1. Preparing Future Academics (PFA) Portfolio
CLAIM 1 – Choose appropriate teaching strategies to meet particular student needs and
context.
The main learning outcome was to enable student to analyse the difference between formal and
informal language. The original task used a paper-based activity (see attached below). While the
original task was perfectly adequate I sensed at this late stage in the term there was a sense of group
burn-out. A main factor causing this was the upcoming assignments and exam. Based on my teaching
experience I realized that if I wanted them to obtain core knowledge from the lesson I would have to
create a more engaging way of distinguishing between formal and informal language. I quickly
decided to use the technique of group collaboration and brainstorming to broach the concept. By
implementing a social group discussion regarding writing difficulties this allowed students to be heard
and to hear others similar experience with academic English. I went around the room asking each
student to reflect on their greatest difficulty in writing academic English. Each student spoke and as
they did the class began to hear commonalities amongst their classmates. The first part of the task
illustrated to the students that their writing constraints were similar to those of their classmates and
therefore, they were not alone in their difficulties. Furthermore, to co-construct (Vygotsky, 1962)
language starting from a point of social interaction of the knowledge and extending to create
knowledge that is employed in a practical manner (Habermas, 1971) allowed for a more relevant
exercise of an abstract concept.
Next, I then used the difficulties they had just vocalized as a means to underline differences in
academic language. I employed a multimodal method of understanding, not only on a target level but
on a personal level, the differences in formal and informal academic language. Moreover,
acknowledging Entwistle and Smith‘s (2002) viewpoint that there is a difference between ‘target
understanding’ and ‘personal understanding’ I chose to create a new task that would be relevant and
engaging. Their theory argues that for the student there is a difference between understanding
concepts and being able to apply them in practice. This is particularly relevant to MA TESOL
international students. For while they are somewhat proficient in English, they lack the practical
understanding of the UK academic culture and context. I am highlighting the UK academic culture
and context as it varies from that of the Chinese and even the North American academic culture. Thus,
language is used differently in different cultural contexts. Lecturing to students in various
international settings afforded me an opportunity to experience the socio-cultural difference in
language and writing of students. It also allowed me to understand the similarities across cultures.
One key similarity was the students extensive use of modern technology such as cell phones. Thus, I
had a moment of epiphany.

2. Students use texting constantly therefore, it is a tool that is relevant to their environment. I choose to
first have students ‘notice the gap’ between formal and informal language (Marton, F., Hounsell, D. &
Entwistle, 1997; Schmidt, 2001). However, I felt I had to first personalize the abstractness of the
linguistic concepts. To do this I used two pedagogical approaches often employed in language
teaching; first the concept of group collaboration in writing (Rose, H., 2009) which included oral and
writing brainstorming. Second, I used a multi-modal approach to facilitate a greater learning
experience (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Finally, at the end of the lesson I also included the use of peer
review and collaboration.
Procedure:
Following the group discussion instead of introducing a worksheet on academic writing, I asked each
student to take out his or her mobile phone. Next, I instructed them to use casual language and text a
friend in the class one or two sentences about their writing difficulties. For the few students without
cell phones I asked them to write on paper as if they were texting. After this they sent the texts
message to their friend in the class. The next step was to have the student who received the text to
translate the sentence from informal sentence structures into formal academic writing. The final step
was the reading aloud to the class of the old sentence followed by the newly constructed sentence (see
attached evidence 1). This process contained the following pedagogical elements; the sentences had
relevance to the student, using the technology engaged them, allowing to hear as well as see the
difference in words and used facilitated a greater comprehension, the shared group experience gave a
feeling of a common problem to overcome, and more than one learning style was accessed.
Conclusion
This task is in line with the UK Professional Standards Framework by “demonstrating an
understanding of the student learning experience through engagement such as the ability to engage in
practices related to those areas of activity and research” (Fry & Ketteridge, 2003, p. 470). While this
is not a strategy that could be implemented on a daily basis, it is one method in overcoming common
group difficulties. The class size is 21 therefore this is not for implementation in a lecture but rather is
useful in a seminar context. This process contained the following pedagogical elements; the sentences
had relevance to the student, using the technology engaged them, allowing to hear as well as see the
difference in words used facilitated a greater comprehension, the shared group experience gave a
feeling of a common problem to overcome, and more than one learning style was accessed (see
evidence 2). If I were to do this again I would write down particular problems on the board to provide
an opportunity not just for oral communication but also reading and the taking of notes aids in
remembering and acquiring the content.

3. Centre for English Language Teaching
ELS - Educational Studies
Session 6: Style in Academic Writing
Aims:
• Group collaboration with sentence structure
• Engaging learning through multimodal use and relevant personal problem solving
Session Outcomes:
• Identify the differences between formal academic sentence construction and informal
sentence construction
• Peer review other students work for errors
• Synthesize and implement conceptual vocabulary
Original Task 1:
1. Characteristics of academic style
There is a considerable difference between informal spoken and formal written academic English.
Consider the following two extracts and pick out the characteristics of the written academic style
which distinguish it from the informal spoken style.
A
Well, it used to be said that reading in a second language was so similar to reading in a first
language that it was just a slower version of the same thing. Are there two parallel processes
involved or are they the same processes for reading in first and second languages? For sure, there
are similarities between the two but there are a lot of differences as well. And, because we can’t see
what’s going on inside students’ heads when they read, we teachers have to make even more effort
to work out the process and to help our students understand that process too.
B

4. Although reading in the L1 shares numerous important basic elements with reading in a second or
foreign language, the processes also differ greatly. Intriguing questions involve whether there are
two parallel cognitive processes at work, or whether there are processing strategies that
accommodate both first and second languages. Despite these interests, second language research on
reading, is frequently dismissed as being marginal and derivative from first language reading.
Reading in a second language, for example, was often viewed as merely a slower version of doing
the same task in the native language. Such comparisons, however, imply that second language tasks
are mapping tasks – that is replacing one mode of behaviour with another. While it is true that the
L1 and L2 reading process have similarities, it is also important to recognize that many factors
come into play, which in turn make second language reading a phenomenon unto itself. Despite the
similarities between reading in an L1 and reading in an L2, a number of complex variables make the
process of L1 different from L2. As the reading process is essentially "unobservable", teachers need
to make significant efforts in the classroom to understand their students' reading behaviour and be
able to help students understand such behaviour as well. It is, therefore, important that teachers
know as much as possible about the cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds of their
readers since many of these factors influence reading in an L2 context.
MODIFICATION TO Task 1: (evidence 1)
TASK 1 – Part A
TEACHER: Ask the students to brainstorm the differences between academic and non-academic
language. Elicit from the students answers.
TEACHER: Ask students what the difference between undergraduate and graduate level in
university. Discuss differences as a group.
TEACHER: Ask each student to reflect about his or her greatest difficulty with academic English
then individually have each students discuss their difficulties. As this occurs the class will began to
hear commonalities amongst their classmates.
TEACHER: After students’ description of their problem give quick advice to aid overcoming his or
her problem.
TASK 1 - Part B
Following the discussion on English difficulties the teacher instructs each student to take out his or
her mobile phone. NOTE -(If they do not have a mobile phone, they can use a piece of paper.) Make
sure everyone has a partner.

5. Explain to the students using casual language and to text a friend in the class one or two sentences
regarding their writing difficulty.
Emphasize the purpose is to write as if they were texting. Make sure the students writing on paper do
the same.
Then they send the texts message to another member of the class.
Task 3:
Have the students who received the text to change the sentence into formal academic language as if
they are writing an essay.
Task 4:
The final step is to ask each student to read out the old sentence followed by the new sentence. (If
need be help with adjusting either grammatical errors or vocabulary mismatches.)
Most likely reading all the sentences might be too time-consuming however, randomly selecting
students is a useful way to manage the class. This can lead into instruction of grammar, sentence
structure, academic vocabulary or transition sentences.
Gather examples and send to the students by e-mail so that they can reflect on the differences.
Assessment:
1) Ask each student to reflect on the process. Did they like it? What would they change?
2) Ask them to write a poorly constructed sentence for use in a mini-quiz at the end of the term.
They should also write a “correct version”(answer) of the same sentence.
CAT – Reflective Questionnaire: (evidence 2)
1) Think about the previous lesson where the teacher asked you to use your mobile phone
to write a sentence. How did you feel doing this activity?
2) How did you feel after this activity?

6. 3) Do you feel it helped your understanding of formal and informal language (give a score
out of 10) __________?
4) How could this lesson be improved?
5) Did the teacher give enough a) feedback (score 1-10)_____ b) guidance (score of 1-10)
______ c) instruction (score 1-10)
References
Cope, B. &. Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: The beginning of an idea. In B. C. Kalantzis,
Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). London: Routledge.
Entwistle, N.J., & Smith, C. A., (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding:mapping
influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology
Fry, H. & Ketteridge, S. (2003). ‘Teaching portfolios’, in H. Fry, S.W. Ketteridge and S. Marshall
(eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice
(pp. 242-252), London: Routledge.
Marton, F. Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, (1997). The Experience of Learning, Scottish Academic Press,
Edniburgh.
Rose, H., (2009). EAP 1: Forging collaborative learning in a student-centered curriculum. In
College of Business BBL (Ed.) Integrating English Education and Business Studies. Rikkyo
University, Japan. (retrieved online May, 18, 2011)
http://rikkyo.academia.edu/HeathRose/Papers/431610/EAP_1_Forging_collaborative_learning_in_a_
student-centered_curriculum )
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

7. Preparing Future Academics (PFA) Portfolio
CLAIM 2 – Construct session plans including learning outcomes, content and feedback
mechanisms.
Structuring MA Social Policy Language Support module (Two Term module)
Designing and delivering this three-term session module provided me with an opportunity to explore
specific measurable learning outcomes based on active verbs and context (Clegg, K., 2010, in a
lecture). The original overall session plans for the term module was based on content vocabulary,
reading strategies, writing needs and some speaking skills. I created the session plan to include
materials from the course content (evidence 3). This allowed students to gain academic language
skills through accessing course content. The relevance of the materials created engagement with the
language task and allowed them to use prior knowledge to construct meaning (Ivanic, Clark,
Rimmershaw, 2000). Furthermore, after the first term I implemented formative assessment and
reflective practices within the course structure (Nicol, D.J., MacFarlane-Dick, D., 2006).
Overall, based on the evidence gathered from the student evaluations the course provided engaging
and meaningful tasks and opportunities to allow students to practice their academic language (see

8. attached evidence 4). This course was initially designed, using relevant content rather than just
generic EAP skills activities. The students’ needs were generally similar thus allowing me to tailor the
course to the suit the group needs. I designed the session plans to revolve around reading, writing, and
speaking skills with conceptual vocabulary being reviewed weekly. I tried to avoid general topics to
academic reading and writing and instead employ a systematic approach to enable the students to
better comprehend the concepts, skills, strategies and structures that varied which were specific to
their department (Wisek, 1998). Moreover, I included the use of their formative practice essay in the
lessons on academic writing and essay organization.
However, the shortness of the length of the term (only 9 sessions) prohibited this module to be
completely effective. The conceptual vocabulary had to be removed as a learning outcome due to the
lack of time. In the spring term I incorporated specific lesson aims and measurable learning outcomes.
I developed more of an overview that I used to structure lessons more succinctly. Being asked to
continue teaching the students I wanted to assess the students needs so at the beginning of the spring
term I implemented a questionnaire regarding the class content and structure. The feedback was
helpful and will be discussed further under the assessment section. The information gleaned from this
process highlighted a missing need from more specific learning outcomes based on principles of
critical reading, writing practice and speaking practice. I revamped the learning outcomes to be more
specific and not just general aims (De Corte, 2000).
The spring term session plan I created was also more focused. After attending the structuring and
design course I was able to focus on learning outcomes that are measurable. Also giving them
opportunity to get feedback from the teacher regarding their writing became an important change to
the session design. In the class I allowed for reading, writing and speaking. I also wanted to provide
more practice and feedback on formative written tasks. However, I did not want to overload them
with too much extra work. Therefore, I designated 20 minutes at the end of class for reflective
writing. These weekly reflective writings were marked for grammatical, language and structure errors.
The following lesson I gave oral and written feedback regarding the reflections. Furthermore, I used
the students’ reflections to aid in attending to needs that might have been overlooked. This new
component to the session plan allowed for immediate reflection on content while at the same time
facilitating regular writing practice. The reflection questions are based on the content of the lesson
and ask for critical analysis of language and content issues.

9. In line with the Professional Standards Framework my session plans now reflected the use of core
knowledge to engage in practices related to their areas of activity. The learning outcomes and tasks
pushed the students to assess and critically analyse journal articles and types of evidence used in
Social Policy which will later be applied to their dissertation.
(Evidence 3)

10. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY & SOCIAL WORK
Module Title: Social Policy Academic Language and Content Lectures
Module Convenor: Dr John Hudson
Module Tutor: Nettie Boivin
Duration of Module: One Term (autumn)
Students: MA in Social Policy
MRes Social Policy
MA in Comparative and International Social Policy
Option for MPhil/PhD Social Policy
Weekly Programme: One weekly Wednesday morning lecture
Assessment: One practice essay of not more than 3,500 words to be handed in on
Wednesday of Week 6 of the autumn term.
This is a non-assessed essay designed to provide formative, rather
than summative, feedback.
Module Objectives:
 to facilitate the introduction of key concepts and theories employed in the ‘policy analysis’
seminar
 to synthesize the reading of conceptual knowledge and apply it to the writing of social policy
issues
Module Outcomes:
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
 to assess and synthesize conceptual vocabularies and theories social and international
comparative policies
 to effectively implement and acquire conventionally accepted academic written and spoken
discourse
 to critically analyze and assess readings, articles and other texts
 to construct sophisticated arguments/stances housed within the context and structure of the
social policy
Module Format:
The module consists of a weekly 2-hour lecture. The weekly lectures cover related conceptual
terminology and key theories from the ‘policy analysis and context’ modules. The lectures will
consist of four distinct components; academic vocabulary and conceptual terms, critical reading
analysis, academic writing including stance, context, structure and audience, and
seminar/presentation for the academic field.
The lectures will include weekly introductions to key conceptual vocabulary in preparation for the
Friday ‘policy analysis’ lecture. Furthermore, there will be review of previous terms as well as
academic vocabulary.

11. Candidates will discover ‘how to’ read and analysis critically and efficiently in preparation for the later
literature review. Reading genres and styles will be investigated. Moreover, accessing critical reading
through strategic methods will be covered.
Introduction to the framework of UK academic writing style which include such factors as;
stance/argument, context and structure, genre/audience, and design of succinct thesis statements will
be facilitated. The more theoretically driven ‘policy analysis’ component forms the ostensible focus of
the assessment – the practice essay questions ask candidates to engage directly with the theories
outlined.
The lectures will include mini-presentations and seminar style discussions, along with the
understanding effective academic presentation styles.
Key Reading
Handouts and textbook passages will be used in class.
Module Website
This module has its own dedicated section of the Yorkshare VLE.
This will be updated each week and will carry copies of each week’s lecture slides plus links to useful
resources and materials.
ASSESSMENT
Assessed Essay
Students are required to complete one piece of work for this module. Answer one question, in no
more than 3,500 words to be submitted to the tutor by the deadline indicated. It is not assessed and is
designed to provide some broad feedback. Answer one of the following questions in no more than
3,500 words, and your essay to your tutor by week 6 of the autumn term:
1. Does employment policy in the UK support the unemployed or police them?
2. Does the UK have a post-Fordist welfare state?
3. Another question agreed with one of the module convenors
Week-by-Week
1. Social Policy Context Lectures (10.15-approx 12.15)
Wk Date Topic
2 20rd October Introduction- Learning the Language of Academic Culture!
3 27th October Conceptual vocabulary, text analysis, and understanding audience
for writing
4 3rd November Academic and conceptual vocabulary review, journal structure and
format, and organizing written context and structure
5 10th November Review of conceptual vocabulary and theories, how to construct
written stance/viewpoint/argument and thesis statements
6 17th November Reading for position, written genre and audience,
7 24th November effective seminar techniques, paraphrasing versus plagiarism
8 1st December Effective presentation skills, written feedback

12. 9 8th December Review of vocabulary and concepts, disagreeing in a seminar,
reviewing thesis and stance in reading and writing
10 15th December Presentation and seminar practice sessions, essay assistance,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY & SOCIAL WORK
Module Title: Social Policy Academic Language and Content Lectures
Module Convenor: Dr John Hudson
Module Tutor: Nettie Boivin
Duration of Module: Term Two (Spring)
Students: MA in Social Policy
MRes Social Policy
MA in Comparative and International Social Policy
Option for MPhil/PhD Social Policy
Weekly Programme: One weekly Wednesday morning lecture
Assessment: Reflective learning logs and needs assessments designed to provide
formative, rather than summative, feedback.
Module Objectives:
 Comprehension of the structures and approaches needed for dissertation writing
 To analyse journal articles for various theories, writing signposts, and methodological
approaches
 to explore some of the key academic structures, contexts and genres used in the social policy
department
Module Outcomes:
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
 to comprehend and use effectively conventionally accepted academic written and spoken
discourse
 to be able to critically analyze and assess readings, articles and other texts
 to construct sophisticated arguments/stances housed within the context and structure of the
social policy
Module Format:
The module consists of a weekly 2 hour lecture. The weekly lecture covers writing and academic
presentation, and research skills. Organizing for effective presentations, use of proper presentation
vocabulary as well as differences in both listening and speaking to presentation and seminars.

13. Candidates will discover ‘how to’ read and analysis critically and efficiently in preparation for the later
literature review. Reading genres and styles will be investigated. Moreover, accessing critical reading
through strategic methods will be covered.
The lectures will include mini-presentations and seminar style discussions, along with the
understanding effective academic presentation styles.
Key Reading
Handouts and textbook passages will be used in class.
Module Website
This module has its own dedicated section of the Yorkshare VLE.
This will be updated each week and will carry copies of each week’s lecture slides plus links to useful
resources and materials.
ASSESSMENT
Assessed Reflective Critical Analysis Papers
Week-by-Week
1. Social Policy Context Lectures (10.15-approx 12.15)
Wk Date Topic
2 19th January Review – Needs Analysis for this Term
3 26th October Differences between vocabulary and seminars. Understanding
audience for presentations and seminars-
Understanding the question
4 2nd February Journal structure and format, and organizing written paragraphs
and structure- How to outline for a presentation
5 9th February Preparing to lead a seminar. Review of how to construct written
stance/viewpoint/argument and thesis statements (using the essay
questions)
6 16th February Reading for viewpoint- How to present a viewpoint in presentations-
giving mini-presentations
7 23rd February Effective seminar techniques, review of paraphrasing versus
plagiarism
8 2nd March Giving Effective presentation skills –Outlines of essays
9 9th March Presentation and seminar practice sessions, essay assistance.
10 16th March Only if needed
(Evidence 4)
Needs Assessment:

14. 1) What area do you most feel you need to work on
AREA IMPORTANCE (write 1-10 in the space
below) 1= not important 10= important
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Listening
Seminar Discussions
Presentations
Other
2) Would you like more small assessed homework tasks?
3) If so, for what skill (reading, writing, listening, speaking)?
4) What kinds of activities would you like to do?
5) Are you having difficulty with course vocabulary, theories or concepts?
6) Are you having trouble with seminars

15. References
Clegg, K. (2010) In Structuring and Designing Session Plans (Seminar December, 2010).
De Corte (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice. Learning and
Instruction,10, 249-266.
Ivanic, R.,Clark,R., and Rimmershaw, R., (2000). What am I supposed to make of this? The
messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments, in: M.R. Lea and B. Stierer, (Eds)
Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts (Buckingham, SHRE/Open University Press).
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2), 199-218
Wiske, M.S., (1998). What is teaching for understanding? In M.S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for
understanding: linking researchwith practice(pp. 61-85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.