Universidade de São Paulo How to Learn the Many Unwritten “Rules of the Game” of the Academic Discourse: A Hybrid Approach Based on Critiques and Cases to Support Scientific Writing Sandra Aluísio, Iris Barcelos, Jander Sampaio and Osvaldo N. Oliveira Jr. NILC Universidade de São Paulo BRAZIL

Facts Academics must write in English – lingua franca of Science. The need to write scientific papers in English represents a considerable barrier for non-native English authors. ICALT'2001

The main difficulties faced by Brazilian writers Lexical Misuse of false cognates and homophone words; lack or misuse of idioms and other collocations employed in scientific texts. Syntactic Use of grammatical constructions from mother language; word by word translation; over-long/over-complex sentences. Textual Use of rhetorical structures or strategies of the mother language; misuse of logical relations between sentences or phases; lack of references. ICALT'2001

First Draft? Books and software tools provide help for text post-edition or hints on how to write a paper. But normally fail to provide a “hands on” approach that helps the author in producing a first draft. To write scientific papers in English it may not be enough: To be fluent in English in another text genre To know the global structure of papers in the mother tongue Software tools as speeling, grammar and style checkers (The English of scientific papers is highly conventionalized) (Texts in different languages can vary not only in sentence structure, but also in text structure and content selection) ICALT'2001

Resources & Tools in AMADEUS Authoring Writing Learning Assessing Processes Reference Tool Support Tool Critiquing Tool CAPTEAP Module Control Tools To cope with this problem we have developed an environment, named AMADEUS, which is mainly based on the reuse of linguistic material extracted from well-written texts, which are categorised according to their function in the scientific discourse. Standard expressions and chunks of texts Schematic structures Strategies to write paragraphs Critiques based on criteria for papers submission Question items Resources ICALT'2001

Reference Tool Works as a lexical database consultation of canned expressions and sentences from well-written texts which are annotated according to the schemactic structure of paper sections. Aimed at (1) researchers who are familiar with the academic writing but still need some feedback (2) proficient or near-proficient English users who need to write under the constraint of time Limitation failed to help less experienced writers, mainly because such users had difficulties in localizing expressions, collocations and cohesive links appropriate to their needs. ICALT'2001

Support Tool Implemented as a case-based system which works in co-operation with the user through a three-step procedure: i) gathering of features of a paper section ii) selection of the best-match case, following case recovery by the system iii) revision on the selected case in order to insert the user’s own text. Effective in helping users to ensure cohesion and coherence of small chunks of text. Limitation failed to present feedback to the user choices ICALT'2001

CAPTEAP Module Computer Assessment System which may function as a self-assessment tool, allowing users to monitor their progress as a summative tool for English proficiency tests (EPTs) Devised to assess skills novice researchers really need: (1) to understand and produce technical writing in English, (2) to recognise the schemata for the academic discourse. ICALT'2001

Critiquing Tool Works collaboratively in cycles Effective the user presents a product to the system and the system gives feedback through critiques for improving the product. Effective in indicating the most appropriate sequences of the schematic components, suited for a particular audience and purpose, in the various sections of a paper. as a teaching resource for practitioners working with EAP Community chosen researchers from Computer-Human Interaction the annotated papers came from the CHI’96 short papers session ICALT'2001

Theoretical Background Critiquing Systems comprises agents, generally one computer and one user, working in collaboration. Research in EAP focused on the nature of success in writing writing is considered a social act that can take place only within a specific context and audience ICALT'2001

Architecture USER COMPUTER Acquisition/Identification of the objects Objective Guidelines Case Base Product Analytic Analyzer Differential Analyzer USER COMPUTER Critiquing Strategies Presentation Analysis Modifications Critique ICALT'2001

Schematic Components of an Introduction Critiques ICALT'2001

Specific Components of an Introduction ICALT'2001

Case Recovered ICALT'2001

Reusing the Tool in New Domains 1.Perform corpus analysis of papers from a given scientific community and annotate the corpus according to the components identified. The corpus is to be used by the Differential Analyzer recover similar cases. 2. Rewrite guidelines from the Call for Papers or Instructions for Authors sections in the form of rules, which are to be employed by the Analytic Analyzer. 3. Employ the shell of the collaborative tool to obtain the interface and appropriate interaction mode. 4. Test the tool, now including new knowledge, in terms of the communication with the user. ICALT'2001

Download from http://nilc.icmc.sc.usp.br/projects.html#AMADEUS Final Remarks We described AMADEUS – suite of tools for distinct types of users, with different needs Hybrid Approach to develop the Critiquing Tool (critiques + cases) Advantages of a Collaborative Paradigm Learner as an actor Learner chooses when to access the tool Interaction encouraged Final aim is to help novice writers to achieve a cohesive paper structure, in a collaborative environment Further research is to extend to other research areas/communities and evaluate efficacy. Download from http://nilc.icmc.sc.usp.br/projects.html#AMADEUS ICALT'2001