Hjem
Institutt for pedagogikk

Hovedinnhold

Academic Writing – a Key Competence in the European University Tradition from Humboldt to Bologna

Otto Kruse, Zurich University of Applied Sciences

Writing was introduced to European academic learning as part of Humboldt’s university reform in early 19th Century. Seminars were a new type of teaching in which students no longer received second-hand knowledge from their teachers but had to construct knowledge themselves. Writing extended papers was one of the basic learning principles of all seminars. Though Humboldt provided only the ground stone for the research university his ideas proved to be strong enough to set the agenda for 200 years of university development. The emergence of discipline-specific study programs, the separation of academic and professional education, a strong emphasis on the development of critical thinking skills, and the connection of teaching with research were the basic principles.

For several reasons, the Bologna Process introduced new orientations that led teaching in the opposite direction. The results were shorter study programs, less time for writing, a closer connection between study programs and the world of work, less space for individual choices, and more examinations. On the positive side, Bologna brought about a didactical re-consideration of all study programs and all teaching routines, created a system of comparable final degrees, and adapted teaching to the needs of mass education. The roles of writing, research-oriented learning, and critical thinking initially seemed to run counter to the Bologna reform but have been re-introduced, for instance, by the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) adopted by the European Parliament and Council in 2008 . This gives scope for innovations in the teaching of writing.

 I will outline some basic trends in writing instruction from its very beginnings to the latest developments in the field so as to create a picture of European university writing traditions. I will also show what opportunities the Bologna structures provide for a more conscious teaching of writing in the disciplines and for learning to write opportunities. The future task of all those engaged in the teaching of writing should be to create new writing cultures that connect with disciplinary specifics and allow the growth of critical thinking skills.

 

Formative Feedback on PhD drafts: A Supervision Course: From PhD assessments and vivas to formative feedback on PhD drafts

Writing centre director Lotte Rienecker and senior writing consultant Peter Stray Jorgensen, from the University of Copenhagen, Humanities Department

We will present a comprehensive feedback rubric for PhD supervisors and students, now under construction and testing by supervisors at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

A thorough analysis of all PhD assessments from 2007-9, and a sample analysis of 10 PhD vivas and the examiner criteria expressed has shown that opponents’ comments have a distinct pattern of recurrent criticisms and complaints How can supervisors and research communities address recurrent complaints about the same issues, negative assessments, dissertations rewrites, sometimes even with little actual change? How can supervisors and PhD students talk about the quality criteria for good dissertation (draft)s? Do supervisors and students share a common language and is that language aligned with the criteria ultimately used in PhD assessments with international members in the assessment committees?

Building on a the concepts of the PhD as a genre, the concept of alignment (Biggs, 2007) of PhD assessments with the content of draft feedback, and a set of PhD dissertation feedback rubrics designed by Barbara Lovitts (USA) in her outstanding published PhD dissertation (2007): Making the Implicit Explicit - Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation, (based on criteria from 276 experienced supervisors in 10 university disciplines), we have designed a detailed 20 page formative feedback rubric tool to be used in PhD supervision. The rubrics will be used as a part of a competence building scheme for PhD supervisors – and of course as a scaffolding dissertation writing tool for PhD students. This lecture is a presentation of the feedback tool and the underpinning analysis of assessment documents and vivas.

 

 

Argumentation in academic writing: A comparison of three disciplinary traditions"

Richard Andrews, London School of Education, UK

Although there are many generic aspects of argument and argumentation that can be applied in various disciplines in higher education, there remains the distinctive nature of each discipline (or interdisciplinary field). The epistemologies and discourses of disciplines partly determine what counts as argument and therefore the pedagogical approach (if any) to argumentation. This presentation focuses on argument in three main disciplines: History, Biology and Electrical Engineering, with reference to others, all of which were the focus of a research study at The University of York on argumentation in first year undergraduate education. The project has been written up in formal research reports for the Higher Education Academy in the UK, but also in Argumentation in Higher Education (Routledge 2009) - a book that argues, as does the current presentation, for a balanced approach to generic and disciplinary argumentation in higher education.

 

Deterring students from plagiarism by teaching writing from sources. 

Jude Carroll, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford UK

Plagiarism involves 1) copying directly without attribution, 2. passing off others' work by paying someone else to do it or by buying the work fully finished, 3.  taking ideas and other examples of work (drawings, graphics) without showing who actually did the work.

Most student plagiarism happens because students do not understand what is expected of them. Even when they do, many lack the necessary skills to use and acknowledge others' work so instead, resort to copying or taking others' work - that is plagiarism.  This brief session starts with how teachers and universities need to put in place a connected range of actions to stop students from plagiarism.  Some forms are relatively easy:  stopping them from copying and cheating is a good place to start.  But some ways are more complex.  Teachers need to do more than tell students about referencing if the students are to develop their writing skills. Universities around the world, including those in Norway, need to work hard to make sure their students are doing their own work and using the work of others correctly and the session will outline some of this work to stop plagiarism that comes from misunderstanding as well as that which comes from cheating.

 

Writing and communicating within and beyond university: rich opportunities, great challenges?

Dai Hounsell, University of Edinburgh

Almost all of the universities I'm familiar with are united in claiming that, (whatever else they may have learned), their graduates are accomplished communicators, in written and other forms. But how well does this claim stand up to scrutiny? To what extent are the kinds of written and other communicative tasks students undertaken at university similar to, or different from, those graduates are like to encounter in the world of work?

In this keynote, I'll argue that significant gaps are opening up between writing practices in workplaces and academies, and that narrowing these gaps will be challenging, because many aspects of writing in universities are underpinned by premisses and assumptions, often tacit and unquestioned, about how students' progress and achievements can and should be assessed.