C:iToolsWMSKCG-MacMilan 2617WorkingFolder9780230 237087 … · Using assessment criteria to facilitate dialogue and feedback 53 The problem of “academic writing” 56 Principles

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-v 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

Contents

List of Tables and Figures xiPreface xiiiAcknowledgements xviiSeries Editors’ Preface xixNotes on Contributors xx

Part I Contexts

Writing in the Disciplines: Beyond Remediality 3Mary Deane and Peter O’Neill

Discipline-based writing instruction 3The origins of WiD 5WiD and “Academic Literacies” theorising 7Writing in the Disciplines: The argument of the volume 8Notes 11References 11

1 Cross-Cultural Approaches to Writing andDisciplinarity 14Christiane Donahue

Introduction 14Contexts for teaching writing 14Critiques of current US models 16New models of expertise 18Transfer of writing knowledge: Learning from

longitudinal studies 20Conclusion: Learning from recent developments in France

and the US 24References 26

2 Developing Academic Literacy in Context: Trends inAustralia 30Emily Purser

Introduction 30The Australian experience: background and directions 31

v

PROOF

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-vi 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

vi Contents

Challenges 35Balancing the priorities 37Conclusion: Projects to develop literacy in the

disciplines 42Notes 43References 43

3 The Role of Assessment in “Writing in theDisciplines” 48Katherine Harrington

Introduction 48Assessment for learning 49Using assessment criteria to facilitate dialogue and

feedback 53The problem of “academic writing” 56Principles of WiD-supportive assessment

practice 58Conclusion 59References 60

Part II Collaborating to Support StudentWriters

4 A Comparison of “Additional” and“Embedded” Approaches to TeachingWriting in the Disciplines 65Ursula Wingate

Introduction 65Additional and embedded approaches 67Case Study 1: “Additional” writing support 68Design of the modules 69The module “academic writing” 70Piloting of the modules 72Implementation and evaluation 73Case Study 2: “Embedded” writing support 74The five intervention methods 74Evaluation 77Covering subject content 78Teacher workload 78Student perceptions of the intervention 79

PROOF

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-vii 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

Contents vii

Improvements in student texts and the impactof formative feedback 80

Other evidence of enhanced understandingand competence 81

A critical comparison of the two approaches 82Conclusion 83Appendix 1: Screenshot of list of tutor comments 84Appendix 2: Analysis of an argument from a student essay 85References 85

5 Enhancing Students’ Legal Writing 88Steve Foster and Mary Deane

Introduction 88Expectations of law lecturers about students’ writing 88Teaching legal writing to first-year students at Coventry

University 91Breakdown of legal writing course components 94Findings 98Conclusion 100References 102

6 Writing Hazards 103Dave Horne and Kelly Peake

Introduction 103Thinking Writing 103“Developing Academic Literacy in Context” 104Developing assessment criteria 109Outcomes and reflections 113Subsequent developments 116Acknowledgements 119References 119

7 Taking Action in Business 122Myrtle Emmanuel, Peter O’Neill, Debbie Holley,

Linda Johnson and Sandra Sinfield

Introduction 122Redesigning the first-year experience 123People Management: Challenges and Choices 124Challenges delivering PMCC in the first semester 129Reading for PMCC 131Writing for PMCC 134

PROOF

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-viii 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

viii Contents

Solutions for getting students to engage in reading andwriting 136

Conclusion 137References 138

8 Writing for Mathematics Education at DoctoralLevel 140Peter Samuels and Mary Deane

Introduction 140Pressure to publish 141Mathematics education 141Mathematics writing workshops 142Event 1: Producing journal abstracts 142Event 2: Reviewing the literature 144Event 3: Postgraduate conference preparation 147Findings 149Conclusion 150Acknowledgements 150Appendices 151Note 153References 153

9 Political Theory, Academic Writing, and WideningParticipation 155Birgit Schippers and Jonathan Worley

Introduction 155Studying politics in an era of disenchantment? 156Political theory as critical theory 158Political theory on a widening participation programme:

Liberal Arts in Belfast 160Addressing the challenges of politics in the writing centre

classroom 162Reading: Understanding the discourse of

political theory 163Writing in politics: The rhetoric of criticality 167Conclusion 171References 172

10 Writing Design 174Dipti Bhagat and Peter O’Neill

Introduction 174Design and academic writing 177

PROOF

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-ix 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

Contents ix

Thinking about writing 181Planning: Curriculum re-design 182Acting: Writing as part of workshop practice 184Observation and evaluation 2007 186Collaboration 190Conclusion 193Notes 194References 194

11 From WAC to WiD: Trialling Writing-IntensivePedagogies with Academic Staff in UK HigherEducation 198Rebecca Bell, Sarah Broadberry and Julius Ayodeji

Introduction 198Convincing colleagues to collaborate 200Using WiD to develop student writing 203Using WiD activities to meet learning outcomes 205Conclusion 208Notes 211References 211

Part III WiD and the Institution

12 Backward Design: Towards an Effective Model ofStaff Development in Writing in the Disciplines 215John Bean

Introduction 215Theoretical design of WiD workshops 216Departmental action: Assessment and backward design 225Designing powerful writing assignments 228Conclusion 233Acknowledgements 235References 235

13 Writing in the Disciplines and LearningTechnologists: Towards Effective Collaboration 237Celine Llewellyn-Jones, Martin Agombar and Mary Deane

Introduction 237Learning technologists as integral to WiD work 237Challenges of collaboration 240Examples of collaboration 242

PROOF

July 27, 2011 15:13 MAC/DNE Page-x 9780230_237087_01_prexxiv

x Contents

Collaborative aims 247Conclusion 247Acknowledgements 248Note 248References 249

14 The Writing Centre as a Locus for WiD, WAC,and Whole-Institution Writing Provision 250Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams

Introduction 250A sense of possibility for writing development in UK HE 251The influence of US and European theories and models of

writing development 252The writing center/centre 254The writing centre as a base for WiD and WAC 255Key challenges and strategies 258Conclusion 259Notes 259References 261

Conclusion: Ways Forward for WiD 265Mary Deane and Peter O’Neill

Collaboration 265Professional development 265Research and publication 266WiD and rhetoric 266References 269

Afterword—and Onward! 271Cheryl Glenn

Index 273

PROOF

July 26, 2011 11:21 MAC/DNE Page-14 9780230_237087_03_cha01

1 Cross-CulturalApproaches to Writingand Disciplinarity

Christiane Donahue

▲Introduction

Academic writing has been established by many writing scholars as apowerful mode of thinking and knowledge production in the disciplines.Scientists, humanists, and social scientists do not just “write up” whatthey have worked on (Monroe, 2002), but in fact produce knowledgeand understanding, as they write what will be read informally or for-mally by others, or even what might be read only by themselves. Therelationships between writing and disciplinary knowledge are complex,and for students making their way through higher education (HE) evenmore so.

Some existing models of university writing instruction in the US,including the generic “introduction to college writing” model, the“autonomous literacy” model, and the contrastive rhetoric “features/conventions” model have been shown to be insufficient responses touniversity students’ needs as they move through their studies. A deeperunderstanding has, therefore, become necessary. This must focus onusing writing as discovery and as an epistemological tool to developwith students a meta-awareness of how academic conventions cometo shape a field, but also to consider the shaping of the students them-selves, as they resist or adapt those conventions. This chapter considersexisting and new models, the theories from which they build, and therole longitudinal studies have played in helping us to recognise thedevelopment of writing expertise in relation to disciplinary knowledge.

▲Contexts for teaching writing

The rhetoric of crisis concerning student writing focuses on a perceivedlack of “basic skills” and a rapidly changing terrain cited as responsible

14

PROOF


Cross-Cultural Approaches to Writing and Disciplinarity 15

for dumbing down students’ abilities and even their cognitiveprocessing—this, in spite of substantial research that shows no decline,over as much as a century, in students’ writing abilities, level of error,or processing capacity (see for example Crowley, 1998, Lunsford andLunsford, 2008). Whilst the call for work on students’ writing skillsreappears frequently in public discourse around the globe, there is nowidespread agreement as to how that work should be carried out.Approaches are context-tied in ways that offer deep insight into thevery nature of writing and disciplinarity.

The traditional US response to this question of student writing abilityhas been, since as early as the 1700s at Harvard, in the form of first-year writing courses designed to bridge the secondary/tertiary gap andto initiate students into the new demands of university writing. A closeexamination of the resultant “industry” of first-year composition hasevolved as well. Crowley has suggested that 160,000 classes of first-yearcomposition are offered each year in the US. This industry’s compo-nents say a lot about the generalised understanding of writing and itsinstruction; faculty are most often poorly paid adjuncts or trained grad-uate students, and initially these adjuncts were in fields like Englishor Creative Writing, although the evolution of the field of compositionstudies has produced many PhDs in “composition” or “composition andrhetoric” in the past 20 years.

The ubiquitous first-year writing/first-year composition course has,over the past 40 years, evolved in four broad models that are sometimesseen as historical stages but in fact currently co-exist: the expressivist,the current-traditional, the socio-constructivist, and the “critical con-sciousness” models, each with its beliefs about what students need,how students learn, what the purpose of HE is, and what writing doesfor and with knowledge.

Composition scholars and teachers have also explored and developed“Writing Across the Curriculum” (WAC) and “Writing in the Disciplines”(WiD). These strands have been focused on integrating students intospecific discourse communities. WAC embeds writing as a mode oflearning into every discipline, using low stakes and high stakes writ-ing as support of learning. This “writing to learn” approach is thusubiquitous in a different way, aiming to “improve students’ learningand writing (or learning through writing) in all university courses anddepartments (with some attention to school and adult education aswell)” (Russell et al., 2008, p. 395). Inspired from the start by thework of Britton and colleagues, further developed in the US by schol-ars like Emig (1977), the “writing to learn” movement has taken fourmain shapes over time, as summarised by Bangert and colleagues(2004): writing as in itself learning; writing as an educative approxi-mation of personally expressive and thus appropriative speech; writing

PROOF


16 Contexts

as having an impact on learning that is moderated by context; andwriting as affecting learning because it fosters “rehearsal, elaboration,organization, and self-monitoring” (p. 48). The initial write-to-learnwork has also been critiqued, however, for its lack of critical distanceand its tendency to confirm intuitive understandings of the writing-learning relationship (see for example Bangert et al., 2004), rather thanbuilding understanding from research.

The term WiD is also used, somewhat synonymously, but suggestsgreater attention to the relation between writing and learning in a spe-cific discipline (Russell et al., 2008). The WiD strand, however, hasbeen most often focused on integrating students into the discoursecommunities of their disciplines. WiD supports developing coursesin “writing in . . . X discipline”, offering faculty training, and studyingtextual practices, epistemologies and conventions tied to disciplines.

In keeping with the model of expert genres and communities intowhich students must be introduced or progressively initiated, at firstwork in this domain assumed an acculturation model: the disciplinaryknowledge and its related literate conventions exist, and students arebrought into them—compositionists studied the ways of being andconventions of a community and then taught them. Frequently thiswas painted as a discourse community model, with students mak-ing progress from novice to expert, from outsider to insider—a viewsupported by most US assessment models. The perspective is alwaysone of progressive integration, moving from (simple) reproduction to(complex) production. Many studies of disciplinary work assume theexperts are “pure purveyors of their disciplines” (Prior, 1998, p. 13) andthus the relationship with students becoming disciplinary members isuncomplicated.

Until fairly recently in US research, however, there had not beenmuch analysis of students’ actual literate activities as they evolve intheir appropriation of disciplinary discourses; most of the research hadfocused on students entering into the university’s first year or stu-dents exiting from the university into the workplace. Occasionally thefocus had been on graduate students (see, for example, Prior, 1998,Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995). Now, however, longitudinal studiesare beginning to offer insights into what goes on in between thesetwo stages (see the reference list of pages 26–9 for a list of the mostwell-known published longitudinal studies in the US).

▲Critiques of current US models

Recent US scholarship suggests that the generic first-year course maymiss the mark in both theory and practice. These studies have also

PROOF



begun to show the cracks in the acculturation model. At the sametime, UK-centred criticism suggests that WAC and WiD developmentsmight also need to be framed differently. As Russell and his colleagueshave recently pointed out, while the US focus has largely remained onintegration and acculturation, other countries with different researchagendas and different evolutions focus differently; the UK, for exam-ple, has since the 1990s developed deep attention to critical languageawareness and to student resistance in disciplinary contexts, not justin the first year. UK Academic Literacies work has contributed to thecritique of a model that does not account for the student’s role, the stu-dent’s resistances, and for some (particularly, Theresa Lillis, 2001) thestudent’s desires (see also Russell et al., 2008).

Carter’s 1990 review of the novice-to-expert literature and the inter-relatedness of the cognitive and social models set the stage for closerexamination of the relationship between discipline-specific contextsand generalised writing knowledge. While he presents fairly linearstages of development from novice to expert, his model can be readas recursive both within one particular trajectory and across multipletrajectories in any individual’s life. Novice-to-expert work on students’writing by Nancy Sommers (2008) suggests that the degree to whicha student is immersed in the knowledge of a discipline directly affectsthe student’s facility with writing. She notes that even in a discipline,students who specialise (her example is history) fare better than thosewho follow eclectic interests. There is some analysis in broader dis-cussions about the way professionals in disciplines consider expertiseand literate activity, accepting diversity and heterogeneity more will-ingly for their own work than for the work they expect of their students(Thaiss and Zawacki, 2006). This is further complicated by the fact thatdisciplinary specialists teach, in US HE, both general education (non-specialist) and discipline-specific (specialist) versions of their material.

While the most frequent US theoretical model has thus been the “dis-course community” and acculturation models, Prior offers an excellentcritique of the structuralist underpinnings of “community” versions ofdisciplines and disciplinary writing and speaking. Prior suggests thatthe notion of “discourse community” shaped theory and research onwriting in the disciplines for a couple of decades (1998). Usually disci-plines are seen, in this frame, as “unified social territories” or “abstractsystems of codified knowledge”. The discourse community model usesspatial metaphors, terms of norming, and governance modes for reg-ulating interaction. He suggests that the structuralist underpinningsfunction in a cycle: theorists create a research space that transcends theeveryday, decontextualise and abstract out information, and then gov-ern with rules that explain the workings of the space. In the US historyof the frame, it arrived at a key point in our history, when we wanted to

PROOF


18 Contexts

resist cognitivist frames (Prior, 1998). But as Russell (1990) has pointedout, academia as a whole could not be considered a discourse com-munity with shared linguistic forms. Carter (1990) furthers this critiqueby pointing out that the US discourse community model was heav-ily influenced by the sociolinguistic concept of the speech community,as initially developed by Hymes (1974). His “profoundly cultural andcontextual” local theory of linguistic practice was taken up by com-positionists studying disciplinary discourses and memberships (Carter,1990, p. 278). The discourse community model has been criticised byothers in the US field, notably Harris (1996) and Donahue (2008), forthe way “community” was imagined as relatively homogeneous andapolitical; both suggest that we need to better capture the heteroge-neous, multilayered, conflicted nature of both universities in generaland disciplines in particular in which literate activities are the currencyof knowledge production. These model shifts would have direct impacton teaching.

▲New models of expertise

More recently, studies suggest replacing discourse communities(academia or discipline) with Lave and Wenger’s “communities of prac-tice’ model” (1991). Prior defines Lave and Wenger’s communities ofpractice concept as not defined by a discrete shared core of abstractknowledge and language that people internalise to become expertmembers; instead, a community of practice is an open, dynamic body,a “set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and inrelation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice”(1997, p. 21).

Community of practice is more subtle as a concept, and depicts par-ticipation in practices; activity is partially improvised by participants,partially by collective context (p. 20). The emphasis on practice, ratherthan on discourse, shifts us towards the more complex interactionCarter suggested between the local and the general.

Prior (1998) “learning . . . [as] generated by a person’s embodied,active, perspectival trajectory through multiple, interpenetrated andinternally stratified communities of practice in the world, communi-ties that are themselves dynamic, open, and evolving” (1998, p. 99).In this model, “disciplinary enculturation thus refers not to novicesbeing initiated, but to the continual processes whereby an ambigu-ous cast of relative newcomers and relative oldtimers (re)producethemselves, their practices, and their communities” (Prior, 1998,p. xi). Prior offers, again citing Lave and Wenger (1991), the term“mature” practices as a way to understand developed expertise.

PROOF



Note that the emphasis is on the practices rather than the person,contrary to much previous US scholarship. We see disciplines, in thisframework, as conflicted, shifting, fluid, “open networks, forged throughrelational activity” (p. 25), and thus a process rather than a product. Dis-ciplines are thus quite human rather than “just a unified anonymousstructure of linguistic, rhetorical, and epistemic conventions” (Prior,1998, p. 22).

Carter (1990) suggests that the two central frames in writing studiesfor understanding the nature of this kind of expertise are the cognitiverhetoric frame and the social rhetoric frame. For Carter, the first positsexpertise as general (and generalisable) knowledge and the ability tobring well-developed general strategies to any writing task; the sec-ond posits expertise as the acquisition of specialised local knowledge,“domain-specific knowledge attained through much experience withinthat domain” that enables a writer to participate in a discourse com-munity (p. 269). Each of these perspectives differently influences ourunderstanding of the writing expertise we seek to develop in studentsas they move into the knowledge-producing writing of their disciplines.In an educational model that requires students to study simultane-ously as novices in some domains and as specialists in others, thiscontrast is particularly interesting. It has been the subject of muchattention in US composition work (Russell and Yanez, 2003) and muchwork focused on “the degree to which a writer’s success depends uponknowledge of context-specific discourse conventions” (Faigley, 1985;Broadhead and Freed, 1986; Doheny-Farina, 1989; Anson and Forsberg,1990; Odell, 1992).

Carter suggested as early as 1990, predicting interests that woulddevelop 15 years later, that in fact educational research supports theinteraction of cognitive and social rhetoric as a more effective model ofhow expertise develops. He called for a “pluralistic” theory of expertisethat accounts for the application of global strategies that can be appliedacross contexts as a starting point in any new context in which a writerhas not yet developed expertise. He also called for the replacement ofthose global strategies with “fluid performance that is seldom basedon analytic, conscious deliberation” (p. 272) over time and experience.The general strategies support the initial experiences with specialiseddiscourses; they also allow writers to be more flexible in their exper-tise, not relying only on local knowledge (p. 274). We are no longer,here, in the realm of expertise as the acquisition of discipline-specificconventions, but in the domain of rhetorical flexibility, the hallmark ofadvanced literacy, a flexibility that includes both versatile use and theability to analyse rhetorical variation. How, then, might student writ-ers develop their abilities into expert disciplinarity and appropriate thescientific writing of their fields? The model enables a different way of

PROOF


20 Contexts

thinking about developing expertise, one that affords transfer of writingknowledge.

▲Transfer of writing knowledge: Learning fromlongitudinal studies

As we have seen, the work on discourse community alternatives offersways to insightfully critique the generic and compulsory first-yearUS writing course, as well as the models of writing-disciplinary knowl-edge connections (including Beaufort, 2007, Crowley, 1998, Downsand Wardle, 2007, Smit, 2004). Two recent parallel developments inUS scholarship have furthered this questioning in useful ways: thegrowth of longitudinal studies of student writing in various forms, andthe attention to work in the field of knowledge transfer.

Longitudinal studies tracking students’ writing across their collegeexperience offer new sources of data about writing and knowledge atthe university. Results from work by Donahue and others on longitudi-nal studies in the US allow us to question the tradition of a generic Level1 writing course and the modelling of both writing to learn and WiDmodels (e.g. Sommers and Saltz, 2004, Wardle, 2007). These studies(which are discussed in more detail below) are not all equal in breadth,depth, or methodological soundness, but they are laying the ground-work for broadly framed understandings about knowledge transfer.They reveal that writing is not perceived by students as a generalis-able skill; that students’ pre-existing conceptions of writing from othercontexts can prevent transfer; that students who transfer writing abil-ity successfully begin “seeing texts as accomplishing social actions”and develop a “complex of activities” rather than a set of generalis-able skills; that students whose teachers help them deconstruct thegenres of their field transfer writing knowledge/ability more effectively;and that the kinds of scaffoldings required to support transfer differsfrom student to student. In fact, Wardle’s work in particular is beginningto emphasise the transformational nature of effective transfer (Wardle,2007, p. 69).

A considerable body of recent scholarship includes new attentionto studies of knowledge transfer in general and offers insight intothe writing-disciplines relationship in a way that helps us to under-stand the complicated nature of HE writing instruction. We do notknow in any detail how students “transfer” or generalise what theylearn about writing from one context to another. In order to under-stand the development of complex, advanced writing ability, however,this happens to be the essential question. It matters in particularin the US context because the passages between generic and spe-cialised coursework and knowledge are more frequent in this HE milieu.We know that any program that hopes to establish coherence across

PROOF



its sequence of courses must not only develop a strong sense of howlearners transfer knowledge from task to task, but must also deter-mine the reasons learners fail to demonstrate positive transfer in newlearning contexts, as well as developing the necessary conditions forlearners to transfer knowledge successfully (Bransford et al., 2000;Haskell, 2001). Research further suggests that the transfer of knowl-edge depends on specific instructional framing, that is, situations thatemphasise meta-cognition, scaffolded learning, a motive for learning,and sufficient time for the learning to “take” (Dias et al., 1999; Bransfordet al., 2000; Haskell, 2001).

Research suggests that students cannot transfer knowledge whenclassroom learning does not connect to the rest of the world andwhen abilities are associated only with the context in which they werelearned (Bjork and Richardson-Klavhen, 1989; Eich, 1985). All of ourquestioning about writing, knowledge, disciplines, and connectionsacross earlier learning and university learning rest on these questionsof knowledge transfer.

Transfer is more likely to occur in particular contexts which we canencourage:

• When first and following tasks are similar (Bransford et al., 2000).• When similarities between the situations are made explicit and

“affordances” for transfer are present in the next situation (Tuomi-Gröhn and Engeström, 2003).

• When initial learning is not rushed.• When learners can explicitly abstract principles from a situation

(Gick and Holyoak, 1983).• When material is taught through analogy or contrast.• When learners engage in self-reflection and mindfulness (Langer,

1992, Bereiter, 1997, Bransford, 2000).• When the learning of new material is scaffolded (Dias et al., 1999).• When teachers provide work that is appropriately challenging to stu-

dents’ current ability levels, drawing on students’ zones of proximaldevelopment (Alsup and Bernard-Donals, 2002; Jaxon, 2003).

• When learners are “supported to participate in an activity systemthat encourages collaboration, discussion, and some form of ‘risktaking’ ” (Guile and Young, 2003, p. 74).

• When learners “have opportunities to share and be inspired by acommon motive for undertaking a specific learning task” (Guile andYoung, 2003, p. 74).

We know as well that in order to afford transfer, learning musttake place in “real” contexts: “writing might be expected to influ-ence learning to the degree that it is an authentic act of personal

PROOF


22 Contexts

meaning-making” (Bangert et al., 2004, p. 31). The relationship to sit-uated learning (Brown et al., 1989, p. 32) is equally clear; becauselearning is always situated, always in-use rather than autonomous,we cannot encourage transfer by focusing on a-contextual skills. Norcan we expect school-based learning to produce the same effects as“authentic” tasks (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34). What they describe as cog-nitive apprenticeship builds from principles of transfer: new tasks mustbe embedded in familiar ones, affirming existing knowledge; heuristicsfunction differently in different tasks; and active engagement in devel-oping tools and approaches shifts the focus to students’ appropriationof the work and values in question (p. 38). And finally, the level of meta-cognition is cited as central to enabling “learners to deploy cognitivestrategies flexibly” (Bangert et al., 2004, p. 32), which is one of the keyfeatures of learning for transfer. Many of these features exist in our writ-ing courses, but often not intentionally; their effectiveness is thus notfully exploited.

In a longitudinal study that took place at Harvard University from2000 to 2004, Sommers studied 90 students’ writing across 4 years.Sommers has pointed out that in each new context a student faces,the student’s expertise and knowledge are critical for the writing. Thisresult fits larger patterns seen in other longitudinal studies. She hasfocused in particular recently on students in the field of history: in thefirst year, she established that students are challenged by the novelty ofthis new kind of writing, the difficulty, and the sheer number of tasks,while by the fourth year, she was able to show that student successin history writing could be attributed to a combination of factors: fre-quent opportunities to write; immersion in the subject; explicit frequentinstruction in the discipline’s methods; commitment to learning bothmethod and content; and interest in pursuing the questions of the field.

These features were common across different disciplines. Amongher results, Sommers points out that students “who prosper aswriters . . . cultivate a desire to enter disciplinary debates, to find theirplace in an academic exchange, with something to gain and somethingto give; when students don’t know the method in one discipline, theyare less likely to look for disciplinary connections elsewhere” (2008,pp. 155–56).

This notion of disciplinary framing as tightly linked to writing is oneof the major points in the broader move to understand writing associally situated rather than generic. Wardle suggests, based on her2-year longitudinal study of seven students moving from generic first-year writing to more specific second-year contexts, that the unified“academic discourse” (what is sometimes, in Europe, called “scien-tific discourse”) so often posited as a first step in US universities doesnot exist (2007). The misconceptions of writing that her study uncov-ered include: that writing is independent of content; that “writing” is

PROOF



about syntax and mechanics; and that “writing” can be taught in anon-content-driven context and then unproblematically applied in newcontexts—the very basis of many US first-year composition courses.In fact, Wardle suggests, academic discourse needs conceptualisingbased on which content, genre, activity, context, or audience is in play.But teachers of first-year college writing are in fact usually trained inliterature, and fall back on those models of what “writing” might be.Wardle suggests, as do many of the authors of longitudinal studies, thatstudents need to learn within the new discipline—to pay close attentionto what “counts” in that discipline. What might be added to that is anunderstanding that it isn’t just a question of replicating “what counts”but of affecting it and interacting with it (Bazerman, 1981; Russell, 1995;Prior, 1997).

Additional critique is offered by Beaufort, who indicts current com-position teaching, in which “writing becomes writing for the sakeof a writing class, rather than writing for the sake of intellectualpursuits” (2007, p. 12). Beaufort’s stated goal is to improve the enter-prise of college level writing instruction. What role can compositionplay in preparing a student, she asks, for the rest of his or hercourses? Beaufort argues for “a writing curriculum that consistently,logically fosters developmental growth in writers” (p. 103). It seeksto inform both teaching and, indirectly, assessment, reminding usthat “progress towards expertise may proceed slowly” (p. 102), thusdetailing what many teachers know intuitively, but for which theyhave not always been able to provide evidence to colleagues oradministrators.

Composition instruction is critiqued from several perspectives: it istoo close to English or creative writing or cultural studies, cut off fromintellectual substance, disconnected from the tasks of future universitycourses, and it fosters a sense of writing as generic skill. Compositionmay well introduce students to the writing of English discourse com-munities, Beaufort writes, but does not offer students ways to reflecton the specific contexts in which they are working (2007). Beaufortsingles out in particular the lack of attention to subject matter or “con-tent knowledge” in composition, a critique that echoes the concernsof decades of writing in the disciplines scholars and teachers workingto convince their colleagues that students cannot learn writing apartfrom content. Subject matter, Beaufort reminds us, citing Kaufer andYoung (1993), is wedded to writing constraints, skills used, and gen-res. But WiD approaches are equally subject to critique. Courses inthis domain (including freshman seminar courses and writing inten-sive courses) tend towards writing to show learning or knowledge,Beaufort suggests, and academic faculty are unable to uncover andteach the tacit knowledge about writing that they have naturalisedover time.

PROOF


24 Contexts

My own longitudinal study (Donahue, 2004–2008) suggests that lin-ear development is certainly not the path students’ writing takes butrather that the evolution of the writing is complex and complicated,and that content, assignment, reading, teacher emphasis, and student’sdisciplinary affiliation are interrelated. The study has collected all infor-mal and formal writing from 20 students from a variety of disciplinesfor 4 years. We analysed their organisation strategies, their positioning,their macro-and micro-coherence strategies, including intertextuality,enunciative choices, number/type of error, forms of argument, influ-ence of length and formatting, and so on. We also interviewed studentstwice, in year two and year four, and surveyed them at the end ofeach year.

While the data analysis is not yet complete, some preliminary trendsare intriguing for the discussion here. In the first year, students describewriting criteria as arbitrary, associated with different faculty membersand their requirements. By the fourth year, students articulate thesecriteria as related to the discipline of a course. Few students reportusefulness of the first-year writing course; most point to formative pre-university periods, both positive and negative. In the texts we havestudied, students’ writing increases in its facility with handling sourcesand in its forms of intertextuality. Students, in this writing, do notintegrate or acculturate so much as they negotiate with and in theknowledge and conventions they are working to appropriate.

Another promising initial result is related to students’ meta-narratives. While the student writers in our study do not appear toevolve in their conscious understanding of literacy, knowledge, anddisciplinarity, although certainly they acquire a certain facility and a setof ways of articulating experience, in their written texts their relation-ship to knowledge as represented in their source use and interactionschanges substantially. These observations suggest that expertise is per-haps developed with less meta-awareness than is usually recognised.

▲Conclusion: Learning from recent developments inFrance and the US

Recent non-US writing approaches have also shown how the genericapproach can be bypassed. In France, where this issue is cur-rently under debate in the context of reforms in HE, researchfrom linguistics and education about writing is embedded in lay-ers of disciplinary work. Extensive research has been carried outon voice, polyphony, intertextuality, research writing, and writingintersecting university and internship or professional programs at

PROOF



the undergraduate and graduate levels in different disciplines (see,for example, Boch, 1999, Boch and Grossman, 2001, Daunay, 2002,Donahue, 2007, Flottum, 2007, Guibert, 2001, Reuter, 2001, Reuter andLahanier-Reuter, 2008). Additionally, the field that is evolving in Francearound HE writing is one in which writing and disciplinarity are sym-biotic (la didactique de l’écrit). All research about writing in HE is thusconnected to disciplinary construction.

What do these various points suggest about working with students?At least a few alternate models are available. I will describe just two, notas “the” models, but as possibilities that indicate potential future modelsfor writing instruction embedded in HE, working from what we knowfrom the research cited. Both models suggest a different understandingof writing, as essentially always disciplinary, always tightly entwinedwith knowledge in a field.

The first model is practiced at many US institutions where someversion of a composition course and a “first-year seminar” courseare required of students. I have experienced such a combinationat two institutions, Dartmouth College and the University of Maine-Farmington (UMF). In each case, students take both a “writing” courseand a writing-based first-year seminar, although at Dartmouth theseare in sequence and at UMF they can be taken in either order. The keyis that the “writing” course is generally taught by writing specialistsand the seminar, by faculty from across the disciplines. When thesetwo groups are in some communication, the likelihood of transfer-ring the learning from one term to the other increases, and the facultythemselves see writing differently.

The second model, and a new development, is the first-year writingcourse or which the material is in the discipline of composition studies.The notion of discipline moves to the centre in quite a different way, asthe course both studies and produces writing. Smit, in The End of Com-position Studies (2004), has suggested that composition as an endeavouris always in a crisis of purpose, and that shifting our roles to facili-tators and minimising our importance as writing teachers will be themost effective future path. In fact, while Smit was not dealing directlywith writing in the disciplines, we see easily how a shift to disciplinarywriting would encompass what he suggests.

These two models begin to respond to what the longitudinalstudies are suggesting: that writing and disciplinary knowledgeare embedded in each other, that expertise develops in multi-layered, overlapping recursive activities; and above all that instruc-tion related to writing in HE should not be delivered outsidethe disciplines—which are themselves equally heterogeneous andconstructed.

PROOF


26 Contexts

In practice, this means that courses and programs focused on writingin HE will need to attend to several key factors as they take shape, grow,and evolve:

• Faculty must work together, know each other’s work, and know howto interact about that work.

• Students’ meta-awareness must be the primary focus of instruction.• Instruction must keep authentic meaning-making as its primary

mode of work.• Faculty must have opportunities to discuss and develop their own

work as writers.• Writing conventions must be taught as manifestations of deeper

epistemological issues.

These features will enable courses to avoid a generic, autonomousmodel that delivers highly partial and relatively limited writing instruc-tion to students whose writing lives are bound up in disciplinary waysof being.

▲References

Alexander, P.A. and Murphy, P.K. (1999) “Nurturing the seeds of transfer:A domain-specific perspective” International Journal of Educational Research31: 561–576.

Alsup, Janet and Michael Bernard-Donals (2002) “The Fantasy of the ‘SeamlessTransition.’ ” In T. Thompson (ed.), Teaching Writing in High School and College.Indiana: NCTE, pp. 115–135.

Anson, C. (1988) “Toward a multidimensional model of writing in the academicdisciplines.” In D. Jolliffe (ed.), Writing in Academic Disciplines. Norwood: Ablex,pp. 1–36.

Anson, C. and L. Forsberg (1990) “Moving beyond the academic community.”Written Communication 7 (2), 200–231.

Bangert, R., M. Hurley, and B. Wilkinson. (2004) “The effects of school-basedwriting-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.”Educational Researcher 74 (1): 29–58.

Bazerman, C. (1981) “What written knowledge does: Three examples of aca-demic discourse.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361–388.

Beaufort, A. (2007) College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for UniversityWriting Instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.

Bereiter, C. (1997) “Situated cognition and how to overcome it.” In D. Kirshnerand J.A. Whitson (eds), Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and PsychologicalPerspectives. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 281–300.

PROOF



Berkenkotter, C. and T. Huckin (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Commu-nities: Cognition/Culture/Power. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bjork, R.A. and A. Richardson-Klavhen (1989) “On the puzzling relationshipbetween environment context and human memory.” In C. Izawa (ed.), CurrentIssues in Cognitive Processes 19. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 313–344.

Boch, F. (1999) La tâche d’écriture et de réécriture à l’université – La prise de notes,entre texte source et texte cible. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires duSeptentrion.

Boch, F. and Grossmann, F. (eds) (2001) “De l’usage des citations dans le discoursthéorique: des constats aux propositions didactiques.” Lidil 24: 91–112.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (2000) “Committee on devel-opments in the science of learning, commission on behavioral and socialsciences and education, and national research council.” In J.D. Bransford,A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (eds), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Broadhead, G. and R. Freed (1986) The Variables of Composition: Process andProduct in a Business Setting. Urbana: CCCC.

Brown, J., A. Collins, and P. Duguid (1989) ‘Situated cognition and the culture oflearning.’ Educational Researcher 18 (1): 32–42.

Carroll, L.A. (2002) Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop asWriters. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.

Carter, M. (1990) ‘The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and socialdimensions of writing.’ CCC 41: 265–286.

Crowley, S. (1998) Composition in the University. Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press.

Daunay, B. (2002) Eloge de la paraphrase,coll. Essais et savoirs, PressesUniversitaires de Vincennes.

Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., and Paré, A. (1999) “Virtual realities: Tran-sitions from university to workplace writing.” In Dias, P., Freedman, A.,Medway, P., and Paré, A. (eds), Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academicand Workplace Contexts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 201–221.

Doheny-Farina, S. (1989) “A case study of one adult writing in academic andnonacademic discourse communities.” In Carolyn B. Matalene (ed.), Worlds ofWriting: Teaching and Learning in Discourse Communities of Work. New York:Random, pp. 17–42.

Donahue, C. (2007) “Reformuler la reformulation: reprises-modification, négo-ciation, et literate arts, vus dans des texts d’étudiants en première annéeuniversitaire.” Recherches Linguistiques 29: 180–192.

Donahue, C. (2008) Ecrire à l’Université: Analyse Comparée en France et aux Etats-Unis. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.

Downs, D. and E. Wardle (2007) “Teaching about writing, righting miscon-ceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘first-year composition’ as ‘introduction to writingstudies’.” College Composition and Communication 58 (4): 552–584.

Eich, E. (1985) ‘Context, memory, and integrated item/context imagery.’ Journalof Experimental Psychology 11: 764–770.

PROOF


28 Contexts

Emig, J. (1977) The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Indiana: NCTE Press.

Faigley, L. (1985) ‘Nonacademic writing: The social perspective.’ In L. Odelland D. Goswami (eds), Writing in Non-Academic Settings. New York: Guilford,pp. 231–248.

Flottum, K. (2007) ‘Argumentation through author presence and polyphonyin the genre of the research article.’ Argumentation in (Con)text. Univer-sity of Bergen, 2007-01-04–2007-01-06. Full text: https://www.aic.uib.no/program.php

Gick, M. and Holyoak, K.J. (1983) “Schema induction and analogical transfer.”Cognitive Psychology 15: 1–38.

Guibert, R. (2001) “Citer et se situer. L’apprentissage de l’écriture avec lesdiscours d’autrui.” Lidil 24 Apprendre à citer le discours d’autrui.

Guile, D. and Young, M. (2003) “Transfer and transition from vocational educa-tion: Some theoretical considerations.” In Tuomi-Gröhn, T. and Engeström, Y.(2003) Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary-Crossing. New York: Pergamon, pp. 63–81.

Harris, J. (1996) A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966. Upper Saddle River:Prentice-Hall.

Haskell, R. (2001) Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. SanDiego: Academic Press.

Hymes, D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jaxon, K. (2003) “And now a word from the sponsors: The university, high school,and student identity.” CCCC Presentation 2003.

Kaufer and Young (1993) ‘Writing in the Content Areas: Some Theoretical Com-plexities.’ In Odell, l. (ed.) Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing:Rethinking the Discipline. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 71–108.

Langer, J.A. (1992) “Speaking of knowing: Conceptions of understanding in aca-demic disciplines.” In Herrington, A. and Moran, C. (eds), Writing, Teaching,and Learning in the Disciplines. New York: Modern Language Association,pp. 69–85.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participa-tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lillis, T. (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge.

Lunsford, A. and Lunsford, K. (2008) “Mistakes are a fact of life: A nationalcomparative study.” CCC 59 (4): 781–806.

Monroe, J. (ed.) (2002) Writing and Revising the Disciplines. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press

Odell, L. (1992) “Context-specific ways of knowing and the evaluation of writ-ing.” In A. Herrington and C. Moran (eds), Writing, Teaching, and Learning inthe Disciplines . New York: MLA, 86–98.

Prior, P. (1997) “Literate activity and disciplinarity.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 4:275–295.

Prior, P. (1998) Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity inthe Academy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PROOF



Reuter, Y. (2001) “Je suis comme un autrui qui doute. Le discours des autres dansl’écrit de recherche en formation.” Lidil 24 Apprendre à citer le discours d’autrui24: pp. 13–27.

Reuter, Y. and Lahanier-Reuter, D. (2008) “Presentation of a few concepts foranalyzing writing in relation to academic disciplines.” L1 Educational Studiesin Language and Literature 7950: 47–57.

Russell, D.R. (1995) “Activity theory and its implications for writing instruc-tion.” In J. Petraglia (ed.), Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction.Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 51–78.

Russell, D.R. and Yanez, A. (2003) “ ‘Big picture people rarely become historians”:Genre systems and the contradictions of general education.’ In C. Bazermanand D. Russell (eds), Writing Selves/Writing Societies. http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/.

Russell, D. (1990) “Writing across the curriculum in historical perspective.”College English 52: 52–73.

Russell, D., Lea, M., Street, B., J. Parker, and C. Donahue (2008) “Exploringnotions of genre in ‘academic literacies’ and ‘writing across the curricu-lum’: Approaches across countries and contexts.” In Charles Bazerman, AdairBonini, and Débora Figueiredo (eds), Genre in a Changing World. Fort Collins:Parlor Press.

Smit, D. (2004) The End of Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Sommers, N. (2008) ‘The call of research: A longitudinal view of writingdevelopment.’ CCC 60(1): 152–164.

Sommers, N. and Saltz, L. (2004) ‘The novice as expert: Writing the freshmanYear.’ CCC 56 (1): 124–149.

Thaiss, C. and Zawacki, T. (2006) Engaged Writers, Dynamic Disciplines.Portsmouth: Boynton-Cook.

Tuomi-Gröhn, T. and Engeström, Y. (2003) “Conceptualizing transfer: Fromstandard notions to developmental perspectives.” In T. Tuomi-Gröhn, andY. Engeström (eds), Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transferand Boundary-Crossing. New York: Pergamon, pp. 19–38.

Wardle, E. (2007) “Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results of alongitudinal study.” Writing Program Administration 31 (1/2): 65–85.

PROOF

July 26, 2011 12:0 MAC/DNE Page-273 9780230_237087_19_ind01

Index

AALL, see Association for AcademicLanguage and Learning (AALL)

ABS, see Association of BusinessSchools (ABS)

Abstracts, producing, 142–4, 151, 207,210, 232

Academicdiscourse, 5, 17, 36, 122literacies, 3, 4, 7–9, 17, 66, 75, 83,

122, 176writing, xiii, 31, 66, 122, 198, 272

Action research, 57, 124, 127, 129, 133,182

Agombar, M., 237, 243Alaimo, P., 227, 230–1Alsup, J., 21ALTC, see Australian Learning and

Teaching Council (ALTC)Alterio, M., 207Ames, C., 134Anson, C., 19, 43Argumentation, 4, 6, 24, 75, 85, 218, 232Arkoudis, S., 40Assessment

criteria (DALiC), 52–3, 58, 76, 105,109–14, 117–19

formative, 51, 53, 76, 92, 95, 101, 113summative, 50, 51, 54, 100

Assessment, 5, 48–55, 58, 66, 89,109–11, 117–18

Assessment for Learning Centre forExcellence in Teaching andLearning, 48–60, 117, 119, 205,209, 260

Association for Academic Language andLearning (AALL), 34, 42, 43

Association of Business Schools (ABS),122, 123, 130, 138

AUQA, see Australian UniversitiesQuality Agency (AUQA)

Australian Learning and TeachingCouncil (ALTC), 33, 43

Australian Universities Quality Agency(AUQA), 31, 44

Australian University TeachingCommittee (AUTC), 206

AUTC, see Australian UniversityTeaching Committee (AUTC)

Autonomous, 14, 22, 26, 51Ayodeji, J., 198, 206, 207, 208

Backup design, 215, 225Bain, K., 228Bakhtin, M., 55Balancing priorities, 37Bamberg, B., 5Bandura, A., 134, 184Bangert, R., 15, 16, 22Barbosa, P., 134, 184Barnett, R., 255, 256Bazerman, C., 5, 6, 23, 66, 250, 258Bean, J., 4, 6, 10, 50, 75, 91, 104, 131,

176, 181, 215, 216, 227, 228,271, 273

Beaufort, A., 20, 23, 218, 219, 233Beetham, H., 238Belanoff, P., 169Belcher, D., 43Bell, R., 10, 198–201Bereiter, C., 21Bergstrom, C., 251Berkenkotter, C., 16, 43, 66, 148Bhagat, D., 10, 174, 176, 184, 191, 192Biggs, J., 49, 69, 104, 205Bio-technology, 40, 225Bizup, J., 216, 222–5, 229Bizzell, P., 66Bjork, R., 21Black, P., 52Bligh, D., 49, 177Bloom, B., 206Bloxham, S., 50Boch, F., 25Bonanno, H., 109, 118Booth, W., 104Boquet, E., 254Borg, E., 101, 148, 150, 153Bransford, J., 21Britton, J., 6, 15, 105Broadberry, S., 10, 198, 204, 205, 208,

211Broadhead, G., 19

273

PROOF


274 Index

Brown, A., 69Brown, G., 49Brown, J., 22Brown, S., 50Brown, W., 160Bruffee, K., 49, 177Bryan, C., 50Burke, K., 269Burke, P., 177Burwood, S., 118

Candlin, F., 178, 179Cargill, M., 32Carrithers, D., 228Carroll, L., 20Carter, M., 17–19, 216, 219–3Case studies, 74, 88, 129, 248

“additional” approach, 65–71, 73, 82art and design, 31, 32“embedded” approach, 65–71, 74legal writing, 88–90, 92mathematics, 42, 88, 198,politics, 159, 167student engagement, 3, 53, 129workshop practice, 67, 184

CAW, see Centre for Academic Writing(CAW)

Centre for Academic Writing (CAW), xix,140, 251–64

Challenges, xiv, 5, 7–8, 22, 30, 89, 123,129, 134, 163, 199, 247

Childers, P., 256Clelford, T., 109CLIL, see International CLIL Research

Journal (ICRJ)Cobb, T., 40Coffin, C., 43Collaboration, 4, 9, 42, 66, 103, 104, 200,

240–41Collaboration with colleagues, 42, 88,

198, 241Collaboration with students, 128, 142,

147, 170Community, 17, 66, 68, 216, 234, 253Community of practice, theory, 18, 19, 66Competence, 90, 137, 163Composition, xvi, 5–7, 15, 19, 23, 25,

217–18,Conference

postgraduate, 147–49preparation, 159, 167

Connors, R., 5Corbett, S., 255, 258

Coventry Online Writing Laboratory(COWL), 245

Coventry University, 11, 91, 120, 245, 257COWL, see Coventry Online Writing

Laboratory (COWL)Critical comparison, 67, 82, 110, 169Critical thinking, 4, 6, 75, 89, 134, 217Crowley, S., 15, 20, 267, 268Cullen, J., 19Curriculum-integrated literacy

development, 30–4, 42Curry, M., 176

DALiC, see Developing AcademicLiteracy in Context (DALiC)

Dalton-Puffer, C., 40Dancyger, K., 206Dannahy, P., 142Daunay, B., 25David, M., 176, 178, 181Davidson, C., 253Deane, M., 3, 9–11, 88–101, 140–53, 237,

244, 246, 265, 272Dearing Report, the, 160Deci, E., 141DEEWR, see Department of Education,

Employment and WorkplaceRelations (DEEWR)

Department of Education, Employmentand Workplace Relations (DEEWR),31–3, 44

Developing Academic Literacy inContext (DALiC), 3, 4, 9, 30–7, 91,104, 245

Dialogue, 52, 238, 256Dias, P., 21Disciplinary discourse, 4, 5, 9, 219–3, 227Disciplinary insider, 216–21, 227, 229,

232Discipline-based, 3, 100, 247Discipline-specific, xvi, 17, 19, 34, 65–9,

82, 176, 177, 181, 200, 201, 228, 251,255, 258, 271, 272

Doctoral researcher, 140–7Doheny-Farina, S., 19Donahue, C., 8, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 271Downs, D., 20Durkin, K., 67, 82Dyslexia, 203

Education Services to Overseas Students(ESOS Act), 32, 45

Eich, E., 21

PROOF


Index 275

Elander, J., 109Electoral Commission, 273Ellis, R., 40, 43Emig, J., 15Emmanuel, M., 9, 122Enhanced understanding, 81Entwistle, N., xvii, 57ESOS, see Education Services to

Overseas Students (ESOS Act)Etherington, S., 66–8, 82Evaluation, 48, 51, 55, 77–9, 81, 186Exercises, 50, 54, 91, 93, 96, 100, 101,

107, 134, 149, 151, 159, 166–9, 188,190, 194, 205, 206, 210

Expert, 6, 17, 238, 246Expert insider prose, 217–19, 221, 226–9,

229, 234Explanatory power, 216, 222Explicit features, 22, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83,

90, 105, 107, 115, 117Explicit teaching, xvi, 75, 82, 88, 103, 245

Faigley, L., 19Falchikov, N., 50Feedback, 51, 53, 76, 77, 80, 109, 144,

146, 149Finnis, J., 241Fisher, R., 206Flottum, K., 25Formative feedback, 51, 53, 54, 76, 77,

92, 95, 129Forty, A., 183Foster, S., 9, 88–102Frankel, R., 36Frayling, C., 179Freeman, T., 137Friedman, K., 174, 176, 180, 181, 188Friedrich, P., 43Fry, H., 206Fulwiler, T., 6, 204

Ganobcsik-Williams, A., 66, 67, 178,255, 259

Ganobcsik-Williams, L., 11, 59, 246, 250,251, 266, 272

Gibbs, G., 49, 57Gick, M., 21Glenn, C., 273Glissant, E., xivGokhale, A., 207Gorard, S., 130, 177Gottschalk, K., 140, 209Government, 31–3, 157, 160, 164, 221

Graff, G., 216, 233Grammatical errors, 97, 101, 107, 169Graves, J., 180Grossberg, L., 183Guibert, R., 25Guile, D., 21Guillory, J., 183Guthrie, J., 133

Habinek, T., 267Haggis, T., 104, 124Halloran, S., 268, 269Harrington, K., 9, 48, 53–5, 184, 199, 266Harris, J., 18Haskell, R., 21Hay, C., 155, 156Held, D., 163–5Hendricks, M., 74, 134Herrington, J., 69Higgins, R., 53Higher education, xiii, 31, 66, 122, 198,

271Hill, P., 115, 262Hobson, E., 130–2Holley, D., 9, 122, 123Horne, D., 9, 103, 105, 108, 111, 113,

116, 266Hounsell, D., 53, 68, 113Hudson, C., 179Hyland, K., 40Hymes, D., 18

ICRJ, see International CLIL ResearchJournal (ICRJ)

IELTS, see International EnglishLanguage Testing System (IELTS)

Impact of feedback, 77, 80Independence, 22, 38, 50, 69, 73, 83, 127,

128, 147, 167, 209, 233, 245, 255International CLIL Research Journal

(ICRJ), 40International English Language Testing

System (IELTS), 41International students, xiv, 31, 34, 92Ivanic, R., 3, 7, 66, 176, 177

Jacobs, C., 68, 83James, B., 6, 105, 107, 116James, R., 38Jaworski, B., 142Jaxon, K., 21Johns, A., 43Johnson, L., 9, 122

PROOF


276 Index

Kaufer, D., 23Kift, S., 33, 38Kill, R., 180, 181Kindelan-Echevarria, M., 36Knowledge transfer, 20–2, 25Krause, K., 49Kress, G., 36

Langer, J., 21Lave, J., 18, 68, 69, 239Lawall, S., xviLea, M., 3, 7, 43, 53, 66, 68, 71, 75, 104,

122, 176, 177, 181, 190, 199Leamnson, R., 131Learning Designs: Products of the AUTC

project on ICT-based learningdesigns, 32

Learning development, xiv, 4, 16, 35, 65,105, 181

Lectures, 91, 106, 123, 201, 234Lee, A., 43Legal writing, 88–92

case studies, 9, 88course components, 94, 95expectations, 89, 90, 91see also Case studies

Legitimate Peripheral Participation(LPP), 18, 68, 69, 239

Leitch, S., 123Lester, F., 143Lewis, J., 179Light, R., 229Lillis, T., 4, 7, 17, 43, 66, 104, 118,

122, 194Lindblom-Ylanne, S., 205Literature, reviewing, 32, 41, 57, 104,

116, 144, 225, 232, 233Llewellyn-Jones, C., 237, 240, 244, 266LPP, see Legitimate Peripheral

Participation (LPP)Lunsford, A., 15, 191, 192, 240, 248Lusher, J., 55Lyster, R., 40

MacAndrew, S., 51, 128MacDonald, S., 217–19, 227, 229Maleki, R., 131Margolis, H., 134, 184Marsh, D., 40Martin, J., 66, 75Marton, F., 57Mason, J., 141May, H., 178

McCune, V., 113McDonough, J., 36McDowell, L., 51McLeod, S., 6, 181, 256Mephisto, P., 40Metadisciplines, xiv, 16–19, 37, 68, 71,

74, 131, 219, 220, 221Metagenres, 216, 219Mitchell, S., 4, 53, 66, 67, 83, 104, 119,

199Mond, D., 142Monroe, J., xiii, 4, 14, 67, 91, 104, 176,

199, 245Morgan, D., 130Moriarty, M., 141Morley, J., 66, 67Moss, T., 38Mullin, J., 7, 253Murphy, C., 254Murray, D., 170Murray, R., 147

Nicol, D., 52Non-traditional learners, 5Non-violent approach, 142North, S., 68, 150, 254Norton, L., 53, 127, 182Novice, xiv, 16–19, 37, 68, 71, 74, 131,

217, 218, 222, 229, 234

Odell, L., 19O’Donovan, B., 53, 54, 95Oliver, M., xii, 69, 123, 238, 239O’Neill, P., 13, 122, 174, 176, 181, 184,

192, 199, 242, 252, 255Opportunities, 5, 8, 21, 22, 53, 58, 75,

133, 247, 254O’Toole, T., 157, 158Ovens, P., 204

Parmar, D., 124Parrott, G., 123Pattie, C., 155, 156Peake, K., 103, 108, 111, 113, 266Pedagogies, 5, 198, 226, 233, 234, 254Peer review, 96, 141Pemberton, M., 122People Management: Challenges and

Choices (PMCC), 124–35Pilkington, R., 237Plagiarism, 68, 71, 76, 79, 90, 91, 166,

167, 268

PROOF


Index 277

PMCC, see People Management:Challenges and Choices (PMCC)

Poe, M., 43Policy, 5, 105, 239Pope, R., 104Postgraduate, 40, 72, 141, 147, 148

conference, see Conference,postgraduate

Potter, A., 38Pressure to publish, 140, 141Prior, P., 16–19, 23, 43Pritchard, R., 95Programme, 5, 24, 32, 38, 54, 104, 158,

200, 208, 209Purser, E., 30, 91, 115, 117, 119, 245

QAA, see Quality Assurance Agency forHigher Education (QAA)

Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation (QAA), 31, 46, 176,189, 196

Rabiger, M., 206Ramsden, P., 49, 50, 57Ravelli, L., 43Reading, 36, 56, 78, 99, 100, 105–8, 123,

131, 132, 161, 163Rear Vision, 32Referencing, 88, 90, 203Remedial, 3, 258, 269Research, xiv, 8, 14, 16, 25, 32, 56, 74,

89, 140–4, 148, 216, 219, 221, 225,227, 232, 265

Retention, of students, see Studentretention

Reuter, Y., 25Reviewing literature, see Literature,

reviewingRhetoric, 6, 15, 265–69Rhetoric of criticality, 167Rienecker, L., 215Ritter, K., 221Role of assessment, 48–9, 117Rose, D., 74, 133, 134Russell, D., 6, 7, 15–19, 23, 43, 66, 180,

199, 250, 258Russell, K., 180Rust, C., 54, 115

Sadler, D., 116Samuels, P., 140–50Scafiddi, N., 75, 76, 80Schippers, B., 10, 155, 157, 267

Schoenfeld, A., 141Scott, P., 259Self-determination, theory, 153Seminars, 74, 130, 136, 201Shephard, J., 66Sinfield, S., 122Skillen, J., 4, 91, 105, 107, 115, 119,

245, 251Sloam, J., 159Smit, D., 20, 25Smith, M., 108, 127Smyth, R., 237Somerville, E., 140Sommers, N., 17, 20, 22Stanovich, K., 133Stoker, G., 155, 156Street, B., 3, 4, 7, 43, 53, 66, 68, 71, 75,

104, 122Strong, S., 90Student retention, 32, 123, 266Study skills, 4, 14, 15, 20, 22, 32, 57, 66,

71, 73, 89, 122, 176Subject content, 23, 72, 78, 91, 163, 268Subject expert, 19, 66, 238Subject specialist, 67, 88, 204Summers, P., 248Summers, R., 150, 244, 248Support, 20, 37, 58, 65, 199Support services, 31, 32Swales, J., 43, 66, 148

Tall, D., 142Taylor, C., 43Teacher workload, 68, 78Teaching writing, 5, 14, 17, 23, 42, 65,

75, 78, 90, 105, 142, 162, 184, 203,205, 218–21, 229–33

additional approaches, 65–9current methods, 52, 53, 58, 76, 109,

111, 114, 117embedded approaches, 65–9, 71,

73–85, 91, 104, 105, 124, 178, 186,193, 218, 228, 229, 234, 252

new methods, 48–57, 117TEQSA, see Tertiary Education Quality

and Standards Agency (TEQSA)Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency (TEQSA), 31, 44Tertiary level, 30, 31, 34Thaiss, C., 17, 221Theory of self-determination, see

Self-determination, theoryThomas, L., 66

PROOF


278 Index

Time management, 98Tonge, J., 156, 157, 158Torrance, H., 119Toulmin, S., 75, 76, 80Transferability, 20, 149Trial, 3, 10, 74, 101, 105, 191, 199, 200,

202, 208, 209Tutorials, 57, 105, 116, 251, 254Tutors, 200, 246, 247, 252, 255Tynan, J., 174, 179, 183, 184

Undergraduate, 38, 89, 123, 174

Villa, D., 160Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), 42,

48–52, 58, 59, 66VLE, see Virtual Learning Environment

(VLE)

WAC, see Writing Across the Curriculum(WAC)

Waldo, M., 256Wall, A., 130Walvoord, B., 226Wang, S., 133Wardle, E., 20, 22, 23Warriner, J., 169Widening participation, 32, 88, 122, 155,

178WID, see Writing In the Disciplines (WID)Wingate, U., 4, 9, 36, 65, 72, 74, 81,

181, 188Wood, J., 174, 176, 180Worley, J., 155, 267

Writing, 19, 56–8, 74, 75, 85, 134, 135,177, 184, 190, 208

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC),xvi, 15, 181, 199, 250, 255, 256

clearing house, 12, 200Writing centre, 4, 55, 66, 250–60, 266Writing design, 174–80, 186, 189Writing developer, xiv, 66, 72, 80, 88,

103, 124, 140, 159, 198Writing development, 3, 30, 35, 48, 65,

91, 103, 182, 199, 217, 239, 252Writing in the Disciplines (WID), xiii, xv,

xvi, 3, 15, 48, 66, 104, 198, 205, 209,237, 250

development of, 3–7, 14–20, 25, 30, 65,66, 250

origins, 5supportive assessment practice, 42,

48–52, 58, 59, 66Writing hazards, 103–8, 115, 117Writing PAD, 115, 174, 176, 180, 196, 197Writing process, 68, 92, 107, 128, 168

drafting, 96, 107, 169, 183editing, 97, 107, 117free writing, 95inventing, 258planning, 37, 96, 127proof reading, 107revising, 97, 101, 107, 113, 147, 169

Writing specialist, 17, 54, 88, 140, 237

Yorke, M., 124Young, A., 6, 21, 23, 204

PROOF

Documents

C:iToolsWMSKCG-MacMilan 2617WorkingFolder9780230 237087 … · Using assessment criteria to facilitate dialogue and feedback 53 The problem of “academic writing” 56 Principles