At UTS we have a model of learning, that is built on in the ‘learning.futures‘ programme, both of which target course-based graduate attributes:

• An integrated exposure to professional practice through dynamic and multifaceted modes of practice-oriented education
• Professional practice situated in a global workplace, with international mobility and international and cultural engagement as centre piece
• Learning that is research-inspired and integrated, providing academic rigour with cutting edge technology to equip graduates for life-long learning

This runs in parallel with work on assessment futures, which has drawn on examples across the HE sector by different subject areas. I’m currently interested in what it would look like to build an evidence hub to support writing practices in learning futures, thinking about ‘why do we write at UTS’, to articulate the UTS model of learning in the specific context of writing practices – a key professional and academic skill . For example, in our Masters in Data Science and Innovation,”what is writing for data scientists?”, what does it look like/involve, what genres and practices are important for our students, what do the students need to learn to write like a data scientist (learning to write), and how will the writing practices of a data scientists help them develop as professional data scientists (writing to learn).

“Ultimately, and in an important sense, we are what we write, and we need to understand the distinctive ways our disciplines have of addressing colleagues and presenting arguments, as it is through language that academics and students conceptualise their subjects and argue their claims persuasively.”

Genres are abstract, socially recognised ways of using language. Genre analysis is based on two central assumptions: that the features of a similar group of texts depend on the social context of their creation and use, and that those features can be described in a way that relates a text to others like it and to the choices and constraints acting on text producers.

This approach fits into new literacy studies (NLS) analyses of literacy as ‘social practice’ . Building on this approach Lea and Street point out that in university contexts, students are not only being socialised into a particular professional genre, but must respond to institutional contexts that include market pressures, accreditation schemes,and power dynamics. They propose that an ‘academic literacies approach’ should consider the skills and genres students are exposed to and required to address, as well as the particular institutional contexts in which they are working.

The articulation of a broad model of learning for a narrower component of learning, then, should – I hope – help support students and academics in understanding the role of writing in particular subjects and courses. I’m hoping that this articulation will assist in thinking through how we build writing for a purpose into our subjects, embedded in subject-based genres, making use of the rich tools available: in the writing process; in the site, platform, or media of that writing; and in the assessment and feedback mechanisms for the writing. This builds on, for example, the Conference on College Composition and Communication Assessment Committee Statement, the core elements of which might be summarised for our purposes as:

1. Writing should be embedded in the curriculum, not an afterthought or a means to an end
2. Writing is genred, writing in learning should be for a purpose (e.g. respecting local and professional needs)
3. Writing is social, in its process, and its purpose
4. Feedback is social, we write for readers, assessments should not disconnect writers from readers (for that reason they reject automated assessment, although we’d argue these can support writers, and feedback discussions)
5. Writing assessment criteria should be explicit, and reflect the range of strengths and areas for improvement across the students (criteria might be called ‘feedback statements’ here)
6. Writing assessments should be reviewed regularly for potential improvements

So, to take the data science example.

1. Writing should be considered embedded across a data science curriculum
2. What types of texts do data scientists consume, and produce?  What is their evidence base?
3. How are these written, and framed, what is their context, audience, and genre? Tech report, discussion paper, blogs, visual and textual elements – using visualisation to explain text based and vice-versa, scientific reports/experiment outputs.
4. What kind of specific platforms or spaces do data scientists write in? E.g. writing dynamic variable webpage reports with php, etc., shiny web apps, python, and then collaborative spaces like github, wikis and etherpads/google docs, etc.
5. Are there particular skills involved in writing for data scientists? E.g. creating infographics and other visual methods, data analysis and reporting methods, data-based decision making, statistical methods and report for a variety of audiences, etc.
6. The nature of the writing across the subjects should be reviewed as the field develops, in light of emerging needs, and developing assessment practices

So the questions are:

1. How do we represent this approach to create a framework to explore the particular kinds of writing activities a subject might include?
2. How do we ensure that this isn’t just a ‘lip service’ (e.g. a shallow NLS approach might ask students to create a social artefact, but outside the genre of the discipline, or to write about content within the discipline but with a very shallow understanding of the genres appropriate to it)?
3. How do we integrate across the features of the framework, and develop learning information (or learning analytics data) to support our student’s learning?

I’m starting to think about how this could be represented to probe the ways that writing tasks across a curriculum meet the needs of the course/subject. E.g., a simple form and questions could scaffold such a process.

References