Carbon credits - I first heard about them during a CBC Radio 3 podcast interview with the lead singer of Mother Mother. Host Grant Lawrence asked her if she knew what they were (coming from the environmentalist Islands of the BC Juan de Fuca Strait, you'd think that she would have), but she didn't. I had a good guess in mind, and later in the podcast, Grant explained how they work.
Carbon credits are intangible "vouchers" that business or individuals (such as independent musicians in the case of CBC Radio 3) can buy to help off-set the "carbon footprint" that their actions leave on the environment. In other words, if a rock band is going to drive their van from Ottawa to Victoria on a cross-country tour, and feels bad about the pollution that their travel will cause on the Canadian wilderness, then the band can buy a certain number of carbon credits to help compensate for any adverse effects on the environment.
I listened to that podcast a few weeks ago and hadn't heard anything more about carbon credits until today. This afternoon I was reading news headlines on CBC.ca and I came across Anne of Green Gables Goes Green. The article explained that the producer of a new PEI production of an Anne and Gilbert musical has purchased carbon credits to offset the environmental impact of their production (gasoline travel, stage lighting, or whatever).
The article further explained that the carbon credits were purchased from a Montreal non-profit that aims to reduce greenhouse emissions. And that made me wonder. What is this non-profit? And what do they doing to reduce their carbon footprint? Who died and made them environmental king? If it was the Government of Canada, then I can see some sense of authority, but independent firms selling carbon credits seems a bit like selling real estate on the moon or vending certificates of ownership for distant stars.
And then it gets worse. The lead actress explains her two-hour car commute every day by saying that the play's contribution to the non-profit "makes [her] feel better about [her]self." Um, doesn't she mean that the play's contribution is a responsible or wise decision? Or that it will have a significant impact on reducing pollution or raising public awareness? Nope. Her primary concern appears to be that this donation will make her feel better. Cause that's what the environmentalist movement is about: making people feel warm and fussy inside (and who cares about the human health concerns or long-term climate issues).
Is this where research funding comes from? Guilt? Is that how society advances: someone (i.e., special interest groups) makes us feel bad about something we are/aren't doing; we feel guilt; they inform us (entirely coincidentally) that researchers are currently looking into ways to reverse the negative impact that we have had on the world (and that they desperately need our help cough*money*cough); so we dish out funds in order to ease our conscience while maintaining the same practices as before; and researchers may or may not do anything useful with our donations (i.e., trip to Cancun to study something or other related to tropical resorts)?
It makes me wonder where my research money comes from. Will I be conducting research with guilt funds?
Carbon credits seemed like such a great idea when I first heard about it via Grant Lawrence, but now I'm suspicious and maybe even be already jaded. I'm such a sucker for celebrities.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
OPI practice round
Earlier this summer I participated in ACTFL oral proficiency interview training (see early June posts for more information). I am now in the process of applying for certification and am thus working on completing interviews for my practice round.
There are several interesting things that I have learned from participating in this process:
There are several interesting things that I have learned from participating in this process:
- This is a wide range of ability within one course level. In a given day, I can meet with three or four students from the same class/teacher. Although they were all placed in the same level (based on test scores from writing, reading, listening, speaking, and grammar), their range of speaking ability is remarkable. Some seem to peak beyond what our Center teaches for speaking skills, whereas those students' classmates can barely get out a coherent sentence on a simple topic. I suppose that is the nature of level placement based on a holistic decision based on all test scores.
- Just because students "know" grammar, does not mean that they use it. Level 4 students, for example, learn complex grammar patterns and can easily understand verb use in all major time frames. Yet many Level 4 students frequently make errors in any time from but the present, and even then many make basic subject-verb agreement errors. I wonder why it is that some students can quickly translate what they learn into what they use, and others have very week production skills even after prolonged exposure to the grammar.
- It is a difficult process to learn to be both a test creator and evaluator at the same time. ACTFL OPIs require the interviewer to develop the questions on the spur of the moment based on the flow of the conversation (and following basic structural patterns to cover a variety of topics and levels of difficulty). However, the dynamic nature of the interview does lend to its authenticity. It is a valuable learning experience for someone who is interesting in language assessment.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Book Review: Academic Writing for Graduate Students
I have several ESL writing related books that I am in the process of reading. I figured that I would use this space to keep track of them and record my impressions of them. So here's the first:
Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills (Second Edition). By John M. Swales and Christine B. Feak. Published by University of Michigan Press (2004).
THE BACKSTORY
I first learned of this book in March while attending the 2007 TESOL convention in Seattle. I attended a forum on writing assistance for international students. Although I don't teach graduate students, many of my current students have already finished an undergraduate degree and have come to the USA to pursue graduate work. It's my job to help them improve their English so that they will be ready for graduate study at an English-speaking university. So for that reason, I figured that I would give the session a try.
As it was, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The panel included writing teachers from several different English-speaking universities who have large international (non-native English speaking) graduate students. They discussed the challenges and success to writing programs and what ESL teachers can do to facilitate more favourable university policy towards ESL learners, and better writing skills among international graduate students.
While they discussed their experiences, I wrote ferociously. I was immediately hit with the desire to take these suggestions back to our program and our students. Only there was a snag: I don't teach the writing course for international graduate students. Nevertheless, I figured the least I could do was pass on the material and suggestions. That night, at dinner, I sat at a table with my boss and discussed my suggestions for the graduate writing course and asked whether I would be able to discuss my ideas with the current instructor. "We no longer have an instructor for that course. She has retired, and we are looking for a new teacher," he explained. He suggested that I contact the professor overseeing that course, who just happens to be my former boss (I was her research assistant) and my thesis chair.
She wholeheartedly agreed to assign me to the course, and although it means extra work for me this fall, it is an opportunity I do not want to pass up since it will be a valuable experience for me. And although I have never used a textbook for any of the ESL writing courses that I have taught, I figured I would try out the text that was recommended in the TESOL forum. I ordered the text for my class, and the publisher sent me a desk copy that I have been reading over the past couple of week.
I frequently tell my students (and even my professors) that I don't like to read, that I got through an undergraduate degree in English literature without much reading, and that I finished a Master's degree in Teaching English with even less reading, and that I have nearly completed my PhD coursework without so much as reading a single textbook (I skim a lot). But despite all that, I actually read this book (well at least most of it - I'm not much for reading boring examples). But I mention this to say that I honestly did read through this text and I feel fairly good about its potential as a tool for me and the graduate students in the writing course I will teach this fall.
THE REVIEW
Part of what attracted me to Academic Writing for Graduate Students (AWG) was its reputation as a strong language guide. There is a current trend among second language (L2) writing texts to focus on rhetoric and writing process just as first language (L1) texts so. I fully support the need for rhetorical and process instruction (if fact, if this university had a PhD in rhetoric, I would be studying that rather than IP&T); however, L2 learners need more than just the rhetoric and process learning; they also need to learn the language of writing.
Imagine my surprise then, when I received my copy of AWG and read, in the introduction, "The general approach [of this book] is analytical and rhetorical" (p. 2). I was shocked, dismayed, and even felt a little betrayed. Here I had been duped into buying a text that was no different than the other L2 writing texts that I had seen in the past. It was going to ignore all the language needs (grammar, vocabulary, socio-linguistic appropriateness, and more) of my students and only focus on the types of writing that they could learn from a regular graduate research writing course.
I nearly stopped reading right there, but I held on and figured that regardless of my confused expectations, it had to have worth if enough people had recommended it to me. As it turns out, I misinterpreted the introduction. AWG is organized around rhetorical functions (i.e., writing general-to-specific, describing tables, summarizing), but each of those sections is chock full of language mini-lessons that describe how L2 writers can appropriately use English language to accomplish those tasks.
It is a dense text and contains a lot of language information, but its organization lends it to practical use. In fact, there are three aspects of its language focus that I really appreciate.
Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills (Second Edition). By John M. Swales and Christine B. Feak. Published by University of Michigan Press (2004).
THE BACKSTORY
I first learned of this book in March while attending the 2007 TESOL convention in Seattle. I attended a forum on writing assistance for international students. Although I don't teach graduate students, many of my current students have already finished an undergraduate degree and have come to the USA to pursue graduate work. It's my job to help them improve their English so that they will be ready for graduate study at an English-speaking university. So for that reason, I figured that I would give the session a try.
As it was, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The panel included writing teachers from several different English-speaking universities who have large international (non-native English speaking) graduate students. They discussed the challenges and success to writing programs and what ESL teachers can do to facilitate more favourable university policy towards ESL learners, and better writing skills among international graduate students.
While they discussed their experiences, I wrote ferociously. I was immediately hit with the desire to take these suggestions back to our program and our students. Only there was a snag: I don't teach the writing course for international graduate students. Nevertheless, I figured the least I could do was pass on the material and suggestions. That night, at dinner, I sat at a table with my boss and discussed my suggestions for the graduate writing course and asked whether I would be able to discuss my ideas with the current instructor. "We no longer have an instructor for that course. She has retired, and we are looking for a new teacher," he explained. He suggested that I contact the professor overseeing that course, who just happens to be my former boss (I was her research assistant) and my thesis chair.
She wholeheartedly agreed to assign me to the course, and although it means extra work for me this fall, it is an opportunity I do not want to pass up since it will be a valuable experience for me. And although I have never used a textbook for any of the ESL writing courses that I have taught, I figured I would try out the text that was recommended in the TESOL forum. I ordered the text for my class, and the publisher sent me a desk copy that I have been reading over the past couple of week.
I frequently tell my students (and even my professors) that I don't like to read, that I got through an undergraduate degree in English literature without much reading, and that I finished a Master's degree in Teaching English with even less reading, and that I have nearly completed my PhD coursework without so much as reading a single textbook (I skim a lot). But despite all that, I actually read this book (well at least most of it - I'm not much for reading boring examples). But I mention this to say that I honestly did read through this text and I feel fairly good about its potential as a tool for me and the graduate students in the writing course I will teach this fall.
THE REVIEW
Part of what attracted me to Academic Writing for Graduate Students (AWG) was its reputation as a strong language guide. There is a current trend among second language (L2) writing texts to focus on rhetoric and writing process just as first language (L1) texts so. I fully support the need for rhetorical and process instruction (if fact, if this university had a PhD in rhetoric, I would be studying that rather than IP&T); however, L2 learners need more than just the rhetoric and process learning; they also need to learn the language of writing.
Imagine my surprise then, when I received my copy of AWG and read, in the introduction, "The general approach [of this book] is analytical and rhetorical" (p. 2). I was shocked, dismayed, and even felt a little betrayed. Here I had been duped into buying a text that was no different than the other L2 writing texts that I had seen in the past. It was going to ignore all the language needs (grammar, vocabulary, socio-linguistic appropriateness, and more) of my students and only focus on the types of writing that they could learn from a regular graduate research writing course.
I nearly stopped reading right there, but I held on and figured that regardless of my confused expectations, it had to have worth if enough people had recommended it to me. As it turns out, I misinterpreted the introduction. AWG is organized around rhetorical functions (i.e., writing general-to-specific, describing tables, summarizing), but each of those sections is chock full of language mini-lessons that describe how L2 writers can appropriately use English language to accomplish those tasks.
It is a dense text and contains a lot of language information, but its organization lends it to practical use. In fact, there are three aspects of its language focus that I really appreciate.
- Much of its language discussion is supported by corpus research. This means that rather than state that many research papers use one grammatical form, or a particular vocabulary phrase, based on the authors personal anecdotes or impressions, instead this text cites research studies that have studied those very language questions. Corpus research is a hot new thing in applied linguistics, but for good reason. Rather than guess when we make claims about what kinds of words and structures we should teach language learners, corpus linguistics allows us to compile information from numerous real situations in order to help inform our recommendations and choices. It is an approach that L2, as well as L1, writers should greatly appreciate.
- When the authors of this text discuss language use, they recognize that different disciplines have different standards and trends. They acknowledge the room for diversity, and in many cases, they do their best to cite corpus research in a variety of fields and compare them. Because I will be teaching students from a variety of graduate programs (and I am only familiar with writing from the Humanities and Education fields), I need a source that can help me to guide students from other fields.
- Every time a new structural or vocabulary language topic is raised, the authors encourage writers to consult actual texts from their fields and discover how experts in their major use language to accomplish the particular task (or even if that particular task is relevant to that field of study). As a new graduate student, that is how I learned to write - by reading. Again, I joke about how I never read a book through graduate school, but I read numerous research articles. I paid attention to organization, patterns, vocabulary, structures and language. I still continue to do this, especially since I am now studying in the field of educational psychology and not just applied linguistics. I beleive in this method, and I am happy to see that the authors of this text agree; it will make it much easier for me to convince the students to adopt this approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)