Reconsidering priorities and
responsibilities
Educational interventions promoting disciplinary
discourse in Swedish and English across multiple
engineering programmes and educational levels
R&D
Funded projects for
educational development
Integrated
(yrs 1-3)
2-3 courses in all
12 BSc
programmes
1-3 courses in 13
MSc programmes
~650 BSc thesis
tutorials
Faculty,
Industry
Staffing
12 faculty +
short term contracts
A division in the
Department of Applied IT
Activities
Diploma of higher education
Workshops; Seminars,
Comissioned courses
Funding
Course budget system
Some overhead allocation
Electives
(MSc, PhD)
English ~50
English for engineers ~50
Technical writing ~25
Fiction ~15
Academic writing ~95
Chalmers Open
Communication
Studio
Definitional issues
Higher education ordinance vaguely requiring
‘communication skills’
Outcomes, activities, and assessment aligned for
enhancing student learning of disciplinary content
and discourse
–
–
–
targeted domain knowledge depth
targeted language and discourse awareness
targeted genres, discourses, and audiences
Rationale: The constructive alignment sun
Decide / Revise
learning outcomes
Student profile
analysis
Criteria
definition / revision
Puzzle
Feedback
re-design
Assessment
revision / design
Content
revision / definition
Revise / define
Activities
Consider medium
of instruction
Rationale: the ‘generic attributes model’
• Conceptions
–
–
–
–
Precursor
Complement
Translation
Enabling
• Methods
–
–
–
–
–
Cf. Lea & Street:
Academic literacies framework
–
Remedial
Associated
Teaching content
Teaching
Teaching process
Engagement
Learning
Participatory
Barrie. (2007). ”A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate
attributes”. Studies in Higher Education. 32(4), 439-458
Rationale: Writing in the making
Granted that we don’t settle for a skills
discourse, we need to be more deliberate in
our use of writing throughout the learning
process
Instructions
Problem
Case / Lab /
Project notes
Literature
Methods
Case / Lab
assignment
Activities
Oral
presentation
Evaluation
Project
report, article
Rationale: Balancing priorities
Integration of language
into content
Enhancing student learning
through communication
Learning to write
‘Writing to learn’
Language proficiency
‘Disciplinary communication’
Promoting disciplinary discourse: Chalmers I
Mechanical
engineering:
CDIO-focus
Design reports
Year 1:
Product development
course
Technical report
(collaborative)
- Peer response
-Teacher response
Oral presentation
Report guidelines
Year 2:
Product development course
Technical report
(collaborative)
Oral presentations:
- Peer feedback
- Teacher feedback
Industry represented
Report guidelines
Year 3:
Bachelor thesis
(collaborative)
Guidelines and criteria
Peer response seminar
Teacher response
Oral presentation
Thesis seminars
Promoting disciplinary discourse: Chalmers II
Mechanical
engineering:
CDIO-focus
Design reports
YearYear
1: 2:
Year
3:
Product
development
Product
development course
Bachelor
course
Technical
report thesis
(collaborative)
(collaborative)
Technical
report
OralGuidelines
presentations:
and criteria
(collaborative)
- response
Peer feedback
response seminar
- Peer
- Teacher
feedback
response
-Teacher
response
Industry
represented
Oral presentation
Oral- presentation
Report
guidelines
Thesis
seminars
Report
guidelines
Chemistry:
Technical reports;
critical concepts
seminar; design
project
Y1: Tech rep (Sw)
Y2: Commentary
Y2: Seminar 1
Y2: Exchange
Y2: Seminar 2
Y3: Design project
Promoting disciplinary discourse: Chalmers III
Mechanical
engineering:
CDIO-focus
Design reports
YearYear
1: 2:
Year
3:
Product
development
Product
development course
Bachelor
course
Technical
report thesis
(collaborative)
(collaborative)
Technical
report
OralGuidelines
presentations:
and criteria
(collaborative)
- response
Peer feedback
response seminar
- Peer
- Teacher
feedback
response
-Teacher
response
Industry
represented
Oral presentation
Oral- presentation
Report
guidelines
Thesis
seminars
Report
guidelines
Chemistry:
Physics:
Technical reports;
critical concepts
seminar; design
project
Data commentary,
Experimental
lab report,
Debate
Y1: Tech rep (Sw)
Lay introduction
Y2: Commentary
Y2: Seminar 1
Y2: Exchange
Y2: Seminar 2
Y3: Design project
Data commentary
Full lab report
Strength of claim
Argumentation
Outcomes and Assessment Approaches
Outcomes
• Meeting higher education
agency requirements
• Meeting university-wide
criteria for theses
• Genre and activity system
awareness
• Audience analysis skills
• Peer response work
• Language proficiency
Assessment
• Assignment level
–
Specific learning outcomes and
criteria negotiated with course
manager
• Course level
–
–
–
‘Report writing’ components
Critiques
Pass rates and distribution of
grades
• Programme level
–
–
Annual contract and evaluation
External audits
Multidimensional assessment
Formal
investigation
Length of
inquiry
Types (Bonnet 2012):
Product
Process
Participants
Qualitative
Quantitative
Focused inquiry /
action research
Reflection in / on
action
Instructional
routine
Context of inquiry
Course;
Partnership / team;
Department;
Institution
Adapted from Anson, C. M. (2006). Assessing
Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate
writing in cross-curricular programs: Determining the qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant
locus of activity. Assessing Writing, 11, 100-112.
perspectives in CLIL Research. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 66-78.
Recurring questions!
• “What’s the impact of varying CEFR-levels with an
approach like this?”
–
–
All interventions need to be situated of course but I imagine
such variation affects balances and the design of sequences
more than anything
There are no short-cuts to proficiency but we can use
content form the disciplines, surely?
• How did you get programmes and supervisors
onboard?
–
–
–
–
Long process of course
Central degree project guidelines have been important
Central effort on constructive alignment has been a catalyst
Audit was useful!
What are our issues?
• What’s the problem?
1.
“I don’t do math” <> “I don’t do English”


2.
The approach involves a considerable amount of
educational development work and competence

3.
There is no room in learning-oriented HE for such arrogance!
We accepted that attitude initially and now we struggle to get
the new deal across
We get paid for our work with students only (most of the
time)…
Balancing the academy <> workplace


We have ended up doing EAP and disciplinary discourse for
the academy mostly
Workplace scenarios are less popular or frequent and
occasionally in conflict
Thank you!
Let’s see if you have any questions …
Understanding
‘academic literacies’
Academic
identity
Cecilia Jacobs. (2007). ‘Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of disciplinespecific academic literacies: making the tacit explicit’. Journal of Education 41: 59-82
Jacobs: collaborating for disciplinary discourse
Collaborative
partnerships
Transdisciplinary
collaboration
Cecilia Jacobs. (2007). ‘Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of disciplinespecific academic literacies: making the tacit explicit’. Journal of Education 41: 59-82
From Academic literacy to
‘Language for Specific Purposes’
Gustafsson, M. (2011). ”Academic literacies approaches for
facilitating language for specific purposes” Ibérica 22 (2011): 101-122.
Promoting disciplinary discourse: types
A small embedded
unit in one course
Content course
paired with a…
… communication
course
Embedded ICL
interventions in…
…multiple courses
in a program
Closely embedded
ICL….
…interventions in
…multiple courses
in a program
Why do we care about ICLHE impact?
• How do we know that what we do is ‘right’ and that we do
it well?
–
–
–
How can communication be used to extend / change students’
disciplinary knowledge and understanding?
How can impact across interventions be facilitated to foster student
development?
How do we measure the effectiveness of ICL beyond “satisfaction”?
• What is the relevance of the I and the C and the L of ICLHE?
–
–
–
How closely integrated should a particular learning environment
be?
How much time should be given to ICLHE in a given curriculum?
How much resources should be devoted to ICLHE?
Table 1: ICLHE impact in ME, years 1-3
What outcomes?
Report and presentation quality relative learning outcomes, design process
documentation
What should we
‘measure’?
Learning impact on domain knowledge, disciplinary discourse literacy beyond
the isolated case, relevance in progression of tasks toward workplace
communication
For whom or from
what vantage point?
The objective of meeting Swedish higher education agency requirements,
the programme learning outcomes, and CDIO requirements
Who uses the
‘research’?
The programme manager who, in turn, promotes similar work in related
programmes, published articles about the programme get wider distribution
but their citation index is low and their effect on research is uncertain
How and when do
we measure?
Mid-course, end-of-course by criterion-based report grades, post-cycle
interviews with a sample of students (Eriksson & Carlsson, 2013)
What is an ‘effective’
intervention?
Course evaluation data for the ME-course, student and programme manager
satisfaction, performance in subsequent projects, annual contract
negotiation with programme manager
Relative what
baselines?
-- (an unarticulated sense of performance in the past and a somewhat better
sense of continuous improvement)
Table 2: ICLHE impact in Chem Eng
What outcomes?
Report and presentation quality relative learning outcomes, the disciplinary
literacy for a selection of threshold concepts
What should we
‘measure’?
Learning impact on domain knowledge, disciplinary discourse literacy beyond
the isolated case, performance on degree thesis projects, relevance in
progression of tasks toward workplace communication,
For whom or from
what vantage point?
The objective of meeting Swedish higher education agency requirements and
the programme learning outcomes
Who uses the
‘research’?
The programme manager who, in turn, promotes similar work in related
programmes, published articles about the programme get wider distribution
but their citation index is low and their effect on research is uncertain
How and when do
we measure?
Mid-course, end-of-course by criterion-based report grades, isolated
reflective writing pieces,
What is an ‘effective’
intervention?
Course evaluation data, student and programme manager satisfaction,
performance in subsequent projects (for year one and two courses), annual
contract negotiation with programme manager
Relative what
baselines?
-- (an unarticulated sense of performance in the past and a somewhat better
sense of continuous improvement)
How do faculty and students perceive ICL’s
impact on content?
• Structuring disciplinary work
–
Assignment scaffolding mirrors disciplinary work
processes
• Understanding disciplinary epistemologies
–
–
Appropriate evidence
Appropriate rationales
• Prioritizing disciplinary content
–
Key outcomes versus appendices of detailed work