Preface Note: This site is an illustration of a Stage 3 Video Viewing Guide as submitted in partial completion of course work for TSLP 827-I: Practicum in Teaching ESL to adults as offered by the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL, Georgia State University in the spring of 1998. John Murphy was the course instructor. An even fuller version of this guide is available on two hour reserve in the media center of the Pullen Library (7th floor Library South), or upon request from Dr. Murphy. The video recording targeted by the guide is also on reserve in the media center under John Murphy's name (ask for tape number #981). Some additional components missing from this "web version" are a series of tables and figures Brenda designed that did not transfer as parts of the web posting. This webbized version of Brenda's original guide is provided an illustration of possibilities and to give readers a feeling for the potential such guides represent in the professional development of language teachers. Notice that we term this a "Stage 3" guide (as opposed to either Stage One or Stage Two guide) because Ms. Sansom-Moorey produced it herself, from video recordings of one of her own courses.
The Class: ESL 300: Theological WritingAppendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F 75 (Course Syllabus, revised)
These two videos show two consecutive ESL classes in the second-to-last week of the spring semester 1998 at the Candler School of Theology, a United Methodist Church seminary which is part of Emory University. As a pilot project for the new ESL program for seminary students, this class is still very much of a course-in-progress. Although the administration and faculty have been concerned for some time about the English-language needs of their international students, this was the first semester any ESL instruction has been offered at Candler. I was hired to design and teach a writing course that would be included as part of the regular seminary curriculum.
I based the course on a design I had created for the course project in TSLP 845, "Approaches to Teaching ESL/EFL," at Georgia State University in the fall quarter of 1997. [Note: Here's a link to Brenda's related course project for the Approaches course]. The course was conceived as a high intermediate level writing course for students in a theological seminary. Because it was necessary for the course to be as relevant as possible to the students' theological studies, I incorporated theological readings as the basis for writing assignments and modeled the assignments on the types of papers students might have in their other classes. I also made use of native- speaker student theology papers as model essays, or, as in the case of the essay used in these videos, as the basis for exercises in essay revision.
For this first semester, enrollment in the class was purely voluntary, although students were urged to sign up by some of their professors. However, although students received credit for the class, it did not count toward their degree requirements, and the they were only able to take the class as a course overload. As a result, only four students signed up for the class (much to the chagrin of the Associate Dean's office which had estimated an enrollment of twenty). About a third of the way through the semester, a fifth student joined us as an auditor and participated almost as fully as the other four.
Three of the students were (or had been) in the Masters of Theology (Th.M) program, which is a one-year degree program intended to prepare students for Ph.D. work. The other two were each studying for a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree, which prepares students to enter the ordained ministry. Thus the Th.M. students' curricula focused on academic research work, while that of the M.Div. students emphasized the practical and applied aspects of theology and pastoral work. It was a challenge for me to design a class to address the needs of both–a challenge I am still working to meet as I continue to revise the course.
Because the class was so small it was possible to get to know each student fairly well and to have a good sense of the strengths and weaknesses in his or her writing. The following is a brief description of the individual students:
Heong-Seok (yellow shirt in first session) is from Korea. This is his first year in the U.S. He graduated from the Th.M. program this spring, and will be reapplying for Ph.D. programs next year. He is very bright and comprehends theological texts well. However, he has had difficulties in summarizing without plagiarism and in explaining his main points in enough detail in essays. He readily asks and answers questions in class.
Keun-Jo (dark shirt in first session and blue plaid shirt in
second session) was also a Th.M student from Korea. He has been accepted
into the Ph.D. program of a prestigious university. He is also very
bright, has fairly good written grammar, and can analyze and interpret
texts quite competently and creatively. In his papers, he has had
some problems in organization and sometimes does not provide enough explanation
for his arguments. He often asks thoughtful questions and initiates
comments in class.
Eun Hee (female student), who was our auditor, was a special
student. She is also Korean. She graduated from the Th.M. program
last year and will enter a highly ranked Ph.D. program in the fall.
Her English is excellent with few grammatical errors, written or oral.
She is extremely intelligent and can write thoughtfully and very expressively.
However, the language she uses in her summaries tends to be a bit general
and vague. She rarely asks questions or comments in class, but her
answers are usually correct and her analyses insightful.
Jeong-kwan (white shirt in second session) is a Korean M.Div. student. This is his first year in the U.S. and his first year in seminary. He is quite shy but has become braver about offering comments and answering questions in class. He has problems with syntax and vocabulary when expressing himself in writing. He also tends to include extraneous material and pack too many ideas into a single paragraph in his papers. However, he is capable of conceptualizing coherent and even creative arguments, even if he has trouble expressing them clearly.
Costa (African student) is an M.Div. student from Angola whose principal language is Portuguese. He studied English for only five months before coming to the U.S. and entering Candler last October. He was admitted by special arrangement without taking the TOEFL, and now he is struggling a great deal in all his classes. He often misunderstands directions, has difficulty comprehending texts, and has significant grammar and composition problems. He readily answering questions, but often his answers are off-track.
Although my original course design called for a class that met six hours a week for ten weeks, the number of contact hours had to be significantly pared down in order to fit with Candler's class schedule. In the end, the class met twice a week for one-and- a-half hour sessions throughout the 13-week semester. I tried to cover as much material as I could in this time, but I am afraid I was too ambitious for the time available, resulting in somewhat of a scattershot effect.
I addressed basic issues of mechanics and composition and also included some short grammar reviews, mainly on sentence types and dependent clauses. (The revised syllabus is included in Appendix A). For this I made use of exercises in two ESL textbooks, Writing academic English by Alice Oshima and Ann Hogue (1991) and Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies by Ilona Leki (1995). I also discussed with students the expectations and assumptions which guide various genres of academic and theological writing. In order to apply the concepts they learned in class, the students produced 5 out-of-class short papers (2-3 pp.) and 2 in-class papers which were similar to the writing assignments they received in their theology classes.
I discovered, however, that because all but one of them were
taking this class as an overload, most of them could barely handle this
work load. I had planned to assign additional grammar and composition
exercises as homework, but found that the students just could not manage
any more outside work. Consequently, many of the class periods I had intended
to devote to discussion of readings and papers had to be spent on in-class
exercises. The two class periods shown on the videotapes are examples
of such sessions.
As I mentioned above, I tried to make the class relevant to
the rest of the students' curricula by assigning theological readings on
which to base their papers, and by discussing the application of rules
and features studied in this class to some of their other work. In
one such instance, we analyzed the Master's paper proposals of the Th.M.
students in this class. I refer to these and to other papers
the students did for this class on the videotape.
Using This Video Viewing Guide
I have included videotaped portions of two class sessions in this viewing guide because they depict two parts of a single lesson, and the exercises were intended to proceed in a sequence. I have identified the separate segments from the two classes, each of which deals with a particular task or sequence of the lesson, and have numbered and titled them accordingly. The issues involved are then listed and the activities and objectives described. Before reading the commentary which follows, the viewer is invited to perform an observation task while watching the segment. Then the actual unfolding of the lesson is related, followed by my reflections on the issues that arose from that segment of the lesson. Most of the issues identified represent different types of decisions a teacher must make as the lesson progresses, e.g.: How much time shall I give to this explanation? What do I do when the students seem stumped by a task? How shall I phrase my questions to elicit the type of response I hope for? After giving my own reflections on the decisions I made in a particular segment, therefore, I also pose questions for the viewer to consider, many of which are aimed at an evaluation of those decisions.
Although the tapes can be viewed in their entirety for a sense of the way the lesson unfolded as a whole, because of the length it may be more convenient for the viewer to select a sequence that seems relevant to his/her interests. For the viewer's convenience, I include the VCR counter numbers and verbal cues for the beginning of each segment. (Most segments are separated by a few sections of blank tape; however, due to editing problems, there are a few places where segments begin immediately after the preceding sequences.)
Should the viewer prefer to watch the all the segments in one
or two sittings, the following questions may be useful in considering the
lesson as a whole.
1. Teacher Questions: Wajnryb (1992,
p, 47) suggests that the language of questions is an important aspect of
the lesson which merits attention. She lists several categories
of questions as follows:
Yes/No Questions "Should I put a footnote here?"
Short Answer/Retrieval Questions "According to this paragraph, how
many
words are there for "snow" in the Eskimo
language?"
Open-Ended Questions "What is the purpose of this paragraph?"
Display Questions
(asking information already
known) "What is the title of this essay?"
Referential Questions
(seeking new information) "What is the Korean word for "snow?"
Non-Retrieval, Imaginative
Questions "What kind of concluding sentence would
you write?"
How would you categorize the questions I pose to the students
throughout the
lessons? What pattern(s) do you see? Was the selection
of questions effective in
achieving my purposes? Would you recommend any changes?
2. Lesson Organization
and Cohesion: According to Davis (1993, p. 6) the
introduction of new material is best absorbed if it is organized
logically and is linked by
a conceptual framework. I tried to arrange the exercises in a progression
according to
difficulty. The earlier exercises were also intended as a
buildup to the revision of the
NS student paper.
How successful was this arrangement
overall? Was the relationship between
exercises apparent? Were the tasks relevant to the students'
"real-world needs," and
did they accomplish their purposes?
3. Attending to the Learner:
Wajnryb notes several strategies that teachers
engage in to attend to learners' contributions and needs (p. 6):
• Using students' names
• Stance
• Facing students or
not
• Eye contact
• Verbal prompts
• Facial expressions
and gestures: smiling, nodding, frowning
• Gestures
• Touching
There are other ways too in which a teacher may attend to particular
learners' needs
and problem areas, some of which are conditioned by the specific
activity the class is
engaged in, e.g. monitoring group/pair work, choosing particular
examples, asking
individual questions, etc.
What strategies do you notice in both
the tape and this guide that were used to
attend to individual learners? How effective were the strategies?
Tape 1
Segment 1: Beginning
the Lesson
00:00:09 - 00:00:43
Cue T: All right, today, I don't
know how much you did, but do you remember I gave
you this paper?
Issues: Opening the
Lesson; Learner Aims
Activity and Objective: I introduced the lesson for the day
and the series of exercises
to be done in class. I had planned to work on aspects the
students needed to focus on
when revising their writing. I wanted to start with some exercises
on paragraph
cohesion from the Oshima and Hogue textbook, then proceed
to examining some of
their essays. These were to be preliminary exercises to introduce
the main task:
examining and revising specific sections of a native-speaker student
essay.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table to complete appears here.]
Action synopsis: I briefly described the exercises we would do together in class.
Reflections:
Learner Aims: I introduced the exercises we would be doing
immediately afterwards
and implied that they would relate somehow to the NS paper that
we would examine,
but I did not make the connection clear or clearly spell out the
aims I had for the lesson
as a whole: i.e. that the exercises would build up practice in different
aspects of essay
revision so that the students could apply the principles learned
to an entire paper.
Part 1: 00:00:49 - 00:02:30
Cue T: In these paragraphs there are
some sentences that don't belong in the
paragraph.
Part 2: 00: 02:37 - 00:09:49
Cue T: OK, what about that paragraph?
Issues: Negotiating Meaning; Feedback to Error; Teacher Questions
Task and Objective: The learners were to identify and
eliminate sentences that were
not relevant to the surrounding paragraph. The objective was
to comprehend
paragraph
cohesion. (The text of the exercises is found in Appendix
B)
Action Synopsis: In sequence A, Keun-Jo read
the first paragraph and easily picked
out the irrelevant sentence. At the start of sequence B, Heong-Seok
had already read
the second paragraph. At first, neither student was
unable to locate the unnecessary
sentence. I went over the paragraph sentence by sentence:
T: OK, what is the topic
sentence of this paragraph?
HS: The first sentence.
T: (Underlines and reads sentence.) So it's about crime and
. . . ?
HS: Chicago citizens.
T: Yeah, what about Chicago
citizens?
HS: That [unintelligible].
T: Well, what are the
Chicago–what is the relationship between crime and
the citizens?
Between crime and the citizens? What . . . ?
KJ: The crime makes the citizens
be afraid.
T: OK, OK.
KJ: Of being–living in the city
there.
T: OK, so it's not just
crime, it's their fears and worries, right?
KJ & HS: Yeah, yeah.
T: That's the topic–the
citizens' fears and worries about crime. OK, so look
at the next
sentence, then.
I read through each sentence that followed
and asked if it dealt specifically with
the topic we had identified. Heong-Seok was then able to pick
out the unrelated
sentence, and I talked briefly with Keun-Jo about putting this sentence
into another
paragraph. I pointed out again that while the sentence in
question dealt with crime in
general, it did not specifically refer to citizen concerns about
crime.
The students disagreed as to whether the
last sentence fit with the rest of the
paragraph. ("Indeed, it seems that the increase in crime is turning
the average home in
Chicago into a prison for its inhabitants.") Heong-Seok objected
that while the
sentence fit with the topic, he did not think it worked as a concluding
sentence. I asked
him what kind of concluding sentence he would write. Instead
of coming up with an
entirely new sentence, he repeated the sentence but substituted
"war place" or "frontier
of the war" for "prison."
T: Battle zone?
HS: Yeah, because it's gun,
and locks . . .
T: So you're–the problem
you have is with "prison."
HS: Yeah.
T: If there was a different
kind of metaphor like "battle zone" it would fit
better.
HS: Yeah.
T: (to KJ) What do you think?
Keun-Jo, in contrast, thought the sentence
fit because it was the final punch line
that the other sentences had built up to in describing the increasingly
desperate
measures people resorted to in self-protection against crime.
I told him this was a good
point.
Reflections:
Feedback to Error; Teacher Questions : When the students had
trouble identifying the
irrelevant sentence in the second paragraph, I surmised that their
difficulty lay in
insufficiently determining the focus of the paragraph. Therefore
I had them examine the
specific focus of the paragraph as set down in the topic sentence.
I wanted them to
figure it out if possible, so asked several questions to elicit
a response. When they had
done this successfully they were able to find the sentence in question
easily. I think this
exercise in clarification of meaning was successful on the whole.
Negotiating Meaning; I am not sure whether I should have taken the
time to explore
their disagreement over the final sentence. In some ways I
thought it could have been
potentially helpful, but am not sure whether I exploited it well
enough. The episode of
meaning negotiation with Heong-Seok over his objections to the wording
of the
sentence was successful, but I did not comment on the validity of
his objection. Keun-
Jo introduced an important point–using buildup as an effective way
of maintaining
paragraph cohesion–but I did not take the opportunity to stress
this as a general
principle.
Segment 3: A Cultural Digression
00:09:58 - 00:12:55
Cue T: OK, I want you guys to take a few
minutes now and look at this page.
Issues: Giving Instructions; Handling Digressions; Teaching
about Culture; Managing
Time
Activity and Objective: I gave directions for the task
the students were to complete
as
a pair.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table to complete
appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I explained to the students that the
paragraph in question, on the
topic of conversion to the metric system in the U.S., contained
some irrelevant
sentences and also needed to be divided into smaller paragraphs.
(See Paragraph 2 on
the second page of Appendix B.) Then Keun-Jo unexpectedly
asked me about the
origins of American measuring systems. I responded by explaining
the U. S.
measuring system at some length. Keun-Jo appeared quite interested
and interjected
comments, but Heong-Seok did not.
Reflections: I thought I achieved my purpose in giving
clear directions, but then had
to handle an unexpected question on an aspect of U.S. culture.
One of the things I like
most about ESL teaching is the opportunity to talk about cultural
issues–however,
because I usually feel that I must give most of my time to issues
of form, learning skills
and principles, etc., cultural discussions always seem to fall into
the category of lesson
digressions. I enjoy them, not least because they build up
affective connections with
the students, but I feel conflicted about indulging in them, especially
in a class like this
in which there are so many important things to work on with the
students. I wanted to
respond to Keun-Jo's questions about the English measuring
system, but also felt
uneasy about the time I was spending on it. After viewing
the videotape, I also
wondered if I should have spent so much time on it when one of the
students (half of
the class!) appeared uninterested in the discussion.
00:13:01 - 00:20:48
Cue T: I know that's very rude in
Korea.
Issues: Cultural Sensitivity; Identifying the "Right Answer";
Dealing with Multiple
Options; Checking Learning
Activity and Objective: The students were to work together
to divide up a paragraph
with multiple topics and to eliminate irrelevant sentences (Appendix
B, second page).
The objective was to practice editing for paragraph cohesion.
Another "non-content"
objective was to practice the learning skill of collaborative editing.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table to complete
appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I summoned Heong-Seok to mark
their findings on the overhead
transparency, inadvertently using a gesture that is impolite in
Korea. The students had
initially picked out only one of the two irrelevant sentences in
the exercise. This time I
did not have to repeat the method I had used before of going over
the paragraph
sentence by sentence. I merely pointed out that there was
another irrelevant sentence
in the paragraph and Heong-Seok identified it right away.
Keun-Jo disagreed, but
Heong-Seok pointed out rightly that the sentence in question broke
up the flow of the
paragraph. I weighed in on Heong-Seok's side , explaining
why he was right.
When Heong-Seok indicated their paragraph
divisions on the overhead, I
suggested that they could make another division. They were
not able to determine
where this might be by themselves, so I gave them a hint and also
told them that this
was an optional division.
Reflections:
Cultural Sensitivity I know that the gesture I used was impolite
(crooking the index
finger as a summons–used to call a dog in Korea), but because I
sometimes use it
humorously among American friends, I often forget that it is objectionable
when I'm in
an ESL class with Korean students. When this happens,
I usually apologize light-
heartedly. The students have always laughed and have never
taken offense; however,
I think I should make greater efforts to censor myself ahead
of time.
Identifying the "Right Answer"; Dealing with Ambiguity
I think it is very helpful for
students to disagree about their answers and learn to defend their
choices by
explaining their reasoning, although in many in many exercises
it is necessary for the
teacher to indicate the "right answer" and give the appropriate
explanations. However,
I believe that it is also important to show students that in the
real world there many
cases of language usage characterized by multiple options and ambiguities.
I tried to
illustrate this point by suggesting another optional paragraph division.
Checking Learning I often use wait time to elicit answers
from the students even if it
lasts a while because I have found that silence often produces
worthwhile responses.
However, when it becomes clear that students are not responding,
I must intervene in
some way. Some of the choices I have:
• give the answer
• direct the question
to an individual
• reword the question
• check for comprehension
•
give a hint
After rewording the question to little
effect, I chose to give a hint here because I
thought the students understood the question but were both stumped
as to how to find
the answer. With the hint, I hoped they could supply the answer
themselves, which
Heong-Seok eventually did.
00:20:55 - 00:37:23
Cue T: Now another thing that is something
we need to watch out for in essay
composition is explaining enough or giving enough examples of what
we want to say.
Issues: Lesson Breakdown; Transitions; Teacher Talk, Discussing Culture
Activity and Objective: The students were to look at a paragraph
from the textbook
that I projected on the overhead and determine where citations were
needed for the
supporting facts in the paragraph. In their final paper the
students were supposed to
use citations. (The paragraph is entitled "Model: Example"
in Appendix C.) The
objective of this exercise was to remind students that they had
to cite their sources when
including information gathered elsewhere in their papers and to
review with them where
citations should be placed. (Most of them had already been
using citations in their other
course work.)
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table to complete
appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I briefly mentioned one of the problems all the
students had displayed
in their work–insufficient explanation of their arguments–and then
described what I
wanted them to do in the exercise. The students read the paragraph
aloud, then
commented on part of its content, viz., the number of words different
cultures have for
"snow." Again we digressed a bit, and talked about different Korean
words for snow.
When we came back to the exercise, the students
seemed confused. I asked
them where to put the footnotes, and Heong-Seok indicated several
places that seemed
strange to me. I still did not realize the extent of the breakdown
or explore its cause. I
asked Keun-Jo what he thought, but at first he did not reply.
Finally he told me that he
did not know what I wanted them to do. Heong-Seok then chimed
in and revealed that
the students were confused by what I meant by "footnotes."
They had thought I meant
content footnotes and had been looking for places where extra information
should be
given.
After I explained to them about the two
types of footnotes that are customarily
used (in the Turabian/Chicago style manual), they understood what
I wanted, although
at first Keun-Jo did not think the paragraph required any footnotes.
We then went
through the paragraph sentence by sentence. I had them point out
where footnotes
should be and explain why each sentence did or did not require a
footnote. Their
answers were generally correct.
Reflection:
Transitions; Lesson Breakdown Although I did not realize
it at the time, after viewing
the tape I could see that the transitional comments I made before
introducing this
exercise probably played an important part in misleading and confusing
the students,
which ultimately resulted in a lesson breakdown. In effect
I had conflated two separate
aspects of the use of support in academic papers: providing enough
support in sufficient
detail and documenting the support adequately. As a result,
the students were probably
led to believe that I was speaking about the need to provide content
footnotes. Clearly,
transitional comments need to be well-integrated with the instructions
for subsequent
activities to minimize confusion. The text of my comments
and directions is as follows:
T: Now another thing that is something we need to watch
out for in essay
composition is explaining enough or giving
enough examples of what we want to
say–giving enough evidence and explaining
enough. I'm always telling you–many
of you in your papers–that I want you to
say more or to expand, or I'll say, "What
does this mean? Explain this more."
First of all, let's look at this here.
This paragraph here uses an example of a
point. But I want you to read this
and see where do you think this person should
put a footnote or a citation. You
remember that we talked about footnoting, and
you footnote quotations; you also footnote
facts that you've taken from some
other source. Let's read this paragraph
and see where would you want this writer
to put a footnote.
From these comments, it is easy to see how a student might conclude
that I was
referring to content footnotes rather than reference citations.
Another problem was the confusing way I
tended to refer to "footnotes" and
"citations." They are not, in fact, interchangeable, but I referred
to them as if they were.
Moreover, I had earlier asked the students to cite sources within
the text, according the
MLA guidelines–which are not footnotes–but now I was referring to
source citations as
footnotes. (All this has partly to do with my own confusion
about making the transition
myself from using the Turabian format to an APA or MLA format.)
Fortunately, the
students eventually told me that they were confused and why, and
the exercise
proceeded more smoothly after that. However, I never did clarify
the confusing
terminology, something I should have done then or during the next
lesson.
Teacher TalkOne thing I've been somewhat horrified to
discover from viewing
the videotape is the extent to which I use not only simplified "teacher
talk" with the
students but also ungrammatical "foreigner talk" when my sentences
include noun
clauses. I tend to use this when giving instructions, apparently
in an effort to ensure
comprehension. This is an area I want to target for correction.
Segment 6: Negotiating a Topic with Students
00:37:32 - 00:53:12
Cue T: Some of your essays–let's look at
a couple of your essays.
Issues: Applying Course Content; Modeling; Responding to Student-Initiated Topics
Activity and Objectives: The students were to look at
extracts from their essays on
the overhead which I had marked as too vague or cryptic. I
asked them why I thought
this was so and how their sentences could be revised or expanded.
The objective was
to help them learn to express themselves as precisely and concisely
as possible so that
the reader could better understand their arguments.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I put the first page of one of
Heong-Seok's essays on the overhead
projector without identifying its author. (The essay and extracts
from the reading it was
based on are found in Appendix D.) This was a review of the first
chapter of
Constructing Local Theologies by Robert Schreiter (1985, Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Press),
a book which describes and categorizes attempts by Third World churches
to create
theologies based on their own circumstances. I pointed out a passage
in which Heong-
Seok had described the chapter's topic in such general terms that
the impression of the
chapter that the essay conveyed was quite misleading. I asked
why I wanted the writer
to give more detail. Heong-Seok, identifying himself as the
writer, gave an adequate
answer.
I had meant to continue on with examples
from another essay, but Keun-Jo asked
me a question about the appropriate length for summaries.
As I tried to discern his
meaning and answer his questions, we became engaged in a discussion
about
summary writing, and I did not get to the next essay. I tried
to explain that the length of
summaries depended on their purpose and illustrated my point by
using Keun-Jo's own
Th.M. research paper as an example. I tried to make the point
that even a general
summary has to include enough detail to clearly identify the main
points. Then I
returned to Heong-Seok's essay and asked the students to supply
additional details that
would clarify the meaning of the first sentence. They were
not able to respond because
they said they did not remember the reading very well. I then
modeled the first sentence
for them, and they were able to give an adequate response for the
second sentence.
However, the students complained that Schreiter
had not organized his
arguments well and that they had trouble finding the main points.
I responded by asking
them to explain the next of the points that Heong-Seok had mentioned
in his essay.
They were able to do this, and I used their answer to model a more
explicit sentence
that could be used in the essay. I told them that Heong Seok
had in fact been
successful in finding the main points; he just needed to explain
them clearly.
Reflections:
Responding to Student-Initiated Topics In this
class, I have found that the students
can ask good questions that merit more than a brief response.
The section of the paper
we were examining was part of a summary of a book chapter.
Keun-Jo related the
problem of insufficient explanation to the confusion students have
as to which points to
include in a summary and in what detail. I had not thought
of the problem in this
way–and of course not all of the students' problems with providing
sufficient explanation
stemmed from summary-writing difficulties. However, although
I had not intended to
discuss summary-writing per se, I knew that all of the students
have struggled with this
task in one way or another throughout the course, and I gradually
realized that Keun-Jo
had provided an important reason for the students' problems with
insufficient explanation
that I had missed. I therefore made the decision mid-stream
that it was worth
incorporating a short discussion of summary-writing into the lesson,
even though that
meant that we did not have time to look at any more student papers.
Heong-Seok also joined the discussion, commenting
that his writing problems
were partly due to the fact that the original chapter was disorganized
and hard to
summarize. At this point we could have probed more deeply
into the guidelines for
producing a summary: I could have had them look back at the chapter
again and
discussed with them methods for identifying which points to include
and in how much
detail. I recognized that this probably would have been beneficial
to them; however, it
would have taken us far off the track and I did not want to give
up my focus on their
need to be more specific in their writing. Consequently, I
focused again on Heong-
Seok's essay, emphasizing that he had indeed selected key points;
the real problem
was that he did not state them explicitly enough. However,
I mentally filed away the
student's comments to be reconsidered when planning next year's
course.
Modeling When the students had trouble coming
up with more specific descriptions of
"the significant shift in theology" I modeled what I had in mind
for them. I tend to rely on
this strategy a good deal in my teaching. I have found that
students often have no idea
of what I am trying to convey to them if I simply describe a principle
or a task to them.
They usually need to hear an example not only to understand how
to apply the principle
but also to grasp the principle in the first place.
Applying Course Content When Keun-Jo asked me about the
appropriate length for
summaries, I used his own research interests as an example in my
answer. I want the
students to know how to apply the skills and principles they are
learning in this ESL
class directly to the projects they are working on elsewhere.
Using theological materials
and being somewhat familiar with theological terminology is helpful
for the teacher, I
think, in facilitating this kind of transfer.
Segment 7: Discussing the Purposes of Academic Writing
00:53:14 - 01:05:29
Cue T: Did you have a chance to read that
one?
Issues: Teacher Questions; Discussing Concepts; Relating Course Content
Activity and Objectives: We analyzed the introduction of a
NS Candler student paper
that compared and contrasted the social justice approaches of Walter
Rauschenbusch,
the founder of the American Social Gospel movement in the
1930's, and liberation
theology, a broad socio-political movement in Third World churches
which started in
Latin America in the 1960's. (The paper excerpts and exercise questions
are found in
Appendix E.) We looked specifically for the writer's description
of his purpose. (He did
not give one.) I wanted the students to reflect on the need
to describe one's basic
purpose or justification for writing a paper. I also wanted
to show them that they were
not alone in struggling to become good writers: native-speakers
also had problems in
essay composition. Furthermore, I wanted them to see how poor
writing can obscure
cmprehension.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table to complete
appears here.]
Action Synopsis: Heong-Seok asked me about the reason for beginning
the paper with
a quotation. I explained that it was a "hook" and reminded
him of a previous class
discussion on introductions. I asked them to identify the
thesis statement, then asked
them to look at the rest of the introduction:
T: What do you think about
the rest of this introduction? Do you think this is
an adequate
introduction?
HS: No.
T: No? Why?
HS: It's very confusing because
the organize [i.e. organization of] an essay is
better to
come after that thesis sentence because thesis sentence
determine[s]
the organization of that essay . . . I think he explain why
thesis is
important or why is the motive of his thesis [unintelligible].
T: OK. Did he explain
why his project is important? What is the importance
of his project?
HS: I think he does
not explain.
KJ: He talks about some limitation?
T: Limitations?
KJ: Yeah, and his [unintelligible]
and how he will explore the issues.
T: But does he explain
why he is doing this or what is the purpose for
comparing
these two?
HS: The impact upon the privileged.
The impact upon the privileged.
T: He will review the
impact upon the privileged.
HS: But he does not mention
about that, he does not [unintelligible].
T: OK. So do you
think that he describes why he's writing this paper, or what
is he trying
to–I mean, what is the problem, what is the purpose, what is
the problem
he's addressing? Do you think he talks about that?
KJ: Not clear.
HS: He does not explain why
he will deal with that comparison of that Social
Gospel and
liberation theology. His motive is not clear. And also his
thesis is
not strong, in my opinion. It's not just comparison–what is that
purpose of
comparison and why should discuss that [unintelligible].
T: Yeah, good, I'm glad
you saw that.
I then explained that a writer should justify
why he/she is writing a paper; in
particular, the writer should explain the reason is for selecting
two subjects to compare.
As an example, I mentioned the somewhat comical notion of comparing
the writings of
Karl Barth (arguably the foremost modern Protestant theologian)
with those of Karl Marx
(who should need no introduction) without giving some clear reason.
I asked each
student to describe the purpose of his Th.M. paper, and I reminded
Heong-Seok that I
had mentioned this very point when discussing his paper proposal
with him. (He had
chosen to compare the analysis of reality in the writings of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, a
German theologian of the 1930's and 40's, and in Minjung theology,
an indigenous
liberation-style theology developed in Korea in the 1970's.)
Keun-Jo then asked me
further about what I meant when I spoke of identifying a problem
as the reason for
writing a paper, and I elaborated a bit on the need to focus on
intellectual problems.
Reflection:
Discussing Concepts; Relating Course Content I
especially wanted to discuss with
these Th.M. students the importance of writing papers as the focused
response to a
particular problem or issue. These students want to become
scholars and teachers, so
it is particularly necessary for them to learn how to produce critical
and original writing.
In the introduction to his Th.M. paper, Heong-Seok never explained
why he had picked
Bonhoeffer and Minjung theology as his subjects for comparison.
He had not even been
able to articulate his reasons well to me orally, other than to
say that he had done a
paper on Bonhoeffer before and that he was required to relate his
Th.M. paper to Korea
in some way. Through the use of the sample paper we examined,
I wanted to show him
an example of the unsatisfactory and confused impression one gets
from reading a
paper which does not spell out its main point. I also wanted
to impress upon the
students by means of the NS paper example that having a thesis statement
did not
guarantee that the writer had satisfactorily explained his purpose
in writing the paper.
When I spoke about intellectual problems,
however, my explanations could have
been strengthened if I had prepared specific examples ahead of time.
I think also that I
could have asked the students to brainstorm reasons for comparing
Rauschenbusch
and liberation theology and to compose a suitable sentence that
could be included in
the introduction. However, the question of time limitations again
intruded.
Teacher Questions When I reviewed the section of
the tape transcribed here, I saw
that my questions had been very directed indeed, and I wondered
if I had left the
students any leeway for disagreement or voicing their own opinions.
They said they
agreed with me, but I wondered how much of their observations they
would have
formulated on their own, and how much was influenced by a desire
to give an answer I
would find acceptable.
01:05:30 - 01:13:52
Cue T: Let's look at . . . let's see
. . . question 2.
Issues: Teacher Questions; Error Correction
Activity and Objectives: In the NS paper, the writer made a poor
transition from
introducing Rauschenbusch to introducing liberation theology.
I asked the students to
write a transitional sentence. The objective was to make them
more aware of the
necessity for smooth paragraph transitions and to give them practice
in doing so.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I pointed out the abrupt shift in topic to the
students, who agreed with
me and commented themselves on reasons why the transition was inadequate.
I then
asked them to create a transitional sentence. Heong-Seok provided
one, with a pointer
from me on the technique of using old and new information to create
a transitional
passage, which then I wrote on the transparency. I paused
to correct an error in his
verb tense usage.
Reflection:
Teacher Questions Again I asked very pointed questions
aimed at eliciting a particular
response:
T: For the reader, it's
very confusing. Did you think? I mean, I don't know if
you thought
that when you read this. Did you have that impression when
you read
this? That it was confusing?
HS: Yeah.
KJ: Kind of.
HS: I think that paragraph
needs some transition sentence using "in the same
way," a general
statement.
I was perhaps guilty of asking "leading" questions in order to elicit
the observation I
wanted. However, when they had thought about it, they seemed
to genuinely agree that
the topic shift was too abrupt by advancing further reasons of their
own. When I asked
the students to write a transition sentence of their own, the question
became much more
open-ended, but they met the challenge well. Overall, I thought
this exercise was
successful.
Error Correction When Heong-Seok used the wrong tense
in his transition sentence, I
paused and said, "Past tense," until he supplied the correct tense.
I did not let him
discover the nature of the error on his own, but neither did I supply
the right answer. I
could have merely indicated to him that he had made an error and
let him figure it out
from there. Parenthetically, I usually do not correct oral
errors in this writing class unless
they are quite blatant or get on my nerves in some way. This
may not be the "best"
approach, but I usually have too many other things to attend to
and would rather not
give the time and energy to this as well.
01:15:01 - 01:22:00
Cue T: Last time we were looking at
that paper that I gave you.
Issues: Adding to an Earlier Discussion; Time Management; Giving Examples
Activity and Objectives: I gave a further explanation on the
subject of practical versus
intellectual problems. The objective was to assure the students
that practical problems
were sometimes worth writing about because they also posed interesting
intellectual
problems.
Action Synopsis: In the second class period I brought
up again the question of
identifying one's purpose for writing a paper. I mentioned
that some practical problems
were worth writing about because of the intellectual problems they
posed. I used Keun-
Jo's research as an example of a practical problem (the Korean church
does not have
an interpretive methodology of its own) that is also interesting
from an intellectual point
of view (how a Western mode of thinking is applied to a non-Western
context). I then
tried to broaden the concept by explaining that students could focus
on specific
intellectual problems even in their assigned topics in seminary,
choosing as an example
Costa's essay comparing Martin Luther's and Ulrich Zwingli's views
of the eucharist.
Reflection:
Adding to a Previous Discussion; Time Management
I did not want the students to
come away with the idea that only esoteric intellectual arguments
were worth writing
about, especially since the M.Div. students–who had not been present
at the previous
class meeting--would naturally be more concerned about issues that
could be practically
applied in their churches. I also wanted to point out to the M.Div.
students (who would
not be doing research papers) the importance of developing a focus
even when writing
on assigned topics. I chose, then, to extend the discussion
of paper topics to the
second day of the lesson.
Giving Examples However, I do not think I thought
through the discussion well enough
in advance and proceeded to do the very thing I had criticized
the students for in their
papers: I overused vague words like "interesting" and "practical
problems" without giving enough specific examples. Because
of that, I'm not sure how enlightening my talk was.
Issues: Giving Instructions; Managing Pair Work
Activity and Objective: I gave the students instructions
about the tasks for pair work.
I wanted to make the tasks as clear as possible so that they
could work on their own.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I gave instructions about the exercises,
which dealt with the same
NS student paper we had examined in the previous class meeting.
I then selected the
pairs and signaled to them to begin working.
Reflections:
Giving Instructions I have found that, for
complex tasks, verbal instructions may not
be sufficient for the students. I usually give them a list
of written instructions for tasks I
have created and then go over them orally before beginning the exercise.
Managing Pair Work I gave some thought ahead
of time as to how to pair the students
for this exercise. I did not want the learners to choose their
partners because I wanted
to pair "slower" learners with "faster" ones. Costa, the Angolan
student, especially
needed an able partner to help him get through the exercise.
I had paired Eun Hee with
Costa before and she had been very patient with him, but he had
responded very slowly.
I thought it would be good to give Keun-Jo a chance to work with
him. Similarly, I hoped
that Eun Hee might draw out Jeong-kwan, who is very reserved.
Part 1: 01:28:48 - 01:29:10Part 3:
01:29:55 - 01:30:49
Pairs work silently. T sits at table with Keun-Jo
and Costa;
gives instructions to pairs.
Part 2: 01:29:12 - 01:29:50
T stands at table where Keun-Jo Part 4:
01:30:55 - 01:33:30
and Costa are working.T monitors Keun-Jo and
Costa for the
third time; monitors the other pair.
Issue: Managing Pair Work
Task and Objectives: The pairs had three tasks: 1) They
were to identify places in the
marked paragraphs in which the writer had given insufficient information
and/or needed
to cite a reference. 2) They were to divide up an extremely
long (2½ page) paragraph
and indicate where new topic sentences might be needed. 3)
They were to examine two
paragraphs that were very similar and decide how to eliminate the
redundancy. The
collective objective of these tasks was to familiarize students
with the process of
checking for stylistic errors in written work so as to be more critical
in editing their own
writing. An equally important "non-content" objective was
to engage the students in
collective learning and to enable students of different degrees
of proficiency to help each
other solve common problems
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: One of the pairs, Eun Hee and Jeong-kwan,
stayed at the table
where the whole class had gathered. I remained opposite them,
but busied myself with
other work and did not take part in their discussion, nor could
I overhear them very well.
However, it was easy for me to keep an eye on their general progress.
The other pair
moved to another set of desks.
For a time, I left the pairs to their own
devices. At first they were very quiet,
reading the paragraphs in question. (They had received the
essay and the activity
questions the week before and were supposed to have read both, but
I knew from
experience that most of them would not have read it before class.)
Eun Hee and Jeong-
kwan began to talk, but I did not detect much activity from the
other group. Eventually I
went over to Keun-Jo and Costa to see what was going on. They
were talking in a
somewhat desultory way and did not pay attention to me. I
stood watching them but
said nothing. They did not ask me anything, so eventually
I returned to my seat.
As time progressed, Eun Hee and Jeong-kwan
became more and more lively.
Keun-Jo and Costa were less so. I went over to monitor the
latter pair twice more
because they seemed lethargic and I was concerned about their progress.
The second
time I sat down, but they seemed to be engaged in the task, so I
did not address them. I
did interrupt both pairs, however, to give a general reminder that
they needed to think of
possible topic sentences in the second task.
The third time I monitored Keun-Jo and Costa,
I sat down again. This time Costa
asked me some questions about the structure of a comparison/contrast
paper, but Keun-
Jo was absorbed in his work. Finally, I suggested that they
move on to the last question
because they were lagging behind the other group.
Soon after I returned to my seat for the
third time, Eun Hee and Jeong-kwan
finished their tasks. I discussed their progress with them
briefly; then the other pair
came back to the table. I thought they had finished also,
but later it turned out that they
had not completed the last task.
Reflections: Pairing Eun Hee with Jeong-kwan worked very
well. When paired with
others, Jeong-kwan has tended to lapse into silence and let his
partners make all the
decisions. This time, however, he got into an energetic discussion
with Eun Hee, so
much so that his voice is actually audible on the videotape!
(End of Part 3.)
At the time, I had the impression that pairing
Costa with Keun-Jo was less
successful; however, upon viewing the videotape I saw that they
spent more time in
discussion than I had originally thought. I did not want to
be too intrusive and I usually
try not to interject comments when groups are working unless they
ask me questions.
However, I was not sure how to "read" this pair because their discussion
seemed half-
hearted at the time, yet my presence seemed to dampen it further.
Neither student
normally is hesitant about asking me any questions. It was
difficult for me to know
whether to intervene or to let them alone. I was wondering
if Keun-Jo was getting
frustrated working with Costa because the latter is sometimes very
slow at catching on.
In the end I prompted them to move along because I was afraid that
they were getting
bogged down.
I think Costa is too teacher-dependent and
has not developed skills for
independent–or cooperative–learning very well. More group
or pair work might be
helpful for him, but his partners have to be patient. On the basis
of my experience in this
and other classes, I have to say that although proficiency levels
are an important
consideration when pairing students in a mixed proficiency level
class, personality
factors are at least as important, if not more so, in facilitating
an effective learning
experience.
Issues: Classroom Power; Using Audiovisual Resources
Activity and Objectives: The pairs reported on the solutions
to their tasks they came
up with. The purpose was to let the students pool their analyses
and to see if they could
come up with common solutions as a group–with me monitoring the
accuracy of the
solutions.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: The pairs took turns presenting their solutions.
Everyone spoke.
Some perceptive observations that had not occurred to me were made.
Most of the
time, I followed the discussion, asked for clarification and explanation
about the reasons
for their choices, and marked their responses on the overhead transparency.
When they
had concluded each solution I made some additional comments, mostly
agreeing with
their proposals.
Reflection:
Using Audiovisual Resources I was not well prepared
for this discussion, partly
because I had been so busy with the logistics of the class–including
the videotaping,
picking up the camera woman, etc.–that I had not reviewed the essay
as well as I should
have (I was trying to do that during the pair work). Partly
also, I was still a novice at
using the overhead projector and became swamped with all the different
transparencies
I was trying to use. Using transparencies for these exercises
was more complicated
than it had been for the previous class because the various paragraphs
for each task
were all on different pages, and I had to keep flipping through
multiple transparencies. I
found I had a hard time paying attention to what the students were
saying and following
up on their comments. Teaching is a bit like putting on a
show–having to make sure
one's lines are ready and all the props are at hand. This
performance could have
benefitted from an extra dress rehearsal!
Classroom Power An unexpected benefit from my disorganization,
however, was that
the students spent most of the time talking and came up with some
good insights. They
were quite involved in their discussion and observant in their
analyses of the paper. I
would have liked to comment more on their insights, yet it occurs
to me that another,
equally profitable way to have taken this would have been to structure
the discussion so
that they were talking more to each other than to me.
00:00:10 - 00:04:32
Cue T: You can be aware of some of these problems.
Issues: Learning Aims; Closing the Lesson; Relating Exercises to Writing
Activity and Objectives: To close the lesson by describing the purpose
of the
exercises. My objective was to enable the students to take
note of the work they had
done so that they could draw upon it in their own writing at a later
date.
[In the original guide on reserve in the library, a table
to complete appears here.]
Action Synopsis: I recapped the purpose of the
various exercises and reminded the
students to use what they had learned in their own writing.
Keun-Jo remarked that the
writer of the paper had used too many quotations. I took that
opportunity to conduct a
brief discussion about the proper use of quotations in a paper.
Reflections:
Learning Aims; Closing the Lesson I do think that
discussing learning aims explicitly is
helpful, especially if the students are working at such a high academic
level as these
were, although it may not necessarily be best to do this at the
beginning of the lesson.
Drawing out the lessons learned after the work is done may actually
leave a more lasting
impression. For such students, enlisting their cognitive skills
can be very helpful in
facilitating their language learning. Because many of them
have developed these skills
to a high level in their other work, cognitive learning can be a
powerful tool in absorbing
and retaining rules and forms of language.
I want students to approach English-language
writing realistically. Thus, for
example, in this segment I mentioned to them that in the real
world native speakers do
not always use topic sentences in their paragraphs because that
is quite true: good
prose paragraphs often do not employ the classic sort of topic
sentences that are taught
in composition classes but leave the topic sentences implied.
I think it is better for
advanced ESL students to think of topic sentences as tools
to enhance cohesion in
their writing rather than as rigid rules to follow, and this is
how I presented it. I want to
explore this approach further the next time I teach this course.
Relating Exercises to Writing Issues
When Keun-Jo brought up the issue of using
quotations, I made time to discuss it
because I knew that most of the students had problems knowing how
to quote
appropriately. Like the NS author of the paper, many of them
quoted ordinary facts and
unremarkable statements because they were afraid of plagiarizing
after I had made
them rewrite some of their compositions in which they had plagiarized
heavily. In the
class period that followed these two, I took a cue from these discussions
and had the
students practice paraphrasing.
00:04:37 - 00:05:08
Cue T: Thank you for your participation in my
video.
Issue: Affective goals; learner receptivity
Activity and Goal: This was an spontaneous sequence
of relaxed chat with an
equally unplanned effect of maintaining affective connections between
teacher and
students.
Action Synopsis: The students and I share a laugh together at after
the lesson is
concluded.
Reflection: In her discussion of goals and objectives,
Graves (1996) mentions Stern's
four types of goals for language learning: proficiency goals, cognitive
goals, affective
goals and transfer goals. Affective goals are defined as "achieving
positive attitudes and
feelings about the target language, achieving confidence as a user
of the language, and
achieving confidence in oneself as a learner" (p. 17). Such
affective goals are related as
well to various aspects of the receptivity to language learning
that is so important to
successful acquisition, as described by Allwright and Bailey (1991).
Receptivity to the
teacher and to other students is critical in the achievement of
positive attitudes towards
the learning process, and teachers are wise to employ methods to
facilitate it.
Humor is a tool many ESL teachers use for
this purpose, consciously or
unconsciously. I usually employ it in my classes because it
fosters a relaxed
atmosphere and a sense of camaraderie between the students and between
the class
and me. The trick is to be able to do this while at the same
time maintaining enough
seriousness so that the students put forth their best efforts in
doing their class work.
The laughter in this segment was a release for all of us from the
tension and
concentration of presentation and the completion of tasks, and it
reinforced the affective
bonds that had been created during the semester.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991).
Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles:
An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Byrd, P., Liu, C. W. C., Mobley,
A., Pitillo, A., Rolf Silva, S., & Sun, S. W.
(1997, January). Exemplification and the example. Journal
of English Grammar on the
Web [On-line journal], 1. <http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/issue1/index5.htm>
Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graves, K. (1996). Teachers as course
developers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Leki, I. (1995). Academic writing:
Exploring processes and strategies, 2nd ed.
NY: St. Martin's Press.
Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (1991).
Writing academic English, 2nd ed. Addison-
Wesley.
Richards, J.C. and Lockhart, C. (1996).
Reflective teaching in second language
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation
tasks: A resource book for language
teachers and trainers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ESL 300 Revised Syllabus
2/13/98
Feb. 13F Outside paper editing; Colons and Quotation
Marks Reading: Punctuation handout
Feb. 16M Grammar Review
Mechanics & Style: Revising;
Essay Structure and Focus
Reading: Leki, pp. 140-52
ASSIGNMENT 4: First revision due
Feb. 20 F QUIZ
Grammar: Sentence Problems I; Articles,
Count and Non-count Nouns
Reading: Oshima and Hogue, pp.168-171;
grammar handouts
Feb. 23M Comparing and Contrasting
Reading: "What is Local Theology?"
by Robert Schreiter;
Oshima and Hogue pp. 113-124
ASSIGNMENT 4: Second revision due
Feb. 27F Grammar: Sentence Problems
II; Parallel Constructions
Reading: Oshima & Hogue, pp. 175-79
Mar. 2 M Term papers
Reading: Sample papers
Leki, pp. 77-85, Oshima and Hogue, pp.
65-66, 145-152
ASSIGNMENT 5: First draft due
(Mar. 4 W ASSIGNMENT 5: First draft pickup)
Mar. 6 F Mechanics and
Style: Quotations and Paraphrasing, Citations
Reading: Leki, pp. 199-206
ASSIGNMENT 5: Final draft due
Mar. 9 M Spring break--No
class
Mar. 13F Spring break--No class
Mar. 16M Preparing for Essay
Exams
Reading: "Theological Mass Movements
in China" by K.H.
Ting; Leki, pp. 266-72
Mar. 20F Timed Writing
Grammar: Passive Constructions
Reading: Grammar handouts
Mar. 23M Timed Writing Review
Grammar: Relative Clauses and Noun Clauses
Reading: Oshima & Hogue pp. 180-184,
186-192, 208-220
Mar. 27F Grammar: Relative Clauses
and Noun Clauses; Review
TIMED WRITING REVISION DUE
Mar. 30M QUIZ
Writing Case Studies
Reading: Sample Pastoral Care papers
Apr. 3F Case Studies Editing;
Narrative Writing
Reading: Oshima and Hogue, pp. 53-58
ASSIGNMENT 6: First draft due
Apr. 6M Grammar: Tense and Aspect;
Modals
Reading: Grammar handouts
ASSIGNMENT 6: Second
draft due
(Apr. 8 W ASSIGNMENT 6: Second draft pickup)
Apr. 10F Good Friday--No class
Apr. 13M Mechanics and Style:
Coherence and Unity Revisited
Reading: Oshima and Hogue pp. 29-33; Leki, pp. 104-105, 108-
109; handout
ASSIGNMENT 6: Final draft due
Apr. 17F In-class Editing
ASSIGNMENT 7: First draft due
Apr. 20 M Grammar: Modals;
Review
Reading: Grammar handouts
ASSIGNMENT 7: Second draft due
(Apr. 22 W ASSIGNMENT 7: Second draft pickup)
Apr. 24F QUIZ
Sentence problems and paper questions
May 6 W
ASSIGNMENT 7: Final draft due
Assignment 4: Revision of outside papers
First revision due: 2/16
Second revision due: 2/23
Assignment 5: Critique of Schreiter chapter
First draft due: 3/2
2-3 pp.First draft
pickup: 3/4
Final draft due: 3/6
Assignment 6: Case study
First draft due: 4/3
2-3 pp.Second draft
due: 4/6
Second draft pickup: 4/8
Final draft due: 4/13
Assignment 7: To be announced
First draft due: 4/17
Second draft due: 4/20
Second draft pickup: 4/22
Final draft due: 5/6
[Note: In the original guide on reserve in the library, the appendices listed below include substantive materials that did not transfer easily into a web document.]