葉聖陶（1894-1988）為中國現代文學史上著名之教育與文學家，以編輯、教師與記者為職志。他提倡教導學生運用思辨的方法學習，並主張「文學為人生」，認為文學作品應可反映時代脈搏，引發讀者對社會的關懷。

Among the choices you have as a writer is to choose the style and tone of your paper. This includes the "register" or style that is most appropriate for the context (and audiences) of your work. Registers can range from the chatty, informal style to the distant, formal abstract style. In between these two extremes are the more moderate styles including the popular style (found in magazines), and the conventional/consultive style (often used in making oral presentations).¹

Choosing which register to use is important, because it determines how readable and professional your documents appear to your audience. Many academic scholars prefer and imitate the formal abstract style, because it is commonly used in scientific and specialized journals. However, just because this style conforms to many journal articles does not mean it is always the best choice.

It is widely believed that the formal abstract style communicates a serious, precise, authoritative, professional and objective tone, even though it is often hard to read and understand. This style tends to use longer, complex sentences, more passive voice, and more abstract and longer functional words averaging three to five syllables. The information tends to assume the reader has the background to understand all the specialist and technical information. Many of you may choose this style on the advice of others, because, as some believe, it will contribute to getting your article approved and published. But, if this formal style is the only style you know, you risk overusing it for all your professional written communications – even e-mail.²

Although this formal and opaque (meaning "muddy, dense, unclear") communication style may communicate a certain professional code language that confers "membership" in your specialized field, it is not appropriate for all audiences. I tell writers that this style is only one choice, and in fact a conventional/consultive style may be more suitable for a journal article.

One of the most interesting books I read last year was the linguist Steven Pinker's best-selling,"The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century." An advocate of the "Plain English Campaign," which seeks to persuade organizations to communicate to the public in plain, understandable English, Pinker's book is a thoughtful and useful discussion on how we can make our writing plainer and more readable by avoiding muddy, abstract style. Pinker looks at the writing style not defined not by a set of writing techniques, but rather by an attitude toward writing itself.

What is most fundamental to that attitude is that you, as the author, know something and want to present it to us. This attitude will help you decide how and what you tell the reader.

Pinker outlines the approaches to this attitude as follows: 


Pinker calls this the "Classic style," but these five approaches to writing are similar to the conventional/consultive style, especially with regard to conversational style. In academia, "conversation" around research is most often presentational, so when communicating your research ideas and data in writing, it makes sense to frame them in language similar to what you would use in oral presentations.

In the AWEC presentation course, I propose the idea that your paper is not your presentation; that the (presumably abstract/formal) style you used in your paper should not be the same language used in the oral presentation of your paper. The reason for the difference is obvious: what is hard to read is even more difficult to listen to if presented orally in the same style. Pinker proposes reversing that idea by communicating your writing with the language of the oral presentation; a plainer but still sophisticated language allows the reader to more easily analyze the information and reach their own conclusions.

The key difference in these arguments is how we define the language of oral presentation. The words "plain" and "clear" are often used, but they are hard to apply meaningfully. In fact, Pinker states that he does not define "plain language" as in "simplistic' or "bare-bones," language, but rather communicating with well-chosen words, words that reflect your character, words that deliver your desire to communicate meaning efficiently and professionally.⁴

The statistician and information design expert, Dr. Edward Tufte, observed that good oral presenting shares the same principles as good teaching, with both embracing, "explanation, reasoning, finding things out, questioning, content, evidence, credible authority [but] not patronizing authoritarianism."⁵ We could also argue that so does good writing. Pinker states, "The purpose of writing is presentation, and its motive is disinterested truth…It succeeds when it aligns language with the truth..."⁶

A dense, impenetrable formal style, on the other hand, obscures information; it is the author's intention to keep you from knowing the truth. Richard Lanham in his book, "Style: An Anti-Textbook," suggests that writers who choose this style obscure information on purpose to exclude, to maintain status, or to purposely obscure meaning to prevent threat to face.⁷ Choosing a professional, more readable, more accessible, and yes, more pleasurable⁸ style for your readers is a worthwhile pursuit for nearly all your academic and professional writing.

This essay is written in a consultive/conventional style. As you can see, there is not much passive voice. The language is directed at a non-specialist, well-educated adult, and the average functional word length is 2-3 syllables. The sentences are complex, but tend to branch left to right, thus improving the logical flow and ease of reading/understanding. The feeling is energetic. The tone is presentational. Yet, does it seem professional enough to you?

【3MT】初選收件5/2截止，歡迎參觀5/31決賽
【My Tutorial】本學期個別寫作輔導至六月初，請把握機會
【第八屆亞洲寫作中心研討會】特別報導

2016臺大三分鐘英語學術簡報競賽 (3MT)，初選收件將於5/2中午截止，歡迎研究生把握機會，踴躍報名參加! 更歡迎全校師生參觀決賽，為參賽同學加油打氣，及參與決賽票選。

3MT源起於澳洲昆士蘭大學，已陸續在全球高等學府舉辦。該項研究簡報競賽首重不同學術背景聽眾間之交流，參賽者必須在三分鐘內，以淺顯易懂的語言說明其研究成果。

活動時程
報名： 2016/4/08 (週五) - 5/02 (週一) 中午12:00
決賽： 2016/5/31 (週二) 下午5:30

獎勵
首獎：iPad Air2（一名）
貳獎：Asus Tablet （一名）
叁獎：Pocket Projector（一名）
觀眾票選獎：Pocket Projector（一名）

詳細內容及辦法請參閱活動網頁： http://www.awec.ntu.edu.tw/announcements.html?sn=55

由本中心遴選培訓之輔導員，採一對一方式，針對同學的文件寫作問題討論給予同儕建議。
本(104-2)學期服務期間至六月初，歡迎臺大學生善加利用。

詳見活動網頁 ：http://www.awec.ntu.edu.tw/My_tutorial.html

研討會：第八屆亞洲寫作中心研討會 (The Eighth Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia)
日期：2016/03/05
地點：日本 東京 津田塾大學
 

參訪心得 / 江介維 (本中心講師)

自西元2009年，日本寫作中心協會（The Writing Centers Association of Japan）於東京大學舉辦首屆亞洲寫作中心研討會，旨於促進亞洲地區學術寫作教育研究與交流。於2016年三月，敝人赴日參加 「第八屆亞洲寫作中心研討會」 （The Eighth Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia），發表研究論文【英文寫作轉折語「因此」之語氣連貫探究：偶然或因果分析？】 （"'Therefore' at the Juncture of Cohesion: Casual or Causal Analysis"）一篇。 與會的學者共計50餘位，多數以英文口頭報告的形式發表研究成果，部分以日文進行。研討會於上午11點正式開始，分別於四大主要場地同時進行，約於傍晚五點左右結束。研討會主題涵括甚廣，從宏觀的大學寫作教育政策層面、課程教學法創新與實踐、寫作諮商施行辦法、至微觀的學生寫作樣本分析、寫作心路歷程紀錄、寫作修訂逐步追蹤等等，皆有充分論述。此外，多場研討會的會後問答，相當熱絡，足見與會學者們所展現的充分熱誠。赴日參與本屆研討會收穫甚豐，與各國學者的交流，開闊了眼界，也更能藉此反觀自己所處的教學現場與教學所需，此正呼應了本次研討會的大會主題「寫作中心：跨語言與跨文化」　（Writing Centers Across Languages and Cultures）。大學的寫作教育起步已有一段時日，其系所專業分工化的趨勢也正在開展，此顯示「寫作」儼然成為一專業學門，以及「寫作教育」作為一蘊藏研究可能性的場域。期盼在不久的未來，在國內亦能舉辦此類國際寫作研討會，促使國內的寫作教學環境更為成熟，也能藉此活絡寫作教師間的經驗交流，厚實教學專業、熱誠與創意。

參訪心得 / 張晨 (本中心講師)

網路與數位科技的進展加速了全球化的風潮，也使得當前資訊充斥的世代更重視效率與創意；因為重視效率與創意，如何能更有效地「表達」，是這個世代的每個人皆須應對的課題。而「寫作」做為一種傳遞訊息、提供見解及展現情感的表達的主要方式，更是在人手一台手機、平板或筆電，人人都可以是作家的時代裡成為不可不被陶冶淬煉的能力。因此，寫作教育變得更至關緊要，連帶也凸顯了高等教育學府中寫作中心的功能和價值。近幾年，寫作中心彼此間的交流漸趨頻繁，國際間寫作中心協會定期舉辦的研討會，使來自不同地域與文化，使用不同語言的寫作中心能從同中存異的交流學習中，獲得寶貴的省思和經驗。自2009年開始，每年二到四月間於日本舉行為期一天的「亞洲寫作中心研討會」（Symposium on Writing Centers in Asia）即提供亞洲各國寫作中心互動交流的平台，今年已邁向第八年。第八屆會議於2016年三月在已有百年建校歷史，夙以強調兩性平權和諧及人文藝術涵養的津田塾大學（Tsuda College）舉行。位於小平市的校園裡，儘管仍能感受到些許初春的寒意，但隨處可見的參天南洋杉、龍柏、槭樹，暖陽中閃耀的嫩綠春芽和含苞待放的櫻花，卻為週末相對冷清的校園增添了盎然生氣，使人精神一振。

這次研討會的論文發表主題多元，其中數篇文章皆不約而同指向個別輔導（tutorial）∕輔導者（tutor）的角色，令人印象深刻，顯示寫作中心儘管存在差異，它們精進個別輔導與諮詢的目標卻是一致的。我發表的主題“Flipping the Learning, Not Just the Teaching”是臺大寫作教學中心翻轉教室團隊所執行的行動研究的成果。由於網路世代的學習者汲取新知的速度與廣度無遠弗屆，教師不再是傳道授業的主要或唯一媒介；面對這樣一個無可規避，卻又充滿契機的教學變革，已有越來越多教師省思「師者」在網路世代裡的定位，而身處網路世代的學生更對課堂學習抱持有別於以往的期待。翻轉教室即是能有效因應此變革的教學模式，它將多媒體科技與課堂任務連綴搭配、相輔相成，進而實現單憑網路或數位平台難以達到的深度學習。然而，在具體作法上，課前及課堂各個環節應如何設計與執行，使「教」與「學」的成效極大化，是所有翻轉教師皆會面臨的挑戰。論文中提出的「五步互動循環學習模式」（Five-Step-Interactive-Cycle Learning Model）即為試圖解決翻轉教室的「如何」課題的教學系統。聽眾對於研究結果的正面迴響和建議，令人鼓舞，也成為團隊持續進展的動力。