DATA COMMENTARY.

The chapter by Swales & Feak (1994) highlights important technical considerations that need to be considered in the way language is used when writing for academic purposes. Since I am well-acquainted with these observations, I wish to divert my attention and write a few basic sentences on the equally important role of rhetoric in writing, since both the language we use, as well as the way we use language in our academic writing, go hand in hand. Effective rhetoric embodies three fundamental elements: logos, pathos, and ethos (principles that can be applied as easily to writing as to speaking). The first of these ancient Greek rhetorical insights is the need for logos - the way we write (and essentially argue) in our academic writing should be logical and reflect a comfortable grasp of the knowledge we are dealing with. The second, pathos, alludes to the need for our reasoning to appeal to the emotions and values of our audience (the reader). The third and final principle is the need to establish ethos - to convince the audience that you (the writer) are trustworthy because you are not only knowledgeable, but have sincere ethical motives in the reason for your enquiry. As such, rhetoric therefore concerns itself with persuading our audience (the reader), and this should be the aim of all good - and effective - academic writing.

OH BLESSED e-RESEARCH

The chapter by Anderson & Kanuka (2003) – ‘The Literature Review Process in e-Research’ – has once again reminded me how miraculous these last few years have been! When I was in school in the early to mid- 80’s we used Commodore computers that – in hindsight – couldn’t do much (though they were bulky like small refrigerators)! The first ever computer I owned was in 1995 and the Internet had just happened! Windows 95 was revolutionary, and Microsoft still had credibility. I remember the first time I surfed the Internet. I was amazed! I spent hours accessing information ranging from interviews with famous musicians to the latest news (these lengthy trips through Cyberspace would eventually prove costly though, with me working through a basic dial-up). Today I cannot believe how accessible information has become. As much as I still crave the lonely cabin in the misty mountains, I cannot deny that I have a love affair with the Internet as well. Hence, a lonely cabin in the misty mountains with a modem seems even more appealing to me now. The authors mention a constant increase in both the quality and quantity of both formal and informal sources of information on the Internet (p.54). If the Web continues to develop at this pace, I doubt I will ever be able to imagine where we will be 15 years from now. Needless to say, today the Internet is THE SINGLE MOST INVALUABLE TOOL AVAILABLE FOR THOROUGH ACADEMIC RESEARCH (with the exception of the human brain, of course)!

THOUGHTS ON “AN ACADEMIC APPROACH TO WRITING” II (SWALES)

I wish to continue my previous blog post relating to the chapter by Swales. While I feel that some of the questions raised there were pertinent, I now choose to turn my attention to a topic that may indeed cause some to accuse me of frivolity and ‘splitting hairs’. I wonder why Swales has chosen to name the chapter “AN Academic Approach . . .?” Why use the vowel-based indefinite article “AN” (as opposed to the more resolute and definite form “the”)? For instance, in the Purdue OWL online guide dealing with the definite and indefinite articles we read: “‘A’ and ‘an’ signal that the noun modified is indefinite, referring to any member of a group”
(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/).
If the academic approach he is referring to is projected in a non-specific way, does this not hint that there are perhaps other academic approaches to academic writing as well? Would this not contradict what Swales writes in specified terms so indicative of the absolute, essential ‘standard’ within which both aspirant and experienced writers are compelled to work? For instance, on the second last page of the chapter, Swales writes: “Now that you are familiar with the most important characteristics of academic writing . . .” (p.31). Of course, I prefer Swales’ use of the indefinite article in the title of this chapter, and I say so for good reason. As stated in my previous blog relating to Swales, some universities do in fact have their own standards for what constitutes academic English. It would be interesting to research how broad the ‘standard’ of Academic English really is. In other words, viewing the total configuration of ‘varieties of standard’ (or standards) in order to better understand the multifaceted nature of English (and Academic English writing) around the world. After all, this has always been the hallmark of ‘English’ . . . varieties are accommodated and appreciated (as opposed to, for instance, the institutionally-controlled French language). Does this reality in and of itself not heighten the relevance of the questions I posed in my first blog on Swales?

THESIS TOPIC: The Practical Introduction of a Critical Pedagogical Framework to a Secondary EFL Teacher Training Course.

Though I have not officially decided upon a definite topic, I have narrowed down the scope of my thought significantly with regards to the broad choice of a research topic. In my thesis I wish to investigate the practical introduction of a critical pedagogical framework to a secondary EFL teacher training course. Consequently, it would benefit my future enterprise if I focus my writing during this course on exploring the theme of critical pedagogy, and more specifically, critical pedagogy in context to formal teacher education. Broadly stated in question form, the motivation of my research project for this course reads as follows: ‘Has the teaching of a critical approach to pedagogy been conducted in secondary teacher education programs, specifically in Korea?’; ‘What are the dominant secondary Korean EFL teacher perceptions of critical pedagogy?’, and ‘What would be required to introduce a critical pedagogical framework to a local secondary teacher training course?’ Of course, answering the question ‘What is critical pedagogy?’ is contextually implicit in developing the previous three questions. My research will be a multi-approach study, and it is my hope that this bricolage will enable me to expose the work at hand, as well as provide for an efficient and effective analysis, and application, of the information uncovered. Therefore, some of the subtopics included will be:

A definition of critical pedagogy.

The history of critical pedagogy in secondary teacher education programs in Korea.

A survey of dominant perceptions of critical pedagogy among secondary Korean EFL teachers.

A strategy for introducing a critical pedagogical approach to a local secondary EFL teacher training course.

Examples of practical resources used in introducing a critical pedagogical approach to a local secondary EFL teacher training course – both tied to the curriculum and extra-curricular in nature.

CITING SOURCES AND THE APA GUIDE.

Throughout my formal education it was repeatedly emphasized to me to provide detailed citations and references within the texts I wrote. This was certainly related to the dominant theoretical nature of the studies concerned. Consequently, I’m always mindful to be as detailed and precise in the citations I provide. However, I have experienced a hurdle in the time I’ve spent at Woosong University. Previously I was taught to use the more British Harvard reference and citation system – consequently I am well-versed in it. Yet, at Woosong we use the more popular APA style of reference and citation. The difference in formatting has demanded a certain degree of readjusting on my part. Though both systems are forms of parenthetical referencing, each has its own particular order for the way the citation and referencing information is arranged. For this reason the APA guide is a useful manual since it provides an easy-to-use, on the spot manual for the reference and citation method required for studies at Woosong.

PRECIOUS SNOW OUTSIDE THE OFFICE

THOUGHTS ON "AN APPROACH TO ACADEMIC WRITING" (SWALES).

The article by Swales provides a good overview of several aspects related to academic writing. Though I naturally use language of a more formal nature (even in the non-academic writing I do), this can probably be attributed, in no small part, to my schooling and upbringing during childhood. Personally, I find this style attractive since it provides the text with both a measure of consistency, and it denotes a measure of respect for the reader. However, this is only my perception!!! Others may choose to disagree with my assessment of the style of English academic writing. Consequently, I have often wondered why it would be regarded unacceptable for someone to write an academic text in Bronx ghetto-style English. Is it perhaps because we associate (either consciously or unconsciously) academic style English with the notion that the English of Harvard and Oxford is good ‘well-educated’ and cultured English after all? What then if the writer of the text was indeed well-read, intelligent, and educated? Why should it be wrong for her to write in a "localized" style of language that most represents who she is, both as a person and a researcher? Is there not the danger that a standardized form of academic writing (itself a product of the phantom idea of Standardized English) may disseminate unfair advantages for some (native speakers of English) over others (non-native speakers of English)? I’m obviously considering the implication a greater sensitivity towards ‘World Englishes’ may hold for the future of standardized styles of academic English, and also fully aware that some universities in fact have their own standards for academic English.

I am not campaigning. I merely wonder about this. I do not imagine myself to possess an answer. What do you think?

I am aware that a style of academic writing known as the auto-ethnography allows for a qualified amount of informal language to be used in the academic text. However, such language is used to create autobiographical context; not convey academic concept.