If you look down the list of archived posts to October of last year you'll find a number of useful links to allow you to do a little further research into the topics of the first two sessions. Here are some new ones too.
Nationality and Immigration
Migration Watch an organisation I mentioned in the class and English Nationalism not the most interesting article but full of links to a variety of organisations.
Education
The UK Education ministry
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Update
Just heard I'll be in room L-26 tomorrow, for those who need to see me or would just like to pass the time of day.
MH
MH
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Academic writing signatures 4/7/2010
As I said last Sunday, I shall be available to give the remaining signatures this Sunday between 10a.m. and 12 noon, in a room somewhere in the usual building. Unfortunately, there are a couple of people who will have to do the summary again. They are:
Beata Semaszczuk
Karolina Chrząszcz
Bogna Zakrzewska (If you come, bring 2 other pieces of work and a lot of explanations)
Please come and find me at 10 so you have to time to write.
Martin Hinton
Beata Semaszczuk
Karolina Chrząszcz
Bogna Zakrzewska (If you come, bring 2 other pieces of work and a lot of explanations)
Please come and find me at 10 so you have to time to write.
Martin Hinton
Friday, 25 June 2010
Academic Writing 27-6-10
Unfortunately, a number of people did not satisfactorily complete the summary task and will have to do another one on Sunday. The main reason was that you completely ignored my instructions. Many of you included information not in the article, included phrases you clearly didn't understand and wrote the opposite of what was in the text. Some of you wrote complete nonsense. Most of the fails were also rather long compared to the passes - you didn't summarise enough!
Sorry for doing it so publicly but here is the list (sorry about the spelling but I can't read some of your names...) of those who will be doing a summary again this weekend:
Group 4
Bartlomiej Bak
Katarzyna Sikorska
Group 5
Katarzyna Jednejczak
Joanna Baran
Edyta Falinska
Beata Semaszczuk
Aneta Wozniak
Eldorbek Matkarimov
Paulina Dobrosielska
Monika Fraczkowska
Karolina Chrzaszcz
Bogna Zakrzewska
These people should come ready to write and get to work as soon as possible.
Also, everybody needs to have 3 positive marks. Even allowing for the summaries, several of you should bring me work to make up for what you missed or got 2 for earlier. Namely:
Group 4
Malgorzata Jelinska 1pc
Karolina Makowska 1pc
Karolina Dluzak 1pc
Ewelina Iskierka 1pc
Marta Krzos 1pc
Group 5
Marta Kalwarczyk 2pcs
Joanna Baran 2pcs
Edyta Falinska 1pc
Aneta Wozniak 1pc
Eldobek Matkarimov 1pc
Paulina Dobrosielska 2pcs
Bogna Zakrzewska 2pcs
Obviously, I shan't be able to mark all of this work at once on Sunday; therefore I'll give signatures to those who have earnt them already and those who have not will have to wait until the following week. I'm planning to be available on the Sunday morning for a couple of hours - more of this later.
See you on Sunday!
Sorry for doing it so publicly but here is the list (sorry about the spelling but I can't read some of your names...) of those who will be doing a summary again this weekend:
Group 4
Bartlomiej Bak
Katarzyna Sikorska
Group 5
Katarzyna Jednejczak
Joanna Baran
Edyta Falinska
Beata Semaszczuk
Aneta Wozniak
Eldorbek Matkarimov
Paulina Dobrosielska
Monika Fraczkowska
Karolina Chrzaszcz
Bogna Zakrzewska
These people should come ready to write and get to work as soon as possible.
Also, everybody needs to have 3 positive marks. Even allowing for the summaries, several of you should bring me work to make up for what you missed or got 2 for earlier. Namely:
Group 4
Malgorzata Jelinska 1pc
Karolina Makowska 1pc
Karolina Dluzak 1pc
Ewelina Iskierka 1pc
Marta Krzos 1pc
Group 5
Marta Kalwarczyk 2pcs
Joanna Baran 2pcs
Edyta Falinska 1pc
Aneta Wozniak 1pc
Eldobek Matkarimov 1pc
Paulina Dobrosielska 2pcs
Bogna Zakrzewska 2pcs
Obviously, I shan't be able to mark all of this work at once on Sunday; therefore I'll give signatures to those who have earnt them already and those who have not will have to wait until the following week. I'm planning to be available on the Sunday morning for a couple of hours - more of this later.
See you on Sunday!
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Infamy, infamy!
As all good writers know, there's nothing better than a made-up quote. My apologies to the group I discussed 'infamy' with. The line 'infamy, infamy - they've all got it in for me' was not from Shakespeare at all - rather from Carry on Cleo - a comedy 'based on' Shakespeare's Antony & Cleopatra and Julius Caeser It was, however, recently voted the best one-liner ever so I'm glad I mentioned it. Have a look!
Test Conditions Writing - The Summary
As promised, revision of the technique for summarizing and more!
The steps for writing your summary were as follows:
1. Read the text.
2. Work out the main point, theme, topic.
3. Go through and cross out anything not directly relevant to that point.
4. Gather what is left into related thoughts which could make paragraphs.
5. Write those paragraphs IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
6. Order and connect those paragraphs to make a complete summary.
Simple, isn't it?
Example.
Here is an article. It's very simple with no 'hidden' meanings. Follow the points above. The red text is that which can, in my opinion, be crossed out at point 3.
Individual differences in second and foreign language learning
Author: Peter Skehan
The differences literature emphasises four main areas: language aptitude, learning style, motivation, and learner strategies. There are other less researched areas which cannot be covered for reasons of space, such as personality (see e.g. Dewaele and Furnham 1999), but which clearly have importance.
Language aptitude has a long history in language teaching. The most significant development was (and is) the development of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), (Carroll and Sapon 1959). This device has theoretical and practical importance. Theoretically, it represents Carroll's views of four aptitude components. These are phonemic coding ability, the capacity to code sounds so that they can be retained for more than a few seconds; grammatical sensitivity, the capacity to identify the functions that words fulfil in sentences; inductive language learning ability, the capacity to take a corpus of material in a target language and make extrapolations (i.e. generalisations) from that material; and associative memory, a capacity to form links between native and foreign language words. Practically, the MLAT represents a method of assessing foreign language aptitude, although it is now hardly used. (Other aptitude batteries, e.g. PLAB, DLAB, and CANAL-F also exist - see Skehan (in press) for details.) Since the development of the MLAT, most aptitude research has focused on specific aptitude components, with particular attention having been paid to memory, both long term and working. Other research has explored the role aptitude plays in formal and informal learning contexts, and in matching (and mismatching) students with appropriate methodologies. Most recently, there have been elaborations of the connections between aptitude and second language acquisition (Skehan, in press).
Motivation has been the other major area for research into individual differences. The most influential approach has been that due to Robert Gardner. Originally, Gardner distinguished between two motivational orientations, integrative and instrumental. The former concerns learners who want to learn a language to "enter" the community of its speakers, while the latter regards language as a potential tool which may simply be useful. Gardner has researched this orientation distinction extensively, and developed complex social psychological models to account for data, in a wide range of situations, as well as an assessment procedure. The approach has received some criticism, but has nonetheless dominated the field until recently (see Dornyei and Skehan, in press, for review). In the last decade or so, there have been some major challenges to the Gardner model, suggesting it is not sufficiently dynamic and rooted in classroom situations.More recently Dornyei (2001) has proposed a more dynamic account of motivation, based on Action Control Theory. In this model, clear distinctions are made between the pre-actional phase (where Dornyei locates much of Gardner's work), the actional phase, where learning activities are situated, and the post-actional phase, where important attributions about success and failure are made.
Learning Strategies research is at something of a crossroads (again). Early work suggested that learners use strategies extensively, and held out the promise that identifying the strategies used by good language learners would enable them to be taught to less successful learners, and more successful learning would result. This early promise was not fulfilled, and major research effort was devoted to establishing taxonomies of strategies, rather than to studies examining the impact of training. The taxonomy approach did not lead to significant progress, and Dornyei and Skehan (in press) attempt to resolve this issue simply by synthesising the systems which are available. The key issue with strategies seems to be the operation of metacognitive strategies - what distinguishes good learners is their capacity to use appropriate strategies and to select the most effective strategy for a particular learning problem. Most recently of all, the second language field has come to recognise that the broader psychological literature has moved on from a concern with learning strategies, and now prefers to use the term "self-regulation". It remains to be seen what impact this switch of emphasis will have on the second language field.
Cognitive and Learning Styles concern the ways learners prefer to acquire and represent language. Such styles contrast with aptitude, in that aptitude is seen as more of an invariant attribute, whereas styles imply scope for malleability. There is also the possibility that different styles may contrast with one another, but each style may have its own advantages. The major style difference which has influenced the language learning field is the field independent vs. field dependent contrast. The former style implies people who are analytic, breaking down (learning) problems into component parts. Field dependents are holistic in comparison, and treat a learning problem as a "gestalt". Such people are also supposed to be more person-oriented and warm. This opposition has influenced a number of studies in language learning (see Dornyei and Skehan for review). Research suggests that only the field independent style correlates (moderately) with language learning success. Possibly there is a need to broaden the concept to go beyond simply style of cognitive processing, and also incorporate broader learning orientations (Kolb 1984). But the area is one of promise, rather than realised achievement.
Now read through the text, reading only the black. You have a shortened version with all the explanations and added comments removed. In this example it is easy to group the remaining text into paragraphs because they deal with different subjects. A one sentence introduction and then 4 short paragraphs re-phrasing what's left of each of the four paragraphs in the original. Simple. They don't even need to be linked, as they stand alone in the original.
Your article may not necessarily be divided in this way but this example hopefully shows you how to be bold with eliminating text. Remember: if a re-worked paragraph doesn't make sense you can always go back and add more detail if you need to.
Any questions?
The steps for writing your summary were as follows:
1. Read the text.
2. Work out the main point, theme, topic.
3. Go through and cross out anything not directly relevant to that point.
4. Gather what is left into related thoughts which could make paragraphs.
5. Write those paragraphs IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
6. Order and connect those paragraphs to make a complete summary.
Simple, isn't it?
Example.
Here is an article. It's very simple with no 'hidden' meanings. Follow the points above. The red text is that which can, in my opinion, be crossed out at point 3.
Individual differences in second and foreign language learning
Author: Peter Skehan
The differences literature emphasises four main areas: language aptitude, learning style, motivation, and learner strategies. There are other less researched areas which cannot be covered for reasons of space, such as personality (see e.g. Dewaele and Furnham 1999), but which clearly have importance.
Language aptitude has a long history in language teaching. The most significant development was (and is) the development of the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), (Carroll and Sapon 1959). This device has theoretical and practical importance. Theoretically, it represents Carroll's views of four aptitude components. These are phonemic coding ability, the capacity to code sounds so that they can be retained for more than a few seconds; grammatical sensitivity, the capacity to identify the functions that words fulfil in sentences; inductive language learning ability, the capacity to take a corpus of material in a target language and make extrapolations (i.e. generalisations) from that material; and associative memory, a capacity to form links between native and foreign language words. Practically, the MLAT represents a method of assessing foreign language aptitude, although it is now hardly used. (Other aptitude batteries, e.g. PLAB, DLAB, and CANAL-F also exist - see Skehan (in press) for details.) Since the development of the MLAT, most aptitude research has focused on specific aptitude components, with particular attention having been paid to memory, both long term and working. Other research has explored the role aptitude plays in formal and informal learning contexts, and in matching (and mismatching) students with appropriate methodologies. Most recently, there have been elaborations of the connections between aptitude and second language acquisition (Skehan, in press).
Motivation has been the other major area for research into individual differences. The most influential approach has been that due to Robert Gardner. Originally, Gardner distinguished between two motivational orientations, integrative and instrumental. The former concerns learners who want to learn a language to "enter" the community of its speakers, while the latter regards language as a potential tool which may simply be useful. Gardner has researched this orientation distinction extensively, and developed complex social psychological models to account for data, in a wide range of situations, as well as an assessment procedure. The approach has received some criticism, but has nonetheless dominated the field until recently (see Dornyei and Skehan, in press, for review). In the last decade or so, there have been some major challenges to the Gardner model, suggesting it is not sufficiently dynamic and rooted in classroom situations.More recently Dornyei (2001) has proposed a more dynamic account of motivation, based on Action Control Theory. In this model, clear distinctions are made between the pre-actional phase (where Dornyei locates much of Gardner's work), the actional phase, where learning activities are situated, and the post-actional phase, where important attributions about success and failure are made.
Learning Strategies research is at something of a crossroads (again). Early work suggested that learners use strategies extensively, and held out the promise that identifying the strategies used by good language learners would enable them to be taught to less successful learners, and more successful learning would result. This early promise was not fulfilled, and major research effort was devoted to establishing taxonomies of strategies, rather than to studies examining the impact of training. The taxonomy approach did not lead to significant progress, and Dornyei and Skehan (in press) attempt to resolve this issue simply by synthesising the systems which are available. The key issue with strategies seems to be the operation of metacognitive strategies - what distinguishes good learners is their capacity to use appropriate strategies and to select the most effective strategy for a particular learning problem. Most recently of all, the second language field has come to recognise that the broader psychological literature has moved on from a concern with learning strategies, and now prefers to use the term "self-regulation". It remains to be seen what impact this switch of emphasis will have on the second language field.
Cognitive and Learning Styles concern the ways learners prefer to acquire and represent language. Such styles contrast with aptitude, in that aptitude is seen as more of an invariant attribute, whereas styles imply scope for malleability. There is also the possibility that different styles may contrast with one another, but each style may have its own advantages. The major style difference which has influenced the language learning field is the field independent vs. field dependent contrast. The former style implies people who are analytic, breaking down (learning) problems into component parts. Field dependents are holistic in comparison, and treat a learning problem as a "gestalt". Such people are also supposed to be more person-oriented and warm. This opposition has influenced a number of studies in language learning (see Dornyei and Skehan for review). Research suggests that only the field independent style correlates (moderately) with language learning success. Possibly there is a need to broaden the concept to go beyond simply style of cognitive processing, and also incorporate broader learning orientations (Kolb 1984). But the area is one of promise, rather than realised achievement.
Now read through the text, reading only the black. You have a shortened version with all the explanations and added comments removed. In this example it is easy to group the remaining text into paragraphs because they deal with different subjects. A one sentence introduction and then 4 short paragraphs re-phrasing what's left of each of the four paragraphs in the original. Simple. They don't even need to be linked, as they stand alone in the original.
Your article may not necessarily be divided in this way but this example hopefully shows you how to be bold with eliminating text. Remember: if a re-worked paragraph doesn't make sense you can always go back and add more detail if you need to.
Any questions?
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Sunday the 7th of February
Here is my timetable for the coming Sunday meeting:
900 - 1000 Signatures for Academic Writing - both groups.
1000 - 1130 British Culture Group 4
1330 - 1500 British Culture Group 1
1500 - 1630 British Culture Group 3
All day I shall be in L-9 as usual.
AW - If you are not sure about getting your writing signature, please come early so I have time to look at any extra work you have brought with you/give you extra tasks to do during the day.
I haven't checked all the last round of works yet. If you want to find out if you're likely to get my signature you should e-mail me (thecollegian@tlen.pl) on Thursday or Friday and I'll respond as soon as I can.
BC - I have a feeling I forgot to tell one of the groups about the preparation for this lesson. So, as a re-cap for everyone, you should be ready to talk for a couple of minutes about some 'work' of British entertainment - record, film, play, TV show, book - anything - and explain why you like it. That's it. Very simple.
One more thing, those people in Group 3 who were very much against meeting later in the day can attend one of the earlier classes if they prefer, but please, don't all come at the same time!
That's it. See you at the weekend!
900 - 1000 Signatures for Academic Writing - both groups.
1000 - 1130 British Culture Group 4
1330 - 1500 British Culture Group 1
1500 - 1630 British Culture Group 3
All day I shall be in L-9 as usual.
AW - If you are not sure about getting your writing signature, please come early so I have time to look at any extra work you have brought with you/give you extra tasks to do during the day.
I haven't checked all the last round of works yet. If you want to find out if you're likely to get my signature you should e-mail me (thecollegian@tlen.pl) on Thursday or Friday and I'll respond as soon as I can.
BC - I have a feeling I forgot to tell one of the groups about the preparation for this lesson. So, as a re-cap for everyone, you should be ready to talk for a couple of minutes about some 'work' of British entertainment - record, film, play, TV show, book - anything - and explain why you like it. That's it. Very simple.
One more thing, those people in Group 3 who were very much against meeting later in the day can attend one of the earlier classes if they prefer, but please, don't all come at the same time!
That's it. See you at the weekend!
Sunday, 3 January 2010
British Culture Groups 1,3 and 4
Hello!
You'll find the links for the first class in the earlier posts on this blog - you'll have to go all the way back to the beginning but they're clearly marked. Please read up on immigration etc from the first class and prepare something about education for next week.
You can find a copy of the syllabus here.
Happy new year!
You'll find the links for the first class in the earlier posts on this blog - you'll have to go all the way back to the beginning but they're clearly marked. Please read up on immigration etc from the first class and prepare something about education for next week.
You can find a copy of the syllabus here.
Happy new year!
Academic writing - meeting 7
Hello everyone - happy new year!
In our next meeting, on the 10th I'll be giving back your work and discussing what we are going to write at the following meeting, which will be our last class of the semester. Because you will be writing on the 24th I shan't give signatures until the 7th of Feb. by which time everyone should have enough positive marks* to pass and have handed in their long essay.
Speaking of which, I have had an e-mail pointing out to me that I originally talked about a longer piece of less than 1000 words and then posted below that you should write at least 2000, so let me clear up any confusion. My idea about that piece of work did change, partly becuase of my disappointment at the standard of some of your work and partly because so many people joined the groups late and missed the first essays; however, on reflection I think the longer limit of 2000-2500 is probably a bit much and will only increase the temptation to 'borrow' chunks of writing from other sources. I have decided, therefore, to accept works in the 750-1000 words range. If you have already written more than that, don't despair! You will recieve a double mark - meaning that your work will count as two pieces in the second semester and you may miss an essay later on. My apologies for any confusion but I hope you'll be happier to work to the lower limit.
* this was supposed to be 4 but since the composition of the group has changed so much I shall be flexible. I'll tell you individually at the next meeting how many more you need.
In our next meeting, on the 10th I'll be giving back your work and discussing what we are going to write at the following meeting, which will be our last class of the semester. Because you will be writing on the 24th I shan't give signatures until the 7th of Feb. by which time everyone should have enough positive marks* to pass and have handed in their long essay.
Speaking of which, I have had an e-mail pointing out to me that I originally talked about a longer piece of less than 1000 words and then posted below that you should write at least 2000, so let me clear up any confusion. My idea about that piece of work did change, partly becuase of my disappointment at the standard of some of your work and partly because so many people joined the groups late and missed the first essays; however, on reflection I think the longer limit of 2000-2500 is probably a bit much and will only increase the temptation to 'borrow' chunks of writing from other sources. I have decided, therefore, to accept works in the 750-1000 words range. If you have already written more than that, don't despair! You will recieve a double mark - meaning that your work will count as two pieces in the second semester and you may miss an essay later on. My apologies for any confusion but I hope you'll be happier to work to the lower limit.
* this was supposed to be 4 but since the composition of the group has changed so much I shall be flexible. I'll tell you individually at the next meeting how many more you need.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)