The Challenge of Teaching Academic Writing on Line

8/12/2019 The Challenge of Teaching Academic Writing on Line

1/26

The challenge of teaching academicwriting online: developing reportwriting programs for science and

engineeringHelen Drury, Learning Centre, The University of Sydney


2/26

Why teach writing online?

Program design Theory

Practice

Evaluation

Issues

Future directions

Discussion

Outline


3/26

Why teach writing online Key features: flexibility, self-paced

instruction, multiple learner pathways

New ways of learning about text,graphic/text interaction, new ways ofwriting

But there are constraints .


4/26

Program design : theory Draw on tried & tested approaches for redesigning design takes the results of past production as the

resource for new shaping and for remaking (Kress, 1997) SFL Multimodal research Genre-based literacy pedagogy (Martin, 1999)

Model of language in context Make explicit to students writing practices of their disciplines Build a metalanguage to use in interactions with students and

subject staff about language and how it means in a givencontext


5/26

Program design : theory phenomenography Focus on learners conceptions of subject

matter Learning through interaction with on-screen

teacher designs/concepts On- going conversation between teacher and

student concepts to achieve shared learninggoal (Laurrilard, 2002) Learning takes place through languag e


6/26

Practice: History of WRiSE

1999 2003 2006 2007 2009

Biology

Authorware

Report writing

Internal

BiochemistryChemical

Engineering

Dreamweaver

Report writing

Internal

Biochemistry 2

Dreamweaver

Report writing

Internal

Physiology

Flash

Report writing

Discipline contentInternal

Science andengineering

Flash

Report writing

Discipline contentExternal


7/26

SFL and WRiSE

Martin, 2002

good to hear from people weknew, more real

it had a sampleintroduction and then ithighlighted eachcomponent of each partof the introduction thatyou needed, which wasreally good.

for Chemistry,everything has to be soaccurate, whereas withChemical Engineering,you get markeddown if you put toomany significant figures

its very important to showhow your work refers to therest of the field

I find it ideal the way languageis closely integrated into thematerial about the reportstructure. The other day I had anormally unruly class of 2ndyear Chem Eng studentsenthralled in a cohesionexercise from the WRiSE site .

need to be concise and usetechnical jargon, followstructure, proper tense, how torefer to figures, tables .

Seeing those different colours is whathelped me the most and, yep, I didchange it. I wrote mine and thenwent to this site and looked at it and

then went back and changed it.


8/26

Genre-based literacy pedagogy

Martin, J. (1999) Mentoring semogenesis: genre - based literacy pedagogy


9/26

How WRiSE deconstructs

Building field Help with report writing : entry quiz Audio from students and staff on thecontext of the report and both the productand processHelp with understanding contentBlended learning

Modelling Authentic student reports with lecturerfeedback

Example reports with student and lecturercommentsGeneric structure exemplifiedDiscourse and language featuresexemplified

Metalanguage introduced and exemplified

some of those quizzesat the start I found abit annoying

conscious to only putrelevant info in the

report

gave good example tocompare my work with

Having lectures onwriting other thanneeding to accesswebsite as is notdirect, can askqs,maybe practise ormore examples

the lecturerexplanations, easiestand most clear

Example andcomments made onexample, breakdownof report sections

Helped with how touse language anddetails of data


10/26

How WRiSE constructs

Joint construction(with computer)

Scaffolding through interactiveexercisesFeedback on exercises

Independent

construction

Students write alongside WRiSEFeedback on drafts from lecturers ineportfolio

I think it helped a lot for me,writing in my second language,learned a lot from the exercises

I went over it all, by then I had an ideaand then I started writing


11/26

How was the site usedSemester, 2009

Total Pageviews 57303

Average Pageviews Per Day 585

Average Pageviews Per Session 7 Average Length of Session (mins) 11

Total Unique Visitors 964

Average Unique Visitors Per Day 12

Total Unique Visitor Sessions 8275

Average Unique Visitor Sessions Per Day 100


12/26

Weekly usage

Sessions per week (all disciplines)

0

50 0

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 8 / 0

3

1 5 / 0

3

2 2 / 0

3

2 9 / 0

3

0 5 / 0

4

1 2 / 0

4

1 9 / 0

4

2 6 / 0

4

0 3 / 0

5

1 0 / 0

5

1 7 / 0

5

2 4 / 0

5

3 1 / 0

5

0 7 / 0

6

Week ending


13/26

Questionnaire Data n=417 F=173 M=190

1: Didnt know about it 5: Forgot2: Didnt need it 6: Used other source3: No time 7: Lazy

4: No internet/problems with internet 8: No comment

42% of students surveyed did not use the site


14/26

Language background users v. non-users


15/26

Writing experienceusers v. non-users

equally confident in their writing tasks no difference in the types of academic texts previously produced in general, more participants who used WRiSE had written longer academic texts

than those who did not


16/26

Using WRiSE


17/26

Improved understanding I used it on the structure, mainly

what to put where, I tend to blurmy results in discussion a little bit.

After I wrote it I went back andlooked at it and kind of pasted a

few things of what I wrote. I usedthe seven Is, I read through those

so I included a bit more with that.

Before using it I was lost as to where I should start.

...allowed me to further understandthe specific requirements ...


18/26

Improved confidence

If you were really organised and you set aside two weeks just for the report,like every night, this site would be

perfect for it. Its not a really good site for cramming.

I feel more comfortable at following structure

I can explain myself clearly andam able to identify mistakes andcorrect..


19/26

...almost all students did well on the structure ofthe report. All was good there and many did areasonable attempt at the Summary andConclusion sections. So perhaps WRiSE did

succeed. ..strongly encouraged to use the site. Quite animprovement

I feel we definitely have a well-designed,

pedagogically sound website. Informal feedback from PhD demonstrators who mark the reportsindicate meaningful improvements in studentreport writing skills

Staff Comments


20/26

Does WRiSE make a difference?

0 20 40 60 80 100

Biology

Molecular Biology2

Molecular Biology3

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

Mining Engineering

Microbiology

Civil Engineering

% percentage report mark

R e p o r t

d i s c i p

l i n e

Mean report marks (%) for each discipline bywebsite use

usersnon-users

On average, report marks of those who used the website (M = .13, SD = .97, n = 204) weresignificantly higher than those who did not use the website (M = -.19, SD = .98, n = 144);

t(306) = -3.02, p = .01.


21/26

Constraints of the screen Using authentic texts Using large/whole texts

Constraints of an online learning environment

Writing tasks and exercises Scaffolding student understanding Getting lost

Blended learning

Implementation and integration Motivation for students to use the site

Division between language and content Critical/challenging orientation to the genre

Issues

Once you were inside amodule, there was actually atiny little menu right down thebottom, it would be nicer if youcould navigate more easily


22/26

Towards a community of practiceTraining and experience withQuestion tools are very helpfulindeed, a deeper consideration ofstudent report writing is alsovaluable

New working relationships and

collaborative links withcolleagues across the University- thankyou for the opportunity tobe involved in this excitingproject


23/26

Future directions


24/26

Learning Centre Janet Jones, Helen Drury, Peter

OCarroll

Discipline Teams Peter McGee, Vanessa Gysbers, Dale Hancock Jill

Johnston Tim Langrish, Howard See Meloni Muir Peter Rutledge David Airey

Technical Team Aida Yalcin, Kathy Kuzmanov,

Richard Massey

Research Assistant Natassia Goode

Acknowledgements

Learning Centre Sue Starfield, Pam Mort

Discipline Teams Paul Hagan, John Wilson, Kathy Takayama,

Rosanne Quinnell, RebeccaLeBard

Reference Group Peter Goodyear Robert Ellis Michelle Kofod Rosemary Clerehan


25/26

www.usyd.edu.au/learningcentre/wrise


26/26

Discussion Questions1. Where and how are collaborations working

best between writing specialists andteaching academics in the disciplines given

students with varying levels of competency?2. What are the implications of the above for a

language based approach to teaching andlearning at tertiary level in both formal andinformal settings?

3. How do we do a language based approachwith large cohorts?

The Challenge of Teaching Academic Writing on Line

Documents

Transcript of The Challenge of Teaching Academic Writing on Line