1. Ursula Wingate Department of Education and Professional Studies Embedding writing instruction into subject teaching – how to convince subject teachers?

2. What is embedded writing instruction? Tutors teach writing as part of the subject by  showing examples of expert and student writing  making discipline-specific discourses and conventions explicit  providing constructive/formative feedback on student writing

3. Subject tutors’ concerns with embedded writing instruction  I am a subject specialist, but not an expert on writing  How can I cover subject content when I have to deal with writing issues?  What are the time and resources implications?

4. The case study Programme: BA English Language and Communication Modules (1 st term):  Language Learning  Language and Communication 60 students

5. The five instructional methods 1.Reading and writing 2.Discussion and writing in class 3.Explicit teaching of discourse features 4.Explicit teaching of argumentation 5.Formative feedback

6. Method 1: Reading and writing Three preparatory reading tasks Notes and summaries to be submitted online Objectives:  To develop students’ ability to select and synthesise information from academic texts  To shift subject content into independent learning  To provide opportunity for early writing and individual feedback

7. Method 1: Example

8. Method 2: Discussion and writing in class Group discussions of session’s main concepts/theories Writing up discussion summary to be submitted online Objectives:  To revise/internalise the session topic  To develop students’ critical thinking and argumentation  To provide opportunity for early writing and group feedback

9. Method 3: Explicit teaching of discourse features Classroom presentation of extracts from journal article to demonstrate:  evidence base of claims  discourse conventions [e.g. structure, referencing, hedging] Objective: To raise students’ awareness of writing conventions in the discipline

10. Method 4: Explicit teaching of argumentation Classroom presentation of the structure of arguments (Toulmin et al, 1984). Objectives: To enable students  to identify and evaluate arguments in texts  to build their own arguments

11. Method 5: Formative assessment Feedback on online submissions/ exploratory essay Objective:  To identify problems early on  To ‘scaffold’ writing from short pieces to assessed assignments

12. Learning opportunities through formative assessment Module 1: ‘Language Learning’ Weeks 1 – 3: Short writing tasks – online feedback Week 4: Submission of Exploratory Essay (EE) Week 5: Individual feedback for EE Week 12: Submission of Assignment 2 (A2) Module 2: ‘Language and Communication ’ Week 7: Submission of Assignment 1 (A1) Week 10: Grades and individual feedback for A1

13. Evaluation questions [1] 1. Impact Did the students perceive the intervention as useful? Was there evidence of progress in student texts? Was there evidence of students’ enhanced understanding of, and competence in, academic writing?

14. Evaluation questions [2] 2. Feasibility Could the subject content be covered despite the time that was spent on classroom writing activities? Was the workload increase for subject teachers manageable?

15. Evaluation methods 1.Student questionnaires 2.Analysis of texts/grades 3.Interviews 4.Diaries 5.Teacher notes/discussions

16. Student questionnaire: Perceptions of methods

17. Student questionnaire: Impact of writing instruction

18. Interview extract I used it [the exploratory essay] a lot, I went back to every comment. That was in my head all the time when I was writing.

19. Grade development between A1 and A2

20. Evaluation summary -Impact  Most methods perceived as useful by > 80% of students  77% felt they understand conventions  44 % improved grade by more than 5% (of these, 30 % more than 10%)  Formative feedback perceived as most effective method by students

21. Evaluation summary – Feasibility  Subject content covered through increased student activity  Formative feedback creates unrealistic workload (extra resources needed)  No ‘writing expert’ needed to deliver these methods

22. Dissemination  2-hour workshops for King’s nine schools  six agreed, low participation  Website  Individual advice

23. Initial subject teacher responses  Embedded approach effective for teaching writing (strongly/agree 100%)  Would consider to use at least 2 methods in their teaching (strongly/agree 85%)  Feasible in work context (strongly/agree 39 %) (49 respondents) Self-selected sample - wider picture?