Post on 12-Apr-2017
THE (DOUBLE) TRANSITION BECOMING A (PERIPHERAL) MEMBER OF THE ACADEMIC AND THE
PROFESSIONAL DISCOURSE COMMUNITY?
Vibeke Ankersborg & Karl-Heinz Pogner
Copenhagen Business School EARLI 2015, Limassol (Cypris), August 25, 2015
MASTER’S THESIS STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO WRITING AT COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
THE FRAMEWORK TEXT PRODUCTION & THINKING /KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION /”ACTING” CONTRIBUTION TO RESEARCH AS “CONVERSATION” IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES TEXT PRODUCTION & (PERIPHERAL) PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITIES GENRE AND DISCOURSE: PREFORM OF SCIENTIFIC WRITING AND LEARNING (UNIVERSITY WRITING) DAS: ”DISCOURSE & ACTION SPACE” * ACADEMIC TEXT PRODUCTION AS ANOTHER SECOND / FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO LEARN (LX) CBS: TWO ”MASTERS”: ACADEMIA & BUSINESS/SOCIETY (RIGOR & RELEVANCE) A PILOT STUDY APPLIED NETWORK ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS: CHALLENGES: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION // TEXT PRODUCTION
*KNORR, DAGMAR / POGNER, KARL-HEINZ (2015): VOM SCHREIBEN ZUM „TEXTEN“. AKADEMISCHE TEXTPRODUKTION
UNTER DEN BEDINGUNGEN VON MEHRSPRACHIGKEIT. IN: FREMDSPRACHEN LEHREN UND LERNEN 44,1.
Embedded notion of
text production
Academic approach
Peripheral membership Zone of prox. Development Exploring & Scaffolding
Teaching Learning “as if- membership” ”as if -Participation”
Seminars Workshops ”Research Project” Supervision
Academic Literacies [Business, Society]
Communities: Epistemological Interpretative Discourse (DC) Practice (CoP) -> genre -> intertextuality -> argumentation -> structure ->methodology
Writing <->
Thinking <->
investigating
Institutional power: Course descriptions Learning objectives
Knowledge production
Framework: Text production as social interaction
Text Pedagogy
Business University Relevance & Rigor
Text production
Thesis Writing
Research Project
Institutional power: Evaluating Grading
???? Ownership Voice Identity
double binds? ”Scientist” and ”Learner”
Students’ Contribution
Idea generation, mind mapping: Group discussions (recordings), maps, diagrams, lists negotiations of academic and ”professional”
roles and identities Semi-structured interviews (basis: text produced and process so far Students’ challenges and choices Knowledge production, problem solving, text
production
Pilot study 6 students 4 theses Thesis start February/March 2014 4 semi-structured qualitative interviews June/July 2014 Focus: Thesis process and approach to writing
Analysis inspired by Attride-Stirling (2001): Thematic networks and Guest et al. (2012): Applied thematic analysis
4 theses 4 research
designs 4 approaches
to writing
Approaches to writing
• Brainstorm • Keywords • Pieces of texts • Put it together • Edit later
• Rought texts while reading
• Finalizes a section
• Adds corrections • First draft has
manuscript quality
• Discuss every word • Spend days on writing a
few sentences • Write paragraphs in
reading order • Aim at first draft has
manuscript quality
• Lyng write what springs to mind
• Louise adds and corrects • Rearrange pararaphs • Discuss it – again • Present draft is 10th
version
Iben: Case study
Christina: Deductive with empirical test
Julie & Julie: Literature review – purely theoretical
Lyng & Louise: Inductive, ethnographic
Hypothesis: There is correlation between research design and approach to writing and personality.
Writing helps the students progress, but 5 of
them don´t realize it
Writing facilitates knowledge (- But only write fairly little!)
Writing leads to deleting and adding paragraphs
Writing helps stay disciplined
Concepts are choosen in part as a consequense of writing
Semi-loose writing about a new theory deepened insight into that theory
Writing changed the structure
Writing the introduction early created clarity and helps stay on track
Writing and drawing while reading, helps select the literature
Tentative research question: How can we enhance students’ awareness of the role of writing?
challenge: Reading and
writing develop the structure,
but a chosen stucture
facilitates writing
Structure seems to be the name of the game
Fixation on structure prevents writing
Adjust structure wile writing
Lack of structure at chapter level prevented writing
Chose the classic structure for master’s theses and simply started to write
Deeper insight into theories changed the structure – which makes writing about them easier
Lack of knowledge about the role of thesis structure prevented writing
Methodological approach dictates the structure of that chapter – then they could write
Structure creates control – then she can write in all directions
Lack of knowledge
is a key, but no clear
pattern
Factors that block writing
Unsure about choice of literature on methodology
Unsure about the correlation between research design and thesis structure
Captured by data ollection
”Must be there” praragraphs are borring to write
Lack of understanding of the role of parts of methodology
Data collection before the summer vacation – a time factor
Lack of understanding of theoretical perspective
Inspiration
Practical issues
Methodology
Lack of access to literature – the library
Things of interests are easy to write
Needs to read more
Pairs lead to more discussion than writing
Thesis activities influence students’
thesis proces
Traces of learning
Inductive approach chosen based on methodology class
Literature review style thesis chosen based on thesis seminar
Controlled approach to ”unfounded grounds”
Too old to change habits on writing style at sentence level
Slides provide structure and a lens for reading literature about methodology
Methodology classes provided an overview
Tools to shape the topic
Ideas from other students
Tools directly applied in the students’ writing process
New knowledge on types of theses A more
refleksive approach
We could probably
utilize influential
factors more
Other influential factors (and social information processing (Sitkin et al.)
Methodology class led to the choice of research approach before anything else
Internship led to identifying the topic
Supervisors’ suggestions led to additional choices of theory
Academic focus at bachelor level led to choice of reverse research approach
Student job led to identifying the topic 2 years ago
A former student inspired choice of theory
Core subject course led to choice of theory
Academic focus at bachelor level led to choice of analytical approach
Academic background
Classes
People around the students
Factors outside CBS
Case company
Regardless of approach, students could utilize writing
more and universities could
utilize our means of influence more
Conclusions: Knowledge production vs. / and text production
4 theses 4 research
designs 4 approaches
to writing
Writing
helps the
students progress, but 5 of
them don´t
realize it
Challenge: Reading and
writing develop the
structure, but a chosen stucture
facilitates writing
Lack of knowledge is a
key, but no clear pattern
We could probably utilize
influential factors more
Thesis activities
(seminars, workshops)
influence students’
thesis process