Responding to writing needs at the University of Limerick

1. Responding to writing needs at the University of Limerick Lawrence Cleary, Caroline Graham, Catherine Jeanneau and Íde O’Sullivan University of Limerick

3. Why writing matters “Knowledge, innovation, creativity and workforce skills are now the key success factors for Ireland’s economic and social prosperity.” Mary Hanafin T.D, Minister for Education and Science, 25 April 2005, on the occasion of the launch of the European University Association ‘Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities’ Sectoral Report.

4. Why writing matters • On the Edge: Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education, Report of the OECD/IMHE-HEFCE project on financial management and governance of higher education institutions, 2004. • Tomorrow’s Skills: Towards a National Skills Strategy, 5th Report, Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, 2007. • The Desoto Report: Definition of and Selection of Key Competencies, 2005. • Transferable Skills in Third-Level Modern Languages Curricula, (The Transferable Skills Project: DCU, TCD, and WIT) 2003-2006. • Communities of Practice 5: The Teaching Learning and Development of Professional Transferable Skills, 2007, The Programme for University Industry Interface (PUII), UL. • Promoting Enterprise-Higher Education Relationships, 2007, Forfás.

5. Generic skills necessary to a knowledge economy Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (2007) • Basic/fundamental skills — literacy, numeracy, IT literacy; • People-related skills — communication, interpersonal communication, team-working and customer-serviceskills; and • Conceptual/thinking skills — collecting and organising information, problem-solving,planning and organising, learning-to-learn skills, innovation and creativity skills, systematic thinking, adaptability.

7. Staff survey • Online survey (May 2005) • Part I: Existing writing activities at the University of Limerick • Part II: Needs analysis • Quantitative and qualitative data and analysis • 99 respondents • Wide range of respondents: • Faculty and administrative staff • Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Informatics and Electronics, Science • Mature Student Office, Adult Education, etc.

8. Student survey • Survey of students’ writing needs (May 2006) • Online survey (MarkClass) • Quantitative and qualitative data and analysis • 601 respondents • From all disciplines: Business, Education Engineering, Humanities, Informatics and Electronics, Science

9. Student profile • Year of study • Age group • Gender

10. Findings of student survey • Attitudes of students • Their perception of the importance of writing • What they perceive as their weaknesses in writing • Their need for writing support • The form this writing support should take

11. Students’ attitudes towards writing • Importance of the impact of writing skills on helping you reach your full potential at University I don’t think people with poor writing skills are taken very seriously.

12. Students’ attitudes towards writing • Importance of the impact of writing skills on your future professional life

13. Student difficulty completing written tasks

14. Developing an argument Referencing Clarity of expression Redrafting Adopting an appropriate style Language appropriate to subject area Structuring and organisation of text Vocabulary Punctuation Presentation / layout Grammar Spelling Most difficult Least difficult Student difficulty completing written tasks

15. Students’ attitudes towards writing improvement Improvement in writing since you started studying at UL

16. Students’ perceptions of why they have/have not improved • Evidence of improvement • Stated reasons for improvement • Strategies used to improve

17. Students’ reasons for a stasis or regression Some reasons offered by the students: • in addition to receiving no guidance or instruction, no feedback on their performance, other than through their mark, was provided • they did not do much writing, or were in courses for which there were few, if any, writing assignments • they did not see any need to improve as assessment emphasised content over style • their difficulties with the disciplinary style of their course hindered their development

18. Support for writing • Nearly half of the students claim to have received no support for their writing. • Primarily, this was in the form of guidance from lecturers or part of a module.

19. Need for additional support

20. Types of additional support suggested by students

21. Other types of support which the students suggest • Essay writing competitions • Feedback on writing • Drop-in centre for writing skills • Sample answers / examples / guidelines • Continuous practice and evaluation of writing skills • One uniform referencing style • Creative writing / greater freedom • A formal booklet on writing skills • Co-ordinated approach from the University and its staff

22. Conclusions from primary research • Writing is not getting the attention it needs despite the fact that it is central to success at third level. • Non-systematic approach to writing support and development

24. What a writing centre is not (North, 1984) • A place where papers get “cleaned up” (433) • A “proofreading-shop-in-the-basement” (444) • A “skills center” or “a fix-it shop” (435) • A “first aid station” to deal with mechanical errors (437) • A remedial agency

25. Concept of a writing centre • Focus should be on the process and on the writer, not the text (the product), thus student-centred • Focus on the cognitive process of writing • Focus on metacognitive processes associated with writing • Developing a dialogue about writing is key in this process • A pedagogy of direct intervention: “the teaching takes place as much as possible during writing, during the activity being learned, and tends to focus on the activity itself” (North, 1984:439).

26. Pedagogic implications • “Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing” (North, 1984:438) • Everyone in the university community can improve as writers: • Undergraduate and postgraduate students • Teaching staff • Researchers • At any time during the composition process

27. The UK response • Academic Literacies research group (Institute of Education, University of London) • Literacy in Higher Education research group (King’s College, University of London) • Writing Development in Higher Education (WDHE) Network

28. Academic literacies approach (Lea and Street, 1996/1998) • Rejection of the study skills model/skills approach • Rejection of the academic socialisation model • Literacy is a social practice (power struggle) • Student writing is therefore concerned with “the processes of meaning-making and contestation around meaning rather than as skills or deficits” (Lea and Street, 1998:159). • “[…] one explanation for problems in student writing might be the gaps between academic staff expectations and student interpretations of what is involved in student writing” (Lea and Street, 1998:159).

29. Writing initiatives in the UK • Writing in the Disciplines Project, Queen Mary, University of London • The Thinking Writing Initiative, Queen Mary, University of London (Mitchell and Evison, 2006) • Building an academic writing programme from within a discipline, University of Derby (Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006) • Writing development and support for teachers, University of Strathclyde (Murray, 2006)

30. Responding to Writing Needs at UL

31. Our response Establish a writing centre which would allow for a multiplicity of responses

32. Steps taken • Initial initiatives at UL including • focus group discussions • pilot interventions • the Writing Research Group • Belief that need for writing support exists in other institutions. • SIF-funded Shannon Consortium Regional Writing Centre set up in AY06/07 involving ITT, LIT, MIC and UL.

33. Shannon Consortium Regional Writing Centre activities • Shadowing activities • Needs analysis surveys of students and staff audits in other institutions • Interventions in various forms • Various student target groups • Develop staff development • Peer-tutoring programme • Action Research • One day conference • Collaborative links.

34. Examples of Writing Centre activities at UL Sept/Oct 2007 • Seminars/workshops: 17 different initiatives (82 contact hours) • 19 drop-in session • 1,146 student “visits”

35. Conclusions: Potential of writing centres • Systematic approach to writing development • Community-wide conversation on writing • Combine discipline-specific knowledge with expert knowledge in writing • Writing issues of specific target groups, e.g. non-traditional, first-year students • Development of professional transferable skills.

36. Conclusions: Potential of writing centres Fostering metacognitive thinking about writing leads to the development of generic and transferable skills for students in all disciplines.

37. Conclusions: Potential of writing centres Better writers in both academic and professional settings