hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Academic writing in English: process and product: a question of priorities?
Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment. (Språk, medier, litteratur och lärande, Avdelningen för Humanvetenskap)
2012 (English)In: Högskolepedagogisk debatt, ISSN 2000-9216, no 1, p. 23-30Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Throughout the educational system, and higher education is certainly no exception, the focus has all too often been on the final product and the grade awarded rather than what the student learns as part of the writing process. As a consequence, students’ ability to write tends to stagnate once the basic skills have been mastered. Based on the view that the goal of higher education must be life-long learning, this article proposes a method of teaching writing in English that enables students to produce a variety of texts, from short essays, to doctoral theses, using a concise and correct style (Giltrow, Burgoyne, Gooding & Swaatsky, 2005). The method, known as process writing, focuses attention on the different elements of a text, their mutual relations, and the language and style in which these should be expressed. Process writing can be usefully combined with peer reviewing. Both methods are interactive: the teacher stimulates students "in performing and reflecting on learning activities, which lead them towards independent thinking and writing" (Riljaarsdam, Couzijn & van den Berg, 1996, pp. ix-xviii) by dividing the writing task into identifiable stages (process writing) and critiquing other students’ writing (peer reviewing). Process writing and peer reviewing take account of all capacities. More importantly, they facilitate students’ ability to analyse their own and others’ work.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. no 1, p. 23-30
Keywords [en]
Process writing, peer reviewing, life-long learning, independent thinking
National Category
Pedagogy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-8987OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-8987DiVA, id: diva2:491886
Available from: 2012-02-07 Created: 2012-02-07 Last updated: 2012-02-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(71 kB)5272 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 71 kBChecksum SHA-512
4b4607abb876dce3acc748b76c8fd1165a816c280e93981c89cf89eb73f2feced92f3071a1bea8ed53049ae661a6edab16d9257b654b391e8ab7acaf0cc258d5
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Authority records

Mattisson, Jane

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mattisson, Jane
By organisation
School of Education and Environment
Pedagogy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 5300 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 584 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf