1887
Volume 41, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Successful research and teaching of discipline genres is based on collaboration among language and learning specialists with expertise in applied linguistics, and subject area specialists with expertise in the knowledge and communication practices of their disciplines. These interdisciplinary collaborations involve experts coming together around an area of shared interest in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), where members are committed to building relationships to learn from each other, and in this process build new knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). This paper aims to identify the kinds of knowledge building negotiations involving a team of discipline staff, academic literacy specialists, and e-learning specialists as they collaborate in the design of online learning materials to support students in writing the laboratory report genre in the discipline of physiology. The data consist of recordings of team members’ spoken interactions, with or without other artefacts, such as storyboards, over a period of nine months as the design for the website evolved. Initial discourse analysis of transcripts, based on the metafunctions from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1985a), is used to identify phases where the emphasis is on the negotiation of ideational, or content meanings, enabled by interpersonal and textual meanings. A sample of these phases is then analysed in detail using exchange structure (Martin, 1992) to identify possible genres which build new knowledge and embody it in the online resources.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.00008.dru
2019-01-10
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A.
    (2011) Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. 10.3102/0034654311404435
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T.
    (2016) Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284. 10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, J.
    (1997) Managing language. The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.44 [Google Scholar]
  4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R.
    (2001) Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M.
    (2014) Knowledge building and knowledge creation: One concept, two hills to climb. InS. C. Tan, H. J. So & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge Creation in Education (pp.35–52). Singapore: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H.
    (Eds.) (2008) Advances in discourse studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203892299
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892299 [Google Scholar]
  7. Briguglio, C.
    (2014) Working in the third space: promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to embed English language development into the disciplines. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education and Training.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Christie, F., & Maton, K.
    (2011) Disciplinarity. Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clifton, J.
    (2006) A conversation analytical approach to business communication. The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43(3), 202–209. 10.1177/0021943606288190
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606288190 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cober, R., Tan, E., Slotta, J., So, H. J., & Konings, K. D.
    (2015) Teachers as participatory designers: Two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments. Instructional Science, 43, 203–228. 10.1007/s11251‑014‑9339‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9339-0 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coffin, C., & Donohue, J.
    (2014) A language as social semiotic based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Malden, M.A.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. De Silva Joyce, H.
    (Ed.) (2016) Language at work: Analysing language use in work, education, medical and museum contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eggins, S., & Slade, D.
    (1997) Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Clinical handover as an interactive event: Informational and interactional communication strategies in effective shift-change handovers. Communication and Medicine, 9(3), 215–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Finlay, L., & Gough, B.
    (Eds) (2003) Reflexivity. A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Flowerdew, J., & Costley, T.
    (Eds.) (2017) Discipline-specific writing theory into practice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 52–63. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldsmith, R., & Willey, K.
    (2016) “It’s not my job to teach writing”: Activity theory analysis of [invisible] writing practices in the engineering curriculum. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 10(1), A118–A129.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodyear, P.
    (2015) Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1985a) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1985b) Spoken and written language. Victoria: Deakin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Handford, M.
    (2010) The language of business meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139525329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525329 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris, A., & Ashton, J.
    (2011) Embedding and integrating language and academic skills: An innovative approach. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5(2), A73–A87.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S.
    (2010) Talk in action. Interactions, identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyland, K.
    (1998) Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012) Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in social discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Iedema, R.
    (2003) Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ddcs.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Iedema, R., & Sheeres, H.
    (2003) From doing work to talking work: Renegotiating knowing, doing and identity. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 316–337. 10.1093/applin/24.3.316
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.3.316 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jones, J.
    (2009) Multiliteracies for academic purposes: A metafunctional exploration of intersemiosis and multimodality in university textbook and computer-based learning resources in science (Doctoral Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia). Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/2123/2259
  30. Jones, J., Bonanno, H., & Scouller, K.
    (2001, November29–30). Staff and student roles in central and faculty-based learning support: Changing partnerships. Paper presented atChanging Identities: 2001 National Language and Academic Skills Conference, University of Wollongong.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L.
    (2011) Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, concretisation and pedagogical knowledge-in-pieces. Learning, Media & Technology, 36, 129–49. 10.1080/17439884.2011.553621
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553621 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O.
    (2015) Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43, 173–179. 10.1007/s11251‑014‑9343‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9343-4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
    (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  34. Learning Centre, The University of Sydney
    Learning Centre, The University of Sydney (2012) Write reports in science and engineering (WRiSE). Retrieved fromlearningcentre.usyd.edu.au/wrise/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Manathunga, C., & Brew, A.
    (2012) Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. InP. Trowler, M. Saunders & V. Bamber, (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp.44–56). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P.
    (2014) Professional work and knowledge. InS. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp.79–106). Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2017) Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑4369‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, J. R.
    (1992) English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1999) Factoring out exchange: Types of structure. InM. C. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, & F. Rock (Eds.), Dialogue analysis V11: Working with dialogue. Selected papers from the 7th IADA Conference Birmingham 1999 (pp.19–40). Tubingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D.
    (2008) Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, J. R. , & White, P. R. R.
    (2005) The Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  42. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C.
    (2012) Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Maton, K.
    (2013) Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22. 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Nielson, F. M.
    (2013) “Stepping stones” in opening and closing department meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 50(1), 34–67. 10.1177/0021943612465182
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612465182 [Google Scholar]
  46. Parkinson, J.
    (2017) Teaching writing for science and technology. InJ. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing theory into practice (pp.95–114). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C.
    (2006) Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. InK. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Skillen, J., Merten, M., Trivett, N., & Percy, A.
    (1998) The IDEALL approach to Learning Development: A model for fostering improved literacy and learning outcomes for students. Retrieved fromro.uow.edu.au/asdpapers/145
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, V.
    (Eds.) (2012) Tribes and territories in the 21st century. Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Dijk, T.
    (Ed.) (1997) Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies volume 1. A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ventola, E.
    (1988) The logical relations in exchanges. InJ. D. Benson, & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), Systemic functional approaches to discourse (pp.51–72). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M.
    (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wingate, U.
    (2006) Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. 10.1080/13562510600874268
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.00008.dru
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.00008.dru
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error