Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe how dominant social practices embedded in situated report‐writing activities in an automotive discourse community in South Africa causally shape component engineers' perceptions of literacy. The study explores how the dominant practices of supervisor feedback and report acceptance causally impact on effective report‐writing perceptions during report text production.

Critical ethnography is the preferred methodology as it explores cultural orientations of local practice contexts and incorporates multiple understandings to provide a holistic understanding of the complexity of writing practices. This study focuses on data collected during two interviews and a focus group discussion with four L2 component engineers as well as the questionnaires their two L1 supervisors completed.

The engineers tended to measure or associate literacy and effective writing standards with supervisor feedback practices. These feedback practices interacted causally with the meanings or associations, the participants gave to or associated with literacy and their report‐writing competency. As a consequence, literacy was often described in terms of correct wording or terminology, grammatical correctness, spelling, sentence structures or styles in reports as determined by their supervisors during feedback practices, rather than report content, structure or technical details.

The participants constructed literacy in terms of correct language, word and spelling use and focused on linguistic errors in their report writing. They tended to perceive rhetoric and engineering discourse as separate entities rather than rhetorically constructed contextual knowledge. Language problems were usually attributed to human being inefficiencies and L1 standards rather than the individual creation of knowledge.

This paper not only impacts causally on engineering workplace writing practices but on higher education and future report‐writing practices. Digital technologies and systems will increasingly impact on report‐writing practices, what constitutes contextual knowledge and acceptable literacies as varied and different audiences define acceptable writing practices.

The paper shows that on‐the‐job writing research is limited and research that has been done often focuses on criteria for good writing as defined by experts in the field. If all workplace writing‐practice research adopts this expert view, it offers no insight and understanding into what implicitly and explicitly guides writers. Writing‐practice research also needs to focus on the voices of writers so that the influence of human social behaviour on these practices can be understood.

Many engineers and executives in the aerospace industry experience difficulty when it comes to the writing of reports. The reasons for this are discussed and it is suggested that a methodical approach to the problem provides a solution. The PAPER Report Writing Method is described.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the development and assessment of learning support environments for academic writing that utilize ICT, such as e-learning and online tutoring, in Japanese higher education. First, the authors introduce the design of an e-learning writing program for the Japanese language and assess whether the program is an effective learning support tool for undergraduates. Second, the authors analyze and assess online tutoring support for academic writing and clarify the merits and disadvantages of online and offline tutoring at writing centers, then suggest instructional strategies by analyzing the writing tutoring process.

The authors adopted e-learning goals to assess its effectiveness. The authors asked the participants questions they could answer from five-point scales, conducted a paired t-test, and included a free description-type questionnaire. Then, to assess online tutoring, the 12 students took pre- and post-test questionnaires, after which the authors conducted a Wilcoxon signed rank test. In addition, the authors carried out a Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test in order to confirm differences in satisfaction level and the effectiveness of face-to-face tutoring and online tutoring.

By analyzing the pre- and post-test results, the t-test confirmed that the students found the e-learning system to be effective for nurturing academic literacy. This means the system is appropriate as a support tool for nurturing academic writing, especially writing knowledge and rules, and university must provide a comprehensive learning support environment including e-learning. Next, the authors found no statistically significant difference between face-to-face and online tutoring, although some problems with the writing process remained. So online tutoring has opportunity to promote autonomous learning. The research results make it clear that because of writing centers’ potential and their effectiveness in utilizing ICT tools.

Research findings about academic writing are to improve the tutoring process and writing strategies, such as the use of ICT for academic writing support like e-learning, online tutoring, do not exist. To provide learning opportunity to learners and promote autonomous learning, e-learning and online tutoring are important. For the reasons noted above, it is necessary to provide an alternative writing support environment to students in Japan. Therefore, the authors report on and assess the development of learning support environments for e-learning programs and online tutoring for academic writing at the undergraduate level in Japan.

In 2004, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) required a curriculum responsiveness to the teaching and learning of literacies at the programme level, which needed to be addressed across all disciplines. This study aims to describe a situated higher education (HE) collaboration project between mechanical engineering and the Department of Applied Language Studies (DALS) at Nelson Mandela University from 2010 to 2014. The collaboration project aimed to develop the literacies levels of engineering students, reduce the first-year attrition rate and prepare engineering students to meet the high graduate attribute expectations of a competitive workplace amid employer concerns that engineering graduate communication competencies were lacking and insufficient.

The collaboration study used a mixed-method approach, which included student and lecturer questionnaires, as well as an interview with one engineering lecturer to determine his perceptions of the collaboration practices instituted. As the sample was purposeful, two mechanical engineer lecturers and 32 second-year mechanical engineering students from 2012 to 2013 were selected as the study’s participants, as they met the study’s specific needs. From the questionnaire responses and transcribed interview data, codes were identified to describe the themes that emerged, namely, rating the collaboration practices, attitudes to the course, report feedback provided and report template use.

Most of the student participants viewed the collaboration practices positively and identified their attitude as “positive” and “enthusiastic” to the language/engineering report collaboration initiative. The report feedback practices were viewed as improving writing skills and enabling the students to relate report writing practices to workplace needs. The engineering lecturers also found that the collaboration practices were enabling and improved literacy levels, although time was identified as a constraint. During the four-year collaboration period, the language practitioner increasingly gained report content knowledge, as well as unpacking the specific rhetorical structures required to produce the report text by co-constructing knowledge with the mechanical engineering lecturers.

Studies have shown that language practitioners and discipline lecturers need to change their conceptualisation of academic discourses as generic transferable skills and autonomous bodies of knowledge. Little benefit is derived from this model, least of all for the students who grapple with disciplinary forms of writing and the highly technical language of engineering. Discipline experts often tend to conflate understandings of language, literacy and discourse, which lead to simplistic understandings of how students may be inducted into engineering discourses. Therefore, spaces to nurture and extend language practitioner and discipline-expert collaborations are needed to embed the teaching and learning of discipline-specific literacies within disciplines.

For the collaboration project, the language practitioner and mechanical engineering lecturers focused their collaboration on discussing and negotiating the rhetorical and content requirements of the Design 3 report as a genre. To achieve the goal of making tacit knowledge and discourse explicit, takes time and effort, so without the investment of time and buy-in, interaction would not be sustained, and the collaboration would have been unproductive. As a result, the collaboration project required regular meetings, class visits and negotiations, as well as a language of description so that the often tacit report discourse conventions and requirements could be mutually understood and pedagogically overt to produce “legitimate texts” (Luckett, 2012 p. 19).

In practice, peer collaboration is often a messy, complex and lengthy process, which requires systematic and sustained spaces to provide discourse scaffolding so that the criteria for producing legitimate design reports are not opaque, but transparent and explicit pedagogically. The study also describes the organisational circumstances that generated the collaboration, as establishing and sustaining a collaborative culture over time requires planning, on-going dialogic spaces, as well as support and buy-in at various institutional levels to maintain the feasibility of the collaboration practice.

Literacy and discourse collaboration tends to reduce role differentiation amongst language teachers and specialists, which results in shared expertise for problem-solving that could provide multiple solutions to literacy and discourse learning issues. This finding is important, especially as most studies focus on collaboration practices in isolation, whilst fewer studies have focused on the process of collaboration between language practitioners and disciplinary specialists as has been described in this study.

Since 2012, the University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt has been publishing an annual report on sustainability as part of its whole institution approach (WIA). This study aims to examine the participation in writing this report as it is experienced by the student stakeholders involved. The overall goal is to gain expertise concerning further improvement of students’ participation in sustainability-related aspects as part of WIAs.

The research is based on an explorative, qualitative study conducted at the Roman Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt. Students who have been involved in writing the university’s report on sustainability were interviewed, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

Various categories relevant for a successful participation have been found. Foremost, there are no general barriers seen which are hindering students from participating in writing the reports. Specific students’ motivation can be gained from work-related experiences and sustainability-related university classes. Students perceived the effects of their work as mostly restricted to the university. Their intellectual contribution was regarded as limited owing to structures given and their student worker status. Positive effects included an increased awareness of sustainability-related activities at the university and increased competences regarding research and writing. Suggestions for improvement comprised the instalment of databanks, special sustainability report-writing classes and motivational measures.

Very few studies have addressed the issue of student participation within the WIAs towards sustainable universities. Students’ involvement in writing university reports on sustainability has so far been neglected. Given this, the study presented provides insight into students’ participation and reveals fields needing further development to ensure successful WIAs.

Empirically compares the emphasis given to writing topics by business communication textbooks and business communication professors with the writing topics that accounting practitioners believe are most important. Addresses the questions: (1) Is there an agreement between the perceptions of accounting executives concerning the importance of certain written communication topics and the space devoted to those topics in the business communication textbooks most commonly used by undergraduate accounting students? (2) Are business communication professors teaching accounting students the writing skills that accounting executives perceive to be the most important? Findings indicate that the business communication courses taken by accounting majors are not emphasizing the writing topics that accounting practitioners believe to be most vital to accountants. The implication is that these courses may not be teaching accounting students the practical writing skills they will need on the job.

The purpose of this study was to identify if and how K–6 teachers perceive that their literacy instructional coaches influence their writing teaching.

The authors employed a parallel convergent mixed-methods design with survey data. The authors used thematic analysis to identify patterns within short-answer responses.

K–6 teachers receive little literacy coaching specific to writing. However, when they do receive coaching, they believe it benefits their writing instruction. Sustained coaching through the coaching cycle, frequent collaborations, and support with writing instructional resources and strategies were reported as the most influential writing coaching practices.

Sample size was a limitation to this study. Of the 66 participants, 41 (62%) completed the entire survey.

This research provides coaches with valuable insights about coaching practices that teachers find to be the most effective in influencing their writing instruction. The increase in teachers' competence in writing instruction due to coaching provides evidence to administrators and stakeholders that coaching in writing is an area in need of attention.

This study adds to research specific to the coaching of writing within the K–6 context, which currently is sparse.

Practical and useful guidance is given to those undertaking management research; and advice is given on how to manage the practicalities of the research project. Particular emphasis is placed on applied and action research culminating in implementation of findings within an organisational setting. A description of the aims of management research is followed by advice on the selection of a research subject and the importance of the planning stage. Details of the processes involved in gathering the relevant information; its careful analysis; and the presentation of the findings in a readable, structured and coherent form are presented. Finally, suggestions on how to implement the research findings within an organisation are offered, as well as advice on the publication of results.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.