From an Error Typology
via a Model of Communicative
Competence for Written Discourse
towards Support for
Finnish University Students
Writing in their Disciplines
Eva Braidwood and Suzy McAnsh,
University of Oulu Language Centre
Assessing the situation: What factors shape our
EAP courses in written communication?
Policy frameworks and guidelines
– qualifications frameworks in the EHEA
– Finnish UniTIE project: descriptors for university writing courses
State of the art in the EAP profession
– research publications
– numerous guidebooks into academic writing in English
Students’ skills and needs
– publications on SLA, error analysis
– preliminary study of prevalent problems, 2010
Preliminary study of prevalent problems, 2010
Typology of salient problems
– analysis of texts produced by
Finnish university students in
their field-related English course
 see Handout 1 for examples
But what is missing?
What else do we need to consider in assessing
the writing of our EAP writing students?
Present study:
Towards a representation of communicative
competence required in academic / scientific
written discourse
Eva Braidwood and Suzy McAnsh,
University of Oulu Language Centre
Chronological evolution of ‘communicative competence’
Expanded from Celce-Murcia 2007
Eva Braidwood and Suzy McAnsh,
University of Oulu Language Centre
competences for developing
confidence in specialist discourse
Celce-Murcia, 2007: Revised schematic representation
of ‘communicative competence’
representing
oral
communication!
PROBLEM:
static model –
components
need to
“expand or
contract
depending on
pedagogical
objectives and
the needs of
the learner”
Proposed communicative competence model
for academic / scientific written discourse
• Six competence
areas, but
definition and
component
features differ
in writing
socio-cultural
linguistic
strategic
• Significance
of individual
competences
varies
• At work
simultaneously
or in turn
discourse
interactional
formulaic
see Handout 2
for details
Significance of present study
– model encourages awareness of areas where problems might arise
– provides tool for identifying and exploring prevalent problems
• for a particular discourse (genre, purpose)
• in a particular discourse community (context, discipline)
– also accounts for problems that “aren’t there”
– guides teachers in selecting focus of course content
Future directions
– explore implications of target degree competences in particular
disciplines
– compare students’ present level with target graduate level
– expand study to identify prevalent problems for students
(according to L1, disciplinary genres, level of proficiency in
English, level of expertise in discipline-specific discourse
community)
Thank you!
References
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bhatia, V. (1997). ‘Applied Genre Analysis and ESP’. In T. Miller (ed.), Functional Approaches to
Written Text: Classroom Applications. Washington: United States Information Agency
Canale, M. (1983). ‘ From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.’ In,
J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds), Language and communication. London: Longman, 2-28.
Canale, M & Swain, M. (1980). ‘Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
Language Teaching and Testing.’ Applied Linguistics, 1. 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). ‘Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in Language
Teaching.’ In Alcón Soler E & MP Safont Jordà (eds),. Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer. 41–57.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z, and Thurrell, S. (1995). ‘A pedagogical framework for
communicative competence: A Pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.’
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35
Eva Braidwood and Suzy McAnsh,
University of Oulu Language Centre