1. English-for-general-academic- purposes (EGAP) writing instruction and transfer of learning * Mark Andrew James Arizona State University Mark.A.James@asu.eduhttp://www.public.asu.edu/~mjames6/index.html * This presentation describes a study published recently in the Journal of Second Language Writing (volume 19, Dec. 2010).

2. Background Context: English-for-general-academic-purposes writing (EGAP) instruction.Context: English-for-general-academic-purposes writing (EGAP) instruction. Targeted learning outcomes (e.g., using a writing process, using resources) and believed to be applicable across disciplines. This is common in North American university settings. Focus: Learning transfer.Focus: Learning transfer. Transfer is a fundamental goal of all EAP instruction, and with EGAP writing instruction, transfer is expected to be broad. L2 and L1 writing scholars question EGAP writing instruction from a transfer perspective (Hyland, 2002; Leki, 2003; Russell, 1995; Wardle, 2007, 2009). Empirical research has shed some light on this issue (e.g., Allen, 2008; James, 2008, 2009; Nelms & Dively, 2007; Spack, 1997), but the picture of how broadly learning transfers here remains unclear.

3. Research questions Does learning transfer from EGAP writing instruction to other academic courses? If so, what transfers, and to where?

4. Research design Qualitative case study in 2007-2008 academic year.Qualitative case study in 2007-2008 academic year. Context: One section of a 2-semester freshman EGAP writing course at a large, urban university in the US.Context: One section of a 2-semester freshman EGAP writing course at a large, urban university in the US. Participants: 11 students (out of 19 in that section).Participants: 11 students (out of 19 in that section). 10 freshmen, 1 sophomore; average age 20; 6 male, 5 female; 5 different nationalities (most common South Korean [4 students]); 5 different majors (most common business [6 students])

5. Data collection Two sources of data:Two sources of data: Interviews with students. Each student was interviewed 2 times in the fall semester and most were also interviewed 2 times in the spring semester. Each interview involved the same set of questions, focusing on whether the student tried to use anything learned or practiced in the EGAP course to do tasks in other courses. Writing samples. Students were asked to provide examples of any writing they did (e.g., lab reports, essays, work sheets for tutorials, short answers on tests/quizzes, messages on online class discussion boards, etc.) for graded tasks in any of their courses. I gathered a total of 54 writing samples (11 from the EGAP course, and 43 from other courses).

6. Data analysis: Step 1 – interview transcripts Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported. Example unit of analysis Researcher: When you wrote that [brief explanation after a calculation in your math homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]? Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, ‘‘nevertheless.’’ Yes. Researcher: Really? Participant: It’s like a transition word. Like that. Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP course]? Participant: Yes. (Participant 1, interview 1)

7. Data analysis: Step 1 – interview transcripts Units of analysis were coded for discipline, task type, and the kind of transfer, if any, that had been reported. Example unit of analysis Researcher: When you wrote that [brief explanation after a calculation in your math homework], did you think of [the EGAP course]? Participant: [The EGAP course]? Yes. Yes, I wrote like, ‘‘nevertheless.’’ Yes. Researcher: Really? Participant: It’s like a transition word. Like that. Researcher: So is ‘‘nevertheless’’ a transition word you practiced in [the EGAP course]? Participant: Yes. (Participant 1, interview 1) Discipline: “Natural sciences” Task type: “Explanation of calculation” Kind of transfer: “Establishing coherence”

8. Data analysis: Step 2 – writing samples Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether each of 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the EGAP course textbook had been applied.

9. Data analysis: Step 2 – writing samples Samples were coded for discipline, task type, and whether each of 10 learning outcomes explicitly targeted in the EGAP course textbook had been applied. 1. describing visually2. stating personal significance 3. narrating4. using similes/metaphors 5. framing6. using temporal transitions 7. using short sentences to 8. avoiding missing commas draw reader’s attention after introductory elements draw reader’s attention after introductory elements 9. avoiding fused sentences 10. using past perfect verb tense accurately tense accurately

10. Data analysis: Step 2 – writing samples

11. ... Indicator of transfer in writing samples: a student’s application of a given learning outcome (a) in the writing sample from the first major task in the EGAP course and (b) in a writing sample from a subsequent task in another course.

12. Data analysis: Reliability Another researcher recoded 20% of the data (7 interview transcripts and 13 writing samples). Comparison of the other researcher’s coding decisions with the coding decisions I had made with the same data resulted in intercoder reliability values of 93% (interview transcripts) and 96% (writing samples).

13. Findings Research questions: Did learning transfer from this EGAP writing course to other academic courses? If so, what transferred, and to where?

14. Findings from interview transcripts Students reported 8 different kinds of transfer: 1. Organizing (8 students, 15 tasks) 2. Using resources (5 students, 8 tasks) 3. Developing topics (4 students, 5 tasks) 4. Establishing coherence (3 students, 4 tasks) 5. Using appropriate syntactic patterns and devices (3 students, 4 tasks) 6. Using a process (2 students, 5 tasks) 7. Writing efficiently (2 students, 3 tasks) 8. Using appropriate vocabulary (1 students, 1 task)

15. Findings from interview transcripts Example of reported transfer in the category organizing... Researcher: Why not think about [the EGAP course] when you did this task and the other task? Participant: Why not? Maybe, I don’t know, but one thing, the introduction and the main point and a conclusion thing, I used what I learned. Researcher: Did you consciously, you thought ‘‘I should use an introduction, body, conclusion’’? Participant: Yes, yes. Researcher: When you thought about the structure, and introduction, body, conclusion, did you think about [the EGAP course] or did you think about learning back in Japan? Participant: [The EGAP course]. (Participant 9, interview 1)

16. Findings from interview transcripts

17. Findings from writing samples: Transfer across learning outcomes

18. Findings from writing samples: Transfer across disciplines

19. Findings from writing samples: Transfer across task types

20. Summary Learning in the EGAP writing course did transfer to other courses. Learning in the EGAP writing course did transfer to other courses. This transfer involved a variety of learning outcomes, helping add detail to our picture of transfer in EGAP writing education. This transfer occurred across a broad range of task types and disciplines, helping add support to the position that EGAP instruction can lead to broad transfer. This transfer was inconsistent, raising practical questions about the success of this EGAP writing instruction. Future research on this topic would be worthwhile. Future research on this topic would be worthwhile. What factors at times inhibit transfer in EGAP writing instruction? Can EGAP writing be taught in a way that leads to more consistent transfer?

21. References Allen, G. (2008). Language, power, and consciousness: A writing experiment at the University of Toronto. In T.R. Johnson (Ed.), Teaching composition: Background readings (3 rd ed). Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s. Allen, G. (2008). Language, power, and consciousness: A writing experiment at the University of Toronto. In T.R. Johnson (Ed.), Teaching composition: Background readings (3 rd ed). Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395. Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395. James, M.A. (2008). The influence of perceptions of task similarity/difference on learning transfer in second language writing. Written Communication, 25, 76-103. James, M.A. (2008). The influence of perceptions of task similarity/difference on learning transfer in second language writing. Written Communication, 25, 76-103. James, M.A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 69-84. James, M.A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 69-84. Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication, 20, 81-98. Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication, 20, 81-98. Nelms, G., & Dively, R.L. (2007). Perceived roadblocks to transferring knowledge from first-year composition to writing intensive major courses: A pilot study. Writing Program Administration, 31, 214-240. Nelms, G., & Dively, R.L. (2007). Perceived roadblocks to transferring knowledge from first-year composition to writing intensive major courses: A pilot study. Writing Program Administration, 31, 214-240. Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14, 3-62. Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14, 3-62. Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Writing Program Administration, 31, 65-85. Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Writing Program Administration, 31, 65-85. Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60, 765-789. Wardle, E. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60, 765-789. http://www.public.asu.edu/~mjames6/index.html