Running head: A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK

A Corpus-Informed Online Writing Task Stephen McClure LING 583 Curriculum and Materials Design for TESOL Professor Xuehua Xiang University of Illinois at Chicago April 19, 2012

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK Introduction The availability of large, searchable databases of written and spoken language in context, or corpora, provides ESL teachers with a very useful source of authentic input for students. The task design presented here attempts to capitalize on this rich resource. The presumed context is an intensive English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing course. Students are at an advanced level of proficiency; the course objective is to help them build the writing skills they will

need to succeed at an English-language university. This is the final writing course before they would be taking "English 101." It is also assumed that the learners are "digital natives" in the sense of Prensky (2001), and thus quite comfortable with Internet searching and blogging. The task is one of several writing projects in the course. Its activities stretch over approximately three weeks. Other projects focus on other types of writing; this project focuses on figurative word usage. Its final product (a blog opinion piece on the aesthetic design of a building), becomes part of the student's course portfolio. The task is described below in the form of a concise work plan. There follows a discussion of the theoretical rationale for the design of the task, drawing on the relevant pedagogical literature. The student materials and project grading rubric are appended.

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK Task Description / Work Plan

1. Pre-Task Activity T facilitates mind map on the topic of architecture. Ss create basic vocabulary list, with collocations. 2. Explanation of Project T explains project steps and schedule to Ss. Project grading rubric handed out and discussed. Peer editing instructions handed out and discussed. Homework #1 (choose a building) handed/emailed out. 3. Review Writing Topics, Introduction to Corpus Ss discuss Homework #1. T introduces corpus to Ss, runs tutorial. T defines literal vs. figurative/metaphorical usages. Homework #2 (corpus query subtask) handed/emailed out. 4. Review Corpus Query Results Ss discuss Homework #2, practice figurative word use. 5. Student Research & Writing (online, outside of class) Ss research their building, query corpus for word usage. Ss write first draft, publish on class blog. 6. Peer and Teacher Commentary (online, outside of class) Ss comment on each other's writing (focus on content). T comments on each S's writing (content AND form). 7. Revision & Final Edit Ss revise draft, T edits, Ss post final version. 8. Post-Task Activity Ss reflect on project, discuss in class with peers & T.

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK Task Design Rationale This design is based on the fundamental assumption that conducting language instruction through the performance of a

task, or "an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective" (Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001, p. 11), is an effective method to achieve communicative competence. Much has been written to support this claim (e.g., Ellis (2003), Nunan (2004)). To relate the above definition to the overall task at hand: students are required to learn new vocabulary, research its meaning (actually meanings, since the focus is on figurative language), and use this language to attain the objective of writing an opinion piece on the aesthetics of an architectural landmark. Doughty & Long (2003) describe ten methodological principles (MPs), or "universally desirable instructional design features," as follows: MP1 Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis. MP2 Promote learning by doing. MP3 Use elaborate input (do not simplify). MP4 Provide rich (not impoverished) input. MP5 Encourage inductive ("chunk") learning. MP6 Focus on form. MP7 Provide negative feedback. MP8 Respect learner developmental processes.

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK MP9 Promote cooperative / collaborative learning. MP10 Individualize instruction. Every one of these MPs is addressed by this design. The overall project is a task (MP1); students learn to research, edit and write by doing (MP2); they receive elaborate, rich "chunked" input by researching on the Internet and using a corpus (MP3,4,5); they focus on form when they, with the teacher's help, edit their writing for accuracy (MP6); they are provided negative feedback by both peers and the teacher (MP7); the task proceeds from schema activation through vocabulary learning through research and reading of input to producing writing output -- a natural developmental process (MP8); each student peer edits and is edited by peers and the teacher (MP9); and the teacher gives individualized feedback to students (MP10).

Rather than explore how this task design supports each of the 10 MPs in detail, I will focus on what I believe are the key aspects of the design: authenticity of input, learner autonomy, cooperative/collaborative instruction, and the role of technology. The primary sources of input for this task are English language websites on architecture, and the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), both eminently authentic. The COCA, in particular, provides a very rich environment for

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK learning usages of particular lexical items in context (illustrating form-meaning connections), including their most common collocations. Learner autonomy is enhanced at several points in this design. Students choose their own specific writing topic (building) based on their personal aesthetic opinions, they select the lexical examples and collocations they wish to share with the class, and they have much flexibility to develop the content of their writing, as it is an opinion piece. An important aspect of this project is that it involves both cooperative (peer-to-peer) and collaborative (teacher-

student) instruction (Brown, 2007 p. 53). The efficacy of peer assessments is well supported in the research literature (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, pp. 144-145). In the process of peer editing, the teacher can encourage the learners to share sources, exchange opinions, and discuss each other's writing processes. The use of technology is central to this task. Students, as mentioned above, will already be familiar with the Internet and blogging. The corpus will be new to them, and, I believe, interesting and useful. The tutorial created for this project must of course be very structured and simple. But this does not prevent the students from exploring the features of the

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK COCA independently, and some surely will, receiving much additional high-quality input in the process. The intended learning outcomes of the task are as follows. First and foremost, the primary activity is writing: drafting, editing, revising, polishing and publishing a

document. This is a process they will depend on at college, so honing this skill is the primary goal. To this we may add some knowledge of the power of figurative word use. A secondary intended outcome is for students to become more aware of the rich potential for figurative and metaphorical use of words in English. Improving skills at peer editing and learning a new technology (the COCA), are potential tertiary learning outcomes, welcome, but not essential. A note on the project grading rubric is in order. I have tried to design the rubric to maximize positive washback (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, pp. 123-126), encouraging students to participate in class and cooperate with their peers. But I don't want to be too demanding. Sometimes peer cooperation fails because students refuse to believe that anyone but the teacher can correct them. If you look carefully at the rubric, you will see that if a student, say, does just the bare minimum in participation and peer editing, but still scores "good" on all three final paper criteria, they will still get 85 points, and a B on the project.

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK References Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, teaching and testing. London: Longman. Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Retrieved from http://markprensky.com/ writing/.

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK Appendix I Student Materials

Homework #1
Your assignment is to: 1. choose a famous building in Chicago (or perhaps in your home country) which you love, 2. do a little online research on it, 3. nd a picture of it that shows why you love it, and 4. explain in a few sentences (at least 50 words) why you love it. Bring the picture and your reasons to share with the class on [date]. Here are some cool buildings, mostly in Chicago, to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rookery_Building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robie_House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pritzker_Pavilion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Centre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj-al-Arab http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/glasgow-riverside-museum-of-transport/ http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/guangzhou-opera-house/

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK

10

Homework #2
Your assignment is to: 1. Go to the COCA website [ http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ ], and login using the class login. 2. Pick 3 words from the word list below, and do a basic query on them. ( If you don't remember how to do this, go to the class website [ URL ] and watch the COCA tutorial.) 3. For each of the 3 words, a. copy 2 examples of its use in a context where it has a LITERAL meaning, and b. 3 examples of its use in a context where it has a METAPHORICAL meaning. (Cut and paste the entire line of text around the word.) Bring your 15 examples (3 words x 5 examples) to share with the class on [date].

Word List
burly stocky ligree warm ... cold bursting billowing undulating seed sprout bay energy harness gymnastics uid dynamic harmonious discordant root cascading

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK

11

Peer Editing Instructions

Your assignment is to read and comment on 3 of your peers' draft opinion pieces on the course blog. Answer these questions with either yes or no. For each no answer, note your suggestions for change. Post your notes as a comment to the writer's blog post. 1. Does the writer identify the building by name and location? 2. Does the writer describe what kind of building it is (its use or function)? 3. Does the writer state clearly why the writer loves the building, or thinks it is beautiful? 4. Does the writer use words guratively, or metaphorically, to describe the building?

A CORPUS-INFORMED ONLINE WRITING TASK Appendix II Grading Rubric

12

Project Grading Rubric

Class Participation Full, interesting, valuable participation Homework #1 Homework #2 First Draft Peer Editing Maximum 55 possible points. Final Version of Opinion Piece Excellent = 20 Content The writer always uses appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can always understand what the writer means. The writer uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Good = 15 The writer usually uses appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can usually understand what the writer means. The writer usually uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Fair = 7.5 The writer uses little appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can understand less than half of what the writer means. The writer has some problems with accurate language usage. Poor = 0 The writer uses no appropriate architectural and aesthetic vocabulary. The reader can understand little of what the writer means. The writer makes a signicant number of errors in language usage. 7.5 7.5 20 20 Basic, minimal, not very helpful participation 5 5 15 15 No participation 0 0 0 0

Clarity

Accuracy

Maximum 60 possible points. Project Grade: A+ = > 100 A = 90-100 B = 80-89 C = 70-79 D = 60-69 F = < 60