Dr. Angela Ardington :

1. Negotiating different approaches to knowledge through interdisciplinary exchange: The way forward for sustainable writing development Dr. Angela Ardington: Learning Centre

2. Cross-disciplinary approaches to knowledge and inquiry 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

3. Presentation focus 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?

4. Focus and significance 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).

5. Research Questions 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?

6. Disciplinary communities EngineeringVisual Arts Architecture Design positioned as opposed in mainstream discourses (Armstrong 2006)

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

8. Disciplinary epistemologies • 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)

9. A primary objective 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.

10. Cultures of learning INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINARY INDIVIDUALgovern how knowledge is valued and communicated ACADEMY PROFESSIONS

11. Work of Art / Feat of Engineering? Guggenheim, Bilbao?

12. Work of Art / Feat of Engineering? Depends on:disciplinary backgroundperspectivecontextaudience

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

14. Engineering curriculum • ‘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

15. Disciplinary Identity: Engineer “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

16. Disciplinary Identity: Visual Arts “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)

17. Individual responses 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)

18. CREATIVE PROCESS Experimentation Risk taking Ability to go outside guidelines INSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS Rationalisation Convention/ Rigour Scholastic orthodoxy Tensions

19. Links to Assessment tasks

20. Cross Disciplinary Similarities: 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

21. Managing effective language support 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

22. Impact of Integrated Intervention • Embedding into disciplinary knowledge • Positive student evaluations • Valued by senior faculty academics • Improved performance relative to main cohort

23. Beyond Higher Education 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

24. Build Bridges 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

25. References 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

26. References 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.