narrative inquiry conf paper_harmonising the voices

Harmonising the voices: narrative inquiry and professional practice 1

Paper delivered to 2008 Inaugural Conference on Narrative Inquiry, University of Wollongong

Harmonising the voices: narrative, inquiry and professional practice Meeta Chatterjee, Dianne Allen and Heather Jamieson

Learning Development, and Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong

April, 2008

Contents Harmonising the voices: narrative, inquiry and professional practice ........................... 1

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

Context ........................................................................................................................... 3

The different perspectives that inform our practice ....................................................... 4

Dianne‟s Voice – The Marker‟s Perspective ................................................................. 5

Learning Development perspective ............................................................................... 7

Heather‟s voice – our teaching approach ................................................................... 8

Meeta‟s voice – consideration of the issue of Voice ................................................. 9

What stimulated me to investigate this… .............................................................. 9

My research story … ............................................................................................ 10

A coda .. of sorts .................................................................................................. 13

Drawing towards a tentative conclusion: ..................................................................... 14

How has participating in this narrative inquiry forum helped inform our teaching/

marking in this subject? (Our 3 voices) .................................................................. 14

Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 15

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 17

PRESENTATION: ....................................................................................................... 18



Abstract

This paper explores the experience of teaching students to use narrative and inquiry as

a way of reflecting on and improving professional practice.

During their course of study the students are required to engage with and

subsequently draw together different sources of information and disparate forms of

expression – expert opinion in the highly resolved language of published research,

interview and other empirical data, usually expressed in spoken language, and the

students‟ own reflections on their professional and personal experience. Because

impersonality and objectivity are often perceived as the key characteristics of

academic writing, it is a challenging process for many students to weave these voices

together into a personally inflected research story.

This paper reflects on the process of helping students to negotiate the component

genres and sources of information and deploy them in their written tasks. It is

presented from two perspectives. The first is that of the marker who has been in the

unique position of observing the progress of students from the initial stages of

formulating a question, through the intervening period of answering the question

using the different sources of information and finally to displaying the qualities of a

reflexive practitioner. The second perspective is that of the learning development

lecturers who have provided formative writing activities to scaffold and make explicit

the writing processes involved and subsequently help the students wrestle the material

into a harmonious whole.

Keywords: narrative, inquiry, self-study, voice

Introduction

One aspect of masters studies in many Australian course designs involves introducing

students to the practice of research, to know its boundaries and strengths and to be

able to critically engage with the reported research findings of others. EDGZ921,

Introduction to Research and Inquiry, a six credit point unit of study in the Master of

Education within various specialities at the University of Wollongong, is not different

from other courses in these objectives. It does, however, appear to be different in the

way it addresses these objectives. EDGZ921 seeks to introduce and teach these

objectives by asking students to use narrative and inquiry as a way of reflecting on

and improving professional practice.



Students are required to engage with and subsequently draw together different sources

of information and disparate forms of expression – expert opinion in the highly

resolved language of published research, interview and other empirical data, usually

expressed in spoken language, and the students‟ own reflections on their professional

and personal experience. Because impersonality and objectivity are often perceived

as the key characteristics of academic writing, it is a challenging process for many

students to weave these voices together into a personally inflected research story.

As teachers we are relatively new to the task of providing support in this course:

marking assignments and giving formative as well as summative feedback, and

conducting process support in the area of the functional literacies required to

undertake the tasks associated with this unit of study. In this paper we commence the

process of reflecting on what is involved in helping students to negotiate the

component genres and sources of information and deploy them in their written tasks.

Our observations reflect the different backgrounds we bring to the task, related to the

understandings we have of what the support role asks of us. Consequently our paper

is presented from two main perspectives. The first is that of the marker who has been

in the unique position of observing the progress of students from the initial stages of

formulating a question, through the intervening period of answering the question

using the different sources of information and finally to displaying the qualities of a

reflexive practitioner. The second perspective is that of the learning development

lecturers who have provided formative writing activities to scaffold and make explicit

the writing processes involved and subsequently help the students wrestle the material

into a harmonious whole. Our overriding objective is finding out how we can assist

our students with their learning tasks in this subject. Our focus in this paper is the

use of „voice‟ in the process of writing a narrative and reporting an inquiry arising out

of that narrative.

Context

The unit „Introduction to Research and Inquiry‟ (EDGZ921) is a compulsory

component of coursework study at masters level in the Faculty of Education at

Wollongong University, and part of preparatory studies for research degrees for



cohorts which include a significant number of international students. As presently

constructed, it is a one-semester course (12-14 weeks) which involves the writing up,

examination and sharing of a story, developed from a recount of something significant

from the student‟s practice experience which poses a problem. The identified

problem is investigated, drawing on the literature of published research, further

personal reflective work and the collection of data from others‟ practice experience,

e.g. by interview. This built into a research story. (For further detail see Allen, 2008

later in these conference proceedings.)

The course has four major assessment strands: (1) Problem Posing Vignette (PPV) -

1,000 word recount of a particular teaching event or an area of professional learning

that the student wishes to explore, leading to focus questions to guide subsequent

research; (2) Research Story - 4,000 word document drawing on the student‟s

reflective journal, literature review, empirical study; (3) Critical response - 1,000

word reflexive dialogue with a „critical friend‟; (4) Hurdle - 10 short online posts.

The different perspectives that inform our practice

As support staff for the course, we have had a number of interactions over the Spring

semester and since, seeking to understand where we are each coming from and how,

together, we can provide feedback that „harmonises‟, and moves towards helping

students get the best outcomes possible from the unit of study.

We come to our respective tasks from different backgrounds and have been immersed

in different conceptual frames. Dianne‟s most recent work has been within the arena

of reflective practice (Donald Schon, John Dewey and others working from these

bases). Heather and Meeta‟s approach to the teaching of English language and

literacy is oriented toward language as social practice, and is informed by systemic

functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Meeta‟s experience includes

cross-cultural elements and significant engagement in TESOL and writing. But we all

acknowledge that we too are still learning.

One of our reflexive engagements with this paper involves finding out (learning-by-

doing) if we can „harmonise our voices‟ as well as the voices of the data and



literature. One pointer in this endeavour is John Heron‟s concept of „isomorphism‟ –

as collaborative inquirers, from different perspectives, seek to draw their perceptions

together, the finding of commonality may mark (as in triangulation) „some significant

overlap of basic principles with other, related fields of knowledge‟, and approach

somewhat closer to a trueness about the phenomenon examined (Heron, 1992).

Dianne’s Voice – The Marker’s Perspective

I come to the marking of the assessment tasks of this subject with a clear view that the

practice story, the narrative, is a key element of recognising and tapping practice

knowledge, and with the objective of endeavouring to contribute to professional

development for these masters students by providing formative feedback in the

development of practice-relevant research and its reporting. (For further detail see

Allen, 2008, later in the conference proceedings; see also Allen, 2005 thesis.)

My inputs, and associated thinking, were captured in contemporaneous reflective

notes that helped me keep track of what was I assessing, how, and why; what were my

concerns in marking (consistency; assessment appropriate to curriculum intent; being

appreciative; providing useful formative feedback); what was I noticing about process

and students‟ responses and difficulties in order to give general advice; and how was I

expressing feedback that I thought relevant (some of this contributes to my own

learning about writing, and about the research process). From these notes I compiled

contemporaneous general assignment reports for the students, the Subject Lecturer

and the Learning Development team for the three assessment tasks. I also engaged in

end-of-course evaluation with the Subject Lecturer and Learning Development team.

In the course of marking I compiled digital copies of the students‟ work and my

feedback, and in continuing the „how do I improve ..?‟ conversation with the Learning

Development team I have come to appreciate more what are some of the issues

involved in reporting on practice-relevant inquiry, and via the self-study approach.

As I marked, three key aspects of the whole process have become apparent. Firstly,

ownership of research impacts on quality. Students are engaged with their particular

question and there are implications of, and practical evaluation criteria being applied

to, the work being done. Secondly, voice is a key aspect of success in the task, and



holding on to first person voice and self-study examination while reporting to peers is

difficult. A third observation is that discussion with a critical friend, once the

Research Story is finalised, is an important and rewarding experience, and students

get feedback that good narrative written style is appreciated by the reader – it has

communicative power.

In providing general feedback to the PPV task, I enunciate the following indications

of „good‟ for the three basic components of the task:

“(a) A 'good' reflection on past experience/ current practice moves from

description to evaluation, touching on how the practitioner is prioritising

amongst the multiple evaluations possible. If it identifies a dilemma,

competition between values, it is on the way to identifying a problem that

will need to be researched, and thought about, to reconsider assumptions,

previous actions, previous conclusions, and/or previous motivations, with a

view to perhaps changing, or knowing more of why this is a dilemma for

you, and may always be a dilemma for you

(b) 'Good' 'thick, rich description', for me, allows the reader (me) to make

relatable connections, to recognize their own practice/practice dilemmas in

the contextual information provided

(c) A 'good' Focus Question will be clear and researchable. For self-study,

the "I" focus helps clarify, by moving from the 'instrumental/ scientific/

objective/ generalisable' to the personal change component, recognizing

self as significant, and recognizing the specific context as significant.”

(General Feedback to Assignment 1 EDGZ921 Autumn 2007)

One of the key inputs that I make, in providing feedback to the PPV, is to recommend

that students endeavour to cast one of their focus questions in “I” terms. The intent is

to help them shift from a practical-technical frame to a self-study frame. As I have

looked at the Research Stories in Spring 2007, attending to voice and quality of report

and learning, the observation of how difficult it is to hold on to the first person voice

and self-study examination, while reporting to peers, also flags a significant problem

for my ongoing practice as marker. Just under half the students, who were able to

express one of their focus questions in “I” terms, were not able to progress the rest of

the way into reporting findings related to self-study in their final report. How do I

help these students? Are there insights from the perspectives of Learning

Development that help me understand what I am trying to do and how?



Learning Development perspective

In Spring 2007, negotiation between the EDGZ921 subject lecturer and Wollongong

University‟s Learning Development unit at resulted in a decision that Learning

Development staff would provide integrated learning support during class time. This

decision to increase the involvement of Learning Development was because of the

priority areas of learning support that the subject and its students represent: EDGZ921

is an introductory subject where students are making a transition to new forms of

inquiry, and it has a high proportion of international students who are relative

newcomers to the educational context of the Australian university and/or English as

the language of instruction.

The identification of these areas as priorities for learning support is a reflection of the

academic literacies approach that guides Learning Development practice at the

University of Wollongong (see for example Lea and Street, 1998; Hoadley-Maidment,

2000). Academic literacies (AL) is a developmental rather than a remedial approach

to student learning, proceeding on the idea that all students need to negotiate new

genres, text types, forms of inquiry, and epistemologies. By attempting to articulate

the complexity and diversity of literacy practices in the contemporary academy, AL

seeks to go beyond a deficit model of learning support, which is associated with an

academic skills approach, as well as to problematise the depiction of academic culture

as homogenous, a limitation of an academic socialisation approach.

Learning Development‟s actual contribution to the in-class teaching in EDGZ921 in

Spring 2007 was in the form of four tutorials which focused on assessment related

tasks: (1) writing a professional journal, writing a problem posing vignette (PPV); (2)

writing a literature review, undertaking critical analysis, considering the nature of

evidence and voice; (3) framing interview questions, writing up interview data; (4)

writing the research story, integrating the evidence, writing a cohesive extended text.

The teaching strategies adopted in these tutorials included explicit focus on the

assessment criteria, annotated models of text types and genres, and reiteration of task

types to allow development of skills. In addition, the students had individual



consultations with the Learning Development lecturers who provided detailed

comments on draft versions of written assessments.

Heather’s voice – our teaching approach

My perspective is that of a relative newcomer to narrative inquiry, and my interest is

in whether trying to identify what is distinctive about its epistemological framework

might illuminate and inform our teaching in subjects where a narrative inquiry mode

is adopted.

The AL approach that guides our teaching has undoubted advantages. One of its

strengths is its articulation of the diversity and complexity of literacies in the

contemporary academy. This provides a useful framework for considering the array of

literacy practices required of the students in a subject like EDGZ921. Relevantly, the

AL approach recognises literacies as social practices in which epistemology and

identity are inherent components, and it identifies that a variety of communicative

repertoires operate in the academy, requiring students to negotiate conflicting literacy

practices and develop a capacity for modulation of their own linguistic practices (Lea

and Street, 1998, 172). However, I have some reservations about it, or at least feel

that we need to reflect on the way in which we deploy it in our teaching strategies.

There is a tension between conceptualising complexity and pedagogic practice, for

example scaffolding the students‟ negotiation of writing tasks.

From our interactions with students in EDGZ921, especially in individual writing

consultations, we observe that their biggest problems relate to orchestrating the

various sources of information: (1) integrating the different forms of evidence; (2)

honouring their own experiences; (3) placing their voices against those of „others‟,

especially relating the scholarly literature to own experience; and (4) handling the

„voices‟ from their data. These difficulties indicate that the students need more help in

negotiating the shift in approach to knowledge and voice that this subject requires.

One of the teaching strategies we use is providing annotated examples of „good‟ and

„bad‟ texts. For this we try to use authentic samples of writing, which has some



distinct advantages but also the disadvantage of making it difficult to isolate what is

good (or bad) from other features of the text. In particular it seems that the shift in

voice and epistemology that needed in this context is hard to model grammatically or

textually. As both Dianne and Meeta point out, this is not a simple matter of using

first person singular pronoun, though it seems to help a bit.

My questions are how can I better conceptualise the difference between the „textual I‟

and the „epistemological I‟, and how can I translate this into an AL teaching

framework. A good starting point is a better engagement with the elusive concept of

voice, as in Meeta‟s exploration below.

Meeta’s voice – consideration of the issue of Voice

What stimulated me to investigate this…

„Can I actually write „I‟ and „me‟ in my Problem Solving Vignette? I find this very

confusing. When I was doing my English language course at the college, if I wrote „I‟ or

„me‟ in my essay, my teacher would write in the margin, “You cannot use „I‟ or „me‟ in

academic writing. Academic writing is impersonal. Your opinions and feelings are not

important.”‟.

I took a deep breath as I thought of an acceptable answer. I realised that as an

academic skills teacher, I have given similar feedback to students in other subjects.

However, this subject was different. As an introduction to a research method that

involves self-study, not only was „I‟ acceptable but central to the method of inquiry.

Narrative inquiry is a relatively new research interest for me. The form of inquiry is

intriguing because of its emphasis on research being communicated with the

directness and simplicity of story telling. Combined with the fact that the research

method aims at developing professional reflexivity, the assessments in the subject not

only encourage lifting the embargo on „I‟ and „me‟, but make space for an active

engagement of the „self‟ in practice through using relevant literature, empirical

research and finally one‟s own reflection on the topic.

My response to Hiroshi‟s question (quoted above) ultimately was a discussion on how

the writing of an essay differs from the writing required in the subject. We spoke



about the differences in the purpose of writing the texts; the approach to knowledge

that underlies both kinds of writing; and the language used. This is partly what we

uncovered:

‘Essay’ conventions EDGZ921 writing expectations in the

PPV and the research story

Purpose of the essay: Generally to

advance an argument: A claim well-

supported by relevant and convincing

evidence.

Purpose of a PPV: To recount and

describe a teaching/learning experience

with a view to explore an area of concern

so as to improve practice

Purpose of a research story: To narrate

the experience of exploration using

literature reviews, empirical research,

one‟s own reflection and a critical friend.

Approach to knowledge: Located outside

the writer and displayed „Objectively‟

„Subjective‟ experience validated and

valued. Exploration of professional

practice through the filter of personal

experience of great importance.

Language: Impersonal language: „I‟

erased grammatically through the use of

passive and nominalised forms

Personal voice, „I‟ embraced. Inclusion of

the active voice wherever necessary.

Coherence achieved through presenting:

A claim well-supported by relevant and

convincing evidence

Coherence achieved by using established

criteria in a narrative eg. Temporal/

chronological/ thematic or causal

connection

Type of evidence: Privileging evidence

from established scholarly sources

Type of evidence: Emphasis on feelings,

observation and reflection –„noticing‟ in

the PPV and in the research story, voices

from scholars, research participant/s, own

journal, critical friend

In the Problem Posing Vignette (PPV) the text type expected involves making the

personal experience paramount. Thus the problem that Hiroshi raised was not

restricted to the use of the personal pronouns. It had to do with a larger issue of

identity in writing.

My research story …

The first step of the journey, for me, involved putting myself through the process. I

examined the literature on identity and voice, talked to students about their

experiences (an excerpt is presented above) and reflected on the findings to inform

my pedagogy. What follows is a brief recount of that journey.



Identity in academic writing has been the focus of many empirical and theoretical

studies. The notion of identity has shaped and encouraged heated discussions on the

elusive concept of „voice‟ especially with regard to second language (L2) writing.

Three of them will be briefly overviewed here.

Hyland (2002) explores the use of first person pronouns in 64 Hong Kong

undergraduate theses written by L2 writers and compares them with a large corpus of

research articles and finds that significant underuse of authorial references realised

through the personal pronouns. In interviews with students and supervisors, Hyland

observed that two things become obvious. Firstly, students tended to follow the

recommendations of style guides and teaching programs that advocate objectivity and

anonymity. Secondly, even if student writers were aware of the rhetorical potential of

„I,‟ they may be inclined to avoid personal responsibility and the notion of authority

that goes with the projection of „I‟ in an academic text.

Another interesting study by Tang and John (1999) based on 27 undergraduate essays

builds a useful typology. The typology is presented below.

No „I‟ “I‟ as

representative

eg. „we the

French know‟

„I‟ as

guide

„I‟ as

architect

„I‟ as

raconteur

of research

process

eg. the data

I

collected…

„I‟ as

opinion-

maker

eg. I think

that

Khushwant

Singh

has…

„I‟ as

originator

Least

powerful

authorial

presence

Most

powerful

authorial

presence

On the basis of their studies, the authors argue that issues of writer identity deserve to

be discussed so that students can confidently make decisions about the identity they

might want to present in their texts. Effective writing education programs, they

suggest, need to encourage students to critically use personal pronouns to create the

meaning they want to create. However, individualistic identity implied in the use of

„I‟ can be problematic for many L2 writers because, as Scollon (1994) points out,

Asian students may be reluctant to assume a great deal of textual authority since it



may be construed as „too powerful‟ by the reader who is used to a more collectively

construed identity.

Perhaps, one of the most influential studies on identity is Ivanic‟s (1998) book length

work that reports on her research with eight mature „co-researchers‟. The study aims

at uncovering what toolkits are brought into the practice of writing by different groups

of writers. She theorizes that in writing four aspects of the writer‟s „self‟ exist in texts

in some form or the other. These are:

the autobiographical self that relates the writer as the performer. This

encompasses the socially constructed self that is a hold-all term used to cover

dimensions of gender, ethnicity, age etc., and it is not a fixed „self‟, but

constantly evolves in response to the contexts and situations that surround one.

the discoursal self is concerned with the writer as character in their text. It

could refer to the problematic way in which student writers portray themselves

in their writing. This „self‟ may embody the values, beliefs and the power

relations in their academic context, in other words, it contributes to an

appropriate „voice‟ in writing.

the authorial self that interacts with other texts (spoken/written tacitly said to

exist in society), negotiates them and incorporates them in writing. Some

academic writers, especially, in the beginning stages, tend to be self-effacing

(Ivanic, 1998, 26) in their writing because they are still working out how to

„author‟ texts, how much „authority‟ one is acceptable in one‟s „academic

writing‟.

the fourth dimension of the „self‟ is concerned with the ‘possibilities of

selfhood’. It refers to the „abstract prototypical identities available in the

socio-cultural context of writing‟ (Ivanic, 1998, 23) or the affiliations that the

writer may choose for themselves eg. environmentalist, gay activist and so on.

Applying these „off-the-peg combinations‟ (Ivanic, 1998, 27) in a research

context would mean choosing the label „constructivist‟, or „positivist‟, or

„critical‟ theorist to define oneself.

The literature is rich and varied in terms of its empirical and conceptual imaginings of

identity. One of my problems was to link the insights gathered from the readings to

the practicalities of a classroom situation.



Talking to students about their work was also an eye-opener. Their struggles to

juggle the different voices in texts needed pedagogic attention. For example, in

response to Hiroshi‟s question about, „How can I read so much and remember what is

relevant?‟ (Journal note, 5/8/07), a note-taking tool (see Appendix) was suggested.

Annotated versions of PPVs were useful in showing the staging of texts. The notion

of one‟s own voice is difficult to teach. In the next iteration of the course, I may use

this text to deconstruct how my identity is constructed here.

A coda .. of sorts

My reading alerted me to a number of things. Above all, was the awareness that the

insertion of „I‟ is not just a superficial grafting of personal pronoun to the text. As

Ivanic (1998) argues, writing is not a „neutral activity which we just learn like a

physical skill, but it implicates every fibre of the writer‟s multifaceted being‟ (1998,

181). At the core of the very act of writing is the person who shapes the writing,

making important choices, whether it is an essay or an assignment for EDGZ921. The

EDGZ921 assignments called for a greater disclosure of the different „selves‟

characterised by Ivanic‟s typology. The challenge will be to help student writers

articulate a voice that represents those „selves‟ and the voices of others. How they

orchestrate those various voices will depend on their own experiences and the

directions that they want to take.

Perhaps, my job as a learning developer is to subtly contribute to the writing by

engaging in dialogue to facilitate the acquisition of the self-assurance required to take

on the varied roles of the guide, the architect of the text, raconteur of the research and

the originator of the knowledge (Tang and John 1999). In practical terms, this would

imply the development of a „toolkit‟ or in Ivanic‟s words, „an array of mediational

means‟ (1998, 52) that would help „new‟ researchers construct an „I‟ for the subject in

their texts.



Drawing towards a tentative conclusion:

How has participating in this narrative inquiry forum helped inform our teaching/ marking in this subject? (Our 3 voices)

This examination of our practice, recognising our different emphases and voices, has

been designed to help us explore what we have learned from our first round

experience and in what ways we might feed back that learning into the course and our

ongoing responsibilities in providing support to the students undertaking the course.

Here we are reporting some of our tentative conclusions (King & Kitchener, 1994) as

we proceed into further rounds of practice.

The Learning Development team‟s teaching approach is informed by an academic

literacies model, arguably the best out of study skills and socialisation. But is our

model, which may or may not do justice to the comprehensiveness of academic

literacies, and/or the most effective way of teaching this kind of literacy? What the

teaching involves is the use of good and bad examples with annotations, which

attempt to make explicit what the criteria are for good and bad. But does this sort of

commentary at a grammatical level really get at the epistemological stance that‟s

required?

One of our appreciations, from a good example, is that the writing is „as a whole‟ and

with a structure that is quite complex. Annotating what is good, from good writing, is

difficult.

Another of our appreciations is that bringing the “I” voice into the reporting of inquiry

is not a simple task. Being aware of the different kinds of personal voice, as for

example spoken of in Elijah‟s, Tang & John‟s and Ivanic‟s work helps us to be more

alert about what the task of helping our students negotiate EDGZ921, successfully,

involves, and how that might provide key instruction for any further ongoing inquiries

these students conduct as practising professionals.



This exercise of collaborative reflection, and in the context of a joint construction for

presentation and publication, has taken us some way into the journey that Schon

speaks of in progressing from personal experience to validated knowledge. Schon

points out that the reflective work that starts out in the individual needs to be put

through a process of testing, by dialogue, in a socially supportive environment where

there is „affirm[ing] without dogmatism and confront[ing] without hostility

[(Hainer,1968)]‟ (Schon, 1991). We have found it truly instructive, and in ways that

individual effort could not have accomplished.

Bibliography

Allen, D., 2005, Contributing to Learning to Change: Developing an action learning

peer support group of professionals to investigate ways of improving their own

professional practice. Unpublished M.Ed.(Hons), University of Wollongong,

Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/288/

Elijah, R., 2004, „Voice in Self-Study‟. In J. J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton & V. K.

LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and

Teacher Education Practices (pp. 247-271). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Heron, J., 1992, Feeling and Personhood: Psychology in Another Key. London: Sage.

Hoadley-Maidment, E., 2000. „From Personal Experience to Reflective Practitioner:

Academic Literacies and Professional Education‟. In M.R. Lea & B. Stierer (Eds.),

Student Writing in Higher Education: New Contexts (pp. 165-178). Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Hyland, K., 2002, „Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing‟,

Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 34, 1091-1112

Ivanic, R. 1998, Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in

Academic Writing, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

King, P., & Kitchener, K., 1994, Developing Reflective Judgment: understanding and

promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V., 1998, „Student Writing in Higher Education: an academic

literacies approach‟, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 23, 2, 157-172.

Schon, D. A. (Ed.). 1991. The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on educational

practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/288/



Scollon, R., 1994, As a matter of fact: The changing ideology of authorship and

responsibility in discourse, World Englishes, 13, 33-46

Tang, R., and John, S., 1999, “The „I‟ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student

academic writing through the first person pronoun‟, English For Specific Purposes,

18, S 23-S39.



APPENDIX

Note taking tool to include student writer’s ‘voice‟

Author

Year

Theme

Theoretical

Framework

Research

Question/

Issue/s

Research

Method

Findings My thoughts

Hyland,

K.,2002

Ivanic, 1997 Is

academic

writing as

uniformly

objective

and

impersonal

as it is

commonly

portrayed

to be?

240

published

journal

articles –

30 in 8

disciplines

p. 353 are

textually

analysed

using

Wordpilot

….

soft knowledge‟

domains used more

1st person

pronouns.

Undergrads. used

fewer pronouns

than published

texts- believing that

I and we are

inappropriate in

academic writing

A peer-review report

on my contribution

came back with a

note that the used of

first person is not

acceptable in

academic writing.

Does the pronoun I

indicate authority?



PRESENTATION:

narrative inquiry conf paper_harmonising the voices

Documents