| 1. |
- Czerw, Tomasz, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of donor-derived CD34+infused cell dose on outcomes of patients undergoing allo-HCT following reduced intensity regimen for myelofibrosis: a study from the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of the EBMT
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Bone Marrow Transplantation. - : SPRINGER NATURE. - 0268-3369 .- 1476-5365. ; 57, s. 261-270
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The optimal CD34 + cell dose in the setting of RIC allo-HCT for myelofibrosis (MF) remains unknown. We retrospectively analyzed 657 patients with primary or secondary MF transplanted with use of peripheral blood (PB) stem cells after fludarabine/melphalan or fludarabine/busulfan RIC regimen. Median patient age was 58 (range, 22-76) years. Donors were HLA-identical sibling (MSD) or unrelated (UD). Median follow-up was 46 (2-194) months. Patients transplanted with higher doses of CD34 + cells (>7.0 x 10(6)/kg), had an increased chance of achievement of both neutrophil (hazard ratio (HR), 1.46; P < 0.001) and platelet engraftment (HR, 1.43; P < 0.001). In a model with interaction, for patients transplanted from a MSD, higher CD34 + dose was associated with improved overall survival (HR, 0.63; P = 0.04) and relapse-free survival (HR, 0.61; P = 0.02), lower risk of non-relapse mortality (HR, 0.57; P = 0.04) and higher rate of platelet engraftment. The combined effect of higher cell dose and UD was apparent only for higher neutrophil and platelet recovery rate. We did not document any detrimental effect of high CD34 + dose on transplant outcomes. More bulky splenomegaly was an adverse factor for survival, engraftment and NRM. Our analysis suggests a potential benefit for MF patients undergoing RIC PB-allo-HCT receiving more than 7.0 x 10(6)/kg CD34 + cells.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eriksson, Andreas, 1973, et al.
(författare)
-
MUCH : The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Proceedings - 10th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- MUCH: THE MALMÖ UNIVERSITY-CHALMERS CORPUS OF ACADEMIC WRITING AS A PROCESS Andreas Eriksson, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg; Damian Finnegan, Asko Kauppinen, Maria Wiktorsson, Anna Wärnsby, Malmö University, Malmö; Peter Withers, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen This poster introduces a recently-launched corpus project which aims to compile and monitor various text drafts involved in the writing process of EFL students in higher education. The corpus material will consist of three drafts of undergraduate, master or PhD student texts. Additionally, the corpus will contain a collection of self-reflective papers. Papers will be collected from approximately 400 students per year over a three-year period. In addition to parts-of-speech tagging, the corpus will include peer comments between the first and second drafts and teacher comments between the second and third drafts, as well as annotations of information structure and rhetorical structures. Upon its completion, the corpus will consist of about 500,000 words, excluding the metadata and peer and teacher comments. The corpus is primarily an academic writing research corpus, but also a pedagogic and linguistic corpus, and it is the combination of these perspectives that we would like to emphasise. One important aim of the project is to narrow the gap between writing pedagogy and the use of corpora for teaching and learning purposes. In writing pedagogy, the focus has been on issues such as writing as social action (Miller 1984), feedback processes (Hyland & Hyland 2006) and the development of academic literacy (Lea & Street 1998, Lillis & Scott 2007, Street 2004), whereas there has been a tendency in corpus-driven and corpus-based pedagogy to focus on linguistic aspects of language learning, such as vocabulary, grammar and phraseology. This tendency is, for instance, evidenced in Flowerdew’s (2010) comprehensive overview of how corpora have been used in writing instruction. There are obviously notable exceptions to this somewhat sweeping description (see e.g. Charles 2007 and Flowerdew 2008). However, a lot more can be done to merge these two perspectives. We believe that a corpus containing drafts tagged for information structure, rhetorical structures, and linguistic structures as well as peer and teacher feedback is an important step in such a process. In this poster, we will establish the rationale for the project by exemplifying how the corpus can be used for research purposes as well as teaching and learning purposes. We will show how the corpus can be employed in the study of: 1) peer and teacher comments; 2) thesis statements and how these are formed, located and realised in students’ writing processes; and 3) linguistic structures, such as elements recurring in thesis statements. References: Charles, M. 2007. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Specific Purposes 6: 289-302. Flowerdew, L. 2008. Corpus linguistics for academic literacies mediated through discussion activities. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (eds), The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2, speaking, writing and other media interactions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 268-287 Flowerdew, L. 2010. Using a corpus for writing instruction. In O’Keeffe, Anne & McCarthy, Michael (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 444-457. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.). 2006. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, C. R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70:151-167. Lea, M. R. and Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23(2): 157–172. Lillis, T. & Scott, M. 2007. Defining Academic Literacies Research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1): 5-32. Street, B. (2004) Academic Literacies and the ‘new orders’: implications for research and practice in student writing in higher education. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(1): 9–20.
|
|
| 3. |
- Eriksson, Andreas, 1973, et al.
(författare)
-
The Malmö University-Chalmers Corpus of Academic Writing as a Process (MUCH): Results from Work In Progress
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Program of 7th Conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing (EATAW 2013), Budapest, June 27-29..
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper introduces a recently-launched corpus project which aims to compile and monitor various text draftsinvolved in the student writing process in higher education. Most of the students are non-native speakers ofEnglish from undergraduate, master or PhD programmes. The corpus consists of drafts of academic papers, such as argumentative papers and journal paper drafts. Additionally, the corpus contains a collection of self-reflective comments. Papers are collected from approximately 300 students per year over a three-year period. In addition to student texts, the corpus also contains peer and teacher comments. It is tagged for rhetorical and linguistic structures. Upon completion, the corpus will consist of approximately 2,500,000 words. One of the aims of the project is to narrow the gap between writing pedagogy and the use of corpora for teaching and learning purposes. In writing pedagogy, the focus has been on issues such as writing as social action (Miller 1984), feedback processes (Hyland & Hyland 2006) and academic literacy (Lea & Street 1998, Lillis & Scott 2007), whereas corpus-based pedagogy has tended to focus on linguistic aspects (Flowerdew 2010). Notable exceptions to this somewhat sweeping description are for example Charles (2007) and Flowerdew (2008). However, a lot more can be done to merge these two perspectives. We believe that a richly-annotated corpus is an important step in such a process. In this paper, we will establish the rationale for the project and present results from a pilot study, including categorisations and effects of comments in texts.
|
|
| 4. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
Academic Writing in a Multi-lingual and Multi-disciplinary Context
- 2011
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Damian Finnegan (damian.finnegan@mah.se) Asko Kauppinen (asko.kauppinen@mah.se) Anna Wärnsby (anna.warnsby@mah.se) Academic Writing in a Multi-lingual and Multidisciplinary Context One crucial challenge of academic writing concerns the increasing heterogenisation of student populations. In many writing classes, we now find “any combination of native-born, international, refugee, permanent resident, and naturalized students,” exhibiting considerable linguistic diversity and multiple levels of English proficiency (Preto-Bay and Hansen, 2006; see also Hall, 2009). At the same time, interest towards academic writing in European higher education is growing, yet resources for teaching do not reflect this. Moreover, the wider student base demands practical application from their writing courses, not theoretical knowledge of language skills (see, for example, Anderson 1983, 2009 on procedural vs. declarative knowledge). To show how these problems can be addressed, we discuss the course Academic Writing in English offered at Malmö University, Sweden, which currently enrolls approximately 300 students per year. The course design is explicitly based on the general model of information processing, which assumes that “complex behavior builds on simple processes” (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996, p. 213). The focus of all learning activities is on acquisition of procedural knowledge geared towards comprehension and production. One distinctive feature of this course is the very tight integration of electronic resources and other teaching material. This provides student populations various types of continuous feedback and highly individualised learning paths. In this paper, we present and evaluate empirical data pertaining to students’ experience of the content, structure and resources in this course. We also discuss the preliminary results obtained through tests administered before, during and after the course. References Anderson, J. R. 2009. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth Publishers. Anderson, J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hall, Jonathan. 2009. “WAC/WID in the Next America: Redefining Professional Identity in the Age of the Multilingual Majority.” The WAC Journal. Vol. 20, November. 33-49. McLaughlin, B. and Hereda, J. L. C. 1996. “Information-processing Approaches to Research on Second Language Acquisition and Use.” In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 213-228. Preto-Bay, Ana Maria and Kristine Hansen. 2006. “Preparing for the Tipping Point: Designing Writing Programs to Meet the Needs of the Changing Population.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 30, Nos. 1-2, Fall. 37-57.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
Automated Feedback in a Blended Learning Environment : Student Experience and Development
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Learning and Teaching Writing Online: Strategies for Success. - : Brill Academic Publishers. - 9789004290846 - 9789004290358 ; , s. 31-45
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Nowadays, e-platforms designed specifically to cater for academic writing offer a new range of feedback possibilities for instructors. On our writing courses we use automated feedback, that is, metalinguistic comments generated within the e-platform on skill-building assignments in the form of multiple-choice exercises pertaining to the surface-level features of writing: grammar, punctuation, and citation conventions. In this chapter we explore the impact that automated feedback has on student experience of learning and development of skills pertaining to these features from beginner to advanced courses. Some of the key features of automated feedback which we consider are immediacy, metalinguistic explanations, and links to additional readings and exercises. We suggest that surface-level features can successfully be taught as part of academic writing courses, but the focus should be on improving writing fluency rather than language proficiency. Automated feedback on surface-level features is a particularly successful form of feedback on both our beginner and intermediate courses, but it performs less successfully on our advanced-level courses.
|
|
| 7. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
Automated Feedback, Student Experience and Writing as a Process
- 2012
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Damian Finnegan (damian.finnegan@mah.se) Asko Kauppinen (asko.kauppinen@mah.se) Anna Wärnsby (anna.warnsby@mah.se) Automated Feedback, Student Experience and Writing as a Process Many EFL learners struggle with issues pertaining to grammar, style and idiomaticity, and, traditionally, language teachers spend a lot of time addressing these mechanical errors (see Zamel 1985). This corrective practice seems to shape learner expectations of the type of feedback that is most effective or useful to them (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz 1996). In the context of teaching academic writing, this may easily pose a problem for allocating teacher resources away from teaching writing as a process to taking care of the learner language issues. Nowadays, e-platforms designed specifically to cater for academic writing offer a new range of feedback possibilities for teachers. Tasks pertaining particularly to language use can, for example, be created so that the feedback is fully automated. The easy and immediate access to such feedback is beneficial for learners with different proficiency levels (Brandl 1995). In our course, in order to free teacher resources for feedback on students’ critical thinking, treatment of sources, structure and context, we used automated feedback, i.e. direct corrections with metalinguistic comments generated within the e-platform, to feedback on skill building exercises pertaining to grammar, style and idiomaticity. Previous research indicates that direct corrective feedback on mechanical errors is efficient in facilitating learning (see Sheen 2007 for an overview of the field). In a pilot study on student experience of the writing process, we noticed that the level of student satisfaction with this automated feedback was surprisingly high and valued as much as the extensive written teacher feedback on papers submitted for examination. In our current study, we explore the impact automated feedback has on student experience of learning skills pertaining to the mechanics of writing as described above from beginner to advanced students of academic writing. Some of the factors we consider are the immediacy/remoteness of the feedback, the extent of the metalinguistic comment and the connection of the skill building exercises to the teaching materials. References Brandl, K. K. 1995. Strong and Weak Students' Preferences for Error Feedback Options and Responses. The modern Language Journal, vol. 79, no. 2, 194-211. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. 1996. Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing. The Modern Language Journal, vol. 80, no. 3, 287-308. Sheen, Y. 2007. The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quaterly, vol. 41, no. 2, 255-283. Zamel, V. 1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL Quaterly, 19, 79-101.
|
|
| 8. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
On the Importance of Teaching Writing to Teacher Trainees
- 2012
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Damian Finnegan (damian.finnegan@mah.se) Asko Kauppinen (asko.kauppinen@mah.se) Anna Wärnsby (anna.warnsby@mah.se) On the Importance of Teaching Academic Writing to Teacher Trainees Many EFL learners struggle with issues pertaining to grammar, style and idiomaticity, and, traditionally, language teachers spend a lot of time addressing these mechanical errors (Zamel 1985). This corrective practice seems to shape learner and teacher expectations of the type of feedback that is most effective or useful to learners (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz 1996). In the context of teaching academic writing, this may easily pose a problem for allocating teacher resources away from teaching writing as a process to taking care of the learner language issues. In the new Swedish school curriculum for English, however, the ability to write for different purposes and audiences and the familiarity with different text types is made prominent (Lgr11). Therefore, the teachers’ ability to reflect on the writing process as such and not only on the mechanical learner errors is crucial for the pupils’ achievement of the learning outcomes specified in the curriculum. At Malmö University, we facilitated systematic instruction to teacher trainees, amongst others, through the creation of courses in academic writing in English across the curriculum (WAC). The design of our courses is explicitly based on the general model of information processing, which assumes that “complex behavior builds on simple processes” (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996, p. 213). The focus of all learning activities is on acquisition of procedural knowledge geared towards comprehension and production (see Anderson 1983, 2009). Specifically, we gear our courses to equip teacher trainees with tools that can later aid them in their reflection on elements of the writing process other than those that are traditionally addressed in the language classroom. In this paper, we address particularly the increased ability in teacher trainees to reflect upon their own and their peers’ writing. We look at their ability to identify core elements of the writing process, for example, purpose, audience, genre, structure, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive analysis. These data have been compiled in the form of self-reflective papers produced by teacher trainees upon completion of our course. References Anderson, J. R. 2009. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth Publishers. Anderson, J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hall, Jonathan. 2009. “WAC/WID in the Next America: Redefining Professional Identity in the Age of the Multilingual Majority.” The WAC Journal. Vol. 20, November. 33-49. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. 1996. Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing. The Modern Language Journal, vol. 80, no. 3, 287-308. McLaughlin, B. and Hereda, J. L. C. 1996. “Information-processing Approaches to Research on Second Language Acquisition and Use.” In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 213-228. Preto-Bay, Ana Maria and Kristine Hansen. 2006. “Preparing for the Tipping Point: Designing Writing Programs to Meet the Needs of the Changing Population.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 30, Nos. 1-2, Fall. 37-57.
|
|
| 9. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
Scaffolding writing process in an EFL and multidisciplinary context
- 2012
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- One crucial challenge for teaching academic writing concerns the increasing heterogenisation of student populations. In many writing classes, we now find “any combination of native-born, international, refugee, permanent resident, and naturalized students,” exhibiting considerable linguistic diversity and multiple levels of English proficiency (Preto-Bay and Hansen, 2006; see also Hall, 2009). At the same time, interest towards academic writing in European higher education is growing, yet resources for teaching do not reflect this. Moreover, the wider student base demands practical application from their writing courses, not theoretical knowledge of language skills (see, for example, Anderson 1983, 2009 on procedural vs. declarative knowledge). To show how these problems can be addressed, we discuss the course in Academic Writing in English offered at Malmö University, Sweden, which currently enrolls approximately 300 students per year. Our students come from different disciplines, and English is a foreign language for most of them. The course design is explicitly based on the general model of information processing, which assumes that “complex behavior builds on simple processes” (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996, p. 213). The focus of all learning activities is on acquisition of procedural knowledge geared towards comprehension and production. One distinctive feature of this course is the very tight integration of electronic resources and other teaching material. By utilizing technology to facilitate the writing process (see, for example, Askov and Bixler 1998 on computer-assisted instruction as means for achieving learner-centered classrooms), we provide diverse student populations with ample scaffolding in terms of various types of continuous feedback and highly individualised learning paths. REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. 2009. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth Publishers. Anderson, J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Askov, E., & Bixler, B. 1998. “Transforming Adult Literacy Instruction Through Computer-Assisted Instruction.” In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.). 2009. Handbook of literacy and technology: transformations in a post-typographic world.184-203. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hall, Jonathan. 2009. “WAC/WID in the Next America: Redefining Professional Identity in the Age of the Multilingual Majority.” The WAC Journal. Vol. 20, November. 33-49. McLaughlin, B. and Hereda, J. L. C. 1996. “Information-processing Approaches to Research on Second Language Acquisition and Use.” In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 213-228. Preto-Bay, Ana Maria and Kristine Hansen. 2006. “Preparing for the Tipping Point: Designing Writing Programs to Meet the Needs of the Changing Population.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, Vol. 30, Nos. 1-2, Fall. 37-57.
|
|
| 10. |
- Finnegan, Damian, et al.
(författare)
-
The Role of Student Experience in Integrating E-platforms in Teaching Academic Writing
- 2011
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Rayann Eskandari (reihaneh.s@hotmail.com) Damian Finnegan (damian.finnegan@mah.se) Asko Kauppinen (asko.kauppinen@mah.se) Lisa-Marie Teubler (lisa.marie.teubler@googlemail.com) Anna Wärnsby (anna.warnsby@mah.se) The Role of Student Experience in Integrating E-platforms in Academic Writing Although e-platforms are becoming ubiquitous in teaching academic writing, noticeable differences in the ways in which they are integrated into course design and curricula remain. Further, student experience of these resources has often been overlooked. In this workshop, we explore how to integrate e-platforms into teaching academic writing to enhance positive student experience. We demonstrate a design of an existing course in academic writing at Malmö University, Sweden, which currently enrolls approximately 300 students per term. The distinctive feature of this course is the very tight integration of the e-platform Mycomplab (http://www.mycomplab.com) and teaching material. We evaluate critically empirical data pertaining to student experience of i. the e-platform interface, ii. the link between the e-platform and the teaching material, iii. the different levels and forms of feedback provided through the e-platform, and iv. the e-platform’s impact on learning. Participants of this workshop can test various tasks to emulate student experience of the e-platform. Furthermore, we welcome participants to contribute and discuss other e-platform solutions to the above issues. This workshop aims to provide a clearer understanding of the potential of e-platforms to enhance positive student experience, and it allows participants to gain an overview of different e-platform solutions available and currently in use in academic writing courses. From this workshop, we intend to establish a forum for discussing use of e-platforms in academic writing.
|
|
