Sustainable Writing Support: A Campus-wide Module to Support Bachelor Thesis Writing at a University of Technology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2021.1.2Keywords:
dialogic feedback, generic skills, writing in the discipline (WID), thesis writingAbstract
Higher education is today characterised by increasing student groups and high pressure on teaching staff. In these circumstances, it may be difficult to provide appropriate scaffolding of activities that many students find challenging, for example, academic and discipline-specific writing. It may also be difficult to align such support with principles associated with effective learning. In this paper, we present the design of the bachelor thesis writing support for students at a university of technology. The support is delivered by a communication division and reaches approximately 900 students each year. The paper describes the principles guiding the design and use results from a student survey to illuminate the challenges and affordances of the approach. The survey results show that students appreciate the module and its focus on dialogic feedback, student engagement and student activity. Our results also show that one of the challenges for some students is to negotiate advice from multiple sources, primarily content supervisors and writing staff. Despite such challenges, the design is an example of a sustainable, large-scale writing module based on research on feedback and learning.
References
Börjeson, F. C., & Carlsson, C. J. (2020). Talking about writing – designing and establishing writing feedback and tutorials to promote student engagement and learning. Journal of Aca-demic Writing, 10(1), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v10i1.604
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as Dialogue. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1–6). Springer.
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Cowan, J. (2010). Developing the Ability for Making Evaluative Judgements. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903560036
Ens, A. H., Boyd, K., Matczuk, L. A., & Nickerson, W. T. (2011). Graduate Students' Evolving Perceptions of Writing Collaboratively. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 41(2), 62–81.
Eriksson, A., & Nordrum, L. (2018). Unpacking challenges of data commentary writing in mas-ter’s thesis projects: an insider perspective from chemical engineering. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1460339
Geisler, C. (1994). Literacy and expertise in the academy. Language and Learning Across the Disci-plines, 1, 35–57.
Gimenez, J., & Thomas, P. (2015). A framework for usable pedagogy: case studies towards ac-cessibility, criticality and visibility. In T. Lillis, K. Harrington, M. Lea, and S. Mitchell (Eds.), Working with Academic Literacies: Case Studies towards Transformative Practice (pp. 29–44). The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Gustafsson, M. (2011). Academic literacies approaches for facilitating language for specific pur-poses. Ibérica, 22, 101–122.
Jacobs, C. (2007). Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academ-ic literacies: Making the tacit explicit. (Kenton Special Issue). Journal of Education, 41, 59–81
Jacobs, C. (2010). Collaboration as pedagogy: Consequences and implications for partnerships between communication and disciplinary specialists. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.545025
Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602018
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. , & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher educa-tion: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
O’Donovan, B., Rust, C., & Price, M. (2016). A scholarly approach to solving the feedback di-lemma in practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 938–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1052774
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All That Effort, but What is the Effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitz-gerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 54–66). The Guilford Press.
Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., & Price, M. (2005). A Social Constructivist Assessment Process Mod-el: How the Research Literature shows us this could be Best Practice. Assessment and Eval-uation in Higher Education, 30(3), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500063819
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional science, 18(2), 119–144.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond Feedback: Developing Student Capability in Complex Appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Andreas Eriksson, Fia Börjeson, Carl Johan Carlsson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
