Negotiating different approaches to knowledge through interdisciplinary exchange:
Download
1 / 26

Dr. Angela Ardington : - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Negotiating different approaches to knowledge through interdisciplinary exchange: The way forward for sustainable writing development. Dr. Angela Ardington :. Learning Centre. Cross-disciplinary approaches to knowledge and inquiry.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Dr. Angela Ardington :' - gaetane-graves


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Negotiating different approaches to knowledge through interdisciplinary exchange: The way forward for sustainable writing development

Dr. Angela Ardington:

Learning Centre


Cross-disciplinary approaches to knowledge and inquiry interdisciplinary exchange:

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.  Albert Einstein

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind

is a faithful servant. We have created a society that

honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. 

Albert Einstein


Presentation focus interdisciplinary exchange:

Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Communication Establishment integrated WAC Programs (Engineering & Visual Arts)Questions to address:What effects do disciplinary epistemologies have on academic discourses? How do individual perceptions of the relationship between creativity and the formal demands of writing impact academic discourses?


Key issues

Focus and significance interdisciplinary exchange:

Key issues

the link between thinking and academic writing (Moon 2007)

the proposition that discipline boundaries are becoming more permeable (Armstrong 2006; Henkel 2005; Becher & Trowler 2001; Rowland 2006)

dimensions of formality versus creativity in academic writing (Wood 1999).


Research Questions interdisciplinary exchange:

What disciplinary agendas are operating?How are disciplinary values expressed, e.g. conflicting / shared?How can we optimise these values to contribute towards richer learning experiences?


Disciplinary interdisciplinary exchange: communities

EngineeringVisual Arts

Architecture Design

positioned as opposed in mainstream discourses

(Armstrong 2006)


If we agree interdisciplinary exchange:

…“No single, monolithic ‘academic English’ ”(Hyland 2004)we need to investigate how different varieties of academic writing (English) can be validated.


Disciplinary epistemologies interdisciplinary exchange:

  • What counts as knowledge?

  • Who controls the knowledge?

  • Who has the right to give voice?

represent valued and powerful ways of engaging with the world which exert an effect on student learning

(Barnett 2009; Kreber 2009)


A primary objective interdisciplinary exchange:

to explore [these] disciplinary communities to discover how they organise and deliver their teaching in an attempt to reveal the relationship between academic writing and the respective disciplinary epistemologies in terms of commonalities and differences.


Institutional disciplinary individual govern how knowledge is valued and communicated

Cultures of learning interdisciplinary exchange:

INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINARY INDIVIDUALgovern how knowledge is valued and communicated

ACADEMY

PROFESSIONS


Guggenheim bilbao

Work of Art / Feat of Engineering? interdisciplinary exchange:

Guggenheim, Bilbao?


Depends on disciplinary background perspective context audience

Work of Art / Feat of Engineering? interdisciplinary exchange:

Depends on:disciplinary backgroundperspectivecontextaudience


Disciplinary cultures interdisciplinary exchange:

(Source: shortened from Becher 1989; ref. Becher & Towler 2001)

(Source: shortened from Becher 1989; ref. Becher & Towler 2001)


  • Engineering curriculum interdisciplinary exchange:

  • ‘hard’ courses(engineering, math, science) emphasise computations:

  • solving equations

  • modeling processes

  • product design

  • ‘soft’emphasise communications:

Some practicing engineers say they spend up to 80% time in oral + written communications


Disciplinary identity engineer

Disciplinary Identity: Engineer interdisciplinary exchange:

“the type of person who would rather take the telephone apart rather than use it to call his own mother”

  • Curricular emphasis:

  • problem solving, functionality, technical, product-oriented, project-driven


Disciplinary Identity: Visual Arts interdisciplinary exchange:

“The most important thing is to be a good artist. This requires risk taking and is the opposite of the requirements for academic writing. Writing is a different mode parallel to art making and antithetical to it”. Lecturer, SCA (2007)


Individual responses interdisciplinary exchange:

confusion – re expectations and what is valued (Engineering)allows me to organise my thoughts tangible record (V Arts)experimental stage enjoyable but then had to force thoughts into a straitjacket (V Arts)perceptions of writing as peripheral (Engineering) resistance to conceptual rigours of linear argumentation in formal academic writing (V Arts)


CREATIVE PROCESS interdisciplinary exchange:

Experimentation

Risk taking

Ability to go outside guidelines

INSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS

Rationalisation

Convention/ Rigour

Scholastic orthodoxy

Tensions


Links to assessment tasks
Links to Assessment tasks interdisciplinary exchange:


Cross Disciplinary Similarities: interdisciplinary exchange:

Graduate attributes

situate their own work in an international context

the ability to demonstrate critical judgement and independent thinking

ability to communicate effectively

function on multidisciplinary teams

broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions within a global, economic, and environmental context


Managing effective language support
Managing effective language support interdisciplinary exchange:

Considers student perceptions & concerns:

  • resistance/reluctance

  • marginalised (remedial)

  • different assessments/standards

    Learning Together through Collaborative Practice:

  • team teaching: content tutor/LA

  • recognition of student uptake (attendance)

  • top down value

  • consistency through degree program


Impact of Integrated Intervention interdisciplinary exchange:

  • Embedding into disciplinary knowledge

  • Positive student evaluations

  • Valued by senior faculty academics

  • Improved performance relative

    to main cohort


Beyond Higher Education interdisciplinary exchange:

MARATHON NOT A SPRINT

  • STRATEGIC, INTEGRATED LITERACY SUPPORT

  • CHALLENGE OF BUILDING AN INTEGRATED PRESENCE IN THE FACULTY AND ACROSS

    THE CURRICULUM OVER TIME

  • A CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF REVIEW & REVISION

  • WORKPLACE: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING

  • ORAL PRESENTATIONS (project design)

  • COORDINATED EFFORTS MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS

  • PROJECT MANAGEMENT

END OF UNIT OF STUDY

ENGG1803 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING

WRITING A FORMAL PROJECT REPORT

ORAL PRESENTATION

WRITING A PERSUASIVE ESSAY

MASUS DIAGNOSTIC

BEGINNING OF UNIT OF STUDY

ENGG1803 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING


Academic institutions are powerful sites of knowledge generation and identity construction

Build Bridges interdisciplinary exchange:

Academic institutions are powerful sites of knowledge generation and identity construction

If we are serious in the pursuit of an international curriculum

we must build bridges to succeed


References interdisciplinary exchange:

Armstrong, P (2006) ‘ Location, relocation and dislocation: learning cultures or cultures of learning?’ Paper presented at 47th Adult Education research Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, May 18-21.

Carrick Grants Program Report (2008) The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

Clampitt, P. G. (2005) Communicating for managerial effectiveness. 3rd edition. Sage Publications

Dym, C.L., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D. & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120. Institution of Engineers Australia (1996). Changing the culture: Engineering education into the future. Accessed http://www.uow.edu.au/pwrsysed/project/review.htm#recommendations

Greene, N. (1996). Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster A NASA Tragedy. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from About: Space / astronomy. Website: http://space.about.com/cs/challenger/a/challenger.htm

Hyland, K. (2009) Academic discourse. London: Continuum

Hyland, K. (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1): 4--21.

Hyland, K. (2002) Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2007) Is there an “Academic Vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 235--253.

Hyland, K, & Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal, Applied Linguistics 25/2: 156-17,7 Oxford University Press.

Johnston, R. (2006) Professional Engineering 1803. 2nd edition .McGraw-Hill. Australia

Jones, C., Turner, J. & Street, B. (eds.) (1999) Students Writing in the University: Cultural ad epistemological Issues. . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lea, M. & Street, B.V. (1998) Student writing in Higher education: an academic literacies approach”. Studies in Higher Education 23 (2) , pp. 157-172


References interdisciplinary exchange:

Ravelli, L. J. & Starfield, S. 2008. ‘Typography and disciplinary identity’, Information Design Journal, 16:2, pp. 133-147.

Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trevelyan, J. P. 2007. Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 96 (3), 91-204.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.


ad