The Experts below are selected from a list of 384672 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Lawrence Maclachlan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Paul Callister - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Claire Aitchison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond innovations in practice and theory
    2014
    Co-Authors: Claire Aitchison, Cally Guerin
    Abstract:

    Chapter 1 Introduction: Writing groups for doctoral and scholarly Writing by Claire Aitchison (University of Western Sydney) and Cally Guerin (University of Adelaide) Chapter 2 Writing together, for many reasons by Anthony Pare (McGill University, Canada) Chapter 3 Pick-n-Mix: A Typology of Writers' by Groups by Sarah Haas (University of Ghent, Belgium) Chapter 4 Doctoral students create new spaces to write by Rowena Murray (University of Strathclyde, Scotland) Chapter 5 Scaffolding the thesis Writing process: An ongoing Writing group for international Research students by Linda Li (University of Canberra, Australia) Chapter 6 The Writing group as gift by Cally Guerin (University of Adelaide, Australia) Chapter 7 'If they're not laughing, watch out!': Emotion and risk in postgraduate writers' circles by Lucia Thesen (University of Cape Town, South Africa) Chapter 8 Learning from multiple voices: Intertextuality, feedback and authority in doctoral Writing groups by Claire Aitchison (University of Western Sydney, Australia) Chapter 9 The transparent transaction: Writing groups in the development of academic writers and Writing mentors by Michelle Maher (University of South Carolina, USA) Chapter 10 A weekly dose of applause! Connectedness and playfulness in the Thesis Marathon by Judith Wolfsberger (The writers' studio, Austria) Chapter 11 Circles of trust: The generous embrace of academic Writing retreats by Barbara Grant and Sally Knowles (Auckland University, New Zealand Edith Cowan University, Australia) Chapter 12 Listening to doctoral students talk about Research Writing and groups: Implications for doctoral programs by Doreen Starke-Meyerring (McGill University, Canada) Chapter 13 An intimate circle: Reflections on Writing as women in higher education by Agnes Bosanquet, Jayde Cahir, Elaine Huber, Christa Jacenyik-Trawoger and Margot McNeill (Macquarie University, Australia) Chapter 14 Shut up and write! Facilitating informal learning in doctoral education (with 'no critiquing, exercises, lectures, ego, competition or feeling guilty') by Inger Mewburn, Lindy Osborne, Glenda Caldwell and Tseen Khoo (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Queensland University of Technology Queensland University of Technology Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia)

  • pedagogical approaches that facilitate Writing in postgraduate Research candidature in science and technology
    Journal of university teaching and learning practice, 2011
    Co-Authors: Janice Catterall, Claire Aitchison, Pauline M Ross, Shelley Burgin
    Abstract:

    The current higher education climate seems to be demanding increasing levels of written output from doctoral Researchers during candidature. In this context this study employed an online questionnaire, individual interviews and focus group discussions to collect information on the challenges and successes of doctoral Writing. It was found that feedback on student Writing was universally regarded as the primary pedagogical tool for teaching and learning Research Writing and for most, the supervisor’s role was central to this. Some supervisors employed ‘Writing for publication’ as a complimentary tool. A number of supervisors and students also reported positively about the value of participating in social Writing and critiquing environments such as Writing groups, Writing retreats, or Writing for peer feedback. This Research suggests that there would be benefit in tertiary institutions pursuing a more systematic approach to the support of Writing both as a learning tool for Research students and for the promotion of a vibrant, scholarly, Research community.

  • Writing groups for doctoral education
    Studies in Higher Education, 2009
    Co-Authors: Claire Aitchison
    Abstract:

    There is a burgeoning interest in how best to support and facilitate the development of Writing and Writing output of Research students. One pedagogy is the use of Writing groups for and beyond the period of the doctorate; however, there is relatively little empirical Research that helps explain how the pedagogies of Research Writing groups actually work. This article draws on academic literacy, and Writing Research and practices to explore what is learned, and how learning occurs through participation in Research Writing groups. This pedagogical analysis is developed by reference to a retrospective evaluative study of Research Writing groups in one large metropolitan university. Through self‐reporting by members, and as demonstrated in practice, scholarly Writing was learned in complex and timely ways; one particular feature was through the construction, articulation and critique of peers’ texts.

  • Research Writing problems and pedagogies
    Teaching in Higher Education, 2006
    Co-Authors: Claire Aitchison, Alison Lee
    Abstract:

    Writing remains significantly under-theorized within Research degree programs in universities. Yet there is clearly more at stake than the application of generic structural rules or guidelines for Writing Research. Whatever the discipline, these mechanics are inadequate to account for the complexities of Writing faced by doctoral students. This article takes up the challenge of Research Writing as a social, situated practice and calls for it to be embraced as such within Research education. The article identifies problems of policy, theory and pedagogy in relation to Research Writing. It then examines recent initiatives, undertaken by the authors and others, in the formation of Research Writing groups, in an attempt to address some of these problems. Despite wide variation, these groups have in common a strong reliance on the pedagogical principles of identification and peer review, community, and Writing as ‘normal business’ in the doing of Research. These are advanced as key principles for a broader con...

Ken Hyland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • PERSUASION, INTERACTION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE: REPRESENTING SELF AND OTHERS IN Research Writing
    International journal of english studies Vol, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ken Hyland
    Abstract:

    It is now increasingly accepted that academic knowledge is closely related to the social practices of academic communities, and particularly to their discourses. Texts are persuasive only when they employ rhetorical conventions that colleagues find convincing, and in recent years corpus analyses have helped to underpin this social constructivist position and to reveal some of the ways this is achieved. In this paper I discuss the role of interaction in this process. Based on an analysis of 240 published Research papers from eight disciplines and insider informant interviews, I explore the nature of interactive persuasion in this genre. I show here the importance of interaction in academic argument, suggest some of the ways this is achieved, and indicate how these choices reflect and construct disciplinary communities.

  • disciplinary voices interactions in Research Writing
    English Text Construction, 2008
    Co-Authors: Ken Hyland
    Abstract:

    The concept of voice has become central to studies of discourse, composition, and literature, but in this paper I want to shift its meaning a little to explore an area where voice is thought to play only a minor role: that of academic Writing. I intend here to explore the idea of ‘disciplinary voice’ by focusing on the interpersonal features of academic Writing and elaborating how writers position themselves and their readers. Essentially, I believe the idea of voice can shed light on aspects of disciplinary argument and am interested to see what these features tell us about writers’ notions of appropriate relationships and what this means for Writing in the disciplines. I will begin by looking briefly at the notion of voice, and go on to sketch an interactional model based on the ideas of stance, or how writers convey their attitudes and credibility, and engagement, or the ways they bring their readers into the discourse. I will then show how the choices writers make from these systems construct authorial voice, academic arguments, and the disciplines themselves.

  • hedging in scientific Research articles
    1998
    Co-Authors: Ken Hyland
    Abstract:

    This book provides a comprehensive study of hedging in academic Research papers, relating a systematic analysis of forms to a pragmatic explanation for their use. Based on a detailed examination of journal articles and interviews with Research scientists, the study shows that the extensive use of possibility and tentativeness in Research Writing is intimately connected to the social and institutional practices of academic communities and is at the heart of how knowledge comes to be socially accredited through texts. The study identifies the major forms, functions and distribution of hedges and explores the Research article genre in detail to present an explanatory framework based on a complex social and ideological interpretive environment. The results show that hedging is central to Scientific argument, individual scientists and, ultimately, to science itself. The importance of hedging to student writers is also recognised and a chapter devoted to teaching implications.

  • Writing without conviction hedging in science Research articles
    Applied Linguistics, 1996
    Co-Authors: Ken Hyland
    Abstract:

    Hedging is a well-documented feature of spoken discourse as a result of its role in qualifying categorical commitment and facilitating discussion. Its use in academic Writing has received less attention, however, and we know little about the functions it serves in different Research fields and particular genres. Hedging is a significant communicative resource for academics since it both confirms the individual's professional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means of gaining acceptance of claims. Hedges allow writers to anticipate possible opposition to claims by expressing statements with precision, caution, and diplomatic deference to the views of colleagues. Based on a contextual analysis of 26 articles in molecular biology, this paper argues that hedging in scientific Research Writing cannot be fully understood in isolation from social and institutional contexts and suggests a pragmatic framework which reflects this interpretive environment

Michael Robak - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.