The challenge of teaching academic
writing online: developing report
writing programs for science and
engineering
Helen Drury, Learning Centre, The University of Sydney
Outline
• Why teach writing online?
• Program design
– Theory
– Practice
• Evaluation
• Issues
• Future directions
• Discussion
Why teach writing online
• Key features: flexibility, self-paced
instruction, multiple learner pathways
• New ways of learning about text,
graphic/text interaction, new ways of
writing
But there are constraints ….
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 given
context
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 learning
goal (Laurrilard, 2002)
• Learning takes place through language
Practice: History of WRiSE
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemical
Engineering
Biochemistry 2
Physiology
Science and
engineering
Authorware
Dreamweaver
Dreamweaver
Flash
Flash
Report writing
Report writing
Report writing
Report writing
Discipline content
Report writing
Discipline content
Internal
Internal
Internal
Internal
External
1999
2003
2006
2007
2009
SFL and WRiSE
for Chemistry,
everything has to be so
accurate, whereas with
Chemical Engineering,
you get marked
down if you put too
many significant figures
good to hear from people we
knew, more real
it’s very important to show
how your work refers to the
rest of the field
need to be concise and use
technical jargon, follow
structure, proper tense, how to
refer to figures, tables.
Martin, 2002
Seeing those different colours is what
helped me the most and, yep, I did
change it. I wrote mine and then
went to this site and looked at it and
then went back and changed it.
it had a sample
introduction and then it
highlighted each
component of each part
of the introduction that
you needed, which was
really good.
I find it ideal the way language
is closely integrated into the
material about the report
structure. The other day I had a
normally unruly class of 2nd
year Chem Eng students
enthralled in a cohesion
exercise from the WRiSE site.
Genre-based literacy pedagogy
Martin, J. (1999) Mentoring semogenesis: ‘genre-based’ literacy pedagogy
How WRiSE deconstructs
Building field
Having lectures on
some
of
those
quizzes
writing
other
than
the
lecturer
conscious
to
only
put
at the start
I found
a
needing
to access
explanations,
easiest
relevant
info
in
the
bit annoying
website
is not
and
mostasclear
report
direct, can ask
qs,maybe practise or
more examples
Modelling
gave
goodand
example to
Example
Helped
with
how to
compare
mymade
work
with
comments
use language andon
example,
breakdown
details of data
of report sections
•Help with report writing : entry quiz
•Audio from students and staff on the
context of the report and both the product
and process
•Help with understanding content
•Blended learning
•Authentic student reports with lecturer
feedback
•Example reports with student and lecturer
comments
•Generic structure exemplified
•Discourse and language features
exemplified
•Metalanguage introduced and exemplified
How WRiSE constructs
Joint construction
(with computer)
I think it helped a lot for me,
writing in my second language,
learned a lot from the exercises
Independent
construction
I went over it all, by then I had an idea
and then I started writing
•Scaffolding through interactive
exercises
•Feedback on exercises
•Students write alongside WRiSE
•Feedback on drafts from lecturers in
eportfolio
How was the site used
Semester, 2009
Total Pageviews
Average Pageviews Per Day
57303
585
Average Pageviews Per Session
7
Average Length of Session (mins)
11
Total Unique Visitors
Average Unique Visitors Per Day
Total Unique Visitor Sessions
Average Unique Visitor Sessions Per Day
964
12
8275
100
Weekly usage
Sessions per week (all disciplines)
2500
1500
1000
500
Week ending
06
07
/
05
31
/
05
24
/
05
17
/
05
10
/
05
03
/
04
26
/
04
19
/
04
12
/
04
05
/
03
29
/
03
22
/
03
15
/
03
0
08
/
Sessions
2000
Questionnaire Data
n=417 F=173 M=190
42% of students surveyed did not use the site
1: Didn’t know about it
2: Didn’t need it
3: No time
4: No internet/problems with internet
5: Forgot
6: Used other source
7: Lazy
8: No comment
Language background
users v. non-users
Writing experience
users 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
Using WRiSE
Improved understanding
I used it on the structure, mainly
what to put where, I tend to blur
my results in discussion a little bit.
After I wrote it I went back and
looked at it and kind of pasted a
few things of what I wrote. I used
the 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 understand
the specific requirements ...
Improved confidence
I feel more comfortable at
following structure
I can explain myself clearly and
am able to identify mistakes and
correct..
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. It’s not a really good
site for cramming.
Staff Comments
• ...almost all students did well on the structure of
the report. All was good there and many did a
reasonable attempt at the Summary and
Conclusion sections. So perhaps WRiSE did
succeed.
• ..strongly encouraged to use the site. Quite an
improvement
• I feel we definitely have a well-designed,
pedagogically sound website. Informal feedback
from PhD demonstrators who mark the reports
indicate meaningful improvements in student
report writing skills
Does WRiSE make a difference?
Mean report marks (%) for each discipline by
website use
Report discipline
Civil Engineering
Microbiology
Mining Engineering
Chemistry
users
non-users
Chemical Engineering
Molecular Biology3
Molecular Biology2
Biology
0
20
40
60
80
% percentage report mark
100
On average, report marks of those who used the website (M = .13, SD = .97, n = 204) were
significantly higher than those who did not use the website (M = -.19, SD = .98, n = 144);
t(306) = -3.02, p = .01.
Issues
• 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
Once you were inside a
module, there was actually a
tiny little menu right down the
bottom, it would be nicer if you
could navigate more easily
– Implementation and integration
– Motivation for students to use the site
• Division between language and content
• Critical/challenging orientation to the genre
Towards a community of practice
New working relationships and
Training and
experience
with
collaborative
links
with
Questionacross
tools are
helpful
colleagues
thevery
University
indeed, afordeeper
consideration
- thankyou
the opportunity
to of
is also
be student
involvedreport
in thiswriting
exciting
valuable
project
Future directions
Acknowledgements
Learning Centre
Learning Centre
•
•
Janet Jones, Helen Drury, Peter
O’Carroll
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
Sue Starfield, Pam Mort
Discipline Teams
•
•
Paul Hagan,
John Wilson, Kathy Takayama,
Rosanne Quinnell, Rebecca
LeBard
Reference Group
•
•
•
•
Peter Goodyear
Robert Ellis
Michelle Kofod
Rosemary Clerehan
www.usyd.edu.au/learningcentre/wrise
Discussion Questions
1. Where and how are collaborations working
best between writing specialists and
teaching 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 and
learning at tertiary level in both formal and
informal settings?
3. How do we do a language based approach
with large cohorts?