WiD and AcLits at London Met

1
WiD and AcLits at London Met

• Can Academic Literacies be taught?
• Queen Mary, University of London
• 12 June 2009

2
Writing in the Disciplines

• Examine Write Now CETLs WiD work at London Met
• Discuss new project to make this work more
  systematic, sustainable and effective
• Consider relationship between AcLits and WiD
• Do they complement each other?
• Is WiD an effective vehicle for promoting
  attention to AcLits?
• Does WiD perhaps neglect the critical dimension
  essential to AcLits thinking?

3
Writing in the Disciplines

• Lecturers / Professors take responsibility for
  students disciplinary writing within their
  disciplinary courses (rather than leaving this to
  stand-alone writing/study skills courses or
  workshops often taught by others)
• Writing specialists may collaborate with the
  lecturer
• For all students
• Not about remediality but about creating more
  effective writers in the subject and about using
  writing to create better thinking and better
  disciplinary practice
• Cf. AcLits on problems of student writing as a
  result of confusions concerning disciplinary
  demands and epistemologies (Lea and Street 1998)
• Wingate (AcLits) real understanding of the
  complexities of disciplinary writing can only be
  achieved within the subject and through
  explanations, modelling and feedback by subject
  tutors (2006 463)

4
WAC, WiD and Beyond

• Writing across the Curriculum attempt to use
  writing outside composition classes and to
  integrate it within all courses to promote
  thinking and learning (Bean 2001). McLeod and
  Maimon describe WAC as one of the most important
  educational reform movements of the twentieth
  century (2000 582).
• Writing in the Disciplines focuses more
  specifically on creating disciplinary writers
  (including attention to the kinds of writing
  students will do in their professional life).
  Cf. Monroe (2002 and 2003).
• (Communication across the Curriculum. See e.g.
  http//www.uncg.edu/cac)

5
WiD at London Met

• Write Now CETL many WiD collaborations
• Initial strategy work with the willing
• No master-plan at the start collaborations
  depend on lecturers level of interest
• Reflect on experiences and try to improve
• Major collaborations in first year of CETL with
  Psychology, Film Studies, Management and
  Multimedia. Other more minor collaborations.

6
Lessons learned

• Limited point to delivering a writing workshop
  or (worse) a lecture on writing. Unsustainable
  lecturer doesnt always turn up gives wrong
  message and despite best efforts divorces
  writing from the subject.
• Best role for writing specialist is to
  collaborate with lecturer, offering support,
  knowledge, resources, advice, energy and
  encouragement and helping lecturer to assume
  ownership of writing in their module. This is a
  process, not something that will happen or be
  perfected in one semester. Our job is in some
  ways helping lecturers switch on to the
  importance of writing. Doing more for the
  lecturer in the short term can in the long run
  mean doing less.
• Once lecturers see writing as not a remedial or
  surface-level issue (grammar and syntax) but as
  the vehicle through which students perform the
  higher order skills of their discipline
  (analysing , synthesising, evaluating etc), they
  are more likely to be interested in owning this
  aspect of their teaching.

7
Working with Design

• In the second year of the CETL, collaboration
  with Design building upon first-year WiD
  experience
• Course leader redesigns compulsory first-year
  Design History module in collaboration with
  writing specialist to make it writing intensive
• Writing workshop designed with advice of writing
  specialist to facilitate understanding of the
  first assignment (including how to use sources
  and reference)
• Resources produced to make this workshop
  sustainable
• Professional development all teaching staff
  co-teach with either course leader or writing
  specialist
• The role of writing across the whole three years
  of the course is considered in order to build on
  first year developmentally
• Research partnership, conference presentations,
  book project on related subject. Professional
  recognition.

8
Goal for final year of CETL

• Build on our experience and create something
  potentially lasting and sustainable
• Put in place a model of WiD which will promote
  good practice and which doesnt require huge
  resources
• Make pedagogical research an integral aspect of
  WiD collaborations in order to raise the status
  of teaching and learning issues
• Put in place a model of WiD which encourages
  ownership of writing by subject lecturers

9
WiD and Assessment at MUOhio

• Timely visit by Paul Anderson, Howe Center for
  Writing Excellence, Miami University, Ohio
• Creates detailed writing assessment rubrics in
  conjunction with MUOhio subject-based professors
• Writing diagnostic takes place
• Target weak point and implement teaching change
  
• Writing diagnostic repeated
• More targeting
• On-going cycle of evaluation. Incremental
  improvements. Long-term, sustainable,
  developmental process rather than a quick fix.
• Allows Paul Anderson to work with many different
  disciplines at the same time

10
Paul Andersons Cycle of Evaluation
11
London Met WiD Research Project

• Implement a similar model of evaluation which
  encourages staff to assume ownership of writing
  and adopts an incremental, process-based approach
• Build on earlier Assessment Plus work to focus on
  specific aspects of writing (http//www.writenow.a
  c.uk/assessmentplus/)
• Create wide impact in final year of CETL
• Offer a sustainable model of writing /
  professional development at London Met

12
Step 1 expressions of interest

• Call for expressions of interest in academic
  writing / pedagogical research project
• The Write Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching
  and Learning is looking for collaborators among
  London Met academic staff for a writing-related
  pedagogical research project for the academic
  year 2009-10.
• This project will endeavour to ascertain
  strengths and weaknesses in student writing in
  particular disciplines and to put into place
  teaching provision targeted at specific writing
  issues. The success of this intervention will
  then be ascertained in a number of ways.
• This project aims to lead to improved provision
  for student writing and to put into place an
  effective mechanism for diagnosing and improving
  student written texts.
• If you are interested, please email Dr Peter
  ONeill (peter.oneill_at_londonmet.ac.uk) by Friday
  May 1st, stating
• Your subject
• The module which you would like to work with us
  on
• Typical number of students enrolled in the module
• Aspects of student writing which you think you
  might be particularly interested in targeting

13
Step 2 choose partners

• Expressions of interest received from 12
  disciplines computing law food biotechnology
  business aviation education sports therapy
  international relations accounting PG cert
  film studies accreditation of prior experiential
  learning
• 7 lecturers/module-based teams chosen, based
  primarily on size of cohorts
• Follow up letter to those selected, to provide
  detailed information on the project and
  expectations of participating, and asking them to
  confirm whether they still wanted to work with us
• Six replied in the affirmative. One did not reply
  at all. Partners from education film studies
  accounting accreditation of prior experiential
  learning sports therapy business

14
Step 3 preliminary meeting

• In June, we will meet with all participants to
• Clarify the project aims and stages
• Discuss expected outcomes
• Discuss the pedagogical action research framework
  (Write Now Research Associates)
• Provide simple forms for diagnosing student
  writing based on previous Assessment Plus
  research
• Clarify the purpose and process of the initial
  writing diagnosis

15
Step 4 teaching inventory

• Before applying the writing diagnostic, all
  partners will be asked to complete a
  teaching/writing goals inventory
• This will support research into effectiveness of
  the model overall
• Reflects fact we are as much interested in
  investigating teacher change as writing
  improvement

16
Step 5 writing diagnostic

• Participants will apply writing diagnostic to a
  sample of student work from this years module
• The aim is to
• Break writing up into manageable targets for
  improvement rather than to see it as an
  amorphous, insoluble problem
• Enable definition of what counts as writing which
  is good, excellent, poor etc within the
  particular discipline and teaching context
• Gain an understanding of the aspects of writing
  students are doing well and those they are doing
  less well
• The writing diagnostic will consist of rating
  students written work according to specified
  assessment criteria and identifying extracts of
  writing that demonstrate the criteria being met
  at different standards of performance
• The outcomes of this will provide a baseline
  assessment which will then be used to help
  determine the kind of writing intervention to be
  developed for implementation next year

17
Step 6 planning an intervention

• Early summer first one-to-one meeting between
  CETL staff member and lecturer/team
• Discuss outcomes of writing diagnostic
• Decide which aspect of writing will be targeted
• Brainstorm possible interventions of a
  sustainable nature (n.b. possible implementation
  in a blended learning environment)
• Late summer second one-to-one meeting between
  CETL staff member and lecturer
• Discuss lecturers ideas for proposed
  intervention
• Email support available over summer

18
Step 7 intervention

• Lecturer carries out intervention as part of
  regular module teaching in autumn 2009
• Learning Technology support available if needed
• Informal support available from CETL staff
• Ongoing reflective log kept by participants

19
Step 8 post-module evaluation

• Teaching/writing goals inventory completed again,
  to attempt to understand teacher change and how
  lecturer feels about assuming responsibility for
  students writing development
• Reapply writing diagnostic to new batch of
  student writing
• In part to assess possible writing improvement
• But also as part of long-term process of teacher
  reflection on student writing and how it can be
  improved

20
Step 9 research and dissemination

• Production of case studies, final report,
  presentations and publications
• Research fund to support Write Now CETL Research
  Associates
• Evaluation of intervention (e.g., research
  assistance to aid data collection and analysis)
• Dissemination (e.g., conference attendance)
• Writing Development in Higher Education (WDHE)
  conference, June 2010 panel presentation?

21
Writing Centre

• A place where such work can be carried out and
  recognised
• Disciplinary peer tutorials (London Met Writing
  Mentors Scheme) to support lecturers (2000
  one-to-one tutorials 2006-09 with over 900 held
  last year)
• But staff development, learning development and
  language centres could also be units for carrying
  out WiD work?

22
AcLits and WiD

• AcLits so far in large part a theoretical
  approach. Cf. Lillis Academic Literacies has
  been highly generative as a critical research
  frame, challenging many common-sense assumptions
  about what is involved in student writing and
  foregrounding the limitations in much current
  writing pedagogy. However, as a design frame it
  has yet to be developed. I am using design here
  in the broad sense of the application of research
  findings and understandings to pedagogy (2006
  33).
• WiD perhaps is more pragmatic? Reflect on the
  issue. Do something. Reflect and do it again
  differently? Cf. Action Research.
• Lillis suggests that the pedagogical outcome of
  Academic Literacies is likely to be dialogues
  between student-writers and tutor-readers which
  enable participation in dominant academic
  literacy practices as well as provide
  opportunities for challenging aspects of such
  practices (2006, p.33). Cf. writing mentors
  scheme. Does WiD encourage this dialogic approach
  or does it perhaps reinforce dominant practice,
  seeking to help students master the conventions
  but perhaps being less interested in challenging
  how things are done?
• Or does this depend on the goals and interests of
  the lecturer?

23

• www.writenow.ac.uk
• www.londonmet.ac.uk/writingcentre
• Peter ONeill peter.oneill_at_londonmet.ac.uk
• Kathy Harrington k.harrington_at_londonmet.ac.uk

24
Works cited

• Bean, John, C. (2001). Engaging Ideas. The
  Professors Guide to Integrating Writing,
  Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the
  Classroom. San Francisco Jossey-Bass.
• Lea, Mary R. and Street, Brian V. (1998). Student
  Writing in Higher Education an Academic
  Literacies Approach. Studies in Higher Education,
  23(2) 157-72.
• Lillis, Theresa M. (2006). Moving towards an
  "academic literacies" pedagogy Dialogues of
  participation. In Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.),
  Teaching academic writing in UK higher education.
  Houndmills Palgrave Macmillan 30-45.
• McLeod, Susan and Maimon, Elaine (2000).
  Clearing the Air WAC Myths and Realities.
  College English, 62 573-83.
• Monroe, Jonathan (2002). Writing and Revising the
  Disciplines. Ithaca Cornell University.
• Monroe, Jonathan (2003). Local Knowledges, Local
  Practices
• Writing in the Disciplines at Cornell.
  Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh..
• Wingate, Ursula (2006). Doing away with "study
  skills." Teaching in Higher Education, 11
  457-69.