Mapping students‘ genres: a multi-method approach to exploring „seminar papers“ in the Austrian university context.

Helmut GruberDept. of Linguistics, Vienna University

Helmut.k.gruber@univie.ac.at

Overview• The „seminar paper“ in the German speaking university• Methodological implications for researching „seminar papers“• Layers of context• The texts• The study

– The wider institutional context– The context of departmental regulations

• Interviews with instructors• Interviews with students• Participant observation

– Results of contextual analysis– Text analysis– Results of text analysis– A model of students‘ text production at the university

• Pedagogical implications– A modular course design

The „seminar paper“ in the German speaking university system

The status of writing in the early seminars (19th century):„Especially desirable and important is the writing of a scholarly

paper, as this imparts a lively grasp of (the meaning of) science and trains one to undertake one’s own independent scholarly or scientific research.” (Zacher, 1875; quoted in Kruse, 2006)

The present day status of a seminar paper:A paper students write during one semester (or an even longer time) as a course requirement (= a piece of assessed writing) in a seminar (= a course for advanced students in which students should engage in (at least partly) independent academic work).

The „seminar paper“ in the German speaking university system

• Seminar paper writing as an exercise in “Writing in the Disciplines” (Kruse, 2006).• Seminar papers as the major basis of students’ assessment in a

seminar • Seminar papers as assessed writing and as an exercise in disciplinary

writing practice.• Seminar papers as a cover term for a variety of disciplinary genres.• Seminar paper writing as a challenge for students who have to

master subject matter knowledge, generic knowledge, institutional demands, and working skills (time management etc.) without explicit support (Foster, 2002).• The changed (writing) requirements in the Austrian university

system after the introduction of the BA/MA/PhD system.

Methodological implications for researching „seminar papers“

• Researching context:– Universities as sites of tertiary education (= the “university

field”)– Universities as sites of disciplinary socialisation (= the

“disciplinary/ academic field”)– Lecturers as teachers and as researchers (ideologies and

facts)– Students as apprentices and/ or trainees

• Researching texts:– Seminar papers: different genres in different disciplines?– Linguistic features of “good seminar papers”

Institutional context (legal regulations/ study programs & departmental regulations/ specific

seminars)

Individual context

The texts

• Which genres are produced under the cover term „seminar paper“ in different seminars?

• What linguistic features do „good seminar papers“ (= papers with a good grade) in different seminars have?

The study• 27 seminar papers from 3 disciplines:• Business studies (BS)• Business psychology (BP)• Social and economic history (SEH)

• Interviews with students (35) and instructors (3) in 3 advanced courses („seminars“)• Participant observation in each of these three courses• Course materials (handouts, etc.), institutional regulations

for seminars and seminar papers, legal regulations

Funded by FWF grant no. 14720-G03 and ÖNB grant no. 7921; collaborators: Christine Czinglar, Peter Muntigl, Martin Reisigl, Markus Rheindorf, Karin Wetschanow

Overall aims: „thick description“ of writing practices + detailled linguistic analysis

Institutional context: levels 1 + 2 (+3)

Legal and institutional regulations

Document analysis

Individual context

Instructors‘ and students‘ attitudes towards writing etc.

Interviews

Institutional context: levels (2) + 3

Seminar as interaction

Participant observation

Seminar papers

Generic features as result of interplay between contextual

features and semiotic ressources

Text analysis

The wider institutional context (document analysis)

Legal regulations:• No explicit mentioning of any kind of writing

(except of MA- and PhD thesis)• “Exam” as a cover term for both oral and

written exams (seminar papers and other kinds of writing assignments as a form of “written exam”)

The context of department/ seminar regulations

The writing tasks:• Business studies:„The seminar paper is graded according to four criteria: formulation of a research question; structure; content, and form“ (department‘s website, translation HG)• Social and economic history:No explicitly mentioned standards• Business psychology:„This report should have the structure of an MA thesis (theory, method…)… the sections „study“ and „sample“ are hypothetical…the „discussion“ section describes the critique of the original study and its possible enhancements.“ (course outline, translation HG)

Interviews with instructors

Congruent requirements of all three instructors:• Uniform style of language and layout (in the case of co-authored papers)• Clear content structure (clearly developed central theme) • Argumentative style and the expression of an own standpoint which is

supported by scholarly arguments • Use and correct citation of secondary sources• Academic style

Interviews with instructors

Incongruent requirements:Social and economic history:– Academic Style = „a well written, epic paper“– Writing competence is viewed as a general pre-requisite for future

occupational situation of graduates – Students‘ academic writing competence is assumed as already developed students as “apprentices” (in the sense of Lave & Wenger, 1991)

Business studies & business psychology:– Academic style = avoidance of „every day language“ and a „certain level of

abstraction“– Writing of a seminar paper is seen as an exercise (with regard to the

writing of an MA thesis) students as “trainees”

Interviews with students

Agreement with instructors‘ requirements in the following areas:• Clear content structure (clearly developed central theme) • Use and correct citation of secondary sources• Academic style

BUT: no mention of argumentative style and the expression of an own standpoint which is supported by scholarly arguments.

General result: students perceive instructors’ requirements as personal preferences rather than as disciplinary conventions.

Participant observation

Social and economic history:No explicit mentioning of any aspect of writing with regard to seminar paper

Business psychology:Detailed written instruction on „writing a research paper“ + ample explanation of structuring of seminar paper during beginning phases of the course

Business studies:Short handout with writing instructions at the beginning of course + reference to department’s website with more elaborate instructions on how to write a seminar paper – no further mentioning of writing or writing process during course

Results of contextual analysis

Two „epistemes“:• Social and economic history:– Epistemological background: „archivism“ (main stream of

historiography; Megill & McCloskey, 1987)– Advanced students are viewed as young researchers

(„apprentices“)

• Business studies & business psychology:– Epistemological background: „context of justification“

(Megill & McCloskey, 1987)– Students are primarily viewed as „trainees“

Text analysis

Linguistic categories:• Macro-structures (genre stages/moves)• Coherence structures• Metacommunicative elements • Intertextuality• Argumentation and explication• Modal Elements• Lexis

Results of text analysisSocial history Business psychology Business studies

Genres Historical account (5)/ discussion (2)

Procedural recount (6)

Taxonomic report (4)/ multi-factorial explanation (1)/ discussion (1)

Cohrence structure „sequence“; high variation of rel. types

„evaluation“, „solutionhood“

Meta-communication

Few meta-communicative devices

Explicit structuring/ cross-references

Contextual embeddings (= reference to seminar)

Intertextuality Blurred borders between sources and text

Higest frequency of references (literature/ shared knowledge)

References to research literature

Modality Infrequent, deontic modality prevails

Hedged performatives

Hedged performatives

Contextual layer 1: the field of the university – legal regulations

Text type: university examination paper – purpose: assessment

Contextual layer 2: field of study– disciplinary conventions + specific examination regulations

Genre: seminar paper in field of study X – purpose: practising academic writing in a discipline + assessment

Contextual layer 3: seminar in field of study X – „preferences“ (requirements) of instructor Y

Textual token: seminar paper of student Z

A model of students‘ text production at the university

Pedagogical implications• 3 relevant dimensions:

– discipline specific requirements– previous knowledge/ individual predispositions of

students– assessment relevant categories

Modular course program in the context of a „blended learning“ approach

Funded by FWF grant no. L197-G03; collaborators: Markus Rheindorf, Birgit Huemer

Entry module

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Evaluation

Differences between everyday language and the language of science/academia, writing process, writing techniques / web-based

Focus on writing: discipline-specific aspects of text structure, perspective, argumentation / face-to-face and web-based, i.e. blended

Writing workshop: accompaning a seminar / face-to-face and web-based (discussion forum)

Pedagogical implications: a modular course design

ReferencesAsh, Mitchell (Ed.). (1999). Mythos Humboldt. Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen

Universitäten. Wien: Böhlau.Bourdieu, Paul (1992). Homo academicus. Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp.Foster, David (2002). Making the Transition to University: Student Writers in Germany. In David R.

Russell & David Foster (Eds.), Writing and Learning in Cross-National Perspective: Transitions from Secondary to Higher Education (pp. 192-241). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Gruber, Helmut, Muntigl, Peter, Reisigl, Martin, Rheindorf, Markus, Wetschanow, Karin, & Christine, Czinglar (2006). Genre, Habitus und wissenschaftliches Schreiben. Münster: LIT Verlag.

Gruber, Helmut, Huemer, Birgit, & Rheindorf, Markus (2009). Wissenschaftliches Schreiben. Ein Praxisbuch für die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften. Wien: Böhlau.

Gruber, H. & M. Rheindorf(2007): Students’ Academic Writing at two Austrian Universities. In: Gruber/ Doleschal (Hrsg.): Wissenschaftliches Schreiben abseits des englischen Mainstreams/ Academic Writing in Languages Other than English. Frankfurt/ Main et al.: Peter Lang Verlag: 82-104.

Kruse, Otto (2006). The Origins of Writing in the Disciplines: Traditions of Seminar Writing and the Humboldtian Ideal of the Research University. Written Communication, 23(3), 331-352.

http://www.univie.ac.at/linguistics/schreibprojekt/Grundlagen/index.htm