| . |
. |
. |
|
|
The use of models in the
teaching of writing to non-native speakers of English has been somewhat controversial. The
argument hinges on the perception of what constitutes a good model and how it should be
exploited in the classroom. That argument, as articulated in the 1980s, was largely
limited to the teaching of composition in ESOL settings. It did not include the use of
models in English for Science and Technology (EST). In this article, I define
"model" and review what the literature says about the use of models in the
teaching of writing. I then provide a justification for the use of models in the teaching
of English for Science and Technology and provide a practical demonstration.
|
|
|
|
A model is a sample of writing that is used for
pedagogical purposes. There are three basic categories: controlled, semi-controlled
, and decontrolled .
|
|
|
Controlled models are generally designed
for students with low proficiency levels, as they require the least amount of independent
thinking. One type provides a simple paragraph and prompts the student to copy the
paragraph verbatim or to make certain changes throughout the paragraph, such as changing
the time from present to past, changing the subject from male to female, or reversing the
sequence of events. Another type provides a model paragraph or essay with blanks for
grammatical elements (e.g., verbs, prepositions, articles, sentence connectors) with
choices provided or as a modified cloze exercise. Another type generates a paragraph from
a series of questions asked either orally by the teacher or presented as a writing task
(see for example Alexander 1965). An additional type provides a paragraph with a missing
topic or thesis sentence and asks students to select a suitable sentence from a list of
options or generate an appropriate sentence on their own. A variation on this type is the
presentation of a paragraph with the task of removing irrelevant sentences (for unity) or
adding supporting examples.
|
|
|
Semi-controlled models are appropriate
for intermediate-proficiency students as they require considerable knowledge of grammar
and sentence structure and some writing experience. One type requires the student to write
a paragraph with explicit instructions. Taylor (1976:317), for example, provided the
following task:
|
|
|
- prompt: Write a paragraph that tells what you usually do on Saturday.
- use present tense
- use frequency adverbs ( always, usually , etc.)
- use chronological order
- [possible topic sentences provided]
|
|
|
Another type provides a diagrammatic model of
paragraph structure which the student is asked to complete. Raimes (1983:126) provided the
following task:
|
|
|
One of the healthiest vacations is a bicycle
trip.
|
|
|
Thesis Statement (Main Idea)
|
|
|
Topic sentence: SUPPORT 1
|
|
|
Topic sentence: SUPPORT 2
|
|
|
Another type provides a chart, table, or graph
that must then be transformed into a unified piece of writing. The chart might include a
historical timeline, an experimental procedure, etc.
|
|
|
Decontrolled writing is appropriate for
intermediate to advanced proficiency students with substantial experience of writing and a
solid background of language knowledge. One type asks students to compare different models
and then to generate a similar piece of their choice, keeping the same purpose but
changing the topic, participants, and/or setting. An example is suggested in Watson
(1982:11) with an informal letter of apology ("I'm very sorry that...") and a
contrasting formal impersonal one ("We greatly regret that..."). Another type,
perhaps the most common, provides a model essay (or sometimes a reading passage), which
students must read, analyze, and discuss before setting out to write an original essay on
a given topic or choice of topics.
|
|
|
Another classification of models is constructed
vs. authentic types. Constructed models are usually utilized at lower proficiency levels
because authentic text is simply too difficult for the students to derive any pedagogical
benefit from. However, constructed models present a variety of problems, which will be
discussed shortly, and it is generally believed that a simpler authentic model is
preferable to a constructed one.
|
|
|
The use of models in ESOL classes
|
|
|
The issue of using models in the teaching of
ESOL writing was somewhat controversial in the 1980s but has not been discussed very much
since. Some saw advantages in using models, while others found only problems.
|
|
|
Advantages of using models
|
|
|
The advantages of using models relate to the
creativity they can potentially stimulate. Watson (1982:8) found several reasons to make
use of models in the writing classroom. The typical pattern is to present the model first,
then discuss and analyze the model to increase student awareness, and finally have
students generate their own parallel essay on a suggested topic. Models provide exposure
to conventions of the language, especially discourse but also lexical items and structural
patterns; they demonstrate many modes of rhetorical organization, communicative purpose,
and anticipated audience; and they are windows on culture, revealing customs, values,
assumptions, and attitudes toward the world. Rhetorical models may also focus attention on
the way successful writers handle larger units of discourse. If writing is stimulated by a
model (e.g., from literature) such that the writing becomes a personal reaction and thus
involves students' own feelings, then "alien product really has informed original
process and the result is likely to be genuine composition" (Watson 1982:8).
|
|
|
Watson (1982:13) suggested that models are
useful if students are encouraged to treat the model as a resource rather than the ideal,
exploring it with the teacher and with each other and comparing it to their own products
at various stages in their writing. He recommended presenting the model as one way,
certainly not the only way, to realize a particular communicative purpose, which is
"most useful when [it is] integrated into the sequence of activities within the
writing lesson." Watson (1982:13) further suggested that,
|
|
|
Exploration and analysis of models should
involve students actively working together, in the expectation that shared discoveries and
reactions will result in genuine composition. When models are used within the writing
process, students can easily perceive their purpose and utility..The student writers thus
control the total process, including recourse to the model, because their own writing has
quite clearly become the central concern of the lesson.
|
|
|
Escholz (1980) provided an alternative use. If
models are provided after the student has made an initial attempt to write, they
may demonstrate solutions that students can use for themselves in their subsequent drafts.
|
|
|
Raimes (1983) suggested that the problems
associated with the use of models may be avoided if the model is used not so much as a
straitjacket but as a resource for possible ways of organizing information. "The
model becomes not what he should do but only an example of what he could do"
(1983:127). She suggested that comparing a model to what a writer has already generated
allows the student to say how the two are similar and how they are different. Comparing
two models, on the other hand, shows students the potentials of different forms of
organization.
|
|
|
Problems with using models
|
|
|
The problems with using models arise primarily
from the potentially inhibiting effect they have on the writer. Taylor (1976:317) believed
that the use of models may underlie the common misconception that a writer has failed if
s/he does not produce a polished essay on the first attempt and that revision is
"punishment" for having failed. He argued that there is no guarantee that the
necessary skills exemplified in a model will be transferred or that the student will be
able to draw on the information when s/he actually needs it. It is better to show students
"where their own arguments are weak or where their logic breaks down" (Watson
1982:12) than to have them study models of someone else's writing.
|
|
|
While Watson found some positive aspects about
the use of models, he also believed that models are product-oriented and therefore lead to
artificial products (texts). Escholz said that models are usually too long, too remote
from students' own writing problems, and too likely to promote reading comprehension and
rhetorical analysis rather than writing. He saw the imitation of models as
"stultifying or inhibiting writers rather than empowering or liberating them"
(Escholz 1980:24). Raimes did not like models because they encourage students to think
that form comes first, as a "predetermined mold (like a cake pan or a dessert mold)
into which they pour their content" (1983:126-7). This procedure does not allow the
writer "to discover the shape that best fits the ideas he wants to express for a
particular purpose" (1983:127). Kessler, Harrison, and Hayes (1979) concurred,
believing that form arises out of attempts to communicate, not by syllabus design.
|
|
|
Finally, Meade and Ellis (1970) and Braddock
(1974) argued that some methods of paragraph development that are presented and taught do
not exist in published expository writing. Watson (1982:7-8) criticized such constructed
models as being "depressingly artificial" and worse, that they offer "false
reassurance."
|
|
|
Justification for using models in EST
|
|
|
ESP shifted the overemphasis on process back to
a legitimate concern for product, primarily because it reminded us that the world wants
products and does not particularly care how they were created. The concept of genre
analysis has shown us that there are prescribed forms for use in technical writing, and
that in order to be accepted into the occupational subculture or discourse community,
those forms must be adhered to. This is the primary justification for the use of models in
EST. However, we may take note of some of the problems ascribed to the use of models above
so that we may use them in the most efficient way possible. It should be noted, however,
that "creative writing" and "technical writing" are fundamentally
different since the primary purpose of the former is to discover one's voice and intent,
whereas the primary purpose of the latter is to communicate in a manner that is clear,
concise, and acceptable to the members of the occupational subculture. This final purpose
has been recently criticized as being "accommodationist" (see Allison, 1996, for
a discussion of this issue), but it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss
critical pedagogy.
|
|
|
One technique for using models was described in
Master (1986, soon to be republished as English Grammar for Technical Writing
). Two examples are provided here, one concerning an amplified definition and the other a
description of a mechanism. The demonstration is designed to be carried out in pairs so
that teachers can experience the task for themselves before they try it out with their
students.
|
|
|
Before introducing a model of an amplified
definition, several elements must be introduced. These include a list of amplification
techniques and the typical structure of an amplified definition. It is presumed that the
student is already familiar with the basic structure of a formal definition (i.e., An A is
a B that C).
|
|
|
In order to understand and apply the notion of
amplification, the student is asked to choose one of the following definitions to amplify:
|
|
|
- A vaccine is a sterile liquid medium that contains an avirulent strain of a specific
pathogen (Longman 1979:369).
- An n-type semiconductor is a type of semiconductor in which most of the current is
carried by electrons rather than holes (Longman 1979:534).
- Thixotropy is the property of a liquid by which it has a lower viscosity at a higher
rate of flow (Longman 1979:281).
|
|
|
Most students will not understand the formal
definition as given without further information, which is the primary rationale for an
amplified definition. The student is provided with ten techniques for amplifying a
definition, which may be discussed first or not depending on the proficiency level of the
students:
|
|
|
- Further definition of terms in the opening definition
- Concrete examples or instances
- Parts or components
- Basic operating principle
- Purpose or method of use
- Cause and effect (what it does)
- Word derivation (of the term)
- Location and time (when and where it is used)
- Negative statement (what it is not)
- Comparison and/or contrast
|
|
|
Before moving into the model, the structure of
an idealized amplified definition is presented and discussed. The structure is as follows:
|
|
|
- A formal definition
- Three or more amplification techniques
- A description of special uses, more complex types, etc.
|
|
|
The model is now ready for analysis through the
completion of the following task:
|
|
|
A. With a partner, analyze the model of an
amplified definition (See Figure 1
).
|
|
|
- In the margins, label the formal def-inition, the series of amplification techniques,
and/or a description of special uses or more complex types, if present.
- Then label each specific amplification technique from the list of 10 above.
|
|
|
B. Discuss the results of your analysis.
|
|
|
- Was there a formal definition at the beginning of the model?
- Which specific amplification tech-niques were used?
- Did the model end with a description of special uses or more complex types?
- To what extent did the model follow the idealized structure?
|
|
|
For practice, the student is now asked to do the
following:
|
|
|
A. Write an amplified definition for one of the
following formal definitions:
|
|
|
- An antibody is a protein produced in the blood of a living animal following the
introduction of an antigen (Longman 1979:367).
- A relay is a device by which electric current flowing in one circuit can open or close
current in a second circuit (Longman 1979:516).
- A nursery is a place where seedlings or young plants are grown from seeds with special
care before transplanting them to fields (Longman 1979:335).
|
|
|
B. Finally, the student is asked to write an
amplified definition for a term in his or her field of study. A list of potential topics
may be provided for students at a lower-level of proficiency or experience.
|
|
|
Description of a Mechanism
|
|
|
Before introducing a model of a description of a
mechanism, the student is asked to write a short description of one of the following
diagrams.
|
|
|
Before moving into the model, the structure of an idealized description of a mechanism is
presented and discussed. The structure is as follows:
|
|
|
- Formal definition
- Purpose
- External description
- Plan-of-development sentence
|
|
|
- Definition
- Purpose
- Details (e.g., shape, size, location, method of attachment, material, finish)
|
|
|
C. Description of Part B (with same details)
|
|
|
D. Description of Part C (with same details)
|
|
|
1. Possible concluding techniques:
|
|
|
- mechanism in action
- advantages
- disadvantages or limitations
- special uses or applications
- latest developments or models
|
|
|
The model is now ready for analysis through the
completion of the following task:
|
|
|
A. With a partner, analyze the model of a
description of a mechanism (See Figure 2 ).
|
|
|
- In the margin, label the introduction, the description of Part A, the description of
Part B, the description of Part C, and the conclusion, if present.
- Now label each sentence within each paragraph according to the idealized specifications
above (formal definition, plan-of-development sentence, etc.). Then discuss the results of
your analysis:
|
|
|
- Was there a formal definition at the beginning of the model?
- Was there a plan-of-development sentence?
- How many parts was the mechanism divided into?
- Was there a conclusion? If so, how was it constructed?
- To what extent did the model follow the idealized structure?
|
|
|
For practice, the student is now asked to do the
following:
|
|
|
A. Write a description of a mechanism for the
following diagram:
|
|
|
B. Finally, the student is asked to write a description of a mechanism in his or her field
of study. A list of potential topics may be provided for students at a lower level of
proficiency or experience.
|
|
|
The use of models in ESP is justified by the
formal schemata of most forms of technical writing, i.e., there is usually a prescribed
format. The analysis of models is designed to support the socialization process required
for entrance into the occupational subculture that the student hopes to become a member
of. Once the student is familiar with the basic written expectations of the field or
subculture, he or she is free to modify the format as appropriate for the topic and the
audience. It is a good idea to include as models samples of successful technical writing
that do not adhere in all aspects to the idealized structure so that the student can see
that a strict use of this format is not required.
|
|
|
Peter
Master is the co-editor of English for Specific Purposes and a member of the
faculty of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development at San Jose State
University. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Alexander, L. G. 1965. A first book in comprehension, pr,cis and composition. London:
Longman.
- Allison, D. 1996. Pragmatist discourse and English for Academic Purposes. English for
Specific Purposes 15, 2, pp. 85-103.
- Braddock, R. 1974. The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose.
Research in the Teaching of English 8, pp. 287-302.
- Carrell, P. 1987. Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 21, pp.
461-482.
- Escholz, P. 1980. The prose models approach: Using products in the process. In Eight
approaches to teaching composition. Donovan T. R. and B. W. McClelland eds., Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
- Gunderson, L. 1991. ESL literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
- Johns, A. 1993. Reading and writing tasks in English for Academic Purposes classes:
Products, processes, and resources. In Reading in the composition classroom: Second
language perspectives. Carson, J. and Leki, I. eds., Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, pp.
274-289.
- Kessler, C., D. Harrison, and C. Hayes. 1979. Teacher input-learner intake: Aspects of
discourse analysis. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Boston, MA, Feb. 28-March 4,
1979.
- Longman. 1979. Longman dictionary of scientific usage. London: Longman.
- Master, P. 1986. Science, medicine, and technology: English grammar and technical
writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Meade, R. and W. G. Ellis. 1970. Paragraph development in the modern age of rhetoric.
English Journal 59, pp. 219-226.
- Mills, G. H., and J. A. Walter. 1978. Technical writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
- Raimes, A. 1983. Techniques in teaching writing. London: Oxford University Press, pp.
125-130.
- Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Taylor, B. 1976. Teaching composition to low-level ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 10, 3,
pp. 309--319.
- ---.1981. Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly 15, 1, pp. 5-13.
- Watson, C. 1982. The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly
16, 1, pp. 5-14.
|
|
Figure 1
An Aneroid Barometer |
| An aneroid barometer is an instrument that depends on the
changing volume of a container to indicate atmospheric pressure. It consists of an
airtight box of thin flexible metal from which the air has been partially evacuated. One
side of the evacuated box is attached to a spring. When the atmospheric pressure
increases, the box tends to collapse. When atmospheric pressure decreases, the sides of
the box spring outward. This slight movement is magnified by a series of levers connected
to an indicator needle, which shows the atmospheric pressure. |
| A variation of the aneroid barometer called the Bourdon gauge
was invented by Eugene Bourdon, a French engineer. A flattened tube of metal is evacuated
and bent into a circle. The circle tends to close up with greater pressure and open out
with lesser pressure. This movement is transmitted to a dial as in the aneroid barometer.
The Bourdon gauge is most suitable for measuring high pressure (e.g., 2000 atmospheres). |
Master (1986:28-29) |
Figure 2
The Sierra Portable Air Conditioner |
The Sierra portable air cooler,
model Y, is a device for cooling and ventilating a room that does not exceed 2400 cubic
feet in volume. It functions partly as an electric fan, but also draws air through a
filter down which water is trickling, and cools the air by evaporating the water.
This air cooler is small and light enough to be portable. Its base
is 17 inches square, though a grill in the front increases the total depth to 19 inches.
Its height is 16 inches. At a point 13 inches from the bottom, each side turns toward the
center, rising at a 45 degree angle, so that the total volume is reduced and the flat top
is 9 inches wide and 17 inches deep instead of being equal in size to the bottom. Pressed
aluminum has been used so far as possible in the construction, and thus the weight of the
cooler has been held to 15 pounds. The cooler consists, in the main, of the pressed
aluminum outer shell, the lower portion of which functions as a reservoir for the water;
the motor and fan, which cause the circulation of air; and the water-evaporating system,
which cools the air that is circulated.
The outer shell, as mentioned above, is 17 inches wide, 17 inches
deep, and 16 inches high. It consists of the base and the shell itself. The base is made
of heavier aluminum and serves as the reservoir. It consists of the square bottom and of
sides that are 3 inches high. The upper section of the shell sets down into the base, and
the two portions are riveted together. In this portion of the shell, the sides and top are
an unbroken sheet of pressed aluminum. The back, however, is not covered by the shell, and
the front contains an opening 12 inches in diameter into which is bolted a round meshed
wire screen that protrudes 2 inches. This screen lets the air blown by the fan pass
through but prevents the fan from being touched. An aluminum strip across the open back
strengthens the structure, and a handle bolted to the top makes the cooler easy to carry.
The circulation of air is caused by the fan and motor. The fan,
which is set close to the front opening, has three wide blades and is 12 inches in
diameter. The motor is rated at 1/30 horsepower and operates on the ordinary 110-volt
alternating-current lighting circuit. Its consumption of electricity is approximately that
of a 75-watt light globe. Driven by this motor, the fan delivers 1140 cubic feet of air
per minute. Both the motor and fan are supported by a sturdy cast-aluminum frame that is
riveted to the base.
The water-evaporating system is the portion that cools the air. It
consists mainly of a pump and of the evaporation screen. The pump is of the impeller type
and is driven by the same motor that drives the fan. It is set near the back of the
reservoir. Water is carried from the reservoir to the evaporation screen by a 1/4-inch
rubber tube with aluminum connections at each end. The evaporation screen consists of a
distributor-a V-shaped aluminum trough running from side to side near the top-and the
screen itself, which consists of excelsior supported by the light wire bottom of the
cooler, so that the surface down which the water trickles is larger than it would be
otherwise. This evaporation screen almost entirely covers the back of the cooler, though
it is set far enough forward to permit water to be poured into the reservoir at the back.
In action, the cooler functions as follows: The fan draws air into
the back of the cooler, through the excelsior grid screen and blows it out at the front.
The pump delivers water to the top of the grid screen, where it trickles down to the
reservoir for recirculation. Part of the water, however, evaporates in the air passing
through, and thus cools the air. The cooled air is blown out the front of the cooler at
the rate of 1140 cubic feet per minute and reduces the temperature in the room. Thus, the
air cooler can be used with good results on any occasion when the relative humidity is low
enough to cause the water to evaporate. |
Back to Article
|
. |
. |