Wednesday 30 June 2010
The papers listed below were presented at the WDHE conference on Monday 28 June 2010.
To view abstract of a paper - click on the relevant paper number below.
To link to presentation slides - click on relevant presentation titles (links available are shown in maroon below).
For abstracts/presentations for papers given on other conference days, please click on links below:
| Paper no. | Presentation title | Presenter | |
| Paper | 12 | Learning doctoral writing: pain and pleasure | Claire Aitchison, Janice Catterall, Pauline Ross, University of Western Sydney, Australia |
| Paper | 17 | Traditional peer-tutoring models: are they appropriate for all ESL students? | Maria Eleftheriou, American Univerisity of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates |
| Paper | 32 | Students' attitudes towards their writer identities in the last year of A-levels and the transition from school to university | Sally Baker, The Open University, UK |
| Paper | 39 | At first I didn't know what they wanted, I was going in blind: students' experiences of pedagogic practices designed to illuminate the ‘rules of engagement' in assignment writing | Kay Sambell, Catherine Montgomery, Northumbria University, UK |
| Workshop | 60 |
Ecologies of writing programs: a heuristic for building sustainability For further information click here for groupsite created for this presentation |
Amy Kimme Hea, Anne-Marie Hall, Ashley Holmes, Faith Kurtyka, University of Arizona, USA |
| Paper | 62 | Writing for success: mentoring as a pedagogical tool - a cross-institutional study | Jane Andrews, Robin Clark, Aston University, UK |
| Paper | 72 | It's a lonely walk: investigating the PhD writers' experience | Gillian Fergie, Suzanne Beeke, Colleen McKenna, Phyllis Crème, University College London, UK |
| Paper | 73 | The art of persuasion in academic writing | Martin Sedgley, University of Bradford, UK |
| Paper | 96 | Scenario pedagogy: a participative multimodal teaching-learning approach for enhanced communicative practice | Terri Grant, University of Cape Town, South Africa |
| Paper | 99 | Issues in providing writing support for doctoral theses: lessons from the arts | Erik Borg, Coventry University, UK |
| Paper | 106 | Supporting writing in transition: should sustainability be a goal? | Kelly Peake, Sally Mitchell, Queen Mary, University of London, UK |
| Paper | 107 | Sustainable support for third year student dissertations in the discipline of BA English language studies | Marion Colledge, Stephen Jones, London Metropolitan University, UK |
| Paper | 114 | The authorial presence of learner-writers in their master theses: caught between centripetal and centrifugal forces? | Ingrid Stock, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway |
| Workshop | 0 | Using free online tools to support writing development | Lynn Reynolds, Martin Agombar, Write Now CETL, London Metropolitan University |
Learning doctoral writing: pain and pleasure
Claire Aitchison, Janice Catterall, Pauline Ross, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Abstract
The competitive global market for graduates and expectations of greater research accountability, require researchers to be competent writers of high-quality theses and publications during, as well as after, doctoral candidature. Institutions, supervisors and research students themselves are responding to these changing requirements - and yet we still know relatively little about how students actually learn these advanced academic literacies.
This paper reports on research into the writing experiences of higher degree research students and their supervisors in a large health and science-based faculty in a major metropolitan Australian university. The research draws on survey and interview data with supervisors and students highlighting the different perspectives of these two groups and their experiences of teaching and learning advanced research writing skills. This account explores the tensions that supervisors and students experience over roles and identity as played out in the production of the thesis and related texts. In particular we report on the less commonly acknowledged affective aspects, exploring how particular pedagogical practices can work to make writing the site of significant emotional angst as students struggle to become certain kinds of disciplinary scholars.
The paper concludes with an overview, drawn from a variety of countries, of pedagogical innovations for the development of doctoral writing for publication during candidature.
Traditional peer-tutoring models: are they appropriate for all ESL students?
Maria Eleftheriou, American Univerisity of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Abstract
The writing centre occupies a unique position in education. In North America, most colleges, universities and high schools today provide writing centres to assist English native speakers or those who are pursuing English-as-a-second-language (ESL) programs.
The philosophical approach of writing centres has always been based on a student-centred or a Socratic model (North, 1984). This inductive approach assumes the students have the resources to answer their own questions, solve their own problems, and learn through self-discovery. Studies have shown this type of collaborative approach to be beneficial to students, but most of this research has focused on native speakers of English and ESL students in a North American context. ESL students who receive writing centre assistance are often not familiar with the rhetoric of English or with the type of active learning and discussion typically promoted in these tutorials and may require a different type of assistance with their writing than is typically given in North American writing centre tutorials (Powers, 1993; Thonus, 2002, Williams and Severino, 2004).
A qualitative study is currently being conducted on ESL writing centre tutorial practices at a writing centre in the Middle-East. In this paper, I will discuss the types of writing tutorial strategies that are successful with ESL clientele in the context of a Middle-Eastern university writing centre where the language of instruction is English. The study may provide a better understanding of the types of strategies that are effective with ESL students in different writing centre contexts and may help provide improved writing assistance to students in the region and in international writing centres.
References
North, S. (1984) The idea of a writing centre. College English; 46: 433-446.
Powers, J. (1993) Rethinking writing centre conferencing strategies for the ESL writer. Writing Center Journal; 13: (2) 39- 47.
Thonus, T. (2002) Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is ‘success’? Assessing Writing; 8: 110-134.
Williams, J., Severino, C. (2004) The writing centre and second language writers. The Journal of Second Language Writing; 13: 165-172.
Students' attitudes towards their writer identities in the last year of A-levels and the transition from school to university
Sally Baker, The Open University, UK
Abstract
It has been argued that students are ill-equipped to deal with the rigorous standards expected of them in higher education (Lightfoot, 2006) and that, in this time of economic uncertainty and unprecedented competition for university places, the transition from school to university represents an important ‘crossing point' for students. Student's writing provides a platform for exploring this crossing point as a contested social space because writing, when conceptualised as social practice, is a rich and complex product and process that communicates the varied nature of students' learning experiences and sense of identities within the limits imposed by curricular and institutional demands.
This project is situated in the sociocultural model of literacy research and uses an academic literacies approach to provide an epistemological lens on the writing process which places the writer at the heart of the inquiry, which Lillis and Scott assert allows the researcher to move away from a purely textual analysis and explore the array of issues that affect student academic writing. These include ‘the impact of power relations on student writing; the contested nature of academic writing convention; [and] the centrality of identity…’ (2007, p.12).
This presentation will introduce the research design and preliminary findings of an ethnographic-style project which is following a group of British students' from their last year of A' levels to their first year of undergraduate study. This research aims to explore the different practices that constitute ‘writing for the curriculum' at both levels and the associated assessment strategies; and students' attitudes towards their writing as well as their feelings about the impact the transition has on them individually. The question at the heart of this inquiry is to what extent the transition affects the students' ‘writer identities'.
Furthermore, I will provide a discussion of the themes that have emerged from the data so far, in terms of how students perceive their writer identities and how these fit alongside their thoughts about starting university. These themes include: Competition, reliance on/rejection of feedback and the need for personal interest. It will use vignettes from selected interviews with the students, collected from the first phase of data collection, to illuminate the discussion.
References
Lightfoot, L. (2006) Spoon-fed: Pupils can't cope at college. Telegraph newspaper.
Available from: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/09/nedu09.xml (accessed on 16 February 2008).
Lillis, T., Scott, M. (2007) Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics; 4: (1) 5-32.
At first I didn't know what they wanted, I was going in blind: students' experiences of pedagogic practices designed to illuminate the ‘rules of engagement' in assignment writing
Kay Sambell, Catherine Montgomery, Northumbria University, UK
Abstract
This paper will focus on a pedagogic development project that explores students' experiences of assessment workshops designed to help them to make effective transitions to assignment-writing in higher education. By encouraging students to work collaboratively and formatively on exemplars (brief examples of student writing about threshold concepts in the discipline), the project seeks to support students in adapting to the conventions and (often tacit) ‘rules of engagement' of university study.
The exemplars workshops are integrated into classroom activities and embedded in appropriate subject-knowledge. The aim is to support student writing by seeking to open up staff-student dialogue about assessment, writing and learning practices. First, the workshops are designed to help students understand what tutors are looking for when they assess student writing (Handley et al., 2007). This is particularly challenging, given that writing for assessment is a highly contextualised social practice which depends crucially on the outlook of the course and the academics who designed it (Bloxham, 2009; Orr, 2007). Second, the workshops seek to develop students' capacities for evaluating their own work, with a view to supporting ‘sustainable assessment practices' or ‘learning for the longer term' (Boud and Falchicov, 2006). In this way the project builds on previous work (see, for instance, Rust, O'Donovan and Price, 2005; Bloxham and West, 2007; Falchicov, 2005) which has focused on devising methods of engaging students as active participants in, rather than victims of, the assessment process.
The paper will describe the workshops and present the findings from interviews with student participants, highlighting key themes and issues which might help inform practice development.
References
Bloxham, S. (2009) Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 34: (2) 209-220.
Bloxham, S., West, A. (2007) Learning to write in higher education: Students' perceptions of an intervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education; 12: (1) 77-89.
Boud, D., Falchicov, N. (2006) Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 31: (4) 399-413.
Falchikov, N. (2005) Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement. London: Routledge Falmer.
Handley, K., Szwelnik, A., Ujma, D., Lawrence, L., Millar, J., Price, M. (2007) When Less is More: Students' experiences of assessment feedback. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy Annual Conference: ‘Engaging Students in Higher Education', Harrogate, 2 July 2007.
Orr, S. (2007) Assessment moderation: Constructing the marks and constructing the students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 32: (6) 645-56.
Rust, C., O'Donovan, B., Price, M. (2005) A social constructivist assessment process model: How the research literature shows us this could be best practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education; 30: (3) 231-240.
Ecologies of writing programs: a heuristic for building sustainability
Amy Kimme Hea, Anne-Marie Hall, Ashley Holmes, Faith Kurtyka, University of Arizona, USA
Abstract
Sustainable writing programs are ones that draw upon local strengths while simultaneously engaging in transnational relationship building. The University of Arizona writing program serves 12,000 students each year, offering a range of first-year, upper-division, technology-enhanced, distance education, and even newly created off-site campus writing courses (both regionally and internationally). In our workshop we will offer participants analytical strategies to assess their own programmatic strengths as a means to develop responsive 21st century curricula that attend to diverse student populations (in terms of race, geography, ethnicity, religion, gender, language, family structure, socioeconomic levels, and familiarity with technology and new media). Mindful of democratization of knowledge and the idea of globalized education - concepts that are becoming commonplaces in academic circles and in our own research agendas - we understand that as administrators and literacy experts in higher education contexts, we must work together to strategically develop sustainable programs.
This workshop will critically examine several practices employed by the University of Arizona to broaden our conception and deployment of best practices and the ways in which those practices cross regional, technological, and cultural borders. To this end, we will offer a heuristic for building sustainable writing programs and discuss the ways this heuristic analysis has influenced our program. We will draw from multiple theories including new literacy studies and its idea that literacy and multimodality are situated in particular social and cultural contexts (J.P. Gee; B. Street, New London Group), contemporary theories that stress situated knowledge (C. Bazerman; G. Myers; D. Haraway), notions of discourses and how they are socially and culturally formed, sustained, circulated and ultimately determined to be normal or not (M. Bakhtin; P. Bourdieu; M. Foucault). Using our heuristic as a platform and incorporating examples of our own research in visual and spatial rhetorics and comparative pedagogies, we will spend the majority of the workshop working with participants to generate ideas among teachers and scholars. Our workshop will culminate with all participants sharing their ideas and creating a network of sustainable practices that relate to their specific needs and contexts. To maintain our commitment to sustainable writing programs and the ongoing dialogue we hope to foster in our workshop, we will share materials and participant responses on a Ning site entitled Sustainable Writing Programs (see www.sustainable-wpa.ning.com).
References
Bakhtin, M. (1930s) The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays. M, Holquist (ed.) C. Emerson, M. Holquist (trans) Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1981.
Bazerman, C. (1992) Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1979/1984) Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Gee, J.P. (2000) The New Literacy Studies and the ‘Social Turn’. In: D. Barton, M. Hamilton, R. Ivanič (eds) Situated Literacies: Reading and writing in context. Florence, Kentucky: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Haraway, D. (1995) Situated Knowedges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In: A. Feenberg, A. Hannay (eds) Technology and the Politics of Knowledge. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 175-94.
Myers, G. (1992) Writing Biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Street, B. (1995) Social Literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London: Longman.
The New London Group (2000) A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In: B. Cope, M. Kalantzis (eds) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
Writing for success: mentoring as a pedagogical tool - a cross-institutional study
Jane Andrews, Robin Clark, Aston University, UK
Abstract
The prominent position given to academic writing across contemporary academia is reflected in the substantive literature and debate devoted to the subject over the past 30 years. However, the massification of higher education, manifested by a shift from elite to mass education, has brought the issue into the public arena, with much debate focusing on the need for ‘modern-day' students to be taught how to write academically (Bjork et al., 2003; Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006). Indeed, Russell (2003) argued that academic writing has become a global ‘problem' in Higher Education because it sits between two contradictory pressures (p.V). On one end of the university ‘experience' increasing numbers of students, many from non-traditional backgrounds, enter higher education bringing with them a range of communication abilities. At the other end, many graduates leave university to work in specialised industries where employers expect them to have high level writing skills (Ashton, 2007; Russell, 2003; Torrence et al., 1999).
By drawing attention to the issues around peer mentoring within an academic writing setting in three different higher education Institutions, this paper makes an important contribution to current debates. Based upon a critical analysis of the emergent findings of an empirical study into the role of peer writing mentors in promoting student transition to higher education, the paper adopts an academic literacies approach to discuss the role of writing mentoring in promoting transition and retention by developing students' academic writing. Attention is drawn to the manner in which student expectations of writing mentoring actually align with mentoring practices - particularly in terms of the writing process and critical thinking. Other issues such as the approachability of writing mentors, the practicalities of accessing writing mentoring and the wider learning environment are also discussed.
References:
Ashton, R. (2007) The write skills. Training Journal; Jan: 34-38.
Bjork, L., Brauer, G., Rienecker, L., Jorgensen, P.S. (2003) Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education. London: Klewer Academic, 29-40.
Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2006) Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education: Theories, practices and models. Basingstoke: MacMillan Palgrave, 29-40.
Russell, D.R. (2003) Preface. In: L. Bjork, G. Brauer, L. Rienecker, P. S. Jorgensen (eds) Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education. London: Klewer Academic.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G., Robinson, E. (1999) Individual Differences in the Writing Behaviour of Undergraduate Students. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 69: 189-199.
It's a lonely walk: investigating the PhD writers' experience
Gillian Fergie, Suzanne Beeke, Colleen McKenna, Phyllis Crème, University College London, UK
Abstract
For many PhD students, the challenge of writing their thesis is undertaken without a great deal of guidance. While supervisors provide insight into crucial subject debates and advice on research design, they do not always provide a space in which to discuss and engage with issues of reading and writing, the awareness of which is important in the development of academic identity (Ivanic, 1998; Kamler and Thomson, 2006). One student remarked on her experience of doing a PhD, ‘you're on your own and it requires a great deal of diligence and discipline and it's a lonely walk.'
This presentation explores the experiences of five students at University College London (UCL) who took part in a writing module entitled ‘Developing a Literature Review' in 2008/9. The module was part of the taught curriculum for students pursuing a professional doctorate in speech and language therapy. The focus of the module was reading and writing for the PhD, with the specific goal of producing a literature review. Module topics included both theoretical and practical approaches to writing at postgraduate level and addressed discipline-related issues. The sessions were approached, by both the module facilitator and the students, as an informal space where reading and writing were prioritised; discussions were open and often student-led and learning was often peer-based.
This research is situated within an academic literacies framework (Lea and Street, 1998) and took a broadly ethnographic approach: interviews and a focus group were conducted and a range of texts produced by participants were collected. Three key themes to emerge from the data were related to the development of the students' confidence as writers and more generally as researchers. These were:
· Space - the value of having a defined space for writing, providing a new focus for learning in a less formal environment
· Academic identity - the development of the students' academic identity through writing and gaining confidence as writers
· Peer learning - the importance of discussion with peers in developing writing and academic identity.
The students' descriptions of their experience suggest they valued the space created by the module and were keen to utilise it as an opportunity for learning. As a result the module is now more widely available to students within UCL.
Our presentation will explore the key themes described above, and discuss implications for the enhancement of students' learning experiences, and the place of writing development within institutions.
References
Lea, M.R., Street, B.V. (1998) Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education; 23: (2) 157-172.
Kamler, B., Thomson, P. (2006) Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.
Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
The art of persuasion in academic writing
Martin Sedgley, University of Bradford, UK
Abstract
Neville (2009) notes in his observations on the 'beautiful art' of writing that '… our essay need not just be a dull, utilitarian thing but rather a means of persuasion' (p.136). This conference paper describes an approach I take to enliven undergraduates’ experience of producing academic assignments by applying Aristotle’s model of rhetoric to modern-day writing (Rapp, 2010). As the effective learning advisor at University of Bradford School of Management, I teach a 10-credit Level 2 module, ‘writing for business and academic purposes’. In these classes, we consider how the rhetorical principles of logos, ethos and pathos may be harnessed by the students to build convincing argument and so persuade their tutors that the work merits high grades.
This can provide new insights for the students into the reasons for evaluating others’ relevant ideas, synthesising these effectively and referencing them appropriately in their own written assignments. Students consistently report that these two skills of critical analysis and referencing present the greatest challenges to their successful adaptation to higher education academic expectations (Northedge, 2003; Shahabudin, 2009). Critical analysis in particular seems to represent a 'quantum jump' in their understanding, or what Meyer and Land (2003, p.1) have termed a 'threshold concept' of learning. The paper explains how students use Aristotle’s model in practical class exercises to analyse past students’ academic work, as well as their own. These can enable them to understand more deeply the academic criteria that tutors are applying to assessment, by learning to empathise more closely with the tutor’s position – something that can otherwise be very difficult for them (Bloxham and West, 2007; Lillis and Turner, 2001; Norton et al., 1996). The paper also refers to varied class resources such as recordings of contemporary orators and their skilful use of rhetoric.
The paper explores how class discussions around the ubiquity of persuasion can allow opportunities to consider different epistemological positions concerning such concepts as truth and objectivity. In a recent class, for example, we considered the notion that even a science such as economics involves rhetoric and persuasion (McCloskey, 2010). Such discussions can help to explore the place for the student’s own voice in relation to derived ideas from other sources – often another source of bafflement for many students.
References
Bloxham, S., West, A. (2007) Learning to write in higher education: Students’ perception of an intervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education; 12: (1) 77-89.
Lillis, T., Turner, J. (2001) Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education; 6: (1) 57- 68.
McCloskey, D. (2010) Prudence, you no longer rule my world. Times Higher Education Supplement. 14 January 2010. 44.
Meyer, J.H.F., Land, R. (2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.
Available from: www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport4.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2009).
Neville, C. (2009) How to Improve your Assignment Results. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education; 8: (1) 17-32.
Norton, L., Dickins, T., McLaughlin Cook, N. (1996) Coursework Assessment: What tutors are really looking for? In: G. Gibbs (ed) Improving Student Learning: Using research to improve student learning. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.
Rapp, C. Aristotle's Rhetoric (forthcoming) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Available from: URLhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Shahabudin, K. (2009) Investigating Effective Resources to Enhance Student Learning: An overview of learnhigher research, 2005-2008. LearnHigher.
Scenario pedagogy: a participative multimodal teaching-learning approach for enhanced communicative practice
Terri Grant, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Abstract
The characteristics of contemporary classrooms mean that there is often less time to achieve more. This situation calls for imaginative approaches to teaching practice that transcend traditional assumptions. New approaches are necessary too if the dynamic links among student literacy, vocational preparedness, organisations (such as the university or workplace), global issues like environmental management and digital technology proliferation, and curriculum, are to be better understood.
Scenario pedagogy (SP) is a multimodal approach to teaching that responds to the social and pedagogical demands set out above. It goes beyond a functional, language-based genre approach to teaching specific business or academic genres within an embedded scenario happening in real-time. This experiential, collaborative and context-rich teaching model foregrounds the importance of purpose and target audience and aims to heighten the possibility of enhancing professional communication practices.
The SP approach has been used successfully over a number of years to teach academic and professional journal article writing to computer science students, using an ICT scenario as the significant backdrop to teaching. This paper describes a more recent professional communication intervention for business and accounting students.
Key theoretical concepts include multimodal social semiotics, new literacy studies (NLS) and multiliteracies which intersects across a range of disciplines relating mainly to communication, applied linguistics and education.
In the current application of SP students investigate aspects of the particular institutional scenario of the University of Cape Town’s (UCT’s) sustainability and environmental management practices, and present the results of their research in the form of a written investigation report and oral report to various internal and external stakeholders. Classroom time is used primarily to provide background to the institutional scenario with input from institutional experts, and for students to display draft results of research in a scaffolded manner, moving from conceptual planning using mind-maps, to linear topic outlines, to team presentations and the final report.
Scenario pedagogy aims to motivate learning and meaning-making on multiple planes in its apprenticeship-like use of a real-world situation in students’ own institutional settings. Students’ perceptions in previous research are that they increase the range of learning in terms of, for example, building research and interviewing skills; being motivated by interest in the real-world content as well as the sense of doing a ‘real’ investigation. Students report a raised awareness of firstly environmental issues and secondly of institutional issues, stating their appreciation of the complexity of the university where they did not appreciate this previously.
References
Archer, A. (2006) A multimodal approach to academic ‘literacies’: Problematising the visual/verbal divide. Language and Education; 20: (6) 449-462.
Arnett, R.C. (1992) Dialogic Education about Ideas and Between Persons. Carbondale Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Davis, O.I. (2002) What have we not learned about diversity in the University? International Communication Association Newsletter; 30: (6).
Gee, J.P. (2003) What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy. Houndmills Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grant, T. (2005a) The case for ‘face-time’ in a multicultural, computer-mediated global economy. Communicatio; 31: (1) 97-106.
Grant, T. (2005b) The case for mindfulness in teaching and learning. South African Journal of Higher Education; 19: (3) 555-565.
Grant, T. (2008) Postgraduate diploma collaborative assignment: Implications for ESL students and curriculum design. South African Journal of Higher Education; 22: (6) 1185-1196.
Grant T., Borcherds, R. (2002) Communicating @ work. Boosting your spoken, written and visual impact when results matter. (2nd edn, Van Schaik – 2008). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Grant, T., Kalil, C. (2008) Context-rich emerging pedagogies for business and technical students. Paper presented at the SAARDHE-HELTASA conference: Education as a Social Space. Grahamstown, South Africa. 1-3 December.
Hymes, D.H. (1979) On Communicative Competence. In: C.J. Brumfit, K. Johnson (eds) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age. London and New York: Routledge.
Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., Tsatsarelis, C. (2001) Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.
Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. London: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (2002) Teaching all the Languages of Science: Words, Symbols, Images, and Actions. Available from: www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke/papers/barcelon.htm (accessed on 12 June 2007).
Lynott, P.A. (1998) Teaching business communication in an accelerated program. Business Communication Quarterly; 61: (2) 20-27.
McCroskey, J.C. (1998) Why we Communicate the ways we do. A communi-biological perspective. USA: Arnold Lecture.
Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (eds) (2005) Educating the Net Generation. Educause: Transforming Education through Information Technologies.
Smart, K., Csapo, N. (2007) Learning by doing: Engaging students through learner-centred activities. Business Communication Quarterly; 70: (4) 450-457.
Smagorinsky, P., Fly, P.K. (1993) The social environment of the classroom: A Vygotskian perspective on small group process. Communication Education; 42: (2) 159-171.
Steyn, M. (2003) Conceptualizing diversity in change management: chimeras and hard realities. Paper presented at the conference on Corporate Social Responsibility and Diversity held at the Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, 27-30 June, 2003.
Issues in providing writing support for doctoral theses: lessons from the arts
Erik Borg, Coventry University, UK
Abstract
The doctoral thesis has an odd status as a textual type or genre. On the one hand, it is widely perceived outside and within academia as a unified text type; on the other, it is so strongly discipline-specific that Thompson (2005, p.311) questioned whether it was useful to talk of the PhD thesis as a genre. He suggested that theses vary to such an extent that describing a ‘single prototypical exponent’ is impossible.
This presentation will discuss why the PhD thesis both is and isn't a genre, and the implications for writing support of this contradictory situation. Using data from a study of doctoral students in fine art practice and design, the presentation will explain why this mixed nature makes the thesis difficult to teach and write, both for emerging disciplines, such as those that are practice-based, and for new forms of the doctorate, such as those that are interdisciplinary or demonstrate contextualised knowledge creation (Mode 2 knowledge; Gibbons et al., 1994).
This presentation will clarify these sometimes-conflicting conceptualisations for those providing writing support for doctoral candidates or supervisors.
References
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, P. (2005) Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes; 4: 307-323.
Supporting writing in transition: should sustainability be a goal?
Kelly Peake, Sally Mitchell, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Abstract
Whilst the primary focus of our work in the Queen Mary thinking writing team has been on writing within the academic curriculum of our university, over recent years we have become increasingly interested in understanding the experiences of students within the pre-university sector, and in contributing to easing the transition into university level writing. Our vehicle for doing this has been a small widening participation project (funded by Aimhigher and in collaboration with The Write Now CETL at London Metropolitan University), enabling us to offer academic literacy courses and workshops to sixth form and further education students.
Now in our second year we have honed and narrowed our focus, helping students develop methods to critically analyse their own writing at word, sentence and paragraph level, and taking as a theoretical basis a language awareness approach (van Lier, 1995; Bolitho et al., 2003) and an academic literacies orientation (Lillis, 2006). We have run our ‘focus on writing’ session both as a course at Queen Mary, and as half-day workshops with follow-up writing tutorials in a range of East London schools. The sessions were targeted this year at year 12 students in arts, humanities and social sciences and employed a group of university student writing mentors.
Although rewarding, the project has made high demands on participants and developers in terms of time, logistics and cost, and also in terms of developing intellectual focus. We are now at a point of having to decide whether, and if so how, to continue this strand of work.
In this presentation, we will briefly describe the processes, successes and challenges of the project to date, drawing on data from students, teachers, writing mentors and our own evaluation. Against this background, we will explore meanings of sustainability in such a multi-contextual project, and question not only whether – and how – this type of work might be sustainable, but also whether sustainability is a desirable goal for this type of writing development.
References
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, T., Tomlinson, B. (2003) Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal; 57: (3) 251-259.
Lillis, T.M. (2006) ‘Academic Literacies' Research as Pedagogy: Dialogues of Participation. In: L. Ganobscik-Williams (ed.) Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education: Theories, practices and models. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Van Lier, L. (1995) Introducing Language Awareness. London: Penguin.
Sustainable support for third year student dissertations in the discipline of BA English language studies
Marion Colledge, Stephen Jones, London Metropolitan University, UK
Abstract
Third-year students of BA English language studies undertake a year-long research project module where they produce a literature review and a small piece of practical research culminating in a dissertation of 9000 words. The BA degree attracts more than 50% of non-traditional entrants, including many students with English as their second language. Throughout the degree, beginning in the first year, staff approach writing support from within the discipline (Hyland, 2004).
We carried out action research last year among students starting this research project. We undertook a pre-module survey to determine students’ prior experience of research and their feelings before beginning their projects. Some experienced considerable anxiety at the idea of producing a 9,000 word dissertation (cf Lillis, 2003). Our analyses of previous student dissertations showed that many students faced challenges structuring their literature reviews and that many did not initially see the applicability of some of the relevant literature to their particular thesis situations. We followed this up eclectically with sustainable support: frontloading more of the tuition rather than giving so many tutorials (cf. Cullen, 2006), rendering the module a more collaborative affair, producing support and link materials on the university intranet and encouraging students to use a mind-mapping software (Mind Genius). We can therefore claim that this is sustainable support. This paper describes these innovations, some of which have now been evaluated, some of which are ongoing. Given that most undergraduate courses must cater for students with varied learning styles embarking upon 3rd Year undergraduate dissertations, this paper should be of interest to many tutors.
References
Acker, S., Hills, T. (1994) Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Managed or negotiated? Higher Education; 28: (4) 483-98.
Cullen, S. (2006) Resource Guide to Dissertation Supervision on Taught Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programme. Higher Education Academy (accessed on 13 February 2010).
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
James, P. (1998) Progressive development of deep learning skills through undergraduate and postgraduate dissertations. Educational Studies; 24: (1).
Lea, M., Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education; 23: (2) 157-172.
Lillis, T. (2003) Student Writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
Available from: http://www.mindgenius.com/ (accessed on 14 February 2010).
Preece, R. (1994) Starting Research. London: Pinter Publishers.
Rowley, J., Slack, F. (2004) What is the future for undergraduate dissertations? Education and training; 45: (4) 176-181.
The authorial presence of learner-writers in their master theses: caught between centripetal and centrifugal forces?
Ingrid Stock, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Abstract
Developing independence and one’s own voice are fundamental learning objectives in higher education. Especially master students have to demonstrate their independence, involvement and assessment ability when writing their master thesis. Knowledge about academic writing is often implicit and tacit knowledge, appropriated through the socialisation in the culture of the discipline (Hoel, 2008, p.83; Lea and Street, 2000, p.40). Not only experienced students, but also teachers and examiners have problems describing concretely what ‘independence’ and ‘own voice’ look like in an academic text.
Motivated by the research from Lillis and Ivanic on student writing and identity, the focus of this study is on the development of the learner-writer’s voice in the tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces. Writing a master thesis is a complex process: Master students are required to display their knowledge drawing on established conventions, academic ways of constructing knowledge and approved theories in the field. At the same time, students are supposed to demonstrate their independence and develop their own authoritative voice in writing their master thesis.
My research is based on the work of Bakhtin and his terms ‘centripetal and centrifugal forces’. While centripetal forces as conventions and norms in the field might serve for centralization and unification in academic writing, centrifugal forces might ensure variation and diversity, and contribute to heteroglossia - to ‘newer ways to mean’ (Bakhtin, 1981).
My study investigates the introduction and theory chapters of master theses in the field of applied linguistics. The focus is primarily on the written text (searching for the author behind the words with my research questions as guideline), but includes also sociocultural aspects influencing the writing process as revealed in a group interview.
The study shows that master students are in the ‘process of becoming’ (Wenger, 1998), and the fact that the master thesis will be assessed positions the writer as a student rather than as a recognized contributor to the field. In their writing, students try to balance on what Ivanic (1995) calls the ‘fine line’ between demonstrating authority and overstepping the limits of their authority. This study demonstrates how the learner-writers sometimes ‘do school’ by writing in an ‘assignment-genre’, while at other times they take on the role of an author in their discipline.
References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays (utgitt av M. E. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hoel, Torlaug Løkensgard (2008) Skriving ved Universitet og Høgskolar – for lærarar og studentar. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Ivanic, R. (1995) Writer identity. Prospect: The Australian Journal of TESOL; 10: 8-31.
Lea, M., Street, B.V. (2000) Student Writing and Staff Feedback in Higher Education: An academic literacies approach. In: M.R. Lea, B. Stierer (eds), Student Writing in Higher Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Lillis, T. (2003) Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language and Education; 17: (3) 192-207.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Using free online tools to support writing development
Lynn Reynolds and Martin Agombar, Write Now CETL, London Metropolitan University, UK
A whistle-stop tour of freely available online tools that support writing development for all, from research and composition to collaboration and communication. The workshop will provide a foundation for independent exploration of the tools throughout the conference, and further guidance will be available at the in-house cyber-station.
