but also the length of time allotted for teacher presentation, group work, and
comprehension checks. Oftentimes, slides were removed entirely with the intention of changing the objective of a particular activity to be more student focused. It was often suggested that if the students can, they must, which encourages student autonomy. In other words, holding the
students responsible for understanding the content, providing additional resources for comprehension and at the very least, drawing concepts out of them rather than giving them/prompting them for the correct responses. The idea of learner autonomy became
increasingly important once the material was moved to online learning environments where it was increasingly difficult to completely monitor student breakout groups via blackboard
collaborate. In this way, just as teachers had to adjust to teaching online, it was also necessary for students to acknowledge how to most effectively learn online.
Review of Skills Acquired
In this section, I will review the personal goals previously mentioned. As it pertains to goal (1) Comprehensive understanding and execution of bachelor level teaching pedagogy, curriculum, classroom management, and assessment standards at the University of Groningen, I feel well-equipped to teach EAP at the University of Groningen. This was achieved via
observation of experienced teachers, collaborative meetings, and practice in both teaching lessons as well as grading assessment of the oral exams. Additionally, I feel that I cultivated new skills (although largely unforeseen) in online learning environments due to COVID-19
limitations.
Regarding the assessment portion of the first goal. For goal (2) Collaborative design of bachelor-level teaching materials to contribute to the EAP program as needed at the University of Groningen and (3) Implementation of lesson plans informed by communicative, task-based teaching methodology. I was unable to distribute the tasks I designed for Argumentation in the 2020 school year due to COVID-19 restrictions as well as the necessary rearrangements of the course itself and reallocation of instructor resources. However, the process of creating them via theoretically informed teaching pedagogy was extremely insightful. Furthermore, I have created, via my M.A. thesis, a blueprint to use the tasks, including explicit instructions for future research in the area of EAP academic writing, working memory, and multisensory input. In this way, the future tasks can be used for research purposes and/or classroom instruction. The amount of time I spent revising them and theoretically incorporating them into my M.A. thesis, alongside
feedback from highly experienced CLIL instructors was an exceptionally insightful endeavor, one that may have not come to fruition, had my focus been immediate classroom
implementation.
While unforeseen, and not exactly a measurable goal, one of the greatest skills I
cultivated throughout the internship, due to the COVID-19 limitations, was flexibility. My ability to accept and execute the tasks and responsibilities given to me, some of which were not part of the original plan and consumed a great deal of time, gave me a great deal of confidence and awareness of my adaptive abilities - to be flexible and useful in whatever ways are needed at a particular point in time. This is a valuable skill in teaching, not only as it pertains to
administrative duties such as timely assessment and feedback, but also the need to continually reassess and be flexible in teaching style in order to cater to individual students' needs at particular points in time.
Future Developments
There are many areas for improvement when it comes to both my own approach to teaching academic English as well as areas for improvement within the program itself. Firstly, I observed how important explicit, individual feedback is to students when they are developing their academic writing and speaking skills. This observation has implications for my own teaching as well as classroom design in the EAP program in general. Personally, I must learn to find the balance between delivering thorough and helpful feedback to students and time. It is important to provide useful feedback to each student, but the time it takes me is not sustainable and likely impossible alongside teaching more than one course. One potential remedy for this begins in the classroom. For example, when students break out into smaller groups and begin to formulate their own essays, making a point to move throughout the groups and speak with each
student individually would ideally be an opportunity to provide immediate feedback. When time allowed for this interaction with students, I observed that that brief one-on-one conversations about their theses and main ideas seemed to be far more useful than when the very same concepts were addressed to the class as a whole. It was almost as if what they needed the most was to share their ideas and receive affirmation and/or critique from a teacher. For me, this means that there must be time carved into each class to check-in with students individually, however brief, to encourage their progress. To make this a larger priority, cutting back on the presentation time (teacher talk time) would allow additional time to check in on the students during the production component of the class. This also ensures that the students who are less likely to ask questions in their small groups or in front of the whole class still have an
opportunity to express their questions or lack of understanding. In other words, the more clearly students understand the material and subsequent expectations before they leave the classroom, the less time consuming, corrective feedback they will need after they submit their writing.
The feedback on the oral mock exams as well as the final oral exam were extremely telling of the importance of explicit, individual feedback. In each area for grading, I provided pinpoint examples and time markers to call their attention to sources for improvement. This was especially helpful for them as they worked to incorporate the data and complex concepts from an academic article into an academic discussion. It was quite remarkable to see the improvement that took place (just two weeks apart) from the oral mock exam and the final exam. In addition to improving their academic discussion ability, they also greatly improved on their ability to engage in discussions in a virtual environment. While the improvements made all of the time in giving feedback very rewarding, I learned (afterwards) the time saving trick of keeping a log of
frequently used remarks rather than retyping each comment individually. In this way, I can copy
and paste the general comment, and add into it the specific details. This small trick helps to fill the gap between thorough and helpful feedback and time limitations for grading student’s work.
Conclusion
The internship I completed from January to June 2020 in the English department allowed me to develop the necessary skills for teaching in EAP at University of Groningen. I feel I have the ability to plan lessons, select appropriate materials and evaluate such autonomously and collaboratively. In addition, I believe I can bring fourth innovative and insightful techniques to aid in cultivating academic writing and speaking skills anchored in CLIL and TBLT teaching pedagogy. Lastly, I am equipped to assess students’ work to include not only an accurate mark, but also one that includes helpful feedback to encourage and enable students to improve. As my primary goal upon completion of the internship was to possess the skills to independently teach EAP at the University of Groningen, I believe the internship was valuable and successful.
References
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2010). Retrieved January 31, 2020.
Ellis, N., O'Donnell, M., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition: Usage-based language. Language Learning, 63, 25- 51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x.
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175–191.
Kellogg, R. T., Newcombe, C., Kammer, D., & Schmitt, K. (1996). Attention in direct and indirect memory tasks with short- and long-term probes. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(2), 205–17.
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
Appendix A
Appendix B
