Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The paper contends that in contrast to its well‐recognized role in assisting case users in the teaching/learning process, the teaching note’s importance in case writing has been inadequately appreciated. While accepting that its role to date, i.e. in supporting class‐room discussion on the case study, is extremely valid, it is suggested that if developed and formulated to its near final stage, the teaching note can provide an ideal template within which the planned case can be written. The proposition that the process of writing the teaching note in advance of the case is defended on two grounds: marketing theory and, perhaps the best of all reasons, “that it works”!

Considers the research and writing of strategic management cases which are intended to develop student’s problem‐solving abilities. Identifies a number of benefits associated with the writing of teaching cases. Proposes that the concepts and techniques of strategic management are consistent with a systems perspective and that strategic situations can be modelled as systems. Develops a systems ‐based method for the research and writing of case studies and examines its application to a particular case study. The method may be transferable to other management disciplines.

The purpose of this paper is to propose, as a candidate for a signature pedagogy, a method centered on case writing and peer review.

In this method, aspiring education leaders use the writing of case studies – frequently featuring themselves as an actor in a narrative of organizational development or change – to advance their reflection in and on action. The study is then shared with members of the candidate's peer group (cohort members, faculty, or senior practitioners) as a step to building and integrating the candidate in a community of practice. To illustrate, the authors publish the case of a novice school‐leader's voyage to create unity and solidarity among a divided staff. The paper shows that case writing can enrich our arsenal of pedagogies that move the novice beyond the dualism of scholarship and practice.

Case writing uniquely facilitates reflection‐in‐action and the building of communities of practice.

Innovative pedagogies are required if practitioner education and training are to take their distinct place next to that of researchers and academics.

This paper describes the use of case writing cum peer review as a tool to develop the practical knowledge of fledgling educational leaders.

The study aims to explore collaborations between writing centers and libraries which create opportunities for providing information literacy intervention for students doing researched writing. This case study gathered data from writing center logs to uncover if and how information literacy activity was occurring during consultations.

A representative sample of writing center logs recorded between September of 2013 and May 2014 was mined for frequencies of library and information literacy terms. Transaction logs were coded and analyzed according to the frames in the Association of College and Research Libraries Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.

Information literacy is discussed in only 13 per cent of consultations. Referrals to librarians accounted for less than 1 per cent of all transactions. Students most commonly asked for assistance in formatting citations, but deeper information literacy conversations did occur that provide opportunities for engagement with the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.

Transactions were examined from one university. Although findings cannot be generalized, the results were applicable to local services, and this study provides a model useful for libraries and writing centers.

This study provides ample direction for future collaborations that will take advantage of the intersections of information literacy and writing instruction to improve student research skills.

Although much has been written about partnerships between libraries and writing centers, this study uniquely demonstrates a model for data sharing across institutional boundaries and how one library mined existing data from a writing center.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss that in 2012, a small group of teaching staff in a new diploma of Education Studies program came together to critically reflect on teaching approaches that either hindered or encouraged learners to thrive in the transition environment in higher education (HE).

This paper reports on the use of case writing as a methodological tool for engaging in reflexive inquiry in a HE cross-faculty setting; it also adds a further dimension to the work of (Burridge et al., 2010). The team used a systematic coding activity, known as “threading,” to unpack over-arching themes that were embedded in each other’s narratives.

Throughout the two years of the project, 12 cases were presented on key critical teaching moments that the researchers had experienced. The themes varied and included topics like student reflections on why they found learning challenging, teachers’ mixed emotions about failing students, difficulties for teachers in having to persuade students to read academic texts, teacher/student confrontations and student resilience amidst challenges linked to their personal and student lives.

A central theme to emerge from the research was that complexities arise for teachers when they are faced with learners who are apparently not suited to the career pathway they have signed up for.

Through using a collaborative practitioner research framework, enunciating concerns were raised and different interpretations of the same incident were shared. The paper concludes that case writing can assist academics to be more informed of teaching approaches that lead to successful learning outcomes.

This study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures.

The case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice.

The authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English.

Arguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback.

The authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text.

Underpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.

The purpose of this paper is to explore screencasting as a computer-mediated feedback approach for Arabic native (L1) speakers taking an English as a foreign language (EFL) college remedial writing class.

This case study focused on an EFL remedial writing class consisting of eight Lebanese, Arabic L1 students at a private university in Lebanon. Students received screencast feedback through Jing® for one essay intended to assist them with subsequent revision. The multimodal screencast videos included indirect corrections, annotations, and oral commentary guided by a rubric. Students then completed a perspectives survey on screencast feedback. The instructor also led an informal group discussion to allow for further elaboration of students’ responses.

Students reported that screencasting’s multimodality provided for better engagement and support of learning preferences. They also perceived screencast feedback to be clearer and more useful than traditional written feedback.

This study applied screencasting to address feedback challenges pertaining to clarity, learning preferences, and engagement. As this was a classroom case study, further research using a larger sample is recommended.

The aim of research into computer-mediated human feedback is to address such challenges as increasing student engagement, improving clarity, and responding to students’ preferences. Studies of screencast feedback have been few, particularly for EFL writing students. A survey of the literature indicates the need to explore contextualized classroom feedback case studies and approaches to enhance feedback.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework that uses complexity as a means of better understanding the role that case studies can play in the classroom and in building bridges between research and practice.

The paper synthesizes complexity theory and the practical classroom and case writing experiences of the author into a framework.

A narrow view of the impact of case studies severely limits their widespread adoption. Rather than treating a case study as a document of very limited value to an academic career, the author needs to recognize their role in building relationships between research and practice. Through these relationships, opportunities for students and two-way flows of knowledge between academia and practice can be achieved.

The framework developed assumes that domain of study is complex – involving many interacting elements taking place in a context where an objectively “right” or “best” answer is unlikely to be realized. It is less clear that it is applicable to situations where optimal procedures are available and can be taught or learned.

A key implication of the framework is that separating the use of case studies in the classroom (i.e. case facilitation) from the development of case studies in the field (i.e. case writing) can greatly diminish their value.

The proposed framework argues for greater interaction between the academic and practitioner communities.

The paper offers a comprehensive perspective on cases that is rarely expressed. It should be of particular value to faculty and administrators seeking to justify the development and use of case studies.

The purpose of this article is to survey the means through which libraries and writing centers are collaborating to determine best practices and applications.

Examples of collaboration between libraries and writing centers were examined and grouped into similar examples to highlight themes within the literature.

Many librarians are training writing center staff and tutors in library services and information literacy skills. Reference librarians are sharing space or holding joint office hours with writing centers to help create a one‐stop shop for students. Joint classes and workshops are helping to reinforce the connected nature of research and writing. It is important to survey the environment; some types of collaboration work better at some institutions than others.

This is a review of the literature concerning collaboration and cannot contain every example of library and writing center collaboration.

Using this article, librarians can compile a list of possible ways to collaborate with their writing center.

This article is of value to librarians and writing center staff looking for ways to foster collaboration and ways that they can begin to collaborate.