Faculty Publications and Conference Presentations

Collaborative writing skills are crucial to primary students, yet the abrupt shift to synchronous online teaching has perplexed many English teachers in my school, as they struggled to find effective ways to teach writing in online settings. Using various platforms and video-conferencing tools, I investigated whether a novel e-process approach can boost students’ writing quality and foster their collaboration skills during two rounds of multi-modal collaborative writing. Writing quality is determined through assigning a composite score in content, grammar and organization aspects, whilst collaboration skill is measured in terms of equality and mutuality during students’ interactions. Teachers’ opinions on the above are also solicited. The analysis revealed that students were generally eager to produce writings with ample ideas and few mistakes. The better-able students were more competent in maintaining elaborated verbal exchanges, though some appeared to dominate the discussion, whilst the less-able ones apparently lacked the language to interact with peers. Teachers’ observations also confirmed the analysis of writings and video recordings. The findings provided initial evidence to suggest that the novel pedagogy is effective in boosting students’ writing quality, yet explicit guidance on the collaborative process is indispensable. This study is limited in its low generalizability to younger cohorts. 

Short Descriptions

Aim Building Business English Students’ Confidence in Using English is a small corpus-based project aiming at, as the title suggests, helping business students become even more confident and effective communicators. Rationale Using a linguistic approach, students work on various subjects, including syntax, semantics, and sounds, with authentic materials taken from their coursebooks. In this way, students will kill two birds with one stone, or rather, engage in a win-win situation because they can learn not only language skills, but also revise their subject knowledge. Even though Business students in general are more able students when it comes to communication skills, they may still benefit from working on topics such as the end-weight principle and parallelism under syntax; hyponyms and hypernyms under semantics; English stress rules such as rules governing stress falling on the penultimate syllable or ante-penultimate syllable under sounds or phonology.

Possible Benefits

Further Research The materials will be tried and tested. If the project, in particular, the materials, receives positive feedback, other subjects such as Finance, Marketing, and Information Systems could be examined using this approach.

Deliverables

Deliverables Student helpers/interns were hired to assist in developing materials for this project. With some basic training in corpus linguistics and using AntConc, a tool for analyzing text, student helpers/interns built a corpus focusing on Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and Accounting with a size of over 740,000 words, and created learning materials addressing syntax, semantics, and sounds and the first draft of materials have been uploaded onto Lumi Syntax: https://app.lumi.education/run/u6z-39 Semantics: https://app.Lumi.education/run/xXRrDm Sounds: https://app.Lumi.education/run/iGLZ1U A document about FAQ has been created by a student helper/intern as well FAQ.docx.

T&F Pronunciation Project- Self-directed Learning Pathways

Project Title

Development and design of self-directed pronunciation learning pathways in an intelligibility-based approach

Project Members
Thomas Chan (Leader), Venus Kam and Mansurbek Kushnazarov

Introduction

We have designed the online pronunciation learning pathways to provide Hong Kong university students with self-accessed tools and guidance to enhance their English pronunciation intelligibility. Grounded in research demonstrating the importance of intelligible pronunciation for successful communication over native-like accent reproduction (Levis, 2005), the learning pathways adopt a scaffolded approach that supplements targeted instruction of problematic features for Cantonese speakers with rich and interactive listening and speaking exercises.

Beginning with individual speech sounds and segmentals, the learning pathways gradually build students' pronunciation skills through phrases, sentences, and longer stretches of discourse featuring diverse English accents. Audiovisual technology like speech recognition and instant feedback is utilized to optimize students' practice and learning experience.

The goal is to enable students to progress from an initial to an intelligible level of pronunciation competence that will allow them to communicate clearly and confidently in a variety of academic and professional contexts. It is hoped that the learning pathways could ultimately help foster students’ autonomy in learning and facilitate their success in improving their spoken English communication skills at their own pace according to their needs.

Please click the link below to learn how the project team adopted an intelligibility-based approach in developing and designing the pronunciation learning pathways:

2023 Summer DPS_Pronunciation Project Self-directed Learning Pathways.pdf

Distinguishing PD from CLE Scholarship Series - 8.11.22.docx

Engagement in Business Communication 

Engaging and connecting with stakeholders to build goodwill is seen as vital to communicating effectively in business communication.  Leading business communication textbooks highlight a number of strategies which may be used to achieve this.  For example, Shwom and Snyder (2019, pp. 126-127) in Business Communication Polishing Your Professional Presence advise when composing business messages one should adopt a “you” perspective.  This is where writers/speakers compose messages which consider the recipients viewpoint and communicate audience benefits.  Likewise,  Thill and Bovée (2017, pp. 8-9) in Excellence in Business Communication advocate a “you” attitude in business messages, explaining that this is an “An audience-centered approach involves understanding and respecting the members of your audience and making every effort to get your message across in a way that is meaningful to them”.  While these guidelines offer invaluable advice, nonetheless, they appear to reflect Mautner’s (2017, p. 612) observation that business discourse beyond linguistic disciplines is often “couched in ‘macro’ terms, looking at broad themes” and that it is also important to examine such themes in discourse at a “micro” level by exploring specific linguistic devices used in their expression.   

In response the present study aims to examine the “you” perspective or attitude in business writing through a discourse analytic approach.  More specifically, engagement markers proposed in Hyland’s (2005) stance and engagement model are investigated in a corpus of 100 U.S. CEO’s letter to shareholders.  Hyland (2005) proposes five explicit language features with which writers intrude into the discourse to directly connect with readers: 

1. Reader pronouns are the simplest and the most fundamental way that the audience is brought into the text by the author and their presence acknowledged.  They are categorised into three types: inclusive pronouns (e.g., we, our); second person pronouns (e.g., you, your); and the generic or impersonal ‘one’.   

2. Directives are used to instruct or obligate readers to either perform or not perform physical or mental actions.    Three types of directives: imperatives, modals of obligation and predicative adjectives expressing the writer’s judgement of necessity or importance.     

3. Appeals to shared knowledge prompt readers to recognise a claim as universal or commonly accepted.   

4. Questions invites readers to an area or issue, where a response or viewpoint can then be offered by the writer.  

5. Personal asides are possibly the most deliberate and overt expression of engagement.  They denote interruptions into the ongoing discourse in order for the author to offer a brief comment that is largely interpersonal in character.  These are comments inserted “mid-flow” of the on-going discourse with hyphens, dashes or parentheses.   

Summary of results 

                                           Raw freq.       Per 1000 words       % of total 

Reader pronouns               622                 3.33                          70.7 

Directives                           94                   0.50                          10.7 

Shared Knowledge            4                     0.02                          0.5 

Asides                               136                  0.73                          15.5 

Questions                          24                   0.13                           2.7 

Total                                  880                 4.71                           100 

The table above provides a summary of the frequencies of the different engagement markers in the shareholders’ letters.  There is a total of 880 occurrences which is equivalent to a normalised frequency of 4.74 signals per 1000 words.  To put this density of engagement markers into perspective within the field of engagement and metadiscourse research, Hyland (2005) reported 5.9/1000 words in his study of published academic research articles across eight academic disciplines; Lafuente-Millán (2014) uncovered 2.45/1000 words in their corpus of English and Spanish business management articles; and Mur-Dueñas (2008) found 1.59/1000 words in a corpus also comprised of business management research articles in English and Spanish.    

Within the sub-categories, reader pronouns are the most frequently used engagement feature in the corpus.  At 3.33/1000 words, it constitutes 70.7% of all engagement resources and it is nearly used five times as much as asides which are the second highest sub-category (0.73/1000 words).  While the use of directives is also fairly frequent (0.50/1000 words), the usage of questions and appeals to shared knowledge are very low.   In the next section examples of reader pronouns are given. 

Different types of reader pronouns 

                                            Raw freq.   Per 1000 words   % 

First person pronouns  

(we, us, our, ours)               301             1.62                     48.6 

Second person pronouns  

(you, your, yours)                310             1.66                     49.8 

Generic pronoun 

(One, one’s)                         11               0.05                     1.50 

Total                                    622             3.33                     100 

Reader pronouns are the most frequently employed engagement markers in the shareholders’ letters.  The table above shows usage is almost evenly split between inclusive first-person pronouns and second person pronouns (48.6% versus 49.8).  Conversely, the impersonal generic pronoun (‘one’, ‘one’s’) is used very sparingly, constituting only 1.5% of resources.    

Inclusive first-person pronouns combine the writer and reader into one entity and pulls the reader into the writer’s “in-group” and are often used in the texts to highlight the CEOs’ views on different issues (1) and their macroeconomic perspectives (2), with the ultimate objective of aligning stakeholders to their beliefs and interpretation of issues and events.   

1. Warren Buffett, the greatest investor of all time and my friend, has said “It’s never paid to be against America.” I think we all should take his advice.  

2. At the same time, from a global standpoint, we are witnessing a dramatic economic realignment—a shrinking middle class in the U.S. and other developed economies, and a burgeoning middle class in developing markets. 

The second person pronouns “you” and “your” are more prominent as engagement markers than inclusive first-person pronouns in the shareholders letters.  Second person pronouns ‘you’ and ‘your’ are the most direct in addressing reader.   

Two main types of “you” are used in the texts, first is their application as a personal engagement tool that connects directly to the reader (3), (4) and second is used as “people in general”—a more informal choice than the option “one”.  

3. I told you a year ago that the number one story for our company in 2013 would be our network (U.S.)   

4. We always have believed that analyzing your mistakes makes you a better company. 

The last category of reader pronouns is the generic pronoun “one”.  “One’ can be taken to mean ‘people in general’ and is commonly a formal substitute for the more informal ‘you’.  Its minimal use in the corpus of business writing could possibly be explained by the fact that it is impersonal and does not help build familiarity between the writer and reader as effectively as the more familiar inclusive first person plural and second person pronouns.  Upon examination of the concordances it is used mostly for negative propositions (5) 

5. The major accounting firms, providers of independent audit opinions, shopped creative tax avoidance schemes— including those presented unsuccessfully to M&T— that pushed the bounds of creativity relative to what one would find acceptable or even ethical by today’s standard. 

In summary, the findings show that U.S. corporate authors expend considerable effort rhetorically through engagement markers to engage, interact, and actively build writer-reader relationships.  The findings can help inform business communication courses on how a “you attitude” is constructed at the “micro” level through specific linguistic devices.  

References 

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365  

Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019  

Mautner, G. (2017). Organizational discourse. In G. Mautner & F. Rainer (Eds.), Handbook of Business Communication: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 609-628). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514862-025  

Mur-Dueñas, P. (2008). Analysing engagement markers cross-culturally: The case of English and Spanish business management research articles. In S. Burgess & P. Matin-Matin (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 197-214). Peter Lang.  

Shwom, B., & Snyder, L. G. (2019). Business Communication: Polishing Your Professional Presence (4 ed.). Pearson.  

Thill, V. J., & Bovée, L. C. (2017). Excellence in Business Communication (12 ed.). Pearson.  

Short Descriptions

An increasing number of universities worldwide have banned the use of ChatGPT due to concerns over academic integrity and cheating. This presents a significant challenge to language education in higher education, particularly in Hong Kong, where traditional assessment methods such as essay writing are still used to evaluate students' communication skills. However, generative AI tools like ChatGPT have disrupted the language assessment process by making it difficult to measure a student's ability accurately. Evaluating the end product, which was previously an indicator of a student's language skills, is no longer sufficient since it is unclear whether they used and to what extent they used these tools. Therefore, I am planning to apply for public policy research funding to investigate the language planning and policy (LLP) in Hong Kong, specifically the use of generative AI in language education. The primary aim of the project (and also the funding purpose) is to investigate how the current education policy inadequately addresses the LLP needs with the introduction of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. I also intend to test the AI's creativity and criticality through systematic observation, using different prompts to demonstrate the limitations of generative AI. While the central discussion in the world has been on the surprising resemblance of these generative AIs to human language, this study may also reveal how they are not quite similar to us (one of the project objectives). I plan to use the multiple case study method, establishing different key stakeholders (e.g., students, teachers, and curriculum managers in the higher education sector) as cases. The cases will be mainly constructed through interviews and systematic observations. By comparing and contrasting their understanding of their views and concerns on ChatGPT's creativity and criticality, the project team can achieve the following project goal and objectives: Project Goal: - To make recommendations on policy goals and strategic directions for the use of generative AI in language teaching Project Objectives: - To investigate the current policy and use of generative AI tools in self-financing post-secondary and UGC-funded tertiary language classrooms - To review the policy goals and strategies listed in the Strategy on IT in Education by the Hong Kong Government - To examine the possibilities and limitations of generative AI tools in language education - To propose pedagogical solutions to the challenges posed by the introduction of generative AI The project aligns with the Center for Language Education's mission to provide innovative and effective language education that meets the needs of its students and contributes to the development of language education in the region.

Possible Benefits

The proposed project aims to position the Center for Language Education (CLE) as a leading advisor on the use of generative AI in language teaching within the higher education sector. By conducting research on the current policy and use of generative AI tools in language classrooms in Hong Kong and proposing pedagogical solutions, the project will contribute to the development of effective language education practices that leverage the potential of AI technologies. Through this work, the CLE can establish itself as a thought leader and trusted advisor on the use of generative AI in language teaching, furthering its mission to provide innovative and impactful language education to its students.

Deliverables

1. Project report 2. LLP/Applied Linguistics/Higher Education/TESOL Quarterly or other related Journal publication

The opening of this literature review begins by offering an introduction to leadership along with a brief history, before attempting to define this highly contested concept and linking it to the education sector.

Introduction to Leadership

Stogdill (1974) famously stated – almost 50 years ago – that there are ‘almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept (p. 259).’ Though expansively studied and theorized, academics and practitioners have struggled to produce a universally agreed upon definition of the term, which has only exacerbated over time. However, there is seemingly consensus within the literature regarding the reason. This is because leadership is viewed as a ‘complex and multifaceted concept associated with ever-changing ideas and theories’ (Gigliotti & Shankman, 2021, p. 15). Nonetheless, leadership is deemed an important notion, and while fundamental definitions may be scrutinized, the myriad wide-ranging interpretations support the idea that it is still worthy of further research.

A Brief History

Before the beginning of the 20th century, Gigliotti & Shankman (2021) noted that there was an assumption that leaders were not made; they were born. However, ‘the turn of the 20th century brought metamorphic shifts to the formal writing and study of leadership’ which ‘can be divided into three phases’ (p. 15). The first phase lasted from 1900 until World War II and focused on the personal characteristics of a leader; the second phase encompassed an individuals’ abilities, actions and talents rather than personal traits, finishing around 1970; and the third phase continues to the present day (Heilbrunn, 1994). This third phase involves a deeper examination of the dynamic that exists between leaders and their followers, along with the different situations or environments in which this relationship is established (Kouzes & Posner, 2007; LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Perhaps, the fact we are now living in this rather nuanced third phase goes some way to explain why leadership is so difficult to define, yet there are other reasons.

Why no Unified Definition?

Although a simple, straightforward, and commonly accepted definition of leadership is lacking, notwithstanding the historical element, certain other factors contribute to the problem. Bolden (2004) claimed that there are two basic difficulties at its root. Firstly, subjectivity: ‘everyone has their own intuitive understanding of what leadership is, based on a mixture of experience and learning’ (p. 4). Though this seems plausible, another factor is that ‘the way in which leadership is defined and understood is strongly influenced by one’s theoretical stance.’ Thus, leadership is context-dependent; what it means and constitutes will vary between stakeholders at different times and places, according to both their conceptual underpinnings and overall understanding.

Contrasting Theoretical Stances?

Essentially, this can, rather reductively, be split into two schools of thought: individualist and collectivist. Highlighted by Grint (2004), he questioned whether leadership is down to individual characteristics and traits, or if the social process holds more weight.  Upon reviewing leadership theory, Northouse (2004) gave rise to the former, identifying four typical patterns in how people frame leadership. He asserted it is a ‘process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal’ (p. 3) centred around leadership being 1) a process, which 2) entails influence, 3) takes place in a group context, and 4) necessitates goal achievement. This approach is shown to emphasize the ‘leader.’

Yet, conversely, leadership can also be seen as mainly a collective notion. Yukl (2002) pointed out that ‘most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation’ (p. 3). Therefore, it seems that at the crux of this definition is the exchange of information between individuals. As such, to meet the shared aspirations and needs of a group, leadership can be viewed as communication that positively alters peoples’ actions and attitudes (Johnson & Hackman, 2018).

On reflection, these two seemingly contrasting perspectives – individualism and collectivism – could be viewed as two sides of the same coin. In fact, in his seminal work, Burns (1978) views leadership as a reciprocal process. To be successful, a leader needs to positively influence and effectively communicate their message to others, while the group needs to be receptive as well as inspired and motivated to work towards their common goals. In sum, on choosing which definition to accept, it is vital to be aware of any underlying suppositions and implications, but the choice should be based on one’s own beliefs, inclinations, and organizational circumstances (Bolden, 2004), along with considering the field or industry in which they work.

Leadership in Education

Unsurprisingly, the meaning of leadership in education has also been contested. However, there seems to be general agreement in the literature that the emphasis is on teaching, learning and student attainment which are ultimately the essential objectives and processes of education (Devos & Bouckenooghe, 2009; Grissom & Loeb, 2011). Linked to this, it can be deduced that the education sector necessitates the cooperation and commitment of multiple stakeholders. In this vein, Bush & Glover (2003, p. 31) state that educational leadership ‘can be understood as a process of influence based on clear values and beliefs’ which leads to a shared vision for the institution, with the need for this to be ‘articulated by leaders who seek to gain the commitment’ of all parties involved. Moreover, ‘the process of influence ideally leads to an effective learning climate which all stakeholders…experience as an added value and keeps all the organisational processes… running smoothly’ (Daniëls et al., 2019). An educational institution is therefore viewed as a shared ecosystem; yet, like the macro concept, leadership in education also contains contrasting theories, frameworks, and approaches.

References

Bolden, R. (2004). What is Leadership? 1st ed. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Oxford, United Kingdom: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://dera. ioe.ac.uk/5119/14/dok217-eng-School_Leadership_Concepts_and_Evidence_Redacted.pdf.

Daniëls, E., A. Hondeghem, and F. Dochy. (2019). “A Review on Leadership and Leadership Development in Educational Settings.” Educational Research Review 27: 110–125. doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003

Devos, G., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2009). An exploratory study on principals' conceptions about their role as school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(2), 173–196.

Gigliotti, R. A., & Shankman, M. L. (2021). Assessing leadership: Historical roots and contemporary considerations. In M. L. Shankman & R. A. Gigliotti (Eds.). New Directions for Student Leadership: No. 170. Using inventories and assessments to enhance leadership development (pp. 13–21). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20438

Grint, K. (2004) What is Leadership? From Hydra to Hybrid. Working paper, Saïd Business School and Templeton College, Oxford University.

Grissom, J., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123.

Heilbrunn, J. (1994). Can leadership be studied? Wilson Quarterly, 18.

Johnson, C., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A communication perspective (7th ed.). Waveland Press, Inc.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. (2001). When teams work best: 6000 team members and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. SAGE.

Northouse, P. G. (2004) Leadership: Theory and Practice (3rd Edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Yukl, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations: Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

https://gohkust-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/lcaditij_ust_hk/EZzy3GrF-vZCg642Bb_rqdoBPDt6qr6ZU2JW0cvDsFJmzA?e=5lzJj3

Short Descriptions

The shift towards the development of ‘new literacy skills’, specifically ‘multimodal literacy,’ has gained significant attention in contemporary education due to the emergence of new technologies and communication channels. Multimodal literacy extends beyond traditional reading and writing skills, encompassing a broad range of modes encountered in various texts, including words, images, sounds in printed and electronic media, and face-to-face interactions (e.g., Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Lim, 2021; van Leeuwen, 2017). Multimodality has become an integral component of the multiliteracies, leading educational systems worldwide to incorporate it into their language curricula and assessments. For instance, the Hong Kong Education Bureau has highlighted the development of multimodal literacy as a key focus in the English Language Education Key Area Curriculum Guide (2017) for secondary school students. The recognition of the significance of multimodal literacy in preparing students for the modern communication environment has increased, but teachers still face challenges in establishing a systematic and structured multimodal environment in the classroom that can effectively enhance students’ language skills and knowledge development. Previous studies reported that teachers feel uncertainty or unprepared for multimodal pedagogies as they lack the relevant skills to deliver multimodal practices in their classes (e.g., Ajayi, 2010, Li, 2020). To align with current educational trends, it is crucial to investigate multimodal practices in the language classroom to raise awareness of the importance of multimodal practices as well as to equip language practitioners with comprehensive multimodal literacy. This project investigates the implementation and effectiveness of multimodal practices in teaching Putonghua in Hong Kong kindergartens. Kindergartens play a critical role in laying the foundation for language learning, and incorporating multimodal literacy practices at an early age can significantly benefit students’ language development. In addition, the extensive use of multimodal means in early childhood education offers invaluable insights into effective pedagogical practices. Main objectives of this project include: 1) To explore teachers’ perceptions of multimodal pedagogies and teaching multiliteracies in the kindergarten classroom, gaining insights into their beliefs, attitudes, and understanding of this concept. This object aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how teachers perceive the integration of multimodal practices in their instructional strategies. 2) To examine the actual classroom practices of teachers in implementing multimodal pedagogies, with a focus on observing how they integrate different modes (e.g. linguistic, visual, auditory, gestures) and resources (e.g. pictures, songs, digital resources) to enhance children’s learning experiences. This objective aims to capture the practical application of multimodal pedagogies and identify the strategies employed by teachers to create a multimodal learning environment. 3) To assess the impact of teachers’ multimodal pedagogies on the development of (multi)literacies in children acquiring Putonghua. This objective involves evaluating the progress of children’s listening, speaking, and reading skills, as well as analysing their overall multiliteracy development within the context of multimodal instruction.

Possible Benefits

While this project primarily focuses on early childhood education, the pedagogical approach employed in language classrooms holds relevance for language practitioners in university settings as well. The framework of multimodal literacy, explored within the project, exhibits a level of replicability that can be adapted to suit the needs of language practitioners working with university-level students.

Deliverables

The deliverables mainly include in-service and pre-service kindergarten teachers. We will provide in-service and pre-service kindergarten teachers with video lessons and training workshops. Journal publications and conference papers are expected after the completion of the project. The findings of this project will contribute to the existing body of knowledge on multimodal literacy and its application in language education. The outcomes will provide insights for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers in designing effective pedagogical strategies to empower students to effectively communicate and interact in the diverse and technologically advanced society of Hong Kong.