spre

SPRE in assignments | Andy Boon | March 5th, 2001

Regarding the questionnaire in the recent newsletter, here is my answer:

1. Situation: I am currently writing a TDA assignment

2. Problem: I really wanted to start with the purpose of the background, but it seemed more natural to begin with the general background to the assignment [i.e. Schema Theory and the reading process]

3. Response: I started with the background first.

4. Evaluation: It reads better and has a more natural progression. I couldn't have talked about the purpose of the assignment without the background paragraph.

I hope this helps!!!!

A very interesting newsletter!!  

From Gulliver Spencer  
(oops that is the other name- if you know what I mean!)

SPRE | James Hobbs | March 7th, 2001

A quick answer to the newsletter question about SPRE:

I don't find myself approaching texts with SPRE already in mind, although perhaps I should be more on the lookout for it, and for ways to exploit it. I often find that AFTER going through a text that I found easy to process I notice that it fits the SPRE pattern fairly closely. For my TDA assignment I compared two articles that, as it turns out, fit the SPRE pattern fairly closely. One of the comments on the feedback tape was that many of the examples I used from the text were decontextualized, and that I could have exploited the SPRE pattern to give context to the examples ("This is from the "P" section", this is from "R", etc.). Besides making my assignment easier to follow it would have saved me valuable words to use elsewhere; saying "This is from the S section" is much more concise than saying "This is from a section near the beginning in which he's talking about bla bla bla.........".

As for my own writing, I think I find myself subconsciously slipping into a SPRE pattern when it lends itself to the topic I'm discussing, but again it's more a case of noticing afterwards "Hey, this fits the SPRE pattern" rather than setting out with the explicit goal of writing an assignment that fits the pattern. In that sense I don't find SPRE at all constraining, but I do find it liberating in the sense it can give me confidence that the assignment I've just written is well structured. Of course a good assignment doesn't HAVE TO follow the SPRE pattern, and an assignment that is not of the "How to" variety might not lend itself to the SPRE pattern in any case, but I probably feel more sure of myself when I submit an assignment that I know conforms to a recognized pattern.

So in answer to the question "How conscious of the pattern are you?" I'd say that I recognize it when I run into it, but I don't consciously look for it, and I'm not always conscious of ways to exploit it to my advantage.

Best wishes,

James

(My "other name" would be "Barney Widwood", so I think I'm better off staying in ELT.)

For the love of SPRE | Vivian | March 7th, 2001

Echoing James comments- I 'use' SPRE as a post writing checking tool - rather like one uses grammar consciousness to check the validity of what one has just said. I'm not really sure though if I'm using it or it's using me!

I would like to widen this discussion and hear from any EFL teachers who use this pattern in their teaching; specifically, why they use it and their students feelings about its usefulness.

I use it for academic writing in IELTS preparation classes and now every time I ask my students how they will arrange their brainstorm, they all chirp "SPRE!" Taiwanese student's writing style appears to follow Kaplan's observation of Orientals "marked by what may be called an approach by indirection" It is in this respect that my students and I find it useful, and they appear to recognize its usefulness as a basic foundation to their writing.

I have also tried to use it to sensitize students to academic reading although this has been less successful since I find my students (and me!) spending too much time looking for the pattern, and given the time constraints of the IELTS test, this is probably a less useful application.

Viv (Percy Hayworth)

Opinions on SPRE | Pinkie | March 7th, 2001

Dear Julian, Sue and Vivian...

First, my opinion ... SPRE is a highly generalizable and almost universally valid model of "the structure of an investigation as reported in retrospect in academic writing" (very carefully chosen words, those!); but I think it's less effective as a model of the details of text structure.

Perhaps the ideas of "deep SPRE structure" and "surface SPRE structure" might be useful here: though please don't read too much into this! What I mean is that- in my experience- text structure rarely follows a simple S then P then R then E pattern: for example, we typically find blocks eliminated, or fused, or repeated, or cycling patterns, or hierarchical patterns, etc. etc. Often it may be difficult (even at the clause level) to distinguish S from P, or R from E.

As a model to be taught/explored in academic writing classes, I remain to be convinced of its value (though my students are mostly doctoral students and beyond, and Spanish: perhaps it may be useful with less experienced academic writers, and/or with less closely related culture/language groups). But certainly in my classes I think it's generally more fruitful to get students thinking about how to order their ideas well in more general "logical" (sorry!) terms, rather than to suggest to them that they should follow a simple template. For example: I think there's a widespread tendency for people to overdo the S, when it often makes more sense to launch into the P almost straight off. [This is part of my broader lack of faith in Swalesian-type "template" approaches to academic writing.]

Do I use SPRE myself? Not consciously. In general, and in line with what I say above, my feeling is that SPRE may be useful at the assignment-planning stage, and perhaps as a sort of thinking strategy for helping your ideas to become unstuck; but I suspect it may tend to be limiting rather than liberating at the writing stage proper.

However, I'm clearly not the average Aston MSc student in this regard: I mean that because of my job I obviously have much greater experience of academic writing than most people doing this course. People with less experience of academic writing, and of research practice in general, may find that SPRE is a useful "beginner's rule". (I hope this doesn't sound too arrogant: I know that I'm a beginner myself in many other respects, such as classroom management).

Hope this of some use to you all! Writing it has been interesting for me, and has got me wondering whether I could develop activities involving recognition of the SPRE functions, without worrying about order. D'you see what I mean?

Best wishes,

Pinkie
Spain

SPRE | Francesca Michalski | March 7th, 2001

I don't consciously look out for SPRE when reading texts although sometimes I notice the pattern as it appears - something I didn't do before the FND because I hadn't been aware of it. I frequently structure my assignments on a SPRE pattern; TDA was the first assignment where I found it not to be appropriate. As for teaching, Viv, I don't use SPRE, not being involved in EAP or any kind of writing where it would be helpful. However, if the situation came up, I wouldn't hesitate to tell students about it. Probably the most interesting part of this e-mail for most of you will be my porn name,

Francesca (alias Ulysses Wright)

Re: SPRE | Jonathan Clifton | March 7th, 2001

Hi to everyone I am never really conscious of SPRE when analyzing other people's articles. Rightly or wrongly I just tend to pick out what interest me. I've noticed that I have a tendency simply to pick out quotes that I find encapsulate the author's view. So in terms of "processing" I don't really use it. On the other hand what I found "strange" was that after having done A levels, a degree (in history) and even part of an MBA and various TEFL qualifications nobody had ever talked to me about SPRE, IMRO or any other discourse patterns. The TDA module was thus an eye opener in terms of how to write. This is something that you would have thought should be mentioned to all undergraduates NS and NNS alike but (in my experience) isn't. Now I am very conscious of using either SPRE or IMRO or whatever in my own writing.

Cheers to everybody,

Jonathan (Mildred Clarke- to my friends!!!!)

Re: SPRE | Andy Boon | March 8th, 2001

A question: For those of you that do not use SPRE, is it possible to identify a pattern in your assignment and categorize it??

Andy (a.k.a. Gulliver Spencer)

SPRE glorious SPRE | Chabudo | March 8th, 2001

As Viv (Danyal, Percy) pointed out, Taiwanese writing is often approached by indirection (Kaplan) and it was by this token that I introduced SPRE to a group of DHL managers in a writing course last year.

It seemed especially useful in helping them organize letters of complaint, promotions and press releases, and even report writing. Luckily, I was on FND (TDA unit) at the same time they were struggling with this class and 'sold' it to them much in the same way Julian did. I had them finish the story first, then find SPRE in a selection of advertisements I brought in, next a longer article, and finally by asking them to bring examples to class of the evidence of SPRE in their own internal reports, letters, etc.

I'd recorded their evaluation of SPRE from their learner diaries into my FND journal:

Jimmy:
I think it (SPRE) is very useful for me. Due to the culture difference between western and eastern, if I want to improve my English writing, I have to learn the rule.

Mike:
The SPRE is a good method to organize our writing. It can make the structure of our articles clear.

Sandy:
The SPRE gives me a concrete structure concept of reading and writing articles. I have a clearer idea about how to analyse my articles. Surely more practice is required for me in the future because sometimes I'm not sure which part it is.

You get the idea.

So, yes, since being introduced to SPRE, there's a nagging awareness at all times which seems to have the power to SPREad to others. Like foot and mouth disease. (2.0)

I also recall seeing Viv immediately launch into a 'SPRE moment' when he was reading over one of our study partners assignments a couple weeks ago (.) bet he'll take TDA when he finally pulls his foot out of the FND! (3.5)

Goldie: You mentioned in the workshop that instead of SPRE, we might want to say SFRE, since sometimes P is not really a problem, but rather a Focus. Comments?

Adios,

THE Bingo Cortez

Re: SPRE | Stephan Hegglin | March 9th, 2001

I was fascinated to analyze texts using the SPRE approach. However, I don't pay much attention to it in my daily reading. When it comes to reading for my assignments I am far more interested in the pattern of the texts. I find SPRE very effective when it comes to preparing my assignment proposals. It disciplines my thinking, driving me sometimes to sheer despair when it comes to classifying my ideas. On the other hand, the constraint this system imposes is very productive for the shaping of my research.

Best wishes,

Stephan

SPRE & IIC | Raymond Sheehan | March 10th, 2001

The SPRE structure encourages us to particularize our teaching context and to view the efficacy of our response within that particular context. One of the things that puzzled me more than a year ago was why anybody else would want to read about my very particular teaching context and find any value in it, since they had their own very particular contexts to deal with; similarly, what could I find of value in the detailing of teacher's methodological or genre report from a Japanese company when I was teaching young Arab learners in preparation for a college education in English. Was all of this writing-up of particular contexts "just academic" (in the BADDEST since of the word academic), I sometimes wondered? What use could it possibly be to anyone else besides me?

Part of the answer I found in an article in IIC called 'May I see your warrant please?' (Has somebody been enjoying Ben Jonson's Bartholomew Fair? Or a recent police drama?). It states

"We expect information transfer across educational contexts to be most effectively created by the reader, from richly contextualized, problematised and theoretical reports and interpretations, as they are resonant with the reader's own contextualized experience. The reader understands (what is important) in the new situation via an evaluation of (what is important in) his or her own situation(s)."

I think the main point here is that of resonance (and reader responsibility). We read something richly detailed, problematised and theorised that strikes a chord: recognition, empathy, been there and almost got the t-shirt. Across cultural and educational boundaries, we see commonality of sorts--despite all the particularities of our very specific contexts.

Just wondered, in support, or refutation, of this, if you had read any articles/books/CP research recently that resonated with you? It is up to the reader, not the writer, to make the connections between the writer's described situation and the reader's lived one. Did you read a piece of research and say, "Yes, yes, yes. That's exactly it." Or does most qualitative research leave you saying "So what?" Does action research matter to anybody else apart from the person doing it (and, at best, if they deign to notice it, the institution s/he works in)?

Raymond/UAE

Re: SPRE & IIC | Jerry Talandis Jr. | March 11th, 2001

Raymond,

You asked if any of us had read any resonating research...

I read two articles pertaining to my MET assignment that have really influenced me in practical and theoretical ways. Both are accessible via the net:

An article by Tim Murphy and Tom Kenney, two EFL professors in Nagoya, Japan, about "Intensifying practice and noticing through videoing conversations for self-evaluation (VCSE)." This article explains a technique for videotaping your students talking in class, having them create a transcript, and then using their transcripts for language study.

This is an article along the same lines as above written by Duane Kindt of Nanzan University in Nagoya. It's called "Turning up the heat: energizing conversation with cassette recorders."

For my assignment I adapted Kindt's technique for my teaching situation. It worked great! Now I'm planning to incorporate it into my syllabus next year. I'm looking forward to collecting TONS of data that I can then use on the rest of this course.

Check these articles out if you are interested in getting your students to talk more in class and increase their language awareness.

Jerry

Re: SPRE & IIC | Maria Leedham | March 11th, 2001

Dear Raymond and everyone else,

I'm just beginning the MSc so SPRE is all very new and the readings are fresh. I think Raymond is right in that the reader finds a common ground in other people's research, even if the situation is very different.

Large or small classes, different ages and nationalities, teaching styles, etc mean it would be extremely UNlikely that you would read a qualitative piece of research and think yes, that's my exact situation too. However problems can still be similar, and the responses carried out can strike a chord with s/o from a very different background.

The research additionally spurs the reader on to do his or her own, whether formal and written-up, or small-scale "I'll try that diary technique of next week and see what happens". Most articles encourage me to try out new things in my own classes. The only times I've thought "so what?" are when the response seems obvious and minimal and barely worth writing into an article. I can't think of instances of this off-hand, only that some articles in journals seem to be written more from that "I want to be in print" rationale than "I've got something new to say"!

Maria Leedham

Oxford, UK

 

Archive Categories