Institutional Practice of Mystery!
This is from one of the texts I've been given to read for my training to be a "writing and learning mentor" at my school this year. I'm curious what some fellow academaticians think about it. Let the theoretical discussion and wiseassery begin!
---
In related work, both Ivanic and Lillis examine the "language" of disciplines and suggest that the discourse of writing is often "hidden" yet taken as being "given". That is, it is assumed that any students entering higher education ought to understand what is meant by words such as "argue", "critical analysis", "be explicit" and more broadly what they are expected to do in, for example, an essay. In reality, it would seem that even students who are quite successful writers struggle to understand what sort of writing is being requested of them. Lillis refers to this as the "institutional practice of mystery" arguing that academics who have been "socialized" into essayist literacy are familiar with it but that students--particularly those from "non-traditional" backgrounds--are often very unsure about conventions and how to go about developing an academic voice. I would go further still and suggest that even "professional" writers who move between disciplines or who become students again can find writing conventions mysterious and difficult to embrace or own.
Lea and Street (2000) who did much of their work with tutors, arrived at a similar position from the perspective of academics. In their study, lecturers described the characteristics of good essay writing by relying on descriptive terms which are often still unclear to students:
"I need my students to have an introduction which sets the scene and a main body which covers a number of issues highlighted in the introduction and introduces economic theory, application and analysis. Students need to be critical, to evaluate, to try and reach some sort of synthesis and then to simply summarize and conclude. You need a good solid introduction leading into your main body, and each part of your main body will be crafted and it will link with the next. It will have a professional feel about it and will not describe but will critically analyse, and then it will lead into a summary and conclusion." (Lea and Street 2000)
When pressed, the lecturer was unable to elucidate further on terms such as "critically analyse" and "synthesis". Another lecturer struggled even to describe the features or process of strong academic writing: "I know a good essay when I see it but I cannot describe how to write it". (Lea and Street, 2000) This work suggests that even once we are alert to certain contexts, there still exists a metalanguage associated with writing which can be impenetrable, yet is often taken for granted and treated as if it were transparent.
---
---
In related work, both Ivanic and Lillis examine the "language" of disciplines and suggest that the discourse of writing is often "hidden" yet taken as being "given". That is, it is assumed that any students entering higher education ought to understand what is meant by words such as "argue", "critical analysis", "be explicit" and more broadly what they are expected to do in, for example, an essay. In reality, it would seem that even students who are quite successful writers struggle to understand what sort of writing is being requested of them. Lillis refers to this as the "institutional practice of mystery" arguing that academics who have been "socialized" into essayist literacy are familiar with it but that students--particularly those from "non-traditional" backgrounds--are often very unsure about conventions and how to go about developing an academic voice. I would go further still and suggest that even "professional" writers who move between disciplines or who become students again can find writing conventions mysterious and difficult to embrace or own.
Lea and Street (2000) who did much of their work with tutors, arrived at a similar position from the perspective of academics. In their study, lecturers described the characteristics of good essay writing by relying on descriptive terms which are often still unclear to students:
"I need my students to have an introduction which sets the scene and a main body which covers a number of issues highlighted in the introduction and introduces economic theory, application and analysis. Students need to be critical, to evaluate, to try and reach some sort of synthesis and then to simply summarize and conclude. You need a good solid introduction leading into your main body, and each part of your main body will be crafted and it will link with the next. It will have a professional feel about it and will not describe but will critically analyse, and then it will lead into a summary and conclusion." (Lea and Street 2000)
When pressed, the lecturer was unable to elucidate further on terms such as "critically analyse" and "synthesis". Another lecturer struggled even to describe the features or process of strong academic writing: "I know a good essay when I see it but I cannot describe how to write it". (Lea and Street, 2000) This work suggests that even once we are alert to certain contexts, there still exists a metalanguage associated with writing which can be impenetrable, yet is often taken for granted and treated as if it were transparent.
---
posted by robogal | 5:29 PM
3 Comments:
this is interesting. how about: "critically analyze" = "talk about good points and bad points in the author's argument" and "synthesize" = "bring together all of your comments in a an argument/point of your own"? doesn't seem that hard to define those terms. to me. yet. wait five years though? this is my nightmare, to become that lecturer.
how about using academic jargon as a criteria for a good academic essay? that seems like a most glaring tacit expectation...
how did you escape the spammer, btw?
Yeah, totally agree. A lot of the background theory at these mentoring training sessions was driving me nuts. I understand the impulse to make enable students to write, to create a non-intimidating environment, and to open up academia to those for whom it hasn't always been open--BUT, let's not stop trying to make students BETTER writers, in the interest of making them writers. We can instruct. We can criticize. Things can be difficult. No?
Anyway, Maybe we should try word verification to prevent these spammers--one of you blog masters has to do that though.
Post a Comment
<< Home