Reconsidering priorities and responsibilities
Educational interventions promoting disciplinary discourse in Swedish and English across multiple engineering programmes and educational levels
Activities
Chalmers Open Communication
Studio
Integrated(yrs 1-3)
Faculty, Industry
Electives(MSc, PhD)
English ~50English for engineers ~50Technical writing ~25Fiction ~15Academic writing ~95
2-3 courses in all 12 BSc
programmes1-3 courses in 13 MSc programmes~650 BSc thesis
tutorials
Diploma of higher educationWorkshops; Seminars,Comissioned courses
Staffing12 faculty +
short term contracts
R & DFunded projects for
educational development
A division in the Department of Applied IT
FundingCourse budget system
Some overhead allocation
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
ICL? ESP?
EAP?
EMI?
WID?
WAC?ESL?
NWNC?
Rationale: The constructive alignment sun
Decide / Revise learning outcomes
Revise / define Activities
Assessment revision / design
Criteria definition / revision
Feedback re-design
Content revision / definition
Student profile analysis
Consider medium of instruction
Puzzle
Barrie. (2007). ”A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes”. Studies in Higher Education. 32(4), 439-458
Rationale: the ‘generic attributes model’
• Conceptions– Precursor– Complement– Translation– Enabling
• Methods– Remedial– Associated– Teaching content– Teaching process– Engagement– Participatory
Supplementary
Integrated
Teaching
LearningCf. Lea & Street: Academic literacies framework
Rationale: Writing in the making
InstructionsCase / Lab / Project notes
Problem Methods
Case / Lab assignment
Project report, article
Oral presentation
ActivitiesLiterature Evaluation
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
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 IMechanical engineering: CDIO-focusDesign reports
Year 1:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)- Peer response- Teacher responseOral presentationReport guidelines
Year 2:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)Oral presentations:- Peer feedback- Teacher feedbackIndustry representedReport guidelines
Year 3:Bachelor thesis (collaborative)Guidelines and criteriaPeer response seminar Teacher responseOral presentationThesis seminars
Promoting disciplinary discourse: Chalmers II
Mechanical engineering: CDIO-focusDesign reports
Chemistry:Technical reports; critical concepts seminar; design project
Year 1:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)- Peer response- Teacher responseOral presentationReport guidelines
Year 2:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)Oral presentations:- Peer feedback- Teacher feedback- Industry representedReport guidelines
Year 3:Bachelor thesis (collaborative)Guidelines and criteriaPeer response seminar Teacher responseOral presentationThesis seminars
Y2: Commentary
Y2: Seminar 1
Y2: Seminar 2
Y2: Exchange
Y3: Design project
Y1: Tech rep (Sw)
Physics:Data commentary,
Experimental lab report,
Debate
Lay introduction
Data commentary
Full lab report
Strength of claim
Argumentation
Promoting disciplinary discourse: Chalmers III
Mechanical engineering: CDIO-focusDesign reports
Chemistry:Technical reports; critical concepts seminar; design project
Year 1:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)- Peer response- Teacher responseOral presentationReport guidelines
Year 2:Product development courseTechnical report (collaborative)Oral presentations:- Peer feedback- Teacher feedback- Industry representedReport guidelines
Year 3:Bachelor thesis (collaborative)Guidelines and criteriaPeer response seminar Teacher responseOral presentationThesis seminars
Y2: Commentary
Y2: Seminar 1
Y2: Seminar 2
Y2: Exchange
Y3: Design project
Y1: Tech rep (Sw)
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
Adapted from Anson, C. M. (2006). Assessing writing in cross-curricular programs: Determining the locus of activity. Assessing Writing, 11, 100-112.
Length of inquiry
Formal investigation
Context of inquiry
Focused inquiry / action research
Reflection in / on action
Instructional routine
Course; Partnership / team; Department; Institution
Types (Bonnet 2012):
ProductProcessParticipantsQualitativeQuantitative
This space needs
populating with studies
and doing that might take
us out of our comfort
zones…
Bonnet, A. (2012). Towards an evidence base for CLIL: How to integrate qualitative and quantitative as well as process, product and participant 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” 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
2. The approach involves a considerable amount of educational development work and competence We get paid for our work with students only (most of the
time)…
3. 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 …
Academic identity
Cecilia Jacobs. (2007). ‘Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: making the tacit explicit’. Journal of Education 41: 59-82
Understanding ‘academic literacies’
Collaborative partnerships
Cecilia Jacobs. (2007). ‘Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: making the tacit explicit’. Journal of Education 41: 59-82
Transdisciplinary collaboration
Jacobs: collaborating for disciplinary discourse
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
Embedded ICL interventions in…
…multiple courses in a program
Closely embedded ICL…. …interventions in
Content course paired with a…
… communication course
…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 EngWhat 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
Top Related