Docstoc

PowerPoint Presentation - Semiotic Integration Information

Document Sample
PowerPoint Presentation - Semiotic Integration Information Powered By Docstoc
					   Cmap link label constraint for
    the structural narrowing of
constructivist second language tasks
                                 Lawrie Hunter
                     Kochi University of Technology
           http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/
FOREGROUND:
CALL parameters
                             Content management
 Curriculum
  Content                    Course management
                              Task management
    Task
                              Data management



                       Goals
                    Motivation
                Content perception
                  Task perception
               Language perception
              Information perception
Quantum levels of CALL work
 Task array design
 Metalanguage and learner perception of syllabus

 Task orchestration
 Interface design and learner perception of task flow

 Task design
 Interaction design and learner perception of task

 Learner perception of language learning

 Learner perception of language            Micro-cognition
                                               is little
                                              explored!
 Learner perception of information
FOREGROUND:
Who’s your mama?
                        Content management
 Curriculum
  Content               Course management
                         Task management
    Task
                         Data management



                   Goals
                Motivation
            Content perception
              Task perception
          Language perception
         Information perception
FOREGROUND: 'Tensions'
Global tension in Hunter’s mapping work:

     When is mapping

     more effective/efficient than text

     in task presentation/performance?
FOREGROUND: 'Tensions'
Uses of Concept Mapping (really)

1. In scenarios where
   text is too dense or too clumsy
   for easy learner access to information structures.

2. For abstraction.

3. For a focus on information-linking functions.

4. To downplay text orchestration.
Quantum levels of mapping
              Argument mapping


        Information structure mapping

              Syntactic mapping


        Grammatical mapping   (pseudo)



           Association mapping
Constructivist dilemma:
learner freedom vs. specific objectives

 In constructivist learning environments*,
 learner freedom can be an obstacle
 to the achievement of specific educational objectives.




   *particularly in relatively teacher-remote situations
   such as situation involving Learning Management Systems (LMS),
Constructivist dilemma:
how to constrain constructivist task
to make the learner use target language?
Constructivist dilemma:
how to constrain constructivist task
to make the learner use target language?

One answer: use interface design.
-e.g. mapping
    -somehow constrain map structure.
    -somehow constrain map content.
Using interface design
to constrain constructivist task

Example 1: By constraining a task’s
information content and information structure,
we can push the writer into
a narrow range of sentence types, a micro-genre.

Case in point: information structure mapping
<http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>
Using interface design
to constrain constructivist task
                                                 Argument mapping


                                            Information structure mapping


                                                 Syntactic mapping


                                          Grammatical mapping (pseudo)


                                              Association mapping




  Example 1: information structure mapping
  <http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/semint/>
2 examples of task-narrowing
achieved by interface related task design.

Example 2: Constraining the labelled links in
    Cmaps<http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/>
to lead the learner directly to logical structures.

Case in point: leading the learner to create an
abstract argument analysis.

Case in point: leading the learner to separate
(1) technical content and scientific argument and
(2) motivating or persuasive rhetoric.
Using interface design
to constrain constructivist task
                                               Argument mapping


                                          Information structure mapping


                                               Syntactic mapping


                                        Grammatical mapping (pseudo)


                                            Association mapping




 Example 2: leading the learner to create an
 abstract argument analysis.
Many information mapping systems
  1. Mind mapping
  2. Directed link maps
  3. Textured-link maps
  4. Horn’s argument mapping
  5. AusThink’s argument mapping
  6. Rationale argument mapping
  7. RST* maps

                   *Rhetorical Structure Theory
Found application:
Constructivist L2 learning task
Found application:
Constructivist L2 learning task
 Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasks
 free the learner to use language
 that is immediately, personally relevant.
Found application:
Constructivist L2 learning task
 Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasks
 free the learner to use language
 that is immediately, personally relevant.
       “My favorite game.”


       “A day in my life.”


       “How I would reduce Japan’s CO2 emissions.”
Found application:
Constructivist L2 learning task
 Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasks
 free the learner to use language that is
 immediately, personally relevant.
     BUT they also allow the learner to
     write freely in terms of
                -content
                -information structure and
                -rhetorical structure.
Found application:
Constructivist L2 learning task
  Open-ended and ‘expressive’ tasks
  free the learner to use language that is
  immediately, personally relevant.
      BUT they also allow the learner to
      write freely in terms of
Not always       -content
a good thing     -information structure and
                 -rhetorical structure.
How can we present task
so as to force
certain* language behaviors?




      *e.g. use of certain structures
       e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device
       e.g. use of certain register
How can we present task
so as to force
certain* language behaviors?
Information mapping systems
allow us to usefully present
task content in a low-text manner.

      *e.g. use of certain structures
       e.g. use of certain types of cohesion device
       e.g. use of certain register
Clarify this study’s purpose
in terms of form of language/information

  Structure     Node content                    Link type

 Argument
              Independent clauses   Rhetorical (e.g. argument) relations
  structure

 Knowledge                             Attribute, compare, classify,
              Nouns/noun phrases
  structure                               sequence, cause-effect
Argument mapping
as an inroad to task constraint
                                   Argument mapping




-an extreme case of
                            Information structure mapping


                                   Syntactic mapping



summarizing                Grammatical mapping (pseudo)


                               Association mapping




-persuasive rhetoric filtered out
Horn’s
argument
mapping




http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/index.html
        http://www.macrovu.com/
AusThink
argument
mapping




           http://www.austhink.com/
Rationale argument mapping




                    http://www.austhink.com/
RST mapping
   Bill Mann’s Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST)
   uses various sorts of "building blocks" to describe texts.

   The principal block type deals with "nuclearity" and "relations"
   (often called coherence relations in the linguistic literature.)




www.sil.org/~mannb/rst/


                 RST links are rhetorical devices.
Cmap tools

                              http://cmap.ihmc.us/




      Novakian links are syntactic devices.
Study: task constraint work
Constraining learner behavior

                          Central        Background
                          message        information
    Argument layer      Target content     discard
  Knowledge structure
                            avoid          discard
        layer
Study: task constraint work
Using link labels to constrain learner behavior
    Allow only links
    which signal the information structures
    which constitute the register*



  *Here the register is TAW,
   and the degree of abstraction is maximum,
   i.e. argument.
Study: task constraint work
 Phase 1: unconstrained associative mapping

 Learners made association type concept maps of the
 content of a text.

 To force summarization, a limit of 10 nodes was imposed.

 Performance was strongly uniform in terms of node
 content.

 Generally the learners used the lexical units
 (e.g. subject-verb) found in the text.

        ppt 1: associational mapping
Study: task constraint work
 Phase 2: unconstrained Novakian mapping

 Learners map the same text again, using Cmap software.
 Object: "try to represent the argument in the Niiho paper,"
                 which was described in the article.

 Maps were highly varied (chaotic variation) in content and
 in link type.
Study: task constraint work
 Phase 3: constrained Novakian mapping

 Learners mapped the text a third time,
 again using Cmap software,
 but with only the argumentation links shown below.

   Citation as subject     Results as subject     Claim as subject
  claims (that)          reveals (that)         is supported by
  proposes (that)        demonstrates (that)    is contradicted by
  implies (that)         indicates (that)       is in agreement with
  suggests (that)        disproves              is in opposition to
  infers (that)          proves (that)          assumes (that)
  observes (that)        implies (that)
Study: task constraint work
 Phase 3: constrained Novakian mapping

 Learners mapped the text a third time,
 again using Cmap software,
 but with only prescribed argumentation links.

 Learner product was quite uniform in choice of links from
 the array above.

 Map structure and content varied relatively little.

          ppt 2: argument mapping
Study: task constraint work
 Conclusion

 Using this label-constrained mapping approach,
 the subjects did successfully separate
 persuasive from information-bearing text.

 Of course the mapping approach is not essential
 to the acquisition of that skill.
Study: task constraint work
 Phase 4: text-based argument analysis (follow-up)

 Different text
 Same argument structure
 Same link constraints
Study: task constraint work
 Mapping vs. text

 Mapping
 Subjects                            13
 Dyads                               6.9/subject
 Dyads with non-list labels          0.8/subject
        Misuses of linking phrases          2.85/subject

 Text
 Subjects                            9
 Sentences                           3.55/subject
 Sentences with non-list labels      0.44/subject
 Misuses of linking phrases          0.77/subject
Study: task constraint work
 Conclusion

 The value of the mapping approach in argument analysis:

 1. visual accessibility of the representation of text structure

 2. forced articulation of relations between argument elements

 3. greater speed (lower cognitive load?) than in text approach
Study: task constraint work
 Conclusion

 Informal observation of learner behavior
 in constrained-link scenarios
 suggests that

    constraining link content
    can lead TAW learners to
    accurate, minimal summarization of
    the arguments in TAW text
    WITHOUT INSTRUCTION.
 Study: task constraint work
Questions for future study:

1. Constrained-link maps afford valuable support to TAW learner
   analysis of text.
   Do they also afford valuable support to TAW learner composition
   processes?

2. What is the optimal size and content of the array of linking phrases
    for the representation of TAW argumentation?

3. Does the ad hoc representation technique developed here have
    implications for a multi-level model of the text-based
    representation of information structures?
                                 Argument mapping

Future work               Information structure mapping


                                 Syntactic mapping


                          Grammatical mapping (pseudo)



 Embed                        Association mapping




 Hunter’s info structure mapping
 in
 Novakian argument mapping
Thank you for your attention.
  You can download this .ppt from
     http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/




                                  Lawrie Hunter
                          Kochi University of Technology
                  http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/
Limiting writing task freedom by constraining Cmap link type
In constructivist learning environments, particularly in relatively teacher-remote situations
such as those involving Learning Management Systems (LMS), learner freedom can be an
obstacle to the achievement of specific educational objectives. Similarly, the use of concept
map systems based on associational links can result in excessive task performance freedom.
The Cmap approach <http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/> involves the use of labelled links and
thus constrains learner behavior towards more articulate expression, but still the degree of
task performance freedom is high. Only by constraining the nature of link labels can the
materials designer push the learner to very specific language behaviors.
A case in point: in work with the informal technical academic English register (used for
example in science magazines and presentation scripts), an important second language
reader/writer skill is the ability to distinguish between (1) technical content and scientific
argument and (2) motivating or persuasive rhetoric.
This paper first lays out the literature in outline form, showing the range of information
mapping and concept mapping techniques and their strengths and weaknesses in terms of
educational document design.
The central content of the paper is a demonstration of the author's adaptation of Cmaps and
Cmap tools for L2 learner analysis of technical text and the subsequent writing of technical
text using Cmaps for argument mapping. This approach resembles argument mapping as
described at http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/argument_mapping.html and rhetorical
structure analysis, as defined at http://www.sfu.ca/rst/02analyses/index.html
but differs in that in this case link label content is intentionally constrained; the resulting
reduced writing freedom can be employed to force learners to write in very narrow sub-
genres of technical academic writing. This not only constrains the learner's writing: it also
forces the task designer and the instructor to work in narrow niche sub-genres, which are
arguably enabling in their specificity and clarity.
294 words
In constructivist learning environments, particularly in
relatively teacher-remote situations such as those involving
Learning Management Systems (LMS), learner freedom can
be an obstacle to the achievement of specific educational
objectives.
This presentation examines information mapping and
concept mapping techniques and demonstrates the author's
adaptation of Cmap tools <http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/>
for L2 learner analysis and writing of technical text. Link
label content is intentionally constrained to force learners to
write in very narrow sub-genres of technical academic
writing. This also forces the task designer and the instructor
to work in narrow niche sub-genres, which are arguably
enabling in their specificity and clarity.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:10/11/2011
language:English
pages:45