Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 
A collaborative approach to integrating the 
teaching of writing into the sciences in a New 
Zealand tertiary context. 
This thesis presented for partial fulfilment of the requirements for 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English at Massey University 
Lisa Emerson 
1999 
Abstract 
The research question examined in this thesis is: "how can we effectively teach 
writing in the disciplines?" During the development of the research two 
subsidiary questions were included: "can writing in the disciplines be taught 
effectively through the combined expertise of writing specialists and subject 
specialists?" and "is action research an effective method of empowering 
academic staff as teachers of writing?" New Zealand universities, to date, have 
taken a very limited, generic approach to teaching or researching writing in the 
disciplines. This research makes a major innovation by bringing a writing teacher 
into collaboration with academic staff from the applied sciences to develop a 
programme whose objective was to teach the genres and styles of applied science 
writing to students in that discipline. 
The thesis focuses upon three writing projects. All three took place in the Faculty 
of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences at Massey University between 1993 
and 1996 and took their inspiration from the writing across the curriculum 
movement. Project one involved the development of a Communication in 
Applied Science paper for first year students. Project two was a departmental 
writing across the curriculum programme aimed at integrating the teaching of 
writing into content courses. Project three involved integrating writing into the 
fundamental pedagogy of a single paper in horticulture. The project teams used 
action research as a method of developing and evaluating their programme. 
Action research was chosen as an appropriate methodology because it combines 
research with practical action, takes place in a real rather than an ideal context, 
provides a process to implement and monitor change, and allows for effective 
collaboration and ownership of the project. 
The projects have had the following key outcomes. Action research provides a 
successful methodology for integrating writing into the disciplines. Collaboration 
between academic staff and a writing consultant can offer a fully viable means of 
teaching writing in the disciplines. An institutional context of support and 
11 
rewards for innovative teaching can enable staff to gain confidence as teachers of 
writing and understanding of writing in the disciplines. Student attitudes to 
writing and communication skills become more positive when the genres taught 
are professionally relevant, the importance of communication is modelled by 
credible sources, and writing support facilities are available. Finally, writing 
should be integrated into the pedagogical schema of a course at its inception, 
rather than being superimposed upon existing courses. 
III 
Acknowledgements 
To say that I couldn't have completed this work on my own is an understatement, 
as anyone reading this thesis will immediately appreciate. This was my first 
venture into conducting research with people and in groups - until now, my 
research had been largely confined to nineteenth century poetry. Working with 
groups required quite different skills than those I was used to employing, and the 
frustrations and the joys of this are, I'm sure, embedded in my text. It is with 
considerable depth of feeling, therefore, that I take this opportunity to thank 
those who either engaged in the process with me or supported me along the way. 
My first debt is to my supervisors, Associate Professor Russell Poole, Professor 
John Codd and Associate Professor Robyn Munford. Their perceptiveness and 
thoughtful assessment of my work was invaluable, and I would especially like to 
thank Russell for listening to my excited descriptions of my experiences, for 
venturing his considered opinions whenever I stopped talking long enough for 
him to do so, and for his courage in stepping, with me, outside the safe bounds of 
English literature. I'm sure there were times when he wondered exactly what he 
had let himself in for - but if he did, he never showed it. 
I would like to acknowledge the work of a number of people who I consider to be 
real 'pioneers' in their work with writing at Massey University. Janet Holst and 
Karen Rhodes have, over the last few years, taken on the challenging job of 
introducing the study of academic writing into the university curriculum: I have a 
real debt to both Janet and Karen because, without their work, the questions 
which started this study would never have been asked. A special thank you to 
Karen who has always taken such a supportive interest in my work. 
Robert Neale and Professor Roly Frean were the earliest pioneers in this field at 
Massey University. In 1979 I was one of the bemused, hapless students enrolled 
in the first year of their writing course - it was an experience never to be 
IV 
forgotten and instilled in me (amongst other things) a curiosity about language 
which has stayed with me and is, I'm sure, the bedrock of this study. 
I have commented in a number of places in this study on the ways in which 
universities do not support research into writing and on the way staff in learning 
centres are actively prevented from conducting research. While these conditions 
do apply at Massey University, I have been very fortunate in the number of 
senior people who have supported my endeavours. First I would like to 
acknowledge the three Deans of the Faculty of Business Studies, Professor Ralph 
Love, Professor Reg Matthews and Professor Rolf Cremer, who allowed me to 
conduct this research, even though it was outside the bounds of my contract. 
Mention should also be made of Professor Graeme Fraser who, as Assistant Vice 
Chancellor (Academic), supported my work while I was employed in the 
Learning Support Network. I would also like to acknowledge the support of 
Nicola North, to whom I reported in the Faculty of Business Studies and 
Malcolm Bowling who, as Head of the Learning Support Network, took an 
interest in my project and delighted in challenging my ideas. 
In my present position as Head of the Student Learning Centre, I am also 
fortunate in both the support of my managers and the encouragement of my 
colleagues. I would like to acknowledge the active support of Chris Collins, 
Regional Registrar at the Palmerston North campus, and Murna Thomson, 
Assistant Vice Chancellor (Services), both of whom encouraged me to spend 
time with this work during the painful process of completion. 
Various people around the university took time to help me in my research. My 
thanks to Dr Jenny Poskitt, who took the time to read a chapter for a complete 
stranger. I would also like to thank Gordon Suddaby of the TDU who has had 
enough confidence in me to let me loose in some of his courses, and who spent 
time investigating material for me. Thank you to Alison Mildon, who provided 
me with information on employers' perspectives and shared plans and ideas with 
me. My thanks to John Muirhead for being the kind of person who never throws 
anything away. 
v 
I would like to thank Professor Robert Anderson, Dean of the Faculty of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences and now Pro Vice Chancellor of the 
College of Science for his enduring faith in me, and Professor Warren Parker and 
Professor Ken Milne who allowed me to work in their departments and provided 
insights and practical support. I would like to thank all the academic staff who 
engaged in the projects: Ewen Cameron, Peter Coolbear, Ken Crawford, David 
Grey, Keith Funnell, John Hampton, Evelyn Hurley, Dick Kuiper, Kerry 
Harrington, Dave Horne, James Lockhart, Kevin Lowe, Bruce MacKay, Marion 
MacKay, Sam Peterson, Ian Valentine, Eddie Welsh, and Alan Wright. 
On a more personal note I would like to thank the following: 
• Cliff Studman, for speaking sternly to me when I needed it, and in so doing 
goading me into completing a final draft. 
• Debbie Ormsby, who typed up much of the material I needed while pursuing 
these projects. 
• Julia Sich, who provided the photographs. 
• Gloria Slater, for making the link between action research and the writing 
programme, and spending time introducing me to the concepts. 
• Warwick, for making me laugh, for being prepared to talk for as long as I 
needed to clarify my ideas, and for supporting me from the beginning. 
• Jan McPherson, for discussions about action research, and for her many 
helpful comments and suggestions. 
• Peter Mellalieu, for keeping me on track at critical moments, for his thoughts 
on diagrams and graphical representation, for introducing me to ideas and 
concepts which have strongly informed my way of thinking and writing -
and for his uncontainable enthusiasm. 
VI 
• Mandy Rudge and Janet Reid, for inspiration, for laughing at me, for their 
constant reminder that this was "just a PhD" - and for their friendship which 
is all about celebrating difference. 
• Edward and Rose who must have, at times, felt as if they had lost their 
mother - but who balance my life and make everything worthwhile. 
• My parents, Jean and Ellis, and my sister Anne-Marie, who in countless ways 
have provided practical support and who have tolerated the absence of a 
daughter and sister for far too long. 
• Bruce, who is part and partner of every aspect of my work. The beginning of 
our story is in these pages - the beginning, I hope, of a life of shared 
exploration and creation. 
I would like to thank everyone who is a part of the wonderful team at the Student 
Learning Centre. Without their support, humour and diversionary discussions 
about punctuation, I would never have survived the writing-up process. In 
particular I would like to say thank you to Joan Fountain, who worked with me at 
the Business Studies Writing Centre when I was in the early stages of discovery 
and exploration. Thank you to Chris van der Krogt for being a completer-finisher 
par excellence. Special thanks also to Grant Harris for reading sections of the text 
and for all his thoughtful suggestions and his requests for visual representation. 
Two members of the Student Learning Centre deserve a special mention. My 
thanks to Julie Lyons, whose practical skills, colourful use of language, strength 
of character and capacity to crack the whip when I needed it have made every 
difference. Thank you, also, to Jackie McDonald, whose perceptiveness, 
thoughtfulness and wisdom have so often cushioned my falls along the way. 
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank all the students who were 
involved in this project. I would like to be able to name them all, since they were 
all a part of this process. But since this is not possible, I would like, especially, to 
vii 
thank the Hort Tech class of 1995. I have never, in my whole teaching career, 
met a class like this one. They were, in every respect, partners with the teaching 
team in the pursuit of learning. They were obstreperous, challenging, 
encouraging and curious, they shared their dreams and passions and frustrations, 
and they grew beautiful sunflowers. Thank you to Jeanette, Stephanie, the Pauls, 
Kevin, Andrea and all the team. 
vi ii 
Table of Contents 
Abstract ... ...... .......................... ... .... ... .............. ... ............... ............... ... ..... ........ .. ................. ... ...... i 
Acknowledgements ... .................. .... ...... ...... ...... .... .......... .... .. ..... ............... .................. .. .... .. ....... iii 
List of tables and figures ..... ............................ ....... ... .. ...... ............ .... .. ........ .......... .... ....... .... .... xiv 
Chapter I : "This schizophren ic institution": Beginnings .............. .. ..... ..... ... ....... ......... .. .... .... .... 1 
Section One: Contexts ............................................................................................................ 17 
Chapter 2: Historical context .............. .. ....... ......... ............. .... ......... .. .. ....... .. ........................ ... ... 19 
2.1 Bachelor of Applied Science .......................................................................................... 20 
2.2 Prior approaches to communication .. .. .. .. .. .. .......... ......................................................... 22 
2.3 The Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management .......... .. ........ 24 
2.4 The introduction of communication ............ .. ...... ...... ............ .. .. ...... ............................ 26 
2.5 Department of Plant Science ...................................................................................... 27 
2.6 The positioning of the projects .................. .. .......................... ........ ................ .... ...... ...... 28 
2.7 The inclusion of a writing consultant .............. .. .... .................................. .......... .... ...... 29 
Chapter 3: Writing in New Zealand universities .............................................. ................ ...... . 33 
3.1 Overview ....... ........ ....... .......... .......... .. .. ...................................................................... 35 
3.2 Auckland University ..... .. ........... ...... ... .................. .. .... ... .............. ............................ .. ... 39 
3.2.1 Student Learning Centre ...................................... .. .................... ...... .... .. .. ...... ..... 39 
3.2.2 English writing for academic purposes .............................................. ............... ... 41 
3.2.3 Other initiatives ................. .... ... .. ... ....... ... .... ... ... .. ... ......... .... .................... ..... ........ 42 
3.3 Waikato University ............ .......................... ............. .. .......... .... .... ............... ........... ..... 44 
3.3.1 Writing for university purposes ................ .... ........ .......... .. .. .................... .. .. ........ 44 
3.3.2 The TLDU ........ ......... ......... .. ... ........... .. ......... ..... ................ ....... .. ............... .... ..... 46 
3.3.3 Other initiatives ........ ......... .... ... ... .. ... .............. ... ..... .. ............... ... ... .... ... ................ 47 
3.4 Victoria University ...... .... .. ... ........ .. .... ... ....... ......... ................................. ............... ........ 48 
3.4.1 Student Learning Support ...................................................... ...... ...... ...... ............ 48 
3.4.2 English Language Institute ................................................ .. .............................. 49 
3.4.3 Other initiatives ...... .. .......... .................. .. .............................................................. 49 
3.5 Canterbury University ..................... ... ... ..... ......... .... ................................................. ... 50 
3.6 Lincoln University ... ............. ......... ........... ..... ..... .. ......... ...... ................................... .. ... 53 
3.7 Otago University ... ....... ..... .... .. ...................................................... ................ .. ........... 54 
3.8 Massey University .. ....... .. .. .... ..... ..... .... .................... .... ............. ...... .. ................. .... ..... 56 
3.8. 1 Writing: Theory and practice ............ .. ................................................................ 56 
ix 
3.8.2 Applied English! Written Communication ........................................................ 57 
3.8.3 Business Studies Writing Centre ........................................................................ 60 
3.8.4 Other initiatives .................................................................................................... 63 
3.9 Key themes .................................................................................................................. 65 
3.10 Tertiary Writing Network ......................................................................................... 69 
3.11 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 70 
Chapter 4: Teaching writing in the sciences ............................................................................. 73 
4.1 The generic writing course .......................................................................................... 75 
4.2 Writing across the curriculum: Alternative approaches ................................................. 79 
4.2.1 History ............................................................................................................... 79 
4.2.2 WAC: Definitions ............................................................................................... 82 
4.3 Writing in the disciplines: Course structures and approaches ................................... 84 
4.3.1 Science writing taught within an English department ........................................ 85 
4.3.2 The integrated or de-centralised model ............................................................. 93 
4.3.3 The collaborative model(s) of writing instruction ................................................ 97 
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 106 
Section Two: Methodological issues .................................................................................. 109 
Chapter 5: Action research: Change and collaboration ....................................................... 111 
5.1 The emergence of action research ............................................................................ 113 
5.1.1 Origins ............................................................................................................. 113 
5.1.2 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 114 
5.1.3 The theme of change ........................................................................................ 115 
5.1.4 The theme of collaboration and ownership ....................................................... 116 
5.1.5 The theme of context ......................................................................................... 117 
5.1.6 The combined themes of action and research ................................................... 119 
5.2 Process ........................................................................................................................ 119 
5.2.1 Planning ............................................................................................................ 120 
5.2.2 Action and observation ..................................................................................... 122 
5.2.3 Reflection ........................................................................................................ 122 
5.3 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 123 
5.3.1 Staff journals ................................................................................................... 124 
5.3.2 Student journals ................................................................................................ 126 
5.3.3 Focus groups ..................................................................................................... 127 
5.3.4 Individual interviews of staff ........................................................................... 130 
5.3.5 Miscellaneous data collection methods .............................................................. 131 
5.3.6 Student assignments ......................................................................................... 131 
5.3.7 Written sources of data .................................................................................... 131 
5.4 Ethical issues ............................................................................................................. 131 
x 
5.5 Conclusion .... .... .... .............. ..... .... ..... ........................................ ....... ............... ........ .. . 135 
Section Three: The projects ..........................................................................•...................... 137 
Chapter 6. Project One: Communication in Applied Science .... .... ...... .... ..... ....... ..... .. ............ 139 
6.1 Cycle I: Planning ....... .... ... ............... ...... .. ..... ........ ..... ................................................ 140 
6. I . I Initial planning ... ..... .... ...................... .......... ...... ......... .... ......... ... ........ ...... ... ... .. . 140 
6.1.2 Style Manual .. .. ..... .. ... ..... ..... .... .... ............ ............... .. .......... .... ..... .......... .... ... ... . 141 
6.1.3 Data collection .. ....................................... .. .............. ......... ..... ..... .. .. ..... ............. 142 
6.1.4 Curriculum development .... .......... .. .............. ....... .... ............. ...... .. ...... ............... 142 
6.2 The teaching team ..... ..... ........... .. ... .. .... ... ... .. ............. .. ........ ........ .............................. 145 
6.3 Cycle I: Students .... ................................................................................................. 148 
6.4 Cycle I: Action and observation ............... ... ..... .......................................................... 149 
6.5 Observation and reflection .. ... ... ... .. .. ..... .. ... .. ... ......... .................... .. ... ... ...................... 151 
6.5.1 Materials .................... .................. ..... .... ....... ...... ... ... .. .... ....... .. ... ............... .. ........ 151 
6.5.2 Lectures .............. ... .. .......... ............ .. .... .... ............. ... ..... .... ..... ....... .... ................. 152 
6.5.3 Tutorials ..... ........ ...... ..... ...... ... ....... .. .... .. ...... ... .. ... ............ .. ..... ...... ... ... .. ......... ... .. 153 
6.5.4 Assessment ...... .. ............... .... .. ... .. .... ... .. ....... ... ... ..... ....... .... .. ... ........ .. .. ....... .. .... 154 
6.5.5 Curriculum .............. .... ... .. .... .... ..... .. ....... .... ..... .... ... ...... ........ .. ..... ...... .... ...... .. .. 156 
6.6 Reflection and planning .... .............. .... .... ... .. ....... ... ... ..... ..... ... .......... ... .. ........ .. ... .. ....... 157 
6.7 Cycle 2: Action and observation ... ... .. ..... .... ... ............ .............. .......................... .......... 158 
6.8 Cycle 2: Reflection ..... .... .... .. ... ......... ................... ... ..... ........ ... ................ ....... .... .. ..... ... 159 
6.8. 1 Operations ..... ... ... ... ....... .................................... .. .. ......... .. ... .......... .... ..... .. ...... . 159 
6.8.2 Curriculum .... .... .. .... ..... .... ................... ..... .. .... .. .. .. ...... ......... .. ...... ..... .. .... ......... 161 
6.9 Cycle 3: Planning ....................... .. ................. .... .... .. ........... ... .... ... .. ........... ... ...... ... .... 163 
6.10 Cycle 3: Action and observation .. .. .. ..... .... ............ ..... ... ..... ....... ........... ........ ... ....... 164 
6.11 Cycle 3: Reflection ...... .. .... .. .. ... .. .......... ........ ..... ............... .. ..... .... ....... ....... ... .. ... .... 166 
6.11 .1 Content ..... ....... ... .. .. .. .... .... ... ..... ....... ........ .... .. .. .. .. .... ... ...... .. ... .... ...................... 168 
6.11.2 Delivery ..... .. .. .... ......... ... .......... ... .... ... ....... .... ... .... ........ ..... ....... ... ...................... 168 
6. 11 .3 Assessment ..... .. .... .... ...... ...... ............. .. ...... ... ... ... ... ..... ....... ....... ................ .. .. .. 169 
6. 12 Key themes ... .............. ..... ....... .. ............ .. .................... .... ... .. ....... ....... ...... .. .... ........... 172 
6.12.1 Writing themes .............. ..... .. ..... ..... ........ ..... ... .... ... ......... ............. ... ... ..... .. .. .... 173 
6.12.2 Action research ........ ... ... .... ........ .............. ......... .... ... ..... .... .. ..... ........................ 180 
6.13 Conclusions ...... .... .... ... ..... .... .............. .. ......... ..... .. ..... ..... ........ .... .... ..... .. .... .. .. ......... 186 
Chapter 7. Project Two: Teaching writing within a departmental programme .... ........ .. .... ... ... 189 
7.1 The origins of the project ......................... .... .... ... ........ .. ... .. ... .. ...... ... .. ... .. .. .... .. ... .... .. .. 190 
7.2 The research team .. ...... ....... ... ....... ... .... .. ..... .... ......... .... ... ....... .. ......... ..... .... ....... ........ 190 
7.3 Planning ................ .. ............ ............ ....... ........ .. ...... .. ...... .............. ..... ........ ..... .... ...... 194 
7.3.1 Objectives ......... .... ............. ... ... ..... .. ... ........... .... .. ......... ...... .. .. ...... ..... ..... .......... 196 
7.3.2 Planning for action .... .. .. ...... .. ........... ... .. ... ............................. .. ... ..... ................. 198 
xi 
7.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 202 
7.5 Cycle I: Action and observation ................................................................................. 204 
7.5.1 11.341 Horticultural Management II ............................................................... 205 
7.5.2 11.258 Agricultural Systems II ........................................................................ 205 
7.5.3 19.152 Agriculture and Society ....................................................................... 207 
7.5.4 1l.251 Farm Management .............................................................................. 208 
7.6 Cycle 1: Reflection ..................................................................................................... 210 
7.7 Cycles 2 and 3: Planning and action ........................................................................... 213 
7.7.111.251 Farm Management .............................................................................. 214 
7.7.2 19.259 Horticultural Systems II ....................................................................... 215 
7.7.3 19.258 Agricultural Systems II ....................................................................... 217 
7.8 Key themes ................................................................................................................ 219 
7.9 The researcher's role ................................................................................................. 222 
7.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 224 
Chapter 8: Project Three: Horticultural Technology ............................................................. 227 
8.1 The composition and context of the teaching group ................................................. 227 
8.2 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 236 
8.3 Writing to learn/learning to write .............................................................................. 238 
8.4 Cycle 1: 1995 ............................................................................................................ 240 
8.4.1 Thejournal ....................................................................................................... 241 
8.4.2 Group reports ..................................................................................................... 245 
8.4.3 In-class exercises ............................................................................................ 248 
8.4.4 Readings ............................................................................................................ 250 
8.5 Cycle 1: Reflection ..................................................................................................... 251 
8.5.1 Microthemes and journals ................................................................................. 252 
8.5.2 Reports ............................................................................................................. 258 
8.5.3 In-class exercises ............................................................................................ 259 
8.5.4 Readings ............................................................................................................ 260 
8.6 Cycle 2: 1996 ............................................................................................................ 262 
8.6.1 Workbook: Journal, microthemes and practicals ................................................ 263 
8.6.2 Reports ............................................................................................................. 264 
8.6.3 In-class exercises ............................................................................................ 264 
8.6.4 Readings ............................................................................................................ 265 
8.7 Key issues .................................................................................................................. 266 
8.7.1 Culture change: student attitudes towards writing ............................................. 266 
8.7.2 The blending of writing to learn and learning to write ........................................ 267 
8.7.3 The impact of the team .................................................................................... 268 
8.7.4 Benefits to staff: The journal and qualitati ve feedback ..................................... 269 
8.7.5 Staff difficulties .............................................................................................. 272 
XII 
8.8 Broader effects .. ............................................. .. ....... .... ............... ... ... ... .... .... .... ............ 273 
8.9 Conclusions ............ .... .. ................ .. ............... .... ....... ... ........................ .. ............ .... ...... 274 
Section Four: Implications for WAC in a New Zealand context ...................................... 279 
Chapter 9: Writing across the curriculum in a New Zealand context ................................... 281 
9.1 Connecting to the literature: Changes to the curriculum ............................................. 284 
9.1.1 Project one ........................................................................................................ 284 
9.1.2 Project two .......................................................................................... .... ......... 285 
9.1.3 Project three ............ ...... .... .... .. .... .............................................. .. ....................... 287 
9.2 Staff changes .............................................................................................................. 288 
9.2.1 Project one ........................................................................................................ 289 
9.2.2 Project two .... ..... ... ... .. ..... .. ...... ............ .......... ....... ........ .. ........ ... ...... ... .......... ... . 290 
9.2.3 Project three .............. ..... .... ... ........................ .. ..... .. ... .. .... ....... ............. ............. .. 292 
9.2.4 Critical factors ................................................................................................... 293 
9.3 Changes to student attitudes ..................................................................................... 294 
9.4 Institutional issues .. ...... ............. .. ......... .... ......... ...... ..... ... ... ....................... ............... 298 
9.4.1 Student feedback ............................................................................................... 299 
9.4.2 Teaching vs. research ......................................................................................... 301 
9.4.3 Management support ..... ..... .... .. .. ..... .............. .................. ..... ... ... .. .... ... .... .... ... . 303 
9.5 Action research .. .... .................. ............................ ........................ ...... .... .... ... .... ...... .... 303 
9.5.1 A structured process in a real context .............................. .. ....... ..... .. ..... .. ....... .. 304 
9.5.2 Collaborative team ................... .... ...... .... ... .. ...... ...... .... .. ..... .... ................. ........ 306 
9.5.3 A change process which is conducted as research ................................. ........... 311 
9.5.4 Action research: A conceptual model .............................................................. 311 
9.6 The broader implications .......... .. ..... .............................................. .... ....... ..... .. ........ 313 
9.7 Limitations and future directions .............................................................................. 320 
9.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 321 
Bibliography ........... .. ............. ..... ..... .... ........... .. ................... ... .......... .... ..... .... .... ........... ....... 325 
Appendix I: Covering letter and questionnaire .......... .. .................................................. .... ..... 353 
Appendix 2: List of respondents ................................... : .................... ................... ... .... ........ .. .. 365 
Appendix 3: List of interviewees ............................................................................................. 367 
Appendix 4: Example of section of a focus group transcript... ................................................ 369 
Appendix 5: Example of individual interview transcript. .................................................. ..... . 375 
Appendix 6: Example of tutorial assessment sheet. ................................................................. 379 
Appendix 7: Example of staff report ....................................................................................... 381 
Appendix 8: Project I : Timeline ..................... ............................................. .. .. .... ................... 383 
Appendix 9: Example of 19.155 tutorial material ................................. .. .. ... ............ .... ........... 385 
Appendix 10: Example of mastery test material and test ............................ .......................... .. 387 
Appendix II: Project 2: Timeline ...... ... ...... .. .............. ............. .... .. ......... .............. ................... 409 
xiii 
Appendix 12: Project 3: Timeline ........................................................................................... 41 I 
Appendix 13: Example of in-class structured notes ................................................................ 413 
Appendix 14: Two examples of student responses to in-class exercises ................................. 421 
Appendix 15: Example of peer-editing sheet. ......................................................................... 425 
Appendix 16: Examples of journal exercises .......................................................................... 431 
Appendix 17 : Audience-focused writing ................................................................................ 441 
Appendix 18: Assessment of the sunflower practical ............................................................. 447 
xiv 
List of tables and figures 
Table 3.1 Occurrence of North American-style writing programmes in New Zealand universities . 
....... .... ....... ...... ....... ........ .... .... ..... .... .. .. .... .. ...... ... ... ... ....... ....... .... ....... ..... ... ... .. ... .... ... ..... .. 36 
Table 3.2 Writing support services offered by learning support/student learning units in New 
Zealand universities ... .... .............. ... .... ..... .... ...... .... .............................. .... .... .. .. .... .. .... .. ..... .. 38 
Fig. 4.1 Collaborative models of WAC .. ...................................................... ............ ....... .. ....... 97 
Fig. 5.1 The action research cycle (after Zuber-Skerritt, 1993) .. .... ...... .... .. .................. ... ...... . 120 
Fig. 8.1 The sunflower practical. ...... .. .. ...... .............. .... ........ .. .. .... .. .. ........ .. .... .. ...... ................ 247 
Fig. 9.1 Contextual action research diagram .......... .. ................................ .. .................... ........ 312 
Fig. 9.2 University-based WAC matrix (model 1) .. ........ ........ .......... ............ ...................... ... 314 
Fig. 9.3 University-based WAC matrix (model 2) ...... .. ...... .......... .. .......... .. .. .............. .... .. ..... 317 
Chapter 1. "This schizophrenic institution": Beginnings 
There's this schizophrenic institution that...exists on writing, and careers are 
structured on writing and the whole system, everything is based on writing ... and 
yet any work with that kind of writing is seen as very low level, or ghetto, or, 
what is increasingly legitimately called in the literature, shitwork (1. Holst, 
21.5.96). 
That New Zealand universities take a schizophrenic attitude to issues relating to 
academic writing is manifest in many ways: in the ways in which students are 
taught (or not taught) the writing styles and structures of their discipline(s), in the 
status of writing support or development staff, in faculty attitudes to themselves 
as writers, and in the debate amongst writing teachers concerning who are the 
custodians of good style. 
New Zealand universities' ambivalence towards the teaching of writing is 
particularly surprising in the light of employer and graduate surveys. Overseas 
employer surveys highlight the need for graduates to have strong written and oral 
communication skills. In 1993, the Australian Association of Graduate 
Employers focused on Australian students' lack of communication skills when 
they reached employment, while an (undated) information bulletin from the 
University of Melbourne's Course and Careers unit places such skills second on 
its list of skills employers look for - straight after vocational skills related to 
degree programmes. The 1992 report by the Higher Education Council stated that 
employers want high communication skills ahead of any other skills, while Reid 
(1997) quotes a number of sources (e.g. Illing, 1994) from the Australian 
business context which emphasise the overall importance businesses place on 
graduates being able to communicate effectively. This picture is continued in 
Britain where a 1997 survey of a particular group of employers showed the 
difficulty of finding graduates in that field with the required level of 
communication skills (Merrick, 1997). 
These attitudes are reflected in New Zealand surveys. For example, a 1996 report 
from the careers advisory service at Victoria University states that 40% of 
2 
employers visiting the university requested graduates with strong verbal and 
written communication skills. Furthermore, the report states that the number of 
employers looking for either communication or interpersonal skills was higher 
than the number of employers looking for vocational skills. A report from within 
Massey University's Accountancy Department to its Curriculum Review Team 
in 1992, based on interviews with employers and other stakeholders, stated: 
Students entering the ... programme should have skills in the following areas: 
literacy, literacy, literacy, literacy, literacy, literacy, literacy, literacy, numeracy, 
oral skills, economics, computer and keyboard skills, and people skills . The 
definition of literacy ranged from basic reading and writing skills to the ability to 
organise material into a coherent argument. No matter how literacy was defined, 
entering students were seen as lacking in this area .... 
Exiting the ... program, students must have: 
1. The foundation of the principles on which the specific discipline is based; 
2. Skills to enable effective communication (writing, speaking, and presentation, 
and listening), critical thinking, problem solving (the ability to access and 
utilise information), and a desire to go on learning (Porter, pp.5-6). 
A 1995 Otago University survey of lifelong learning attributes looked for by 
employers (Andrews, 1995) showed that 80-90% of employers rated written 
communication skills as "considerably or very important", but only 50% of 
employers felt that written skills were "demonstrated to a considerable or high 
degree" by university graduates. The New Zealand graduates 1990: follow-up 
survey, 1991 and 1996 (Cox and Pollock, 1997), commenting on the Otago 
study, states that graduates confirmed this need for strong communication skills 
since almost 25% of them also identified communication as a further skill they 
would have liked to have had for their job. This survey summed up this issue 
thus: 
When asked what further skills or training they would like to have had (from their 
courses) for their subsequent employment, graduates expressed strong interest in 
being taught time management, negotiation skills, better written and spoken 
communication skills, and general management. The powerful impression given 
by the survey responses was that such generic skills are not emphasised strongly 
enough during degree courses (1997, p.4). 
A recent article by Sligo et al. (1999) states: 
-------- _. - -. -
3 
Some commentators have drawn attention to the perceptual mismatch between 
academics and students on the one hand, and business people on the other. People 
in the university tend to believe that discipline-specific abilities are a priority for 
graduates. Yet business recruiters are much less concerned about such abilities, 
and instead want candidates who have ... communication skills, flexibility and 
creativity (p.5). 
The value that academic staff place on communication skills is ambiguous. As 
Reid (1997) points out, Illing's 1994 survey of academics showed that there was 
"general dissatisfaction with the written language skills of most of those they 
teach" (p.2), yet, unlike employers who saw communication as being the most 
important skills requirement of graduates, academics rated it only fifth amongst 
desirable skills. "Why," asks Baldauf (1997, p.2), "do university staff rate 
content knowledge so much more highly than language, literacy and 
communication skills, when professional bodies in those same disciplines rate 
those same skills as their highest priority for graduates?" 
Why, indeed. Written and oral communication skills obviously contribute to 
students' success, both at the university and in their future employment. That 
universities should not hear these messages, that they should leave the 
acquisition of these skills effectively to chance (and that, as we shall see in 
chapter three, those involved in teaching these skills essential for employment 
success should be so undervalued) is puzzling. 
It is easy to leave discussion of these attitudes in the realm of theory and 
pedagogy; but because the genesis of this study was experience rather than 
theory, frustration followed by academic curiosity, I begin by underlining the 
practical manifestation of this "schizophrenia". Three personal stories illustrate 
my theme: 
I first became aware of the problems surrounding academic writing in 1978 
when, as an 18-year-old psychology student, my first university assignment was 
returned to me. Educated in an English grammar school and later a provincial 
New Zealand high school, a confident A student, I never doubted my ability to 
handle language in any setting. When my first university assignment was 
4 
returned to me with the comment "too descriptive; use more sources" followed 
by the unfamiliar letter B- I began, with anxiety, to explore and puzzle over the 
question 'What does writing at university mean?' In 1978, two terms of serious 
anxiety and much experimentation passed before I stumbled, inarticulately, over 
a formula that, to some extent, and with some exceptions, worked. My teachers 
were unhelpful. Mysterious comments on essays such as "you need more focus" 
or "did you read the question?" (What question?) or "this is a psychology essay; 
your approach is too sociological" (so - that was bad??) gave me few directions 
as to what was actually required. Timid forays into lecturers' offices achieved 
little but the irritation of the teacher. No one would tell me how to write. I did not 
know what an A essay would look like; my lecturers did, apparently, but they 
weren't going to tell me. 
In 1989, appointed to a relatively new position of Writing Centre tutor in the 
Business Studies Writing Centre at Massey University, I began to ask the same 
questions, with just as much curiosity and anxiety. I recognised the same anxiety 
in the students who came to my office, holding out their assignments and 
wanting to know "What is wrong with my writing?" 
My curiosity about this question was perhaps my only qualification as a writing 
teacher. With a master's degree in literature, specialising in nineteenth-century 
poetry, I was approached by an acquaintance on the basis that I had the 
personality required for such a position. I had no experience as a teacher of 
academic writing and no familiarity with business writing or the more specialised 
forms of academic business writing found in universities. 
I was almost overwhelmed by the needs of my students. I recognised myself in 
the students who would crumple up in a chair in my office saying "I didn't know 
I had a writing problem" or "my lecturer says there's something wrong with my 
writing and told me to come here to find out what it was". Clearly something 
more than 'personality' was required here. Thus, in 1989, I began again this 
process of exploration, of discovering what was required, alongside my students. 
----_._ .. -
What was it that academic staff could so confidently recognise and mark but 
could not (would not?) articulate? 
5 
And what was my role? I had no job description, no immediate superior to report 
to, and the conditions of my employment were highly ambiguous. The services 
or roles I inherited from the previous tutor clearly placed me as the 'expert' on 
writing, and I was keen to extend that role to 'teacher', yet I was often treated by 
staff and students alike as a 'fixer'. Sonja's story illustrates the dilemmas and 
problems of 'the writing centre tutor'. 
Sonja sat in my office and wept, clutching the script of a 3,000 word essay. A 
very able third year student, she had received her first ever C. Her script was 
literally covered in comments by the marker: whole paragraphs had been 
substantially reworked, and at the end was the comment "your writing is 
appalling - go to the Writing Centre". Sonja was a regular visitor to the Writing 
Centre, not due to poor writing style, but because she liked 'an extra eye' (as she 
put it) to look at what she was writing. I considered my job with her to be one of 
peer editing; she was a capable writer. But it must be said this essay had created 
problems for her. While the subject she was working on was not new to her, the 
conceptual level had increased considerably. Accustomed to writing a practical 
analysis, she had been required to take a more theoretical stance, a theoretical 
stance, moreover, which contradicted or challenged previous work she had 
engaged in. 
Over several visits to the Writing Centre she had struggled with the ideas, and 
when she finally wrote a draft her usual confident style had deserted her; her 
work was full of basic sentence level errors. I had suggested that a solution was 
to write in a simple style with short, clearly focused sentences. As she worked at 
writing in this way, her ideas had clarified. 
The criticism of her writing, her "appalling writing", was, indeed, that her 
sentences were too simply written. The marker had adjusted most of her sentence 
into complex sentences, adding transitions, and reworking the construction 
completely in most places, sometimes to the extent that the meaning became 
6 
obscured: where we had aimed for strong verbs, for example, the marker had 
inserted nominalisations. And the low mark appeared to be entirely consequent 
upon the 'writing problem' since the marker had not commented on the content. 
Over the following week I was visited by several of Sonja's classmates who were 
experiencing a similar shock. This was not an isolated incident. 
When I went to see the paper coordinator, I presented the case that the work 
entailed a conceptual leap that created writing problems. I presented her with 
research that illustrated how new conceptual difficulties can create difficulties 
with writing, and suggested that allowances be made for this. Finally I suggested 
that stylistic differences needed to be allowed for, or that she provide models of 
the kind of writing style which she preferred and explicitly directed students to 
this style. In this way I hoped to move her position from punitive to supportive. 
The paper coordinator met these suggestions with considerable hostility. Her 
argument was that she expected the best, regardless of conceptual leaps, and if I 
was not teaching 'the best style' (that is, the style she required of them) then she 
would not direct students to the Writing Centre, or would actively discourage 
their attendance. It was her view that her qualifications indicated that she had a 
superior writing style and she expected similar standards from her students. 
In 1992 I experienced a different manifestation of our schizophrenic culture 
relating to academic writing. Still looking for the magic answer to the question 
'what is good writing in an academic context?' I asked to tutor in a paper on 
academic writing that had recently been established by the English Department. 
Here I encountered the group of hostile students and frustrated tutors who were 
the catalysts for my research. 
Applied Englishl was designed as a generic writing paper. 2 Taught by a large 
contingent of tutors, both full time academic staff and casual tutors, Applied 
English progressed, in the manner of freshman composition, through narrative 
and personal writing to a special emphasis on the expository essay and 
argumentation. The paper guided students and staff through structured material 
that nevertheless allowed for flexibility of approach. The paper operated on a 
two-hour workshop/tutorial each week for the full academic year. 
7 
The small group of bored, occasionally aggressive, students in my 
workshop/tutorial was immediately disruptive. Arriving late, without the required 
classwork, unprepared, non-participative, they challenged me as a teacher, as I 
struggled to find ways which would interest and stimulate them. Discovering that 
they were all horticulture students for whom the paper was compulsory, I looked 
for ways in which the paper work might be relevant to their needs and futures: 
they remained unconvinced. 
That the horticulture students were a problem seemed to be the opinion of most 
of the staff teaching the paper, particularly the casual staff. At the end of the 
paper, the coordinator of the paper separated the horticulture students' 
evaluations from the rest of the students for comparative purposes, and found 
that the horticulture students consistently gave evaluations approximately .5 (out 
of a possible mark of 5) below the overall student group. Of pruticular concern to 
her was the discrepancy between the horticulture students' answers to the 
categories "appropriateness of course objectives to student needs" and "improved 
my writing skill". Horticulture students gave a mean of 3.32 (out of a possible 
high of 5) to the first category (compared with an overall mean of 3.98), and a 
mean of 4.20 (compared with an overall mean of 4.24) for the second category. 
In a letter to tutors the paper coordinator commented on this discrepancy: 
I In 1996 the paper was renamed Written Communication - a title which further underlined its 
generic focus. 
2 Massey University designates a single unit of study as a 'paper'. However, in casual usage, a 
paper is often referred to as a 'course'. In this study, I have used the official terminology (i.e., 
paper), but where interviewees use the more casual terminology (i.e. course), I have retained their 
words, rather than correcting them. 
8 
I think it' s ... interesting to compare [their] response here [to overall question of 
whether their writing skills had been improved] with their response to [the 
question of whether the course was meeting students' needs]. In effect what they 
are saying is inconsistent: yes, we improve their writing skills, but no, the course 
does not meet their objectives. Just what are their objectives? 
Horticulture students were also less inclined to feel that their writing confidence 
had improved after taking the paper, with a mean score of 3.71 (compared with 
the overall mean of 4.03). Again, the paper coordinator commented: 
... [they] evidently are forced to face the sad truth that they don't write as well as 
they'd always thought they did, and thus their confidence drops. 
An earlier comment encapsulates her understandable frustration with this group 
of students: 
Obviously, they hadn' t a clue as to why they were forced to take the course. 
These questions intrigued me: what were the horticulture students' objectives, 
and why had they been forced to take this paper which they clearly did not 
experience as being of huge benefit to them? And why was there this 
discrepancy, if indeed there was one, between their perceptions of themselves as 
writers and the English Department tutors' views of these students as writers? 
Fortunately, the alienation of at least a few of the horticulture students was not 
yet complete, and they were prepared to talk to me about the paper and their 
experiences. Some were simply offended that they were required to take a paper 
which they saw as remedial rather than developmental ; but all were confident 
that they were being taught a writing style which was not appropriate to their 
needs. As they saw it, they were indeed being taught to write 'better', but better 
was not what was needed. These queries began, alas, before I started carrying a 
tape recorder with me, so I do not have their exact words. But they explained that 
in their classes 'on the other side of campus' they were never required to write 
essays so that all the focus on argumentation in the Applied English paper they 
perceived as being irrelevant. Furthermore, if they used the style of writing 
taught in the English Department, they were pulled up by their other teachers as 
being too flowery. As one young man put it "they don't want transitions; they 
just want the facts ... just bang, bang, bang ... no fuss". If they had to do a writing 
paper, they wanted a paper that would teach them how to write reports and 
memos and 'relevant' documents, in a style that would suit their lecturers, and 
maybe their accountants and bank managers. 
9 
Curiosity increasing, I set off for 'the other side of the campus' (at Massey 
University's Turitea campus this is a literal description of the campus, with 
social sciences, humanities and business at one side, the sciences and applied 
sciences on the other, and service functions - the library, the student association 
building, cafeteria - in the middle). The teaching staff who worked with the 
horticulture students agreed with the students that the writing style being taught 
in the English Department was not what they were looking for. One staff member 
insisted that he would put his red pen through "any of that poncy, flowery 
English Department crap". 
The convenor of the horticulture degree committee explained the context of the 
inclusion of Applied English in the degree programme. Graduate and employer 
surveys over many years had indicated that horticulture graduates from the 
University lacked communication skills, and these were skills that employers 
were prioritising. The choice of the Applied English paper as a way of teaching 
these skills was described thus: 
When we redeveloped the horticulture degree ... one of the key features was that 
the core would include a communication paper. At that time there was debate 
within the faculty and particularly with the extension lecturer, about developing 
our own paper. I guess I didn't encourage that, because it was a radical step for 
our faculty to include a paper in this area and I felt it was important that it had 
credibility within the university (K. Milne, pers. comm., 5.5.93). 
This conclusion, that the teaching of writing could be achieved credibly only 
through the English Department, even when such an approach was manifestly not 
meeting the needs of any party, led me to the library and hence to the wealth of 
literature on teaching writing in the disciplines. 
My enquiries and reading occurred as the Faculty of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Sciences was planning a major shift in their degree programme, and 
10 
my interest led to my involvement in the development of a new approach to the 
teaching of communication in the faculty, the emergence of which is detailed in 
later chapters. 
These three stories illustrate the confusions that led me to this research. One 
thing that strikes me is the isolation of the journey. As a student, I never asked 
my peers how to write an essay; no-one shared papers or marks, due, perhaps to 
the implicit competition between students, or the insecurities that are a part of 
adolescence, perhaps because we all assumed that everyone else had learnt how 
to write essays at school. While I asked my teachers, they were unable to direct 
me. As a Writing Centre tutor in the late 1980s and early 1990s I worked alone, 
designing a job for myself, without collegial support in my own institution, 
unaware of colleagues at a national level. My investigation into the dilemma of 
the horticulture students was conducted amidst tension and antagonism between 
the groups involved. And, as I moved into the literature, I found access was 
restricted because much of it was not available in New Zealand and I had no 
funding which would allow me to access it from overseas. 
As a result of the events described in the three stories above, I began to form a 
series of questions to direct my reading and thinking. Eventually, I summarised 
my thoughts into four questions: 
• how can we teach writing effectively to students from specific disciplines? 
• what is the most effective role for a writing consultanUteacher? 
• where is the teaching of writing placed in our universities? 
• how can academic staff be helped to identify and thus teach the writing styles 
and structures of their disciplines? 
These questions were still very much in my mind when I was invited to a 
meeting with a small group of staff in the Faculty of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Sciences who were charged with the task of deciding how 
communication and writing could be taught in the new Bachelor of Applied 
Science degree programme. 
11 
This study is a result of the serendipitous converging of my interest in writing at 
tertiary level, the formation of a new degree, a Dean who could hear what his 
stakeholders were saying, and a group of academic staff prepared to teach 
outside their comfort zones. Following the first meeting in the Faculty of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, I joined the planning team for the 
communication component of the degree and found a place where my questions 
could be answered and the ideas that I was forming on the basis of my reading on 
writing across the curriculum could be put into place. 
Three writing projects are the focus of this study. All three took place in the 
Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences between 1993 and 1996. 
While each project operated independently, their aims were connected and there 
was considerable overlap between the members of the project teams. 
My involvement began with project one. This involved the design and teaching 
of a communication paper for the faculty: 19.155 Communication in Applied 
Science. The paper was designed collaboratively by a team of academics from 
the faculty and myself as a writing consultant. Project two evolved out of project 
one. There was concern that a single communications paper would not be enough 
to teach and reinforce the writing and communication skills students would need 
as graduates. Therefore, the staff of the Department of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Systems Management - some of whom were teaching in project 
one - developed a writing across the curriculum project to integrate the teaching 
of writing into their papers. Project two, then, aimed to reinforce and extend the 
skills taught in project one and to teach the specific writing skills required in the 
department. 
Project three also developed partly out of project one. This project focused on a 
single horticulture paper which integrated writing into its fundamental pedagogy. 
One of the significant ways in which it differed from project two was that it did 
not add the teaching of writing into already existing papers, but rather included 
12 
writing in its conception and formulation. Another way in which it differed from 
projects one and two was that it included a 'writing to learn' philosophy rather 
than a single 'learning to write' philosophy.J 
Each project used action research as a method for planning, implementing, and 
evaluating its programme. A detailed discussion of action research and the 
advantages of using such a method in this context is provided in chapter five, but 
the key reasons can be summarised as follows: action research takes place in a 
real rather than ideal context, it provides a process to implement and monitor 
change, it allows for effective collaboration and ownership of the project, and it 
combines the qualities of action and research. 
Primarily, then, this study focuses on a critical question: 
• how can we effectively teach writing in the disciplines? 
This thesis describes one writing programme, consisting of three projects, which 
answered this question in a particular way. During the development of the 
projects, we refined this key question into two subsidiary questions: 
• can writing in the disciplines be taught effectively through the combined 
expertise of writing specialists and subject specialists? 
• is action research an effective method of empowering academic staff as 
teachers of writing? 
The structure of this study mirrors the action research process. Action research 
begins with personal experience and a question, or series of questions, or a 
general idea. The purpose of this chapter has been to establish these features of 
the projects. 
The next part of an action research project is often reconnaissance, a careful 
scrutiny of the context in which participants find themselves. Action research 
J These terms are discussed fully in chapter four. 
- - - - - - - - - -
13 
requires participants to look carefully at the multiple contexts of the research 
projects, and consider the ways in which the contexts and the projects may 
impact on one another. The next three chapters of this study focus on the context 
of the projects. 
Chapter two, the first chapter to look at context, describes the most immediate 
context of the projects. In particular it considers their institutional and historical 
context, and looks briefly at the teams that undertook each project. 
Chapter three considers context from a broader perspective. Specifically, it 
explores the question \¥here is the teaching of writing placed in our universities? 
Drawing on the results of a questionnaire, a series of semi-structured telephone 
interviews with key players, and relevant documents, it outlines the history of 
teaching writing in New Zealand universities. The chapter describes the placing 
of writing in each university, the issues relating to location, and the historical 
factors that informed the nature, status and components of writing in each 
university. Finally, chapter three looks holistically at the pedagogical and 
political aspects of writing in New Zealand universities as a broad context for the 
present projects. 
Chapter four broadens the consideration of context still further. It considers the 
question How can we effectively teach writing in the disciplines? It surveys the 
scholarship on writing in the disciplines. Such a survey necessarily takes us 
beyond the New Zealand context, since most of the literature on writing in the 
disciplines, writing to learn programmes, and writing across the curriculum 
relates to the North American tertiary context. This chapter provides the rationale 
for using an integrated model of writing in the disciplines in the present study. 
The next stage of action research involves planning the process that will be 
undertaken. This involves planning how data will be collected and anticipating 
any ethical considerations. These projects used an action research process as a 
means of integrating writing into an applied science curriculum. Chapter five 
explores the key questions Why was action research used to integrate the skills 
of the writing teachers and the subject specialists? \¥hat ethical constraints 
14 
influenced the programme? This chapter focuses on the rationale of using action 
research to develop a writing programme in the disciplines by providing a 
description of action research, a history of its development as a form of 
educational research, and a discussion of its strengths and weaknesses. It also 
looks at the data collection methods used in the projects and relevant ethical 
issues. 
Chapters six, seven and eight are detailed studies of the three parts of the 
programme that evolved in the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences 
at Massey University. Chapter six describes the origins of the Communication in 
Applied Science paper which provided the foundation of the faculty's writing in 
the disciplines programme and describes the three action research cycles during 
which this paper was developed. 
Chapter seven details a writing in the disciplines initiative undertaken in one 
department within the faculty, the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management. In this project, action research was introduced to 
academic staff through two workshops and was then used to develop an explicit 
writing programme for papers in the department. Objectives and strategies were 
developed by the whole department and subsequently managed on an individual 
paper basis. 
Chapter eight provides a detailed study of one paper in horticulture that adopted 
writing to learn strategies as a consequence of staff having experience in the 
Communication in Applied Science paper. Action research was used explicitly to 
develop the paper, and the writing to learn approach was one of a series of 
initiatives used to revolutionise the teaching of horticulture in the Department of 
Plant Science. 
While each of the projects included multiple moments of reflection, as required 
in the action research process, the overall programme (which includes all three 
projects) also merits a final moment of reflection. The final chapter of the thesis 
constitutes this final moment of reflection. Chapter nine draws conclusions from 
these studies, in the light of the research questions, and considers the factors that 
---- -~ -~ - -
may indicate the successful implementation of a writing across the curriculum 
programme in a New Zealand university. It also considers the limitations of the 
study as a whole and directions for future research. 
15 
16 
17 
Section One: Contexts 
18 
--------- --- -- - -
Chapter 2: Historical context 
Those who would change curriculum must become ethnographers of their home 
campuses (Maimon, 1992, p.xi). 
As Elaine Maimon states above, every writing programme is, perforce, 
19 
individual to its own context and must be designed with its particular political, 
structural, cultural and institutional context in mind. Furthermore, it is a truism of 
action research that any action research project must examine the context of the 
research and anticipate the possible interactions and effects of context and 
process on each other. 
We started our research with two key questions: how can we effectively integrate 
writing or communication into an applied science context, and how can we 
establish effective collaborative teams and processes to achieve our aims? The 
next step was an exploration of contexts: what can we discover about the 
contexts of the projects? What will they tell us about our starting place? How 
will they impact on the projects and how might our projects impact on the 
context of the research? This short chapter is the first of three chapters that focus 
on contexts. It looks at the most immediate context, i.e., the institutional context 
in which the projects took place, the historical events leading to the inclusion of 
communication in the curriculum, and the composition of the project teams. 
The three writing projects that make up this study took place within the Faculty 
of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences at Massey University. Massey 
University is situated in a provincial city in New Zealand. Developed in 1927 as 
an agricultural college, it acquired university status in 1963. It is arguably the 
largest university in the country, in terms of student numbers, with 11,329 
internal and 17, 355 extramural students in 1994 when the projects began. At the 
20 
time of the study, the university's academic programmes were structured into 
nine faculties. 4 
The implementation of the writing projects coincided with the development of a 
new degree in the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, the 
Bachelor of Applied Science. Consequently, the projects took place at a time of 
change and some confusion. It was also a time of rapid and radical curriculum 
development and this climate of change undoubtedly facilitated the acceptance of 
the projects. 
To understand the culture of the faculty at the point when the projects to be 
described in this thesis were initiated, we need to consider four issues: 
• the development of the Applied Science degree programme 
• previous approaches to teaching writing within the faculty 
• the decision to include communication within the curriculum of the new 
degree 
• a short history of the two departments in which the writing projects took 
place. 
This chapter provides a context for the research by considering each of these 
points. 
2.1 Bachelor of Applied Science 
The new degree emerged out of a time of change and turmoil for the Faculty of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences. As the oldest faculty in the university, it 
had an international reputation for its research and enjoyed a position as the 
centre of the university. But following the rural downturn in the 1980s in New 
4 Since this study took place Massey University has become multi campus and has been 
restructured into four colleges. However, because the immediate context of the projects is 
important, I have maintained the terminology of the time i.e. 1994-6. 
21 
Zealand, student numbers dropped while the size of other faculties, most notably 
Business Studies, increased dramatically. Over a short time, perceptions of the 
faculty within the university changed and it came to be seen by other parts of the 
university as overstaffed, resource hungry and subsidised by the larger and 
growing sectors of the university. 
The need for change was recognised, as is evidenced by the number of reviews 
that took place throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. The Dean of the faculty 
led the debate on curriculum change in the face of changing perceptions of the 
primary sector and agriculture education. In 1991 he wrote: 
As far as institutes of higher learning are concerned, the education challenge 
cannot be handled by a traditional faculty or school of agriculture. Indeed, the 
required educational programmes will demand a much stronger commitment to 
co-operation across traditional discipline boundaries than is currently the case in 
most institutions. Vice-Chancellors/Directors should demand that faculties with 
production, product development, processing and business briefs develop 
educational programmes with the common objective of leading and servicing the 
educational requirements of a 'new agriculture' (Anderson, 1991, p.6). 
At the beginning of the rural downturn, in the 1980s, reviews focused on simple 
rationalisation of individual undergraduate degree programmes. In the 1980s four 
undergraduate degree programmes were being offered: the B.Agr., B.Ag.Sci., 
B.Hort., with or without an endorsement, and the B.Ag.Econ., as well as a 
number of diploma courses at the sub degree leveL 
Towards the end of the 1980s, by contrast, the focus of review changed to the 
development of a single degree with a focus not so much on technology but on 
whole of life learning (Anderson, 1995): 
In designing programmes, educators have had a bad habit of over-emphasising 
course content at the expense of the process of education .... Employers on the 
other hand are increasingly emphasising the need for whole of life learning 
abilities - communication, problem solving, flexibility, team learning, 
entrepreneurship, interpersonal skills, loyalty, integrity and lateral thinking (p.37). 
In 1991, during a retreat of senior management, the design of the new curriculum 
for the single degree was established. Communication skills were included as a 
22 
primary objective and as a core component. However, the mechanism for 
incorporating this element into the curriculum had yet to be decided. 
2.2 Prior approaches to communication 
The faculty had long been aware of the need for students to acquire good 
communication skills. In 1987, in a two day seminar 'Business 2000' all 
employers present stressed the need for graduates to be able to communicate 
well. Participants in the 1988 Employer survey commented on the desirability of 
graduates being able to "communicate to all people regardless of their culture 
and level of education" (Gregg et aI., 1991). Galvanised by repeated results of 
employer surveys, the 1988 B .Agr. Review noted that "graduates, employers and 
teachers all commented on the need for improved graduate performance in oral 
and written communication" (p.9). 
Despite the increased awareness of the importance of communication skills, the 
Agriculture strand of the faculty continued to regard the teaching of these skills 
as the responsibility of individual paper coordinators. In 1988, the report on the 
review of the B.Agr. degree states: 
The Review committee, while agreeing that remedial help with basic English 
construction/composition problems should be available ... rejects the notion that a 
core paper should be introduced to take care of the literacy problem .... Every 
paper throughout the B.Agr. programme should accept and share responsibility for 
providing ample opportunities for practice and demand high levels of oral and 
written performance, pointing out student shortcomings in this respect, assisting 
where possible and referring difficult cases for remedial tutoring (Anderson et aI., 
1989, p.9). 
In 1991 this position was reinforced: 
Literacy, numeracy and computer application skills should not themselves form 
part of the compulsory material but should be considered an integral part of all 
papers. High standards should be set and enforced in these areas and students with 
deficiencies should be made aware of them and guided towards appropriate 
remedial tutoring (Younger, 1991, p.2). 
23 
Philosophically and pedagogically, this position appears to have much to 
commend it. But since no attempts were made to establish what these 'high 
standards' should comprise, or what 'students with deficiencies' actually meant, 
such an approach had little impact on the teaching of communication skills. 
Furthermore, this approach focused on referring communication difficulties 
outside the faculty with little recognition of the role of academic staff as teachers 
of writing/communication. 
In 1989, the Horticulture strand of the faculty diverged in its approach to 
teaching writing from the Agriculture strand. In this year Horticulture introduced 
new degrees with a generic writing paper, 39.107 Applied English, included as a 
compulsory paper from the outset. They chose this option out of a belief that a 
paper on writing skills taught by the English Department would have more 
credibility than one taught within the faculty (see p.9). They were also sceptical 
of the efficacy of an undefined integrated approach. Specifically their interest 
was in encouraging students to acquire generic writing skills at the 100-level 
with faculty-specific writing skills taught at higher levels, particularly in Hort 
Enterprises I and II. Some effort was made by the then paper coordinator of 
39.107 to integrate the specific needs of horticulture students into the paper 
(although later paper coordinators abandoned this approach in favour of a more 
humanities-based stance). 
The recognition on the part of senior staff in the horticulture programmes that 
communication issues needed to be directly addressed rather than being left in 
the hands of academic staff was a step forward in terms of increasing the 
visibility and hence the importance of writing skills. On the other hand, teaching 
writing in this context was still placed outside the discipline, and so writing was 
not yet integrated into the curriculum. 
In 1992 faculty staff also showed their awareness of the need for communication 
skills. The results of the staff survey published in the Gregg report (Gregg et ai., 
1991) showed strong support for the inclusion of spoken and written 
communication as a required core component of the single new degree. 
24 
2.3 The Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems 
Management 
The first of the 'stakeholder' departments for the projects described in this thesis 
was the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management. The 
department was one of the smallest and newest in the faculty. The history of the 
department gives an indication of why communication teaching for the faculty 
was initially located there. 
The Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management was 
established in 1986. It was one of six departments in the faculty in 1994, with a 
complement by the end of the year of 13 academic staff (including a lecturer in 
extension), three research officers, one post-doctoral fellow, and two 
administrative staff. The director of farms administration and farm supervisor, 
whose prime responsibility was administering the university's commercial farms, 
were associate members of the department. 
The forging of the department from the Department of Agricultural Economics 
and Farm Management, by a then new Dean, was a controversial move. 
Ostensibly the division took place to take the practical farm management staff 
out of the shadow of theoretical agricultural economics. Other issues, however, 
also played a part. The first was a concern on the part of the Dean that staff in 
farm management were being disadvantaged by their association with 
agricultural economics. Few staff in farm management were PhD trained, few 
had progressed through the accustomed and traditional academic pathways. 
Furthermore, their research profile was limited. This was partly a function of 
their non-academic or limited academic background. Another key factor was the 
nature of the discipline itself which, being largely interdisciplinary, required staff 
to be competent in a wide range of fields. Research in this interdisciplinary field 
was more time consuming than research in some of the purer science disciplines 
in the faculty, such as animal science or soil science. In their association with 
Agricultural Economics, then, farm management staff appeared to be less 
qualified and to produce less published research. Their promotion opportunities 
were thus limited. In establishing these staff in a separate department, the Dean 
intended that new criteria might be used to assess them and that the particular 
research of the discipline might be encouraged and extended. 
25 
Another reason for separating the departments was that the Dean saw a very 
specific role and emphasis for the new department. When one considers the other 
departments in the faculty - Soil Science, Animal Science, Plant Science, 
Agricultural Economics and Business, Agricultural Engineering - it is clear that 
the new department, with its focus on farm management, was very different in 
focus. Farm management is an integrative discipline. Interfacing with all the 
other departments within the faculty, it also integrates with social science 
disciplines (such as sociology, anthropology, and psychology) and business 
disciplines (such as marketing and management). In many ways farm 
management provides a link, placing other disciplines within a connected rural 
and business context. Because of the attributes of this discipline, it obviously 
needed to be spot lit rather than overshadowed. 
The name of the department was an internally controversial issue. For many staff 
within the new department, farm management was the most appropriate name, 
historically and descriptively. However, the inclusion of the word 'systems' 
emphasised the integrative, holistic nature of the discipline, taking the arena of 
the discipline beyond the farm gate and thereby widening its focus. Furthermore, 
the idea of 'farm' management was seen as too limited by those in the 
department whose focus was squarely on horticultural contexts. The resulting 
name was unquestionably unwieldy, yet senior management of the faculty felt 
that it accurately pointed the department into a broadening context and allowed it 
to extend and entrench its interdisciplinary focus and to take on a unique and 
crucial role within the faculty. 
Six years on, through a period of management changes within the department 
and at the onset of a new direction in teaching for the faculty, with a new and 
young head of department in place, the department, in the Dean's words, was 
"well placed". Yet the struggle to determine the parameters and nature of the 
discipline and the direction of the department and its place in the faculty meant 
26 
that it had difficulty maintaining internal unity. Generally, this may have been a 
consequence of the nature of the discipline. To quote the Dean of the faculty 
once again, "The leadership of interdisciplinary activity and the need to integrate 
- it's not an easy science" (pers. comm., 1.12.94). Or, as the head of the 
department said: "one of the things in terms of formulating an academic plan and 
a strategic direction for [the] department is: what should we emphasise? What is 
going to be our high ground?" (pers.comm., 1.12.94). 
One of the 'threads' within the department was extension science. The definition 
of extension, as a sub-discipline, is also a highly debated issue. At its simplest 
level, extension is about information transfer, about taking new technologies 
from the lab or the engineers to the farmers or growers. Extension thus has 
educative, marketing and communication functions. Until 1994 only one person 
in the faculty had taken on the extension role. In May 1993 this staff member 
retired but his position was retained and his replacement arrived in rnid-1994. In 
the interim two senior members of the department took over the teaching of 
extension. 
2.4 The introduction of communication 
The new degree programme for the faculty, unlike earlier degree programmes, 
which either had a pure science base (such as the Bachelor of Agricultural 
Science), or an agricultural technology base (such as the Bachelor of 
Agriculture), focused on core skills such as problem solving, communication 
(including numeracy), and independent learning skills such as knowledge 
acquisition. One of the senior members in the Department of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Systems Management, who had taken on the teaching of extension 
and who was on the degree development team, argued that communication 
become not simply a nominal part of the degree but be taught directly, either 
through an integrated strategy or through a paper taught within or for the faculty 
(possibly through the English Department, for example). Because this staff 
member championed the communications component, he was given 
- ---~-------------
27 
responsibility for either designing a relevant paper on communication or finding 
someone to do so from other departments within the university. 
Because communication was seen as an aspect of extension science, and because 
a teacher of extension had been the main proponent of communication as a core 
skill, it was natural that the communications initiative should be developed for 
the faculty as a whole from the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management. 
2.5 Department of Plant Science 
The second stakeholder department was the Department of Plant Science, the 
largest department in the faculty and one of the largest in the university with a 
staff, in 1994, of 32 academics plus technical and support staff. The department 
was an amalgamation of three departments (Horticulture, Plant Health and 
Agronomy) and two centres (Seed Technology and the Plant Growth Unit) and 
hence had a heavy senior staff component. 
Like the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management, the 
Department of Plant Science, because of its size and the nature of its evolution, 
had problems with direction, cohesion and curriculum. It also had problems 
relating to student numbers and credibility: its staff-student ratio was very low 
and the department was perceived by other departments within the faculty as 
being heavily subsidised. Because of the low student numbers, staff were under 
some pressure to contribute to core faculty papers (such as communication) 
which would bring EFTS' into the department. There was, therefore, no 
pedagogical reason for Plant Science staff to be teaching communication: only 
practical and political reasons. 
5 EFTS = Equivalent Full Time Student formula used to calculate government funding for tertiary 
institutions in New Zealand. "An EFTS is a unit of measurement of student enrolments. It defines 
and calculates enrolments in such a way that a typical full-time year's work for a student 
generates 1.0 EFTS" (Notes for guidance: New Qualifications and papers, and Calendar Changes, 
Massey University, 1999, pA2). Tertiary institutions apply for government funding based on the 
projected number of EFTS which the institution expects to generate in the coming year. 
28 
The shift of the communications paper (see chapter six) in 1995 from 
Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management to Plant Science was, 
likewise, pragmatic. The only person in the Department of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Systems Management available to take over the paper when the 
first paper coordinator retired was a new staff member who was not a native 
English speaker, and another member of the communications team from the 
Department of Plant Science was the only person sufficiently experienced to take 
over the position of paper coordinator. Politically this was a controversial move 
and involved a debate not only about funding, resources and expertise but also 
about the content of the paper. This matter will be discussed in a later chapter. 
2.6 The positioning of the projects 
The initiation and development of each project and each project team are fully 
discussed in chapters five, six and seven. Only a short description is included 
here. 
Project one, as stated above, was originally domiciled in the Department of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management and moved to the 
Department of Plant Science at the end of its first year (at the end of the second 
cycle in this project). The team consisted of myself, as a writing consultant, and a 
number of academic staff mainly from the two departments.6 This team appeared 
to be, at least initially, the least cohesive group: few members of the group had 
established professional relationships - indeed, some relationships were 
uncomfortable. 
Project two took place in the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management and comprised those members of the department who 
wished to be involved, along with a writing consultant. The team appeared, 
6 Most of these staff were volunteers, although some staff in the later cycles were 'encouraged' 
by their HODs to join the team. 
- - ~~~---------
initially, to be cohesive, with many established professional relationships. The 
project was initiated by the writing consultant. 
29 
Project three was domiciled in the Department of Plant Science. This group was 
the smallest and the most cohesive, comprising only five members including the 
writing consultant. All members of the group had established professional and 
personal relationships with one another. The project was initiated by one of the 
horticulture teachers in the group. 
2.7 The inclusion of a writing consultant 
The 'outsider' in each of these projects was myself, as the writing consultant. In 
the roles of PhD student in the English Department and writing consultant for the 
Faculty of Business Studies, I inevitably brought with me the attitudes of 
someone trained in a particular discipline. 
My qualifications were an undergraduate degree in English and History with a 
partial major in sociology and a postgraduate degree in English literature (with a 
thesis in the area of Victorian poetry and, in particular, Browning's dramatic 
monologues), both from Massey University. I had tutored in the literature 
programme of the English Department. With these qualifications I was invited to 
tutor in a business communications paper in the Business Studies Faculty, and 
this led to an invitation to take on the role of tutor in the Business Studies 
Writing Centre in 1989. 
The position of Writing Centre tutor had required me to undertake my own re­
education programme. As stated in the introduction, I was not trained to teach 
academic writing or business writing and found myself ill equipped to teach my 
students. I read widely in both fields but found the greatest help came from those 
academic staff in the Business Studies Faculty who were able to articulate their 
requirements. 
30 
This was important for my development as a writing consultant. As a student in 
humanities I had assumed certain attitudes7: applied and quantitative subjects 
such as business and agriculture were not genuine university subjects; a 
university was not a university without a humanities faculty and students from 
humanities could write better, think better, and analyse better than any other 
students. In other words, the other (lesser) parts of the university had much to 
learn from the arts. 
Working in the Business Studies Faculty exploded many of those beliefs. I 
discovered that I had much to learn from the staff in business; that writing in the 
arts did not necessarily prepare one to write in any context; that writing is 
dependent on audience and therefore what is 'good' writing is dependent on 
context; that the passive voice, for example, was an ideal tool to use if you 
wanted to obscure responsibility for a particular action. In other words, I learnt 
that students in different disciplines need to write differently, think differently 
and analyse differently - and that the approach I had learnt was not necessarily 
supenor. 
It was this awareness of the validity of difference, I believe, that sensitized me to 
possible difficulties for the horticulture students in being taught by teachers from 
the English Department. I did not believe they were just troublemakers but, 
rather, that there must be some problem of which we, the teachers, were 
unaware. 
This does not mean that I took no prejudices with me over to the applied science 
field. If, as a student, I had believed that business was not a real uhiversity 
subject, then agriculture and horticulture were even less valid. But, 
professionally, my horticulture students interested me. I was even more 
interested as I spoke to the staff in horticulture and heard their views about 
writing and teaching writing. The staff I initially encountered were prodigious 
7 These attitudes came from the student culture, I believe; I recall no modelling of this attitude 
from staff. 
------------------------~----
31 
writers, and often wrote research in groups, which was, again, a new idea to me, 
since writing in the humanities tends to be an individual effort. 
If I brought attitudes and prejudices from my background, it is inevitable that the 
same can be said of the team members from applied science. While we never 
discussed this topic directly, it was often a subtext in our discussions. It was 
generally expressed as my being 'from the other side of the campus' (or 
sometimes 'the wrong side of the campus'). This term was generally used 
whenever I demonstrated my lack of understanding of any aspect of the applied 
science disciplines (especially anything statistical or quantitative). It was used 
invariably in a humorous rather than critical way: it was a way of observing our 
differences. On the campus on which these projects took placeS, being 'from the 
other side of the campus' is, as pointed out in the introduction, a literal as well as 
metaphorical description. So separated are the sciences from the 'arts' that I had 
never set foot on the science side of the campus, either as a student or as a staff 
member, prior to my involvement with these projects. 
Staff attitudes concerning the relationship between the arts (and English in 
particular) and the sciences, as demonstrated by the teams, were, as I experienced 
them, ambivalent. On the one hand, the team members attributed a certain 
credibility to the arts in terms of ability to teach writing. On the other hand, the 
arts were often discussed as being 'impractical', as belonging to an unreal and 
esoteric world. The success of other interactions before my involvement had 
been mixed. Team members mentioned successful cross-disciplinary experiences 
with people from the Education Faculty, for example, but their experiences with 
staff from the English Department had been less successful or at least less 
comfortable. It was with this uncertain baggage, and no knowledge of scientific 
writing, that I joined the teams. 
This, then, was the immediate context of the research. Clearly, the history of the 
development of the degree shows that there was strong support from senior 
management for the inclusion of communication and writing in the new 
8 Recently named the Turitea campus 
32 
curriculum, and that management had listened to employers and understood the 
need for graduates to have strong communication skills. However, senior staff 
were somewhat more tentative about how to include communication in the 
curriculum, and this was a matter of some risk since, had the projects failed in 
some way, the new degree could have been adversely affected. So, while they did 
give the teams a mandate to take a writing in the disciplines approach, their 
continued support was, naturally, dependent upon results. The individuals who 
came together to develop each project showed a strong sense of the 
responsibilities placed on them and exhibited differing levels of confidence; 
although all were clearly teaching outside their comfort zone, some members of 
the team found this more difficult than others. 
Two other contexts were significant to the development of the projects. The next 
chapter explores the broader context of the teaching of writing in New Zealand 
universities. 
-------------------- -
Chapter 3: Writing in New Zealand Universities 
I have nevertheless seriously asked if we could guarantee that all our degree 
holders could write and speak grammatically and spell correctly. Nobody seems 
very keen on offering this assurance - which is perhaps a bit disturbing (N. 
Waters, Report to Massey University Council, 7.10.94). 
At the beginning of my research programme, at the end of 1993, I wrote: 
A key question when considering the teaching of writing within academic 
communities is who has authority over writing? Or, to put the question another 
way, who determines whether a piece of writing is 'good writing' or not? 
33 
The question is critical for a number of institutional and pedagogical reasons. 
First, the institution's answer to this question determines where the teaching of 
writing is placed within an institution. And the placement of writing affects the 
status and philosophy of writing instruction. Secondly, the answer to the question 
affects where responsibility for the teaching of writing lies, and the issue of 
responsibility affects pedagogical practices and the 'ownership' of writing as an 
aspect of the curriculum (14.11.93). 
Three years of interviewing and researching later, such logic appears politically 
naive. Academic communities, it seems, rarely make such careful, collective 
decisions about expertise and responsibilities about the teaching of writing. The 
question of where writing is taught may be determined as much by personality, a 
chance appointment, a discussion in a staff room, or a desire to attract enrolment. 
Only after an initiative has been set up maya discussion about the placing of 
writing or authority over 'good writing' emerge. The setting up of a Writing 
Centre may goad an English department into producing a writing paper; a generic 
paper introduced by an English department may lead subject specialists in a 
technical field to question whether such a paper is suitable for their students and 
whether members of an English department have the skills to teach their students 
technical writing. Discussion may seldom emerge between different providers of 
writing instruction within an institution, but a certain jockeying for position and 
defining of territory may substitute for debate. 
34 
And, indeed, while dissatisfaction with students' writing skills is not new, 
political or verbal debate about whether the universities should be teaching 
writing is, in New Zealand, a new phenomenon. Until recently, the teaching of 
riting was an unacknowledged aspect of the curriculum of New Zealand 
tertiary institutions. No-one asked the question "where should the teaching of 
writing be placed in New Zealand universities?" because almost no-one was 
asking the question "should writing be taught in New Zealand universities?" But, 
with relaxed entry conditions, and economic and social changes altering the 
composition of the student population, the issue of student writing is becoming 
acknow ledged. 
While chapter two looked at the most immediate context surrounding the 
projects, this chapter looks at a much broader context - the history of the 
teaching of writing in New Zealand universities. As part of the planning and 
reconnaissance stage of the projects, we were curious to know how writing was 
bing taught in other universities in the country and whether there were lessons 
to be learnt and resources to be gathered by comparing notes on practice. We 
t ere fore made informal contact, by telephone or letter, with people we thought 
could help us and later expanded these inquiries with a formal survey. The 
purpose of this chapter, then, is to provide a description of writing programmes 
available in New Zealand universities, at the time that our writing projects at 
Massey University were being undertaken, to provide a context for the research 
d scribed in this thesis. A relatively full account and discussion is given here, 
with the object of providing a rich picture of relevant aspects of New Zealand 
tertiary education. Since there has been no professional association or journal 
relating to tertiary writing in New Zealand, little has been written on the topic. 
This section rests, therefore, on primary data. 
The data for this chapter were collected in two ways: through a survey of 
universities and through semi-structured interviews with people working in the 
fie ld. Documents relating to the development of writing programmes were also 
collected to give depth to the picture of writing instruction in New Zealand 
universities in 1995-6. The data collection took place over a year, with the survey 
being collected at the end of 1995 and the interviews being conducted over the 
following year. 
This material is presented in four sections. 
• The first section presents data from the questionnaire to give an overall 
picture of writing instruction in New Zealand universities. 
• The second section draws a 'picture' of the development of writing 
instruction in each New Zealand university, based on interviews and 
associated documents; this section includes a more in-depth view of the 
teaching of writing at Massey University. 
35 
• The third section provides a summary of the major themes that arise from the 
descriptive sections of this chapter. 
• Finally, the fourth section describes the emergence of a professional 
organisation for tertiary writing teachers. 
3.1 Overview 
Initial data were produced through a questionnaire that was sent to one person 
engaged in teaching writing at each New Zealand university. My first intention 
had been to use a questionnaire based on the model provided by Susan McLeod 
(pers. comm., 1995). However, this proved not to be applicable to a New Zealand 
context - largely because it used terminology which would not be familiar to 
New Zealand tertiary teachers (such as upper division courses, writing intensive 
courses and so on). In the end, I decided that the language in McLeod's survey 
was so opaque in this context that it could not even be adapted. However, I did 
retain the five basic structures and so the questionnaire was divided into five 
parts, based on the most common forms of writing instruction in North American 
tertiary institutions. Part 1 was for all respondents and provided basic data about 
the institution and a broad picture of what writing programmes were available 
and/or compulsory for all students. Part 2 focused on generic writing papers. Part 
3 was for respondents whose institutions offered subject specific writing papers. 
Part 4 identified the number of institutions offering centralised Writing Centre 
36 
support or writing support within a centralised learning skills unit. Finally, Part 5 
focused on writing across the curriculum programmes (a copy of the 
questionnaire and a list of respondents are provided in Appendices 1 and 2). 
Respondents were asked to fill in all sections applicable to their institutions. 
Questionnaires were sent out in November 1995. The response rate was 100%. 
The first part of the questionnaire asked for background information that would 
allow the results of the research to be placed in context. 
Table 3.1 Occurrence of North American-style writing programmes I in New 
Zealand universities. 
University Generic Subject Writing Learning WAC 
writing specific Centre Skills Unit programme 
paper paper 
Auckland ,/ 
Waikato ,/ ,/ 
Massey ,/ 2 ,/ 2 
Victoria ,/ ,/ 
Canterbury ,/ 
Lincoln ,/ 
Otago 
1 McLeod, pers. comm., 1995 
2 Massey University offers two papers 
None of the universities required all students to complete a writing programme. 
Clearly, no tradition equivalent to freshman composition existed in New Zealand 
universities (see chapter four for definitions and discussion), and the relative 
newness of the non-compulsory generic writing papers showed that even these 
papers were a recent initiative on New Zealand campuses. 
37 
Five New Zealand universities offered at least one 'generic' writing paper for 
credit in 1995. Most commonly, these papers were taught through the English 
Department (Auckland, Massey, Otago), the exceptions being Waikato, where 
the paper was taught through the School of Education (although it originated in 
the English Department) and Victoria, where the paper was taught through the 
English Language Institute (ELI). Generally, these papers were recent curriculum 
developments; the longest established had been running for 16 years, but most 
had been established for seven years or less. The applied sciences were most 
likely to make such a paper compulsory for majoring students. At Otago, 
Waikato and Victoria, a writing paper was compulsory for Health Sciences, 
while at Massey, veterinary nurses, information systems and, until 1994, 
horticulture students were required to pass a generic writing paper. 
At only two New Zealand universities were subject-specific writing papers being 
taught, according to the survey. The Commerce and Business Studies Faculties 
at, respectively, Waikato and Massey each had a management or business 
communication paper that was compulsory for students majoring in these 
subjects. Massey University's Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences 
also offered a Communication in Applied Sciences paper which was compulsory 
for all students in the faculty (initiated in 1994, see chapter six). These subject 
specific writing papers were taught primarily by academic staff, with some 
contract positions in the business communications paper at Massey. 
All New Zealand universities except Otago offered writing assistance of some 
form to some groups of students. Five institutions (Auckland, Waikato, Victoria, 
Canterbury and Lincoln) used centralised Student Learning units to provide 
writing support to all students, whereas at Massey writing support was not a 
central function but instead was provided to Business Studies students through 
the Business Studies Writing Centre. 
Services available through these units are as follows: 
38 
Table 3.2 Writing support services offered by learning support/student learning 
units in New Zealand universities. 
University One-on- Short Distance Written Lectures SLD 
one clinic work education resources in credit diagnosis 
shops service papers 
Auckland ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 
Waikato ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 
Masseyl 
./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 
Victoria ./ ./ ./ ./ 
Canterbury ./ ./ 
Lincoln ./ ./ 
Otago 
I Only available in the Faculty of Business Studies 
At all universities, except Massey and Otago, one-on-one writing assistance, 
short courses on writing and lectures within content courses on writing-related 
issues were available to all students. 
Most of the units offering writing support services were recent initiatives. The 
earliest unit (Auckland) was established in 1985. All units were funded by 
central administration, although some units (e.g. Auckland and Lincoln) had a 
limited cost recovery factor. All units were staffed by a mixture of full time and 
part time staff, all of whom had higher degrees. Canterbury had the smallest unit 
with only one full time staff member and one part time tutor employed on a 
limited contract. None of the learning support units in New Zealand used peer 
tutors as part of their writing support programme (although Lincoln and 
Auckland used peer tutors as a part of other services). 
No university-wide writing across the curriculum programme was identified by 
the survey. Similarly, no university-wide Writing Centre, operating according to 
the model of Writing Centres in many universities in the United States, was 
identified through the survey. 
39 
The following sections of this chapter provide more detail on writing instruction 
at each New Zealand university during the 1995-6 period. ESOL programmes 
and subject specific communication papers (e.g. Business Communication 
papers) are not included in the discussion, since they are beyond the scope of this 
study and did not seem pertinent to the projects to be undertaken at Massey. A 
list of interviewees is provided in Appendix 3. It should be noted that interview 
sheets differed for each interviewee (depending on context and information 
already provided) and that the interviewer did not stick rigidly to the questions 
but used them as a catalyst for more free ranging discussion. 
3.2 Auckland University 
Auckland University offered writing instruction to its students through two 
modes. First, its Student Learning Centre, the largest support unit in the country, 
offered a range of support services and programmes. Second, a credit course on 
writing for academic purposes was offered to students in all disciplines at the 
University's Tamaki campus. 
3.2.1 Student Learning Centre 
The Student Learning Centre emerged out of the Counselling service in the mid-
1980s. The initiative to provide some students with learning assistance came 
from the then assistant director of counselling, David Simpson, who used 
volunteer staff taken from a postgraduate psychology class to provide learning 
support for particular students in need. These three volunteer students became 
part time paid tutors and formed the nucleus of the new Student Learning Centre 
when it separated from Counselling in the late 1980s, funded by a combination of 
student registration fees, equity funds and central University funding. 
By 1996 the centre had grown considerably to become the largest learning centre 
in a New Zealand university. Emmanuel Manalo, one of the original volunteers 
40 
to staff the emerging centre, was then its Director. Despite the loss of equity 
funding, the Centre was securely funded and an established part of the campus. 
Services related to writing skills offered by the Centre were as follows: 
• one-on-one assistance on writing and study skills 
• drop-in service 
• skills development workshops 
• targeted courses for specified student groups (e.g. the Puawaitanga course for 
students who have failed more than half their papers the previous semester 
and courses for students with special admission status) 
• Te Puni Wananga 
• Fale Pasifika 
• faculty focused orientation programmes 
• workshops within credit papers 
• preparation of resources 
The writing support aspect of the Centre took upwards of 50% of the Centre's 
resources, according to the Director, both in terms of courses offered and in the 
focus of one-on-one assistance. 
It's a very large proportion of the work that we do .... Writing is the big thing, and 
even ... with other students that we see, like postgraduate students, or the special 
group that we see about exams, writing is a very large component of it (E. 
Manalo, 23.10.96). 
All staff except one (a maths specialist) were involved in the writing aspect of 
the programme. Since the arrival of the present director, staff, on the whole, 
operated as generalists, working on writing and learning skills with students from 
across the entire institution. Almost all had a postgraduate qualification in 
Psychology, Education or English and were employed as tutors or senior tutors. 
Staff were under no obligation, on a tutor' s contract, to conduct research 
programmes; nevertheless, several were engaged in research in the centre, and 
there was an opportunity for tutors to move onto the lecturer scale if they could 
prove that they had conducted sufficient research. 
41 
The Centre straddled both remedial and developmental roles, but with an 
emphasis on developmental programmes. Of particular concern to the Centre at 
this time was the increasing number of ESOL students using the services. Unlike 
the Canterbury Writing and Study programme, the Centre did not turn away 
these students, but tried to distinguish between remedial language support, which 
is more appropriately provided in the English Language Centre, and tertiary-level 
writing support, which the Student Learning Centre would provide. The Centre 
did not provide a proof reading service, and emphasised this in the way it 
approached one-on-one sessions with ESOL students. 
The Centre had professional links with counselling, liaison services, student 
services and academic departments. Centre staff lectured within credit papers at 
the invitation of subject teachers, and the Director saw this link with departments 
as being part of the future direction of the Centre. Other developments he 
envisaged included creating a higher research profile and providing more 
transition courses, possibly at a credit-carrying level. 
3.2.2 English Writing for Academic purposes 
The other initiative at Auckland University relating to writing was the credit 
paper, Writing for Academic Purposes, taught at the Tamaki campus. The paper 
was taught under the auspices of the English Department and emerged not out of 
a concern or dissatisfaction with student writing skills, but out of a need on the 
part of the department to offer a paper which would increase enrolments at the 
new campus, be attractive to a wide range of students, and distinguish the 
offerings of this particular campus from those of the main campus. 
Taught by two full time academic staff, the paper was lecture based and focused 
on structure and process rather than sentence level writing skills. The paper 
coordinator stressed the academic nature of the content: that it was not remedial 
but a developmental programme for fluent English speakers. The paper began 
with 12 lectures on basic academic writing: "paragraphing, the writing process, 
generating ideas, thesis statements, outlines, organising text in terms of 
42 
introductions, ... proof reading, revising, basic research skills and how to use the 
library effectively, ... plagiarism, and how to avoid it, how to use citations ... and 
the variety of different referencing styles" (D. Starks, 21.10.96). Lectures were 
also given on abstract writing, using tables and graphs, and examination writing. 
The second part of the paper looked at different aspects of academic writing and 
specialist writing such as reports, summaries and literature reviews, narratives 
and critiques. Tutorials followed the structure of the lectures, giving students 
practice at writing different forms. 
The class was small in comparison to other generic writing papers taught at other 
universities in the country. In 1996 it comprised 80 students, allowing the 
lecturer to conduct research with the group, constantly eliciting feedback and 
assessment which enabled her to adjust the content and pedagogy. The paper 
coordinator also worked closely with academic staff to clarify the writing tasks 
students were likely to confront in all disciplines. Student evaluations were 
generally positive with 100% of students in one year agreeing that they were able 
to write faster and more effectively as a result of taking the paper (D. Starks, 
21.10.96). 
The paper coordinator identified the key strengths of the paper as follows: 
I'm working on it being academic, and I'm trying to give it a different focus, so 
that it's not just something that would be useful in how to improve your writing . 
.. .1 think the small numbers are useful in terms of getting the curriculum right and 
having consistency in staff, so that I can in fact test out the curriculum. I've been 
doing a lot of surveys and questionnaires with the students ... on a very consistent 
basis. I'm using .. . the course sheets, on what they think about the assignments ... so 
that it provides me with as much information as they possibly can, in terms of 
quality (D. Starks, 2l.l0.96). 
3.2.3 Other initiatives 
In September 1995 a Sub-Committee of Deans Committee at Auckland 
University submitted a report to Deans on English Language and Entrance. The 
report focused largely on the needs of ESOL students, but also the skills and 
needs of students with English as a First Language as well. The committee also 
focused on the changing educational climate and its effect on student literacy, 
43 
registering concern about the decline in the proportion of Bursary examinees 
sitting English or related subjects, e.g. history or geography or languages 
(English Language and Entrance, September 1995, p.lO). The report questioned 
whether the New Zealand Qualifications Authority's (NZQA) requirements for 
University Entrance could ensure that students entering the university would 
have sufficiently sophisticated writing skills to succeed in tertiary studies. 
The recommendations of the committee were conservative, reflecting a concern 
about perceived falling standards. Recommendations relating to native speakers 
were that all students planning to study at Auckland University in any faculty be 
strongly advised to continue English to the seventh form or its equivalent; that 
the University support a list of academic subjects as a foundation of entrance to 
university; that the University reject the NZQA proposal to satisfy English 
language competence requirements9 for entrance to university; that the University 
provide appropriate resources to mount both credit and non credit papers for 
students who need this support to realise their academic potential; that the 
Department of English extend its writing related papers to make them more fully 
available to meet the needs of students in all faculties; and that all departments be 
encouraged to use expository English as a form of assessment (English Language 
and Entrance, Sept 1995, pp.3-6). 
The report has been extensively criticised. Amongst the critics, Professor Carr of 
Waikato University pointed out that it ignored recent developments in New 
Zealand schools. In particular he pointed to the New Zealand Curriculum 
Framework, which takes a writing across the curriculum approach to language, 
embedding language and communication into subject areas (M. Carr, pers. 
comm. 19.12.95). The report might also be criticised for its lack of theoretical 
9 The report states: " However, the sub-committee rejects entirely what it currently understands to 
be an NZQA proposal to satisfy English language competence requirements by allowing 20 
credits in Communication Skills at Level 2 of the Framework. At present, it seems possible to 
accumulate 20 Communication Skills credits (such as 'Be assertive in a range of specified 
situations', [6 credits] or 'Present ideas and information orally to a specified audience in the 
workplace' [8 points] without doing any units at all in reading and writing. None of the 
Communication Skills units so far seen by the sub-committee relate, other than very marginally, 
to the kinds of English language competence needed for success in university studies" (p.12). 
44 
understanding of discipline-specific discourse and the connection between 
language and learning. 
3.3 Waikato University 
In 1995-6, Waikato, like Auckland, offered two solutions to students wishing to 
improve their writing skills: The Writing for University Purposes paper, taught 
from the School of Education, and the specialist support of the Teaching and 
Learning Development Unit (TLDU). 
3.3.1 Writing for University Purposes 
The writing paper, Writing for University purposes, emerged out of the TLDU 
and the one-on-one work offered there. It was the idea of Rosemary de Luca, 
who has remained paper coordinator since its inception in the late 1980s. She 
described the paper as a very personal one: 
It evolved because .. .! had spent several years working as a study skills advisor and 
I observed the very great needs of the students and it seemed to me a very sensible 
thing to try to put together a course and to convince the University that such a 
course would be useful. .. .It was a matter of convincing the University that it was 
of sufficient academic relevance, so it could actually become a full credit course . 
. . .It then became a part of the English Department...and I went with it (R. de 
Luca, 19.11.96). 
Although initially the paper was domiciled in the English Department, debates 
relating to the question 'What is English?' led to that department redefining or 
reaffirming its focus on literature. The paper then moved from English to the 
Language Institute, and from there to the Department of Arts and Language 
Education in the School of Education where it resided during the period under 
investigation. 
In 1996 the paper had more than 500 enrolments including students from all 
subject areas on the campus. It was run twice during the year, once in each 
semester, and enrolments were traditionally highest in the autumn semester. 
Although not compulsory for any groups of students, it met the English 
requirements for medical intermediate students. The paper description included 
in its 'target group' ESOL students who were proficient in English (Rosemary 
defined proficient in this context as meaning students with an IEL TS of at least 
45 
Teaching was carried out by one tenured academic staff member and a team of 
tutors, most of whom had a background in humanities, generally English 
literature or language. Apart from one initial lecture, three-hour workshops were 
the primary medium of instruction. Workshops ranged in size from 15 to 30 
students. Assessment took the form of three major writing assignments (a book 
review, a report and an essay) and a final examination. Students spent 
approximately 30% of workshop time writing, and 10% of the final grade was 
allocated to workshop participation. 
The paper description was as follows: 
This is a practical course. It introduces writing from personal experience as a basis 
for analysis, then progresses to critical thinking; analysis for review; collection, 
interpretation and synthesis of information; reporting objectively; argumentation 
and persuasion; expository writing. The course emphasises conventions of writing 
which are appropriate in a formal context such as the University or the workplace. 
Writing is taught as a process so that students are encouraged to produce several 
drafts. Emphasis is given to flexib ility of style to suit the writer's purpose, the 
reader and the situation. 
The paper focused on the writing process from generating ideas to revision. 
Sentence level instruction was included in the context of the students' own work 
and process. 
In contrast to the coordinators of other writing papers (Donna Starks at 
Auckland, for example, or Robert Neale at Massey), Rosemary de Luca focused 
her material to produce a service paper with a practical function. In a discussion 
about the positioning of the paper, she agreed that it was often seen as 'marginal' 
to the primary business of her school. Yet the paper was popular, clearly 
fulfilling its function, with positive evaluations and growing student numbers. 
46 
3.3.2 The TLDU 
Learning development (as it is called at Waikato) began in a very informal way. 
As Varvara Richards, the present head of the service, described it, 
It's very difficult in our case to put a finger on it and say this was the beginning of 
learning assistance at the University ... .Jim Grey, in Registry, had an interest in it 
and did a little bit informally. A couple of faculty wives ... did some work, and part 
of this was through the centre for continuing education, and part was in 
conjunction with the counselling services. But I think a lot of what [they] did was 
unpaid (V. Richards, 13.5.96) 
Gradually the services were formalised and after a review in 1990 of learning 
support across the campus and an extensive period of consultation with academic 
staff in 1991, learning development was established as an academic unit in 
conjunction with teaching development (the TLDU), funded as an independent 
unit direct from the Vice Chancellor. The union of teaching development and 
learning development appeared to be a successful one, allowing staff from the 
unit to take a very proactive approach to supporting student learning. 
Staff in the unit were initially designated as academic staff, but became excluded 
from the collective contract at the end of 1995 on the grounds that they were 
tutors. In the middle of 1996, most of the staff underwent reclassification as 
lecturers in tertiary teaching and learning, signifying a shift in status and 
recognition for the unit. 
Programmes relating to writing included: 
• orientation programme 
• one on one support 
• writing workshops, sometimes in response to requests from students or staff 
• production of booklets and guides 
• research into all aspects of writing 
47 
3.3.3 Other initiatives 
In April 1993 a Working Party was set up to investigate student literacy skills, 
following an earlier investigation within the School of Humanities which showed 
that "all schools in the University were experiencing problems with students 
whose written language was not adequate for university study" (Report of the 
Working Party on Student "Literacy", April 1994, p.3). Terms of reference 
included: 
• to examine the current standards of written English at entrance level and other 
language skills of students upon entry 
• to consider whether minimum standards of written language competency 
should be prescribed for enrolment in all subjects in the University 
• to examine the range of support measures available to students and staff to 
help improve the standard of written language 
• to provide guidelines which will address the needs of students and academic 
and support-services staff to implement and develop relevant skills (Report of 
the Working Party on Student "Literacy", April 1994, p.7) 
While conceding that more research was needed on student skills to address its 
first term of reference, the Working Party made a clear statement rejecting 
student testing at entry. Rather, responsibility for teaching 'higher' literacy was 
seen as the responsibility of the University. Further recommendations were 
largely reinforcement and extension of present strategies, and read more as a 
policy document than as an operational plan. Exact and specific responsibilities 
were not entirely clear. Nevertheless, positive action resulted; for example, the 
TLDU by 1996 was running a substantial orientation programme for in-coming 
students. 
The document is particularly interesting for its attention to and positive 
comments on the New Zealand Curriculum Framework, which emphasises 
literacy and communication as essential learning areas and skills, and embeds 
literacy in programmes across the curriculum including science, mathematics and 
technology. The Working Party comments: 
We are not naive enough to assume that documents will change the way our world 
works, but we should be aware that many teachers are enthusiastic about the 
curriculum developments outlined above, and that this will have a gradual effect 
48 
on the literacy skills of students in the tertiary sector (Report of the Working Party 
on Student "Literacy", April 1994, p.17). 
3.4 Victoria University 
Victoria University offered papers on writing through the English Language 
Institute (ELI) and writing support through its student learning support services. 
3.4.1 Student Learning Support 
Student Learning support emerged out of the counselling service, becoming an 
independent unit in student services in the mid-1990s. Originally funded, like so 
many learning support services in other places, through contestable equity 
funding, the service by 1994 was supported through the student services levy_ 
All staff were classified as general rather than academic staff and employed on a 
part time basis. The coordinator's position was full time but job shared. In 1996 
there were several part time tutors, working in the areas of maths, ESOL, and 
writing and study skills support. 
Writing support services at this time consisted primarily of one-on-one support 
and open workshops on topics such as essay writing, sentence structure, 
referencing and paragraphing; these workshops were largely generic rather than 
subject specific. 
Major questions for the service during this period were how to support ESOL 
students more effectively and appropriately and whether learning services should 
be faculty based or centralised. The coordinators were keen to see a move 
towards faculty based support, but felt that available resources and time limited 
specialised support for particular groups. 
The service was supported by the Director of Student Services, but cutbacks at 
the time were seen by the director of the writing programmes as a potential threat 
to the continuity of a centralised service. 
49 
3.4.2 English Language Institute 
Janet Holst, who designed and originally taught the generic writing paper 39.107 
at Massey (see p.59), moved to Victoria in 1990 to set up and teach a similar 
paper. Originally proposed as ajoint venture between the English Department 
and the English Language Institute, WRIT 101 was domiciled in the ELI. It had a 
similar focus to 39.107, but to meet the requirements that the paper be single­
semester, the workload was compressed into four assessed writing pieces, with 
the same thrust of narrative, expository, argument and research piece (J. Holst, 
21.5.96). Peer editing remained an aspect of the pedagogy. The paper was taught 
through three hours tutorial/workshop contact per week, most tutors being part 
time casual staff. In spite of the fact that a credit-bearing paper for ESOL 
students was available, some second language speakers did enrol in the paper. 
3.4.3 Other initiatives 
Initiatives to address writing issues began much earlier at Victoria than the two 
approaches now in place would suggest. A professorial board resolution in the 
mid 1970s expressed a need to address student writing skills, as did the 1977 
Arts Faculty triennial plan. In the early to mid 1980s the Fulbright Programme 
funded three scholars from the United States to visit New Zealand - Richard 
Adler, Richard Young and, later, Ruie Pritchard. Their brief was wide ranging, 
and Adler and Young travelled the country doing course work, demonstrations, 
and seminars, as well as consultancy for the Ministry of Education. These 
visitors affected writing initiatives at universities other than Victoria, as the 
description below of the writing programmes at Massey demonstrates. Young 
and Pritchard also became involved with setting up a National Writing Project 
for primary and secondary education, which was supported by the then Minister 
of Education, Russell Marshall, but eventually abandoned due to loss of funding 
and the reform of the Ministry. 
Young's visit also facilitated the formation of an inter-faculty writing committee 
to discuss the implications of his work for Victoria. Brian Opie, who had 
initiated the Fulbright application, following personal involvement with the Bay 
Area Writing Project, described the focus of the committee as being to create a 
50 
climate of change, to promote discussion about writing across the disciplines, 
and to formulate a plan to bring about a broad university approach to the teaching 
of writing. Eventually the committee produced a series of key recommendations, 
which I list here, as they represent the only attempt to introduce a writing across 
the curriculum initiative prior to the projects which form the subject of this 
thesis: 
Recommendation 1. That the University endorse the concept of "Writing across 
the Curriculum" as the basis of a campus wide, long term attempt to improve the 
quality of student learning. 
• 
Recommendation 2. That the University establish a Centre for the development of 
a "Writing across the Curriculum" programme for this campus. It shall be named 
"The Victoria University of Wellington Centre for Writing" and shall be 
administered by a supervisory board composed of one representative of each 
Faculty and a Director. Its principal functions shall be: 
1. The training of staff in the use of writing for teaching and learning. 
2. Research into the field of writing development and its implications in New 
Zealand, and monitoring elsewhere. 
3. Evaluation of and consultation with faculty about programmes, courses and 
methods. 
4. Investigating the relation between the modes of writing common in work after 
graduation, and the modes of writing used on campus . 
5. Participation in a National Writing Project if such project should be 
established (Final Report of the Interfaculty Committee on Writing Skills, 
Victoria University, 1987, p. l ). 
The particular significance of these recommendations is their emphasis on, not 
remediation, but the links between writing and learning. Drawing on the Bay 
Area Writing Project and international sources such as Elaine Maimon and Tony 
Fulwiler, the report is process and discipline focused. 
These recommendations were accepted by the University Council, but were 
never implemented - in the words of Brian Opie, "the document just vanished 
off the map" (17.6.96). 
3.5 Canterbury University 
A 1993 meeting of English Departments from New Zealand Universities 
addressed the issue of teaching writing and the problem of 'remedial writing'. 
The contribution of the Canterbury English Department included a discussion 
document written by Carol Acheson. The document discussed the question of 
whether universities should be involved in remedial teaching. Its basic answer 
was no, because: 
[a] university should not be expected to provide high school level teaching 
[and] to provide such teaching requires that the University expend more of its 
shrinking resources on the least capable students, many of whom are enrolled 
merely as an alternative to unemployment (C. Acheson, 1993, p.l). 
Acheson went on to discuss, however, the need for bridging assistance to help 
students through the transition between school and university and described the 
piecemeal attempts of individual lecturers to deal with this problem. 
51 
The Writing and Study skills programme was set up to address this remedial or 
bridging issue. In 1981 the English Department employed a part time tutor to 
work with 23 students who were experiencing problems with writing. By 1990 
the service had expanded, with 275 students referred to the service from a variety 
of departments. In 1991, a half time lecturer's position was established through 
contestable equity funding to extend the service and to position the service as a 
university-wide initiative, and the following year this funding was extended to 
establish the position on a full time basis. In 1993, with the demise of contestable 
equity funding, the Writing and Study Skills programme became a full time 
university-funded position, domiciled in the English Department but with a brief 
to service the entire campus. 
In 1996, the situation had not changed substantially. With one full time staff 
member and a part time assistant working in the Writing and Study Skills 
Programme, Canterbury University had the smallest number of staff working in 
the field of writing support or writing tuition of all New Zealand universities. 
The English Department had no generic or subject focused writing programme 
and had, historically, been strongly opposed to such an initiative. 
Writing programmes were generated through the Writing and Study skills 
programme as follows: 
52 
• lecture courses on tertiary writing 
• one-on-one support service 
• bridging courses (some of which target mature students) 
• lectures within academic courses (e.g. Law) at stage 1 and honours level 
Services were available to students across the whole campus at all levels, from 
pre-entry to PhD level, and students paid $20 to enrol. The service did not cater 
for ESOL students or for students with specific learning disabilities since these 
students were assisted elsewhere on campus. 
The 1993 document prepared by Acheson concluded as follows: 
Because the Writing and Study Skills Programme has developed under the 
auspices of the English Department, it has taken an essentially academic approach 
to the problems ... and has worked closely with faculty to assist individual 
departments. Compared with the expensive and elaborate composition courses or 
Student Learning Centres provided by most universities in New Zealand, 
Australia and North America, Canterbury'S Writing and Study Skills Programme 
offers an effective and economical response to the growing demand for 'remedial 
teaching' (c. Acheson, 1993, p.3). 
The effectiveness of the service had not been measured, but that it was 
economical could not be questioned. The only funding for the service was for 
salaries; there was no budget for support services, either in the form of secretarial 
support or for basic operational items such as photocopying, telephone, and 
equipment. 
The tutor's position was highly autonomous. She had complete control over her 
own programme, but within the limits of having no support funding. 
Disadvantages arose from her autonomy: while it gave her independence, she had 
no one to report to, no one to appraise her working conditions or to recognise her 
achievements. Employed on a one year rolling contract, she had no sense of job 
security and without this she was unlikely to push for more support. 
While there had, at times, been university-wide discussion of the possibility of 
providing more learning support for students, such an initiative was not, at this 
time, seen as in keeping with Canterbury'S vision of itself as an elite university. 
53 
There was, as elsewhere, a reluctance to channel resources into such a service at 
a time when university funding was ever tightening. It seemed likely, therefore, 
that little change in the level of writing support or writing teaching would occur 
in the immediate future. 
3.6 Lincoln University 
Writing support was offered to students (both first and second language 
speakers) at Lincoln through the Student Learning Centre. Set up in 1993, the 
unit in 1996 was staffed by three part time general staff members: 0.1 for maths 
support, 0.7 for the coordinator and study skills position, and 0.5 for academic 
writing and language support. Originally part of Student Services, at the end of 
1996 the Centre's structure and affiliations were under scrutiny, with a 
possibility of being linked in with the education centre, library and computer 
training. 
Services offered by the writing component of the Centre included: 
• one on one support 
• workshop programmes generated by the Centre 
• workshops!lectures initiated by academic staff 
• a limited array of computer assisted learning packages 
• setting up study groups 
• peer tutoring in subject areas 
The Centre was originally set up with equity funding to have a clear remedial 
function, in response to the needs of the high number of ESOL students. 
However, its staff took a developmental approach to their work, citing the 
Centre's work with postgraduates as an example. Research was not part of staff 
contracts, and, as one staff member stressed, with part time contracts and heavy 
demand from students, it was hard for staff to find the time (or the hard 
heartedness!) to pursue research activities. 
54 
Funding came partially from the student services budget and partially from self­
funding: students were charged $15 to join the service. 
The security and future of the unit at this time were unclear. The staff member I 
interviewed, Caitriona Cameron, was confident that the need for it had been 
clearly established, but she doubted that the developmental functions of the 
service were recognised and felt that there would always be uncertainty with the 
present shaky university budget. 
Assuming the continuity of the Centre, future directions for writing support on 
the Lincoln campus were unclear in 1996. It is difficult for staff on part time 
contracts to enter fully into the life of the academic community, but the academic 
writing and language tutor hoped to create more integrated programmes with 
academic staff. 
3.7 Otago University 
Otago University offered a first year communications paper, Eng.124: Language, 
Style and Communication, taught through the English Department and jointly 
funded by the English Department and the Health Sciences Division. The paper 
was described in the Calendar thus: 
This paper is designed to teach students to analyse and produce effective speaking 
and writing in a variety of communicative situations. In the first part of this 
course, students are introduced to the basics of effective writing for academic and 
professional purposes . The first unit of the paper focuses on prose style. After 
reviewing issues of style, students learn to create and criticise explanatory 
speeches and to write effective essays. In the final part of the paper, we consider a 
wider range of communicative situations and examine communicative 
effectiveness in interpersonal settings. Here we will consider the differences in 
informal settings, professional settings, and cross-cultural settings as they imply 
differences in language choices. This expanded view will concentrate on the 
social messages associated with language choices and will include discussion of 
indirectness in language use, politeness conventions in language, and the art of 
listening (English at Otago: Courses available in 1997, Department of English, 
Otago University, p.l 0). 
55 
Eng. 124 differed markedly in focus from other generic papers, largely because of 
its origins and client group. It emerged not from concern about student grammar, 
or the desire to increase student numbers, but from the fallout of the Cartwright 
Repolt, which was written in the wake of a major medical ethics scandal that 
erupted in the late 1980s. A group of Otago University trained doctors were 
implicated in the failure to inform women of the risks of certain forms of 
treatment they were given as part of a medical research programme. Concerned 
that their graduates lacked communication skills, the Health Services Division at 
Otago negotiated the creation of this paper with the English Department. Thus, 
Eng 124 was predominantly a compulsory requirement for intermediary health 
science students, although the class broadened over time and other groups of 
students, from Commerce or English for example, came to make up part of the 
client base. 
In 1996 the paper had an enrolment of over 700 students. The paper was taught 
by one full time lecturer, four writing fellows (full time positions with a salary 
level two thirds that of a full time tutor), and casual tutors. The writing fellows 
taught six workshops per week, and were rostered to staff the 'duty desk' which 
was open five days a week. The class was taught through one lecture and one 
tutorial per week. Fifty-one tutorials operated in 1996, with tutorial size ranging 
from fifteen to twenty five students. 
The largest client group for this paper was highly specialised and presented 
particular problems to the teachers. The intermediate health science year was 
highly competitive, with places at Medical School being allocated to students on 
a final grades basis. Many of the students were highly intelligent, but their focus 
was primarily on grades. Such a profile, compounded by the fact that the students 
were likely to have been science specialists from senior high school, made paper 
design and assessment problematic. Assessment procedures had to be rigorously 
standardised and course material designed for the specialist student. 70% of the 
paper was assessed internally and 30% by final examination. 
56 
The paper was broken down into three sections: style, speaking and critical 
reading (or rhetorical analysis). Grammatical knowledge, induding parts of 
speech, was being built into the paper structure. 
3.8 Massey University 
Massey is the immediate context of the research detailed in this study. It was a 
front runner in New Zealand universities in identifying the market for writing 
papers and in providing some early writing support for one group of students. In 
the late 1970s one faculty began to address the place of writing in its curriculum, 
and the English Department also made a shift from its focus on literature to 
develop an unusual paper on writing. 
3.8.1 Writing: Theory and Practice 
The first paper on writing at Massey University (and, indeed, in New Zealand) 
was the brainchild of the then Head of the English Department, Professor Roly 
Frean. Far from being seen as a 'service' paper on academic writing, the paper 
emerged out of its creator's fascination with the relationship between philosophy 
and language or writing. 
Such a paper was a radical change of focus at a time when the function of an 
English department was to teach the canon of English Literature. This time was 
the beginning of a period (which is still continuing) during which English 
departments have debated and changed the focus of their teaching and research. 
From [Professor Frean ' s] point of view it was a philosophical study of writing. 
And he named it: Writing: Theory and Practice. The theory came first in every 
way . ... 1 think it was a marriage between philosophy and literature that generated 
the idea for this paper.. .looking back on it. It seems obvious now - the notion of 
looking at writing, the process, the phenomenon of writing as opposed to the 
routine literary critical motions that the department traditionally went through was 
new and startling . ... There was a lot ofresistance (R. Neale 21.12.94). 
But I think it's also part of a much wider debate which is what is English, which, 
as you know, has undergone such a revolution (J. Muirhead, 30.5.95). 
-~ --~ -------- --~ -~ 
57 
The paper had evolved over 16 years, and experienced a change of paper 
coordinator, but its focus remained constant and unique in the context of the 
papers on writing which have sprung up in New Zealand universities during this 
time. The paper coordinator described his approach: 
We start with language, there's a certain amount of basic language theory: how 
does language work? Then there's a narrowing in onto those qualities of language 
as encapsulated when it gets written, encapsulated into 'pretend/realistic' writing 
exercises that talk about broad issues: irony, mimesis, metaphor. I try always to 
bear in mind that writing does something (R. Neale, 21.12.94). 
His focus on the idea that writing does something, writing as transactional, 
underpinned the paper. RAFT (Role-Audience-Format-Topic) and peer editing 
were major pedagogical tools, introduced by Richard Adler during his Fulbright 
visit in 1985. Another Fulbright visitor who contributed to the pedagogy of the 
paper was Hank Harrington of Montana University. 
Such an approach should ideally have geared the paper for use across the 
campus, since, arguably, the transactional underpinning made it more generic in 
focus than those papers that hinge on essay writing as a focal genre. However, 
the paper also used literary texts (Alice through the Looking Glass, Huckleberry 
Finn and The Envoy from Mirror City) to illustrate language theory, and such 
texts were unlikely to recommend the paper to, for example, science students 
who were looking for a functional paper which would improve their writing 
skills. 
3.8.2 Applied English! Written Communication 
In 1996 the paper Written Communication was one of the biggest generic writing 
papers in New Zealand (only Otago's writing paper compared in size). It was 
taught on multiple campuses (at Palmerston North, at Albany, and conjointly 
with five polytechnics) and available to students through three distinct modes: 
internally, extramurally and by email (Ward and Rhodes, 1996). In 1996 total 
number of students completing the paper reached 605. 
The paper description read: 
58 
Written Communication (Applied English) 
This course aims to assist students to formulate and express ideas effectively. It 
focuses on the skills that students need at university and beyond to achieve 
competence in a variety of written tasks (Calendar prescription, 1997). 
The paper emerged some years after the inception of Writing Theory and 
Practice. John Muirhead, senior lecturer in the Department, listed the following 
influences: 
• several visiting lecturers to the University who taught writing in North 
America, including Richard Young and Hank Harrington 
• a strong indication from around the campus that student writing skills were 
poor 
• a feeling that 39.106 was not appropriate to the needs of students who wished 
to improve their writing skills in a pragmatic rather than 
theoretical/philosophicallliterary sense 
• a fear that other parts of campus, such as Business Studies, would take 
ownership of the teaching of writing 
• a reassessment of the nature of English departments, their curricula and their 
territory 
• concern about a falling student roll (J. Muirhead, 30.5.95). 
Wide discussion took place across the university to see if there was a demand for 
a paper on practical writing skills, including a questionnaire that drew a strong 
favourable response. One of the issues debated was whether such a paper should 
be credit bearing (an issue associated with whether this was remedial work or 
not). A decision was made to offer it on a credit basis, not on philosophical 
grounds but on the grounds that overloaded students would not otherwise take 
the paper. 
There was, from the beginning, high level support from the department for the 
paper: 
I don't remember any particular debate about whether the English Department 
should muddy its hands .... For the longest time it was generally understood that 
every academic member of staff... would contribute to the teaching of the 
------------~~--~ -~ 
59 
programme ... .It wasn't considered 'infra dig' and we were quite concerned to 
make sure that it did have a legitimate academic status. I think the concern was 
could we do it, would we take it on, and how would we train ourselves to do it (J. 
Muirhead, 30.5.95). 
Janet Holst, who was employed to design and lead the teaching of the paper, 
described with nostalgia the commitment of the department to produce a 
successful paper, and the pressure she felt as a consequence: 
I wanted this to be kind of state of the art ... .I wanted to read all the theory and I 
did. I read language across the curriculum and I read process and more genre 
theory .... It took me quite a while, looking for a structure. " .The thing that I did 
experience there was a huge amount of anxiety .... There was a lot of fear of 
teaching writing .... They set up writing workshops for the staff (J. Holst, 21.5.96). 
The paper finally focused on process, including spoken skills as well as written 
skills, and some effort was made to integrate the writing needs of different 
disciplines into its structure. Originally the paper was taught in one lecture and 
one tutorial/workshop per week. 
Over time, and with a change in paper coordinator, the paper smoothed out and 
became more orientated to essay writing and argumentation. The oral 
communication aspect was moved into a separate paper on Speech 
Communication. The lecture was dropped and the paper run on the basis of one 
two-hour tutorial/workshop per week over two semesters (except at Albany 
where it was compressed into a single semester with two two-hour 
tutorials/workshops per week). Casual tutors took over a large proportion of the 
teaching, due, primarily, to the rise in student numbers. 
The 1996 paper coordinator described the philosophy of the paper thus: 
I would hate to boil it down to one. There are at least two balls in here at the same 
time. One ball is simply very practical, hands on nitty-gritty stuff, all the way 
from where do you put your commas to ... what is a thesis, and what is one good 
for? That sort of thing. But the other one always, on the back of my mind at any 
rate, .. .is that writing is a creative process, even when it's not stories and poems . 
... And that what other academics would call real learning happens in this paper 
that most other academics think of as a surface paper. That when a student is 
forced to write about something, they actually learn about the topic they're 
writing on, in the writing process, in ways that they would not learn, in any other 
way .... Not only am I helping them learn to put their commas in the right 
60 
place ... but I am asking them ... to write about a thing in their field, in ways that 
they would not otherwise have done. And I think that makes a student grow (K. 
Rhodes, 20.5.95). 
The paper began with the writing process, focusing on historical and personal 
narrative and descriptive writing. From here it moved more strongly into 
argumentation, with several assignments orientated directly towards academic 
writing (specifically looking at essays) and research writing. Key pedagogical 
tools were peer editing and workshops that use writing extensively as a means of 
learning. 
The paper was designed for first language speakers, and a caution at the 
beginning of the course materials specified its intended audience or client. Its 
focus was generic: 
I think of it as teaching life skills in writing. That no matter what might be asked 
of a student in a ... desk job, or in any kind of job where they are writing to or for 
clients, that the kind of skills they would learn in this class would be of lifelong 
use ... . So, because of that, several people from what we call here 'the other side of 
campus', the science and practical side of the campus, many of them are requiring 
this paper of their students, because they see that benefit (K. Rhodes, 20.5.95). 
In 1995, the paper was conducted for a small number of students (10) via email. 
While the student still received the study material in hard copy, tutorials and 
discussion took place on an email list. The paper was generally evaluated 
positively by students. 
Plans were in place at the time of investigation to restructure the paper so that 
science and technology students could be separated from arts students and 
assignments focused on the genres and styles appropriate to their needs and 
disciplines. 
3.8.3 Business Studies Writing Centre 
The Business Studies Faculty Writing Centre emerged out of the Business 
Studies Faculty's concern with its students' literacy levels. The earliest attempt 
to address student writing abilities in the faculty occurred during the late 1970s 
--_ ... -------------
61 
when all students were required to pass a series of units on communication skills 
(known as the technical writing concepts module) as part of a first year 
management paper. Later this module became the foundation of the 
communication papers within the FaCUlty. 
In the early 1980s, however, a survey was undertaken (by a working party set up 
by the then Dean, George Hines, called the Information and Communication 
Group) to measure the level of students' writing skills and thus ascertain whether 
writing problems were symptomatic of students' limited skills or insufficient 
motivation. The results of the survey suggested that motivation was the problem. 
This result had consequences for the approach taken to improving student writing 
skills: 
Many people were saying, oh if only the high school would do their job, then we 
wouldn't have to put up with this. But this [the survey] sort of changed the focus a 
bit, and if people were competent when they arrived at university, or the bulk of 
them were anyway, then maybe there was something that we, the faculty, were 
doing or not doing, which was giving us what were perceived to be poor results. 
And so I think that did serve as an impetus to some people to look at the stress 
they themselves placed on literacy in their assignments. And I think some of us 
observed that there are quite a number of university papers ... or Business Studies 
papers, where they didn't have to do much actual writing .... So that, to my way of 
thinking, was one of the most important aspects in terms of the department, or the 
faculty's decision to establish this writing centre (F. Sligo, 14.5.96). 
The Writing Centre was set up as a part time position in 1985 by Shawna McIvor 
(a Canadian who had experienced Writing Centres in North America) and 
became a full time position in 1991. Originally the name was contentious; the 
Faculty had planned to call it The Writing Centre but when this was strongly 
opposed by the English Department, it became the Business Studies Writing 
Centre. 
The Centre was initially paid for out of departmental funds (with each 
department in the Faculty contributing a proportion of the tutor's salary). In 
1991, however, when the position became full time, responsibility for funding 
moved to the Dean's Office, and it retained this status. In 1994 another half time 
tutor's position was added to support the work of the full time staff member. The 
Writing Centre staff were employed on tutor contracts which, in 1996, were 
62 
defined by the Vice Chancellor as precluding research opportunities. Both staff 
members had graduate degrees in English Literature; one had a teaching 
qualification and extensive teaching experience. 
The client group for this Centre differed considerably from that serviced by other 
Student Learning Centres around the country. Services were free but available 
only to Business Studies students, although the Writing Centre staff occasionally 
provided workshops on other parts of the campus, if requested, since these 
services were not provided by any other body. While the University did at this 
time have a Learning Support Network, no campus-wide study or writing support 
was offered through the Network. The Centre was unique in offering a service to 
extramural (distance) students and this remained a significant part of the Centre's 
work. 
Services provided by the Writing Centre included: 
• one-on-one discussions 
• drop in service 
• extramural pre-reading service 
• Summer School and weekend workshops 
• workshops!lectures within credit papers (Palmerston North and Albany 
campuses) 
• maintenance of a library and resource room 
• preparation of resources 
• off campus workshops 
• learning disability support 
Staff saw the services as primarily developmental rather than remedial, although 
some remedial services were provided. For example, there being no other service 
to support students with specific learning disabilities, the Centre provided 
programmes for these students. The focus of the services was on supporting the 
development of tertiary writing skills, in particular the writing skills required in a 
business context or a tertiary business context. 
63 
In 1996 the Centre seemed secure, with the possibility of expanding. Plans were 
in progress to create an OWL (On-line Writing Lab) to meet the particular 
requirements of extramural students. Planning was also underway to include a 
maths tutor and a specialist ESOL tutor. ESOL students were a particular 
concern to the Centre, since, again, few support services were available, at this 
time, for them on campus. The only other source of support was the English 
Language Centre, which was a profit-making venture and provided only limited 
support services to students. The Centre was under pressure from ESOL students 
to provide extensive proof-reading and language services which would have 
monopolised staff time to such an extent that services would be inadequately 
available to first language speakers. 
Also under consideration was how to provide equitable support for business 
students across the multi-campus structure. In 1996 the service was based at the 
Palmers ton North campus, with some efforts made to provide workshops on 
other campuses. 
3.8.4 Other initiatives 
In November 1990 a Working Party on Student Literacy was established by 
Academic Committee as a response to a letter from a student counsellor 
expressing concerns about pressure on the counselling service to provide writing 
support. The terms of reference were: 
• to establish the incidence and scope of learning difficulties among students currently 
enrolled in the University, with particular reference to levels of literacy 
• to assess the adequacy of existing diagnostic and remedial services and programmes 
of tuition intended to ameliorate literacy problems among students 
• to assess the need for additional services and tuition in the field and to recommend 
how these needs may most effectively be met in the immediate and longer term 
(1991, p.l) 
Student needs were assessed through a survey of heads of departments, a small 
focused assessment of one group of students, a questionnaire-based assessment 
of student needs (using a small faculty based group), and a summary of the 
number of students actually using support facilities. The survey of HODs 
64 
suggested that around 20% of students were experiencing problems relating to 
literacy; the assessment of one small group suggested that the number was 
somewhat higher at 43%. The number of students attending the Business Studies 
Writing Centre in that year supported this higher figure: approximately 30% of 
students in the Business Studies Faculty had used some of the Centre's services 
in 1990. The student survey showed that between 79-82% of students would seek 
out courses on reading, writing and study skills. 
After listing the writing support services on campus, the report identified a series 
of problems: 
• literacy support services were uncoordinated 
• literacy support had a limited profile amongst students and staff 
• there was no procedure for identifying students with problems 
• literacy and learning support on campus did not have a research basis, which 
in tum affected funding structures 
• funding for most services was tenuous 
• most staff were employed on short term contracts, which hindered long term 
planning 
• there were few support services for extramural students 
• students with specific learning disabilities could not be supported because of 
staff overload 
• support for students often came too late 
In response to these problems, the report offered a three part model to address 
literacy on campus. The model comprised a centralised literacy consultancy, an 
extension of already existing credit papers, and a university policy on tertiary 
literacy "which would require all faculties to take responsibility for producing 
graduates with tertiary literacy skills" (Report on Student Literacy, 1991, p.9). 
Resourcing required was minimal, as only the consultancy required staffing and 
that needed only two new positions since other positions could be taken from 
existing services. 
--------------- -
65 
In 1994 a review of learning support services on campus was undertaken. The 
review was a lengthy process which involved surveying learning support services 
in New Zealand and elsewhere, and calling for submissions from academic staff, 
learning support staff, students, and any other interested parties. Its conclusions 
were that learning support at Massey University was under resourced and 
inadequately supported by university management. It recommended a centralised 
model of learning support with staff employed on full academic contracts; one 
writing consultant was included in this model. 
3.9 Key themes 
Several common themes emerged out of the interviews. A key pedagogical 
theme was the connection between writing and learning or writing and university 
culture. Most of the teachers of generic writing papers discussed the connection 
between teaching writing and teaching students to think in particular ways: 
There's this perception out there that...if people have problems with writing, 
they're largely mechanical, you don't know how to write a sentence, you don't 
know about punctuation, you don't know how to write a paragraph, and they seem 
to separate it from the idea of writing being a way to learn, the way you learn to 
think and rehearse (1. Holst, 21.5.96). 
In our case students saw our course as a hurdle, and one of the most important 
things we've had to say to them is, we're going to do things for you that will help 
you in the rest of your career at university ... you're going to be glad you took this 
course in a year. And I think a lot of them are, even if they're not so glad at the 
time (1. Dolan, 2.12.96). 
So what I wanted to do was basically have something that was academically 
oriented, not just a basic writing course, but something that would teach them 
versions of academia (D. Starks, 21.10.96). 
Donna Starks' comments connect with another theme, which is a discrepancy in 
perceptions between whether the teaching of writing is remedial or 
developmental. With only one exception (Rosemary de Luca ofWaikato), 
teachers of writing in both student learning centres and generic writing papers 
stressed the academic nature of their work and its developmental function. 
Interviewees did not think they were doing something that schools should be 
doing; rather they saw themselves as initiating discussion and making explicit 
66 
cultural expectations and cognitive processes required by tertiary institutions. 
Most saw teaching grammar as peripheral to their work. 
However, there was also an awareness that other perceptions differed from those 
professionally engaged as tertiary writing teachers. Caitriona Cameron spoke 
explicitly of this discrepancy between those who initiated the Student Learning 
Centre at Lincoln, as a remedial centre to help ESOL students, and the broader 
developmental vision of the first coordinator who shaped the first services of the 
Centre. Placing student learning into student services structures or frameworks 
(i.e. with counselling and health) positions learning support as remedial or 
problem-based and reflects the institution's construction of the role of learning 
support. Paper coordinators of generic writing programmes protected themselves 
in various ways by specifying the nature of their papers or by giving a very 
complex first lecture, but outsiders still tended to direct students with problems 
to these papers. John Dolan talked of the importance of discussion with others 
about what such a paper can achieve: 
When Health Science first engaged our services, they wanted us as a year long 
test. .. .I think over the four years we've been teaching the paper...that they're 
grateful for the fact that the students they get can now do different things .... But I 
think you have to ask, what does the university want from us? ... In our case it 
meant telling the university (J. Dolan, 2.12.96). 
This debate concerning whether the teaching of writing is a remedial or 
developmental function links into another critical issue: the capacity to do 
research. Many interviewees deplored their inability to conduct research. 
Teachers of generic writing programmes pointed to their heavy marking loads 
and the administrative burdens associated with large writing papers which left 
them with no time to conduct research, thus hindering their professional 
development and their opportunities for promotion. Two controllers of large 
papers felt that the usual conditions of academic employment, such as sabbatical 
leave, were not available to them because no other member of their departments 
could take over the administration of their papers, yet the papers could not be 
dropped for a year because they are such huge EFfS earners for the departments. 
I' 
67 
Writing teachers within student learning centres were likely to experience 
frustration about research, due to both work overload and conditions of 
employment that preclude research. Decisions in the 1995-6 period gave counter 
indications of how this situation might develop in the future. At Massey, as we 
have seen, a decision was made that non-academic staff were not permitted to 
enrol for higher degrees or conduct research as part of their employment, and the 
university was proposing to shift learning support from academic services to 
student services. By contrast, at Waikato's TLDU, in 1996, staff were transferred 
from the tutor scale to the lecturer scale and at Lincoln there was a proposal to 
move student learning services out of student services into a position more in line 
with Waikato. Only at Auckland were staff in the comfortable position of having 
the option to do research and to have their positions transferred to the lecturer 
scale following application and evidence of an appropriate publications record. 
Funding and resourcing were perceived as major problems. However, learning 
support staff and teachers of writing papers exhibited differing concerns. 
Learning support staff were more likely to discuss the problem of meeting all the 
needs that they were aware of and the insecurities relating to their positions. 
Teachers of writing papers were more likely to be angry, because of the 
perceived inequities of their own situations (as outlined above) but even more 
because of the conditions of employment of their own staff (i.e. the tutors who 
teach workshops/tutorials), which they perceived as unjust. I include here two 
long quotations to demonstrate the depth of feeling on this issue: 
The curious thing about writing is that on the one hand there's this schizophrenic 
institution that. .. exists on writing, and careers are structured on writing, and ... the 
whole system, everything, is based on writing in New Zealand anyway, if not in 
the States, and yet any work with that kind of writing is seen as very low level, or 
ghetto, or. .. what is increasingly legitimately called in the literature, shitwork. 
You know, you don't have to even put quote marks there, and then the ... other sort 
of contradiction that. .. people doing it know that they're underpaid, they know 
that they're putting far more hours than they should do into it. ... The average 
profile of our tutors, it's probably the same at Massey, is somebody in their late 
thirties, having finished a second degree, probably on a third degree, with 
anything from eight to twenty years teaching experience, where some of them are 
professional writers with teaching experience as well. ... 
And yet the university ... doesn't have a scale to reflect that; they're paid as if they 
were an honours student, or an MA student going into a class with a book of 
68 
Virginia Woolf and talking about the themes that come out in chapters one to six. 
And these writing people have to have students for three hours, one is a double, 
and they have to move them around and vary the activity and mark their work, 
and you know, organise groups and, when they're assessing the work, not just 
mark it on the surface, stay off the page as much as they can and climb inside the 
writing and see what questions they can ask about it. The very skills that 
the ... subject staff lack, and you know they can' t see what's wrong with the 
paragraph, so they ' re just saying, go over there and get it fixed. And it actually 
takes time to climb inside and see how the sequence is, or the idea is buried and 
isn't expressed, and what the student might be wanting to say and hasn't been 
able, or how the piece might be split, you know? And yet, the other half say they 
know they ' re underpaid, and yet they're prepared to do it, because they find it 
satisfying. It's not necessarily that they're desperate for money. They actually find 
it satisfying and probably they also do find it prestigious working for the 
university. It really .. .it' s quite serious I think, and I can't see it ever being heard, 
unless you bring the senior staff in to actually teach and experience it, and as long 
as they're pushing it out...you become like a noisy fly. It irritates them (1. Holst, 
21.5.96). 
And that ' s exactly what the teaching of writing is, currently, economic slavery. In 
the States it's called the writing ghetto, it is a very real issue. You are stuck in 
writing. We call them comp dogs, as in the dogs body who teaches composition is 
a comp dog! Now, there are certain people willing to put themselves in that 
position. The graduate students I was talking about. You bet, you know, "Give me 
a degree and some credits and a little bit of money to live on, on the side, I'll do 
your comp dog work for you." But...to pay a tutor what the workload really 
involves is not going to happen. And I can ' t even say it's not going to happen in 
the near future. It's not going to happen. Period. So you have to find people who 
are put in the position of being required to take that pay, or nothing . ... So it is a 
nasty political issue, and it is to the power structure's benefit to deny that it is a 
political issue, and say no, it's simply an academic issue. You create the EFfS, 
you get the funding. Well , the funding for the EFfS is not equivalent to the time 
you put into it, or they will say, well cut back on the time! Well, if you cut back 
on the time, you cut back on what you're actually teaching of course, you don't 
put out the product. So to keep the product, and of course they always want 
product quality, oh yes, we have to have a quality whatever, well you can't put out 
the kind of quality at that kind of pay rate. And so, it will continue to go this way 
as long as we have a captive slave. And I'm quite . .. you know, quote me, "It is a 
slave market". As long as people are required to take that pay (K. Rhodes, 
20.5.96). 
One final issue was the isolation of many of the writing teachers. Teachers of 
generic writing papers were likely to be the only writing teachers in a department 
focused on literature or some other common subject (i.e. they were likely to be 
the only member of the permanent staff engaged in a particular tangential subject 
area). Some learning support staff, particularly those at Massey, Lincoln and 
Canterbury, were in isolated positions, lacking collegial support. And the 
interviews indicated that writing teachers on different parts of the same campus 
or employed by the same university did not have any professional or personal 
link. However, a national development at that time was making small steps to 
improve the isolation of people teaching writing in New Zealand universities. 
3.10 Tertiary Writing Network 
69 
In December 1995, Janet Holst (ELI, Victoria) called a meeting of all teachers of 
writing at tertiary institutes in New Zealand. The purpose of the one day 
colloquium was to discuss research and practice and to debate whether a national 
body should be set up to support people working in this field. The colloquium 
generated considerable interest (participants came from as far south as Dunedin 
and as far north as Auckland), and was the first time that writing teachers from 
all over New Zealand had met together. Many were unaware of each other's 
existence, let alone the nature of other people's research interests and teaching 
activities. This was a day for first meetings, and the largely unstructured day 
maximised opportunities for discovery. The group agreed to set up an 
organisation, The Tertiary Writing Network (TWN). 
Contact amongst the group was re-established the following year (December 
1996) when Massey hosted the second colloquium with the theme 'Writing 
beyond the margins'. This meeting was structured as a conference rather than an 
informal discussion, with calls for papers and workshops going out to all 
universities, polytechnics and colleges of education in New Zealand. At this 
colloquium a steering committee was established to investigate the acquisition of 
not-for-profit status; an email discussion list was set up within days of the 
colloquium. Another formal colloquium was planned for 1998, with, possibly, 
regional meetings, or a small, national, informal 'sharing of good practice' 
meeting in 1997. 
While a professional organisation is not a magical solution to the problems 
experienced by tertiary writing teachers in New Zealand, it has the potential to 
provide benefits and support. Teachers of writing need no longer be isolated; 
there exists a wider discussion into which new teachers can connect. The 
organisation may help foster a research culture (particularly in the shift from 
70 
informal discussion to a context that allows research to be formally presented and 
published), and this, in turn, may affect both the practice and the status of writing 
teachers. This organisation has the potential to create a community of change and 
development. 
3.11 Conclusions 
Teaching writing in New Zealand universities is a recent curriculum 
development. Programmes and approaches have developed largely in isolation. 
This chapter has brought together a national picture of this development at the 
time at which the writing projects in this study took place, detailing programmes 
and drawing out key themes. 
The over-riding theme of this chapter is that the teaching of writing in New 
Zealand universities has been impoverished. This impoverishment has been 
manifest in a number of ways: 
• both writing support and direct teaching of tertiary writing are recent 
developments in the tertiary curriculum. In most institutions, writing courses 
and support have emerged in the last twenty years. 
• no university has addressed the issue of student writing systematically or as a 
central curriculum concern. Instead, writing courses or writing support have 
emerged in an ad hoc manner as the initiatives of individuals or specific 
departments. 
• in most cases, writing teachers have been isolated within their institution. 
Teachers of writing tend to be employed in departments where writing is 
peripheral to core business (for example, the writing teacher in an English 
department focused on literature). Writing consultants in support units often 
work alone. Furthermore, writing teachers within the same institution (for 
example an academic teaching a writing paper from an English department 
and a writing consultant in a learning centre) generally seem to have had no 
contact with one another and often don't see themselves as being 
professionally connected. 
71 
• until recently, writing teachers had no connection with a national professional 
body and there appears to have been no connection across universities. This 
again emphasised their isolation. 
• the resourcing of the teaching of writing has generally been very poor. Tutors 
in writing courses and writing consultants in learning centres have tended to 
be employed on casual contracts and paid at a rate which does not reflect 
their experience or skills or the complexity of the task they are engaged in. 
• writing teachers and consultants have often been denied - either directly or 
indirectly - the normal rights of academic staff, such as the opportunity to do 
research. 
• the scope of experimentation and innovation in the teaching of writing in 
New Zealand universities appears to be very narrow, i.e., at the time of this 
survey there were no WAC programmes or Writing Centres, and no-one 
appeared to be using writing-to-learn activities in their teaching. This may be 
attributed to the lack of research funding and opportunity, or it may be that 
employment conditions have been so constrained that opportunities to read 
and think strategically have been limited. 
• a further issue which may have contributed to the lack of innovation in this 
field is that because the teaching of writing is such a recent phenomenon in 
New Zealand, many teachers of writing in New Zealand do not have a 
research background in this field. Most come from related disciplines such as 
literature or education or even from second language teaching, and have 
gained their knowledge 'on the job'. 
These factors, then, point to the impoverishment of the teaching of writing in 
New Zealand universities at the time of this study. But, most crucially for our 
72 
projects, there were no precedents in New Zealand universities for either a 
writing for sciences course or an integrated writing in the disciplines programme 
in the sciences such as we were undertaking. In these circumstances, it was 
necessary to discover how writing in the sciences had been addressed outside 
New Zealand. The next chapter considers this broader context and shows how we 
developed the ideas which informed our study. 
- -~ ----------------~--~ -~ -
73 
Chapter 4. Teaching writing in the Sciences 
These students do not have much respect for anything in the humanities which 
they tend to see as "soft", "wishy-washy" or the dreaded "touchy-feely" (Morgan, 
1997, p.13S). 
As we have seen in the previous chapter, programmes to teach writing are recent 
innovations in the New Zealand tertiary curriculum: the first writing paper was 
established in 1979, the first learning centre at a similar time. In the late 1990s 
writing is still not established as a part of the tertiary curriculum: there is, for 
example, no equivalent to freshman composition in any New Zealand university 
and learning centres are still positioned primarily in service roles, outside 
academic structures. That there is concern about student writing skills in New 
Zealand universities in the 1990s is clearly documented: whether there had been 
similar concern before the late 1970s is difficult to establish. In other parts of the 
English speaking world, by contrast, concern about student writing skills, and 
programmes to address it, are long established, if still hotly debated. 
When faced with the question of how most effectively to teach writing to science 
students the teams constructed for this study could find no historical precedent in 
New Zealand, apart from the generic courses taught through English 
departments. We therefore began with an investigation of how writing was taught 
in the sciences beyond New Zealand, and discovered that the long standing 
concern for student writing in all disciplines had been converted into established 
programmes of instruction and support in other parts of the English speaking 
world. Models developed in the United States (and to a lesser extent those in 
Australia) became the basis for the projects developed in this study. 
This chapter, then, looks at the broadest context of the study, at the various 
models for teaching writing to science students, focusing primarily on the United 
States context but with some reference to related studies in Australia. 111 In 
10 Because a WAC model was adopted for this study, only those Australian studies that relate to 
this model are included for discussion. 
74 
particular it focuses on the model that informed this study: writing across the 
curriculum, a cross disciplinary movement which has been established for 25 
years in tertiary institutions in the United States. I I Because there is a huge range 
of approaches to writing available (sometimes the literature gives the impression 
that there are as many approaches as there are universities in the United States) 
this chapter concentrates generally on the main types or models of writing 
instruction available, taking a broad, generic focus. 
I have limited the scope of this discussion to courses which either directly teach 
writing skills or integrate writing into content courses; I have not, for example, 
included extensive discussion on the use of writing centres, writing advisory 
committees or writing fellows. This is because we were looking for models 
which could be applied to the context in which we were working. These 
alternatives were not options for the projects we were undertaking, because we 
had to work with existing resources and structures. 
For the same reason, no attempt has been made to include a full discussion of the 
Australian communication context, which has been hugely influenced by 
Halliday' s work in systemic linguistics. I have not included a discussion of 
systemic linguistics as a theoretical basis for examining writing in the disciplines, 
or examined those articles that take such an approach, for the pragmatic reason 
that we did not have a systemic linguist on our teams 12 and we were not working 
within a timeframe which would allow for retraining. 
This chapter, therefore, looks at models for teaching writing to science students 
that could be adapted to a New Zealand context. The structure of the chapter is as 
follows : 
• the generic writing course (for example, freshman composition). This section 
discusses the history of the generic writing course and its strengths and 
weaknesses. 
II The initial literature survey was conducted in \993-4 but has been updated for inclusion in this 
study. 
12 We did investigate the possibility of co-opting someone with such skills into the teams, but no­
one at the university was trained in systemics. 
• writing across the curriculum. This section summarises the historical 
development of WAC and its two theoretical strands: writing to learn and 
learning to write (also known as writing in the disciplines). 
75 
• writing in the disciplines. The final section of this chapter provides a detailed 
discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of three alternative approaches to 
teaching writing in the disciplines (the English department approach, the 
integrated approach and the collaborative model) and finishes with an 
extended discussion of collaborative models. 
4.1 The generic writing course 
Of all western countries, the United States seems to have the fullest tradition of 
teaching writing as part of the tertiary curriculum. While, as we have seen, 
writing instruction did not become a distinguishable part of the curriculum in 
New Zealand until the late 1970s or early 1980s, it has been well established in a 
variety of forms in the United States for at least a century and can be traced back 
through the history of rhetoric (Russell, 1991; Miller, 1991; Spear, 1997). 
As in New Zealand, the earliest direct approach to teaching writing skills in the 
United States was the generic writing course, most commonly known as 
freshman composition, taught through the English department (or its institutional 
equivalent). It is not necessary here to give a full discussion and history of 
freshman composition; the reader is directed to some of the excellent books and 
articles which do this (see Ohmann, 1976; Berlin, 1988; Miller, 1991; Spear, 
1997). Instead, this section considers the rationale behind the development of 
freshman composition, the development of the curriculum, and the implications 
of such a course for students in science. 
A number of writers (Russell, 1991; Spear, 1997) have commented on how the 
generic writing course was generated in the United States by a literacy crisis at 
the beginning of the twentieth century caused by the influx into universities of 
people from "more diverse backgrounds and geographical locations" (Spear, 
1997, p.321). The original writing courses were seen as remedial, designed to 
76 
upskill those without the necessary background to succeed at university. Similar 
influxes throughout the century (for example, after World War II) have led to 
subsequent literacy crises, generating adjustments to the freshman writing course 
or new writing initiatives. Writing centers and the writing across the curriculum 
movement, for example, have also been seen as generated by literacy crises (see 
Russell, 1991; McLeod, 1992; Carino, 1995). In New Zealand, by comparison, 
the university population remained relatively homogeneous until the early 1980s 
when the economic downturn and changes in immigration policies led to a more 
diverse student population. It is interesting to note that it was at precisely this 
time that the teaching of writing started to become an issue in New Zealand 
universities. 
At present the generic writing course is still the most common form of writing 
instruction within tertiary institutions in the United States (Spear, 1997). In many 
universities, a generic writing course in first year is compulsory for all students, 
whatever their majoring subject. Science students in universities in the United 
States have, therefore, most commonly, throughout the twentieth century, been 
taught writing in a generic writing course through the English (or equivalent) 
department. 
These courses have their advantages and their champions. One of their strongest 
claims is that they teach 'transferable skills' that may be applied in a range of 
contexts, from mechanical skills, such as punctuation and paragraphing, to more 
complex skills of, for example, argumentation or the structures of "academic 
discourse"" (Bergmann, 1994). Since the beginning of the twentieth century, 
writing instruction in its generic form has developed through a series of 
ideological positions (see Bruffee, 1984; Berlin, 1988) or "rhetorics" (Spear, 
1997), including foci on the writing process and self-expression to a focus on 
critiquing varieties of professionaVacademic English (Bizzell, 1982). Clearly, the 
curriculum of freshman composition has not been constant since its inception but 
IJ Discourse in this context is taken to mean the complex set of rhetorical moves used in a 
particular context such as an academic discipline (see, for example, Linton et al.). 
has, nevertheless, through its varied forms, maintained a generic or transferable 
focus. 
77 
Further clear advantages of such an approach are administrative. A single paper 
or course fits neatly into a programme and is highly visible, so that the 
institution's endeavour to teach writing skills to all students can be identified. 
Furthermore, in the United States, freshman composition has proved cost 
effective: it can be taught by graduate students or temporary faculty, and, in 
being thus staffed, it provides tangential support for graduate programmes in 
allowing students, who might not otherwise be able to afford to attend such a 
programme, to earn enough to fund their studies (Miller, 1991). 
Further advantages of such generic courses are the credibility of the teaching 
(administrators see an English department as having the 'credibility and 
expertise' to teach required skills) and the notion of having all essential skills 
'covered' so that subject specialists are then freed from the requirements to teach 
transferable skills such as essay writing and punctuation. And, in turn, placing 
the teaching of writing in English in this way gives writing a 'home', a reference 
point, a credible place where expertise can be found by anyone who needs it 
(Waldo, 1993). 
Despite these apparent advantages, freshman composition also has its 
disadvantages and its critics. The first criticism of 'generic courses' is that they 
are based on an anomaly, arising from their origins. Prior to the turn of the 
century, universities in the United States were privileged institutions, attended 
only by the elite. Students were assessed orally rather than through written 
examination or assignments. Russell, citing Miller, states that "writing was so 
embedded in the everyday orally based practices of that class [the upper class] 
that it was largely transparent and required little or no instruction beyond the 
elementary school" (1991, pA). In other words, the language of the university 
was the spoken language of the upper class, transferred to paper. This single, 
privileged literacy could be transferred to any context and be 'correct', leading to 
what Spear calls a "universal literacy": 
78 
Freshman writing ... was supposed to reintroduce a standard of universal literacy in 
an environment where there was no longer agreement about what the concept 
meant. Writing instruction worked from assumptions about standards of literacy 
as fixed, universal, acontextual, and generalisable; from assumptions about 
content, which exists in subject areas, as distinct from expression, which is the 
realm of writing instruction; and from assumptions that students will have already 
learned the generalisable, elementary skill of correct and well-organised writing 
by the time they get to content courses which, in turn, are assumed to be the real 
meat of higher education (p.321). 
Russell (1991) sees the debate about the validity of freshman composition as 
resting on a specific set of questions. First, is writing a single, basic skill that 
simply records speech or thoughts or things or is it a complex and varying task, 
determined by context? Second, is the teaching of writing a remedial activity or 
is it a developing process; in other words, is writing determined by the 
disciplinary context and task? Thirdly, is the university a single community, or is 
it a series of communities in competition with one another and finally, is the aim 
of the university disciplinary excellence or is its goal social equity? 
Freshman composition or the generic writing course, then, has originated from 
the position that writing is a single, transferable task (Rose, 1985, refers to this as 
"the myth of transience"); that the job of writing instruction is remedial; and that 
the university is a single community into which students need to be enculturated. 
And while the generic writing course has undoubtedly developed and changed 
over the last 100 years, critics (Rose, 1985; Russell, 1993; Linton et aI., 1994; 
Spear, 1997) argue that the basic principles outlined above still apply, that 
universities have never adjusted their thinking to a context which has changed 
dramatically through the diversification of both the tertiary curriculum and the 
student popUlation. In other words, critics of the generic writing course adhere to 
a very different ideology from its supporters, seeing writing as a continually 
developing skill embedded in context and audience and the university as a 
community comprised of a series of micro-communities, each of which uses a 
different variety of academic or professional English. 
A further difficulty for the generic writing course, according to its critics, is that 
if it is seen as a remedial activity, something which must be 'dealt to' before real 
learning can be engaged in, writing instruction tends to be marginalised within 
English departments or relegated to a 'service' position, which English 
79 
departments view ambiguously, possibly as appropriately their task but generally 
as peripheral to their key strategic role of teaching literature. 
The generic approach, then, has been subject to considerable critique in recent 
years. The critics' approach has been largely informed by a more recent approach 
to teaching writing in the university: writing across the curriculum (WAC). 
4.2 Writing across the curriculum: Alternative approaches. 
4.2.1 History 
Alternatives to the generic writing course emerged out of the writing across the 
curriculum movement in the USA, a movement which began to develop in the 
mid-1970s and continues to develop through the last decade of the twentieth 
century, being now in its second, or even third, stage. Because a key theme of 
this study is the relationship between practical WAC programmes and the 
contexts in which they take place, a short historical background is provided. 14 
The WAC movement in higher education in the United States began, ostensibly, 
with a 'crisis of literacy' taken up by the press and reported in a 1975 Newsweek 
cover story: "Why Johnny can't write" (McLeod, 1988; Bazerman & Russell, 
1994). The crisis occurred over an apparent drop in National Assessment of 
Education Progress figures on writing skills between 1969 and 1974. As Russell 
(1991) observes, this was not the first 'crisis of literacy' to hit education in the 
USA, but it was the first to occur at a time when organisations had sufficient 
flexibility to respond, and when a theoretical basis existed on which to establish a 
writing in the disciplines programme. The reaction from the media ensured 
widespread concern and a willingness on the part of educators to address literacy 
at secondary and tertiary level. 
14 David Russell's 1991 book, Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870·1990: A curricular 
histolY, is generally cited as the key descriptor of the history of WAC. For this reason, the 
following brief history rests heavily on his work, although I have included references to other 
sources where relevant to highlight the themes pertinent to this specific study. Readers pursuing a 
more complete history of WAC should refer to Russell's 1991 text, and to his social 
interpretation of that history (Russell, 1990). 
80 
Although this critical moment is most commonly seen as the birth of WAC, in 
fact the basis for a broader writing in the disciplines movement had been 
established in the 1960s. Russell (1991) identifies some key influences, the first 
of which was the development of the professional teacher of writing and the 
establishment of writing as a part of the curriculum quite separate from the 
teacher of literature. Writing had become increasingly established in the English 
curriculum from the beginning of the century, largely in response to movements 
to broaden access to higher education. By the late 1960s theorists were 
developing ideas relating to the association between language and learning. 
James Britton, for example, was already publishing in this area, influenced by the 
European theorists Vygotsky and Piaget and the American theorists Dewey and 
Bruner. 
Britton was a key theorist in the WAC movement, both in America and in 
Britain. His influence was established in 1966 at the Dartmouth Seminar, a 
combined meeting of the American and English teachers' associations (the 
NCTE and the NATE), and expressed itself more fully in the mid-seventies when 
both Britain and North America were affected by literacy crises. At the same 
time as the Newsweek article appeared in the United States, England was 
experiencing its own crisis of literacy. The Bullock report, which was 
commissioned in 1972 by the government to assess the issue, was largely 
influenced by Britton's contribution to the commission (Spear, 1991). Britton 
was also engaged in the Schools Council research project on writing in schools, 
and in 1975 the book The development of writing abilities (11-18), co-authored 
by Britton, further influenced the writing across the curriculum movement in the 
UK. And while Britton is largely credited with theories of learning which 
centralised language within the learning process, a further critical influence 
(Russell, 1991) was his use of qualitative methodologies which brought together 
the traditions of humanities and social science in such a way as to influence the 
further development of writing practices and investigations for the next two 
decades (see Morgan, 1997). 
Britton's focus was primary and secondary education, and it was in these areas 
that WAC had the greatest impact in the UK, but in the United States his ideas 
81 
spread to higher education and were further developed and applied by writing 
professionals in tertiary fields. Janet Emig, a significant writing theorist, in 1977 
published a key article, "Writing as a mode of learning". Here she wove together 
the theoretical work of the European, British and American traditions, and her 
ideas were taken up in a 1977 seminar at Rutgers for teachers in higher 
education. This seminar exposed these professional teachers of writing to ideas 
that linked learning and language, and the group that attended it became key 
leaders and writers of what was to become the WAC movement in higher 
education in the United States. 
Another key influence (Russell, in Bazerman and Russell, 1994, describes it as 
the major influence) on the WAC movement in North America was the Bay Area 
Writing project of the mid 1970s, which later developed into the California and 
National Writing Projects. Run by staff from English departments, the 
programme operated from the University of California at Berkeley, with the aim 
of improving the writing of secondary school students. The approach taken to 
achieve this was a series of interdisciplinary workshops with secondary school 
teachers who were, in these workshops, exposed to a range of writing research 
and theory but in an environment that promoted discussion and exploration. The 
focus on writing as an aspect of learning and the collegial workshop environment 
were aspects of the project that would be transferred to the faculty-led workshops 
of the WAC movement. 
About this time, the concept of the inter-faculty workshop was established at 
Carleton College (1975), Beaver College (1977) and then Michigan Tech 
University (1977), under the guidance of Harriet Sheridan, Elaine Maimon, Toby 
Fulwiler and Art Young. Focusing on writing as both scholarly activity and 
process, beyond the sole auspices of English departments (although often 
spearheaded by them), these workshops were to become a keystone of the WAC 
movement. Here writing was explored by teachers in all disciplines in a writing­
rich environment that modelled as well as investigated the connection between 
language and learning. Outside funding was often used to support the workshops 
in these early days of the WAC movement (the Michigan Tech workshop 
initiative, for example, was maintained by a large grant from General Motors), 
82 
allowing WAC to develop beyond organisational constraints. At the same time, 
key professional bodies such as the Conference on College Composition and 
Communication (CCCC) and the National Council of Teachers of English 
(NCTE) held sessions on WAC, and journals on composition responded to the 
movement, with new journals emerging which focused on writing in the 
disciplines. Thus writing became acknowledged as a legitimate scholarly 
activity, moving beyond the service role to which it had previously been largely 
relegated. 
Writing workshops for academic staff from across the disciplines have become a 
key component of the WAC movement (McLeod, 1992; Walvoord, 1992), but 
are only the starting place in many colleges which have adopted a WAC 
philosophy. Methods for integrating writing into the broader curriculum, for 
supporting students in their writing and for supporting staff have become 
essential in maintaining the momentum of a WAC programme. 
4.2.2 WAC: Definitions 
The writing across the curriculum movement is difficult to define since its form 
differs substantially across institutions (Spear, 1997, maintains that of 427 WAC 
programmes identified in a 1987 national survey there were almost as many 
forms of WAC). However, the key to its defining features lies not in the forms 
and structures that support it, but in its underlying philosophies. There are two 
distinct but interconnected theoretical threads: learning to write and writing to 
learn. 
Writing to learn, which was probably the first strand to emerge within the WAC 
movement, stems from the work of James Britton and Janet Emig (1977) and has 
been promoted by many key exponents of writing in the disciplines, in particular 
Toby Fulwiler and Art Young (see, for example, Fulwiler and Young, 1982). The 
approach is also sometimes referred to as 'cognitive' and relates closely to 
Britton's 'expressive' category of writing. Central to the writing to learn 
philosophy is the notion that learning and language are intertwined, that 
knowledge has to be actively constructed by the learner, and that, as this 
83 
knowledge has to be constructed through language, writing to the self is an 
effective way of exploring and developing learning and knowledge. Writing 
programmes using writing to learn techniques focus largely on expressive 
writing, that is to say, writing for the self in an environment that is safe and non­
critical. Genres such as student journals (see, for example, Fulwiler, 1987) are 
therefore critical to this philosophy, as are other non-graded assignments which 
allow students to explore and creatively develop their ideas, either in isolation or 
in groups, based either on their own experience or on their response to stimuli 
such as teaching or reading. Such writing encourages students to connect new 
material to their previous knowledge and therefore learning is deeper and more 
fully incorporated. IS 
Learning to write (also known as writing in the disciplines or WID), the second 
strand of WAC, which emerged from the work of people such as Bruffee (1984) 
and Maimon (1981), is about learning how to use language within a specific 
micro-community. It is also known as the 'rhetorical' approach and relates most 
closely to Britton's category of transactional writing. Knowledge and language 
are seen in such a context as socially constructed or agreed to, so the role of 
WAC from this perspective lies in teaching students how to write in a specific 
context to a specific audience by making them aware of, and teaching them how 
to use, the conventions of the specific discipline. In science this often involves 
providing writing exercises and assessments which are transactional, focused on 
audiences which are common to writers in science. This approach to WAC often 
includes group writing, again, often in a transactional context, to highlight the 
notion and conventions of writing as social processes. We talk of the 
'enculturation' of students into the discipline, into not just the language base but 
also the conventions of knowledge and thinking as defined by the language 
community. Pemberton (1995) describes WID thus: 
'SMcLeod cautions, however, that if we suggest writing increases learning, we need to be clear 
about what we mean by learning. Learning in this context does not mean the memorising of facts, 
a skill which, she suggests, is more easily and effectively achieved by other means of assessment. 
Rather, learning in this context refers to deep understanding and the ability to engage the higher 
learning skills such as synthesising and critiquing. 
84 
A WID program ... though it may use some Writing-to-Learn activities as part of 
classroom process, has proJessionalization as its focus, a desire to teach students 
what it means to write, talk, and think as members of a particular discipline. The 
writing projects students undertake in these courses may be collaborative, but they 
are also, presumably, longer, more complex, more centred in the activities of a 
discipline than those in a [writing to learn] course (p.l28). 
McLeod (1992) states that the two ways in which WID most often manifests 
itself in the curriculum are, firstly, the freshman writing course that highlights the 
conventions of academic writing, and, secondly, the writing-in-the-major or 
writing intensive course, which teaches the styles and genres of a specific 
discipline or grouping of scholars. Such a course may be taught not by the 
English department but by faculty from within the discipline. 
The main ideas behind the WAC movement have been summarised thus: 
that writing and thinking are closely allied, that learning to write well involves 
learning particular discourse conventions, and that, therefore, writing belongs in 
the entire curriculum, not just in a course offered by the English department. 
... W AC assumes that students learn better in an active rather than passive (lecture) 
mode, that learning is not only solitary but also a collaborative social 
phenomenon, that writing improves when critiqued by peers and then rewritten 
(McLeod, 1992, pp.5-6). 
In a country like the United States, where assessment at undergraduate level was 
focused predominantly on testing, this was a radical transformation indeed. But 
what did such a change mean in practical terms? What structures and approaches 
are being used in the teaching of writing across the curriculum? 
4.3 Writing in the disciplines: Course structures and approaches 
The initial focus of the writing projects in this study was WID or 'learning to 
write', since our first research question was "how can we effectively teach 
writing in the disciplines?" So it was from the WID literature that we first 
formulated the model for projects one and two. As we shall see in chapters seven 
and eight, we began to incorporate 'writing to learn' strategies into projects two 
and three after the first year of the programme, but in this section we consider 
only the models of WID since they were the basis of our work. 
One of the most common 'learning to write' structures is the writing course, 
which may take a number of forms. The following section looks at the most 
common forms of WID courses (since WID courses were most pertinent to our 
aims), using the models defined by Dawson (1996), as applied to the United 
States context: the writing course taught through the English department, the 
integrated model and the semi-integrated or collaborative model. As well as 
writing courses, a number of alternative structures emerged out of the WAC 
philosophy or were in some way adapted to work with WAC strategies. These 
are not discussed, as they could not be applied to the projects in hand. 
4.3.1 Science writing taught within an English department 
85 
While freshman composition as it was originally conceived made little if any 
concession to the differing writing skills required within different disciplines, it 
now takes more varied forms, some of which do address the issues of different 
disciplines or different literacies. In these situations, writing is still taught by 
composition specialists within the English department, but with a genuine effort 
to tailor the programme to specific groups of students or at least to help students 
become aware of the different genres of academic writing and the conventions 
associated with those genres (Linton et aI., 1994). 
There are two main forms of this model. The first is the 'service English model' 
(Dawson, 1996) where a cohort of, for example, chemistry majors is required to 
take a writing course designed for them by a department of English or Rhetoric; 
this type of writing course exists beyond North America (Dawson discusses the 
model as it relates to Australian universities) but is only just beginning to emerge 
in New Zealand. 
There are clear advantages of such an approach. Unlike the generic courses 
discussed previously, real attempts may be made to understand the structures and 
genres of scientific or business writing. Such courses might include, for example, 
material on report writing or writing for a client. Consequently, students may be 
taught 'generic' skills within a context that supports and teaches the structures 
and genres they will need to employ outside the course. At the same time, all the 
86 
advantages, structural and pedagogical, listed for generic courses also apply to 
this type of course. Kinneavy (1983) identifies two further advantages, the first 
that the institution does not have to train all its teachers to become teachers of 
writing: rather, the task could be left to the specialist writing teacher, which 
"gives dignity to the career and the concept of the writing teacher and the 
importance of teaching writing" (Kinneavy, 1983, p.70). Secondly, the audience 
of any writing course of this nature must be the generalist, since the writer, in 
order to be understood by someone working outside the discipline, will need to 
transform their knowledge and understanding into language which can be 
understood by this relatively uninformed audience. This, in turn, will have the 
benefits of working against the fragmentation of the university community and 
thus reuniting the disciplines within a common language base. 
Support for such courses is widespread. Chapman (1997), for example, argues 
strongly that only a department of English or rhetoric really has the staff skilled 
to identify, discuss and teach rhetorical conventions. Smith (1988), writing 
earlier, went even further while arguing that the teaching of writing should be 
housed within English. She claimed that the department not only has the highest 
level of expertise, but that it also cares more about composition and the teaching 
of writing, compared to teachers within the disciplines who "however well­
intentioned, may see composition theory and pedagogy as even more peripheral 
to their professional interests than do the English department's most 'hermetic' 
members" (p.392). 
Peterson (1992) takes a more pragmatic approach: since, she argues, freshman 
composition is a reality in many institutions and, further, is the only required 
writing course, often defining for students "what 'writing' is" (p.58), then, if the 
English department creates a writing course which focuses on academic and 
rhetorical structures in the disciplines, the department has a political opportunity 
in a way that no other unit does. 
Many individual teachers have published descriptions of courses they have run 
according to this model, descriptions which illustrate both the authors' 
sensitivities to the needs of students in particular disciplines and also the skills 
87 
which a trained and experienced writing teacher can bring to the task of teaching 
writing in the disciplines. An example is Morgan's (1997) paper on teaching 
writing to technology students. She deals directly with the differences between 
the sciences and humanities, in her approach to teaching writing to technology 
students: "Reaching out to choose examples from the students' areas of expertise 
shows respect for their values and invites their interest" (p.133). 
The focus of her paper is dealing with student resistance to not only being taught 
writing, but being taught writing by staff from humanities: 
Students often enter my classroom at the beginning of the semester determined to 
resist what they assume will be my attempts to transform them from hard-edged, 
quantitative, evidence-driven technical people to soft, culturally elite, emotion 
driven artists. Perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that they fear I might 
succeed at effecting that transformation (pp.134-5). 
Apart from student resistance, however, there are other disadvantages to such an 
approach to teaching writing. The most obvious of these is that the teachers of 
such a course, however carefully they have investigated and constructed the 
content of their course (as someone like Morgan illustrates), are teaching a style 
(or styles) and genres that are outside their own experience. Dawson (1996) 
discusses this as "discursive conflict": 
When [the teacher) teaches literature and media studies, he [sic] perceives himself 
not only as instructing his students but also sharing with them his own insights 
and enthusiasms. When he teaches the communication skills unit, on the other 
hand, he perceives himself as training his students in the most basic utilitarian 
aspects of his discipline, which they will then apply to their own discipline, a 
highly technical discipline about which he knows nothing. From the ... students' 
point of view, in studying communication skills with someone sent to them from 
the School of English, they feel that for two hours a week they are being trained in 
a discipline outside and discursively dissimilar to [their own] .... They experience 
their communication skills classes as going back to what they should have learned 
(but often did not) in primary and secondary school (Dawson, p.174). 
She goes on to discuss the ways in which science and humanities are constructed 
as dichotomies and how the technical or science students and the English teacher 
are constructed, through their education, as subjects of different micro­
communities, each of which employ particular forms of academic or professional 
English. Because of this, she argues, there will always be conflict or disjunction 
88 
between the experiences and expectations of teacher and student in such a 
course. 
This perspective is supported by Linton et al . (1994) who, after providing a brief 
summary of some of the main discursive differences between writing in 
disciplines such as the empirical sciences and writing in humanities, come to the 
following consideration: 
[this analysis] forces us to question whether English faculty are qualified to teach 
the language of academic writing in other disciplines. Composition instructors 
typically have little or no experience writing outside their own field .. .. Many 
English faculty give students and colleagues the impression that they regard 
writing in other disciplines as pedestrian at best, because features they associate 
with fine writing (vivid metaphors, perhaps, or active verbs) are missing. On the 
other hand unfamiliar rhetorical moves may not be valued or even recognised. 
People who have never written lab reports or case studies cannot appreciate the 
way fully enculturated writers communicate with one another. . .let alone coach 
students to attempt such writing (p.75). 
This raises another issue: when we speak of the 'general audience' in this context 
we may mean not any audience but rather the audience which has been 
constructed by the language of humanities (Ronald, 1988). In other words we are 
prioritising one variety of academic or professional language over another (Blair, 
1988), requiring the scientific writer to conform to the requirements of the 
humanities major without acknowledging the language of humanities as being, in 
itself, a specialist language. Kinneavy acknowledges the difficulties posed by this 
act of translation: 
The rhetorical effects of such a task are massive. The writer must eschew the 
usual genres of the career specialist, translate technical vocabulary into language 
the generalist can understand, and sacrifice subtlety in argumentation and 
methodology. All these constraints are distinct losses . And, if one argues that 
specific disciplines really do have their own logics, then the unique logic of the 
discipline is adjusted to the general logic of the educated reader - assuming there 
is such a thing (1983, p.70). 
A key question is the last one: is there such a thing as the 'educated reader'? 
Such a notion harks back to a nineteenth century tradition of the man of letters, 
and this is a tradition that is still a part of the humanities discipline. The losses 
identified here, therefore, are losses made for the sake of the prioritised language, 
89 
the language and logic of humanities disciplines, particularly the discipline of 
English (Ronald, 1988; Linton et aI., 1993). And the losses are very much those 
of writers who may be struggling to handle and think within their own discipline. 
For these reasons these authors suggest that a course of this nature may hinder a 
student's learning of writing in the sciences. 
The second form of this model is proposed by Ronald (1988), Peterson (1992) 
and Linton et al. (1993). This form is closer to the generic model in that classes 
are composed of mixed discipline students and taught by staff of the English 
department. However, the focus of the course changes from generic skills to 
looking at the way conventions of academic writing (associated with structure, 
acknowledgement, sentence style and word choice, for example) are handled 
differently according to disciplinary community. 
Linton and her associates suggest (following Carter, 1990) that composition 
courses tend to teach local knowledge (i.e. writing for the humanities) as if it 
were general knowledge. Consequently, such courses have come under fire from 
those who have analysed texts as discipline-specific (Bazerman, 1988 and 
MacDonald, 1992, for example) and those who have located academic language 
as being embedded in the ontology of a particular discipline and therefore 
difficult, if not impossible, to teach separately from teaching content (Faigley 
and Hansen, 1985; Russell, 1993, for example). They suggest, nevertheless, that 
English departments are uniquely placed and equipped to teach a course which 
directly addresses and teaches contrasting rhetorical skills, making students 
aware, not of key rules of rhetoric, but of conventions of writing as they are 
handled differently in different contexts. They argue that this will assist students 
not only when they encounter different styles within the university, but also in 
their professional life as they move into new jobs or careers which require 
different rhetorical skills. If students are taught key conventions and experience 
the ways in which these conventions can change according to context, then they 
are being given a skill that will be of use in any context. This will also, Linton et 
al. suggest, make students more open to writing instruction by lecturers in, for 
example, science, and enable them to ask pertinent questions of staff to further 
extend and improve their ability to employ discipline-specific language skills. 
90 
Such an approach has undoubted strengths; in particular, it addresses a key flaw 
of generic courses, the issue of transferability. Any use of this approach may, 
however, be limited by the extent to which staff of an English department may be 
willing or able to both relinquish the simpler 'generic' course which allows them 
authority over the components of 'good writing' and undertake such complex 
training of students in rhetorical analysis. This limitation may be especially 
pertinent in places such as New Zealand where the number of staff within 
English department who have a research interest in writing is relatively small. As 
Ronald (1988) puts it: 
So, teaching students to analyse the rhetoric of other disciplines has to mean more 
than saying in effect to them "Come on up here with us and notice the ugly stuff 
that business, social science, and legal people write". In other words, if teachers 
really want to help students learn about writing across the curriculum, they will 
have to broaden their definitions of texts and contexts (p.146). 
The real problem, as Ronald sees it, is that writing teachers are outsiders, outside 
the discipline the students are wishing to enter, and because of this they cannot 
have an intimate understanding of the structures of the rhetorical requirements or 
knowledge base of that discipline: "Writing teachers ... are outsiders when it 
comes to analysing the knowledge that a community of scientists or sociologists 
share, knowledge which shapes their language and their written conventions" 
(p.146). 
The question Ronald implicitly poses is whether this outsider position can still 
have its advantages. She argues both perspectives. On the one hand, writers from 
the disciplines would have greater knowledge of the rhetorical moves required 
within the specific discipline from an insider perspective and therefore may be 
more suited to this specialist teaching. On the other hand, she also suggests that 
teachers of rhetoric have a unique advantage of being aware of rhetorical 
elements of a text and the training to analyse them. It may be possible to surmise 
that writing teachers, as outsiders, may have the ability to teach this approach to 
writing, but that ability will depend on how they perceive their outsider's 
position. If it is seen as superior to the writers in the discipline, if they take a 
colonising position, then their contribution will be limited. Instead, if they can 
stand outside the text and explore the relationships between language and 
knowledge with the students, then they do have skil1s to share that will assist 
those students standing on the edge of a discipline-specific community. 
91 
It may be possible to surmise that such a course (i.e., one that focuses broadly on 
comparing rhetorical features of a variety of texts) will have most value where it 
is a step in teaching the writing process, where staff from within the disciplines 
take up these skills and this awareness and build on a programme for teaching 
discipline-specific writing within a learning context. And this may be a problem 
in a context where writing itself is not an established part of a curriculum. 
Peterson (1992), while arguing for such a course (i.e. one that analyses differing 
disciplines and the rhetorical conventions required of those disciplines from a 
non-colonising position), states that in some cases such an approach may not be 
possible, that context may be a critical factor. The first critical context factor, 
according to Peterson, is the way in which English departments define 
themselves. If they define themselves as focused narrowly on 'literature', then 
they may be reluctant to consider a course based on the rhetorical analysis of 
'non-literary' texts. Another related issue not explored by Peterson is the 
question of how English departments view freshman composition politically. If 
they consider it an opportunity to proselytise or to introduce all students to the 
wonders of English literature, then they are again likely to be reluctant to 
relinquish such opportunities. 
A second contextual problem, as identified by Peterson, relates to who teaches 
such a course. If the teachers are likely to be graduate students who are focused 
on the analysis of literary texts, then they are unlikely to have the skills or 
aptitude to teach the rhetorical analysis of non-literary texts. 
Further difficulties identified by Peterson are identifying and choosing 
appropriate texts and questions about student competence: clearly if students 
arrive at a tertiary institution without basic skills or with no understanding 
whatsoever of the requirements of academic writing or style, then the type of 
course described above may be simply asking too much of them. In this situation 
92 
the better option would be to start them with an introduction to academic writing 
and offer this course in the second semester or year. 
The question of whether the English department (or its equivalent) should be 
teaching writing in the disciplines is clearly a controversial matter. Proponents 
argue that the English department alone has the skills, the interest and the 
concern to teach writing in the disciplines (Smith, 1988; Chapman, 1997) and 
that a carefully designed course which maximises those skills may also address 
the needs of students in the disciplines (Peterson, 1992; Linton, et aI. , 1994), 
whether it be a course which directly teaches the conventions of science writing 
to science students (for example) or more generally teaches students to analyse 
the rhetorical features of any text. Others argue (Waldo, 1993) that English 
departments, while making what appear to be the right gestures, will inevitably 
take a patronising and colonising position which privileges their particular 
discipline, including the rhetorical requirements of that discipline, and maintains 
control over a writing programme. Critiquing Smith (1988), Waldo argues: 
I realise that Smith says repeatedly, "our colleagues have a lot to show us, too." 
English departments, she tells us, can resist ownership of writing, can avoid 
colonisation of other departments, can initiate and sustain dialogue; but her 
argument shows us something different - an agenda that places English in control. 
More exactly, her position implies an imposed linguistic control by making the 
English department's relationship to language a privileged one . ... "There is no 
way to decide the primacy of a particular context because no discipline is better 
than any other" . Smith's proposal suggests, even openly states, a preferable 
context: English (p.2l) . 
Certainly, the way in which English defines and perceives itself or the role it sees 
for itself would seem to be critical to the role that an English department can take 
in a WAC programme, and will be influential, to say the least, on the approach it 
may take to teaching writing in the disciplines, and, in particular, to teaching 
writing to science students. 
One other factor appears to be critical in the role an English department can take 
in teaching writing in the disciplines. Even those most vociferous in the 
argument that the English department should be teaching WID courses, argue 
strongly for the role of consultation, even collaboration, in some form, with those 
in the disciplines. This theme of consultation and collaboration is discussed fully 
93 
in a later section of this chapter. But before we move onto that theme, we need to 
consider the other, strongly argued, position on who should teach writing in the 
disciplines: the integrated model. 
4.3.2 The Integrated or De-centralised model 
Models for integrating writing into the disciplines have taken many forms in the 
last century but have become more established in the last 25 years, both in the 
United States and elsewhere (Russell, 1991). Central to the integrated or 
decentralised model is the idea of writing being taught not from the English 
department but from staff in each discipline, and writing not necessarily being 
confined to a single paper or course but integrated and actively taught within a 
range of courses that require writing. Such an approach sees writing and 
enculturation into a discipline as integrally related: 
[Because writing is] a matter of learning to participate in some historically 
situated human activity, it cannot be learned apart from the problems, the habits, 
the activities - the subject matter - of some group that found the need to write in 
that way to solve a problem or carryon its activities (Russell, 1993, p.194). 
If we accept the integrated model of writing as integrally related to both learning 
and enculturation within differing discipline communities, then writing needs to 
be taught within the culture of each discipline by those who have mastery of their 
own varieties of professional or academic language. Writing is thus placed 
outside the English department, not as a single 'service course' but as an on­
going process which brings students through transitional genres (also described 
as pedagogical genres; see Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1993) to disciplinary 
language models. Writing thus becomes, as Dawson describes, "not an optional 
extra or remedial exercise but...one of many sets of skills and knowledge that a 
graduate in their field requires. This is the crux of the programme - and, 
potentially, the most problematic feature" (Dawson, 1996, p.175). 
The most common form that this philosophy takes in United States universities is 
the writing intensive course. Some universities specify the number of WI courses 
required of each student and the amount of writing (usually specified as number 
of words) required for a course to be designated 'writing intensive'. Staff within 
94 
the disciplines are often supported through the process of designing and teaching 
writing intensive courses through faculty workshops, the WAC director and the 
institution's writing centre. Classes are often very small (20-30 students) and 
teacher -intensi ve. 
Other institutions have designed their own approach. Holyoak' s 'Writing 
throughout the biology curriculum' paper (1998), for example, looks at the way 
in which writing was integrated into every aspect of the biology curriculum by 
the biology staff themselves, without consultation with composition faculty. He 
sees the role of the English department and of disciplinary specialists in teaching 
writing as quite separate: 
Our plan builds on writing instruction provided by our English Department, since 
it is our belief that primary instruction in English composition should remain 
firmly rooted in the English Department. It is, however, our responsibility as 
biology faculty to provide our students with opportunities to learn and practice the 
writing skills that will help them succeed. We therefore incorporated writing 
experiences in virtually all of our biology courses, from the first year through the 
senior year, rather than in a single writing-intensive biology course (p.186). 
Holyoak's paper goes on to describe a comprehensive programme whereby the 
staff of the biology department identified their problem, established objectives, 
and then integrated the teaching of writing into their entire curriculum. 
There are problems, however, with such decentralised programmes. The first 
may be the lack of confidence many lecturers in the disciplines feel relating to 
their ability to teach writing, and their lack of training. Pemberton (1995) 
describes this lack of confidence: "Many successful, publishing academic 
professionals do not think of themselves as writers" (p.120). Kinneavy (1983) 
focuses on lack of training, suggesting that the fact that someone can use a 
particular style of writing does not mean he or she can teach it. The idea that they 
can, he suggests, is to place the burden of teaching writing in the hands of 
amateurs: "We all know something about the English language since we use it 
every day, but that does not make us linguists or speech teachers. We all think, 
but that does not make us logicians" (Kinneavy, 1983, p.69). Chapman (1997) 
argues this point with equal vehemence: 
95 
To place the courses dedicated to writing instruction into the hands of those who 
have, perhaps, given a day or so to thinking seriously about how to teach writing 
to others, is an act that sells short the expertise of those of us in this disciplinary 
community and which contributes to the tenuousness of a course [freshman 
composition] which is already moore~ on the edge of the academic mainland 
(p.lO). 
This raises a further issue: that the traditional teachers of writing, the 
composition staff, may feel that their position within the curriculum is weakened, 
that their expertise is devalued further, and that student perceptions that the 'real' 
teaching takes place in content courses (Hutchinson, 1993) are reinforced. This 
issue is returned to at the end of this section. 
Dawson argues that the problem of discipline teachers' lack of training and 
confidence may be overcome with appropriate support and training and that an 
unexpected result may eventuate: the lecturers become more confident in their 
own ability to use and explicate their own discipline-specific language. 
Nevertheless, the issue of training and resourcing of such training should not be 
overlooked or underestimated by those planning to institute such an approach. 
A further problem is that, administratively, such a programme is more complex 
to implement than a single paper located outside the subject area and requires 
more sustained effort by a greater number of people. Commitment and leadership 
may be difficult to locate and even funding or rewarding of such efforts may 
become complex. Waldo (1993) goes further, in analysing the decentralised 
approach to writing in the disciplines, suggesting that decentralisation may lead 
to "diffused focus and confused purpose" (p.19). Who, he asks, will be 
responsible for helping faculty teachers design assignments and assess grading 
techniques; who will initiate and sustain dialogue across the disciplines? If 
students are having difficulty with writing, will they go to the teachers in the 
disciplines or to the English department? 
Another problem identified by Kinneavy is that teachers within the disciplines 
may not wish to be involved in such a programme since it is time consuming in 
terms of retraining and marking. He suggests that in institutions where rewards 
for staff are heavily weighted towards research and publications, staff would be 
96 
disadvantaged by engaging in such a task. This is a critical issue and one that is a 
very relevant concern in the competitive and changing context in which tertiary 
teachers find themselves today. 
Kinneavy's further concern is that this integrated model, where writing is taught 
by discipline specialists, will fragment the university through separate languages, 
making students from different disciplines unable to communicate with each 
other or with society at large, thereby rendering scholarship increasingly 
specialised and inaccessible both within and beyond the academy. He concludes 
thus: 
It seems that what [this approach to teaching writing] gains in depth it sacrifices in 
breadth, what it gains in audience specificity it loses in intellectual community, 
what it gains in subtlety it loses in clarity, what it gains in demonstrative power it 
loses in information reach, what it gains in precision it loses in lucidity, what it 
gains in freedom it loses in accountability, and what it gains in scientific rigour it 
loses in rhetorical appeal (Kinneavy, 1983, p.71). 
Placing writing in the hands of content teachers is, clearly, a contentious matter, 
as contentious as the question of whether English teachers can or should be 
teaching writing in the disciplines. A number of solutions to this dilemma have 
been proposed. Many writers, for example, have discussed the arguments for and 
against a writing in the disciplines programme being directed from the 
institution's Writing Centre (Wallace, 1987; Dinitz & Howe, 1989; Waldo, 1993; 
Pemberton, 1995; Dobson, 1998; Mullin, Reid, Enders & Baldridge, 1998) but 
this raises further debate: should the Writing Centre itself be housed in English 
or not? Should tutors within the Writing Centre come from English or from the 
disciplines? Essentially the same debate remains. 
An appropriate response must meet the needs of students learning to write within 
their discipline and acknowledge the specialist knowledge of teachers in the 
disciplines as users of specialist English. It must also support the expertise of the 
English department, as experts in rhetorical analysis and as experienced teachers 
of writing, and not threaten their political position. Such an approach may be 
found in consultative, collaborative or inter-disciplinary strategies for teaching 
writing. 
97 
4.3.3 The collaborative model(s) of writing instruction 
The concepts of 'dialogue' and 'consultation' are fundamental to a writing in the 
disciplines philosophy. As stated earlier, even those who argue most strongly for 
retaining the teaching of writing within the English department tend to just as 
strongly stress the need to consult and talk with staff from the disciplines (see, 
for example, Smith, 1988; Peterson, 1992). A fundamental question, though, in 
bringing together the English department and discipline teachers to consult or 
collaborate on the teaching of writing is the extent and nature of that relationship. 
The following discussion looks at a continuum of consultation and collaboration 
pertaining to the relationship between English and the disciplines in WAC 
programmes (Fig.4.1). 
Two way 
com m unication 
One way 
communication 
Inter-disciplinary teaching 
Multi-disciplinary teaching 
Faculty dialogue mode 
Broad conSUltation 
Specific consultation 
Conversion model 
Training model 
Expertise shared 
and acknowledged 
jcollaborative models 
C onsu Itative 
models 
Expertise between 
participants unequal 
Fig. 4.1 Collaborative models of WAC 
Walvoord (1992), looking at ways of developing WAC initiatives through 
faculty workshops, discusses two models which pertain to the relationship 
between English and the disciplines: the training model and the conversion 
model. The training model (for an example, see Ferguson, 1997) is based on the 
98 
assumption that discipline teachers are not teaching writing and need to be 
trained to do so by the experts (i.e., teachers of English). The conversion model 
assumes that discipline teachers are inadequate teachers who need to 'see the 
light' of WAC, be transformed as teachers and then move on on the right path. 
Both these models assume utmost expertise by the English department, total lack 
of expertise by disciplinary staff, and a single direction for communication and 
enlightenment. Because of this one-way communication, neither method could 
be called either consultation or collaboration in any meaningful sense. As 
McLeod says: 
Those who subscribe to this model [the conversion model] will discover that they 
are the ones who become enlightened; when leading my first faculty workshops, I 
found that my idea of what constituted "good" writing was challenged and then 
expanded through lively discussion with chemists, political scientists, zoologists, 
historians, and engineers. WAC directors are, or must become, listeners as well as 
talkers -learners as well as facilitators of learning (1992, p.lO). 
The next stage in the model is consultation. This can work both ways: either the 
discipline staff can consult with the English department about ways of 
integrating writing into the disciplines (and then go on to use the decentralised 
model of WAC) or the English department can consult with teaching staff about 
how they (English) can teach writing to students in the disciplines (and then go 
on to teach a WID course themselves). In the first option, the English department 
could be consulted by either an interdisciplinary WAC advisory board, a specific 
department, or an individual teacher. Communication is more complex here than 
in either the training or the conversion model but remains limited. The balance of 
power is also improved, but this improvement may be only minimal. 
The extent of these limitations depends on the depth and nature of the 
consultation. In the example of the English department consulting with a 
discipline-specific teacher, the English teacher may design a WID course for 
science students, using a WAC reader, and simply ask a colleague in the sciences 
for a few assignments to look at to get a feel for what science students are being 
required to write. In this case, the balance of power is maintained, and the nature 
of the communication controlled, by the English teacher. 
99 
At the other end of the scale is Jamieson's (1996) model where "English 
department-based composition instructors become the students .... Members of 
the academic disciplines teach us how to teach writing that will be appropriate to 
their fields. Then they help us to select readings and develop writing assignments 
that will help our students get a sense of what it means to read, think, and write 
in a particular discipline" (p.S). This approach most closely matches the model of 
faculty dialogue expounded in WAC texts: it remains consultative, in that one 
group is doing the teaching while the others are acting as consultants and 
supporters, but the discussion is two-sided and less controlled by one party. The 
very questions Jamieson poses to discipline staff are designed to undermine any 
perception of control by English department staff: "What is the one thing you 
wish we would stop teaching people about writing over there in English?" "What 
do you have to unteach before they can write for your discipline?" "What do you 
wish we would teach them?" (pp.S-9). These kinds of questions are pragmatic, 
couched in lay person's terms, and openly confront the idea that English wishes 
to enter into honest dialogue. 16 
An example of minimal consultation from the other perspective would be a staff 
member from the disciplines asking someone from English how to improve some 
aspect of his or her students' writing, such as their use of punctuation. A 
consultation model that moves into faculty dialogue would be an 
interdisciplinar"y WAC committee requesting that staff from the English 
department run a series of workshops on designing a WAC strategy for the 
university. In this example, the model is still consultative, because one party 
remains responsible for the agenda and for implementing decisions, but equal 
dialogue and sharing of ideas is possible. 
So, in practical terms, what is the impact of consultation on the average science 
student? What types of courses are they likely to be attending? The simple 
answer is that they will still be attending variations on one or both of the 
discussed earlier: the WID course taught through the English department or a WI 
16 Jamieson points out that these types of questions avoid the rhetoric of the English teacher, 
which, by contrast, would immediately assert the power imbalance. He gives as an example of an 
inappropriate question: "What would you say is the major role of writing in your discipline?" 
100 
course taught by science staff. The only difference may be in the quality of the 
course and the extent to which either course incorporates both composition 
theory and discipline-specific writing. 
Nevertheless, it is possible to move beyond consultation into collaboration. 
Collaboration differs from consultation in that it involves a more shared 
approach to goal setting, action and responsibility. It may take many forms, but I 
cite a generic definition from Shaffer and Bryant (1983): 
[Collaboration involves] shared decision making in governance, planning, 
delivery, and evaluation of programs. It is a pluralistic form of education where 
people of dissimilar backgrounds work together with equal status. It may be seen 
as working with rather than on a person (pJ) 
For similar reasons, collaboration must be distinguished from co-operation. Co­
operation involves reaching agreements but not necessarily joint actions, joint 
goals or joint outcomes. It may involve individuals agreeing on something for the 
sake of separate goals and outcomes, whereas collaboration is a much closer 
association (Hord, 1981; Austin & Baldwin, 1991). Collaboration, then, is more 
than consultation or co-operation because it includes shared action and outcomes 
and goals. 
Collaborative writing programs have taken many forms. Perhaps the most 
common form is that described by McCarthy and Walvoord as "focused pairs". 
An example is described by Dawson (1996), where a writing course is team 
taught by a writing or communication specialist seconded from the English 
department and a staff member from the department of, for example, food 
technology (Dawson, 1996). The model rests on the assumption that 
communication or writing and aspects of the discipline are complementary; as 
Dawson says "[the discipline] is the 'what ' and communication is the 'how' 
(p.174). Thus, ideally, the problems arising from the writing course taught 
wholly by English and the problems associated with courses taught by discipline­
specific staff are overcome and the strengths of both models combined. 
101 
Another model of collaboration is widely used in Australian universities (see, for 
example, Shih, 1986; Berk and Reid, 1996; Elliott, 1997; Hallett, 1997). In these 
examples, writing or communication workshops are run parallel to, or in 
conjunction with, the content lectures. Shih (1986), for example, defines five 
ways of working collaboratively with academic staff, each of which involves the 
writing or communication teacher being 'outside' the content classroom. 
Interestingly, this type of collaboration in Australian tertiary institutions seems to 
be used most commonly (but not exclusively) between writing specialists from 
Language and Learning units l7 and academic staff, rather than in collaborations 
between English departments and academic staff. 
Such models are not without their difficulties, whether the collaborators are 
English department or language and learning staff. Dawson herself 
acknowledges, as do others (see Hallett, 1997), that undergraduate students may 
have insufficient mastery of the subject to understand the complementarity being 
suggested here: instead, she suggests, they are likely to choose between the two 
foci and prioritise the subject matter over communication and hence accord more 
expertise and relevance to the teacher from, say, food technology than the teacher 
from the English department or Language and Learning unit. 
Furthermore, the role of the teacher seconded from English is likely to be 
perceived ambivalently by staff from the client department, which will prevent 
the teacher from having any long-term impact on the curriculum of the 
department. The writing course is unlikely to be sufficient to dramatically 
improve students' writing skills; follow-up in the general programme will be 
required. Yet the teacher will be unlikely to gain sufficient status to achieve this. 
Although they have been brought in as an expert, they will, suggests Dawson, be 
perceived by the department as being experts in a field that is remedial. 
Dawson is not alone in encountering an imbalance of power in such a 
collaborative association between a writing teacher or tutor and a discipline­
specific teacher. Mullin et al. (1998) also experienced difficulties with the 
17 The term is used generically to describe academic skills units; the terminology is not 
standardised across Australia. 
102 
discipline-specific teacher's expectations and assumptions initially dominating 
each person's role. Similarly, Watson' s (1996) experience with team teaching 
showed that differences in rank between the writing teacher and the discipline 
(engineering) teacher were a problem: in this case, there were actual differences 
in rank, rather than just perceived or assumed differences, but this does not seem 
to be an unusual aspect of a collaboration between writing teachers and discipline 
teachers (Mullin et ai., 1998). Furthermore, Watson experienced difficulties with 
agendas: she perceived her role as being to help the teacher redesign the course 
on a writing-intensive basis while the engineering teacher was merely aiming to 
supplement the course with a writing component. Because of role differentiation, 
the writing teacher was unable to have a major impact on the course. 
Watson suggests that we may need to distinguish between multi-disciplinary and 
inter-disciplinary collaboration here. Citing James Davis (1995) she defines the 
difference between these types of collaboration. Multidisciplinary teaching 
suggests that disciplinary specialists would work side by side in "an additive 
way" (Davis, 1995), making minimal efforts to integrate their disciplines. In 
interdisciplinary teaching, by contrast, efforts are made to synthesise the 
disciplines, to bring methodologies, content and concepts together in a blended 
way which would lead to new pedagogies and possibly new disciplines (Hepner, 
1996). Watson (1996) sees her first study as multi-disciplinary, with two 
disciplines working side by side rather than together. Looking more closely at 
Dawson's model and at Mullin et ai.' s first steps, we can see that they too fit the 
mUltidisciplinary approach. 
While writing teachers are unlikely to claim to have invented new disciplines in 
collaboration with colleagues from the disciplines, some programmes can clearly 
be shown to have been interdisciplinary in this strong sense, in that they aimed to 
blend their disciplines rather than simply working side by side. Some of 
McCarthy and Walvoord's 'focused pairs' examples take an interdisciplinary 
approach and Mullin et ai., through careful monitoring of their actions, emerged 
as having carefully blended their disciplinary perspectives. Another example is 
Kuriloff's study using collaborative work. 
103 
Kuriloff (1992) argues that this collaborative (and, we might add, 
interdisciplinary) model of integrating writing into the disciplines may indeed 
produce the best of both worlds, with a writing instructor or consultant who is an 
expert in teaching writing skills and processes and a teacher from the disciplines 
who will be an expert in the conventions of his or her own discipline-specific 
language. She identifies several theoretical underpinnings for such an approach. 
Firstly, such an approach acknowledges the existence of a variety of discipline­
specific communities within the academy, and the specific language 
requirements or rhetorics of those communities, and supports the notion that only 
those familiar with the conventions of that community can effectively initiate 
students wishing to enter that community; writing instructors cannot do this 
alone. Secondly, the approach acknowledges writing as an effective method of 
learning within that community. Thirdly, successful writing in a discipline 
requires modelling, i.e. students need to read models of the genres they are 
working towards. 
In practical terms, our hypothetical science student, being taught through an 
inter-disciplinary collaborative approach, might find both writing teachers and 
content teachers in his or her classroom, working together towards the same 
outcomes. While teachers might undertake specific tasks, they would not be 
strictly role-limited (i.e., the writing teacher would not always be teaching 
writing and the science teacher teaching science). Dialogue and discussion would 
be a classroom reality. 
The advantages of such a programme, according to Kuriloff, are the development 
of a programme which most effectively reaches the needs of students within 
specialist groups, the establishment of bonds between departments and the 
English department, and an ability to share in one another's discipline-specific 
communities, thus avoiding the increasing fragmentation feared by Kinneavy (as 
discussed above). Other writers confirm these advantages, stating that both staff 
and students benefit: Gardner and Sutherland (1997) show that staff will grow, 
professionally and personally, through opportunities to learn about other 
disciplines, to become reflective teachers, and to talk with other people about 
teaching. Austin and Baldwin (1991) concur, adding the value of increased 
104 
feedback on teaching, the opportunity to learn new ideas, and a reduction in the 
isolation of academics. Meanwhile, students benefit because they will begin to 
understand the connectedness of knowledge (Austin and Baldwin, 1991; Gardner 
and Sutherland, 1997), they are less likely to see a cultural and methodological 
split between science (for example) and writing, and they will be exposed to a 
variety of role models (Austin and Baldwin, 1991). 
Kuriloff acknowledges that there may be difficulties in managing such a task but 
sees the major obstacles, apart from potential personal difficulties between the 
team members, as institutional. As she observes, universities are not structured in 
favour of cross-disciplinary endeavours or collaboration between teachers. Time 
is money and the extensive time required to build an effective team is not 
rewarded. Funding and release time may not be forthcoming. To avoid the 
problems of lack of recognition and rewards to teaching staff who undertake such 
endeavours, senior administrators need to be involved in endorsing and 
supporting such work. Even without this, however, Kuriloff argues that the 
rewards to both subject specialists and writing teachers in terms of learning and 
growing in professional expertise are substantial. 
So what is required to make an interdisciplinary collaborative approach work? 
Gardner and Sutherland (1997) identify three factors: what they call "Talent, 
time and treasure" (p.30). In other words, you need skilled, experienced and 
open-minded teachers, whose personalities, teaching philosophy and teaching 
styles mesh. You need extra time allocated for meetings and discussion, and this 
may mean some time release from other duties. And you need money to fund 
administrative support. Kuriloff supports their first idea, stressing that such a 
programme can only work effectively when collaborators truly respect one 
another's skills and perspectives and when each is prepared to learn from the 
other. She states also that goals for the programme need to be clearly established 
and articulated by the two parties, and that a process needs to be put in place to 
ensure that the collaboration stays on track and that goals and outcomes are 
continually under negotiation. 
105 
Recent research has picked up this need for a process to ensure effective 
collaboration. Siebert (1996) looks at what she calls "An emergent model for 
integrating WAC" which takes an institution through a process of integrating 
WAC into its teaching structures. Mullin et al. (1998), on a much smaller scale, 
describe the process of collaboration for their group, stating "that success or 
failure of collaboration has to do with the expectations we bring to collaborative 
situations, with how well we negotiate these expectations, and with whether we 
reach some kind of agreement or consensual action" (p.153). They also 
acknowledge, at the end of their paper, that process must be flexible and 
contingent: 
As much of the literature on collaboration . .. suggests, we need to continually 
negotiate as these collaborations proceed in order to reach agreed upon, even if 
shifting, goals (Mullin et aI., 1998). 
More is needed, though, than appropriate processes by those operationally 
involved in collaborative teaching: institutional support is also required. Fauske 
(1993) lists four requirements to be made of the institution. IS First, the 
administration must legitimise collaboration by supporting it philosophically and 
financially, and by institutionalising operational factors (for example, by 
integrating WAC workshops into its programme for new teaching staff). Second, 
it must view collaboration as legitimate research. As Fauske points out, 
traditionally scholars have been required to publish in their own discipline areas: 
for collaborative work to take place, the administration must support and reward 
inter-disciplinary publication. Third, the administration needs to put in place 
structures that facilitate communication. Finally, collaboration needs to be 
institutionalised, or, as Siebert (1996) puts it, "logic suggests that the success of 
any program depends on its ability to become woven into the fabric of its horne 
institution, to become a natural part of that institution and context" (p.7). 
This section, then, has looked at different models of consultation and 
collaboration, starting with the training and conversion models, in which any 
discussion is one-sided and power between the parties is unequal, and moving 
18 One other requirement relates to how collaborative groups should work together, i.e., that 
groups should establish shared goals. 
106 
through consultation methods in which the level of communication and power is 
more balanced. It then looked at models of collaboration, moving from multi­
disciplinary to interdisciplinary, and considered what is required to make an 
interdisciplinary collaboration between writing and disciplinary teachers work 
effectively. 
4.4 Conclusions 
This chapter has outlined the ways in which writing has been taught to students 
in the disciplines, primarily in the United States. It has discussed the generic 
model and three models which have emerged out of the WAC movement: the 
writing course taught by an English department, the decentralised model of 
teaching writing, and finally the varying consultative and collaborative models. 
Exploration of this broader context of our research was critical to the 
development of our projects in that it gave us a series of models from which to 
design the writing programmes. It also alerted us to a number of factors that 
needed to be considered as we planned our projects. In particular, we noted that: 
• there was a vast body of research which suggested that subject specialists 
may be the best people to teach writing in the disciplines, given certain 
conditions and support. 
• staff in the disciplines who take on this task may need 'empowering' in some 
way as teachers of writing. 
• a writing consultant supporting the discipline-specific staff needs to put aside 
his or her own experiences and expectations about language and somehow 
assimilate the genres and styles of the discipline. 
• the institution in which the writing projects take place needs to support and 
reinforce innovative teaching and collaboration. 
• a writing programme, while it may generalise characteristics and features 
from other writing programmes, must be designed for the specific 
institutional context. 
• superimposing writing into existing courses is likely to have only limited 
success. 
107 
• truly collaborative, interdisciplinary teams may be the most effective way of 
integrating writing into the curriculum. 
These features became integral to the design and development of our projects. 
However, while we had now identified key features of our proposed projects, we 
were still left with a question: how could we achieve all this? What method could 
we use to empower applied science teachers as teachers of writing, ensure that 
the writing consultant maintained an appropriate supporting role, and develop 
teams that were collaborative and interdisciplinary? The next chapter considers 
the methodology and process that we used to achieve our aims: action research. 
108 
109 
Section Two: Methodological Issues 
110 
111 
Chapter 5: Action research: Change and collaboration 
We all have too much to do to waste our time reinventing wheels. But we cannot 
forget that all wheels - even those invented by others - must be carefully road 
tested on home terrain (Maimon, 1992, p.xi). 
This chapter marks the transition between discussing the various contexts in 
which this research took place and the projects themselves. Taking up the theme 
of collaboration introduced in chapter four, it considers the specific method of 
collaboration used in these projects, namely, action research. As a preliminary 
step, it discusses the history and development of action research, focusing on 
four key themes - change or improvement, collaboration, context, and the 
combination of action and research - before moving on to look at the action 
research process. 
Of its nature, action research calls for awareness of the perceptions and 
experiences of all participants and a careful recording of all relevant events and 
transactions. A methodical approach to collecting information is, therefore, 
essential. Also essential is a sensitivity to ethical issues that might arise when 
project participants speak frankly about themselves and one another. Such 
frankness has the potential to affect both the on-going group dynamic and the 
nature of the record. Accordingly, the second part of the chapter looks at the data 
collection methods and the ethical issues that were relevant to this study. 
Collaboration was a dominant theme in our planning as we initiated our research. 
As was noted in chapter four, various general problems of collaboration exist 
when a writing paper is taught by a combination of teachers from the disciplines 
and teachers (or a teacher) from English. 19 These may be summarised as follows: 
• students are unlikely to understand the relationship between communication 
and the discipline being taught. 
19 Or from communication or from a learning and language unit. 
112 
• ambivalent attitudes to the writing teacher from both students and staff 
affiliated to the discipline mean that the writing teacher is unlikely to be able 
to develop the follow up required to reinforce the writing course. 
• universities are not structured to support cross-disciplinary programmes, 
meaning that rewards and resources are unlikely to be forthcoming. 
To these general problems we might add the particular problems of collaboration 
inherent in our teams, which had been brought together not entirely by design but 
largely by the serendipity which often characterises the operations of large 
educational institutions. The brief of the team for project one was to bring about 
immediate and extensive curriculum change by introducing a writing paper into 
the curriculum. Moreover, as indicated in chapter two, the team that came 
together for project one was not composed of experts but possessed a mixture of 
competencies. Furthermore, we were under time pressure to get the projects 
running. Having made the decision to design our own writing paper and a writing 
across the curriculum programme, we were under an obligation to design the 
elements of the programme and have the action underway in less than six 
months, by February, the beginning of the academic year. Without collaboration 
and solidarity these objectives would have been impossible to meet. 
A number of factors, then, led to our choice of action research as a methodology. 
As well as the practical constraints and problems described above, we were 
aware that successful collaboration requires a structure and a process (Kuriloff, 
1992), both essential elements if our teams were to overcome the general 
difficulties of collaboration and the difficulties specific to their context. 
Furthermore, our groups required rigour in the process of implementing 
curriculum change, a rigour which would allow us to evaluate our progress. And 
we needed to use a methodology which would be change focused, group 
operated, and empowering, in the sense of not relying on the presence of a 
writing consultant in the long run. A further practical constraint was that any 
process selected had to work within a semester cycle. 
113 
Action research was the method (both structure and process) we decided upon to 
meld our team, build on our strengths and both implement and evaluate our 
teaching programme. Five features of action research were of particular 
importance: 
• the theme of change or development 
• the theme of collaboration 
• the very rational, systematic process 
• the focus on a real as opposed to controlled context 
• the dual foci of action and research 
The following section begins with an outline of various definitions of action 
research, focusing in particular on the critical keystone concepts that were 
relevant to this study, and is followed by a description of the process of action 
research. 
5.1. The emergence of action research 
5.1.1 Origins 
Action research in education has most commonly been seen as emerging from 
the social research studies of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s (Elliott, 1988; Kemrnis 
and McTaggart, 1990; Adelman, 1993; Zuber-Skerritt, 1993; Selener, 1997). 
Nevertheless, the application of action research to education may go back much 
further. Some researchers (Hodgkinson, 1957; Kemrnis, 1982) point to possible 
origins in Dewey's approach (1929) to teacher involvement in educational 
research or in even earlier education movements such as the Science in 
Education movement of the last decades of the nineteenth century (McKernan, 
1988). While Lewin did not originally apply his methodology to education 
specifically, he introduced a process consisting of a spiral of steps to address 
social issues which was subsequently transferred to educational approaches to 
action research (McNiff, 1988). 
114 
In the 1950s, a few researchers were developing action research as an 
educational methodology, primarily in the US (Corey, 1953, 1954; Taba, Noel 
and Marsh, 1955; Taba and Noel, 1957; Shumsky, 1956, 1958). But generally, 
action research during this period was a methodology in disrepute (Wiles, 1953; 
Corman, 1957; Carr and Kemrnis, 1986; McNiff, 1988). It was not until 
Lawrence Stenhouse's work in Britain on curriculum development and the 
teacher-as-researcher movement in the early 1970s (see, for example, Stenhouse, 
1975) that a revival of interest in action research as an educational research 
methodology occurred. Stenhouse's ideas were taken up in Britain by Whitehead 
(1989), Elliott (1978, 1988, and 1991) and McNiff (1988), all of whom further 
developed the teacher-as-researcher concept. Evaluations at this time, however, 
were largely interpretative, with an external researcher directing the observations 
and reflection processes. Only in the 1980s were the interpretations of the 
teachers themselves beginning to emerge as being of critical importance 
(McNiff, 1988). 
In recent years there has been a revival of interest in, and usage of, action 
research as a methodology in a variety of social, managerial and educational 
contexts (see in particular the work of Whitehead, 1986 and Ebbutt, 1985 in 
Britain and Carr, 1989; Kemrnis and McTaggart, 1990; and Zuber-Skerritt, 1992, 
1993 in Australia). While there is debate about its theoretical basis,20 and about 
aspects of its form,zl the standard elements of its broader definition, as applied in 
an educational context, seem largely a matter of agreement, as discussed below. 
5.1.2 Definitions 
Selener (1997) identifies two elements as essential to all definitions of action 
research in education. First, action research is a systematic and rigorous inquiry 
20 See Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1990; or Cliff Bunning, 1994 for a 
discussion of a division of action research into three types: technical, practical or emancipatory, 
or Kelly, 1985, for a division of the methodology into three categories: experimental social 
administration, teacher-researcher or simultaneous-integrated. Poskitt (1995) takes a different 
approach in distinguishing between different styles of action research as they have emerged in the 
UK, Australia and the USA. 
21 For example, about the role of the researcher. See discussions by Elliott, 1988; Van Manen, 
1990; Poskitt, 1995. 
115 
which is based on scientific procedures and, second, this process of scientific 
enquiry is operated by practitioners/participants who have ownership, to varying 
degrees, of both the process and the outcomes or results. Perhaps the simplest 
definition is an early formulation by Corey: 
[Action research] is the process by which practitioners attempt to study their 
problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and 
actions (1953, p.6). 
Definitions are, of course, refined over time, and in the last 25 years change or 
improvement and collaboration have become common themes within definitions 
of action research in an educational context. Kemmis and McTaggart's (1988) 
definition of action research emphasises both of these factors: 
Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by 
participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of 
their own social and educational practices, as well as their understanding of these 
practices and the situations in which these practices are carried out. ... The 
approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to 
realise that the action research of the group is achieved through the critically 
examined action of individual group members (pp.5-6). 
Webb (1995), commenting on this definition, adds: 
The essential ingredients of action research according to this view are: collective 
or collaborative (group based activity); .. .improvement and empowerment 
(critical consciousness) through group based critique (p.753). 
The following sections consider the key themes contained within these broad 
definitions. 
5.1.3 The theme of change 
While different writers focus on different aspects of the process, constructive and 
considered change or improvement is a consistent theme. For example, Winter 
(1989) sees two key principles as being, first, the process of reflection (that is, 
the development of understanding) and, second, change in practice. For 
116 
McPherson (1994), change in practice is the underlying principle upon which all 
the other tenets of action research are based: 
Its fundamental aim is to improve practice, and it seeks to achieve this by actively 
involving practitioners in making decisions about how to bring about these 
improvements. In this sense it is not research that is done on other people - it 
involves people working together, analysing and changing their own situations 
and practices (p.22). 
Carr and Kemmis (1986) include also a development or improvement in the 
context in which the research takes place. 
McNiff (1988), in describing the fundamentals of action research, identifies 
involvement as the social basis and improvement as the educational basis of 
action research and sees at the core the notion of change: "its operations demand 
change" (p.3). Whether the focus is on improving simple practice, or improving 
the understanding of participants, or creating a disturbance in the curriculum or 
institutional context in which the action research takes place, change remains a 
recurring and essential theme. 
5.1.4 The theme of collaboration and ownership 
Another key theme is the idea of collective change amongst a group of people 
who are already engaged in a particular practice.22 They begin with a question, a 
specific version of the general question "How can we improve what we are 
already doing?" In a sense, this is a question constantly in the minds of 
professional people, but action research offers a method by which to pursue this 
question in a more methodical, rigorous way than the common, casual query 
would normally generate (Winter, 1989; McCucheon and Jurg, 1990). 
22 This may not be the case in some forms of action research. In technical action research, the 
group may be brought together for the purposes of the researcher, but this would not normally be 
the case. It is also possible that some forms of action research would include the co-option of an 
'outsider' into a group that was already existing (see Bunning, 1994; Poskitt, 1995). 
117 
Related to this theme is the issue of ownership. Central to the concept of action 
research, as it has evolved in an educational setting in the last 25 years 
(following the 'teacher-as-researcher' work of Stenhouse, Elliot and others), is 
ownership by participants of the process of change, the results of the research 
and the implications emerging from reflection. While traditionally educational 
research has separated the practitioner from the researcher, with the practitioner 
as object and the researcher as detached subject, action research puts 
practitioners in the subject position, as instigators and owners of the research 
process and the results of that process. Clearly, then, as a corollary of ownership, 
action research must involve empowerment of teachers and practitioners. 
5.1.5 The theme of context 
A further theme of action research that was highly relevant to the programmes 
described in this study is the idea that it takes place in an immediate, practical 
context. While this idea is a commonplace, as Carr and Kemmis and many other 
writers (Rapoport, 1970; Hult and Lennung, 1980; Kelly, 1985) are quick to 
point out, it is not a commonplace of educational research in general. Educational 
research in its earlier, positivist forms, keen to establish itself as a reputable 
discipline, drew away from the particular in the interests of generalis able, 
measurable results. 
In the following extract, Kelly (1985) describes three things: first, the 
implications of educational research which takes place outside the immediate 
context, second, a danger inherent in providing an 'ideal' context for research, 
and, third, the positive consequences of action research being embedded in a 
'real' environment: 
Most educational research that is concerned with improving practice has adopted 
an experimental model. However, by controlling all variables except those under 
consideration, by pouring in money for curriculum materials, or demanding a 
certain allocation of time and facilities, the normal school situation is distorted 
and becomes artificial. Schools are constantly changing in unpredictable ways that 
destroy any neat experimental design; they have limited resources and constraints 
of staffing and building which vary . .. . Action research does not attempt to control 
for these factors or minimize their effects .. . .If innovations cannot survive in these 
conditions they are useless (p.74). 
118 
We knew in our study that if our innovations could not be implemented and take 
root in the real conditions of the university then they couldn't survive. We were 
concerned to use a model of action that was embedded in a real context and 
could still be analysed as research. Furthermore, we were interested in a model 
that would help us to analyse not only our actions and processes, but also the 
inter-relationship between our actions and the context in which they took place. 
This leads us into a further aspect of the theme of context in action research: the 
importance of understanding context as part of the research process. The 
planning phase of action research includes reconnaissance, which involves 
analysing the context and the ways in which the context and the proposed plan of 
action may affect one another. In order to analyse these two factors, it is often 
useful to consider multiple contexts rather than a single, undifferentiated context. 
This allows the action research team to look at context through a variety of 
lenses. For example, in these projects we started by considering the most 
immediate context - Massey University, the Faculty of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Sciences, the new degree, how writing has been taught in the 
faculty, and the process leading up to the inclusion of communication in the 
curriculum. By examining this immediate context we could take into account 
practical issues such as resources, political issues such as the level of support and 
commitment from senior management, and pedagogical issues such as how 
previous attempts at teaching communication in the faculty might affect the 
project. Taking a longer lens, we then researched a broader context of how 
writing had been taught in other New Zealand universities, as detailed in chapter 
three. 
A further context in which the projects took place is the research context. The 
action research process is contained within a dialectical interaction between 
relevant scientific knowledge or research and the practical and institutional 
contexts of the research. In this study, the research context is the body of 
knowledge on writing in the disciplines, as discussed in chapter four. The inter­
relationship between contexts means that scientific knowledge can be brought to 
bear on the social and practical contexts, while change in the social and practical 
contexts, brought about by the action research process, should influence the body 
119 
of knowledge relating to the field of change (i.e., the research on writing in the 
disciplines). Which leads naturally to the final theme of relevance to this study: 
action and research. 
5.1.6 The combined themes of action and research 
While we were concerned to undertake our programme, a programme based on 
action, we also wanted to analyse that programme as research. In an institution 
which values and promotes research, undertaking an immense curriculum change 
without analysing it as research is a missed opportunity for contributing to 
knowledge, and, more pragmatically, for publishing and promotion. Action 
research was a method that allowed us to cater to a number of motivations 
amongst team members because it combined an experience of curriculum 
development with an opportunity for research. 
Having considered the history, definitions, and characteristics of action research 
as they relate to our projects, we can now consider the process of action research 
and at how the elements are put into practice. 
5.2 Process 
Action research is not a linear, single process of change. It is generally 
characterised as a recurring spiral, with four 'moments' within each cycle: 
planning, action, observation and reflection. When one cycle is completed, 
reflection leads into replanning and so the cycle begins again. This cycle is 
generally schematised as shown in Figure 5.1. 
120 
Revised 
Plan 
/ '\ Aef~ct a Act 
\ ) 
Observe 
! Plan \ 
Aeflect @ Acf 
\ ) 
Observe 
Fig 5.1 The action research cycle (after Zuber-Skerritt, 1993) 
In practice, these moments are rarely discrete; neither do they necessarily appear 
rigidly in the order presented here (Selener, 1997): unexpected circumstances 
may require (constant) contingency planning in an unstable context; action and 
observation generally occur simultaneously; reflection may - indeed, should - be 
an almost continuous process. Because action research takes place in a 'real', 
dynamic context, rather than a controlled one, and seeks solutions to real 
problems, contingency is inevitable. Nevertheless, the cycle, as it is characterised 
here, provides a model of rigorous and systematic action and reflection on which 
to base informed change. The following paragraphs explain in more depth the 
four moments or stages of action research. 
5.2.1 Planning 
Action research begins with a question (Winter, 1989), or a problem (Selener, 
1997) or a hunch or general idea (Elliot, 1991), relating to practice and a group 
of practitioners. This question or problem is generally practical rather than 
theoretical and instigates the entire action research process. Selener discusses 
detailed methods for problem analysis and the formation of hypotheses. The 
notion of forming a hypothesis, however, might be debated by other theorists 
such as Winter (1989), who stresses the openness of the action research design as 
a way of allowing for a wide range of possible outcomes. 
121 
Planning proper begins with a reconnaissance: where are we now? Winter (1989) 
describes a set of basic questions: What is happening now? Why? What change 
are we attempting to negotiate? With whom? Who else will be affected by the 
change? McNiff (1988), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and Selener (1997) 
offer more detailed descriptions of the process of the reconnaissance stage of 
planning, including the need to assess present activities and practices and gain an 
understanding of the social relationships, structures and organisation of the 
particular context. 
Both Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and Winter (1989) emphasise the 
importance of the group becoming aware of its own values and the theories 
informing its present practice, although their reasons differ. According to 
Kemmis and McTaggart, we must understand our values because they "act as 
signposts, showing us 'which way is up' in the process of improvement and 
naming our commitments. Our values name the things we proclaim ourselves 
willing to struggle towards" (1986, p.55). Winter (1989), on the other hand, like 
Carr and Kemmis (1986), sees the focus on present values and commitments as 
essential to move both the group as a whole and the individuals within it beyond 
the bounds of the familiar. Of particular concern are the elimination of external 
and internal constraints and the recognition of distorted understandings and 
forms of domination. Emotions, ambitions, memories and hidden values may 
also affect a person's abilities to interpret and evaluate the progress of the 
investigation, so researchers and participants need to be as aware of these 
potential 'saboteurs' as possible. Both perspectives are, clearly, simultaneously 
valid reasons for being aware of your own values and ideologies. 
Once the present situation is analysed, the planning for action stage can begin. 
This involves working out goals and objectives that can be realised in the present 
context. Action may be a small or a large step, but, as Kemmis and McTaggart 
stress, it must be a realistic, strategic decision or series of decisions: "it is a 
practical decision about where to act to produce the most powerful effect 
compatible with sustaining the struggle for reform" (1988, p.65). This step may 
include accommodating the effects of change on others by anticipating reactions 
and planning for ways to manage possible resistance. It may include building in 
122 
contingency plans for resistance from within the group and working out 
strategies for managing conflict which may arise in the group. Clearly not all 
contingencies can be anticipated or accommodated, but thorough planning may 
help the group to avoid some problems that may arise. Above all, the plan of 
action must be practical, realisable and robust - and, where appropriate, 
grounded in relevant theory. 
5.2.2 Action and observation 
The next steps in the action research cycle are action and observing and 
monitoring the action. Clearly, the planning process will have involved decisions 
about observation techniques. Action research almost always involves 
triangulation, that is, the use of mUltiple observation techniques (Zuber-Skerritt, 
1993; Bunning, 1994). These may include questionnaires, interviews, data 
collection, document collection, recordings on various media, and, almost 
always, journals by participants that allow for both description and a continuous 
reflection process. Triangulation, by allowing for recording of multiple 
perspectives, may partially transcend individual bias (Carr and Kemmis, 1986; 
Kemmis and McTaggart, 1990; Zuber-Skerritt, 1993; Bunning, 1994; Poskitt, 
1995); or, from another perspective, it may allow research to be recorded as a 
multiple process, transcending the fiction of the single, consensus perspective 
(Winter, 1989; Bunning, 1994). 
Observation is never a passive part of the process. Because the observers are 
(generally) also the actors (i.e. the participants), observation inevitably involves 
continuous or regular analysis of the data, the effort to 'make sense' of what is 
happening. Observation is integrally tied to action and the actors. 
5.2.3 Reflection 
The final stage is reflection, a critical aspect of the action research approach. 
Linked back to the planning and action stages ("what has our action showed us in 
relation to our planned outcomes or research questions?"), reflection makes sense 
of our observations, leads to better understanding and hence stimulates further 
123 
change in action and practice. In reality, as noted above, this may not be a single 
stage at the end of the action but an almost continuous process throughout the 
action (McPherson, 1994). Continuous reflection, however, is not a substitute for 
a fuller reflection at the end of a cycle. At this stage the members of the group 
come together to look at their objectives and goals, to analyse their data, to 
consider possible serendipitous tangential results, and to formulate a plan for the 
following cycle. The success of this stage will depend on the success, 
appropriateness, and completeness of the observation methods used. 
This description of action research has been largely generic. Chapters six, seven 
and eight explain how action research was used in the three projects that make up 
this study. But before we consider the projects in detail we need to look at two 
critical features which applied to all three projects: the data collection methods 
used and the ethical constraints and contexts of the research. 
5.3 Data collection 
As we have seen, triangulation of data collection methods is crucial to action 
research. Triangulation in the social sciences generally refers to applying a 
number of approaches to the same phenomenon but data triangulation means 
collecting data from a number of sources (McKernan, 1991). Aside from offering 
a means of verifying key findings (i.e., looking for intersections between various 
data forms or sources to increase the validity and reliability of a study), 
triangulation may also be a means of illuminating a wide range of differing 
perspectives, creating a rich and varied picture of simultaneous but differing 
perspectives of the same experience or phenomenon. Therefore, triangulation 
may mean not only intersections but also fragmentations and the highlighting of 
conflicting - or simply different - subjectivities. Both perspectives on 
triangulation contribute to the broad picture presented by action research. 
For these reasons, data triangulation was used in all three projects described in 
this thesis. This required intensive consideration of methodology and data 
collection. Note that not all data collection methods were used in all projects; as 
124 
always, the context and the role and commitment of the participants influenced 
which methods were used. We were at all times bound by the possible. Different 
data methods were employed simultaneously by different participants. This 
section describes each method in general terms; more specific discussion of how 
the methods were employed in the actual projects is provided in each of the case 
studies. 
5.3.1 Staff journals 
Journals (or project diaries, learning logs or field notes) are a common form of 
data collection in qualitative studies and in action research in particular, 
providing pictures of the process and data individual and group (Elliott, 1991). 
Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, 1990) see journal keeping by all of the action 
research team as essential in terms of establishing in all group members a habit 
of reflection as well as observation. They identify four key areas that need to be 
attended to in keeping a journal: 
• reflecting on language and style, in particular noting any changes in language 
usage by the group or others (for example, when working with new members 
of a team teaching writing, one might note when a team member 
spontaneously used a term they had not previously been familiar with, such 
as 'topic sentences,' during a meeting); 
• reflecting on activities and practices, as they emerge or change, within the 
context of the research project; 
• reflecting on social relationships within the context of the research, focusing 
in particular on the ways these social relationships play themselves out and 
change in relation to the organisational structure; 
• reflecting on the action research process itself and the ways in which the 
group operates and changes over time (1988, pp.50-51). 
While all of these four facets will be relevant in any action research project, the 
focus of the journal will to some extent be determined by the objectives of the 
research. Some writers see journals as closer to traditional forms of observation 
or log keeping (McNiff, 1988; Poskitt, 1995) but most have emphasised them as 
125 
an integral, reflective part of the action research process (Kernmis, 1982; Winter, 
1989; Elliott, 1991): 
[They] should contain personal accounts of "observations, feelings, 
interpretations, reflections, hunches, hypotheses and explanations" .. .. Accounts 
should not merely report the 'bald facts ' of the situation, but convey a feeling of 
what it was like to be there participating in it. Anecdotes; near-verbatim accounts 
of conversations and verbal exchanges; introspective accounts of one's feelings, 
attitudes, motives, understandings in reacting to things, events, circumstances; 
these all help one to reconstruct what it was like at the time (Elliott, 1991, p.77). 
Overall, however, since action research stresses both observation and reflection 
(leading to revised action), reflective journals seem to be an ideal way both of 
processing on-going reflection and of recording data of various kinds to feed into 
the research process. 
Our three projects used journals in different ways. For project one, only the paper 
coordinator and myself kept continuous journals. This decision was simply 
expedient: the tutors for the paper felt that on-going journal writing was too 
demanding of their time; consequently, on-going reflection from other members 
of the group was elicited in other ways (see p.142). I was the only member of the 
team who saw the journals in their entirety, and I presented the data from the 
journals, along with data from other sources, to the group in a general report. 
Project two presented the biggest challenge in terms of data collection. I was the 
only member of the team who kept a continuous, reflective journal throughout 
the project; reflection was elicited from other members of the team in alternative 
ways (see pp.202-204). 
In project three, all academic staff maintained a journal during their teaching 
time. The paper coordinator and myself kept journals throughout the entire cycle. 
The journals were self-directed, although the group would occasionally raise, at 
the weekly meeting, issues to be reflected on in the individual journals. During 
the reflection period, I assembled and coded the journals and then presented 
edited sections to the group to support the reflection process. 
126 
5.3.2 Student journals 
Students in projects one and three were required to maintain journals or 
workbooks containing a journal throughout as part of the assessment of the 
paper. They were encouraged to write regular, self-initiated entries for the 
purposes of their own learning. In addition, teaching staff set regular 'entry' 
requirements for the students' journals, some of which directed students to reflect 
on their own learning experiences and their experiences of the teaching methods 
employed in the paper. Material relating to the evaluation or assessment of the 
paper or communicating useful student response to particular aspects of the paper 
was collected as part of the data collection process. 
Student journals, then, had a dual purpose. On the one hand, they were a part of 
the writing to learn aspect of both projects, and to that extent an integral part of 
the curriculum. On the other hand, they were also a part of the data collection 
process. This could, potentially, have led to confusion and ethical problems. To 
counter this risk, staff emphasised orally and through the marking schedule, as 
well as by demonstration, that students could feel confident about expressing 
themselves freely, and that they would not be marked down for negative 
evaluation. In the event, we were given no indication that students experienced 
difficulty with the dual role of the journal despite the fact they were given the 
opportunity to provide this feedback or concern through their focus groups. 
McNiff (1988) directly addresses the importance of students writing journals: 23 
[Pupils' diaries] can provide direct feedback from the pupils' perspective . 
... Guidance can be given by the teacher as to points to consider, but there should 
be little constraint on the pupils as to what they should write. The fear of 
censorship will remove some spontaneity, and if one of the reasons for the diaries 
is to gauge the situation honestly from the pupils' point of view, they should be 
encouraged to respond openly and honestly without fear of reprisal. If the teacher 
has the [pupil's] permission to read the diary and comment, a valuable dialogue 
may be set up (p.78). 
23While her comments relate to school research, the same principles apply in any educational 
context. 
127 
This latter point - that student journals, if read on a regular basis, may provide 
valuable information to the teacher, leading to dialogue, and the possibility 
thereby of change - was not taken up by the teachers in this context: student 
journals were only collected at the end of the paper and therefore their effect was 
limited to the next cycle of teaching, following reflection. 
5.3.3 Focus groups 
Projects one and three made extensive use of focus group interviews as a form of 
data collection. Krueger (1988) describes the following characteristics of focus 
groups. First, they involve people who possess particular characteristics that are 
of interest to the researcher and they provide qualitative data in a focused 
discussion (p.27). Second, they can be used in various ways in qualitative 
research: at the beginning of a research project to provide an assessment and 
indication of the key issues, or at various points in a project to provide feedback 
from particular groups. Third, they generally employ a moderator or facilitator to 
manage and record the group process. 
Stewart and Shamdasani (1990, p.16) identify the key strengths of focus groups 
as follows: 
• they are flexible. They can be used in a wide rapge of contexts and settings 
for a variety of purposes. They are also flexible within contexts in that the 
facilitator can broaden the scope of the discussion in response to focus group 
responses at the time that the focus group is operating if this is perceived to 
be useful; i.e. the interviewer is not tied to a series of questions but can 
operate in a semi-structured manner. 
• the results of focus groups are easy to understand, unlike statistical analyses 
of survey results that may not be immediately accessible to untrained 
participants in a research project. 
128 
• focus groups allow for data to be collected from people who are not very 
literate such as children; but they are also a way of collecting information 
quickly from busy people. 
• because focus groups have an open response format, they "provide ... an 
opportunity to obtain large and rich amounts of data in the respondents' own 
words" (p.16). The researcher then has access to deeper levels of meaning 
and interpretations, and can make connections within a rich set of data. 
• because the researcher interacts directly with the respondents, he or she is in 
a position to ask for points of clarification or to probe for more information. 
Non-verbal responses are also accessible, especially if the focus group is 
videotaped or recorded in some way. 
• focus groups are quick and cheap (in comparison to other data collection 
methods) and can be arranged at short notice. 
• perhaps the key strength of focus groups, as opposed to individual interview 
methods, is that they can elicit information based on synergy, when 
individual members bounce ideas off one another in a way that would not be 
possible with a single interviewee. Thus, different information may be 
explored and support for various perspectives probed (Robson, 1989). 
Focus groups can be seen as particularly pertinent to our projects since they 
provided an efficient way of eliciting feedback from busy students who did not 
see their involvement in the projects as one of the major priorities of their 
changing lives. This was particularly the case for first year students who were 
experiencing major life changes and challenges of both a personal and an 
academic nature. As far as possible we ran the focus groups during class time, as 
an incentive for students to attend. Early attempts to conduct focus groups 
outside class times were not well attended. 
129 
I acted as the facilitator of the groups, since I was not identified with the teaching 
of the paper and could therefore be seen as a neutral moderator. The groups were 
made up of small groups of students that I randomly selected from the class list 
(but restricted to those students who had signed consent forms). Students who 
were involved in focus group interviews were fully notified that the information 
from the interview (possibly including a full transcript in the case of project 
three) might be made available to their paper coordinator or tutor for feedback 
purposes but that their identity in the interview would be protected. This was 
achieved through participants being chosen on a random basis. I asked 
participants to take part in the focus group during a lecture or tutorial period, 
without any teaching staff present. I tape recorded the interviews and either typed 
the transcripts myself or had them typed by secretarial staff from another part of 
the campus who could not identify students. I then edited the transcripts to ensure 
that any details relating to identity (e.g. the students referring to each other by 
name, or students mentioning an aspect of their personal or professional history 
that might be familiar to their teachers) were removed from the final transcript. 
Students were informed of their right to ask for a copy of the transcript. 
For project one, I constructed the focus group questions (in consultation with the 
paper coordinator). The questions were based on concerns raised in team 
meetings and related to the objectives of the research project. No full transcripts 
were given to the paper coordinator or any tutors, but the information provided in 
the focus groups was incorporated into my report at the end of each semester, 
along with other forms of feedback and observation. In project three, however, 
because the focus groups had a dual function, namely to provide feedback on all 
aspects of the paper as well as on the writing to learn aspect, all teaching staff 
were invited to submit questions or to discuss with the interviewer those areas of 
the paper on which they wished to receive feedback. I then constructed a series 
of questions based on the questions and concerns of the teaching team. Once I 
had edited the transcripts for anonymity, a full transcript was provided to the 
paper coordinator. Other staff members were then provided with feedback (from 
the transcript or in report form) relating to the questions or concerns they had 
provided for focus group discussion. 
130 
For both projects, I conducted the focus groups as semi-structured interviews; in 
other words, the group discussion was not restricted exclusively to the questions 
on the interview sheet. If students began to discuss related topics of their own 
volition which were not included on the interview sheet, then these discussions 
were allowed to develop. See Appendix 4 for an example of a section from a 
transcript of a focus group interview. 
5.3.4 Individual interviews of staff 
Collecting data on individual group members' experiences and perceptions was 
considered important primarily because participants might not have felt 
comfortable making particular comments in a group context, given the roles that 
developed in each of the groups. 
Individual interviews were not conducted for project three, where teaching staff 
showed a strong commitment to journal writing. For projects one and two, on the 
other hand, staff were interviewed on a regular basis, at entry into the project and 
at the end of each semester, as this was considered the most efficient way of 
collecting information on staff perceptions. The interviews were conducted on a 
semi-structured basis, to allow for maximum information, and the interview 
questions were designed to relate to the objectives of the project. For project one, 
information from the interviews was collated and integrated into the report to 
staff at the end of each semester cycle, along with other data. Staff were assured 
of anonymity at all times. I tape recorded the interviews and either typed the 
transcripts myself or had them transcribed by a person who did not know the 
participants. 
Interviews, especially semi-structured interviews, are a useful form of data 
collection in that they support sustained interaction which makes possible in­
depth discussion and exploration with a single source. They also allow the 
interviewer to observe and record non-verbal responses. Equally, they permit the 
interviewee to indicate and explore issues related to the topic which are of 
concern to him or her but which may not have been anticipated by the 
131 
interviewer (Winter, 1989; Yin, 1989; Burns, 1989; Poskin, 1995). See Appendix 
5 for an example of a section from the transcript of an individual interview. 
5.3.5 Miscellaneous data collection methods 
One of the difficulties in projects one and two, when staff were under pressure of 
work, was eliciting on-going feedback of staff experiences and perceptions. 
Various approaches to collecting these data were attempted throughout the 
projects, including tutorial assessment sheets (see Appendix 6), short repOlls by 
staff (see Appendix 7) on particular aspects of their experience (as soon as 
possible after the actual experience) and the recording of group meetings in 
either hand-written log form or occasionally through tape recording meetings. 
This latter approach was used several times for project two and transcripts of the 
meetings were made available to attendees of the meetings to promote further 
discussion. 
5.3.6 Student assignments 
Student assignments were collected on a random basis (subject to consent) for 
reflection on the writing objectives of each research group. Students' anonymity 
was protected if excerpts were included in any reporting procedure. 
5.3.7 Written sources of data 
Also collected were documents pertaining to the historical development of the 
degree as it related to the introduction of writing into the curriculum, along with 
subsequent documents which tracked the progress of this element of the 
curriculum (such as those addressed to the Degree Management Committee and 
memos between heads of departments). 
5.4 Ethical issues 
Part of the social and practical context of any research project is the ethical 
framework in which the process takes place; an action research process must 
132 
accept the ethical constraints imposed by its social context. Failure to do so, as 
Winter points out (1989), may jeopardise not only the process of improvement 
but also existing valuable work. We have already foreshadowed some of the 
pertinent ethical questions in the preceding discussion. 
Because ethical issues for action research projects are complex, an ethical 
framework needs to be designed to protect the interestsof the group and any 
outside researcher. Ethics committees may have difficulty grasping the nature of 
the project since action research does not draw clear boundaries between the 
researcher and the participants. This certainly was the case for our projects, 
where the question kept coming back from the university's Human Ethics 
Committee: "But who are you doing research on?" Assisting an ethics committee 
in understanding the nature of this kind of research may in itself contribute to 
changing the context in which research takes place. It also sensitises participants 
to the fact that they may have to lead other people gently to another 
understanding of what research might be, instead of pushing blindly ahead with 
false understandings of other people's perspectives. 
The ethical guidelines for this study were drawn up by Massey University's 
Human Ethics Committee. They were as follows: 
(i) Confidentiality must not be breached 
(ii) We accept your assurance that informed consent from individuals will be 
obtained 
(iii) Participants must be notified that this is a research project 
(iv) The results published must not harm individuals and/or their departments 
Scrupulous care was taken to ensure that all participants (staff and students) in 
the programme had completed consent forms, giving me permission to use paper 
materials, assignments and individual interview transcripts for the purposes of 
this research. 
A problematic ethical issue was, as we have seen, that in projects one and three 
student focus groups were used as feedback for the project teams, and this might 
potentially have harmed student-teacher relations. This issue was addressed as 
outlined on p.129. 
133 
One difficulty that did emerge with the focus groups concerned instances where 
the students were highly critical of a teacher in either a personal or a professional 
capacity. At times, the paper coordinator and I decided to provide only partial 
transcripts to teachers, or to provide a report based on the transcript. Staff in this 
situation were fully informed if the transcript they received was only partial and 
that a full version was available on request. No staff member objected to or 
questioned this approach. Had any staff member requested a full transcript, it 
would have been made available to them. 
Another potential source of ethical conflict concerned the dual role of staff 
journals in one case study. Journals were given to me in their entirety, and 
sections from each journal were used for group reflection purposes. Using the 
journals in this way could have created difficulties since, although participants 
who kept journals were fully informed that what they wrote would be used for 
group reflection, they occasionally wrote material which, if shared with the 
group, might have damaged group relationships. In these instances I had to use 
discretion in withholding such information as well as ensuring that I had the 
author's consent to share any specific journal entries. 
A key directive from the Human Ethics Committee was that the research not 
harm anyone. This raises the problem of anonymity on a number of levels: in 
relation to the institution as a whole, in relation to departments and faculties, and 
in relation to individuals, staff and students. An early decision was made not to 
give institutions fictitious names in an attempt to achieve anonymity. To provide 
fictitious names at this level must be self-defeating; in a country as small as New 
Zealand, with relatively few universities, such fictions would be easily 
penetrated. Also, since the relationship between process and the context of the 
research is a key focus of this investigation, the description of writing instruction 
as conducted in specific New Zealand universities is an indispensable aspect of 
the thesis. 
134 
A similar decision has been made concerning the faculty and departments in 
which the research took place. Again, attempts to disguise context seem unlikely 
to succeed, and, again, the particular context - applied science - is significant to 
the results of the study. Disguise would make discussion of context, paper 
content, and student assignment topics impossible. 
Protecting the identity of individuals is a more contentious issue. In a small 
project with few players, such as project three, identification of individuals 
would be easily achieved. At times people's identities (e.g. the Dean's or a paper 
coordinator's) are difficult to disguise, but some comments from interviews and 
some actions require, for the protection of the individual, that I disguise my 
source. I have, therefore, in the writing of these chapters, simply exercised 
discretion according to context. Most quotations in these chapters are not given 
an identified source and actions are not attributed to particular individuals unless 
the identity of the source is significant in some way and disclosure would not be 
detrimental to that individual. 
One final word about ethics. The ethical constraints on the writing up of this 
project mean that some of the story may not be told here. Because action 
research takes place in a 'real' context, some factors affecting the outcome of the 
projects are 'sensitive' to individual and institutions. 'Real' issues include 
conflict between departments, political undercurrents which were not always 
visible and which manifest themselves in unexpected ways, the constraints of the 
teaching and the academic calendar, and, inevitably, personal concerns. 
It is in this area, in our understanding of the personal, political or institutional 
contexts, that some conflict between improving the present context and the 
dissemination of results may occur. The writer of an action research project 
needs to distinguish between two kinds of findings, those that only relate to one 
institution and those that can be generalis able to a broader educational context. 
The inevitable omissions, which are made necessary to protect individuals and 
institutions, are a frustration to the players and the writer, leading to a sense of 
'fictionalising'. Nevertheless, we needed to recognise that, while some findings 
may not be publishable, they still have their influence on the immediate context 
and participants' responses to that context. They remain a part of the change 
process. 
5.5 Conclusion 
135 
The chapter has introduced both the methodology used to develop the projects 
and the particular data collection and ethical issues relevant to this study. One of 
the key questions of this study is whether action research is an effective way to 
establish collaboration between teachers in the disciplines and writing teachers in 
the design of a university writing programme in the sciences. The prima facie 
conclusions that can be drawn here are that action research seemed well suited to 
our needs because: 
• it allows research to be conducted in a context of institutional change 
• it, like WAC, cultivates an ethos of team-work, collaboration, and mutual 
respect 
• collection of data is built into the process 
• it encourages consultation of all parties: managers, teachers, and students 
• its classic cycle fitted neatly into the semester system. 
The following chapters describe the projects that will allow us to explore these 
provisional conclusions in greater depth. 
136 
137 
Section Three: The Projects 
138 
Chapter 6. Project One: Communication in Applied 
Science 
This conviction of shared ownership does not exist naively or ideally. It costs 
pain, perseverance, trust and pride and is jointly constructed by projects within 
schools and across faculty (Harvie, Moroney and Smith, 1997, p.1l8). 
139 
As we have seen from chapter three, papers concerned with teaching writing in a 
particular discipline did not exist within the New Zealand tertiary context in 
1994, except, arguably, in business colleges, where business communication 
papers were not uncommon. Furthermore, all full-credit generic writing papers 
were taught by staff with training in English language or literature. This means 
that the decision by the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences to 
introduce a discipline-specific writing/communications paper, taught by subject 
specialists rather than writing teachers was highly innovative within the specific 
context. 
Indeed, it was not the first option of the Degree Management Committee. When I 
first became involved with the project, it was considered (maybe even hoped) 
that 39.107, the Applied English paper, taught by the English Department and 
compulsory for all Horticulture majors since 1989, or 14.253, Business 
Communication, taught by the Department of Human Resource Management in 
the Business Studies Faculty, might be appropriate. While members of the 
Degree Management Committee were committed to including communications 
in the applied science programme, they gave only cautious approval to the idea 
of developing a paper within the faculty, supporting the idea in principle but 
doubting the ability of faculty staff to teach relevant communication skills. 
The lecturer in Agricultural Extension called a meeting of all possibly interested 
and/or involved parties in June 1993.24 I was invited in my capacity as Writing 
24 See Appendix 8 for a timeline of this project. 
138 
Consultant for the Business Studies Faculty. Members of the English Department 
and from the Department of Human Resource Management also attended. From 
this, the initial planning team was formed, consisting of two members of the 
academic staff of the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences (one 
from the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management, the 
other from Plant Science), and myself. I joined the planning team in June 1993, 
although my involvement was not confirmed until November 1993. 
Following the meeting with staff members from the English Department and 
Human Resource Management in June, a decision was made to move ahead with 
a Faculty-taught paper (i.e. one not contracted to another department outside the 
faculty). 
6.1 Cycle 1: Planning 
6.1.1 Initial planning 
The original curriculum planning designed two 7-point papers25, one in each 
semester, the first of which would concentrate on writing skills and the second on 
oral communication and life or relationship skills. A decision was then made by 
the Degree Management Committee that all papers in the degree would carry 10 
(xSn) academic points, so the two papers were merged into one, with a focus on 
written and oral communication; relationship issues and ' life skills' were 
dropped from the curriculum. The paper was 'located' in the Department of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management, and it was named in such a 
way as to ensure that it was seen as a 'core' paper, rather than one which led into 
25 The significance of Massey University's point system is described thus in the University 
Calendar: "Every paper has a point value, which indicates its contribution to the qualification 
enrolled for. ... These values have been derived on the basis of an equivalent full-time year for a 
degree being 100 points. The point value also gives an indication of the total amount of time that 
a student must reasonably expect to have to spend on each paper in order to satisfactorily 
complete the assessment requirements (1999, p.74). 
141 
any particular programme.26 A memo was then sent around the faculty asking for 
volunteers to teach the paper. 
Prior to the teaching team coming together, the initial planning team made 
decisions about prescribed texts 27 and designed a basic paper structure, while I 
wrote and edited a Style Manual. 
6.1.2 Style Manual 
The planning team initially intended to prescribe a text that would provide 
writing guidelines for students in the applied sciences. We were looking for 
something that would be geared towards first year students who might be 
unfamiliar with the conventions of applied science writing. When we could not 
find a suitable text (most texts that we explored were more suited to pure science 
writers or to postgraduate students), we decided to produce our own. The Style 
Manual was designed as a resource for students to introduce the conventions of 
writing in the applied science disciplines. Based on a similar text used on another 
section of the campus, the Manual was broadly focused to include guidelines 
across all the relevant disciplines, from 100 level to 300 leveI.28 
Compiling the Manual involved collecting assignment directions and resources 
on science writing currently given to students and determining the major 
categories of assignment used in teaching. I then read widely on scientific 
writing, discussed assignments with academic staff, and from this range of 
resources generated a table of contents. Various members of the faculty wrote 
2°In fact, the name of the paper was a contentious, political issue that was debated through three 
cycles of the paper. The paper needed to have a clearly agricultural name to qualify for a 
particular category of EFfS funding; however, pressures to name the paper to lead into a specific 
subject area e.g. Ag Extension I, were resisted since core papers were not intended as feeders to 
specific programmes. 
27Texts were Newby (1989) and a good dictionary (e.g. the Concise Oxford). Recommended texts 
were McCloskey (1987) and the New Zealand Style Book (1992). 
28The text used to design the Manual was Writing guidelines for business students, which I had 
written in my role as writing consultant to the Business Studies Faculty, and which was used as a 
core text in business papers. In later years, both texts were written up as books and published by 
the Dunmore Press. 
142 
chapters for the Manual, while I wrote several chapters and edited the whole text. 
The resulting draft was then sent to staff members who had not been involved in 
the writing, including two other heads of department, for comment and 
amendment. 
Following production, the Manual was sent to two scientists outside of the 
university for comment on usefulness and accuracy, and staff and students 
engaged in 19.155 were asked for assessments of the Manual at the end of the 
Cycle 1 in individual and focus group interviews. 
6.1.3 Data collection 
A major issue that needed to be considered in the initial planning was how we 
would collect data to evaluate our programme. I adopted the role of data collector 
for the group in terms of observation and evaluation. Data collection methods 
used included: 
• pre-entry and exit interviews with all staff 
• tutor evaluation of all tutorials using a pre-set form 
• focus group interviews with students 
• student evaluations at the end of the paper (within the student journals) 
• staff journals (paper coordinator and myself) 
• records of all best and worst assignments 
• records of all meetings 
6.1.4 Curriculum development 
The major elements of the initial curriculum design were established for the 
whole group meeting in November by the initial planning team, but were refined 
and discussed by the teaching team prior to the first semester 1994. 
In June 1993 the initial planning team produced a document which outlined the 
principles of the core communication paper(s): 
• that the teaching of writing should be faculty-specific ("The best place to 
teach students about writing in agriculture and horticulture is in agriculture 
and horticulture papers"). 
143 
• that a programme to promote student literacy must have two elements: formal 
instruction in basic writing skills and a writing across the curriculum policy 
to ensure that writing skills are reinforced and enhanced throughout the 
curriculum. 
• that 'remedial' problems should be dealt with by a remedial specialist or 
learning consultant. 
• that students learn to write by writing. 
Throughout the period June - November 1993 the planning team met regularly to 
brainstorm and discuss approaches to the paper. The paper coordinator wrote 
constantly in his journal, reflecting ideas in a random fashion: 
It is important that students read about AgHort as part of the process of learning 
the language of the disciplines. Hence we should have a set of 'readings' as part 
of the paper. They should be 'neutral' in that they could be read by all students 
regardless of their endorsement [i.e. whatever their majoring subject). How do we 
include readings in the paper? 
I thought of writing to HODs to collect recommended readings in their discipline 
ranging from popular press to formal journal papers (as listed in the faculty 
research report) .... After discussing the idea with the group, it appears it may not 
be easy to identify journal papers that are suitable for first year students to read. 
Most will require considerable prior knowledge about the topic. Perhaps this says 
something about the quality of our professional writing if it is so unreadable to the 
lay person? (20.7.93) 
A few days later he was reflecting on the difficulties associated with teaching 
writing and speculating about the difference between recognising problems and 
explaining or teaching them: 
The easiest way (for me) to deal with poor writing is to laboriously correct it! 
Can't do this in the Communications paper. We need a code of some sort e.g. S = 
spelling, P = punctuation etc. Collect examples from the projects to help develop a 
marking code and a set of examples? (27.7.93) 
In August the planning team made the decision to focus on tutorials as the major 
teaching mechanism (a major decision, since tutorial teaching was relatively 
144 
unknown in the faculty), and by the end of that month, a draft paper prescription 
and paper nalTative had been developed which focused on skills rather than 
themes. 
The planning team throughout this period was reading widely on aspects of 
science writing and teaching writing. The paper structure was still the subject of 
considerable debate and individual preoccupation in September: 
[I] have put a copy of the paper outline (lecture and tutorial topics) on the wall 
where it is easier to see and think about in odd moments. I think I1we need to 
develop the narrative paper outline a step further. It provides a logic and flow that 
is missing in a list of topics (paper coordinator's journal 20.9.93) . 
Despite this desire for logic and flow, the paper as it was conceived in this early 
stage showed little thematic coherence, being focused instead on key skills we 
wished our students to acquire. The paper was roughly split in three, with an 
initial focus on knowledge acquisition and processing (including word 
processing), followed first by writing skills and then by oral communication 
skills. 
The early meetings of the teaching team,29 however, required us to articulate the 
ideas behind the paper. At the first meeting, held on 25.11.93, we focused on the 
following ideas: 
• writing, reading and speaking are important parts of the process of learning 
the disciplines of agriculture and horticulture 
• we (the faculty) have expertise in writing, reading and speaking in our 
disciplines 
• the paper should require students to write and speak as often as possible 
• rapid and effective feedback from tutors will be required 
• minimal marking strategies will be required30 
29 i.e., the initial planning team plus those people who had volunteered to teach the course. In the 
event, not all of this group actually taught in the first cycle - some delayed their teaching 
involvement until later cycles. 
JOS ee Haswell, 1983. 
• reinforcement of knowledge and skills will be needed in other B.Appl.Sci. 
papers: 'writing across the curriculum' 
145 
The teaching team continued to meet through December on a weekly basis to 
discuss the structure of the paper, its base philosophy, teaching approach, tutorial 
structure and task allocation. The focus of following meetings was largely on 
operational details (who was teaching which aspect of the paper, who was 
preparing the material for various tutorials, how to run tutorials), but also on 
pedagogical aspects such as assessment and tutorial structure. Decisions were 
made by the teaching team to introduce the theme of writing for an audience, to 
include a journal or workbook as part of assessment, and to standardise the 
tutorial format. 
A major area of discussion centred on the rival claims of transactional writing 
and' good' writing, where good writing conforms to identical rules in all 
contexts, so that audience becomes irrelevant. On the whole, though, the group 
was committed to a transactional style of writing as its focus for the paper. 
When meetings resumed in February 1994, following the Christmas break, the 
structure and direction of the paper had been confirmed and much of the teaching 
material was written. See Appendix 9 for an example of the teaching material 
designed by the teaching team. 
6.2 The teaching team 
It is common, in most writing and communication papers, in New Zealand and 
elsewhere, for the paper to be administered by senior and/or permanent academic 
staff and for a large proportion of the teaching to be the responsibility of 
temporary, casual, or junior staffl. A significant characteristic of this teaching 
team, then, was that all were permanent staff and most were long-standing or 
senior staff; all were of lecturer status or above, including two associate 
31 This is confirmed in the data collected for chapter 3. 
146 
professors. It is also a commonplace of communication papers that they are 
taught predominantly by women .. 12 Again, this team was singular in that it was 
predominantly male: in two cycles there was only one female member of the 
team beside myself, and in the second cycle there were no female tutors. 
Of the group engaged in the design of the paper (i.e. those in the original 
teaching team), six were from the Department of Plant Science, one from Animal 
Science and four from the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems 
Management. The final teaching team for the first cycle was five from Plant 
Science, one from Animal Science and three from Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management. While the composition of the team altered slightly in each 
cycle, the proportion from each department remained the same except for an 
additional member from Animal Science in cycle 3. Most of the team had 
volunteered to be involved, but two had been 'volunteered', one of whom was 
not comfortable with his involvement in the paper. Most, however, had a strong 
personal or professional interest in the next task. One member describes his 
diverse motivations: 
This was the way I could get experience at 100 level teaching, help improve the 
atrocious writing I was now seeing all around me, and also further improve my 
writing skills. I also wanted the opportunity to dismiss the perception held by 
'senior others' in the faculty that I couldn't work in a team. I was also bored 
working only with people in my department (Date not specified). 
Others had more ambivalent motivations: 
I guess in the end I had my arm twisted .. J've got a lot on my plate this year, but 
[the paper coordinator] said I should. And I mean, I agreed with him because I 
think I've got some things that I can offer a course like this ... but also it is a 
complementary activity to the agricultural extension courses I teach (23.2.94). 
The paper coordinator was highly motivated. His experience in teaching 
extension combined with a long-term concern for student literacy. In 1991 he had 
conducted a small research study of first year students ' literacy and study skills 
and had participated in the Working Party on Student Literacy (see p.63). I 
32 In 1993 in the business communication paper at Massey University, for example, the paper 
coordinator was male and all six tutors and markers were women. 
described the development of us both in terms of attitudes to literacy in my 
journal: 
147 
I know [the paper coordinator] from my involvement in a working party on 
literacy .... [He) and I were at extreme ends of every debate. He was a back to 
basics man who wanted an entrance exam for all students based on grammatical 
testing. I was opposed to the teaching of grammar and believed that, rather than 
testing, the university should provide full support for students and the teaching of 
writing in what I now call a discipline-specific context. 
In the period between the report of the working party (1991) and our meeting in 
April 1993 both [he) and I had mellowed considerably in our positions. [He] had 
read widely on the use of writing in teaching. I had ... encountered genre theory and 
systemic linguistics for the first time and had, at the same time, discovered from 
my own practice that some students do, in fact, respond well to being taught 
grammar (December 1994). 
Another strong motivating factor for the paper coordinator was that he had, while 
on sabbatical leave, encountered and audited communications and life skills 
courses in Agriculture programmes in North American universities and had been 
strongly impressed by their objectives and results. 
My own involvement in the project was explained to the teaching team in the 
first meeting. While some members of the group spoke positively about 
encounters with members of other faculties, particularly in the Education 
Faculty, others had less positive experiences. I spent much time in these early 
stages (and throughout the project) talking and listening with people, exploring 
their experiences and concerns. I also worked as an assistant to the paper 
coordinator, preparing materials and acting as a sounding board for his thoughts 
on paper development. Three things seemed critical to the other team members' 
acceptance of my involvement: my experience as a writing teacher, my 
inexperience with scientific writing, and the fact that my interest was research­
oriented. Clearly I had skills that would be useful to the group but I was able to 
acknowledge other members' areas of expertise: I was not going to impose 
'English-department style' on our work together. The research issue also seemed 
important: several people during interviews talked both about helping me with 
my research and the possibility of joint publications and opportunities. 
Nevertheless, even with these factors on my side, finding my feet in the group 
took time. At the beginning I was definitely an 'outsider', both from my own 
)~ 
148 
perspective and that of the other group members, and remained in that role for 
some members of the group throughout the project. 
However, the lack of initial cohesion probably made my acceptance by most 
members of the group smoother. During the planning stage, the teaching team 
showed little cohesion. The team as a whole had never worked together before, 
although some members had had professional associations with other group 
members - some of which had not been positive experiences. There was some 
tension between the two departments most represented in the group, tensions 
concerning the focus of the paper and between individuals. Moreover, none of 
the group had had experience teaching writing before and none had experienced 
a writing course of any kind, i.e. they had not been taught writing in any formal 
sense through their own degree programmes. On the other hand, some had taught 
in fields that were closely associated with communication, such as extension, and 
some mentioned working with postgraduate students as involving teaching 
writing. 
During entry interviews, most staff mentioned concern with students ' 
communication skills and also expressed anxiety that unless the rest of the 
faculty, in its teaching, put an emphasis on communications, the paper could 
achieve little on its own. 
6.3 Cycle 1: Students 
With the introduction of the new degree at the beginning of cycle 1, the 
composition of the student group enrolled in the first two cycles was abnormal in 
comparison to the composition of most first year compulsory papersY Students 
who had, in previous years, been enrolled in the degree programmes which had 
been displaced were counselled to join the new degree programme. This entailed 
331n the first two cycles. this paper was not compulsory i.e. two other papers, 39.107 and 14.253 ~ 
were alternative options. but some form of communications paper was compulsory for all applied ~ 
science students, with no exemptions. By the third cycle the two alternative options had been 
discarded. so 19.155 was a compulsory paper. 
149 
them taking most of the core competency first year papers of the new 
B.Appli.Sci degree, which were compulsory for the new degree. Consequently, 
the communications paper had a high level of second and third year students who 
did not consider writing or communication to be a natural part of an agriculture 
or horticulture programme and who were antagonistic to this curriculum 
development. The behaviour of the class - particularly during lectures - was 
therefore a matter of on-going concern throughout the first cycle. 
6.4 Cycle 1: Action and observation 
Teaching in the paper began in February 1994. 240 students were enrolled in this 
first cycle of the paper, considerably more than expected, and extra tutors (staff 
who were included as part of the teaching team but had not expected to teach 
until the second semester) were enlisted in the two weeks prior to the paper 
commencement. 
Meetings were held each week of the semester, on Monday mornings, prior to 
classes. These meetings became an essential part of the culture of the paper and 
over time the group became highly cohesive with individuals taking on particular 
roles and thus being able to offer comments on behalf of absent members (an 
example was one team member saying, about an absent member of the team: "I'll 
be X ... and say aren't we legislating for the lowest denominator here?"). Tutors 
referred to the regular meeting, with irony, as their 'support group'. 
The purposes of these group meetings were many. They were used to hand out 
material for the coming week's tutorial, to discuss how it could be taught, to 
trouble shoot and to make adjustments to material that emerged as problematic. 
For example, the group had difficulty with the concept of minimal marking,'4 
which was interpreted in different ways by group members, and so the meeting 
.14 See Haswell, 1983 for full details of minimal marking. Simply defined, it is a process whereby 
a tutor marks an error (using an established code) on the margin of a script but does not indicate 
the actual error on the text. The script is then returned to the student who locates the error, 
corrects it and then returns it to the tutor for confirmation and a grade. No grade is given until the 
student returns the script with all errors identified and corrected. 
ISO 
was a time when this strategy could be discussed. Similarly, the structure of 
tutorials was discussed and problems and successes with the structure of the class 
explored. 
The paper was taught in two ways: 1. a large class lecture, and 2. tutorials with a 
maximum of 30 students (though the number varied from group to group, with 
one tutor only having 12 students). The lectures were presented by individual 
members of the team. Two of the problems I noted in my journal (7.4.94) were 
that every lecture was taken by a different person and none of the staff had 
experience lecturing to such a large group of students; consequently, there were 
control problems which were compounded by the antagonism of a portion of the 
class. 
In this cycle, the staff had maximum opportunity to design their own classes in 
the tutorials since the direction for each tutorial was minimal, and none of the 
material had been tested. For some of the staff, this lack of direction was very 
difficult; for others it was what allowed them to gain mastery of teaching this 
subject, as they were compelled to design their own material. 
The key pedagogical features of the paper in this cycle were: 
• the use of lectures 
• the introduction and structure of tutorials 
• minimal marking 
• a focus on skills (including grammar and other technical aspects of writing) 
• the use of set texts 
• the use of the Style Manual 
• 100% internal assessment 
• the use of a journal 
• the separation of the oral and writing components 
• the introduction of peer editing 
A month before the end of the first semester, the paper coordinator retired, 
leading to a territorial skirmish over ownership of the paper between the 
Departments of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management and Plant 
Science. In the interim, a member of the Department of Plant Science was 
appointed as paper coordinator until the end of the semester. 
6.5 Observation and reflection 
151 
At the end of the first semester, all data were collected and assembled into key 
areas, and I constructed a report for the teaching team based on all feedback 
(from staff and students). The key points taken to the group for discussion were 
as follows. 
Semester 1 1994 was an abnormal cycle for the following reasons: 
1. The first year of operation of a new paper is always problematic; when every 
member of staff is teaching outside their field this is especially so. 
2. The cross over to the new degree resulted in large numbers of returning 
students enrolling in this paper; the class, therefore, was unusually large and 
class composition atypical. Much of the resistance to this paper was 
generated by returning students; this was not expected to be a problem in 
later cycles. 
3. A change in management occurred in mid-cycle. 
6.5.1 Materials 
Neither Newby, the class text (which was used as a reference book by students), 
nor the Style Manual was sufficiently integrated into the paper. Students 
observed that they were directed to use the Style Manual in other papers (e.g. 
Applied Science and Farm Management) and found it useful, but didn't use it for 
19.155. Many criticisms of the paper suggested the students hadn't read the 
152 
teaching material- and probably hadn't been directed to it at the appropriate 
timesY 
A further matter of concern related to a lack of material on grammar and the 
teaching of grammar. Newby, which did contain sections on grammar, was no 
longer available and a new text was required to cover this section of the paper, 
since grammar issues were not sufficiently addressed in the Manual. 
Issues that needed to be addressed were: 
• a new text for the paper 
• addition of material on note taking and preparing OHPs in the Style Manual 
• more convincing integration of the reading of the texts into the paper 
6.5.2 Lectures 
Lectures were considered by the students to be one of the weakest parts of the 
paper. There was little incentive for students to attend and class behaviour was 
poor. Students commented that the paper seemed to be in two parts with the 
'real' part taking place in tutorials where attendance was consistently high. 
Another concern was that the lectures were not always in the right order. For 
example the lecture on writing practical reports was too late, coming just before 
the practical report was due in, when most students would have completed late 
drafts. 36 By contrast, the lecture on presenting data came too early, before 
students could see the significance of the material to their own work. 
My recommendations in the short term were to reassess the order of the lectures 
and to clarify the structure of the paper, perhaps by introducing a central theme 
or concept. Long term recommendations were to reassess the need for lectures 
35 For example, the Style Manual contained information on how to find material, and Newby 
contained a section on note taking, but students commented in focus groups that there was no 
material in the paper which provided information in these critical areas. 
153 
and to change their timing if they were to be retained;37 to consider introducing 
specialist workshops (e.g. word processing workshops, seminar presentation 
workshops) to better meet the needs of a diverse student group; and to consider 
writing a study guide, in order to give more stability and cohesion to the paper. 
6.5.3 Tutorials 
While lectures were seen as one of the greatest weaknesses of the paper, the 
students saw the tutorials and the tutors as its greatest strength. Student 
comments included a request for more computing, an indication of the need to 
clarify the objectives of each tutorial, and a clarification that there was a problem 
of consistency - in marking, in class content, and in procedures. Some tutors, for 
example, let students take work home while others had to do it in class. 
Immediate concerns were to: 
• rewrite the computer practical. The computer practical was a simple 
introduction to using the computer labs (including logging on and creating 
passwords) and using word processing and spreadsheet packages. We found 
during this cycle that students' computing skills were less advanced than we 
had expected, so the material had to be simplified and extended. 
• take the glossaries out of tutorials. Glossaries were used as a way of 
promoting oral communication skills in tutorials. The class was given a list of 
terms and each member of the class was asked to present the definition and 
application of the term to the tutorial. Tutors decided that the glossaries were 
too time consuming and not relevant for all students. 
• extend and structure the peer editing procedures. 
36 In the first year of an applied science degree, students are required to write a report on practical 
experience they have had during the previous vacation. This report was known as the practical 
report. 
37 Some students commented that they had lectures and labs from Sam on a Monday to 5pm 
without a break, and since the 19.155 lecture was at lunchtime, they took this opportunity for a 
break. 
154 
• review the English and Science tutorial. The English and Science tutorial 
focused on grammar and style. Almost all students disliked this tutorial, some 
on the grounds that it was far too simple and taught them nothing new, and 
others on the grounds it was far too hard and they did not know what the tutor 
was talking about. Staff also found the tutorial difficult as they were 
uncomfortable teaching grammar and could not always see the reasons for 
things - I had several phone calls from tutors, just before tutorials saying 
"What is a preposition and why can ' t you end a sentence with one?" 
• clarify the objectives of each tutorial. 
• direct tutors to take a consistent approach to completing work in tutorials. 
Long term recommendations were to completely review the material in each 
tutorial, to review peer editing, either integrating it more consistently or 
discarding it entirely, and to reconsider the relationship between tutorials, 
lectures and teaching materials. 
Generally, however, tutors and students spoke positively of the tutorials. Tutors 
reported spending, on average, two hours preparing for each tutorial and many 
spent much longer preparing their own teaching materials. 
6.5.4 Assessment 
Students objected strongly to the weighting of the assessment towards the end of 
the semester when workloads were very heavy. Despite these concerns, students 
and staff favoured the 100% internal assessment approach. 
My short-term recommendation relating to assessment was to retain most of the 
evaluation methods for another cycle with minimal adjustment to some exercises. 
Comments from staff and students did not point to any firm directions. For 
example, staff, on the whole, had found the workload, with the marking of small 
assignments, heavy, while students had enjoyed the regular small assignments 
and would have preferred more of them to doing the journal. Minimal marking 
155 
had, likewise, drawn a mixed response with staff again focusing on the work 
involved for them as markers, while students had conceded the value of having to 
locate and learn from their own errors. 
One form of assessment, however, needed urgent attention. Revision of the 
journal needed to be considered prior to the beginning of semester 2. We had 
included journals as part of the course because we had been impressed by the 
literature on journals (such as Fulwiler, 1987; Zimmerman, 1991) and wanted 
our students to use writing to reflect on their learning experiences. However, we 
had not appreciated the need to structure this process, instead telling students to 
simply write about their experiences and thoughts for a minimum of three times a 
week. Subsequently, staff and students alike were unhappy with this nebulous 
structure and unsure of the purpose of the journal as it operated in cycle 1. I 
suggested four alternative approaches: 
• abandon the journal. 
• identify the purpose of the journal more clearly and explain it and its benefits 
to students more convincingly. 
• structure the journal more tightly (see Bean & Ramage, 1986). 
• structure the journal tightly in the first few weeks (for example, using tasks 
such as those outlined in Bean and Ramage) and then relax into journal 
format. This option would balance the workload against the end of semester 
weighting but would require staff to spend more time explaining the journal 
and checking it in the first few weeks. 
The seminar reports were similarly reported to be a positive experience by the 
students. In this first cycle, the seminar report required students to investigate a 
topic (from a list of pre-prepared topics) and present both a written report and a 
seminar to the class on that topic, which were assessed separately. Students 
commented positively on both the seminar and the report. However, two issues 
relating to the seminar report needed to be urgently addressed: first, the level of 
difficulty of the topics (some subjects required much more advanced 
investigative skills than others) and, second, whether students should be allowed 
156 
to choose their own topics or not (some tutors were allowing choice while others 
were not). The original intention had been to allocate topics on a random basis 
with students having no choices. In the event, students objected to this very 
strongly: animal science students, for example, did not feel motivated to study a 
topic on growing mandarin oranges, and horticulture students were 
uncomfortable with a topic on shoulder-milk production. Consequently, some 
tutors allowed students to choose from the list of topics while others allocated the 
topics randomly as planned. 
6.5.5 Curriculum 
Staff and student comments on the curriculum were focused quite differently. 
Students focused on the practical application of the skills they were being taught, 
in particular on learning business communication skills such as writing a CV or 
business letters and interviewing skills. Staff, by contrast, focused on the 
cohesion of the paper and the relationship between different aspects of the 
curriculum. 
My key recommendation in relation to the curriculum was to incorporate a key 
theme (or themes) that would build up the cohesion and coherence of the paper, 
such as a communication model or the significance of communication in 
agriculture. Students, it seemed, needed to understand why communication was 
part of the core of their curriculum. These key themes (or this key theme) needed 
to be built up with practical exercises which would underline the concept. 
In the long term, the paper needed to be completely restructured around these 
concepts and its objectives reassessed. 
In my journal, I commented on the staff interviews as follows: 
At the end of this semester, all staff rated their confidence levels in teaching 
writing higher than they had at the beginning. However, most significant in 
relation to that increased confidence was the language used in discussing the 
paper. All staff were interested and competent in discussing modes of delivery, 
the comparative value of different approaches to teaching writing; all were 
capable of informed discussion on the relative importance of style, information 
157 
retrieval skills, and grammar. The paper itself seemed to have refined in its 
definition from a generic communications skills course to a paper in the more 
specific area of applied science writing. Staff were also confident about evaluating 
the value of various student assessments of the paper without defensiveness, and 
able to incorporate student criticism into the replanning of the paper (July 1994). 
6.6 Reflection and planning 
Reflection and planning for cycle 2 were hampered by a discrepancy between the 
operation of the faculty and the rest of the university. Massey University was still 
operating under a three-term year with full year papers in 1994, with an 
anticipated move to two-semester teaching years commencing in 1995. With the 
advent of the new degree, the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences 
was operating on a two-semester system in 1994, but constrained by the 
university term vacations. Consequently, in semester one, there was a three-week 
break in May, but only a one-week break between the end of exams for semester 
one and the beginning of semester 2. This was a one-off disruption, caused by the 
anomaly between the two systems, but it affected the extent to which the paper 
could be altered between the two cycles. Despite these difficulties, the group ran 
meetings throughout the week of exams and the following week, and, as a 
consequence of staff and student interviews, made the following minor changes: 
• two major themes were introduced: the relevance of communication to the 
primary sector and a communication model (a very simple S-M-C-R model'S) 
• changes were made to the structure of the journal, according to the fourth 
option outlined on p.155 
• computing tutorial time was doubled 
• glossaries were taken out of the tutorials and put into the journal 
In this semester a member of the teaching team from the Department of Plant 
Science was still acting paper coordinator with no confirmation about his 
permanent status. 
3S ie, a Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver model. 
158 
6.7 Action and observation 
The second semester of 1994 saw a very different cohort of students enrolled in 
the paper compared with the previous cycle. Because of timetable clashes, almost 
all the 70 enrolling were first year horticulture students. Since all the tutors 
teaching in this semester were from Plant Science they were able to report a very 
close affinity and relationship developing with their classes. 
The acting paper coordinator introduced a far more structured and organised 
style to the class. In particular, the material he produced for tutors was more 
detailed and structured than that produced by the previous paper coordinator. The 
new staff member who was proposed as the alternative paper coordinator from 
the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management also 
became involved in the lecturing, and his ideas relating to teaching 
communication theory began to influence the teaching group. 
The same methods of observation were used as those in semester 1. 
Several issues arose during this cycle: 
• students with English as a second language became an issue. There were 
concerns about the fact that work produced outside class was of a 
considerably higher standard than that produced in class. The marking 
schedules for the seminar report also became a matter of concern. Students 
with very poor spoken English skills could gain a high mark if their seminar 
was well structured due to the weight of the marking being placed on the 
seminar's overall structure. 
• new tutor confidence was another concern. The teaching team was now 
composed of a mix of new tutors and tutors who had taught in semester one. 
This led to some difficulty where teaching issues were taken for granted by 
the 'old hands' but remained matters of grave concern to new members. New 
tutors reported that while they could recognise something wasn't right, they 
159 
didn't always know why. The situation seemed to be exacerbated by a very 
passive class. The new tutors in this group seemed to experience more stress 
than the teaching team in semester 1. 
• reading was a matter of concern. While overhauling the Style Manual for 
cycle 2, I studied both the student comments about the Manual and the style 
of their assignments and it was clear that most students seemed 
uncomfortable with a formal style of writing. When I began to query what 
students were required to read within their first year papers, it became 
apparent that they were not required to read anything but study guides. The 
19.155 teaching team began to talk about providing readings, as a way of 
modelling the types of writing required of students. 
6.8 Reflection 
The reflection stage of cycle 2 brought together the teaching team from both 
cycles 1 and 2. There was considerable overlap between the two groups, but 
many of the tutors for the first cycle returned for this stage of cycle 2, to take part 
in reflection meetings. The end of semester two left more time for adjustment 
and reconsideration of the curriculum and delivery. There were still constraints, 
however. For example, the calendar description of the paper had already been 
written (as required by the university) so the methods of student assessment had 
already, to some extent, been decided. For instance, the acting paper coordinator 
had decided, without consultation, that the paper would have a 40% examination. 
The reflection and replanning process, therefore, had to take these decisions into 
account. Once again I constlUcted a report based on staff interviews and student 
focus group interviews. The issues focused on were as below. 
6.8.1 Operations 
The first issue considered was the operation of the paper, and in particular the 
following points: 
160 
• how to more effectively integrate the texts and tailor the Manual more to the 
paper. 
• how to use lectures more effectively and encourage attendance. Lectures 
were still badly attended, and the relationship between lectures and tutorials 
was not always evident to students. Furthermore, a student commented that 
the material in the lectures was always repeated in the tutorials, so there was 
no point in going to the lectures. 
• an exam was likely to ensure students attended the lecture, but this did not 
take away from the fact that the lectures needed more substance.39 The order 
of the lectures needed to be more appropriate, and the teaching methods 
needed to become more cohesive. 
• how to standardise tutorials. The tutorials and the tutors once again emerged 
as the paper's greatest strength. Tutors prepared well and produced material 
to fit the needs of their particular group and their own teaching style. 
However, the advent of an exam meant that the tutorials would need to be 
more standardised. For example, one tutor, in the tutorial on paragraphing, 
was teaching complex techniques such as how to build internal transitions 
where other tutors were barely getting past the concept of a topic sentence. 
Clearly some method was needed to allow maximum flexibility of approach 
while ensuring uniformity of examinable material. 
• how to use peer editing and minimal marking techniques more effectively. 
• how to restructure internal material now that a 40% exam was included in 
assessment. The other issue of concern to the students was the uneven 
39 One student commented in the focus interviews: "I haven ' t learnt a lot. Some of the material is 
so obvious. I don ' t sit down and say right, now I'm in the writing process, what five things do I 
need to know? Who does that? You do those things in your first primary school years when you 
learn how to write a story. So now, you automatically do those things without thinking about 
them. It's a natural thing; you don ' t need 50 minutes of someone lecturing you on the topic. I 
wanted to give him a slap and say 'Hey! Get on with it! ' . AND he was reading the exact words 
on the handout" (October 1994). 
161 
marking distribution, with marked material still heavily skewed to the end of 
the semester. This imbalance needed to be addressed. 
• several operational difficulties seemed to have been solved in this second 
cycle: 
• one of the most surprising changes between the first and second semesters 
was an attitude shift towards the journal. At the end of the first semester, 
students and staff were almost totally united in disliking the journal. However 
since the initial entries had been made more structured, and tutors had made a 
more assertive effort to 'sell' the journal, many students did agree that, while 
not always a pleasant task, it did have worthwhile results. 
• the oral and written versions of the seminar report were commented on 
favourably by students, with the problems of the previous semester being 
overcome. This may have been because prior to the second cycle, the 
teaching team had closely assessed each tutorial topic for level of difficulty 
and produced a shorter, but more uniform, list of topics. 
• whether students should be allowed to choose their own topic was the only 
remaining issue of concern. 
6.8.2 Curriculum 
The original paper focused on skills, some of which might be considered quite 
generic. Over the two semesters, the paper moved into a more discipline specific 
context, to the extent that other, more generic papers (such as Applied English or 
Business Communication) were dropped as approved alternatives. Some students 
were acknowledging the difference between the generic teaching of writing and 
19.155. As one student put it: "it's different to school- we didn't do things like 
abstracts, reports. Punctuation, paragraphing, we did do that at school - but it 
was very different to doing English." However, many students in the focus 
groups did not recognise the difference between basic skills ("what I learnt in 5th 
form English") and the specific skills taught in this paper, suggesting that a 
162 
clearer and more context specific focus for the paper might increase its 
credibility. 
Students voiced two other concerns: that the paper was not practical enough and 
that there was a written/oral imbalance. One student commented, to murmured 
agreement from the focus group: "I would like more on CVs. One lecture was 
not enough. And business letters, business reports ... the seminar was good - we 
need that." All the focus groups agreed more speaking was needed - they would 
have liked both more seminars and more emphasis on how to talk with other 
people more effectively. 
My first suggestion about the curriculum was to gear all writing exercises around 
practical or applied contexts, focus on writing for an audience as a major theme, 
and teach grammar, punctuation and technical matters in the contexts of the 
practical projects. In these ways, the difference between this paper and 5th form 
English would be more apparent. 
At the same time, I highlighted an alternative theme of writing for an academic 
audience, since few students seemed to be able to grasp the conventions of 
academic writing such as accurate citations. While students did not identify this 
as a need, it was a frequent theme in staff interviews. 
One of the issues which also arose from the data collection at this time, but 
which I did not discuss in the report, was the increase in tutor confidence. Two 
passages from the interview transcripts illustrate this: 
You know, the concept that this course was actually run by staff within the faculty 
I think was one that was looked at a bit sideways by a lot of people. But I also 
think it was the right decision - because if, for example, the English Department 
had volunteered to do this course, or simply a core paper had been an adaptation 
of an existing paper in English, as an example, I think the emphasis would've 
been wrong. I don't think the people involved - I think the people involved in that 
situation would have found it very difficult to get to grips with what needed to be 
in this core paper. And so, you know, none of us have any claims to be teachers of 
English or even teachers of writing, but with the resources available, with the help 
available, I do think we can develop a course which does mean all we're setting 
out to do, and that the individuals involved in the lecturing and the tutoring are 
more than capable of presenting and teaching in that course (16.10.94). 
-~ -~~~------
163 
I'm using this, I'm using writing a lot more in my other courses and I'm expecting 
a lot more of the students, and I'm pushing communication a lot more .... So yes, I 
guess I am still as ferverous about it I suppose, but maybe just a bit more realistic, 
and more confident that I can deliver what I'm supposed to (16.10.94). 
Most tutors rated their confidence higher than they had in previous interviews; 
only one, a new tutor in that cycle, rated his confidence as being as low as before 
the paper began. The majority also discussed the importance of extending the 
teaching of communication beyond the single paper and the futility of teaching 
communication in isolation from the rest of the curriculum. 
6.9 Cycle 3: Planning 
Each of the topics outlined above was considered fully by the complete teaching 
team during weekly meetings over the summer period. As a result, the following 
changes were made to the curriculum: 
• mastery learning tests were introduced to teach technical skills. The logistics 
of these tests took up much of the group time over the planning stage. Also, 
the issue arose of what could be taught in this way. Their most obvious 
function was to test quick recall and right/wrong material, such as referencing 
and grammar. Originally it was proposed that writing for a client and 
referencing modules be included in the mastery tests, but finally three topics 
were chosen as test pilots: punctuation, paragraphing, and English and 
Science. Students were provided with self-tutoring material and optional 
support classes and then required to pass the tests within a restricted period of 
time in the first few weeks of the paper. They were allowed to sit the tests as 
often as they needed within the specified time period. Students were required 
to pass all mastery tests, with the minimum score set at 80%, although no 
internal assessment marks were allocated to the tests. One of the major 
advantages of these mastery tests, as they were envisaged, was that students 
who were competent in these fields would not need to spend time on them, 
whereas those who experienced more problems would have time to focus on 
them. See Appendix 10 for an example of mastery test study material and a 
mastery test. 
164 
• the oral component was increased through a tutorial on questioning, listening, 
and giving feedback. 
• the workbook focus was adjusted. 
• library and computing material was increased. 
• writing for an audience and academic writing themes were introduced. 
6.10 Action and observation 
The observation methods for cycle 3 were the same as in cycles 1 and 2. 
A consequence of the changes in structure was that the tutorials almost 
completely changed in character. In the past the tutors had designed much of 
their own material, based on rough lesson plans for every tutorial which were 
often put together by the teaching team as a group; in this cycle lesson plans 
were fully developed by the paper coordinator and were very detailed, so that 
tutors had almost no input into what they were teaching. This may have been 
unfortunate, given that the students in previous cycles considered the tutorials as 
they were originally conceived to be the strongest component of the paper. On 
the other hand, the mechanics of writing were moved out of the tutorials, so that 
tutorials were freed up for much more focused communication in applied science 
material, material that was now more coherently produced for each tutorial from 
a single source. 
The paper was more evenly balanced in terms of workload, with a heavier 
weighting in the first part of the semester. 
This year the rest of the university changed to a semester system, allowing for a 
more logical structuring of time and greater reflection period between each cycle. 
----------------- -- -
165 
The teaching team was altered from the previous two cycles, with new members 
joining the team. Once again these members lacked confidence in their ability to 
teach writing. The team, then, became even more sharply divided between the 
cohesive group that comprised the earlier teaching team, who had been and still 
were highly motivated and who had chosen to volunteer their time to teaching 
this paper,40 and the new members who lacked confidence and who had been 
volunteered by their Head of Department. This division was to present some 
problems in cycle 3, with more experienced teachers less likely to support the 
new members than they had been to support each other during the previous 
cycles. 
Leadership of the group was stronger in this cycle. The previous acting paper 
coordinator was confirmed in his role and took a stronger lead than he had in the 
previous cycle, partly to assist the new members and also to achieve the 
increased uniformity of material that was required with the introduction of the 
exam. 
The Style Manual remained unchanged from the previous cycle, and no other 
text was included besides teaching material. 
The class was approximately the same size as that of the first cycle (i.e. approx. 
240 students) but was far more homogeneous. There were far fewer returning 
students i.e. most were enrolled in the Applied Science degree from their first 
year. Members of the class asked questions in lectures and most students took 
notes. Tutors reported that their classes were lively and responsive. 
The mastery tests presented immediate problems. Students were required to have 
passed these units by Easter (the first break in the semester), but it soon became 
clear that few students were going to pass all three by this time. Either the tests 
were too difficult or the students were not attending to the need to study for 
them. By week 4 many students were panicking, some students sitting the tests 
41) The two members who had been reluctant to be involved in the first cycles had dropped out of 
the team by this cycle. 
166 
four times in each allotted hour. Tutors were seeing individual students regularly, 
but some did not have the skills to teach the tests adequately (this was especially 
the case for new tutors). 
Another problem with the tests was that they needed someone with a strong 
grasp of punctuation and paragraphing to mark them, since there were many 
possible answers. It was not possible, especially for the punctuation tests, to 
write a marking guide that would cover all possibilities. Two people, including 
myself, were therefore required to mark over 200 scripts per week over each 
weekend. 
By Easter over half the class had not passed all three units, and it was clearly not 
possible to fail half the class in a compulsory paper. We therefore analysed the 
tests along with the students ' responses and identified two problems: some of the 
tests were too complex,41 and many students lacked knowledge of test taking 
strategies. We then rewrote the tests, together with the support material, so that 
the level was more manageable, and ran a series of remedial workshops in the 
evenings to teach both the skills required and examination techniques. Within 
three weeks, all students who attended the remedial workshops had passed the 
new tests. 
6.11 Reflection 
The paper was evaluated as in previous cycles, through interviews with staff, 
focus groups with students, observation, and analysis of classes and materials. 
On the basis of this feedback, I wrote a report for the teaching group for 
reflection and discussion purposes. Two issues that arose in the interviews with 
staff were not included in the written report but were commented on during the 
4 1 The paragraphing module was particularly difficult, and the support material was somewhat 
ambiguous. 
oral presentation of the report: staff dissatisfaction with their role during this 
cycle and the changing nature of the group meetings. 
167 
While students' comments on the paper were far more positive than in previous 
cycles, staff seemed generally unhappy with their role, which they saw as much 
more circumscribed than before: 
I didn't enjoy it as much as last year...because we were always running. There was 
hardly any discussion with the group because they often had the new exercise for 
the tutorial, the things they had to go through here, so in ail, I didn't feel that I 
contributed a lot to what they actually learned. They went through the seminars, 
they went to the library, they had a computer tutorial, they had the group work, so 
a lot of it was without a lot of input from me .. .if the pace had been more relaxed 
then we would have gone through an exercise, and we could have discussed what 
they learned, and given feedback, and often there wasn't time for that. I feIt we 
were constantly running (27.6.95). 
1 didn't enjoy teaching it. .. .1 always seemed to be one step behind .... 1 just never 
felt in control. And I never felt I was teaching ... most of the course was self-taught 
by the students, so [the paper coordinator] didn't achieve consistency between the 
tutors, well he did, because he took them out of the equation. They just weren't a 
part of the course any more. They were people who fronted up, gave out to the 
groaning masses more masses of paper, brought paper in and collected paper and 
marked it (4.7.95). 
Dissatisfaction with the role of the tutors also related to the second concern: the 
changing nature of the teaching team. In 1994 the group meeting had been one 
hour long and all tutors were new to the task. The group meeting in cycle 3 was 
for half an hour (S.30am to 9.00am on Mondays). Staff were often late, and 
tutors with classes at 9.00am often had to leave early. The group, as mentioned 
before, was a mixture of new and experienced staff. One staff member expressed 
his dissatisfaction thus: 
Maybe last year we had a group that taught the paper. This year we certainly 
didn't have a group and so maybe I lost ownership of the paper. I mean the 
meetings, last year's meetings were times when we could go and say I did a 
useless job of this or this worked really well and we'd all get a lot out of it. That 
environment didn't exist this year. And neither was there much time gi ven to it 
(4.7.95). 
The main issues discussed at the end of cycle meeting are outlined below. 
168 
6.11.1 Content 
The content of the paper in this cycle was more focused on an applied science 
context. Students commented, however, that they did not always perceive the 
significance of some of the assignments. There was still room to tie these more 
closely into the larger assignments. Students also once again expressed 
dissatisfaction with the 'English' component of the paper, but the delivery of this 
component in cycle 3 (i.e. through the mastery tests) did convince many that they 
were lacking some essential skills in this area and most acknowledged the need 
for competency in the mechanics of English language. 
Students identified 'the writing process' as a major theme of the paper but not 
'writing for an audience'. While some further work was therefore needed in 
consolidating these themes, the focus and the material of the paper were now 
more clearly defined towards the context of the degree. 
6.11.2 Delivery 
The paper content was again delivered in three ways: lectures, tutorials and study 
material. 
Lectures were, once again, a cause for concern. There was general agreement 
among staff and students that lectures were not an effective mode of delivery and 
should not be retained. Instead, a study guide or workbook was proposed to 
structure and deliver the material. I suggested that lectures, if they were to be 
retained, should be a vehicle for supplementary material such as workshops on 
the mastery tests. 
Students, as in previous cycles, perceived the tutorials as a major strength, 
speaking warmly of the relationships they had developed with their tutors. Staff, 
for their part, as we have seen, were less satisfied with their role. My comments 
on the tutorials were as follows: 
Tutorials were more structured and centrally governed in this cycle, making 
tutorials more uniform. Those who were involved in the gruelling tasks of 
preparing tutorial materials will understand the amount of work and effort that 
l69 
was required to produce this standardisation. For new tutors, or for those who 
doubted their skills, this material was invaluable. However, for others it became a 
rigid structure that restricted their teaching opportunities. A number of tutors 
expressed dissatisfaction with their role this year, attributing this dissatisfaction to 
the amount of paper to be distributed and collected and the rigid structure of 
tutorials. 
What is required is a balance between providing resource material for new staff 
and yet allowing experienced staff to approach material in their own way. One 
way of allowing tutors more flexibility would be to clarify the learning objectives 
of each tutorial, and supply resource material from a central source which tutors 
may opt to use or not. We need not conformity of structure and material but a 
focus on fulfilling and reaching the learning objectives of the tutorial (July, 1995). 
Teaching materials included the Style Manual and handouts. The Style Manual 
was due for substantial revision and more integration into the paper (students still 
commented that they were more likely to be referred to the Style Manual in other 
papers than in this one). Handouts, while being a rich resource, were experienced 
as overwhelming, and might be more effectively placed in a study guide or 
workbook. 
6.11.3 Assessment 
In this cycle, students were assessed on only four tasks: the seminar, the research 
report, the journal and the exam. Other tasks (the mastery tests and the small 
assignments) were compulsory but did not carry an internal assessment mark. 
The seminar was rated as valuable by staff and students. Students were allowed 
to choose their topic this semester, which staff perceived to have raised the 
standard of the exercise. The only issues of concern here were that students 
needed more feedback, and, if possible, two opportunities to speak in front of the 
class were seen as desirable. 
Students were once again required to write a report on an allocated, rather than 
chosen, topic, but the report was still seen as a strength of the paper. I expressed 
concern about the quality of these assignments: many were not well crafted or 
proof-read. This may have been caused by the bottleneck of assignments due 
before exams, a lack of application of the writing process techniques, or a lack of 
170 
familiarity with the material and the writing styles and structures used in research 
writing. 
The journal was viewed most positively in this cycle, and journals were fuller 
and more varied than in previous cycles. Despite this, the purpose and focus of 
the journal remained unclear both to the students and the staff, as evidenced by 
the fact that different tutorial groups produced quite different journal types. 
The exam, a new feature in this cycle, may have added the benefits of requiring 
students to review the paper as whole and of checking that students were 
evaluated on the basis of their own work. Nevertheless, from a pedagogical 
perspective, the merits of evaluating students' communication skills under exam 
conditions were seen by the tutors as being at odds with the teaching of the 
writing process. 
Mastery tests were positively evaluated by staff and students. While emphasising 
the stress caused by the tests, most students also discussed the positive value of 
confronting an unknown weakness in the tests. Thus, it was clear from the 
experience of this cycle that the material in the tests still needed to be actively 
taught: most students were unable to work through the test material on their own. 
The purpose of the small assignments was not always clear and the added 
marking load increased the stress of students and staff. Students did not respond 
to the minimal marking procedure and so the assignments were not a forum of 
discussion and learning. I suggested in the report that these assignments should 
be linked to the larger assignments, such as the seminar or the report, or to a 
differently structured journal. 
For example, if the assignments were linked to the report, they might include: 
• a bibliography on the report topic 
• an annotated bibliography on the topic 
• a critical review of one article in the bibliography 
• an outline or brainstorm on the topic 
------ ----------
171 
• a first draft 
• a letter relating to the topic 
Such a structure would make students' research skills more transparent, minimise 
plagiarism, and impart valuable research and analytical skills. 
These suggestions for change should be balanced against the indications from the 
focus groups that students had become more positive and accepting of the paper 
over the three cycles. The paper had differentiated itself from a standard generic 
English paper and had demonstrated that communication skills can be taught 
effectively by discipline specific staff who are experts in the styles and genres of 
their discipline. 
I ended the report with an afterword, which focused the group onto the subject of 
writing in the disciplines in its broader sense: 
While this paper has undoubted strengths and is an effective introduction to 
writing in an applied science context, nevertheless there are limits to what a 12 
week paper can deliver. In any programme which includes a communication or 
writing paper there is a danger of staff within the wider programme expecting the 
communications paper to take responsibility for teaching all 
writing/communication skills - an unrealistic expectation since context and 
complexity require students constantly to acquire new writing and communication 
skills. 
The skills which students learn in this paper need to be reinforced and built upon 
in the rest of the Applied Science programme. The WAC initiative in the 
Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management and the 
writing to learn strategies used by the Hort Tech paper are both ways of extending 
and using communication skills effectively within the faculty. However, these 
initiative are confined to two departments within the faculty - other department 
are unaware, even, of the content of this paper and fail to reinforce the lessons we 
are leading our students towards. 
A final question, then. Is the role of the staff of this paper to communicate the 
contents of 19.155 to a wider faculty? And is it also our role to ensure that the 
teaching of writing skills (and the use of these skills as a mode of learning) is 
accepted as a broader and more integrated responsibility of the entire Applied 
Science programme? If these are our roles, how should we go about this process? 
(July, 1995). 
My last official involvement in project one was the presenting of this report. My 
involvement did not cease altogether at this point, however. I attended several 
172 
other meetings to replan for the following semester. The paper coordinator and I 
rewrote the Style Manual for publication by the Dunmore Press as the set text 
Writing guidelines for applied science students. This was followed up by a 
postgraduate version of the Writing Guidelines Writing guidelines for 
postgraduate science students, co-authored by myself and two members of the 
teaching team and also published by Dunmore Press, in 1999. 
There was also follow up on my afterword in a memo to the Dean asking that a 
writing consultant be appointed to the faculty to support and extend the WAC 
programme. An application was made for this position to the university's staffing 
committee, but was rejected. 
Between 1997-98 I continued to provide workshops on mastery test skills, and 
maintained an informal working relationship with the paper coordinator and 
some members of the team, although I did not sustain a research role. 
6.12 Key themes 
Our aim, at the beginning of this project, was to produce a 
writing/communications paper that would be specifically designed to meet the 
writing and communications needs of applied science students, both in their time 
at university and in their careers. We started from scratch. Because no similar 
papers existed in New Zealand universities, we based our paper design and 
pedagogy on three things: one team member' s experience of communication 
courses at a North American university, one team member' s reading of the 
literature on teaching writing in the disciplines, and an assessment of the needs of 
our students based on an informal survey of the existing teaching and 
requirements of teachers in the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences 
at Massey University. At the same time, we decided to use action research in 
order to foster collaboration and to ensure that the skills of our team worked 
together in an effective interdisciplinary approach. The final section of this 
chapter looks at two issues: debates about curriculum design and pedagogy, and 
whether action research was an effective method of creating a collaborative team. 
-- _._---------------- -- -
173 
6.12.1 Writing themes 
Curriculum issues 
The first major debate was whether we should be teaching business writing or 
scientific writing. The debate arose because of the different traditions of the 
departments who primarily contributed to the teaching team. Members of the 
teaching team who came from the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management, which taught extension, saw the role of the paper as being 
to focus on extension skills such as business writing and communication theory. 
Members of the team from the Department of Plant Science, while appreciating 
the need for business writing, preferred to emphasise the need for research skills 
and research writing. Students, on the whole, emphasised what they saw as the 
need for practical skills: more oral communication, CVs, business letters and so 
on. What this debate emphasises, I believe, is the complex nature of the 
discipline(s) of applied science. Most of the students would find employment in 
jobs that required business skills, yet their years at university would require them 
to learn scientific research and recording skills. By the end of three cycles, the 
paper incorporated both types of skills and themes. Business skills such as memo 
and letter writing and seminar presentation were complemented with the research 
skills of information acquisition, referencing and research report writing. 
A further debate was the conflict over whether to teach directly what might be 
called generic or technical writing skills, such as punctuation and paragraphing. 
Again, the team was split between the departments represented, with one 
favouring the direct teaching of these skills and the other preferring to focus on 
communication theory and allowing generic skills to be taught incidentally, or in 
context.42 At first generic skills were largely incorporated indirectly, with only 
one tutorial dedicated to these skills (the English and science tutorial). This was 
in keeping with our contention that our paper would be an applied science 
writing paper, designed to teach the conventions of applied science writing, 
rather than a generic writing paper. However, problems arose with this approach. 
Some students' writing skills were very poor to the point where they required 
42 At one stage, during a staff interview, the interviewee leaned into the microphone and shouted 
"No punctuation!!" 
174 
direct teaching of the conventions of English grammar. Furthermore, some of the 
teaching staff had a poor grasp of grammar themselves, and few, if any, were 
equipped to articulate and teach these conventions. We had a dilemma, then: how 
to teach these skills to those who needed it, while not wasting the time of the 
competent writers, and how to teach such skills with staff who were ill-equipped 
to do so? At the end of the first two cycles we had made the decision to teach 
generic writing skills directly, through the mastery tests, which allowed students 
to work at their own pace, and for all the teaching of generic writing skills to be 
placed in the hands of myself, a writing teacher. 
Another debate concerned whether we should focus solely on skills or 
incorporate themes or models on which to develop skills. The paper began by 
teaching skills in isolation, but changed over time, under the influence of the 
teacher of extension, to include a model of communication and the themes of 
writing for an audience and the writing process. 
A further theme that was included after the first cycle was the relevance of 
writing and communication to students in the applied science disciplines. We had 
not expected this to be as major an issue as it turned out to be, but students in all 
the focus groups emphasised it, right into the third cycle. After the first cycle, we 
incorporated the relevance of the subject in everything we taught, giving 
prominence where possible to the context of the applied sciences and including 
professional relevance as a theme in the first lecture. We also invited people from 
related industries to talk to the students about how they saw communication as 
important to the people they employed. By the end of the third cycle, students 
were beginning to see the relevance of the paper and its benefits: 
C: It was one of the things that put me off at the beginning, having to do 
communication - and I always hated it at school. And I thought I'd got away from 
all that. But it's important, it's relevant to the future - you've got to be able to 
write reports and that sort of thing, even if you don't enjoy it. 
B: It's like a refresher course. Cos, like at school last year, I didn't have to write 
anything and suddenly I had to write an essay and it was good having something 
there to look at. 
F: I started off doing it under sufferance because I had to, because I was changing 
over [to the new degree] and I really wasn't looking forward to it. But I've found 
175 
it quite good - I'd say it's lifted the overall standard of my writing - made me 
more aware - of making sure the reports were done properly - it makes you more 
conSCIOUS. 
A: I think - I've gone from shocking to maybe average - I've quite enjoyed it ­
it's given me a way to go about doing things - I'm a lot better now (Comments 
from focus group interviews, May 1995). 
Winning the students over to the relevance of the paper may have been a major 
factor in the greater success of the paper in later cycles - or maybe the strong 
resistance of the students towards the paper in the first semester made us reassess 
our teaching strategies and the curriculum to make it relevant and therefore more 
credible to the students. 
Pedagogical issues 
A number of pedagogical issues were debated and experimented with throughout 
the three cycles. These main debates are summarised here. 
The first issue concerned mode of delivery. The paper used a form of delivery of 
one one-hour lecture and a two-hour workshop or tutorial. Both forms were, in a 
sense, unfamiliar to the teaching team. The lecture was much larger than most of 
the staff had previously experienced43 and therefore required quite new 
presentation skills. 
Whether it is appropriate to include lectures in writing or communication papers 
is a debatable point. In business communication papers, they are quite standard, 
but in writing papers they are not so common. Massey University's Written 
Communication paper initially included a lecture but dropped it early in the 
paper's evolution. The courses at Waikato and Victoria Universities did not 
include lectures, but the paper at Auckland University did. The lectures for 
19.155 presented difficulties from the beginning. In the early lectures in the first 
cycle classes were very disruptive and unruly.44 After week 4, lecture attendance 
dropped sharply and remained low throughout the remainder of the cycle (for 
43 Although the total number of students enrolled in the Faculty might be high, the papers taught 
by the faculty were very fragmented into specialist areas; this meant that most classes did not 
exceed around 40 students. 
44See p.149 
176 
two classes, only 12 students attended). In cycle 2, students in lectures were not 
disruptive, but numbers attending dropped in week 5 and did not recover (one 
lectU1 had only four students attending). In cycle 3, the paper coordinator intro uced the exam, largely as a way of requiring students to attend lectures. But hi Ie the huge drop did not occur, only 40% of students, on average, 
attended the lecture. A question that arose, therefore, was whether this style of 
teaching was appropriate to a paper in communications. 
Tutorials, as noted earlier, were also a new approach to teaching for some staff. 
At the beginning, staff were concerned about running tutorials and using 
exercises in class (including designing exercises for classes, at times). Feedback 
on tutorials was coordinated through tutorial feedback forms, which were filled 
out by tutors at the end of each session. Despite staff apprehension, in the first 
and second cycles, tutors reported high satisfaction rates with their role as tutor. 
As stated before, the group meetings were important to the success of the 
tutorials, since it was during this time that staff could troubleshoot problems 
concerning running tutorials or using particular materials. Student attendance 
remained very high, and during focus group interviews, students spoke positively 
of the tutorial and the relationships they had established with their tutors. In cycle 
3, where there was a change in the structure and uniformity of tutorials, staff 
disliked the tutorials but the students still reported favourably on tutorials and the 
tutors. 
Methods of assessing students were also a matter of concern. Particularly at issue 
were the following assessment tools : 
• the journal 
• the seminar 
• the report 
• the exam 
• mastery tests 
The journal evolved from our reading on writing to learn techniques and our 
concern to overcome anxieties about writing. On the whole, the paper took a 
'learning to write' approach, since its objectives were to teach writing skills 
pertinent to applied science students, but we aimed also to have our students 
'learning through writing' and the journal was a way of doing this. 
177 
In the first cycle students were simply asked to write a journal. They were given 
a few specific things to write about, but generally they were left to work out what 
they wanted to do. This approach was not successful in achieving its aims. 
Students tended to write their journals all in one or two sittings at the end of the 
paper and many wrote the equivalent of a diary, without reflective entries. In the 
second and third cycles, we aimed to model the writing required by starting with 
specific entries, modelled on those by Bean and Rummage (1986), and then 
moving into less directed writing. We also made a more concerted effort to 'sell' 
the journal; we looked at applications of journal writing to the rural sector, 
emphasising written records kept by farmers, spray diaries etc. Specifically we 
emphasised what we hoped students would gain from their journals i.e., the 
ability to reflect on their own learning and track their learning, as well as 
discovering new ideas through the writing process. This commitment by the 
tutors and the change of emphasis did seem to have an impact on student work, 
and tutors reported that the journals improved each subsequent semester. 
Students and staff, but particularly students, rated the seminar very highly, 
although the journals often testified to the amount of anxiety associated with it. A 
common comment was this one: 
I think the seminars were really good cos there's lots of jobs out there where 
you've got to be able to do that - and more stuff, like being able to talk to lots of 
different kinds of people. Maybe we should be doing more stuff like that -like 
doing discussions and interviewing - but mainly just talking to people who are 
different to you. I think that's important. For me, for some of us anyway (Focus 
group. October, 1994). 
The report was also rated as important, in terms of being relevant to future 
careers. In particular, students commented on the relevance of learning the 
correct formatting of reports and of doing library research. The reports were 
178 
commented on by tutors as being of a higher quality when students were able to 
choose a topic that was of interest to them, rather than being allocated a topic at 
random. 
The exam was a contentious issue, with students and tutors alike commenting 
that it seemed contradictory to use an exam to test writing skills when exam 
conditions did not allow students to use the process that they had been taught. 
After the one experiment with the exam, it was dropped and the paper returned to 
100% internal assessment. 
The mastery tests were another contentious issue. Despite the administrative 
problems associat~d with these tests, they do seem to have succeeded in 
achieving their objectives.45 Students experienced them as very stressful, but in 
the focus group interviews almost all students commented on these tests as being 
valuable, as having confronted them with their limited skills, and as having 
forced them to learn skills they didn't find interesting but did see as valuable. 
Political issues 
Two political issues affected the running of the paper: the issue of control and 
hence of funding, and the issue of using a core paper as a ' feeder' into a 
particular endorsement. 
After the first paper coordinator retired, a territorial conflict over the paper 
ensued, lasting for almost two semesters. The first paper coordinator was from 
the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management and, on 
his retirement, the department wished to retain control of the paper. This was a 
funding issue: while the EFTS earned by the paper were allocated accorded to 
tutors, the paper coordinator was given an extra percentage of the EFTS. Since 
EFTS were one of the major funding bases of departments at this time, this was a 
significant matter for both departments. The debate was not conducted, however, 
about funding. Rather, it was argued over two issues: the curriculum (and in 
particular the debate about business vs. science writing) and whether someone 
45 See p.163 
179 
with English as a second language could teach a course on communication (since 
the only person from the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems 
Management who could take on coordinating the paper was the new extension 
lecturer from Holland). 
The second issue was also related to funding, but more indirectly. The Head of 
the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management (the 
department in which the paper was originally domiciled) hoped to use the paper 
as a 'feeder' into second year papers and beyond. He originally wished the paper 
to be called 'Agricultural Extension l' for this reason. Others involved from 
other departments opposed this on the grounds that compulsory core papers 
could not be used as feeders for specific endorsements and that they were not 
prepared to be involved in a paper which was conducted for this purpose. During 
the second cycle, he proposed that an extension paper from his department 
(taught by the new lecturer) be an approved alternative to 19.155, on the grounds 
that students who were competent writers (i.e., competent in generic skills) did 
not need the 'upskilling' taught in 19.155, that such students found the 
compulsion to take 19.155 demeaning, and that the proposed alternative would 
be "more challenging, appropriate and employerlcareer orientated than 19.155" 
CW. Parker, pers. comm. 29.9.99). This proposal was strongly opposed by the 
acting paper coordinator on the grounds that 19.155 was designed to do more 
than upskill students in generic writing skills and that students who had passed 
bursary English often did not do well in 19.155, pointing to the fact that a pass in 
bursary English was not a good indicator of ability to use the conventions of 
academic and/or applied science writing. The Dean upheld his opposition. 
These issues are important as they adversely affected the smooth running of the 
team: also, arguments about funding can rarely be addressed directly, but have to 
be channelled into other debates. This, as we have seen, was the case in the 
development of 19.155. Debates about the curriculum might not have been so 
heated, had a debate about territory and funding not been a key motivator. 
180 
Conclusions about writing themes 
Our aim, then, was to produce a writing/communications paper that would be 
suited to the needs of our applied science students. We found that the grounds on 
which we initially devised our paper, while useful, required considerable fine­
tuning over the three semester cycles. We needed to monitor the stylistic 
requirements of the discipline, consider more carefully the extent to which 
'generic elements' should be included in the paper, look at using key themes to 
integrate the skills students needed, and convince students of the relevance of 
communication to their discipline and their futures. Our teaching strategies also 
needed to be adjusted - both our methods of delivery and our evaluation 
methods. Further, we needed to be aware of the impact of political issues on 
paper design and on team development. In other words, as Sue McLeod and 
other writers emphasise, we needed to be sensitive to the needs of our students, 
our context, and our environment. It was not possible to simply transfer 
methodologies to another context. By a process of constant monitoring and 
evaluation (observation and reflection) we were able to produce a paper that was 
sensitive and relevant to these needs. 
The way in which we achieved this monitoring and evaluating was through the 
use of action research. This methodology provided us with a structure and 
process through which to coordinate our group and stay close to the pulse of 
student and staff perceptions. Action research is the focus of the following 
sections. 
6.12.2 Action research 
Team issues 
As we have seen, the decision to use action research as a methodology was 
primarily to produce an effective collaborative team out of the disparate group 
which came together to teach the paper. The team for project one was not static 
but changed throughout the three cycles, as required by the organisational 
context. 
181 
The team composition in the first cycle was the most democratic - basically 
because no one was confident about what they were doing! While the paper 
coordinator was enthusiastic and had, perhaps, most experience of 
communication courses in the sciences, he was somewhat disorganised and very 
willing to share decision making with the group. I, too, while experienced in 
teaching writing, had no experience in designing and delivering a full credit 
paper to a large class and was willing to defer to the expertise of the group in 
matters pertaining to writing style and structure. There was a sense of all being in 
the same boat, and having chosen to be in the same boat, since most were 
volunteers. 
Team meetings, as stated before, were very valuable times. During this cycle 
there was little established uniformity between tutorials, with tutors designing 
their own material based on discussion during group meetings. Meetings were 
often heated, even confrontational, with different group members taking on 
particular task and maintenance roles over the cycle within the team. In a sense 
the level of task difficulty made the group most cohesive, as did the sense of no 
one being the 'expert'. I experienced this particular group as very rewarding to 
work within and this cycle as particularly creative, a perception confirmed by 
other members of the team. 
The addition, in later cycles, of new group members presented difficulties in the 
team and a change in group dynamics. Inevitably the group divided into those 
with experience and those without, into those who chose to be teaching the paper 
and those who had been nominated by their department heads. This latter point 
was problematic in a number of ways, not least of which was that those who had 
been nominated tended to be least confident of their ability to teach the paper -
and, indeed, there were two members of the later cycles whose writing skills 
were poor. 
A consequence of this lack of skill and confidence was that the new paper 
coordinator decided to produce detailed lesson plans that became compulsory for 
all tutorial groups. This was a matter of reassurance for new team members, but 
it may have prevented them from discovering a sense of ownership or gaining an 
182 
increased sense of their own ability. It also alienated the established group 
members who preferred to teach their own material. 
A related issue was that of leadership. As stated before, the first paper 
coordinator was not highly organised and as a consequence the teaching team 
took on a lot of responsibility for creating the curriculum, teaching the paper, and 
designing material. The later paper coordinator was far more organised and took 
over the bulk of responsibility for all these tasks. The consequence was a further 
loss of ownership for the team. 
This suggests that in an organisational context where a leader has to be 
appointed, the impact of leadership style on group dynamics and ownership may 
influence the development of an action research project. A more proactive style 
will provide reassurance for weaker members of the group but may inhibit the 
more confident members of a team and may prevent commitment and ownership 
in both the weaker and stronger group members. 
What we see, then, in this project is a move from a highly democratic team, with 
a high level of ownership and commitment, to a team which was more directed 
by its leader and with a correspondingly lower level of ownership and 
commitment. This change appeared to have been caused by the changing nature 
of the team and the change in leadership. 
My role 
My role in the project was consistent with that of a researcher in an action 
research team. I was supportive of the team, a collaborator rather than a leader, 
sharing responsibility for the process with other members of the team. I acted as 
a resource person to the paper coordinators, attended all group meetings and 
lectures, designed material in conjunction with others, undertook or collated all 
observation methods and ran the reflection meetings. In later cycles I took on a 
teaching role in running workshops on the mastery tests - and my production of 
the Style Manual might also be seen as a teaching role. 
183 
There were some difficulties associated with my participant-researcher role. As I 
had no leadership or authoritative role, there were problems with people not 
completing observation tasks (such as the tutorial assessment forms) and my 
having no authority to insist that they did. 
A related issue was the conflicting interests of the paper coordinator and the 
researcher. Although there was an agreement that decision making would be 
group-based, as required by the research, at times the paper coordinator made 
decisions without consulting either myself or the rest of the team - and, in fact, 
made one decision which ran counter to the wishes of the rest of the team and 
recommendations from the focus group. At first I considered this to be 
undermining our intention to lUn the paper as an action research project. 
However, my viewpoint changed over time for two reasons. First, I saw that 
action research, because it occurs in the real context, has to allow for the realities 
of the situation. In the university structure in which I was engaged, paper 
coordinators are accustomed to making decisions about the structure and delivery 
of their papers without discussion with others. Both paper coordinators were 
working, therefore, in a very different mode to the one they were accustomed to. 
For this reason, it was therefore, perhaps, unrealistic to expect that they would be 
able to work in this new way without occasional reversion to the familiar role. 
Second, the situation seemed to be self-correcting. In one instance, when the 
paper coordinator made an executive decision in the face of his team's advice, 
the decision proved to be a poor one and at the end of the cycle the decision was 
reversed. In the other situations where the paper coordinator did not consult at all 
the decision was assessed, after it had been implemented in a single cycle, and 
then either absorbed into the project (with the team's support) or rejected. In 
other words, arbitrary decisions were assessed by the team with the same rigour 
and treated in the same way as other decisions. 
Practical difficulties were also associated with my participative-researcher role. 
An example was how to take a fully participative role in group discussions and at 
the same time record meetings. There were times when my own passion for 
whatever was being discussed took precedence over my role as record-keeper! 
184 
Perhaps my biggest difficulty was in dealing with two incidents where I was 
questioned about the authenticity of my role in the team. One member of the 
team (who joined in the second cycle, having been volunteered for the work by 
his Head of Department, and who lacked confidence in this new role, stating that 
he was not a confident writer himself), when being interviewed as part of the 
project, asked whether my work was for myself or if I was reporting to someone 
else. He also, in a group meeting, took exception to my taking notes for the same 
reasons. 
Having one's motivation questioned is not an unusual event in the complex and 
difficult task of conducting fieldwork (see, for example, Howell, 1990 or 
Brettell, 1993). These incidents did seem to be isolated to the individual and not 
characteristic of the nature of the group or my role in it. Nevertheless, such 
incidents may be significant if they reflect on the researcher's behaviour or 
illuminate some aspect of the context in which the project took place. For this 
reason, these incidents will be analysed in more depth in chapter nine. 
On the whole, my aim with this group was to be an equal, if somewhat different, 
participant, to do what jobs were asked of me, and to volunteer information and 
approaches, without allowing my opinions to dominate. After a short time, I felt 
comfortable with the team and my role within it. I learnt a lot. After two cycles, I 
was able to look at sections I had written for the Style Manual and critique their 
limitations in relation to the discipline that they were written for. I had gained 
some understanding of the different genres of writing in applied science and the 
different process of writing for applied science - for example, I appreciated that 
data gathering in this field might include interviewing a farmer or grower, rather 
than just researching in the library. I could certainly understand more fully why 
the writing paper the horticulture students had been compelled to take prior to 
my involvement had been of only limited value to them. I had faced some of my 
limitations as a teacher of writing and learnt to recognise some of the stereotypes 
and prejudices I had brought with me to 'the other side of the campus'. Bunning 
(1994), citing Winter (1989), writes: 
185 
We [action researchers] are not consultants, advising others how to change, nor 
unchanging catalysts of others' development. We are part of the situation 
undergoing change, because we want to learn. The only viewpoints we want to 
support are those which have newly emerged in the course of our fieldwork; those 
we started out with we wish to transcend (p.9). 
This was certainly the case for me in project one. I joined the team aware of 
many of my limitations, such as knowing I was not an expert in writing for 
science. But I was unaware of others - for example, I was not aware of my lack 
of knowledge of how the writing process differs for students in the sciences 
compared to those in humanities. The action research approach to the project 
gave me the opportunity to grow and learn, as well as to support others through 
my knowledge and skills. 
Conclusions about action research 
Action research proved useful in this project as a way of developing an approach 
to teaching writing in the applied sciences. 
First, it provided a structure in which to implement and assess a new programme. 
It fitted well with the semester system in which the university operated. It 
required us to go through a rigorous reconnaissance, implementation and 
evaluation system. It required us to collect data on the perspectives of all 
involved and to consider change in a reflective and informed manner. 
Second, it was effective in bringing a disparate team together, with different 
skills and attitudes, and limited experience of a professional relationship. There 
were difficulties associated with leadership usurping the democratic approach, 
and with new (and sometimes reluctant) members joining the established group. 
But at the beginning at least, the potentially most difficult time, this methodology 
was effective in bringing the group together and giving team members a structure 
within which to work. 
Third, it was effective in giving group members a sense of ownership over the 
paper. This was especially so at the beginning, when group members were least 
confident of their skills and so compelled to negotiate curriculum and teaching 
186 
strategies. The diverse nature of the group also helped to produce confidence. 
Group members seemed more confident because they had a writing teacher and 
researcher working with them, and I felt more confident because I was working 
with a group of people who were experienced teachers of their discipline and 
experienced users of the genres we were teaching. 
Fourth, the approach compelled us to be student-centred and context-centred in 
the fullest sense. While student feedback was introduced into the university at the 
time these projects were being undertaken, the feedback elicited was limited to 
survey answers and rich detail was not available. Because of these constraints, 
this feedback had limited capacity to influence paper design. By requiring a full 
student-feedback system, action research required us to take students' responses 
into account and to modify the paper as a consequence. 
6.13 Conclusions 
This chapter has described the development of a communications in applied 
science paper, using action research. If we return to our key research question­
how can we effectively teach writing in the disciplines - this was the first step. 
Establishing a core paper that focused on communication was the basis on which 
to develop a broader WAC programme (i.e., projects two and three). The project 
clearly showed that the combined expertise of academic staff in the disciplines 
and a writing consultant could produce a paper that was relevant to student needs 
- although the process was not without its difficulties. Here action research was a 
critical factor. As we have seen, action research proved successful in many ways, 
both in developing the team and in allowing us to refine our teaching in the light 
of our particular context. Most importantly of all, it also gave us a structure on 
which to evaluate and revise our curriculum and delivery. Without this iterative 
process, we would have struggled to develop our ideas and cope with student 
resistance. 
-~----------
187 
The next chapter considers a more complex project that built on project one by 
incorporating the teaching of writing into a series of content papers, again using 
action research. The results, as we will see, were rather different. 
188 
Chapter 7. Project Two: Teaching writing within a 
departmental programme. 
189 
You see, with writing, it is terribly important that you're not turning out 
something off a machine bench. The whole point about writing is ... that you must 
not destroy that originality ... you want to see that they can really see (Staff 
member, Department of Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management, 
28.10.93). 
Project two took place within the Department of Agricultural and Horticultural 
Systems Management. Like project one, this project had a 'learning to write' 
objective and pedagogy but its focus extended more broadly to a range of papers 
offered by a particular department. 46 Project two was seen as building on the base 
of project one, integrating and extending the skills taught in project one into 
subject-specific papers. Where the communications paper of project one taught 
students basic communication skills within an applied science context, project 
two was the next step, asking students to apply those skills within the broader 
context of their applied science curriculum. 
The project group comprised myself, in the role of writing consultant and 
researcher, and, ostensibly, the entire department. In reality, as further 
description of the project will show, not all members of the department took an 
active part in the implementation of the programme, although all were involved 
in the planning process. Furthermore, because of the structure of the papers 
offered by the department, faculty members from outside the department became 
part of the team in an operational capacity. While such a project team might be 
expected to be the most cohesive of the teams in this study, in that one would 
expect the group to be familiar with one another, to have established roles, and to 
have experience teaching together, a history of the department shows that any 
cohesion could not be assumed (see chapter two). 
46 Originally, the plan was to include all the papers from the Department, but in the end the choice 
to join the project was voluntary, so only a small number of papers was included. 
190 
7.1 The origins of the project 
This writing project, unlike the other two, did not emerge primarily out of the 
needs and interests of the research group. Its origins were two-fold. First, 
because of the positioning of the communications paper in the department, and 
because it taught extension, the department saw itself as taking responsibility for 
the teaching of communication generally within the faculty. Given this sense of 
responsibility, the group was open to the second influencing factor, which was 
my research interests as a writing consultant. Following discussion with the HOD 
and other members of the department, I presented a seminar to the department in 
October 1993 on different approaches to teaching writing in a tertiary context.47 
There I argued that a single 12 point paper at 100 level could not be expected to 
equip students with the skills they needed for all of their years of study and that 
an integrated writing in the disciplines approach was needed to reinforce and 
develop the skills initiated in the communications paper. Following this seminar, 
I presented a further seminar on action research as the methodology that would 
most effectively allow the department to develop and implement a writing in the 
disciplines strategy within its own curriculum. 
The department decided there was enough interest in the topic to warrant me 
presenting them with a definite research proposal. Subsequently, they agreed to 
take up the proposal and develop their own writing programme for two years in 
conjunction with me as writing consultant/researcher. We can see here a 
significant difference between this project and projects one and three: the other 
projects were initiated by the project team. This project was initiated by the 
researcher and agreed to by the team. 
7.2 The research team 
The research team, then, ostensibly comprised eleven academic staff and myself. 
Of the academic staff, only one was a woman. The department was almost 
47 For a timeline of the project, see Appendix 11 . 
191 
evenly split between senior staff, close to retirement, and young staff in their mid 
to late thirties in less senior positions (most of whom were engaged in doctoral 
research and had come through the faculty as students). A significant feature of 
the department was that the HOD came from a different academic tradition 
(animal science, which is primarily a quantitative discipline) from most of the 
other staff in the department, who largely came from more integrative, 
qualitative disciplines. As might be suspected from these immediate factors and 
the history of the department, the group was not marked by a high level of 
internal unity or unity of direction in relation to its operations and its curriculum. 
All the same, during interviews conducted in late 1993, members of the group 
did present a reasonably unified image in terms of their attitudes to and 
experience with writing and teaching. With the exception of the HOD and one 
other senior member of the department, members of the group did not consider 
themselves to be prolific writers. When asked what types of writing they did, 
most (again, with the exception of the HOD and the other senior staff member) 
identified writing teaching materials as their most common writing task (two 
other group members mentioned their PhDs). Only one member of staff 
considered himself to be an above average writer, although three commented 
that, while they were not confident academic or scientific writers, they felt 
comfortable producing business style genres. Most stated cautiously that they 
enjoyed writing at times but all agreed that it was not an easy process for them. 
This issue of enjoyment often drew quite contradictory responses: 
I have very negative feelings about writing. English was almost my worst subject 
at school. I was more strongly maths, science sort of stuff but I think that's pretty 
typical (28.10.93). 
I hate it. .. .It doesn't come naturally and it's hard work and I think if you know 
that it doesn't come naturally, well for me it doesn't come naturally and I know 
it's hard work but I enjoy writing and at the end of the day I can write I guess 
about four pages of A4 text in a day .... You can't sort of think idly ''I'll write". It 
doesn't work like that. It's not fun but the end result - absolutely (26.10.93). 
Most staff found writing as students at school and university difficult, though 
several mentioned the positive influence of a graduate supervisor as a major 
influence in developing a 'better' writing style. 
192 
Most staff showed in their responses that, whether they were aware of it or not, 
they were already teaching writing, and, interestingly, they seemed to be able to 
do this from positions of confidence and lack of confidence: 
In most of the courses that I have run over the last few years I spend 3 or 4 
lectures just talking about writing reports, how to structure a report. I like the fact 
that for most people writing isn't something that's natural so you have to work at 
it but there are simple rules if you like that you can follow that will help ... .I think 
one of the things I've noticed about students, a lot of them expect to write one 
copy, that' s it. ... Whereas people who are good writers ... do a quick draft, they 
make some changes, they make some more changes, they might do that 4 or 5 
times .... That means you have to plan your time to allow that opportunity to occur 
(26.10.93). 
The diploma students, they hate writing. When I tell them they're going to have to 
write a description of something they say "Oooh we can't do that, we've got 
horrible handwriting" and I show them my overheads that are handwritten and 
they say "Oooh that's horrible too" so they have some sympathy and I say well I 
do rely on my computer so that they look neat and tidy and I say my spelling is 
not the best but I have a dictionary in my office ... so I approach them ... as a 
colleague (28.10.93). 
Without exception, staff said that they did not feel very confident teaching 
writing, but two thirds of the group conceded that, although they did not want to 
teach writing, it was, unfortunately, part of their job as university teachers: the 
third who did not agree with this were very vociferous on the topic. 
One of the major concerns of those who did (reluctantly) consider teaching 
writing to be part of their job was the lack of consistency of approach to writing, 
and a feeling that they would not be supported in attempts to teach and reward 
high standards of writing. There was inconsistency: all staff in the group agreed 
that students needed to write well if they were going to be successful 
professionals, but only two thirds of the group were prepared to attempt to teach 
or evaluate writing skills. A~d staff in the department considered that in other 
departments in the faculty writing skills were not highly valued at all. 
When I entered into discussion with the individuals in the group about the action 
needed to address writing skills, there was a general consensus that if writing was 
going to become recognised as part of the curriculum and included as part of the 
criteria for marking, then the responsibility for this had to be broader than 
193 
individual academic staff members. Several staff discussed the option of taking 
departmental action, but the majority thought that the issue should be faculty 
wide. Otherwise, a danger was perceived that if standards were higher and 
therefore harder in the department's papers, then student numbers, and hence 
funding, might fall. 
Another common thread in the discussions was the need for outside help 
designing the approach to be taken. The following is a typical response to the 
question of what was needed if a writing programme were to be implemented in 
the department: 
I'm sure we couldn't do it on our own. None of us feel that well versed in writing, 
in English, whatever it is. Some people are quite good and efficient at doing some 
things and know exactly how that ought to be but I still think there's room for 
discussion and we probably need facilitation and some kind of expert, some kind 
of consultant...and then the result of that should be something that's written down 
in reasonably hard format (27.10.93). 
The notion that a consultant was needed recurred during the interviews. And yet, 
despite this felt need for support, I noted that many staff had very detailed ideas 
about how a prospective writing programme might run, what sorts of skills 
needed to be taught, and how students might be taught those skills. During 
interviews, staff confidently discussed ways of attending to the teaching of 
sentence structure and paragraphing, and how to introduce different genres of 
writing such as farm reports and business reports. 
It was on the basis of analysis of these interviews and scrutiny of the materials 
given by this group to their students that I determined my role within the group. I 
perceived a high level of expertise within the group, but also a lack of confidence 
and cohesion, and, ironically, communication. Agreement and a "reasonably hard 
format" i.e. written documentation of a writing strategy which could be 
supported by all, and which could be used to demand support and backup from 
other members of the group, seemed essential. I therefore assumed the role, as 
appropriate to action research, of facilitator, or, more accurately, catalyst, 
initially taking a very 'hands-off' approach to working with the group, merely 
attempting to allow them the opportunity to develop a strategy and writing 
194 
programme within their existing curriculum. My concern was to support the 
concept of the content teachers being the experts in the styles and genres of their 
subject and of staff taking ownership of the project. The department supported 
the role I assumed and, as far as possible, allowed me to become an 'insider' 
within the group. I was given an office within the department, was invited to 
social events and took on teaching tasks in the department such as running 
postgraduate workshops on action research, analysing qualitative data and 
teaching undergraduate classes on writing issues such as essay writing. 
7.3 Planning 
By mid November 1993, the proposal had been accepted, and I had conducted 
the first interviews and collected assignment instructions distributed by 
individual members of the department as part of my reconnaissance. The next 
stage was a full department meeting to identify objectives for the writing project. 
In preparation for the departmental meeting in November, I produced a summary 
of the results of the interviews, which I distributed to all staff members. The 
document was intended to promote discussion and the sharing of ideas among 
departmental members prior to the meeting. This document is summarised here, 
to enable the reader to see the connection between the ideas from the interviews 
and the final objectives produced for the writing programme.48 
Staff identified the following writil1g problems' in studenrs '-work: 
• grammar, poor sentence construction 
• spelling, partkularly of specialist technical tenris 
• . p(}or par~graphing , 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
limited vocabulary, both general and technical 
inability to reference correctly 
plagiarism 
wordiness 
inability to connect sentences in a logical format then build an argument 
inability to explain the implications of data and results 
tack gf planning 
48 Key sections of the project planning documents are presented in this section. To distinguish 
these key sections as coming from specific documents, they are shaded. 
• inability to structure larger assignments 
• lack of confidence 
• failure to focus on theread~r's(client's) n.eeds 
In interviews, staff were asked to rank the following reasons for requiring 
students to write assignments: 
• for evaluation purposes 
• to learn vocational skills 
• to enhance students' learning of content material 
195 
All staff prioritised the third reason when asked this question directly, whereas in 
free discussion most of them focused primarily on the second reason. 
A wide variety of marking systems was used in the department. These included: 
• marking schedules (both seen and unseen by students prior to writing) 
• group conferences 
• impression marking 
• combination of the above 
In relation to taking writing into account when allocating grades or marks, there 
was an equal division of staff into three approaches: 
• some staff allocated marks to presentation on a marking schedule. Poor 
writing skills led to marks not being allocated. 
• impression markers may have deducted marks for poor writing but with no 
allocation of a certain percentage to presentation. 
• some staff either indicated poor writing but deducted no marks, or did not 
indicate poor writing and did not deduct marks. 
196 
Students were often not told beforehand whether writing issues were important in 
affecting their grade, and may not have been aware of each lecturer's approach. 
Clear and consistent messages were not being given to students. 
Most staff did not make any assignments retrievable (one person made just the 
first assignment of each of his courses retrievable), largely because of workload 
concerns. 
Most staff wished that teaching writing were not a part of their job and felt ill 
equipped for such a role. Although many felt, reluctantly, that they did have 
some role to play, the extent of that commitment was neither consistent nor 
clearly defined. 
Despite this reluctance and lack of confidence, most staff gave their students 
very detailed and specific advice on how to write assignments, both written and 
verbal. Three concerns arose: 
• much of the material was inconsistent in terms of both style and structure. 
• staff were using material which was not consistent with the context, e.g. 
several people were using a handout on scientific report writing to assist 
students writing a business report. This may have been confusing to students 
when the directions did not suit the context. 
• there was no single reference point for students (e.g. a writing manual). 
7.3.1 Objectives 
Staff during interviews proposed the following objectives. It should be noted that 
these suggestions are not ordered thematically, but presented in the order in 
which they arose from the interviews. 
:Students should be able to:' 
write a letter to a business client 
edit their work to reach a professional context 
use technical tefms confidently and correctly, 
structure a report to a client, including identifying objectives, audience and 
ill?propri'!te structure 
197 
• write in a way that is professionally credible 
• write a descriptive farm report 
• write in paragraphs 
• construct readable, welL presented documents 
• reference correctly 
• identify the structure and content required in an assignment 
• make appropriate choices .about how to manage data and how to (lllalyse. discuss and 
present results and opinions . . 
• at .100 level- spell, write in sentences and paragraphs; at 200 level.- cJitically assess 
data and materials, use and acknowledge sources; at 300 level-:: PI'esent aflowillg 
argument/discussion. In other words, have a continuum of expectations so that. for 
example, spelling and punctuation are no longer problems at 200 and 300 level 
• write.in a waytl1atis correct and concise and.has higllimpact 
The following comments were made by staff concerning possible strategies for 
achieving objectives. These, again, are edited for readability only and presented 
in the order in which they arose during interviews: 
• "Focus all projects on 'real world' examples with a'real' client." 
• "Writing has to be coordinated across the degree. We need to setup expectations in 
year 1 with a block of material that lays out our expectations followed byacross-the-
board input to achieve results." . .. 
• "Review.intemal assessment strategies (which put too much pressure on students). 
Establish standards .of writing or presentation .(and,perhaps,project evaluatiqns).· 
across all courses." . 
• "I think it would be good if the staff were consistent in their approach to assessing 
writing". 
• "If outside markers are used, their standards and attitudes must be brought in line 
with the rest of the department, and there should be some system whereby . 
permanent staff are alerted to students showing up with really poor writing.skills". 
• "I think the department would have to spend considerable tillle on gettiIl:gclear its 
own ideas as to what should be in these reports .. .Ithink it would be necessar~to 
send around amarking schedule or some sort of guideIin,.e sothat.all. ()fl.ls~e ... 
marking to the same standard. I think one of the problems everyone, tendstqhave~s 
whether to specify things fully or .have fairiyopen ended assignments,.Too ltlucll. 
detailed direction would destroy all creativity." .•......•.... 
• "We need courses for staff on how to teach and mark and whOlO send to remedial 
classes." . 
• "Perhaps a manual would help although it would be useless unlySsstlld{;}nts~ made 
to use it; they .don't read it iftbey don't have to - you've gottosetthern ~omethiJ,1g 
to do which requires themto use the manuaL" ... 
• "Consistency across the faculty is needed." 
• "We need a model to demonstrate standards, to show what excellence means,We 
should be clear so we dohave to talk about what is important and establish some 
criteria which are written down in .hardfonnat." .. 
• "At 100 level English should be separated from content and marked independently 
and students must pass the English section to pass the course. Students shouJdbe 
given clear objectives in relation to communication at the beginniu.gof eachccmrse." 
• "First assignments of every course that do not meet a certain standard of El1glish 
should be handed back unmarked for rewriting, with no penalty, justa requirement 
198 
to rewrite. This would send a clear message to students of the imPorumce Of 
communication. " 
• "We have to be committed to putting energy into prioritising communication and 
our work in this area has to be acknowledged as part of staff appraisal. Recognition 
is important." 
• "We should exp)ore the.possibility of wIj.J.ing workshops fox:..~taff." 
Clearly a range of ideas was being presented in this early stage. These ideas were 
collated from the interviews and summarised for staff consideration. 
7.3.2 Planning for action 
All staff were given this summary of the interviews prior to the meeting, plus 
background discussion documents on teaching writing. Included with this 
material was a covering memo asking staff to read the enclosed material, review 
present practices for setting, marking and giving feedback on assignments, and 
consider how the list of objectives and strategies might be extended. The purpose 
of the meeting/workshop was stated as "to design clear, practical objectives and 
strategies for the department in terms of implementing writing policies within 
our courses" . 
The staff meeting that included the workshop on writing objectives and strategy 
took place on 19.11.93 and involved group and individual work. At the end of 
two hours, the group had identified its objectives for the writing programme as 
follows . 
General Objective 
A student completing papers taught within the department would be able to construct 
readable, well-presented documents appropriate to audience needs. 
Specific objectives 
Students would learn to: 
• Structure the following types of documents 
- a letter to a business client 
- a report to a client 
- a descriptive farm report 
• Use technical tenninology confidently and correctly 
• Ref~ren_c;~.correct1y. (usiI!g AP A s!)'le guid~ as_set qut. in the f~21!!~ II.! ... anual) 
• Edit their work to reach a professional standard (which.inc1udes correct spelling, 
sentence structure and paragraphing techniques) 
• Make appropriate choices about how to manage data and how to analyse, discuss 
and present results and opinions in the light of audience needs. 
199 
Insufficient time meant it was not possible to work through strategies in this 
workshop. However, different members of staff were allocated various tasks such 
as preparing a shared marking schedule and writing sections of the proposed 
Style Manual (in conjunction with the planning for project one). A small group 
was set up to further develop strategies to be finalised in early 1994. 
A document was sent out to all staff in the department, summarising progress to 
date and identifying tasks. My role was also established here: 
Lisa Emerson is available in 1994 and 1995 as a resource person during the 
planning of courses and assignments. The extent of her involvement in your 
course(s) is entirely the decision of each paper coordinator. Staff are, however, 
encouraged to design assignments and course assessment in the light of the 
general and specific objectives, in conjunction with Lisa, as part of the [writing 
project] process (30.11.93). 
The above statement is significant in that it sets up the process as voluntary. 
Further issues were identified in a departmental memo for future consideration 
and discussion: 
• should (any) assignments be retrievable? 
• how can we best signal to students that professional writing standards are 
essential? (Or are we prepared to fail students on this basis?) 
• should we distinguish between 100,200 and 300 level writing requirements? 
• how can we best evaluate our writing programme? 
Over the summer period the small group working on strategy met several times 
to develop their brief. The group comprised four members: the writing 
consultant, the paper coordinator of 19.155 and extension lecturer, and two 
members of the department who expressed special interest in the project (one of 
whom was a senior member of the group, close to retirement, and the other a 
younger staff member engaged in doctoral research). 
200 
Four key strategies were identified. 
• .the Faculty Style Manual. This would be required reading for all students and staff , 
in the department and would establish the written style and structure of written 
assignments in the department. ' 
th~ Depart!TIent would adopt APA referencing conventions and these would be 
outlined and modelled in the Style Manual. ' , 
the researcher would be available as a resource person during 1994 and 1995. Her 
involvement in particular papers would be at the discretion of the paper coordinatoL 
Students could be referred for one-on-one support and staff could request lectures or 
workshops for classes requiring specific support. 
a!1ew marking schedule would be developed that would be presented to students 
before they submitted their assigm:nents. . ., . , 
All but one of the objectives had been at least initially addressed through the 
decision to support the writing of the Style Manual, which was to underpin the 
writing programme of the department as well as provide a text for 19.155. The 
remaining objective, that students be able to produce a document to professional 
standards, including correct spelling, sentence structure and paragraphing, had 
yet to be entirely addressed. While the Style Manual did contain material on 
paragraphing, it lacked extensive material on the mechanics of English language. 
Towards the end of March, the group had a final meeting to address this issue 
and, following the meeting, sent out a document that addressed the remaining 
objective through the new marking schedule. 
The group based their strategy on the following principles: 
• there shouidbe no shared marki7g"schedule and no allocation of marks for .writing"" , 
skills: 
no distinction should be made between stylistic writing requirements of 100, 200 
and 300 level students. 
all assignments should be retrievable. 
• we should all be prepared to fail students on the basis of writing skills. 
• assignments that were deemed unacceptable in terms of writing skills should be 
returned to the student unmarked (and without comments). The student would then 
havt1 thy' <?Ption of.~e~ubrnitting fQr ,a maximum gra~~ of 50~. 
The rationale for this system was as follows: students would encounter a 
communications paper at 100 level. Here they would be taught the expectations 
of the faculty regarding formatting, presentation and grammar. This paper would 
also require students to purchase the equipment to solve their own problems, i.e. 
201 
it required them to own a dictionary, a faculty style manual and a book on 
writing skills (Newby, 1989) which contained extensive sections on the 
mechanics of English. It would therefore be inappropriate to reward (by giving 
marks) 200 and 300 level students for skills that we would expect them to 
acquire at 100 level. Consequently, we rejected the idea of allocating marks and 
instead recommended a 'shock tactic' to reinforce lessons learned in 
Communications in Applied Science. 
The advantages and disadvantages of the system were listed as follows: 
• students would be given a clear and consistent message from the department about 
the value of good communicationskil1s~ .. .'.,.. 
• students would be encouraged to actively identify and solve theiJ:.o.Wn.writing,. 
problems. 
• marking loads would. not dramatically increase. 
• marks.could be focused more directlYQl1. course content. 
• staff would not be using valuable .time and effort teaching writingsk:il1~ .. 
. but.' ., 
• how would we apply these policies to big papers that were lOO%assessed.by , 
examination? '. . . , 
• would the students who didn't take 19.155 or who took it in the second semester,be 
~H~aqvantaged? 
There were other obvious pedagogical difficulties: such an approach might 
prevent students taking risks with their writing; also the issue of developing skills 
was not addressed. Nevertheless, the logic for the policy had several positive 
features. First, it was soundly articulated (Le. we don't reward skills at 300 level 
that we expect students to have acquired at 100 level). Second, it was developed 
by the group in relation to their objectives. Third, it was balanced by the 
supportive structures of the Style Manual (which addressed the other objectives), 
the (limited) services of a writing consultant, and the communication paper. 
The memo was discussed at another full staff meeting the following week. While 
all staff were comfortable with the Style Manual and the use of a 
communications paper to both provide a foundation and develop the stylistic 
requirements of the department, there were some reservations about the approach 
to requiring a high standard of writing skills. In response, two of the members of 
the department who formed part of the small group who developed the policy 
202 
argued energetically in its favour and the department agreed to trial the policy for 
the second semester. Accordingly, the policy was written up as a department 
document. 
A decision was then made to send copies of the policy to the Dean and HODs for 
further discussion, with a recommendation to have it adopted by the faculty. I 
strongly contested this move, as I was concerned that it be tested before it was 
implemented widely. In the event, my concern proved unfounded. Distributing 
the policy for wider consideration proved fruitful in terms of the response it drew 
from members of other departments. The Dean, who was highly committed to 
ensuring that students acquired the skills prioritised by employers, including 
communication skills, and hence supportive of a writing programme, was open to 
the idea of promoting the policy more widely. Members of the Department of 
Plant Science who were involved with the communications paper responded 
through their HODs, questioning the pedagogical soundness of the policy. Of 
particular concern was the question of whether it was too harsh and whether, to 
balance the requirements, the faculty could provide enough support for students 
experiencing writing difficulties. 
In the light of both the criticism of the policy and the positive response from the 
Deans and HODs to the notion of a writing programme (the head of the 
department described HODs as voicing widespread agreement with the adoption 
of a writing policy across the faculty), the decision was made to trial the 
programme in Semester 2 1994 and to report back to the Dean and HODs so that 
further decisions could be made for the faculty on a more informed basis. 
7.4 Data collection 
Although data collection was primarily my responsibility, some members of the 
team spontaneously conducted surveys on their papers that included questions 
relating to the writing programme. Moreover, group members made a 
commitment to providing the research with all relevant documentation. The data 
collection for this project was less consistent than that of the other projects, 
203 
primarily because collection times and methods were dependent upon the co­
operation of paper coordinators. Collection methods used included the following: 
• document collection. All documents relating to the writing programme were 
collected to provide a record of the official progress of the project. 
• staff documentation. Most staff in this project were unable, due to work 
commitments, to give the amount of time required to maintain a project 
journal. A journal was kept by the researcher and by one other staff member 
in 1995, but the experiences and perceptions of other staff were recorded as 
required, on an occasional rather than consistent basis, either through 
interviews or short reports. 
• entry interviews. All staff were interviewed in relation to their attitudes to 
and experiences of writing and teaching writing at their point of entry into the 
project. All interviews were conducted and (audio) recorded by the 
interviewer using a semi-structured interviewing technique. 
• assignment collection. Assignments were collected on a random basis and 
also all assignments that were resubmitted were copied in both versions, 
subject to consent. 
• focus groups. Two papers used focus groups to evaluate the paper and the 
writing programme in particular. 
• class questionnaires. Some staff used a survey of class satisfaction with the 
paper to evaluate the writing component. 
All participants, staff and students, were asked to sign consent forms, as with the 
other projects. Participation in the assessment of the project was voluntary, and 
participants were free to withdraw from the project at any time. 
204 
It was of some concern to me throughout the implementation of the writing 
programme that the data collection process was so inconsistent. However, the 
issue appeared to be one of time, given the working context of the participants; I 
again had to acknowledge and appreciate that action research must always 
recognise and work with the constraints of the context, and this was one situation 
where contextual constraints inhibited data collection. 
7.5 Cycle 1: Action and Observation 
Four papers used the writing strategies in 1994. The cycles for this project 
followed a single semester (each paper using the strategy was one semester in 
duration), so two cycles were possible in one academic year. One paper in 
semester 1 used a hybrid version of the strategy, prior to the strategies being 
finalised; three papers used the full strategies in semester 2. The progress of the 
four papers and the evaluations of the strategy for each of the papers follow 
below. Following the end of the second cycle, four members of the teaching team 
met together to collate the data, discuss the strategies and evaluations, and write 
a report for the Head of Department to take to the Dean and HODs. A summary 
of the results is given in this chapter following the discussion of each paper. 
It should be noted that in all but one of the papers employing the writing strategy 
in 1994, the students might not have completed 19.155: some would be taking 
19.155 concurrently with the department's paper, some would have completed 
the communications paper, and some (those who had not transferred to the new 
degree) would not be including a communications paper in their degree 
programme. Only for the first year paper, 19.152, could it be assumed that all the 
class had taken the communications paper. Clearly, this was not an ideal 
situation, since the writing strategy was intended as an extension of the 
communications paper. However, the only other solution would have been to 
delay the beginning of this project for one year, at which point the impetus for 
the project might have been lost. The decision was made by the HOD, in 
205 
consultation with the group, to go ahead with the less than ideal situation as a 
trial run; the group was in agreement that there was rarely an ideal time to start 
an educative innovation. 
7.5.1 11.341 Horticultural Management II 
The hybrid version of the strategy was used in 11.341 Horticultural Management 
II. The paper coordinator's strategy and finding are outlined in his own words 
below: 
Marks for the first project were allocated equal1y between English and presentation and 
farm management content. ... There were 19 senior students in the class .... Marks for 
English were between 2 112 and five out of five. Ten students scored four or better;.a 
score of four was used to identify the minimum standard required: Therefore, the 
balance of the students in the class had submitted work that would be deemed 
unsatisfactory if submitted to that standard at a later stage. They were forewarned! 
Assignment two was submitted four weeks later. No marks were .allocated to English. 
and unsatisfactory assignments were to be returned in accordance with the department's 
proposal. Every assignment submitted met the standards imposed. They Were, inmost 
cases, a pleasure to read, mark and grade. 
Members of the Faculty have described this process as "draconian".· If instilling 
standards in students' written work is draconian then so be it. However, the response 
shown by the students towards meeting professional standards is fascinating. 
Surprisingly they respond, either from a fear of failure or from the satisfaction of 
submitting a project to professional standards (13.7.94). 
7.5.2 11.258 Agricultural Systems II 
The coordinator for this paper came from the Department of Soil Science (the 
paper was included in the strategy because two members of the Department of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management formed part of the teaching 
group). He was cautious about the writing project, and agreed on the 
understanding that students would have continuous writing support available to 
them. The level of support for the writing in this paper was, therefore, very high, 
with times specifically set aside for writing groups to visit the Business Studies 
Writing Centre and members of the teaching team working with writing groups 
for the final assignment. Students were informed of the writing strategy and the 
support that was available to them in a handout and in a lecture. 
206 
The paper included three group assignments focused on particular farming 
systems. The stmcture of the paper divided into four sections, one on systems 
theory, and then three sections, each focusing on a particular assignment; the last 
three sections included an extensive farm or industry visit. Students were referred 
to the Style Manual for details on stmcture but were also given detailed 
instructions about stmcture in the assignment handout, which also included the 
marking criteria. 
I screened all the assignments. Assignments were classified as pass, marginal (as 
a warning) or resubmit. None of the first assignments were returned for 
resubmission and only two were identified as marginal. I identified only minor 
problems such as spelling, punctuation and referencing errors, which could 
generally be attributed to the less competent writers in the group. Subsequently, I 
recommended that student groups be encouraged to use an editor in future 
assignments. Findings for the second assignment were similar, with general 
improvement being noted by all markers, and the standard reached in assignment 
three was considered by the markers to be higher still. No groups were required 
to resubmit for any assignment. 
The paper coordinator, at the end of the semester, wrote a memo summarising his 
response and perceptions to the writing strategy. Like the paper coordinator for 
another paper in this cycle, 11.251, he was disappointed by the students not using 
available support. 
Another problem, as I see it, is the disappointingly small number of groups that used you 
for aciyice and sllpport. As groups were often endea,vouring to wIite and compile the 
reports in the 4-5 day period immediately before the due date, there ~as insufficient 
tim~for;th~m to work with you, WI:ietlt~.t:,Jl1is situation arose bec'!Yseof pqor ' .. ': .. " 
organisation and bad time management or genuine work overload and pressure is not , 
entirely clear. I tend to favour the latter explanation. The scheduHpg of student 
workloads is obviously a larger issue than either 19.258 or [the writing .project] can hope 
to address Q.l1.94). 
Nevertheless, his overall assessment of the writing programme was cautious 
approval. He describes the use of the programme as a 'qualified' success: 
207 
Its major achievement wasthe importantroleit played in the greatly imProvedquaIity of 
reports submitted by student groups as the paper progressed. Arguably, one of the most 
gratifying aspects of 19.258 was the professional standard of the third and [mal report 
written by students. In setting standards, providing guidance and.support, and 
threatening to visit its wrath on the weak, [the writing project] was an .essential part of 
the educational process that resulted in this.improved student performance.· . 
While it is obviously important that students (always) write well; there is a partiCUlar. 
need for students to be able to write. clearly .and concisely in .19.258 where they are using 
some systems analysis concepts for the first time. By careful and clear writing. students 
are better able to understand the complex nature of the systems under consideration . 
(4,11.94)~ 
This final statement is interesting as it indicates learning and writing as 
pedagogically linked. This was not a key theme in this project (compared with, 
for example, project three, where this link was crucial to the project), but 
nevertheless emerged occasionally in staff comments. Generally, however, the 
focus of this project was learning to write rather than writing to learn. 
7.5.3 19.152 Agriculture and Society 
Because 19.152 was a first year applied science paper, it was possible to assume 
that all students taking it had either completed the communications paper 
(19.155) in the first semester or were taking it concurrently. Consequently, less 
emphasis was placed on providing students with intensive one-on-one support. 
The paper was the largest using the writing strategy, with almost 250 students. It 
was team taught by members of the department, the Department of Agricultural 
Economics and Business, and the Departments of History and Maori Studies. 
Students undertook two assignments. The first was very short (only a single 
page) with a largely descriptive, but highly structured, topic that required the use 
of secondary sources. The second was a formal essay requiring a thesis and 
argument. For both assignments I ran tutorials and a lecture on essay structure 
(19.155 did not teach essay structure in 1994); one-on-one support was also 
available for a period prior to the submission of both assignments. 
After screening the first assignment, I returned twenty assignments to students 
with a covering letter directing them to the help they needed (either referring 
208 
them to the 19.155 study material or referring those with more serious writing 
problems to the Business Studies Writing Centre). Those students who were 
directed to seek one-on-one help complied by visiting the Writing Centre for a 
consultation. 
The second assignment saw a change in the marking strategy and a perceived 
change in the quality of the students ' work, as described in my journal: 
Some surprising results have come out. ... The standard and presentation of the 
work has improved dramatically. Not surprisingly, the commitment of people to 
the strategy has improved dramatically. 
The first thing, though, that happened was a shift in the application and 
interpretation of the strategy. We decided the wording of the strategy was 
ambiguous and allowed for two possibilities. First was the idea that resubmitted 
assignments would simply have their marks halved. The trouble with this 
approach was that there was very little incentive for students to actually resubmit 
their work, since they would fail anyway . . . . But [the paper coordinator for 
19.152] took another approach. He said that the strategy meant that students 
would be able to get a maximum mark of 50%, in other words, any assignments 
that were capable of passing would get 50%. So effectively we would be giving a 
pass-fail grade ... . Overall, because of the incentive involved, everyone [all the 
staff involved in teaching all three papers] decided to take [this] interpretation. 
My initial reaction to the assignments (19.152 and 19.258) was that the 
assignments were much improved in terms of style and structure. It was 
particularly noticeable in 19.155 how people had tried to use the essay structure 
detailed in the Style Manual and in the lecture I gave. Major weaknesses ... were to 
do with acknowledging sources, citing sources and using APA references in the 
reference list (28.8.94). 
The assignments were marked using a combined criterion-referenced and holistic 
marking schedule, to provide fuller feedback both to the students and to the 
markers, and to encourage markers to give as much feedback as possible with 
minimum effort. 
7.5.411 .251 Farm management 
The paper coordinator for this paper decided to involve me in the implementation 
of the writing strategy as a response to the poor level of writing skills in the first 
assignment. His initial reaction to the first assignment was to send a group of the 
students to a series of open lectures on generic writing skills (such as punctuation 
209 
and paragraphing skills) which I was mnning. The lectures were not tailored to 
the particular group but were already being conducted for the university 
population as a whole. Students from this paper were encouraged to attend if 
their marks for this first assignment were poor. The marking strategy was 
implemented for the second assignment and I was asked to be involved in its 
administration once it had been submitted. Hence, apart from the generic 
workshops, the students had been offered minimal support for these first two 
assignments. 
For three of the four papers that took part in this initial trial (cycle 1), staff 
perceived a definite improvement in students' writing abilities throughout the 
cycle. The paper coordinator of 19.258 noted the students' use of an editor (i.e. a 
member of their project group) to produce reports which improved throughout 
the second semester while the paper coordinator of 11.341, as quoted above, 
indicated a dramatic improvement in students' presentation and writing skills. 
For 19.152, student essays revealed an ability to use basic essay stmcture 
including propositions and simple paragraphing techniques. 
Only in this paper was the paper coordinator unhappy with the level of 
improvement in student writing. Nevertheless, in a questionnaire which he 
designed and administered, 44 out of 76 students in this paper indicated that they 
felt their writing skills had improved through the semester and almost all students 
stated that they had an understanding of where their writing weaknesses lay. 40 
students stated that they felt they were given adequate support to improve their 
writing skills while 19 did not. That so many students felt they were given 
adequate support is perhaps surprising, given that they were offered no one-on­
one support until the final assignment. Over the whole semester 15 students were 
required to rewrite at least one project and 26 were told one or more of their 
projects were marginal. 
In the comments on the communications strategy, a full range of responses was 
elicited. Many commented that the system was overly harsh (although many of 
those who commented on the excessive loss of marks indicated that they would 
consider it acceptable to lose 15 -30% for writing skills) and that having to 
210 
rewrite an assignment prior to exams was very difficult. However, a minority 
offered positive comments: 
I've certainly re-read and proofed my last project so perhaps the message will get 
through once people get stung. 
It's a good idea as it makes you aware and you know that you have to ensure it's 
up to standard (Comments by two students from an undated evaluation 
questionnaire) . 
The paper coordinator for 11 .253 wrote a short report that discusses several 
issues that arose as difficulties throughout the writing programme. He 
summarised the main problems in an undated memo as follows: 
;1: There was some confusion about the penalty imposed o.n students)vho hadtodoa .. 
rewrite. ' .'> . . . ....., 
, . " "'~ • . - ..... >':. '. ., . ,''''''', :' , '  .-.. . w: . :<~,:~,.-:,. <',;.~rr ,.,-,. T 
,2. We'did nqt specify the penalty imposed on students who did not rewrite. w,hen asked to. · . .,., + 
'-Y:' . 
3. Students commented that there was not really any incentive for them to rewrite their 
. projects. ' , . '" 
4 .• . Staff are not adequately trained ,to screen projects qn the:basis.of their wri~teri 
English. . . . .. 
Two further issues that he identified in his report are concern that students were 
not using the support that was provided for them and the need for the 
involvement of a writing consultant to monitor the writing process. 
7.6 Cycle 1: Reflection 
A number of problems were identified through the review process. First, the 
marking schedule was difficult to administer, in terms of time constraints and the 
amount of handling of each assignment. Time issues related to the fact that all 
assignments had to be screened and some assignments had to be marked twice: 
clearly assignments could not be scheduled immediately before a vacation, for 
example. Secondly, unless the paper coordinator was confident about screening, 
---------------------
assignments had to be handled twice or even more to ensure consistency of 
approach, leading to administrative hazards such as losing assignments or 
recording marks incorrectly. Big classes, therefore, posed obvious problems. 
211 
The issue of staff and student support was also a concern. Since the marking 
schedule was proposed as a teaching strategy, not just a punitive strategy, some 
writing support was needed for students with problems and for staff who were 
working with these students. ESOL students were a particular group that suffered 
under the new marking systems, since they were required to meet the same 
standards as students with English as a first language. This group needed more 
extensive writing/language support than was available through the voluntary 
support of the writing consultant within the project. Without this higher level of 
support, the marking schedule was extremely harsh, since they had no way of 
improving their skills. 
Consistency in using the marking schedule proved a serious difficulty, especially 
in large classes where a number of tutors might be marking the same assignment: 
clearly, this group had to agree on what constituted grammar or punctuation 
errors. And one of the things the marking schedule clearly showed was that many 
members of the tutor group could not identify errors consistently. For one paper, 
one tutor identified even minor comma lapses as errors while another tutor failed 
to identify major sentence structure errors such as missing verbs, subject-verb 
disagreements or sentence fragments. 
Interestingly, the marking schedule also identified a key staff misunderstanding 
in relation to writing: many staff could not distinguish between poor style and 
poor grammar. The marking schedule was designed to identify problems with 
grammar, but staff who showed difficulty identifying major sentence structure 
errors were also highly likely to identify sentences which were grammatically 
correct but written in an inappropriate style (e.g. too informal, or, more 
commonly, too formal) as grammatically incorrect. These factors suggested that 
the concern about student writing was not poor grammar but poor or 
inappropriate style. 
212 
A small group from within the department was commissioned to write a report 
for the HOD. It included the following comments: 
B~ecausestaff have difficulty distinguishing between style and grammar, the present 
marking schedule, which focuses heavily on grammar, may in fact be inappropriate ~or. 
inadequate. If the major concern of the staff is that students acquire an appropriate . 
'style' or language, then our [writing] policy should focus on that as well as/rather than 
on grammar and 'correctness' . . . 
The style the students tend to use is pedantically and stiltedlY formal, with many 
grammatical and spelling errors. The students' writing style indicates that they are 
attempting to use a writing style that they are unfarniliar.with (i.e.,tlley,have been told.to 
write a style which is 'formal' but they have very little idea of what that should look or 
sound like) and that they therefore make more technical errors than they would if they 
were writing a piece ofinforlnalprose. It is clear, from talking to students, that they read 
very little and that they are often required to write, say, a farm report when they have ' '. 
never read or seen one (December, 1994). 
Clearly these comments are, to some extent speculative; nevertheless, they point 
to an important point which is that students may have been struggling to find the 
correct level of formality. This uneasiness may have been due not entirely to 
poor generic writing skills but also to a lack of understanding or familiarity with 
what was stylistically required of them. As the interim report went on to say, 
"The Style Manual tells the students how to write a report; it does little to show 
them." 
The interim report also looked at student difficulties with using the Style Manual 
and their lack of ease with referencing secondary material and addressed the need 
for a change of 'culture' within the faculty in relation to communication skills: 
cOlnmufiTcation skills are yet to be fully accepted as part of the curriculuin and the 
culture of the Faculty. Student amazement - and, at times, hostility ·-.: about the emphasis 
;()n comniunication skills and the,jr importance as part of a professional"trainiIlgwas often 
very high: "We, c.ame here to le~ agriculture, not English!" was a cryre~a~ed in many' 
forms and variations throughout the year. Most students are, as yet, unable to organise 
their work to accommodate a visit to the Writing Centre, despite high penalties for not 
doing so, and staff are often uneasy about penalising for poor writing skills. A change of 
culture IS required for staff to have confidence in demanding a high standard of 
communications skills and for students to accept and plan for this. The Department (and 
the Faculty, perhaps) are in the first stages of this ch~ge in culture (December 1994). 
The report was submitted to the HOD who asked us to submit a copy to the 
Dean. A response was received from the HODs and Dean's meeting supporting 
213 
the continuation of the programme. They stated that they were unable to meet the 
request for a writing consultant for the faculty at this time but they would like to 
be kept up to date with progress. This response was reported to a department 
meeting, where the department confirmed the continuation of the programme for 
a further year. 
7.7 Cycles 2 and 3: Planning and action 
Given the need to adjust the culture of the department and faculty, and given 
students' lack of familiarity with the requirement to produce writing of a 
professional standard, combined with the very limited student support available, 
attention turned much more fully in the next cycles to supporting students 
through the change of focus and providing them with learning opportunities. 
Through these cycles I worked primarily with paper coordinators, rather than 
with the larger research group, to identify strategies for increasing student 
support and learning in relation to communication skills. 
Three papers adopted writing strategies in 1995: 11.251, 19.258 and 19.259. The 
latter paper took up the writing strategies for the first time in 1995, while 11.251 
and 19.258 had used writing strategies in the previous cycle. Three particular 
issues were discussed in relation to improving writing strategies: 
• modelling different types of assignments so students could be more aware of 
the required style 
• using a retrieval system which did not penalise students for poor initial 
submissions but which allowed them to learn appropriate style and structure 
• using learning to write techniques such as microthemes and audience specific 
writing to extend students' language skills 
It should be noted that during 1995, unlike 1994, all students could be assumed 
to have passed 19.155, and therefore would have completed a paper that taught 
basic writing and style skills. 
214 
7.7.111.251 Farm Management 
This paper used the same marking schedule as the previous year, returning 
substandard work to students for resubmission with a considerable penalty. 
Fewer students were penalised under this system in this second cycle, possibly 
due to the fact that all students in this group would have experienced 19.155. 
Also, there was considerably less hostility to the marking schedule. Another 
issue, the distinction between style and grammar, which we had been alerted to 
in 1994, was less of a concern, but largely because I took the responsibility for 
screening for grammar and left the tutors to comment on style. 
One of our concerns was to provide adequate support for students more 
consistently in this cycle, including providing models of report structure and 
style. Two models of good reports from the previous year were included in a 
student guide to report writing that focused students on the requirements of the 
reports in the paper and referred them to the Style Manual. Students were also 
referred to a group of open lectures on writing skills, which included a series on 
writing reports, and one-on-one support was available to students after the first 
assignment. 
The standard of assignment was perceived by teaching staff to have risen 
considerably. None of the first assignments were returned for resubmission and 
only eight were warned as marginal. In my journal I wrote the following: 
What is hard to quantify is the change in the assignments. They were well 
presented, clear, with quite a different style to last year .. .. The others wanted to 
put it down to 19.155 but I don't see how you can attribute such a change to one 
12-week paper. Rather, I think there has been a sustained attitude change. Last 
year the students had never before been asked to do an assignment with good 
writing skills ; it had never been mentioned to them. But last year these students 
did 19.155 and they were in 19.152, and they had writing skills stressed again and 
again. Perhaps they are beginning to accept it as part of their academic 
programme? Also, they have the resources to support them after 19.155 and after 
the support we have given them in this paper (19.4.95). 
The standard of the assignments was perceived by staff as remaining higher than 
the previous year, although for projects two and three there were some 
resubmissions. 
---- _._--------------_. - -
215 
Unfortunately, in terms of the evaluation of the process, the paper coordinator 
failed to re-survey the students for their assessments of the communications 
elements of the paper. All in all, however, the process was smoother than it had 
been in the previous year, though there were still some difficulties. The paper 
coordinator identified a series of problems: 
I think the biggest problem ... was that some of the students that had done fairly 
well except for one or two pages that they got checked on got hammered for that. 
... Yes, I think fairness was the main [problem]. The other problem was the 
students that were marginal still tended to try ... they just went to the minimum 
standard. I don't think they really did much more than that. And I think the other 
problem with students at the moment is there's too much time required in their 
course work with semesterisation. So they're not having time to reflect...so a lot 
of the feedback we give them you find they're not using it. '" 
The other problem that came out was the support. Two things, one we know that 
we haven't got the skill to judge the English and we're really looking at style 
rather than ... well, we're also looking at grammar but we don't have the skills to 
assess that. ... And the other thing was support. The students weren't happy with 
the level of support. They had to be too well organised from their perspective for 
the pressure of work .... So if you were away they got upset and complained and 
got grumpy and stuff, so there was that. The other was we get hit because we're 
doing it and no-one else is doing it. So the across the curriculum has to be brought 
in or you'll just be seen as a hard paper and [as] the people that force them to do 
this and no-one else makes them do it (1.6.95). 
7.7.2 19.259 Horticultural Systems II 
The paper coordinator of 19.259 preferred to support the writing programme 
within the faculty by adopting some of the writing to learn strategies that were 
the focus of project three. Using a combination of genre/audience specific 
writing, rnicrothemes and modelling, the paper took a positive approach to 
teaching writing styles. 
The entire paper was focused on two systems case studies, one a soft system and 
the other a hard system. Within the two case studies there were three or four 
assignments (some were individual assignments and some had to be completed in 
groups). The first sets of assignments, relating to the first case study, included: 
• a system description 
• a problem identification memo framed by a specific context 
216 
• a group newsletter, again according to a specific context relating to the case 
study 
• a group SWOT analysis of the case study system 
Both of these latter assignments were group projects and included a staff member 
allocated to each group as facilitator. Case study two followed the same 
audience-focused structure, including a letter to a grower, a report to self, and a 
consultancy report for a grower. To assist the students, each assignment 
instruction sheet provided very full details of aims, objectives and marking 
criteria and the larger project included an example or model. The marking 
schedule combined criterion marking with a holistic marking system, thus 
allowing for fullest possible feedback. Group marks were allocated according to 
the system devised in project three. 
Despite running workshops on how to work in groups, we experienced the usual 
problems of group work, such as people not pulling their weight and some 
members of the group feeling excluded. Nevertheless, in focus group interviews 
students commented positively on the use of group assignments, stating that they 
enjoyed the novelty and that they saw this approach to assignment writing as 
preparation for the workforce where group work would be inevitable. They 
further commented that they felt the evaluation of the group projects was fair and 
allowed members to give an accurate reflection of each member's input. 
The paper coordinator's journal records that there was initial resistance from the 
class to the unusual form of the assignments for case study one: 
The students are not at all sure about what they have to do to prepare their articles 
for the newsletter. They were not comfortable with simply being told to produce 
one similar to the sample one [the model]. They complained that they would not 
be able to prepare the material in time. Others felt that it was all too much work 
and asked if they could simply hand in a report ... . Project 4 went down OK. . . .I 
don' t know about students. The more you try to make things interesting, the more 
they want to stick with the same old boring format for things: "It's what we' ve 
been used to"; "Why do a SWOT analysis - we can discuss the advantages and 
disadvantages we see in a system!" (15.8.95). 
-- ---------- --
217 
Nonetheless, despite this initial resistance, focus group participants at the end of 
the semester commented favourably on the organics assignments (case study 
one), with students describing the assignments as interesting, useful, and not too 
difficult. Comments about the newsletter indicated that they enjoyed this 
particular project on account of it being 'different' from most assignments. The 
paper coordinator's comments about this assignment were also positive. 
Comments from students in the focus groups about the assignments related to 
case study two were generally very critical; this criticism, however, related to the 
organisation of this aspect of the paper, the preparation the class was given for 
the assignments, and the lack of connection between lectures and assignments. In 
other words, comments seemed to be more connected with the teaching of that 
section of the paper, rather than with the assignments themselves. 
Examples of student assignments that related to case study one showed an 
understanding of the relevant structural and stylistic requirements. Grammatical 
errors were minimal, and in all cases individual or student groups made a 
conscious effort to prepare the assignment for its specified audience, i.e. they 
showed an awareness of audience needs and level of comprehension. 
7.7.3 19.258 Agricultural systems II 
In 1995, 19.258 took on a different policy of retrievability from the previous 
year. Instead of restricting the resubmission requirement to people whose skills 
were below a minimum standard and penalising for the need for resubmission, 
the paper coordinator, after discussion with me and other members of the 
teaching group, decided on a resubmission policy for all students. His objective 
was to give much more direct feedback to students on what was acceptable in 
terms of style, structure and approach. There were three projects for this paper: 
one small report and two big systems reports, focusing on industry systems. The 
last assignment was particularly demanding since it focused on the entire beef 
industry in New Zealand. All projects were to be done in groups. Marks were 
allocated to both drafts (60% of the total mark for the first draft and 40% for the 
second), since staff doubted that students would write two good versions if no 
marks were allocated to the first. 
218 
One of the most immediate difficulties relating to the resubmission policy was 
working with staff on using this system. Two members of the group were new to 
the idea of a writing policy (they were from a related department) and one of 
these new staff members was strongly resistant to the idea of 'marking twice'. 
His response was to refuse to give detailed feedback to students on how they 
might improve their work for a second submission, restricting himself to very 
few, very non-specific comments on the text. His opinion, stated strongly at 
meetings, was that the purpose of assignments was to evaluate students; teaching 
should take place prior to an assignment being written, not during the writing and 
marking process. 
A further question arose in relation to the marking spread. If the standard of 
students' work rose considerably, should they be awarded a considerably higher 
grade than their earlier submission, given that they had not produced work to that 
standard initially? Would that not disadvantage students whose work was at that 
high level in the first submission? One tutor was strongly of the opinion that the 
second submission should be marked much more harshly, in order to retain the 
advantage of those submitting high quality first drafts, and he marked 
accordingl y. 
A third concern of the teaching staff was how to comment on the first draft. Staff 
were concerned that if they corrected the first draft in fine detail, then they were 
doing work that was rightly the students', and that the students would need to do 
no more than just transfer the comments into the final draft. We therefore 
discussed alternative ways of commenting on students' work, such as the use of 
directive questioning, in order to lead students towards more complex issues 
without telling them what to do. After the marking of the second assignment all 
markers except one were comfortable with the different form of responding to 
student work. 
Student groups were also given the opportunity to meet with their markers after 
the first submission to discuss areas of concern. All groups took the opportunity 
to do this for the second assignment. 
219 
Despite the difficulties that obviously arose from these diverging attitudes and 
approaches, students' initial responses to the retrievable marking system were 
very favourable. Staff commented on the students' willingness to learn from 
comments and to make major adjustments in their second submissions. Marks in 
many cases increased by 20%. Some reports were read twice by different tutors 
to ensure fairness in the marking, and staff comments were very positive. 
In the third project, by contrast, students failed to make major changes to their 
second submissions. This was a major project, focusing on a major industry 
system in New Zealand, and was due at the end of the semester. Poor second 
submissions were attributed (by both the students and the staff) to work pressures 
faced by students; nevertheless, the lack of improvement was deeply flUstrating 
for staff who felt that, in the face of students' lack of response, they had wasted 
their time in providing such detailed feedback, as illustrated by this comment: 
Some groups used it and jumped their grades 20%, so that's quite good. But I 
think as the work pressure came on that died, so all that happened was you put a 
huge amount of effort into marking it but handed it back, got it back and they 
hadn't done much but you still had to go through and do the marking again. So for 
us it doubled our workload without that much benefit to the student. .. .1 guess the 
disappointing thing for us was initially the students did make an effort but after 
that they were really making only marginal changes because they were too 
stressed out 0.12.95). 
7.8 Key themes 
The most noticeable change through the two years of the writing programme was 
the modification or softening of the marking system. There was undoubted 
ambivalence towards it in the department at its inception. In my journal (13.4.94) 
I noted of the meeting that confirmed the marking system: "There was general 
agreement to the approach although I felt no one seemed to feel very strongly 
about it." This ambivalence was further confinued throughout the first semester 
of its application, and in the middle of the semester the ambiguity in the wording 
was used to modify the system. In the second year a further 'softening' could be 
seen. Only one paper used the same approach, but in a more supportive context, 
220 
while the other papers took an approach which more actively taught and 
demonstrated the need for quality writing skills. 
The second most significant change came in the shift of focus from grammar to 
style. By the second year, all three papers were taking active steps to teach the 
stylistic requirements of the discipline as well as sustaining the requirement for 
'good grammar'. In all instances, this shift to a focus on style meant a major task 
for the teaching staff in terms of both identifying and then teaching the style 
required. 
Thirdly, the need for support for students was more extensively recognised. The 
members of department were always aware of the need for support, but by the 
second year, this awareness was being translated more extensively into action in 
the form of models, more extensive assignment directions, more references to the 
Style Manual, more consistent availability of one-on-one support, and more 
appropriate/relevant workshops on writing skills. 
Finally, between the first and second year, the attitude of students to the 
emphasis on writing skills shifted. This may be attributed partly to the softening 
of the system and the level of support and teaching available, but also to 
students' increasing familiarity with the emphasis on writing through 19.155 and 
other first year papers. Staff perceptions were that students responded better to an 
emphasis on presentation and writing skill in the second year and that the 
standard of work improved. 
There were some difficulties, nevertheless. The major issue was this: despite the 
results of the initial interviews and the undeniable commitment of some staff, 
there was overall ambivalence in the department about whether it was 
appropriate for the department to be prioritising a writing programme. This could 
be seen in the reluctance of some staff to be involved with the programme at all, 
and in the hesitation that was often apparent in applying the programme. This 
could be attributed to several factors, most particularly the way in which the 
project was initiated, a more important curriculum debate within the department, 
221 
questions about the relevance of writing to students within the department, and 
concerns about the financial wellbeing of the department. 
First, the idea for the programme and the commitment to it from a research 
perspective was mine, not the department's. In this respect, as I have noted 
earlier in the chapter, project two differed from the other two projects. Action 
research is ideally seen as emerging from the context in which it takes place, 
initiated by participants; while this project certainly emerged to some extent from 
the context, it was not, in retrospect, the primary concern of the department from 
a curriculum perspective. Second, I became aware of a major curriculum debate 
in the department after the writing programme had begun. It connected with the 
programme in many ways, in that it concerned a definition of systems thinking 
and teaching and its place in the faculty programme. In staff discussions, later 
interviews, and staff reports and journals, it emerged as a preoccupying and 
primary concern which often displaced discussion relating to writing skills; my 
perception was that it was this curriculum issue which needed to be fore grounded 
in any research relating to the department's teaching programme. 
Third, there was some question about whether the students in the faculty really 
did need high quality writing skills. Although faculty surveys indicated that this 
was a major concern of employers of graduates, some staff involved in the 
project doubted whether it was relevant to the students they were teaching. This 
attitude was shared by some students. I first encountered it in a discussion with a 
staff member: 
He said he thought that AgHort students were a unique bunch in that many of 
them did not have what I (Lisa) might consider to be basic skills, like writing 
skills, but that they had a passion for the land and that that would transform them 
once they went out into the real world. I mentioned this to another staff member 
who said "we're not teaching .. .farmers!" .... 50 I have been asking this of 
everyone I interview [who are we teaching?]. Most of the interviewees seem to 
think we are training business people working in primary related industries 
(31.5.94). 
Students supported this in their comments on the communications aspect of the 
11.251 paper: 
222 
If you don ' t want to be in the consultancy field it's a waste of time getting the 
literature right. 
To someone who wants to go back onto the farm it [the marking system] is unfair, 
but if they are leading towards being a consultant it is fair (Comments by two 
students from an undated evaluation questionnaire). 
Finally there was the concern already mentioned in this chapter that the 
department might be disadvantaged within the faculty by being the only one 
which demanded high quality writing skills of its students. If it lost students 
because of the writing strategy, then this would adversely affect funding and 
staffing. The survey of 11.251 students confirmed that students were not being 
asked for such standards in other departments. 
Another issue of concern, which will be discussed fully in chapter nine, was the 
role of the researcher and the use of action research for this project. 
7.9 The researcher's role 
Project two was, undoubtedly, the hardest for me as a researcher, for a number of 
reasons. 
First, I made a decision early on to take the role appropriate to an action 
researcher, i.e., a facilitative rather than directive role in the department. This 
decision was based on my assessment of the staff's competency in discussing 
writing issues and on their knowledge of action research (many of the staff used 
qualitative research methods in their own research and had at least a basic 
understanding of action research). In addition, the staff, too, understood my 
motivation for taking this facilitative role in relation to action research; they 
understood that ownership was an important concern for the long-term viability 
of the project. Their acceptance of this role was underlined in one meeting where 
I was opposing a particular line of action and one person asked "whose writing 
project is this, Lisa?" as a way of reminding me of my facilitative rather than 
directive role. And the action of the project, with the softening of the marking 
system over time into a more viable approach of supporting students and 
focusing on style rather than grammar, seems to have confirmed that this 
facilitative role was the right one: the staff themselves discovered that the 
approach they were taking was too harsh and modified it spontaneously. 
223 
Nevertheless, I was left with a concern that the project might have entrenched 
itself more securely in the department if I had taken a more directive role that 
would have forestalled some of the problems before they arose. Looking back on 
early interviews I see signs of staff wanting more support and direction than they 
were given (see the interview quoted on p.193). Furthermore, at one stage a staff 
member contacted me to suggest I might take a more directive role. I decided not 
to act on this suggestion, having made a decision about my role in the light of the 
context and my understanding of an appropriate role for an action researcher; in 
reflection I have asked myself whether I should have been more flexible to the 
real context, rather than adhering to a theoretical position. 
A second difficulty was that staff often didn't have time to undertake data 
collection that they had agreed to. Most had heavy teaching loads and research 
responsibilities, as already stated, and these came ahead of the project. While I 
collected enough data to produce a triangulated assessment of the project, lack of 
specific data was often frustrating (an example, as noted before, is the paper 
coordinator of farm management failing to conduct a questionnaire in a later 
cycle, precluding comparison between two cycles). 
A third difficulty was that, in many ways, this project was implemented by 
individuals, without a self-supportive group. Although the department worked 
together during the planning phase and completed one reflection period, through 
most of the action and reflection I worked with individual paper coordinators, 
each of whom had quite different ideas about what he wanted to achieve in his 
paper. Decisions were often made by individuals, or by an individual in 
conjunction with me: hence the development of the project was not determined 
by a group, but by individual decisions, agendas, motivations and past practices. 
Looking back at the project, we can see its development as successful: at the end 
of the project a policy had been tempered by experience, and some staff had an 
224 
understanding of their own requirements of student writing that they did not have 
at the beginning of the project. From my perspective, however, the project was a 
rocky road - at times exhilarating and always interesting, but often confusing and 
frustrating. My assessment of my role was ambivalent. 
7.10 Conclusions 
If we return to our research questions, we find that this project gave ambiguous 
results. The idea of collaboration between a writing consultant and a group of 
academic staff to teach writing did not really get off the ground here. This may 
have been due to the lack of cohesion in the department prior to the project or to 
the fact that paper coordinators at the university are accustomed to running their 
own papers independently (see comments on project one on p.183). Another 
factor may have been the more pressing curriculum issue that the department 
urgently needed to resolve. Nevertheless, individual academics working with a 
writing consultant showed tangible development in their ideas about teaching 
writing. First, staff on the whole moved from a focus on grammar to a focus on 
style and genre. Second, most staff adjusted the original punitive marking 
schedule to something which was more pedagogically supportive. And, third, 
there was a voluntary shift from a wholly 'learning to write' pedagogy to a more 
'writing to learn' focus which was generally more supportive of the students. 
Despite all this, the project did reveal a key problem. While we might say that 
the project showed that an academic staff member working with a writing 
consultant can develop an effective writing programme within their curriculum, 
it also showed that a further factor is required. The students in this project needed 
more support with their writing than the academic staff could give. There is, 
therefore, a suggestion here that while a writing consultant is needed to support 
staff who wish to integrate the teaching of writing into their papers, any 
university considering the development of a WAC programme must also provide 
writing consultancy support for students. This writing consultancy needs to work 
in tandem with the WAC team or teachers to resource the programme at critical 
times during the semester. 
225 
The second research question asks whether action research is an effective method 
of empowering academic staff as teachers of writing. Again, the results of this 
project are ambiguous. Action research requires the researcher to take a 
facilitative rather than directive role and there were indications at times in this 
project that a directive approach might have been more effective, particularly in 
stopping mistakes from being made. However, the fact that staff made 
spontaneous adjustments to their writing programme suggested that they had 
developed an increased understanding of writing in their discipline, which had 
been effectively facilitated by the use of action research. 
The staff s increased understanding of writing in their own discipline was the 
major achievement of this project. In an interview I conducted with Brian Opie, 
who championed a writing across the curriculum programme at Victoria 
University in the 1980s, he said this: 
But it's only teachers who understand what writing is who can produce good 
writers in specific disciplines ... because academics know their fields, on the whole, 
not by any process of reflection ... but by a process of...largely unself-conscious 
assimilation of cognitive routines, and that process is impossible to teach because 
the cognitive routines themselves aren't open to inspection (Brian Opie, 
pers.comm., 17.6.96) 
The project was about academics inspecting their own cognitive routines, at 
times not perfectly but at all times open to revising their understandings, and 
teaching these routines in increasingly active and sensitive ways to their students. 
The use of action research in this context was an attempt not to teach this process 
but to catalyse and support it. The process was not entirely an easy one, but one 
which required, in Jean McNiffs (1988) words, "teachers of courage." 
226 
227 
Chapter 8. Project Three: Horticultural Technology 
.. , if I have a little thought in class I hardly ever actually write a proper journal 
entry but I think right, put it in my journal. Once you get the hang of it you think 
of these things. Like if you're sitting there and [the lecturer] says "plastic's 
cheaper than glass" and you think well why is that and have a little discussion in 
your journal (Focus group interview, project three, October 1995). 
Project three is the final project in this study. It differed from the two other 
projects in several critical ways. First, it was undertaken by a much smaller, more 
integrated team (a small group of staff within the Department of Plant Science). 
Second, it occurred within a much larger programme of curriculum reform. 
Third, it had a different pedagogical structure: its focus was on writing to learn as 
well as learning to write. Fourth, the data collection methods were very 
comprehensive and systematically undertaken by all those involved in the 
project. 
The very systematic approach to data collection in this project has influenced the 
way I have written this chapter. Because data has been collected from every 
participant's perspective, I have tried to ensure that the 'voices' of the different 
participants are given space to speak by shading lengthy quotations from 
participants. This approach is also intended to distinguish the different voices 
from my authorial voice. 
8.1 The composition and context of the teaching group 
The group which comprised the action research team for project three consisted 
of three academic staff (each of whom taught one of the three sections of the 
paper), one technician (who ran the practical project), and myself as writing 
consultant. 49 Unlike the teams in projects one and two, this group had a high level 
49 Other technicians were involved in running the practical project and marking assignments, but 
as they were not part of the planning and teaching team, I have not included them in this 
discussion. 
228 
of internal unity from the beginning and was highly cohesive. The team members 
were socially integrated, three of them having come through their undergraduate 
degrees together. They had historically developed working relationships, and 
while there had been some conflict in the past, this had been largely resolved. 
They were not accustomed to teaching as a team, however. I was the only new 
member of the group, although I had worked with the paper coordinator in 
project one. 
Other significant aspects of the team were its leader (who was a very strong 
driver of the group) and the fact that its cohesion was largely defined by its 
opposition to other members of the department. Members of the project team 
were keen to extend their findings and experience to other members of the 
horticulture staff group, but antagonism to the wider group was a strong 
motivating force. 50 All team members considered their contribution to the 
teaching programme of the department to be excessive. We were also under 
pressure, both from the time demands of the development of this paper, and from 
other sources (three of us were engaged in writing PhD theses during the project, 
for example). 
The team also had, as a defining characteristic, a strong balance of team skills. 
One of the team members makes the point in their journal (below) that our group 
needed team building skills as much as the students. In the second year of this 
paper we decided to teach students these skills so they could work more 
effectively in groups. In order to do this effectively, and motivated to learn as our 
students learned, we completed a team profile, using the Belbin team roles 
method (Belbin, 1981,1993), which showed the group to be finely balanced, with 
all roIes51 present. 
50 The paper coordinator, in his journal, noted the following quotation from his reading: "While 
consensus and co-operation are important, those committed to high-quality education will need at 
times to be saboteurs and subversives as well as participants and collaborators. At times the 
change agent will have to be a fifth columnist." 
51 Meredith Belbin is a management theorist who classifies the behaviour of individuals in groups 
into nine roles : shaper, coordinator, resource investigator, plant, team worker, implementor, 
monitor-evaluator, completer-finisher, and specialist. 
229 
I asked all the teaching staff, at the beginning of the project,52 to describe their 
motivations for being involved with the project. Specifically they were asked the 
following questions: 
• Why you are involved in the paper? What influenced you - interest? 
Curiosity? Persuasion from others? Orders from above? 
• Where do you come from (in terms of past teaching experience, background 
etc)? 
• What is the nature of your involvement? 
• What are the potential/actual strengths of the paper (and your part in it)? 
• What are the problems/uncertainties/barriers to successful outcomes? 
All staff answered these questions at length: I include here two of the answers in 
full: one from the paper coordinator, since his vision directed the whole group, 
and one from a team member, as an example of how the team members' 
motivations coincided with that of the paper coordinator. I include them both 
here because they give complex answers that illustrate and articulate the extent of 
the participants' motivation, and the reasons for that motivation. This first 
passage is from the paper coordinator's journal. 
I started this journey, like most of my others, because I wanted to be better than Iwas 
before the journey began. That my students would gain a better paper al'ld teacher are . 
expected and desired corollaries of this journey, not its genesis. Five streams cqntribute 
to this journey so far: my desire to improve the educational value of the 100 level 
horticulture paper (Horticulture I); my changing attitude to teaching; my involvement 
with writing both as a scientist and as an educator; my exposure to applied education 
literature; and my participation in 19.155 Communication in Agriculture. 
The first stream Horticulture I was a paper that had always bugged me. I thoughphere 
was too much soft material in it-l couldn't see how it extended the students.ldidn't 
like the emphasis on plant propagation in the paper. Despite being a previous area of 
specialisation (and therefore I might be expected to be parochial about its inclusion), I 
felt that propagation was only in the paper because of the notion that aU things 
horticulture start with propagation, and that the propagation practicals were popu1ar. I 
reject the first idea because it's boring and, for me, reflects the narrow vision of the 
paper's teachers. There is no doubt that the propagation practicals were popular. [Our 
technician] does a great job. But, and without downgrading his contribution, I also 
thought that as the other practicals and many of the lectures in the paper were so boring 
and unimaginative, [his] propagation practicals would shine like beacons in the fog of 
52 For a timeline of the project, see Appendix 12. 
230 
mediocrity anyway. The paperdidn't~contain sufficient' science", and perhaps to 
appreciate this criticism, whereas most of my colleagues regard themselves as . 
horticulturists/technologists, I regard myself as an applied plant physiologist. I apply the 
science of plant growth and development to the practice of horticulture. I'm not sure '.~ 
why I see myself this way; perhaps it's because the technology of horticulture was part , 
of my upbringing and I don't feel that my technological skills require further 
development (been there, done that!). Anyway, the environment in the degree was 
changing and my colleagues teaching Horticulture I weren't responding. With the 
introduction of a three year degree (BAppISc), there wasn't going to be enough time to 
teach all we used to teach about horticulture in the four year degree (BHortSc). There 
was also just too much to teach full stop; it was becoming more and more difficult 
keeping up with new developments in horticulture and it seemed obvious that our 
students would be better served by giving them a firm basis in plant science and skills to 
seek and use technological information (life-long learning etc). It also seemed important ' 
that we couldn't afford to 'waste' the opportunities for learningtimetabled for us at 100 
level. 
The second stream I have always shunned teaching at 100 level students, preferring to 
teach specialised papers at 300+ levels. This reflected my (then) attitude that my job was 
to lecture about nursery production to students who had chosen the topic. It wasn't my . 
job to motivate students about learning. Indeed, learning was their responsibility, not 
mine. Then, during 1993-1994, Idecided that I was an academic. Without it sounding 
like a religious awakening (perish the thought-I have a reputation to maintain !), I . 
became comfortable being an academic. With this came a change in my attitude to 
teaching and education in particular- principally, I decided that lhad to focus more on 
ensuring my students learnt, and that this goal should be driving how I taught. 
I also decided that the Department's best lecturers should be teaching at 100 level. 
Several of whom I regarded our worst lecturers were teaching Horticulture I; I decided 
that I could do a better job and should be there. The difficulty was, however, that I didn't 
have any experience at 100 level teaching. 
The third stream. During the latter half of 1993, I went through a painful period of r~~ 
learning how to write. After my supervisor had slaughtered the first few pages of my , ' 
first PhD chapter (he didn't bother doing the rest), I spent about six months reading 
every book on scientific writing I could find, and re-writing the six PhD chapters I had 
'completed'. Then in November 1993, as a: 'born-again scientific writer' (albeit self~ 
taught), I heard of Alan Wright' s development of 19155 Communicati9n in Agriculture. 
Without reference to my HOD, I aSked to be involved as a tutor in his paper. This was ' 
the way I could get experience at 100 level teaching, help improve the atrocious writing 
I was now seeing all around me, and also further improve my writing skills. I also 
wanted the opportunity to dismiss the perception held by 'senior others' in the Faculty 
that I couldn't work in a team. I was also bored working only with people in my , 
Department. By the end of the first 'semester' , I knew I could teach at 100 level, and I 
was enjoying working witli the diverse gro:up of people from the Faculty that the paper 
had attracted. [No matter how often I rewrite this paragraph I can't change it from 
sounding all very calculating. Apart from me being too disorganised to be so calculating, 
it wasn't-a series of opportunities just appeared in a sequence aligned with the way I 
was developing at the time.] 
. . 
The fourth stream I did not become aware of educationalliterawre until 1991. In mid 
1991, I chanced upon the Journal of Agronomic Education (since renamed Journal of 
Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education). I collected several articles from the 
Library's stock (e.g, teaching techniques, educational philosophy, staff-student 
relationships etc) and took out my own Berghage and Lownds (1991) subsc.ription. J 
231 
didn't really use the information;I'd tend to read an article once and file it,kpoWing that 
when I had time I'd return to it and make better use it. Also in 1991,the American 
Society for Horticultural Science (of which I am a member) began a new journal (Hort 
Technology) to. encourage, in part, papers from the educational sector of the horticultural 
science community. In late 1993, during the planning stages of 19155 CiA, I camein 
contact with literature on Writing across the Curriculum andheard the term 'Actiop 
Research' for the first time. . 
The fifth stream CiA was important to me for giving me the opportunity to hear how 
academics outside of my usual sphere taught their classes. But perhaps tbe earliest and 
most significant influences that 19155 CiA had on me involved the section on writing 
for audiences and the operation of the tutorials. I have always written for an ac~demic 
audience, the assignments I set for my.students always had me as theimpIied am:lienc~, I 
was embarrassed that in over ten years as a university teacher, I had never considered 
the idea that my students were unlikely to write to an academic in their profess~onal 
careers. As a consequence of this realisation/revelation, and a re:-read. of the paperby 
Berhage and Lownds (1991); I altered all the assignments in my3001eveJpapers(71.323 
Nursery Production, 71347 Growth & Stress Management) to accorllil1odatedefiruii,d 
audiences53• The tutorials were important to me, as they were the firspime.I h<:l:db('(en 
involved. either as a student or. teacher, in a snccessful tutorial programme. Until my . 
experience with CiA, tutorials had involved an academic entering the lecture room and 
asking if anyone (of the depleted class present) had any questions.·Invariably, no one 
had any questions; the tutorial then either. finished or wasponvertedintoa)epture.'l11e 
CiA tutorials showed me that importance of providing the students wittt meaning£\:tl 
work in the period, i.e. what I was later to recognise as an active learning experience.'l 
had previously provided problem-solving exercises for my students.in 71323--:-my CiA 
experience showed me how to better combine them with a lecture session. This approach 
became a feature of my 71323 paperin 1994. . 
Convergence Having conditioned me to more reflective evaluation ofwhatI was doing 
in my classes and to the range of alternative/superior approaches to teaching, ij:le$e 
streams converged when I was challenged by my colleagues, at the eridof a IIleeting if) 
July in which discussed my proposed teaching scheme for 100 level horticulture (see .,. 
memo of19 July 1994), to present an example of how one· of the m04t!leswouldhe 
taught. :When I set out to do this, I found that I had no framework on which t(J.hangthe 
modules or the teaching/learning techniques I wanted to introduce; Moreover, I felt that 
not only did I not know enough about the techniques to use them, I certainly.did .. f)qt 
know them well enough to defend their introduction intothe paper. My reportwas 
written as a learning exercise to address these issues .. 
So far this journey has been,to use avery wishy-washy phrase, a period of personal and 
professional growth. But mqre importantly, in realising that.! have spent manyyeirs 
doing ajob (i.e. teaching stndents) about which Inow find Iknew very little, it.has also 
been a period of chronic embarrassment to me. I've found it embarrassingtoadrnittbat. 
after aU this time, there are several large gaps in my understanding of how my)fudents . 
learn. Only now am I starting to get a handle on some of the fundamenttti issues of.the 
educatio!1 process. It's important to recognise this point, because.l11Y journey h<!s, so fak 
"For example, students in 71323 were required to present their answers to a laboratory practical 
on the hydrology, physics and chemistry of soilless growing media as a teacher's manual for the 
laboratory suitable for a 6th form horticulture class. Students had to deliver an assignment 
focusing on calculating the fertiliser salt requirements for a hydroponic solution in the form of a 
grower-friendly/usable spreadsheet. In 71347, students were asked to present the results of an 
experiment as a case to a group of growers to support an application for research funds. 
232 
'Occurred in a non-judgemental environment. While trying to fill those gaps, I have never 
,been mad~ to feel stuQid (paper cQ-Qr.din'!tor's journal: ~ate not sI1 ... e."""ci"'-fi'-'Ce .... d,,"'. _____ , 
The second passage is from the team member's journal: 
1. Why am I involved in the paper? With the exception of the last one, all of the 
·reasons listed [interest, curiosity, and persuasion from others]. I am certainly interested 
in ensuring we produce a quality graduate, and perceive that the current system manages 
to sedate students rather than stimulate. As a consequence I have become frustrated w~th . 
the ... students we get to teach at 300 level. " " , 
Equally I am interested from my own professional point of view: In the first few years 
(O.K. the last decade) of my career at Massey I corrected people who said I was a 
teacher. "I do not teach, I lecture. I merely present my ideas on a subject, and whether 'o; 
not the studehts learn is up to them". OUCH!! I didn't realise then that I was hiding 
behind this concept, rather than admitting that I have received no formal training on how 
to assist students to learn. My method of 'teaching' has been a direct reflection of how I , 
was taught as an undergraduate -Incest!! Its time to develop. 
I can't deny that coercion/persuasion wasn't involved .... Since the development oiOtis 
paper will take some work, [the paper coordinator] was clearly looking for some people 
that he knew he could work with, that he could trust to be sympathetic to the,teaching 
method, and willing to provide an input. Given our past workings together, I suppose I 
felt obligated to help. Besides, I'm paper coordinator for the new Horticulture II paper. 
Hopefully I can use the same feelings of obligation to get his input into that paper -
anything to minimise the input of the other [members of the horticulture group]. 
2. Where have I come from? The issue of academic incest has already been 
raised above. I am an undergraduate of Massey, progressing immediately to Junior 
Lecturer the following year. At that time (1982) I was press-ganged into contributing, ' 
lectures to the, predecessor of this paper. Having escaped that, I. h~ve subsequently been 
in'!,olved in p,apers at .the sub-degree, 200, 300 and 400 levels only,. 
While I have not had years of experience working for a living in the horticultural 
industry, I believe that my continual involvement with industry at a research and 
extension level enables me to be well informed of important industry issues, and how 
ttley imping~ on, the horticultural industry. , 
, • ".. I"'" '~' 
3: My involvement. Specifically I have been asked to present a s~ction in the paper 
pertaining to protected cropping. However, I also see my role as providing input tow:;u;ds 
providing the, students with a positive learnjng experience, i.e: one that will e,ncoUrag~ " 
them to learn; not learn in spite of what we do. Hence, I am jnvolved in the practic~l' " 
classes (somel will be the principal instigator), and contribute to icleas 'thatmay ' 
influence the development of the paper. ' " 
4. ' Strengths of the paper. At the outset I must state that the Department could 
restructure its papers and degree offerings until it was blue in the face, but unless you , 
have motivated people 'at the coal face', then it may still not be effective. Hence a 
strength of the paper is the fact that a group of motivated people ar~working togethe~ , , 
towru:gs a common goal. While it hasn't happened yet, as soon as ~ead,weight starts to 
occur, motivation and effectiveness is likely to decay exponentially. 
At the broader departmental level, a strength of the paper will be that when it is 
successful (yes, O.K. I initially wrote 'if) it can be used to provide motivation for 
the ... staff to become more effective in other papers, e.g. Horticulture II (spot the 
linkage). In this way we could actually start to head towards some concept of 'critical 
mass' where we might even begin to head towards our departmental goal of academic 
excellence. 
233 
At the level of the internal workings of the actual paper, a strength has to reside with the 
philosophy of 'action research' (both from the perspectives of development of the paper 
(staff) and the student's learning) as well as 'writing to learn'. The goals of the paper 
have really changed little from the original paper I contributed to in 1982 (assuming 
there were some, not that I was ever told), it is the way we will provide a positive 
learning experience to achieve those goals, that's what has changed. 
5. Threats and weaknesses. My perceived importance of the collective 
motivation of the team has already been raised under strengths. 
Time is as usual against us. However, to balance this scapegoat, the adage of 'got ajob­
give it toa busy person' is probably relevant here. 
At times the team feels a bit big, Le. a potential for too many chiefs and too many 
Indians. Maybe that's just a matter of developing the management structure of the paper, 
clearly defining the responsibilities of all concerned. This particular issue is relevant for 
the sunflower practical as [the teaching team] are intimately involved, with [the 
technicians] on the receiving end of any instructions. This issue also revolves around us 
learning to work as a team, rather than as individuals. Not only do the students need 
some traiping on group dynamics, the team also needs some training to deal with 
ourselves (journal of team 1l1ember: date not specified). 
These personal narratives demonstrate key aspects of the group: a certain amount 
of anxiety about their ability to achieve curriculum and pedagogical change in 
themselves, a strong desire for change, a commitment to each other (and 
particularly to the paper co-ordinator's 'vision'), and a high level of scepticism 
concerning the rest of the department and its teaching programme. All these 
factors, including the first, were significant in leading to the success of this 
project. 
As the writing consultant in the group, I was the 'outsider', the only member of 
the group who was not a member of the Department of Plant Science, with skills 
and qualifications very different from the rest of the group. I became involved 
with the group at the request of the paper coordinator, who had been one of the 
tutors in the first two cycles of the 19.155 paper. My role was not defined but 
included the following tasks: 
234 
• collecting all the data for the group, relating not only to the writing to learn 
but the paper development project (this included preparation for and running 
the focus groups) 
• providing feedback to members of the group based on focus group 
interviews, and discussing this feedback with them 
• involvement in marking student journals and microthemes 
• attending group meetings 
• initiating staff journals 
• running review meetings 
• providing the group with literature on action research and writing to learn 
My role as it emerged (for further discussion of this see p.268) as the group and 
the projects developed was certainly not that of leader or facilitator. Rather, I 
acted as a support person to individuals in the group. My roles within the Belbin 
test were those of coordinator and team worker (and, to some extent, monitor 
evaluator), roles that are not decision or task orientated but focus on maintaining 
the social cohesion of the group (Belbin, 1981,1993). When I asked one of the 
members of the group what they saw my role as having been they responded 
"Y ou were the person I bounced my ideas against", and in the journals one 
person described my involvement as providing "a sounding board, to develop 
ideas, to get direct opinion". While I was listed in the paper administration guide 
as one of the group members, the students only saw me in my data collecting role 
or assisting teaching staff in particular tasks such as the peer editing sessions or 
the group roles practical. 
The composition of the group was essential to the development of the teaching 
programme, but equally important were the wider social and practical contexts 
that may have increased its cohesion and contributed to group objectives and 
commitment. 
The Department of Plant Science was divided informally into several sections, 
one of which was Horticulture. The horticulture section in the 1990s had a high 
senior staff component and a problem of definition in a changing economy (for 
---~~ ------------------
235 
further description of the department, see p.27). My observations of the 
department and the horticulture section in particular suggested that the staff in 
this wider context were ambivalent about the new Horticultural Technology 
paper. The Horticultural Technology team was, to a certain extent, perceived as 
being young, arrogant and insular. At the same time, most of the remaining 
members of the Horticulture group had taught the Horticultural Technology team 
as undergraduates and some of these senior staff took an almost paternal interest 
in the group. Moreover, they took an interest in the pedagogical features of the 
paper; when the Horticultural Technology group organised a seminar to present 
their ideas and teaching strategies, all other Horticulture teachers in the 
department attended the seminar and many showed an active interest by asking 
questions and pursuing the implications of certain teaching techniques. 54 Another 
indicator of departmental support was that, despite a difficult financial situation 
within the department, the paper was given a high level of resourcing, 
demonstrating an act of faith or confidence in the ability of the Horticultural 
Technology teaching team. The failure of the paper would have had broad 
consequences for the department; dissatisfaction amongst students with the 100-
level Horticulture paper would have caused students to choose alternative 
electives and majors at 200 and 300-level, which would have further damaged 
the department's staff-student ratio and, hence, its funding. The department as a 
whole, therefore, was placing a lot of responsibility in the hands of a small group 
of zealous but relatively inexperienced staff. While members of the team did 
54 When the teaching group were asked by the coordinator of the horticulture programmes to 
provide this presentation to the Hort group, the paper coordinator noted the following in his 
journal: "He believes that the others acknowledge the need for change, albeit to different degrees 
of intensity, but don't know where to start. He wants us to provide that impetus, that direction, 
and more importantly, the examples of what to do and what not to do ... he implied that he was 
more interested in hearing from [the team members] than me because they had less of a head start 
than me, and so their experiences are more likely to be what the other staff will face." 
" ... he seemed honestly supportive of experimentation in education. He had no problems about 
failures that we might or had made in the paper. I guess I should admit that I have carried a 
nagging doubt that we might, rather I might, have the paper 'taken off me if this year wasn't a 
success. But that doesn't seem to be the case. [He] even acknowledged that I had more 
appreciation of the educational process: he even suggested that I might consider accessing 
Department of Education funding to develop/review horticultural curriculum development in 
secondary schools" (3.8.95). 
236 
have wide teaching experience, they were inexperienced at teaching lOO-level 
students, and they had no experience using the teaching techniques they 
proposed. 
Looked at from another perspective, change was a necessity in a context where a 
dramatically falling undergraduate roll was damaging the department. The 
Horticultural Technology group saw themselves, the most junior members of the 
department, as taking responsibility for a change that should have been spear­
headed by more senior others. 
Like the social context, the practical, physical context of the group may have 
reinforced its identity and hence its focus. Massey University's Turitea campus is 
a compact settlement, encircled by a ringroad. Group meetings and much class 
activity took place outside these confines at the Plant Growth Unit (PGU) which 
is located across a main highway from the main campus, amidst a plethora of 
buildings owned by Crown Research Institutes (Hort Research and Grasslands) 
but with an outlook of fields and greenhouses which suggests an almost rural 
setting. Three of the teaching team worked virtually alone in this area, which 
may have served to increase the cohesion of the group and intensify their sense 
of isolation from the rest of the department. Meetings were usually held in a 
building close to the PGU and while some teaching (i.e. lectures) took place on 
the main campus, the practicals, including the on-going sunflower practical, took 
place in the greenhouses of the PGU. 
8.2 Data collection 
Data to assess the broader objectives of the paper and the writing to learn 
objective were collected simultaneously. Methods used were as follows: 
• staff journals. All academic staff maintained a journal during their teaching 
time. The paper coordinator and I kept journals throughout the entire cycle. 
The journals were self-directed, although the group would occasionally raise, 
at the weekly meeting, issues to be reflected on in the individual journals. 
237 
• student journals. Students were required to maintain journals or workbooks 
containing a journal throughout as part of the assessment of the paper. They 
were encouraged to write regular, self-initiated entries for the purposes of 
their own learning. However, teaching staff also provided regular 'entry' 
requirements for the students' journals, some of which directly required 
students to reflect on their own learning experiences and their experiences of 
the teaching methods employed in the paper. Material relating to the writing 
to learn component of the paper was collected as part of the data collection 
process. 
• focus groups. Focus groups were a crucial form of data collection for the 
group. They were conducted three times during the first cycle of the paper, 
and twice during the second cycle. They were made up of small groups of 
students, randomly selected from the class list. Because the focus groups had 
a dual function, i.e. to provide feedback on all aspects of the paper as well as 
on the writing to learn aspect, all teaching staff were invited to submit 
questions or to discuss with the interviewer those areas of the paper on which 
they wished to receive feedback. I then constructed a series of questions 
based on the questions and concerns of the teaching team, and conducted the 
focus groups as semi-structured interviews, meaning that the group 
discussion was not restricted only to the set questions. If students began to 
discuss related topics of their own concern, then these discussions were 
allowed to develop. 
• student assignments, journals and microthemes. These were collected on a 
random basis (subject to consent) for reflection on the writing to learn 
objective of the group. 
These data collection methods were followed systematically; staff and students 
maintained their journals as required, and focus groups were conducted as 
planned. Only one exception occurred: at one stage, the class wanted to give the 
teaching staff feedback on an aspect of the paper that was worrying them, and in 
this instance we conducted an unscheduled focus group. This latter event 
238 
demonstrated the students' active involvement in the course design and the 
flexibility of the data collection system in response to the requirements of the 
context. 
8.3 Writing to learn/learning to write 
During the planning process, the team established its writing agendas through 
aims (also referred to in the planning documents as 'valued outcomes'), 
objectives and teaching strategies. The valued outcome relating to writing and 
communication was stated as follows: 
"Our students will appreciate the value of written and oral communication in the 
learning process." 
In the paper administration handbook, the relevant objective was expressed thus: 
• to develop and extend your writing and oral skills both to improve your ability to 
communicate to different audiences and to improve your own learning . . :', 
• Note that both learning to write ("to improve your ability to communicate to 
different audiences") and writing to learn agendas are highlighted in this objective. 
This combination of writing agendas is also highlighted in our stated teaching 
stra~egies: . .. . 
By adopting a writing ... policy, we will develop your writing and learning skills 
through a variety of writing exercises and focused assignments. A strategy of 
«.Wnjmal marking will Qe employed for all written work55 _._ ........ ~,~._"' __ ~ 
Part of the overall philosophy of the group was to make its teaching approach 
transparent to the students. We emphasised two things: first, that we were 
researching our own new teaching processes and pedagogy and, second, that we 
considered their feedback to be very important. In particular we emphasised and 
made clear the process of action and reflection we were engaged in as a way of 
modelling the action and reflection process we expected of the student group. 
The teaching approaches of the paper were introduced to the students in the 
administration guide at the beginning of the paper and this included the concept 
~~As it turned out, the minimal marking aspect of this strategy was not pursued. 
---------
239 
and procedures of writing to learn. The section that explains and justifies the 
writing to learn strategy is reproduced below. Note the way the paper coordinator 
first priOl'itises the experiences of people working in the field and then relates it 
to students' learning. 
What is a journal? 
A journal is a professional diary into which are entered ideas, observations and 
reflections on issues related to your work. Fruit and vegetable grow~rs keep spray 
journals in which they note the type, timing and rate of the chemicals they apply,to .their 
crops. Later, they will note (reflect upon) the level of control achieved by the spray 
application and what future changes are necessary to achieve better control. The next 
time you are visiting garden open days, look for other visitors taking notes. These people 
are likely to be landscape designers making notes in their field journals. They may be 
writing about aesthetically pleasing combinations of plants of value to them in their 
future designs, or noting characteristics and growing conditions of plants they have not 
seen before. Plant scientists maintain detailed experiment journals. In these they keep 
records of the treatments they applied to their test plants and the plants'. subsequent 
responses. Writing reflectively in their journal about these responses is often the trigger 
for the flashes of inspiration that lead onto the next set of experiments. The staff 
teaching this paper are all writing teaching journals. We regularly write abouthow our 
teaching is going, what topics the students are having difficulty understanding and which 
ones they are finding too easy, what 'worked' in the last practical and what didn't and 
needs improvement. Recording our thoughts and experiences in this way makes it much 
easier for us when we come to review the paper and plan its on-going development. 
You will find that the immediate value of journal writing is a better understanding of the 
subject material of the paper. Writing is an excellent way of helping you crystallise your 
ideas and coherently express your understanding of a subject Needless to say, 
understanding the subject material will benefit your final grade! 
Taking a broader view, journal writing will help develop your abilitytothinkintensely 
and productively for longer and longer periods. In addition, by completing the various 
writing assignments in the paper, you will become a better writer, a better 
communicator. Do not underestimate the importance of this benefit: ability to 
communicate is one of the three most important attributes employers look for in job 
applicants. 
Note that, in the final paragraph in the passage above, both a writing to learn 
agenda ('1ournal writing will help develop your ability to think intensively and 
productively") and a learning to write agenda (" you will become a better writer, 
a better communicator") are included and that these points are again linked to the 
requirements of employers. In this way the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of 
writing were highlighted for students. 
240 
8.4 Cycle 1: 1995 
The process of developing the paper was managed through two action research 
cycles. The paper occupied a double semester, so the cycle length for this project 
was a whole year, twice as long as the cycle length for projects one and two. Two 
cycles of the project were lUn: one in 1995, the next in 1996. Thus, the first cycle 
overlapped with the second year of projects one and two, and the second cycle 
took place after projects one and two were completed. 
In November 1994-95, prior to the beginning of the academic year, the teaching 
group ran regular planning meetings to determine the aims and objectives of the 
paper and of the group, including an objective relating to the writing aspect of 
the paper. 
Throughout the academic year in 1995, teaching group meetings were held 
almost weekly. Each meeting assessed the previous week's achievements and 
planned for the following week. These meetings largely served as support for the 
teacher in front of the class and as practical instlUctions for those staff assisting 
in the weekly practical. They were also the site of continuous reflection. The 
teaching group altered teaching practices in response to immediate experience 
and discussion. 
At the end of 1995 and into 1996, the group held several reflection/planning 
meetings in anticipation of the 1996 academic year. 
The writing tasks that the students engaged in during cycle 1 included: 
• a journal, which included teacher-directed reflection exercises, self-directed 
entries and microtheme assignments 
• three group reports to varied audiences 
• in-class exercises 
241 
Students were also expected to produce practical write-ups and to work through a 
series of readings; these aspects of the paper were not included as part of the 
writing project, but are briefly discussed in this chapter since they provide part of 
the context of the students' work. 
8.4.1 The journal 
In semester one, the journal for this paper was integrated with the journal for 
19.155. Almost all the students taking Horticultural Technology were 
simultaneously enrolled in 19.155 for the first semester. However, the focus for 
the Horticultural Technology journal differed from that of 19.155. In 19.155 the 
journal required regular, self-directed and self-initiated entries on any topic, 
emphasising quantity of entries rather than quality. While Horticultural 
Technology also encouraged regular, self-directed and self-initiated entries, the 
teachers also stimulated regular journal entries. These entries were generally 
reflective, requiring students to respond to readings in a way directed by the 
teacher, or to respond to some aspect of the student's own experience in the light 
of the teaching material. For example, students were asked to apply aspects of 
the landscape module to a park in their home town, or to reflect on a horticultural 
experience they had had during their vacation. Or they were asked to identify 
their role(s) within their practical groups following the stimulation of a video on 
group roles and dynamics. At times we asked for specific feedback on their 
learning experiences, asking for analysis of how their learning was occurring, or 
asking them to provide feedback on some aspect of our teaching. Most of these 
entries were expressive, i.e. they were written for the self as an audience, but 
were still directed by the teacher. 
In the first cycle micro themes (Work, 1979; Bean, Drenk and Lee, in Griffin, 
1982), were included as another form of writing in the journal; thus the journal 
combined reflective, expressive writing and transactional writing. A micro theme, 
as described by Bean et al. (1982), is a very small assignment (Y2 - 1 page is 
normal) which operates on a principle of leverage "in which a small amount of 
writing is preceded by a great deal of thinking" (p 28). Some of the microthemes 
were problem or quandary based assignments. Here students were presented with 
242 
someone else's problem, and were required to write a short response to that 
person solving and explaining their problem. Thus the assignment combined 
application of subject-specific material, quandary solving (sometimes involving 
data collection and processing), audience analysis and use of appropriate writing 
style combined with concise writing (see Appendix 16: Gladus and the Pips). At 
other times students were asked to defend an opinion to a particular audience 
(see Appendix 16: Letter to the city council concerning the Esplanade), using 
appropriate formatting and language. Other micro themes required students to 
simply apply paper content and information gathered in practical classes in a new 
context (see Appendix 16: goals and objectives for the Esplanade). 
Bean et al. (1982) discuss the benefits of microthemes as including the fact that 
they are politically innocuous to academics who are resistant to curriculum 
change and that they are pedagogically appropriate in terms of developing 
intellectual maturity, rewarding logical thought and assisting students in 
becoming active learners. We might add to this that they encourage deep as 
opposed to surface learning, since students are required to actively engage with 
the material and present it to an audience (Laurillard, 1993). Also, if they are 
audience-directed microthemes, as most were in this paper, they encourage 
students to develop audience analysis skills, audience-appropriate language 
skills, and the ability to express ideas concisely. The microthemes were largely 
transactional, i.e. written for a particular audience other than the student 
themselves. 
These miniature assignments were included in the journal, as noted, and thus 
were absorbed into the journal mark. However, some were collected by the 
teacher, and feedback was given but no individual grade. This combination of 
genres within the journals caused considerable confusion amongst the staff. The 
origins of the journal as described by the paper coordinator focused more directly 
on reflective writing: 
The journal idea came to -me as I was writing the covering m~!D9 to my discussion pa~r 
qn the practicals. Obviously some of Koestler's matrices did their stuff; the use of the 
journal seems the ideal tool to get the students to actively think about what they have 
seen and dqne and how it relates to the theory they are being dir~cted to read. I see us 
243 
using journal-orientated writing-to:-learn exercises to handle material that is either 
clearly reflective (e.g. discuss the changes ici the way you are producingj'ourcrop that 
have occurred since you started) or deal with matf:rilll that i$}$lightJyperipheral to the 
main topic, but still sufficiently important for the students to. learn (e.g. the physiology 
of seed germination-see the Discuss\on paper on practicals). . .. 
The journal will be a better vehicle than the portfolio, a commonly used method of 
wasting students' time under the pretext ofstudent .learning. Whereas the portfolio 
encourages quantity ef dubieus quality (pictures ef plants cut out of theWeman' s 
Weekly), the journal should encourage quality because what wewillb~ asking will be 
highly focused, the students will understand (because we will tell them)\yhy they are 
having to. de what we have asked, and why the.activity will benefit thYIIl.Jre~y1ike.the 
idea of the students being 'encouraged' to read selected readings in tl)e Library.N9ton1y 
does this .give them more exposure to the Library, but also. itgives them exposp,ri?Jq the. 
literature. The simple act of thumbing through a textbook to get tQ thedesigp.~tedl?ages 
will expose themte ether 'bits' of in fermat ion. ... . 
[The paper coordinater fer 19.155] is happy fer us to use the 19155journalin .. thisway. 
When I described how I wanted the students to use the journal, he thought aheaq apd 
peinted out that he weuld have to. change the specifications, anewingstudent~to.use~ 
ringbinder for a journal. This is important. Two of our goals include reference.!otraining 
students to organisejnforrnation and to read.around the subject. We miglItexpect ... 
students to photocopy the designated reference material. This sh9WqbejnceJ'p0rateq, 
into their journal. They would be permitted to use their journalintheop~n~bQ()k"·· . 
examination. . .. . 
This all seems so simple, logical, and mere impertantly, censistent with the gO'lls and 
objectives of the paper. It all seems to naturally fall ~nto place Cl9.12.94)~ 
In fact, the structure of the journal, and the relationship between the journal and 
the microthemes, was still being debated well into the second cycle of the paper. 
Later in the cycle, the paper coordinator wrote the following, reflecting on what 
he saw as my rigid perspective informed by the literature on journal writing: 
I hope the jeurnal is not causing the students as many problems asitiscausingm~.L,isa 
and I seem to have different views efboth its inputs.and outputs •. :.Semetimes! started 
thinking that the differences between us are minor an.d are nothing more than < 
pedanticism. I sense,perhaps wrongly, that Lisa thinks this way. Other times,llOwever,I 
think that the differences are more fundamental and should be pursued. This is one of 
those times, and this is my pursuit 
, ;' ,\: \~ , " 
If I hear/interpret Lisa correctly, journal writing is self audience. writing7st\ldent~¥~.; 
not writing to a formal audience. Consistent with this interpretation is Lisa's assertion. 
that microtheme writing is not journal writing, as it is written to a defined auciience. Tbis 
is all consistent with Foulk and Hoover's paper on .the use of expressive writing to 
improve horticultural education. The term expressive writing is. aJittle difficult for. my 
side of the campus. Nevertheless, these authors argue that expressive writing encourages 
learning more than transactienal writing (e.g. laboratory reports, literature reviews, 
essays etc.) because it (e.w.) is not restricted by formal conventions and in being more 
exploratory, is likely to be more conducive to processing and learning. 
244 
My small difficulty is that I thirik this is rubbish. Surely in the s c'heme"of writing to .~­
learn, any writing has value. OK, neither Lisa nor Foulk and Hoover are saying that this 
is the c'ase, but to ... I'm stuck. The problem is one of definition. I want to argue that the 
defmitions used by Lisa et al. are too restrictive and don't and need not apply to the type 
of journal writing activities (reflective plus microthemes) we have been giving the 
students. Ironically, it seems that I have to invent a new definition to support my 
argument. Surely, from a student's point of view, the difference between self-audienced 
and microtheme writing is irrelevant. What matters is that the journal activity , 
encourages the student to write (-to-learn), to reflect on past experiences or knowledge, 
perhaps to seek out new knowledge, and to integrate and synthesis new (to the student) 
meaning, and to do this on paper. I can't see much point in dismissing the use of ' 
audience-specific writing (e.g. microthemes) as being any less useful to the writer's 
learning experience than the more self-expressive writing I sense Lisa et al. are 
'restricting' to journal writing. Perhaps the problem I am having with this whole thing is 
because I have not been 'bought up' with the jargon of journal writing. Maybe I don't 
have a pre-conceived idea about what journal writing should be. So does this make me 
wrong or just different? Why should wefI follow the conventions associated with journal 
writing? Our teaching objective was to incorporate a writing-to-Iearn ethos into the 
paper. Whether we achieve this using reflective, self-expressive writing topics or 
microtheme topics seems unimportant. Provided we set integrative and reflective topics, 
why not call it all journal Writing? It will certainly be easier for the students to ' 
understand and organise. 
, 
On the other hand, does such a view cause problems forLisa in her research? Perhaps by 
not following the established (conventional) use of journal writing, the rigour of any 
publication by Lisa involving this paper is detrimentally affected, in the same way that 
any of our publications would be affected if we used incorrect materials and methods. 
Foulk and Procter seem to place transactional writing (laboratory reports etc.) as a 
restrictive writing experience. I agree. They regard expressive writing as an unrestrictive 
writing experience, and therefore, likely to assist in learning. I agree. But there is some 
,middle ground that these authors, and perhaps Lisa, are not considering. That is the 
defined topic writing that we are giving the students. The students are still expected to 
reflect and synthesize as preludes to their writing. They are still writing-to-Iearn. 
Lisa sees the microthemes being developed by the students over time. In other words, 
we will not ask for the completed microthemes until towards the end of the year. The 
students' journals should contain their drafts of these micro themes-from these we ,will 
be able to judge their writing development. Doesn't thi,s better describe a learning-to- ' 
,¥rite rather than a writing-to-Ieaf!l exercise? (pa1?§r coordinator's journal, 20.3.9~ __ 
The debate about the journal did not just confuse the paper coordinator and 
myself. One of the team members wrote: 
[The paper coordinator] came [to class] to talk about the journaL I almost put my hand 
up and asked him about the relationship between the 19.155 journal and 71.122 journal. 
Wish I had now cause I was confused and I wonder if the students hadn't got it straight 
(20.3.95). 
My concern was not necessarily that the journal should conform to the literature; 
after all, one of our key theses was that the writing programme we would 
245 
develop would be sensitive to the new context.50 Rather, I was concerned that it 
should be structured as we said it would in the administration guide, as these 
passages from my journal illustrate. 
I still think that the way we are doing the journal in this paper, i~e., gi;vipg tl)e1l1d¢:finife .. 
things to do each week and including the microthemes, does notfitiJlwith[t~epaper . 
coordinator's] description to the students of what ajournaLis. He lik~nedii.tq~l?I;ay .... 
diaries and such things. In which case it is more like alog,and Isuggestedthat next year 
we get them to use the journal primarily for the practicals, so that this process9f 
planning for the sunflowers, and then reviewing their plans,can be re~orded; iIt this way 
the students, like the staff. will be engaging in a n action researchcycle.~ •. autl~rn'\ 
concerned that we are directing students towrite in a way that doesnotJ!1~et.th,e.Q~igiJlial> 
objectiy~s ofthejouroal; We .neec:l t() go ba,clc)q thi$,. theRYm()se9Hhej()Ym~I.!~.1~~22),,)~· 
was the focus of the exercise to write to an audience. or to writet()o.qesel£ZITh~·;·7: • i~. 
coordinator] said the pUI;Pose was to get them to engag~with the .mate,rial.theY~~r~, 
learning so that they could integrate.it into their thinking. So I.said that Tthought that' . 
audience specific writing was more likely to do that, that learning logs ",ere tpol'elikely 
to promotedescriptivewriting (18.7.95)~ '. .. 
In the event, the students did not express any difficulty with the focus of the 
journal, following instruction as required, and this defused our debate. Further, 
we concluded that the reference to spray diaries etc. was a way of motivating 
students, not showing them what the structure of the journal would be; in this 
way we were able to come to terms with our 'hybrid' journal, acknowledging the 
two types of writing as achieving our aim ("to engage in the material they were 
learning so that they could integrate it into their thinking"). Thus, what could be 
seen as 'learning to write' exercises, e.g. the audience-focused microthemes, 
were also writing to learn exercises. 
8.4.2 Group reports 
One of the major components of the paper was the sunflower practical, which ran 
through the whole length of the paper. Students were divided into groups (called 
'companies') and given the task of growing sunflowers during the winter months 
as a cash crop. The culmination of this exercise, and the major written task of the 
50 A passage from my journal dated 26.3.95 stated ''I'm excited about this aspect of the paper 
since very little of the literature addresses using journals in this context; mostly the focus is on 
the social sciences; the application of journal writing in this setting interests me; we will have a 
hybrid on our hands. Since the structure that has been specified is very nebulous, what form will 
it take?" 
246 
paper, was three group reports generated from the experience of the sunflower 
project. Students were required to write up their sunflower-growing experience 
for three specific audiences in three different forms. The first project was a 
chapter of a hypothetical book named The fundamentals of horticulture pitched 
at high school students on how to grow a crop of sunflowers as a way of 
understanding the principles of horticulture. The second was to write a report to a 
client on whether growing sunflowers over the winter as a cash crop was a 
feasible commercial proposition. The third was to write a grower blueprint on 
how to grow sunflowers (see Appendix 17). 
The assignments, with their different audiences, tested different aspects of the 
students' understanding of production horticulture. The grower blueprint is a 
'recipe' for growing a particular crop. This assignment examined students' 
awareness of the elements of growing sunflowers, requiring them to write in a 
direct, highly focused and concise style at a language level appropriate to a 
grower. The report to the client focused the problem differently: could this crop 
be grown for profit and, if so, how? If not, what were the reasons for this 
conclusion? Students were required to write in a less concise style, to argue or 
demonstrate a case in repOlt format in language appropriate for the needs of a 
professional audience. 
The chapter of a textbook required students to view the project from a third 
perspective. Instead of focusing on sunflowers and how to grow them, students 
were asked to explain how the growing of sunflowers could be used to teach the 
fundamentals of production horticulture; thus the conceptual level changed. We 
were asking the students to demonstrate that they understood the purpose of the 
247 
Fig. 8.1 The sunflower practical. 
248 
practical project and to explain that purpose. They were required to use language 
appropriate to a fifth form audience, a less concise style which nevertheless 
included step by step explanations. This particular project was also turned into a 
presentation to a simulated in-service course of fifth form horticulture teachers. 
For each of these projects, students were provided with models of the format. 
Blueprints were provided in the class readings; the report structure was modelled 
and described for the first cycle in the Style Manual (Emerson, 1994) and for the 
second cycle in Writing guidelines for applied science students (Emerson and 
Hampton, 1996); and the groups were provided with a model of a book suitable 
as a school text (Larson, 1996). 
Students were guided through the writing of these assignments. Since they would 
have been unfamiliar with group writing, we required them to appoint a student 
editor to the group who would pull the assignments together into an appropriate 
and fluent, consistent style. We provided each group with a staff member to 
support them through the process (including reading drafts if required), and we 
provided practical time for them to have group meetings and discuss progress. 
Each member of the group was required to take one aspect of the task (e.g. 
greenhouse layout) and complete that section for all three assignments, 
redefining the material for each task and audience. 
8.4.3 In-class exercises 
As far as possible, the teaching team extended writing to learn into classroom 
activities. These in-class activities included brainstorming sessions, mindmaps, 
problem solving exercises, peer-editing and journal writing during class 
(examples of activities are provided in appendices 14 and 15) and worksheets 
trialled during the landscape section (see Appendix 13). The earliest versions of 
the worksheets were highly structured, to guide student notes, but focus group 
feedback suggested students found these structures confining, and subsequent 
worksheets were given a looser structure. Our purpose in using in-class exercises 
was for students to actively engage with teacher-provided material during class 
time, rather than passively reproducing that material in note form during a 
249 
lecture. Again, we were aiming to achieve deep rather than surface learning, and 
attempting to build conceptual bridges between students' existing knowledge 
base and the new material they were acquiring. 
Of particular interest is the mindmapping concept, which combines group writing 
with a visual form of learning. One staff member who introduced this concept as 
a critical teaching tool reflects on its development: 
The second thing was use of mind maps during the brainstorm sessions ('cuse the punl) 
that 1 have been using to start every new section (to build on the experiences. within .the 
class). 1 have started using them to help better organise the outcome of the brainst9rm 
session and to better show the students where I am taking them and how the topics are 
linked. They seemed to have problems with [the other teaching staft] in seeing the. 'big 
picture'. I'm hoping this might be a move in the right direction. This is a bit of a 
contradiction in terms: brainstorming sessions are expectedto be free~for~alls, and now 
I'm trying to control their outcomes. But I actually think what I'm doing is more . 
complex/subtle than that-even clever. Before the lecture, I build up my own mind map 
for the topics 1 want to discuss. When I start the brainstorm with the students, I start by 
placing the main topic in a box in the centre of the blackboard. I then place their 
responses onto the board in my 'pre-determined' positions. Words from the students tllat 
1 hadn't 'planned' for, or were peripheral to the topic, or were extensions to my mind 
map, I placed in clear positions on the board. Once the class had finished their input, I 
then 'created' the mind map, by circling the terms they had provided and linking the 
appropriate terms together. The 'unplanned' words were then moved to better positions 
on the map (if these appeared). I had to think a little while before I did this, but I think 
this action probably made the whole process look unplanned, un-premeditated\(which I 
think is probably important for the students-a possible danger in this approach is that 
the students might think they are being used or that their experiences are being somehow 
cheapened) [1 haven't made that very clear; Ijust have a feeling that the technique could 
easily blow up in my face if a 1 don't manage it properly-that's it! The students might 
feel as thought they were being manipulated]. The last step is to take another piece of 
coloured chalk and re-circle those paths of the mind map that 1 want (them) to focus on 
in the lecture. Must remember to ask appropriate questions during the next round of 
focus groups about this approach. It's too early to tell whether it's working but 'it's 
worth a shot Nigel' . 
This is all exciting stuff. For many reasons. First, I haven't done it before so there's the 
excitement of the experiment, the risk I'm taking (e.g. will they just see my mind maps 
as a lot of scribble on the board!). Second, I'm particularly pleased with myself because 
the approach is original (i.e. I haven't read about it in a book or journal and just 'trying 
another technique'). I remember reading in N&O (I think) that one of the most important 
factors involved in lecturers achieving high quality (deep) learning in their students was 
their (the lecturers) attitude and beliefs; that trying out techniques without attitude was 
often nothing more than 'going through the motions' -that the teaching experience (as 
experienced by the students) became a series of unconnected techniques. So what makes 
this stuff special for me is that it developed from within me, not from the outside .. So in 
some ways it doesn't matter for me if it is not an outstanding success:::-the fact is that I 
think I'm starting to think like an informed educator, and not like somebody who just 
gives lectures. Friends of mine who have learnt a second language tell me they ~eW 
250 
that they had become fluent 'when they started'drearrung 'm'the secondlanguage.I'aTikem , 
to think that I am becoming fluent in higher learning, in tertiary educ:ation. ' 
When I described what I was doing to the HortTech team, Lisa observed that the ':: 
approach I was taking with the class was a 'visual' form of writing-to-Iearn. I hadn't:' 
noticed this, but she's right. Although the significance of this I've yet to nut through. 
Does this mean I don't have to feel so bad about not showing slides in my lectures? Only 
~i.dQing (~0!1 qtJ(19.§.9?). ' ." , . . .... , 
8.4.4 Readings 
One of the issues discussed in projects one and two was the importance of 
modelling different styles of writing for the students. At the beginning of this 
third project, this issue arose as part of group discussion and it was agreed that 
Horticultural Technology students would be required to use models of 
horticultural writings. One of the issues was recognising what sorts of writing 
were used by the industry, rather than focusing exclusively on types of writing 
with which academic teaching staff are familiar: 
One'reason our' 100 level students did not write as well as those on he r slde'ofcampus . 
was that. our students were not set, sufficient reading. Thus they didn't COme into ,{, . 
sufficient contact with the genre or discourse of the discipline~ Of course; ~his all maJ(es 
perfect sense. My immediate problem/excuse for this lack of set reading is that the ' . 
students can't cope with scientific literature. But as was charitably pointed out to me; 
,there ar~ othe~ forms of writing in horticulture. It is not all in scientificjpurnals. 
Somewhere along the way I forgot that: . . , . 
(i) All rnyearly (degree) reading was either out of textbooks or grower journals; 
(ii) I still subscribe to and read grower journals! 
(iii) Not all of our students will progress to employment wl1ere reading sc~entifiG :c 
, literature is required or serves any usefulpurpose. ' . . . .'. '" ,." 
,(iv) I find it harder writing for a grower journal than I do writing for a scientific 
journal (23.12.94). ," _~-----' 
The paper coordinator undertook to produce a series of readings which 
represented the types of writing students might need in a professional context; 
251 
these were drawn from practical, professional tasks and examples (in many 
instances drawn from a commercial context57), as well as from academic journals. 
Other sets of readings were produced for the three sections of the paper by each 
member of the team as a resource to support other teaching activities. The need 
for these readings emerged following feedback from the focus groups, where 
students were concerned about the lack of a study guide58 • The readings were a 
compromise, aiming to meet student needs without providing prescriptions, and 
could also be used as models by students for various exercises within the paper 
and in their wider degree course. 
8.5 Cycle 1: Reflection 
The reflection for this first cycle was an almost continuous process through staff 
journals and from the on-going group meetings. Feedback to the group was 
provided on a more formal basis when focus groups were conducted. Staff, as 
previously explained, were asked to provide a series of questions to address any 
aspect of the paper on which they required feedback. This forming of questions 
appears to have been a particular time of reflection for group members, since it 
required them to reflect on their actions and impressions and decide on 
information they needed or wanted. Reflection also took place at the end of the 
complete cycle in a more extensive way, through a series of meetings following 
the end of the teaching year. Prior to the end of cycle reflection meetings, I sent 
out letters to the wider Horticulture teaching group, asking for any feedback they 
57 The paper coordinator noted the response of people in the industry whom he contacted for this 
purpose: "Today 1 contacted the communication sections of the Apple and Pear Marketing Board, 
the Kiwifruit Marketing Authority, FruitGrowers Federation, and Palmers Gardenworld to obtain 
examples of written communication they give to their audiences. Together with comments we 
received from Agriculture New Zealand, nearly all the people I spoke to commented on what a 
good/great idea it was to have students writing for real-life audiences (1 guess that means that 
academics like me are dead!). Alistair Jamieson of Agriculture NZ. commented that poor writing 
skills had been recently identified as one of the major failings of consultants within his 
organisation" (22.2.95). 
S8 A study guide at Massey is a course guide. Often it provides extensive material on the content 
of the course, either as an alternative to lectures or to reinforce lecture material, and may include 
key readings. 
252 
had acquired on the paper (either through their mentees/ 9 or through their 
involvement with the paper). In each case, only one person wrote back, with the 
comment that he had no feedback. No other staff member responded. The 
reflection meetings each focused on particular aspects of the paper and its 
objectives, as defined by the teaching team. In preparation for the reflection I 
collated information from staff and student journals and from the focus groups on 
particular aspects of the paper. The major issues relating to writing are outlined 
below. 
8.5.1 Microthemes and journals 
Students and staff alike commented on microthemes and journals 
simultaneously; this reflects the fact that these two aspects of writing were 
collected and organised into the overall journal. 
An early focus group took up the question of whether the students could see the 
point of doing the journal. Their comments, on the whole, were positive: 
B 
E 
B 
" ""Oh Yea!l'..:' makes you researcf 
It helps you - it sort of does. , ",' ,. 
Makes you think about it- you're not just sitting there, Writing thingsdowtloff 
tl:!e oye[head (Focu~ grOl!P, Mar~~_ 1995). 
A later group discussed the time taken over the journal entries and the 
micro themes, suggesting we had underestimated the time students would take to 
complete entries. As a consequence of this feedback, the third section of the 
paper had a reduced number of shorter, more reflective journal entries. 
Another issue of concern was the pressure of maintaining the momentum: 
D , They doh't afways seem to serVe that much o-f a-purpose ~~cept to bad upwhat . 
we've just done that week - nOnnally we get them ona .Monday and tiley cover ' 
, the last week's work":' and SO you could do them then. But if you're busy, flat ' 
tack, a'nd you leave it for two weeks - the stuff you did is not there, you've got 
to go back, got to pull it all in and you think what? 
W In the Faculty of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, all students are given a mentor from 
the academic staff. 
253 
E The thing is, you'd set aside some time, about half to three quarters of an hour 
on it. Just writing, writing down and looking through it -andyou're not even 
half way through on some it - some or them are pretty full on. 
e Some of the time with the journals - they'd say, this should take you an 
hour ... two hours later you're still working on it - their time allocation was a bit 
naive in a way (Focus group, June, 1995). 
The last focus groups of the year took place just before the exam, and here two 
students give fuller reflections, representing quite different perspectives: 
B I found them a bit of a pain in the neck actually - oh it's good to writ~qutit'sa 
bit like "dear diary"- and 1 don' tkeep a diary so I didn' t thi~k it w<\$r~any . 
worth it - and then you get to [team member 2's]st\cti?n;and<t11ey'rernu;.i. 
assignments -1 mean, they were hugeL .. and just half way through the year 
thought flip I'd better catch up so - during the holidays Ijus~ ca~ghtup,I djd . 
the journals.It tookme- each one - aJot moretime!han I eXpectedandthe 
other thing is - I don't know, Ijust felt bogged downwithwork~youtl:link.oh 
why bother - I thought it was like - you know, a mosquito, O.llzzinga,roundyour 
head.· . . . 
, , ' " 
A The first ones - I found [lecturerl 'slanes, I quite liked thelll' ,I~ouldsitdOWn 
and -likeyou imagine a little scenarioto iitin with wllatYotl~rel~arnW~.-Jike 
she's say imagine youwere a park manager, what would you do -an9YoU 
actually have to apply. what you had learnt ...:..and I found themgoodtohelp.me 
understand what we were being taught in lectures. [Lecturer 2's]journals, 
yeah, I found it a bit of - a worry. r guess we always moaned but lcouid have 
gone and seen him - but I didn't. They were a totally differ~ntstyle,theywere 
l~ss - they were new things, they weren't following the lectures, you ba<ito· 
learn a new thing in the journal entry. You. had to figure it QutJrom tbescientific 
journal, whatever it was and - I still don't know what the real answed.s to those 
no\\" I guess !.should go and see him before I hand itiI1.Ifindthem;re~ly;for­
like my ownentries,if I have a little tho~ght in classI hardly eVe:r actually write 
aproper journal entry but I think right, put it inmyjournal,onceyol,lgetthe·· 
hang of it you think of these things. Like. if you're sittingthereancl [thel¥mrer] 
says "plastic's cheaper than glass" and you think well why is that and hj:\ve a 
little discussion in your journal which is - I find that quite good. The time thillg 
that people talk about, I";" at the start of the last semester.-l didIl'tsitdown and 
think oh I'm spending a lot of time on this paper it' s worth .onlyhalf as much as 
all my others - but Idid spend quite a bit of time on it. .. butyou:can't really say 
how much time you spend - like, r don't know how much time I~ d spent on my 
journal 
[Lecturer l's] ones definitely helped me put into practice wbatTd learnt.. And 
some of [lecturer 2's] ones -like the one about someone's ranch and you had to 
put in the objectives - it's quite good having to solve a little problem by yourself 
and actually think - you know you have to apply the principles and think ... 
B I thinkifwe'd been told to hand them in and they're worth maybe .5%.;.. or at 
least something - I would have used them, in fact I would have founa them a lot 
more useful (Focus group, October, 1995). 
254 
This final point, of whether it would be better to regularly hand in small 
assignments which had a mark loading, was an issue which came up in most of 
the focus groups and was always hotly debated. The journal, which included the 
practicals and the microthemes, was worth 30% of the final grade, but some 
students felt strongly that each of the entries or microthemes should carry an 
individual mark as an incentive. Others were concerned more about the issue of 
feedback; because the journals were not handed in until the end of the year, some 
students were concerned about not knowing what standard they were working to. 
The student journals themselves produced information concerning the value the 
students placed on journal entries, since several directed entries elicited feedback 
on the paper. Some students took the time to complete substantial reflections: 
I can see now how they helped. [Lecturerl 's] ones were good to putthe lectureynateri<:tl , 
into your own context, like the one I did on the beach. I like the ones sort of role­
playing. Although rewriting does take time, it's helpful but, rnmrnm ... notreally worth it. 
I guess it helped to get a feel of what was expected in the exam. It was good to talk " 
about the sunflower group ... 
The entries I found really hard to do and did properly re'cently were much easier now. I 
think my 'sorting out' skills in reading have improved .... Now since my papers this 
semester have had readings I understand more what they mean. I remember how [the 
lecturer] , was so annoyed we hadn't read them. I think lecturers/paper coordinators 
always need to remember that 1st yearsjust don't know what',s' what.I didn't realise the 
readings were part of the paper. I thought they were just details and examples. That 
sounds silly but I never understood more until t~is seme~ter .. , 
': 
I really enjoyed using the joumal'for expanding the 'tho~ghts I have about plants. It 
meant thatthoughts I've had before which have never been developect were cJevelopi<!. 
It's helped me put into practice the things I had to think about during the mastery '":'; 
exercises. But I still feel that because of the internal nature of it, it hasn't really helped a 
lot with the type of writing one uses at university. One thing it may have helped me with 
is extending my vocabulary. Because the writing is not going to be marked as an essay is 
marked, I maybe felt I could use words I hadn't used before. ' , 
, ' 
I had an, ideas ba~ed approach to journal eritrie~ , instead ~f a time-based oI1e .. This meant 
Imade entries whenI thought o(something to write, instead of writ~ga~ ,a. $~~t.ime,. " 
every week (Student journal, date' not specified). ' , "i" , 
In the first half of the semester the journal supplemented our cJass work well, with " 
reflective writing. Our time required for the paper was small so the journal was good. 
But about the time when our sunflowers started needing more work, the journal entries ' 
required more than reflective writing. The investigative reading was valuable but it 
started to occur when the class work was getting harder and time spent of the supflgwers 
was' increasing ... . ', ... , 
255 
I found thejournal to improve my understanding of ideas and consepts. ~tpi.Qk it<iid 
help my writing ability, as the two versions of many entries show; It wfi(valuable tq 
include the microthemes, which helped us to write to different~tldience$.and with 
different formats. Overall, I feel the journal was a good learning tool (Studentjournal, 
date unspecified). 
Overall I felt relatively positive about journal writing. It was a good way of expressing 
myself on paper and giving me a legitimate opportunity to write creatively, With all the 
university work, I felt that I might have missed out on my own creative writing which I 
have thoroughly enjoyed in the past...[this journal] gave me.a good opportunity t9 do . 
something I re~lly enjoy and get credit for it (~tuclentjol1mal, d~telln§pe~!fiecl),; 
These students confirmed our aims that the students' understanding would be 
improved through writing the journal, and that it would also improve their 
writing. But we were interested to hear that it helped with other things such as 
creativity and vocabulary. For other students, the process was more conceptually 
difficult. However, even those who had most trouble grasping what was required 
took the initiative of reflecting on the difficulties within the journal. One student, 
who expressed quite strong opposition to the journal, wrote constantly, almost in 
stream of consciousness form, and his attempt to allow ideas to flow freely made 
possible new discoveries. His lengthy discussions of a whole range of topics 
(what horticulture is, rock climbing, adrenaline, the birth of his nephew, 
dedsions for the future) are interspersed by sudden musings on why he was 
writing in the journal, and what was coming out of it for him, giving a glimpse of 
how he experienced the writing process: 
Here I am, finally entering a piece of writing into my journal using this as a diary more 
than anything. A time out from what I am doing at the moment,whichis avoidance. of 
the study of algebra for tomorrow's test... 
I realiseI'm flitting from one topic to another, one m~re thing Tneed to watch. 16.outof 
16 for my algebra test made my day, only to be shot down with m)'failedmast~ry tes,ts. 
Back to assignments... . . 
Here we go again, writing continuously. I wonder what the averageamountwclttenover 
10 minutes is? Is it a task seeing how fast or slow you are? Backto h?rticultur~,,>,\ 
different cross section of society who work in horticulture.· . 
Being brought up in a household/farm environment that enjoyed?[sic] farming the Jiving 
things which are there again profit orientated survival, saving, more a lifestyle gc:tting 
ahead the feeling of satisfaction pleasant environment. natural, nature, having the 
ertioyment. I want to move up my ladder of life getting somewhere. Knowledge,· 
learning, loving not getting stuck on the ladder not being able to proceed any further 
only there or going down what to do? This is one oiTHE (enhance) questions Which has 
tobe <in~werer;lby the world as well as me. Liye and ~ife, clo ~t now, uQw,tlQW, AQ'¥.,. 
256 
now share 'what 'you kflowdon'tbeafraid easy to "say about it maidniany ';~ensefdon't" .~ 
,know anymore.. .. .. 
To write continuously for a length of time without stopping is done wh~nwrrting abo~t 
topics which come naturally with out much real thought thatis the conclusion I've come 
to. If I was writing about Russian Politics of the last century would be quite difficult ... 
.' , 
Work, Job, Enjoyment, Key Issues to think about. Still thinking make a choice soon orit 
will be too late, to little money, too big the debt will be. ,. 
. . ~ 
Punctuation, getting that elusive job which you would really like but think YOll can never 
have... " . . 
Got to think about paragraphs punctuation be tidy get mind back on the topic.~. 
','- l A' .'. " - "'i: ' ", 
'I am sane (possibly?) (probably) 
Please disregard last statement. ' 
'I hope you don't take to much notice of what is actually being written as I have (and ; 
probably will continue) to use this time as if it were my diary. I have been acting really 
stupid of late. " .Am I cut out for this? I suppose I am the oply one who can answer thiS: 
By the way where do I put the' between word's as I seem to put them everywher~ . . 
How's my punctuation and paragraphs? God I hope I pass those stupid mastery tests 
(~tuge.mjQuIi:t~l, _M~x~J2.9~1. .. , .;~z., •• _ .,,' ... " •.... , •• ,,~.. .' .~.~c...~ .. ;"_ ~.m'~ _ .•.• , .• _~.~._ -,=_~ •. ",.,_A 
These sections highlight some of the difficulties with journal writing: despite his 
long, interesting and reflective entries, the student constantly worries about what 
is required, whether he is meeting expectations, given the unusual nature of the 
task. He interrupts his entries with worries about punctuation and paragraphing. 
Another issue is that of audience: most of his writing is self-referential, but at 
times, as the above entry shows, he directly addresses his tutor as if the tutor 
were the prime audience - and in most places where the student addresses his 
tutor, the tutor has written direct responses to direct questions, such as the one 
above about apostrophes. 
Another value of the journal emerged in its ability to provide feedback that could 
not have been gained from student observation. The journal extracts below come 
from the journal of a student who was consistently hostile in some classes and 
particularly to one staff member, was not always cooperative in her group work, 
and expressed strong opposition to any reflective work. Yet in her journal she 
provides these entries: 
_. - -_ .. _-----
257 
Finally all our sunflowers have been harvested and it is the end of the pra9tica1 sifJeof 
'sub.zero' [the name of a students' sunflower growing company]: Iabsolutelyloved the 
practical side of horticulture technology with the growing and caring of 'our' . 
sunflowers. It wasgreat to get my first experience with crop production especially with 
such a popular crop. 
It was great to have so much controll [sic] over our sunflowers. No one told uswhat to 
do or checked our progress (I mean this in a nice way), We were completely 
independent and that lead to great diversity in all the groups. . 
Every group had a different approach in producing theirsunflowers. 
I think the best feature of our sunflower group was our very succeSsfllLs\lnflo.\Vex: 
density trial. Our best flowers. were produced in this plot aswell as learning JIDP()rtant 
knowledge on the spacing of the crop. I must admit I loved growing those sUllflp\Vers.I 
would .sometimes drive down just to have a .look at how they were doing. . . 
The thing that stands out the most when I think about my first year is how~u6hI've 
changed. 
My attitude towards plants has changed somewhat. I appreciate plants so much more 
now, colour, texture, growth and their shape. Itis asif I've opened my eyes toa new 
world .. The colours that I see are so much morebeautifulthan before (Student journal, 
<:late unspecified). 
The members of the team were pleased with the results of the journal in 
achieving and going beyond its aims. However, on the basis of the debates within 
the teaching team about the journal, they decided during the reflection meetings 
to separate the 19.155 journal and the Horticultural Technology journals in the 
second cycle, and also to separate the reflective (self-audienced) writing and the 
transactional writing (i.e. microthemes) into two clearly defined tasks. 
Subsequent meetings decided to institute a 'workbook' which would contain 
three elements: 
• the journal, which would include all self-reflective writing 
• the microthemes 
• the practical write-up 
In other words, the three types of writing would be collected in separate sections 
of the workbook; the three sections would be bound separately, but the workbook 
would be given a single mark. 
258 
8.5.2 Reports 
The following comments from the paper coordinator were written immediately 
after our marking of the reports: 
Finished marking the projects yesterday~ Lisa' s assessments of their writing paralleled 
my assessments of the content. The reports were excellent. Even the ones from som~ of 
the poorer groups were well done. But we can't take credit for the writing too much. The 
thought that went into the first exercise in particular was all their own. I guess we cari 
take credit for instilling/evoking the level of commitment and dedication, the positive 
attitude that went into preparing the reports. One thing's for certain, the reports {and tpe 
speeches) were the fuel I needed. - ,. 
Next year. Well, we've got to help the students improve their blueprinting. 
The blueprints caused the most problems. Perhaps we could give them one or two 
blueprints and have them analyse the components of their style (as part of a journal . 
exerciseH ?J J .95); 
The reports were jointly marked on the basis of their content and their writing 
skills . While some of the content of the reports was of concern to the 
horticulturists in the team, the teaching team considered the writing to be of a 
uniformly high quality. The benefits of asking each student group to provide an 
editor were clear in the consistent style used across the projects. Each of the 
projects required a shift in style, structure and focus; all were formal, but the 
amount of detail and the type of information included differed between projects. 
These shifts were managed very successfully by all groups, showing a clear 
understanding of different writing genres and the needs of different audiences . 
Although all three styles were modelled, the blueprint was the least successful of 
the projects across almost all groups; the teaching team speculated that this might 
be because this genre was least familiar to the groups, or that the students for 
some reason might have had more difficulty in extrapolating the conventions of 
writing blueprints from the examples given. The two examples provided to the 
students were quite different from each other; our intention had been to give the 
students choice, but this may, in retrospect, have been confusing when 
introducing new material. 
While the overall mark for the sunflower reports was given by the teaching staff, 
the marks were weighted, according to a group self-weighting system, for each 
team member as a way of allowing for differences in input and commitment 
amongst team members. Details of how student allocated marks for the 
individual grades are provided in Appendix 18. 
8.5.3 In-class exercises 
259 
One of the major aims of the teaching group was to encourage active rather than 
passive learning. In-class exercises were one of the ways in which this approach 
to learning was promoted. All three teachers took their own approaches to this. 
The landscape lecturer prepared worksheets to guide the students' note taking, 
but also to include in-class group activities. While the note taking aspect was not 
so successful in that, on the whole, students preferred to take their own notes 
because this allowed them to process material in a more individual way, the 
students did respond positively to the in-class exercises: 
C I must admit though that when she split us into groups and we had to come up 
with the answers amongst ourselves I think I learnt more than ... when we did it 
ourselves. 
A r d rather be asked a question and then get to think about it and then other 
people put their views across and you can think. on the same lines.rathertha,n 
simply sitting there thinking well, I don't really know much about that-and 
then just writing a few things down and getting it totallywrong,it'squite gooq, 
like, hearing what other peopJehave in mind (Focus g~quR, J~ne, 1995)1 .. 
In this module we included some peer-editing exercises in class, using a guided 
peer editing sheet (see Appendix 15) which was designed not only to give 
feedback to the writer but also to encourage students' critical reading skills in 
relation to the content and the structure of writing. While the students' comments 
were, generally, accurate and detailed, some problems did occur in the 
organisation of the exercise. A particular problem arose from our failure to 
establish clear guidelines about respecting other people's privacy during the 
editing process; one student with a specific learning disability experienced 
considerable distress in hearing her writing read aloud to another student. We 
also underestimated the amount of time required. Nevertheless, the key 
objectives for the exercise, for the readers and the writers, were met. 
260 
The third module included the most extensive use of in-class exercises. They 
became a regular feature of most classes and included visual as well as written 
exercises, such as mind mapping, or asking students to design a visual 
representation of a particular section of the module. Students spoke positively in 
the focus groups of this experience: 
A Yeah - you switch off otherwise - he gives you a bit of time to taiIC~between 
yourselves, especially - we had some calculations to do -like for me, I couldn't 
get them, so to stop and talk about how to do it - it was heaps easier - then I'd 
go away and think can I do it by myself ... 
C [with the mindmaps] you can see the inter-relationship between the thing you're 
studying now and something you've eitherjust studied or are going to ~tudy­
it's good cos he lets you go so far with what you think should be upthere and 
then he fills in the gaps - he'll say rightyho, this goes here, this goes here and 
'you go ohright - Ididn't think it would. And you can relate to it - you can see ' 
Qgw it flows on (Focus group, October, 19~5). , ' , 
8.5.4 Readings 
The readings had a dual focus: to provide information to the students which 
complemented the lectures and practicals, and to model the writing styles found 
in horticulture and its related academic genres . The readings were bound in sets, 
running parallel to the paper, without commentary, and were referred to in the 
lectures. While some students did purchase or photocopy the readings, they do 
not seem to have been well used or accessed except maybe at the end of the year, 
just prior to the exam. Students commented that they did not realise they were an 
integral part of the paper; rather, they had seen them as add-ons: 
I think-my 'sorting:out' skills in readinghaveirriproved ... . Now since my papersthis 
semester have had readings I understand more what they mean. I remember how [the 
lecturer] was so annoyed we hadn't read them. I think lecturers/paper coordinators 
always need to remember that 1st years just don't know what's what. I didn't realise the 
readings were part of the paper. I thought they were just details and examplt:~s. That 
sounds silly but I never understood more until this semester (StudentjoJll1la,l, date 
unspecified). '· ' 
The staff, on the other hand, discussed in their journals how they tried to 
integrate the readings into the paper and their lack of success in doing this. In 
261 
particular they speculated on the difficulty of the readings and how the students 
might be more carefully directed in the task of reading: 
Readings are too hard. Students are finding many of !he readingstp¢t~chp~c,~la~d t99. 
long (i.e. too much hard material to read). AnQseveral s~udellts ~et"e.h~"ing<:lifficlll~~· 
understanding SOllle sectiolls of the production horticulturelllateij~(2~;~~.95):G.:\ ..... 
The point:ofthese comments is that ithaS'alSP mide meieth~~~·~~~~~tti:~';·;;·:!~;f·;i "\, 
reading/thinking skills of the Hort Tech students. While I didnot expect them to make 
extensive use of citing theliterature in writingupsaytheirsunflow~r.rel?qrts~I thinkrnY 
initial. expectations of the use of literature was too. high .... .In future.Jll~~~toe~~ufe .. 
reading$ata simpler level are included, and my expectationsofl}Q~9te,y~~h~use •.. 
them should be toned down. However, Ibelieye it will alsobe ill1p()nantto.e~~~:!ld.9t~, 
students. Hence, I would like to encourage theHQrt. Tec;hstudentsto.litJea~t>start. 
reading and interpreti~g some.slightl~ scientific readings·(21~lO,;~5).." ;;;>t.'·;.~·:i~')' ..... . 
Th~re is;Soll1e. space for improvementinh9wwe presenUh~reacljIlg~io'the ~Wd,~llts.\.\ 
Currently [the lecturer] simply assi~s a reading. Read this. [Theydq.n't)give}helllally" 
guidance as to. what they expected to get out of the reading.Whatsectionisparticljl~ly . 
important; what point is important to understand; what are they togainfrom.the ..••• 
reading? Not only is this helpful to the student, but in forcing the lectUrer tO~~1<tl}()se 
questionshimlherself, we mllY get better, m()re relevantre~dings(1G,lQ~9~k ... 
There were some positive comments, however: 
There a:t:esome interesting thoughts about the. reagings. [.AstudeJ:ltl;n1~~tip~e,~. th~~~lp~ 
of the readings, but asked for more focused readings, sha.rter.and le§s.c91JlJ?lex ... ~t:h~t .... ',. 
readings provide a sense of support. I noticed that. he had searched outal1,dtllk~ncopi¥s 
oftl1e materia! that Ihadrefer~nced in my cla$shang{)l,lts(~~11.9,?}." .. . 
One of the solutions to the difficulties raised by the students was the possibility 
of taking the readings out of the paper and substituting a set of study guides; this 
approach to introducing complex material was commonly used in other 100 level 
papers. This option was rejected by the staff on the grounds that one of the main 
aims of the readings (the modelling of specific writing styles) would be lost and 
because of the danger of study guides becoming prescriptive and thus 
undermining one of the aims of the paper as entailing student discovery. 
Nevertheless, it was agreed that more effort would be made to introduce the 
students to the readings, to integrate them into the paper, and to teach the 
necessary reading skills more actively. 
The key changes for 1996, then, in relation to the writing objectives were to 
separate the journal and the microthemes in order to isolate the various skills 
262 
more clearly, to give students more regular feedback on their writing by 
collecting individual microthemes and other writing for comments, and to 
increase efforts towards integrating the readings and teaching reading skills. 
There were also some adjustments to some in-class exercises: the worksheets for 
the landscape module were substantially changed to allow the students more 
autonomy in their note taking, for example. Apart from these minor adjustments, 
the second stage of the year was focused on consolidation of present strategies. 
8.6 Cycle 2: 1996 
The composition of the teaching team remained the same as in 1995, and the 
content of the paper remained essentially the same except that the second and 
third sections were reversed and a practical workshop on group dynamics, based 
on the Belbin team roles concept, was included to help students work more 
effectively together in the sunflower companies. More detailed management 
strategies were also put in place to assist groups who had members who were not 
contributing to the team effort. 
Pressures on the teaching team changed between cycles. The writing techniques 
and other pedagogical aspects of the paper were adopted by the core second year 
horticulture paper (one of the members of the Horticultural Technology team 
became the paper coordinator for this second year paper), so the oppositional 
element of the group was, to some extent, dissipated. Furthermore, team 
members were asked to give presentations on the pedagogy of the paper to 
various academic groups, on and off campus, and the team had a paper accepted 
for a European conference on improving university learning (MacKay et aI., 
1996). In other words, the success of the experiment was recognised within the 
department, as also, to some extent, in the wider university context and beyond. 
The teaching team were, however, less confident about the department's interest 
in their activities, and threw themselves instead into the task of refining their 
pedagogy and converting the paper into a distance (or extramural) mode. 
Furthermore, they applied for and won a university award for Excellence and 
- ~~------------
263 
Innovation in Teaching. This grant provided funding for converting the paper 
into a web-based teaching programme that would allow the extramural and 
internal versions of the paper to run concurrently and interactively. While both 
these new approaches to the paper were of interest and adopted a writing to 
learn/learning to write philosophy, these innovations were not included in this 
project as collecting data from distance students would have been problematic. 
Overall, team members appeared to be more confident in this second cycle, less 
in need of group support, and significantly less likely to keep their journals up to 
date, perhaps because there were fewer unexpected events or ideas which 
required reflection. Nevertheless, the team members continued to work and meet 
together and to refine their ideas as a group. 
Data collection techniques for the second cycle were the same as for the first. 
The reflection process was not so continuous in this year of consolidation, with 
staff feeling less need for direct and constant support, although occasional 
meetings during the year were called on an as-needed basis. Final reflection 
meetings took place earlier than in the previous cycle (during exams, rather than 
throughout the summer) to accommodate one staff member who was taking 
overseas leave before Christmas. One staff member who was writing final drafts 
of a PhD thesis was not present for reflection. 
8.6.1 Workbook - journal, microthemes and practicals. 
The separation of the Horticultural Technology journal and the Communications 
(19.155) journal had a substantial impact on the size of students' Horticultural 
Technology journals and the range of entries. The freer, self-directed entries 
were no longer a substantial part of the journal, but the reflective sections and the 
microthemes, both of which were included in the workbook, still provided 
feedback on the students' abilities to tailor material to different audiences and to 
integrate their knowledge into new contexts. The focus group comments on these 
entries elicited the same mixed response as in the previous year with students 
preferring entries that required them to reflect on what they were learning in 
class: 
264 
D: Well, I liked the ones that related to what we were'dofng .... I'm not one to go 
home and look through my notes or anything like that or read them ... but like one 
of them was like explaining what crop factor means and I went out and I looked 
through all my'notes and in the readings, and Ijust made it really good and I 
haven't studied it since. But that's helped my understanding ... .If there were 
more like that, you know,just little ones, like in cropping I mean, you won't 
forget it, it's a ~ay of leam~ng {F9cUS group, October 1996). . . 
Once again, students commented that they would like the microthemes and the 
practical write-ups to have been handed in more often for feedback or for 
specific marks. 
8.6.2 Reports 
The reports were, once again, divided into three sections, directed towards 
different audiences. The standard was again perceived as very high, with staff 
commenting positively on the quantification of the analysis (a matter which had 
been of concern to staff in the previous year and which had been addressed 
through in-class exercises) and the fact that students had written more successful 
blueprints than the previous year. 
8.6.3 In-class exercises 
In response to feedback from focus groups in the previous year, the 'worksheets' 
of the landscape section were freed up to allow students more flexibility in 
writing notes. Peer editing was not repeated because we had found it time 
consuming and difficult to organise (see p.259), but all teachers included in-class 
writing exercises such as mindmapping, brainstorming and problem solving (one, 
in particular, made more use of this teaching tool in his classes this year). The 
class responded positively when asked if they found in-class exercises and 
writing useful : 
C: Yes 
E: Definitely 
B: Like when we did the stuff on degree-C days, yes ... 
A: . I mean, we've already had a go at it ... once you actually try it, and you'll find out 
if you do know it or not, and he's right there to h~lp you if you don't kno,:" how , 
265 
to do it right then. You know, it's notlike you're going to leave thinking I'll sort 
it out tomorrow and then it kind of gets delayed to a couple of weeks ... then you 
go back to it and you're like, oh no I can't remember 
B: It was better to have written them down yourself, rather than just have a whole 
pile of numbers you can't really relate to .. .if you've got it writtell down then 
you're going back for ... especially being an open book exam,you justlo()k 
through and oh, that's right, I remember doing that lot (Focus grOl.lp,October 
1996). . 
A staff member reflecting at the end of the academic year on the in-class 
exercises comments: 
Now this year my concerted effort to develop numeracy as part of the communication 
expertise teaching aim has paid ofLInparticular I attribute the improvement to. the il1-
class exercises where, over the entire second semester, I have repeate:Qlyshoweclthen::t 
what might be expected, how to do it and gave them examples for them to try and .. 
discuss.inclass as a plass (12.10.96). 
8.6.4 Readings 
Much greater effort was taken to include the readings as part of class content 
throughout this cycle. 
In contrast to last year I have also taken to highlighting specific supplemental readings 
as dealing with each topic. This occurs both on the overhead projections and i\1the . 
student's handouts. By discussing how the various authors.dealwith the topic (similarto 
extramural style but vocally) I hope to encourage the students to see. the readiQgs(!,s· an 
essential part of their learning. I am however concerned over the general lack of time in 
the total 7.5 hr per week available for them to do justice to these readings. To· 
accommodate this I would like to reduce the number of lectures ifpossible, but I'm not 
sure if this is feasible (doesthismean,we are putting too much into tl;le p~perl1ectures?). 
Having had.the time to really read the readings·this year I am more confident in us,ing 
them and guiding the students to them. Writing the extramural version has helped.in . 
really getting to know what we want the students to achieve and ho"" each of the 
readingscQntributes to this (17.7.96). 
Students commented much more favourably on the readings this year, largely 
because the staff had taken more effort to direct students to them at specific times 
and had explained more specifically what the students should be looking for in 
particular readings, although students still seemed to have problems with 
motivation, sometimes still leaving the reading until just before the exam, and 
not attending to the attempts by teaching staff to highlight readings in their 
teaching: 
266 
A: Actually they were quite good 
F: They are very good. 
" . 
C: But like you know, I've only started reading them now. I'll go through and say 
I must read them. I must read them, but then, when I think about it, I'm going to 
have to reread them anyway, at this time of year. 
A: Maybe if they tlsed the reading while you're in class, if they got us to bring them 
along, and actually work through bits or set exercises from them, so you could 
actually progress through them, because I'mjust looking through them now, and 
going wow! It makes so much sense now. This is really cool, and they're very 
good readings. You know, I was thinking oh yes, they may be all technical and 
that, but actually they're very well set out readings and they're very interesting. 
L_~ __ • • ~ ~They're brillicmt (Focus group, October 1996). 
8.7 Key issues 
8.7.1 Culture change: student attitudes towards writing 
Perhaps the most significant result to come out of the focus groups for this paper, 
from the perspective of writing, was the change in students ' attitudes to the 
importance of communication skills to horticulturists. In the final focus group for 
Horticultural Technology, in its second cycle, after communication had been 
included in the degree curriculum for only three years, we asked students the 
following question: 
"If you had to summarise what are, say, the top five skills that a horticulturist has 
to have, what would they be?" 
The students answered first communication, second plant management, third a 
broad range of knowledge, fourth keeping up with technology and fifth 
innovation. This represented a dramatic change from the attitudes expressed by 
students enrolled in Communication in Applied Science in 1994. Clearly, 
communication was no longer seen as irrelevant to an applied science 
curriculum. 
267 
8.7.2 The blending of writing to learn and learning to write 
Our original plan in developing the writing strategy was to promote a 'writing to 
learn' strategy with our students. In all our thoughts about designing writing 
strategies and objectives, we did not realise that we had included both a writing 
to learn and a learning to write approach. Yet once we recognised, during the 
debate about the journal, that we were in fact using both strategies, it seemed to 
us that we had a false dichotomy lodged in our thinking and that learning to write 
exercises, if well designed, are also writing to learn exercises. An example is the 
final assignment where students were asked to write a chapter of a book for fifth 
formers. Because the assignment asked students to write in a particular format 
and style, to a specific audience, it was a learning to write exercise, in that it 
required them to think about writing issues; but it was also a writing to learn 
exercise, in that it challenged the students to think laterally and to make 
connections about the philosophy and guiding principles of the paper. After a 
while, the teaching team stopped talking in terms of this dichotomy (i.e. writing 
to learn and learning to write), and discussed work that required students to 
process and work that required students to reflect. The former (writing to 
process) tended to be transactional, in the sense that we often used an audience to 
focus the students' thinking and to require them to explain issues in new ways. 
The reflective writing, on the other hand, was more likely to be self-audienced 
and often required students to think beyond what they had been doing in class. 
The reflective writing most closely fitted the writing to learn category, whereas 
the writing that focused on processing could be both writing to learn and learning 
to write, i.e. both elements could be present. 
While most students were comfortable with reflective writing, their comments 
suggested that they enjoyed and thought about the transactional writing more -
maybe because some microthemes such as 'Gladus and the Pips' were 
entertaining, with their novel audience and problem, or because they were 
challenging. Students' comments in focus groups suggested that they were 
always more responsive to things which they saw as 'useful' or vocational, i.e., 
the transactionally based assignments. 
268 
For staff, the idea of using a wide range of audiences was relatively new. They 
were excited by student responses and enthusiasm and, likewise, by the quality of 
the work and they were impressed by how changing an audience and format 
could change the focus of an assignment and bring out subtle shifts in thinking. 
The three assignments at the end of the year testify to the staff's grasp of how 
audience could be used in this way. 
8.7.3 The impact of the team 
One of the distinguishing features of this project was the nature of the teaching 
team. As we saw at the beginning of the chapter, the team was already 
established prior to the project. The motivation and impetus for the project were 
high and generated from the group, not from an outsider. Leadership also came 
from within the team. All the team were confident teachers and although they 
experienced stress and difficulties at times through the project, they persevered 
with all its aspects, including data collection. In project two I commented that 
pressure of work created difficulties for people which led to data not being 
collected. This team was equally stressed: two of the team members completed 
their PhDs during the project period as well as maintaining their teaching 
programmes and being involved with the project. Yet the sheer strength of 
motivation, leadership and group support seemed to keep the project on target. 
While this project was perhaps the most time consuming of the three, I found my 
role in it to be the most satisfying and simple. Basically I worked as a support 
person to the team and as a data collector. Often I took the role in team meetings 
of asking questions to clarify or refine ideas. Although team meetings could be 
difficult and confrontational, I was sufficiently confident in my relationships 
with the teaching staff to engage in that confrontation and discussion. The team 
was, in many ways, easy to work with, since their commitment kept them 
actively focused. As a result, the project followed an almost perfect research 
cycle, with a classic pattern of planned data collection. 
269 
8.7.4 Benefits to staff - the journal and qualitative feedback 
One of the most unexpected results was the benefits to the staff of writing a 
journal, and also the value to staff of detailed qualitative feedback. An example 
of this is provided in the following extract from one staff member's journal 
where he reflects on focus group feedback and subsequent discussion with 
another member of staff. Here the staff member reflects on some negative 
feedback provided by a focus group, discusses it with the paper coordinator, and 
then goes back to the journal to reflect further. At the end he has an 
understanding of an aspect of his teaching style which he did not have before and 
he has made a decision about what to do to rectify the problem: 
In an effort to prepare for Hort. II I've been reading the (ocus group tranl)cripts Lil)a 
gave us yesterday. I now seem to be able to be in a more reflectivefrllllleof minqwith 
zillions of reflective ideas popping into my head 24 hours a day (Yes 24 hours a day!). 
An issue arising from this, and which I have just spoken with [the paper coordinator] 
about (he also seems more relaxed and able to be reflective also), is that of s0111e 
students feeling threatened by my questioning style in class .... Reading the focus group 
notes from 29/9/95, I have got the feeling that in responding to a student's. reply to his 
question [the paper coordinator] was seen as being more supportive. In discussing this 
with [him] he confirmed that if the answer was 'slightly true' or out of contexth~ was 
able to be. more positive and say "Yes, that's correct if we were operating ill tbis 
scenario, but the key. issue I want to focus on here is .. : Students !Iavereported.~~t I had 
a definite answer in mind and that unless theygot.it exactly correct then they were .... 
wrong. I think that this interpretation of my expectations is. derived from my te~dency to 
operatein this manner - if the answerwas 'slightly true' or out of contextJwould 
always say 'Yes, O.K., but...' and ask another question. My inteqtkm was to getth~mto 
answer the question for themselves, by placing a new challenge or new scenarioin front 
of them. It would appear that their interpretation of this was that 'Mary's .answerwas 
obviously wrong and I'm going to wring the bloody answer out ofyQU guys jfyou.likeit 
or not!' In the focus group report the student inferred that [the paper coordinator) would 
give cues to answer the question. It would be easy.to interpretthis as'[he)gaxe. \:lsthe 
answers' ,but I can see now that there is a definite logic inusing their'out.QfC!on~e~t 
answer' to be more supportive meet the leaming objectives at the same time. !f' it is true 
that in constantly challenging them with ever-:-developing questions Itende.d toftightep. 
them to the extent that they felt threatened, I need to change. It is so clear to me that . 
getting the students actively involved in their own leaming is of the UTMOST 
importance. Hence if I can change my technique to encourage participation even more I 
will succeed in improving their potential to learn (3.11.95). 
This team member also used the journal for this type of reflection to look at one 
of his writing exercises. His concern was how to use in-class writing exercises 
that would not take up the whole of available class time. Once again he comes to 
an answer that is implementable and focuses squarely on the paper's objective: 
270 
On most occasions my in class exercises ended up occupying the entire time period - the 
time sentiment that appeared to also come through with the journal entries also. 
Obviously I need to address this time issue. While I don't think. I detected 
disillusionment with the effort required for or the value of my journal entries, I interpret 
it as suggesting that there may be more benefits to be gained through apportioning time 
more carefully to these. Again, the idea of not overworking them - quality learning not 
quantity learning. In writing the journal entries it was all too easy to say to myself 'Oh, 
and then they could do this, and integrate this with that, and then once they got to this 
they would be ,able to integrate these ()ther facto!s too' .,ConsequentlY $ey bt:<c~me 'too , 
big and too complex'. Now there's a nice string 'too big and too complex' . Perhap's I am 
always expecting too much from these guys. Especially acting as a facilitator at the, end 
of the year, I heard them talking and freely admitting that they didn't know anything 
about this or that - that they had just had a lecture on 'X' in Biology of Plants and, it was 
the first time they had ever heard of it. That really 'humbled' me in that I thoughtto . 
myself 'my god! - these guys really don't know these sorts of things'. So surely tqe 
answer here is to keep the level of size and complexity small and simple, respectively. 
Why not leave the 'slightly bigger' and ' more complex' to Hort. II!! Oh what a ripping 
wee idea - I must tell the paper coor9inator for Hort. II right away!! (3.11.95). ' 
Although this team member' s comments at the end are ironic, since he had been 
given the role of paper coordinator of Horticulture II for the following year, the 
comments he makes are nevertheless significant. Through reflection in his 
journal, he understands a problem, makes an acknowledgement of the need for 
progressive learning, and decides to act on it. Thus, his decisions take him 
beyond the bounds of this paper into the other papers that connect with and build 
on this one. 
As well as reflecting on other aspects of the paper in their journal, staff reflected 
on various ways of refining their journals, the ways they could use them for 
improved feedback and the value of journal writing as a tool for teachers. In the 
following section of a journal, the writer is reflecting on the limitations of what 
he has written and how he could improve on his journal to improve his teaching: 
A problem or shortcoming of my journhl has been"a lack of quantification of issu~s~ I 
have tended to use it as an interactive partner for discussing things. While this has been 
beneficial, my lack of quantification has limited its use for reflective purposes. e.g. I 
frequently make mention of my poor estimation of time for how long it will take for . 
students to complete a task, but Idon't really record how long it did take. Hencewhen 
reviewing my journal I am not too much better off for estimating the time I might 
require. However, at least I have noted that a problem exists (both with my time 
estimation and use of the journal) and in terms of the action research protocol I can now 
plan new action~ for next year to address the~e issue~ (isn't life wonderful!) 27.1().95 
271 
Staff also commented on how reading back in their journal helped them to track 
their development as teachers, and to see things in later readings of their journals 
that they would not have been aware of at the time. One of the aims of action 
research is to develop 'reflective practitioners' and the team members in this 
project certainly seem to have achieved this through their journal writing: 
I didn't see it at the time, but I now think that one of the inlportant step:sthatlt9o~in 
this journey was writing about my journey so far - that is, the. first thing Lisa mad~me 
write, Sure, I thought it was touchy-feely, butnow I can see how it ITlademetake a . 
position, and once 'exposed', support that position in the light of the educational theory 
that I was coming into contact with. And being reasonably honest. with myself. when my 
own beliefs were found to be wanting or unsupportable, I was prepared to accept defeat 
and alter my beliefs. By knowing what my beliefs were - after writing them .dowp:", . . 
provided ~ benchmark from which. progress could. be judged. And hopefully mQre 
elegantly and clearly .... Perhaps it's being horoscopic, but when I look back at what I. 
wrote about my journey, I used phrases such as "my understandingQfhow my students 
learn." which I now interpret as signaling my movement from taking a teacher-centred 
approac~t() le1ifning tC).a student-centred appro(tch - afacilitat()r()fJ~1ifnjng«V!S,~S), 
Another team member reflected on how he could see things in his journal which 
indicated how far he had come over the year; he then goes on to make a 
connection between the past, the journal and the future: 
Since starting this journal last year r can see that it, me and how I' veus~d it has evolved. 
Getting to the point where I was preparing this year'steaphing made me realise .the . 
short-comiI1gs of what r wrote the year before. In particular IfoundJ.didn'.t al"",aY~have 
enough detail on exactly what I did at each leqture. I suppose not eno:ugbdet,aj1.was. 
kept This doesn't mean that in the first year the journal wasn't useful. Thereflect·jve 
discussion that I undertook within its confines and, just as importantly, the reflect~'Vy . 
discussions that it precipitated with [the paper coordinator] and Lisa were benefit. .. 
enough. However, now in year two I am able to do 'long-term' reflection;now,hen·r 
think about it now I should call it something like medium term reflection, ie. I was able 
to reflect on the entire year's teaching and of course the entire year's le1ifning by the. 
students (and me too r suppose). I was able to enter into furtherreasoned..ar~mentswith 
myselfasI now had a year's database of information. From this I was aple toargpeand 
rationalise why I should dothis that or the other. And now I can perhaps lookjntothe 
future and see. that I should also now be able to do 'long·-term' reflection; wher~l:lyevery 
five years or whatever, I can reflect on whether there are trends in my development and 
that of student learning as a result of this (12,11.96). ... 
Overall, then, team members found the experience of continuous qualitative 
feedback in conjunction with journal writing useful in their reflective practice: 
the journal could be used to identify progress, to reflect on criticism and to 
develop new strategies and plan for the future, and the feedback provided 
272 
immediate material for the reflective process. These findings suggest that 
reflective journal writing by staff can be a critical component in collaborative, 
interdisciplinary writing programmes in that they have a unique capacity to allow 
staff to inspect their own cognitive routines (Opie, pers. comm., 17.6.96). 
8.7.5 Staff difficulties 
Nevertheless, while journal writing and qualitative feedback were seen as 
valuable by the staff, they also found both aspects of the project stressful at 
times. An issue that arose was how to feed information from the focus groups 
back to the teaching team, especially if staff were apprehensive about their 
ability to use the new teaching techniques or if the students engaged in personal 
attacks on staff during focus groups. Our problem was how to feed back 
information without upsetting or embarrassing members of the team or making 
them feel defensive. We wanted staff to learn from the comments, and we soon 
realised that if the information was presented insensitively, it could achieve 
exactly the opposite of what was hoped for. These points led the paper 
coordinator, in his journal, to reflect on the idea that team management was of 
vital importance in an action research project such as the one we were engaged 
in. 
It's a question of how we bring that infomlation I from-the focus groupsj into the AR 
cycle. The more I get into this project,the more I feel that staff management is critical to 
how successful each AR cycle becomes. In the bad old days (pre-ARlpre-you) feedback 
came at the end of the year. It was often confusing and upsetting. But we would often 
rationalise the criticism, conclude that the students had got it ,wrong, and forget about it. 
Four months later we would start again as usual. But now, we have almost immediate 
feedback, lots of it, and because of the focus group system, much more objeFtive and 
less open to dismissive rationalisation. We also have to face up. to it much sooner, and 
make much more immediate change. Although lknew this ,was' goipg to happen - I 
could read the AR diagram as well as anyone else - I didn't understand the 'stress' it 
was going to place the staff under. Indeed, [the other members of the teaching team] 
. .. 
have been lucky to some extent because they haven't had to go and face up to the 
.students immediately after feedback. So, because I'm rambling here and a fmish is 
required, the point I'm trying to make to whoever is still awake is that I think that the 
feedback sequences of AR require a level of personnel management that I had not 
previously realised. Sure, I'm better prepared for next time, but this issue isn't dealt with 
in AR writing (that) have read at least) (5.6.9?). ' .. - .. 
273 
Another obvious problem for staff was the risk they took in writing and 
reflecting in their journals, especially when that writing was going to be made 
available to me, and thus, possibly, to others in the group. Like the students, staff 
worried that they might not be including the right material and also that they 
might be opening themselves up to harsh interpretation. They worked these 
things through in their journals, as the example below illustrates. Note the way 
the writer progressed from discussing his own risk to reflecting on the risks taken 
by others in the team and ways to alleviate their anxieties. 
There are parallels here to the writing I have just completed for Lisa. My journal entries 
lacked '¥1y journey' perspectives. Too much 09jectiveanalysis(my interpretation .of < 
Lisa's comments). My effort to redress the balan<;e ("Why.and how 1 started on this 
journey") did make me front up to the motiva~ingfactors influencing'my.~ecision~an<i .. 
actions in thisjoumey. I hopeI have articulatedthemproperly:today'I have been 
worried that I may be opening myself to being viewed as arrogant and calculating, 
instead of confidently working to a plan, albeit continuously evolviIlg.This is the.liskit 
seems I have been .prepared to take, no doubt because of theenvironment(readt:rqst)l ..• 
sense with Lisa. The same lessons can be applied tohow Ibuild theen"ironmepHor[t~e 
other members of the team]. It means being open with them, letting them know. W'h,;!t I.· •.. 
hopetoget out of the paper (5,12.24). ..• .. 
8.8 Broader effects 
The use of writing to learn strategies spread very quickly within the horticulture 
group. In December 1994, before the Horticultural Technology paper had begun, 
but while we were keeping the wider horticulture group informed of our 
planning, the paper coordinator wrote this: 
I received three. new 'learning exercises' forinc1usion'inthe .2001evel horticulture paper 
I have coordinated for the paSt 5 years. Tbeseexercises combinepr~ctical skills/ .. 
development/experience with written reports .. AUthe staffhad.receivedmy H01t..Tec~~ 
report, and the Hort.Tech.Update. I found new-to-this~group phrase~ like client;" .. 
orientated report, group exercise, micro theme, advisory memo, technical r~p()rt,~d .. 
well-defined aims and objectives,more than I have ever seen before. Ntlver befQre have 
I seen so much attention being given to defining the audience of the written output 
(2().12.94). 
At the beginning of 1996, one of the teaching team for Horticultural Technology 
took over the paper coordinator's position for Horticulture II, and so the writing 
to learn strategies (including microthemes and in class exercises such as 
mindmapping) became incorporated into that paper. Because that paper was team 
274 
taught, far more members of the Horticulture group became exposed to this style 
of teaching. At the end of 1997 a proposal was put before the Horticulture group 
to teach 300 level papers according to a new pedagogy which included writing to 
learn, and this was accepted in 1998. Hence, using writing as a learning strategy 
became a part of the core horticulture course within four years. 
The impact of this project on the wider group was, therefore, substantial. As the 
extramural and web-based versions were developed over the following years, the 
writing strategies were included in these versions and then spread to other 
extramural papers. Members of the group ran staff development workshops for 
the university ' s teaching development unit (TDU) on the use of writing and 
active learning strategies to stimulate learning; they also published in national 
and international journals on aspects of the paper. Thus, this project moved 
beyond the immediate context to influence the wider academic and research 
environment. The implications of this are taken up in the chapter that follows. 
8.9 Conclusions 
Starting a year after projects one and two, this project built on the lessons learnt 
from the other projects. Unlike the teams in projects one and two, therefore, the 
team was able to base its decisions on practical and immediate experience as well 
as on the literature on the topic. If we look at the overall research question, i.e., 
how can we effectively teach writing in the disciplines, in the light of this 
project, we can see three important findings. 
First, because the students taking this paper had already completed, or were also 
enrolled in, other papers which had a strong writing component, they were less 
resistant to seeing writing as part of the curriculum and more able to see the 
relevance of communication to their professional development. This confirms the 
notion (see, for example, Holyoak, 1998) that, for students to learn and value 
writing or communication in their discipline, writing needs to be integrated into 
more than a single paper. 
275 
Second, students responded well to assignments which were transactional, in that 
they were written to a particular audience, but which also had a 'writing to learn' 
component. From the beginning, this project focused more on writing to learn 
than on learning to write, but over time the project team moved to combine these 
two categories into what we called 'writing to process' assignments, i.e., 
assignments with a specified audience which required students to think about 
structure and style, but which also challenged students to engage with course 
material in new ways. The key to this particular kind of assignment was the 
audience, which, when chosen carefully, could be used to require students to 
think about content in a specific manner. 
Third, this project showed that it is easier and more effective to integrate writing 
into a new curriculum than simply to add writing to an existing paper. In project 
two we focused on redesigning the assignments or on marking existing 
assignments differently. But in this project, because writing was central to the 
paper's pedagogy, it could be incorporated into every activity in the paper, 
including practical work and lectures. Thus, as some of the comments in the 
focus groups show, students were more likely to see writing as a way of learning 
about the content of the paper, rather than solely as a form of assessment. 
To sum up, then, this project suggests that we can integrate the teaching of 
writing into the disciplines most effectively when writing is incorporated into 
more than a single paper (a 'through the discipline' approach), when we 
incorporate both writing to learn and learning to write approaches into carefully 
designed assignments, and when we integrate writing into the very core of a 
paper's pedagogy, preferably at the beginning of the paper's design, rather than 
simply adding writing to an existing curriculum and pedagogy. 
The secondary research questions concern whether action research was an 
effective method for integrating writing into the curriculum. In this project the 
answer has to be an unqualified "yes". Action research provided us with a 
process for implementing and evaluating our ideas, for correcting our mistakes 
and for resolving our confusions. It allowed us to work effectively as a team and 
276 
to combine the strengths and expertise of the academic staff and the writing 
consultant. 
Why was action research so successfully applied in this project? Primarily, I 
think the answer lies with the sheer focus, commitment and rigour of the project 
team. They wanted to do more than teach a new course; they wanted to trial a 
new pedagogical approach and evaluate it carefully. Another factor may have 
been the team's openness to new ideas from each other: for example, while there 
was constant deploring of the 'touchy-feely' ideas I suggested, such as analysing 
process in the journals and investigating team roles, once the team decided to test 
out these ideas they committed to them with a will. Another factor may have 
been the staff journals which most of the staff found to be a useful professional 
learning tool. A final factor may have been the single focus of the project. Unlike 
project two, which had a very diffused focus, this project concentrated on a 
single paper and it was therefore simpler to ensure, through the regular group 
meetings, that data was collected and that team members followed up their 
commitments. 
There is one final comment to make about the use of action research. Action 
research produced a quite unexpected spin-off in this project. While the staff 
were committed to a collaborative process of developing the paper, the action 
research process also allowed the students to become very engaged in this 
development. One of the things we were committed to was modelling to the 
students the sorts of learning activities we were asking them to engage in. So, for 
example, staff would talk in class about things they had written in their journals, 
and when the class needed to do some team analysis, we too undertook a formal 
team analysis and showed our results to the students. We also explained from the 
beginning that we were testing out a new teaching style and that we would value 
their feedback and their thoughts . What we had not expected was that students 
would so actively engage with us in this process, to the extent that they would 
request to be included in focus group interviews and, at one point, asked to do an 
unscheduled focus group because they had some concerns about the paper. 
Action research, therefore, allowed us an unexpected aspect to our collaboration 
- the full involvement of many of our students in this learning experience. 
277 
This project achieved much of what we aimed for. But part of the excitement of 
participating in this project involved the unexpected - the intense and active 
involvement of our students in our learning experience, the richness and 
thoughtfulness of student and staff journals, our debates about journals and 
assignment audiences. Much of this can be attributed to an open and enquiring 
teaching team and to the action research process, which has the flexibility and the 
rigour to allow for and embrace all contingencies. 
278 
279 
Section Four: Implications for WAC in a New 
Zealand Context 
280 
281 
Chapter 9. Writing across the curriculum in a New Zealand 
context 
This study began with a quotation from Janet Holst concerning the 
'schizophrenia' manifest in New Zealand universities' attitudes to writing in the 
university: 
There's this schizophrenic institution that...exists on writing, and careers are 
structured on writing and the whole system, everything is based on writing .... and 
yet any work with that kind of writing is seen as very low level, or ghetto, or, 
what is increasingly legitimately called in the literature, shitwork (1. Holst, 
21.5.96). 
I take schizophrenia in this context to indicate a skewed or inaccurate perception 
of reality: an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Or we might see 
schizophrenia in this context as indicating a propensity to hold two conflicting 
attitudes simultaneously. This sustaining of conflicting attitudes has been 
manifest in many ways throughout this study. Students stmggle with how to 
write in the university, while loudly claiming that they should not have to deal 
with this, that they came to university to learn scienceibusiness/sociology, not 
writing skills. Academic staff bemoan students' skills (or lack of skills) but 
refuse to teach those skills. Writing teachers try to untangle the ambiguities of 
their role while trying to work with the casualties, at the same time dismissing 
student feedback - "you are not teaching us the right stuff!" - as irrelevant. An 
English Department can be commissioned by the senior management of a degree 
programme to teach writing to a group of students on the grounds that only 
English have the credible skills to do this, when it is apparent that students and 
staff from the discipline are dissatisfied with the results. Employers give 
consistent messages to the universities that graduates are emerging from their 
degree programmes without appropriate communication skills - yet universities 
do not seem to be able to hear this message, and if they do respond, they appoint 
staff into general or casual staff positions where they are paid at the lowest 
282 
possible rate and often denied, either directly or indirectly, the privileges of 
academic staff. 
Universities in North America, as we have seen, have seemed to be a little more 
ready to address realities - students do not have the necessary skills, students 
need to learn new writing skills at tertiary level, employers want high-level 
communication skills - as they have been grappling with this problem for a 
century by directly integrating writing, through a variety of structures, into their 
curriculum. In Australia too, reality seems to be striking home and universities 
have begun to address the issue of student writing by developing policies on 
teaching communication and generic skills (Drury and Taylor, 1996; Baldauf, 
1997; Catterall and Martins, 1997; Parker, 1997). New Zealand universities' 
awareness of the real need to teach students appropriate writing skills is lagging 
behind, although in the last fifteen years writing papers and learning centres have 
emerged, in an ad hoc manner, to work with student writing skills. None of these 
New Zealand initiatives address the issue of writing for all students and the 
attitudes of students, academic staff and management seem to be unchanged. 
There is still a cringe factor involved in teaching writing in the universities - a 
sense that we really should not be doing this. 
So we have this schizophrenic institution. And while we can say that New 
Zealand is slow to adjust its perspective, we cannot say that this schizophrenia is 
confined to New Zealand. Despite the focus on writing in the curriculum in 
North America, plenty of articles discuss the lowliness of writing teachers, the 
resistance of students, the marginality of writing in the curriculum. Across the 
Tasman, a 1996 article entitled "Teaching communication skills through stealth 
and trickery" discusses embedding writing into a course so that students are not 
aware that they are learning to write: "so there is a sugar-coating applied to this 
strong medicine: and, like Sultana Bran, if you don't tell them it's good for them 
they eat it by the boxful" (Whitbread, 1996, p.33). Yet why should such an 
approach be taken: why do we need to integrate writing into the curriculum by 
devious means? Employers tell us they want students who can communicate­
and students surely want to be employable by the time they have accumulated a 
~ student~bt. 
283 
This study was generated by managers and academics from the Faculty of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences looking past their preconceptions of 
reality and how it should be, and instead focusing squarely on what was needed 
in the face of changing career opportunities for agriculture and horticulture 
students and the messages being given to the faculty by employers. Many clear 
messages came through from employers, one of which was that students in this 
field needed to be able to communicate, in both written and oral form. These 
were realities: graduates needed to be able to communicate, most of them were 
not meeting required standards in this area, and therefore the two approaches 
being used in the faculty to date were probably not achieving their objectives. 
This is where we started from; we wanted to change the curriculum to include 
communication skills, and we wanted to do it directly, not by "stealth and 
trickery". What we did not realise when we started, but what became very clear 
to us as we progressed, was that on the way to curriculum change, we had to 
change other things: student attitudes to writing and communication, staff 
attitudes to teaching writing, relationships between applied science teachers and 
writing teachers. We had to adjust our preconceptions of one another and how we 
could work together. And in this process of change we also experienced changes 
of perception and increased understanding of how the university both nurtures 
and fails to nurture curriculum change. 
We implemented and monitored these changes through an action research 
process. This chapter is the final reflection on the programmes implemented here 
- the last of many reflective processes. This first part of this chapter looks at each 
of the projects and considers how they fitted into the literature on writing across 
the curriculum: how did our models compare with those overseas? The second 
part looks at the change process: what changes did we hope to achieve and what 
change issues arose on the way? What were the indicators of whether we 
achieved those changes? The third prot looks at action research and whether it 
was an effective and appropriate method for achieving change. And finally, the 
focus of the chapter broadens to consider whether the method we used to 
integrate writing into the curriculum is an effective model which could be used 
284 
more broadly by the university to get beyond its schizophrenic vision and to 
integrate writing across the whole curriculum. 
9.1 Connecting to the literature: changes to the curriculum 
WAC is about curriculum change. This was the overall principal aim of this 
study: to integrate writing into the applied science curriculum. Chapters two and 
five of this study opened with quotations from Elaine Maimon about how WAC 
programmes needed to be firmly grounded in their own context and adapted to fit 
each home campus. This section considers how each of the projects 'fitted into' 
the literature on writing across the curriculum and whether changes to the 
curriculum were achieved. 
9.1.1 Project one 
The initial focus of the writing across the curriculum initiative in the Faculty of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences was project one: the development of a 
writing/communication paper for applied science students. The method used was 
a collaborative, interdisciplinary venture between applied science teachers and a 
writing teacher. The advantages of such a model of integrating writing into the 
curriculum are discussed fully in chapter four, pp.103-106, but, in summary, 
collaborative, interdisciplinary models: 
• combine the skills of specialist writing teachers and subject specialists 
• emphasise subject specialists initiating students into the language of their 
discipline 
• acknowledge writing as a way of learning within a discipline 
• acknowledge the need for modelling 
• focus directly on student needs 
• establish bonds between departments and the English Department 
• produce opportunities for staff development through reflection and 
interaction and the sharing of ideas 
• help students to see the connectedness of writing and science 
• expose students to a variety of role models (Austin and Baldwin, 1991; 
Kuriloff, 1992; Gardner and Sutherland, 1997). 
285 
Many of these issues were important as we developed the writing paper. We 
hoped to use the combined skills of the writing teacher and the science teachers 
synergistically, to produce a paper which neither party could have created on 
their own (Kuriloff, 1992). A further outcome which we hoped for was that, 
because we would be focusing on skills the students really needed and because 
we could model the necessary writing styles, students would be less resistant to 
learning writing/communication skills, and that they would see these skills as a 
part of their professional development. 
By the end of the third cycle of project one, 19.155 was established as a 
permanent part of the generic first year of the B.Appl.Sci. As I write this chapter, 
three years after the project was completed, the paper is still part of the degree -
and its mandate has expanded: it is now a compulsory part of not only the 
B.Appl.Sci, but also the BSc and BMLS programmes, and next year (2000) it 
will also be compulsory for B.Tech students. The paper is still taught by 
academics in the sciences, but the team has changed to ensure that BSc teachers 
are teaching BSc students, for example, so that students are seeing appropriate 
models and using accurate professional genres as part of their programme. 
We can say, then, that the collaborative team brought together for project one 
was successful in effecting long-term change in the B.Appl.Sci and in the 
broader science curriculum. 
9.1.2 Project two 
Project two emerged from project one and from my own research interests. 
Again, I had a strong concern to change the curriculum by integrating writing 
more broadly into the curriculum, speculating that a 12-week paper could not 
make a major difference to student writing or attitudes to writing. Rather, the 
lessons learnt in 19.155 needed to be extended into other papers so that students 
would receive regular and consistent messages about the importance of writing to 
286 
their professional development. The Department of Agricultural and 
Horticultural Systems Management, which took on this project, was keen to 
extend the programme across the whole faculty, but because of staffing 
limitations and the need to evaluate the programme,57 the faculty management 
team decided to use the department to trial the programme first. 
This project used a writing intensive approach to teaching writing in the 
disciplines (see chapter four, p.93), in that certain papers became writing 
intensive. They used writing extensively for purposes of both learning and 
assessment, and they were taught by subject specialists. The extensiveness of the 
project was unusual and most closely conforms to the model in Holyoak's 1998 
paper "Writing throughout the biology curriculum", although, of course, we did 
not have access to this article when we were designing and implementing this 
programme. Holyoak's approach sawall biology teachers in his department 
involved in planning and implementing a writing strategy, and all papers taught 
through the department including a writing component. This is what we aimed 
for in this project, although, since involvement was optional, not all papers in the 
department were involved. 
The advantages of such an approach are that the importance of 
writing/communication skills is strongly modelled for students by staff who are 
involved in their field of study and that writing and learning are integrally 
connected (Dawson, 1996). The disadvantages are: 
• subject specialists may lack confidence 
• staff may not be sufficiently trained 
• the position of composition specialists is weakened 
• the programme may be difficult to administer 
• commitment and leadership may be difficult to find 
57 I was asked to design and monitor a writing programme for the whole Faculty but because I 
was not employed by the Faculty, and indeed, was required to fulfil the requirements of another 
full time position, I could not undertake such an extensive programme. 
287 
• staff may be disadvantaged by their involvement in a time consuming project 
focused on teaching rather than research 
• students from different disciplines may lack the ability to communicate with 
each other or with a general audience (Kinneavy, 1983; Hutchinson, 1993; 
Pemberton, 1995; Chapman, 1997) 
We hoped to alleviate some of these difficulties by using an interdisciplinary 
approach, once again, which combined the skills of a writing teacher with the 
skills of the subject specialists: thus we aimed to overcome the problems of staff 
confidence, training and motivation. We also hoped that, because we had a 
central person administrating the process and collecting data, the focus of the 
project would not become too diffuse. 
Despite these endeavours, many of these problems still occurred in this project. 
Commitment and leadership from the whole group was difficult to attain 
although individual department members put much time and effort into their 
individual papers. Staff confidence was not high, despite the impression given 
during individual interviews, and staff were still struggling with some of the 
concepts right to the end of the final cycle. And the programme proved difficult 
to administer, despite having a central person to coordinate action; this may have 
been due to me taking on a role (i.e. collaborator) which did not have sufficient 
authority or to the lack of time I had to commit to that role. As discussed in 
chapter seven, this project might have had a greater impact if I had taken on the 
role of consultant and if r had had more time to act as a resource for the group. 
Three years on, this project does not appear to have had a long-term effect on the 
curriculum. All the same, some members of the group continue individually to 
experiment with different writing to learn and learning to write genres of student 
assignments. 
9.1.3 Project three 
Project three took a different approach to designing a writing intensive course. 
Instead of taking a "throughout the curriculum" approach (Holyoak, 1998), this 
project focused on integrating writing to learn as well as writing in the discipline 
288 
project focused on integrating writing to learn as well as writing in the discipline 
strategies into a single paper. Unlike project two, where writing was integrated 
into existing papers, this project focused on developing a new paper as writing 
intensive. The advantages and disadvantages of such an approach are similar to 
those in project two, except that, as the focus of the project was far narrower, 
problems of administration and leadership were less of an issue. Once again, we 
took an interdisciplinary approach as a way of combining our varied skills. 
Ironically, although this project focused more narrowly on an individual paper, it 
has had a greater long-term impact on the curriculum and a greater flow-on effect 
than project two. As indicated at the end of chapter eight, the bigger horticulture 
group redesigned its 200 and 300 level papers in line with the 100 level paper in 
the following years and integrated the writing to leam! learning to write 
strategies into all the core papers, including extramural versions of these papers. 
Interestingly, although the group for project three refocused its strategies to 
discuss 'writing to process and writing to reflect', rather than 'writing to learn 
and learning to write' (see p.267), the term 'writing to learn ' has been carried 
forward to describe the writing activities used in these new papers. In other 
words, the original terminology has been perpetuated. 
Long-term and extensive curriculum change was achieved through two of the 
projects in this study, and elements of curriculum change have been maintained 
by individuals engaged in project two. Thus we may say that we achieved our 
principal aim. But in addition, as indicated in the introduction to this chapter, we 
identified, during the actioning of these projects, other fonns of change that we 
needed to achieve. The next section looks at the impact of the projects on staff 
attitudes to themselves as teachers of writing. 
9.2 Staff changes 
The projects that were a part of this study took the position that the best people to 
teach students to write in their discipline were content teachers, rather than 
289 
English teachers, and that a writing teacher as collaborator in the programme 
could support academic staff as they trained themselves to teach writing in their 
field. This section looks at each project in turn and considers whether staff from 
the applied sciences did prove to be effective teachers of writing in the 
curriculum and whether their confidence in their role increased during the 
projects. Staff confidence and development are critical factors in assessing WAC 
programmes, since programmes are only likely to persist if staff found their 
involvement in the programme satisfying: 
Faculty 'retention', that is, the likelihood that faculty members will persist in 
using writing to teach their courses, depends as heavily on the satisfaction of 
faculty members as on any measure of student outcomes (Smith and Farris, 1997, 
p.183). 
9.2.1 Project one 
Project one suggests that staff from the disciplines can develop the skills to 
directly teach communication/writing skills to their students. This project 
required a considerable change in focus and professional development of staff. 
This project required staff to undertake a continued process of reflection, to 
become aware of their own cognitive routines in order to directly teach a paper 
on applied science writing. The debate within the group, which emerged late in 
the first cycle and persisted for the rest of the project, concerning the dominance 
of science vs. business writing and the elements of those genres, demonstrates 
staff awareness of and focus on their cognitive routines. By the end of cycle 1, 
most staff were more confident in their discussions of what constituted good 
writing in their disciplines, and by the end of their second cycle were discussing 
using similar teaching techniques in their other papers. They were also confident 
enough to suggest that they had been able to produce a paper that was more 
suited to the needs of their students than staff in the English Department (see 
staff comment in chapter six, p.162). 
Overall, staff comments indicated a considerable shift in confidence and in the 
placing of expertise. As we have seen, there was considerable doubt at the 
290 
beginning of the first cycle as to whether staff from the faculty were capable of 
teaching this paper and whether it would have been better to have left it in the 
hands of the more credible English Department. By the end of the third cycle, 
staff were confident enough to object to a sense of ownership being taken away 
from them through a more controlling approach by the paper coordinator. 
At the same time, we should emphasise the limitations to these statements of 
confidence and the difficulties through the cycles. Confidence and competence 
were not easily, instantly and spontaneously achieved. Members of the teaching 
team gained confidence through continuous group support, through the 
'resources available' (e.g., a writing consultant) and through a process that 
allowed the group to continually develop and refine their work. Furthermore, 
some members of the group did not develop confidence or skills at teaching 
writing. These teachers had several qualities in common: they tended not to have 
volunteered to teach the paper, most did not have an interest in writing, and some 
identified themselves as having poor writing skills. Such group members only 
taught for one cycle and did not involve themselves in the on-going development 
of the project. Another limitation was that members of the group, while 
competent in teaching forms and styles of writing, were not comfortable, at the 
end of the project, teaching some generic skills such as punctuation: these were 
taught by one group member and the writing consultant. 
This project, we may surmise, allowed teachers who had an active interest in 
writing, who volunteered to teach the paper, and who were not themselves 
identified as 'poor writers' to see themselves, at the end of three semesters 
(cycles) as competent teachers of writinglcommunication in their discipline(s), 
given appropriate resources, support and opportunities for on-going reflection. 
9.2.2 Project two 
Project two is more complex to analyse and more difficult to assess - partly 
because the data collection was inconsistent, partly because the project was 
broader, including a number of papers, not just one. 
291 
Ostensibly all staff from the department were involved in the project, and all 
were present at the initial planning stage; but by implementation only half the 
staff were participating. Furthermore, staff from other departments, who had not 
been part of the planning process but were co-teaching papers with members of 
the department, were involved. It is harder, therefore, to identify a consistent 
group whose development could be assessed. 
Individuals in the group who participated showed development in their 
understanding of the genres and styles they required of students through the 
cycles. A number of the staff who were involved in designing the marking 
schedule made the decision to shift the focus of the project from grammar to 
style, through an increased recognition and ability to articulate their real 
concerns; members of the group spontaneously decided to use writing to learn 
techniques in the second year of the project and to experiment with different 
assignment structures (such as in Horticultural Systems). 
Nevertheless, interviews at the end of the project cycles still indicated that staff 
were unsure with their use of WID techniques, with assessment of style, and with 
the use of double-assessment (i.e. with resubmitted assignments and how to 
grade and comment on them). All comments were tentative, with an indication 
that more work was needed to develop staff confidence in teaching writing in 
context and in using different techniques. 
A number of factors may have militated against this project. First, many of the 
staff were not confident writers themselves (Pemberton, 1995). Second, the 
group had problems with cohesion (Waldo, 1993), so much so that it appeared 
towards the end of the project that there was not a group working together, but a 
series of separate paper coordinators implementing the programme in different, 
individual ways. Third, the group had a pedagogical debate within the 
department (i.e. what was systems and how should it be taught?) which was far 
more significant to the group than how to integrate writing into the curriculum. 
Fourth, unlike projects one and three, where a paper was being developed from 
scratch, most of the papers which were a part of this project were already in 
existence; this meant that writing was being superimposed on them, rather than 
292 
being an integral part of the pedagogical structure (Watson, 1996). Fifth, the 
focus of this project was more dispersed than projects one and three, which 
concentrated on the development of single papers (Waldo, 1993). And, finally, 
this project was initiated not from the department but from myself, the writing 
consultant, which may suggest that a focus on writing was not such a primary 
concern for this group. 
Another factor that may have limited the success of the project was lack of staff 
support and leadership in relation to the writing project. There are definite 
indications that staff would have responded positively to more directive support 
from a consultant, rather than a collaborator, that they were looking for more 
guidance with the project than I provided. This may relate to the fact that I 
initiated the project and that staff lacked confidence as writers. 
So, while gains were made in this project in terms of staff development and 
increased use of WAC techniques, the confidence and commitment of staff was 
generally lower at the end of the final cycle than that of the other groups. 
9.2.3 Project three 
Significant features of project three were the continuous reflection through 
journal writing of all members of the team and the consistent development and 
use of writing to learn and writing in the discipline techniques throughout the 
project. 
At the end of the final cycle, staff were enthusiastic and confident in their use of 
WAC techniques which were fully integrated into their paper. Staff were able to 
debate the use and modification of these techniques and to model and actively 
teach writing features. They were also using these techniques in other papers 
they were developing and were teaching the techniques to other members of their 
department and to members of the wider university community. 
Factors which contributed to their success included the strong leadership and 
vision in the group, the commitment of members to the leader's vision, strong 
293 
group cohesion, and the fact that most members of this group were confident and 
experienced writers. Another critical factor that may have contributed to team 
members' confidence was careful management of student feedback, to ensure 
staff were not discouraged by unconstructive feedback. But a major factor 
identified by the group was the value of the journal as a reflective tool for 
professional development. 
9.2.4 Critical factors 
So, what are the indications for the wider application of a WAC programme, 
using the model developed for these projects, for developing academic staff as 
teachers of writing? 
First, it is clear that this model of WAC may be less successful where it is 
imposed on staff, where teaching writing is not perceived as being a primary 
professional concern, and where staff do not perceive themselves as confident 
writers. 
Second, it may be less successful when WAC techniques are added to existing 
papers, rather than integrated into new papers. As was illustrated in project two, 
it is hard to break established teaching patterns; it is much easier to develop a 
new pedagogy when designing a new paper. 
Factors that may indicate success are strong leadership and vision from a staff 
member within the discipline (although, interestingly, in project one, strong 
leadership worked against the project), group cohesion (although project one 
again illustrated that this can be built through a WAC project in certain 
circumstances, even where pedagogical differences are evident), and team 
members who are confident writers or who have a strong commitment to 
teaching writing. 
There is an indication that where staff are lacking in confidence as writers, they 
may benefit from a more directive and extensive form of support from a writing 
consultant than was available in this study. 
294 
9.3 Changes to student attitudes 
A further aim of the projects, as they developed, was the need to change 
students' attitudes to the placing of writing in the curriculum. It is difficult to 
differentiate between the projects in terms of assessing students' attitudes to 
writing, since students were often involved in more than one project: this section, 
therefore, looks at the development of students over time, rather than through 
individual projects. 
Student resistance to attending writing classes taught by English departments is 
well documented (see, for example, Dawson, 1996; Morgan, 1997), and was 
certainly confirmed by my experience prior to the development of these projects 
(see chapter one). In 1994, the first year of this study, writing taught by subject 
specialists rather than the English Department was introduced into the curriculum 
of the B.Appli.Sci. through the Communications in Applied Science paper 
(project one) and through the WAC programme in the Department of 
Agricultural and Horticultural Systems Management (project two) . 
Student resistance in the first cycle was very high in both projects. Students 
argued that they did not come to university to study English, that communication 
was irrelevant to many of their future careers. Their behaviour in, and attendance 
at, lectures was poor and their completion of some writing to learn tasks, such as 
the journal, was considered by staff to be substandard. Students were unlikely to 
attend voluntary workshops or one-to-one consultations at the Writing Centre, 
they objected strongly in many instances to a marking schedule which penalised 
for poor writing skills, and they resisted anything that focused totally on 
technical writing issues such as grammar or punctuation. 
There were a number of causes for this resistance. Firstly, as indicated in the case 
studies, the student group in this first year was abnormal, including students 
transferring from other degree programmes. Secondly, for some students this was 
the first time they had encountered writing in the curriculum: innovations take 
time to bed down and for students who suddenly encountered WAC in their 
second or third year papers (as in some cases in project two) this was an 
295 
unexpected change of emphasis which was considered unfair. Thirdly, we made 
mistakes in the first year: for example, the marking schedule for project two was 
too punitive; we did not realise that we needed to give the students far more 
direction if we wanted them to use journals effectively (it was not enough to say 
"just write!" in a culture which was unfamiliar with journals as a genre); we 
needed to link writing activities more closely to the professional genres students 
would experience outside the university in their professional lives. 
1995 was the second year of projects one and two and the first year of project 
three. Students in project one in 1995 showed far less resistance to the paper than 
in the previous year; such a shift in attitude might be attributed to a changed class 
composition (i.e. not so many transferring and senior students), a more 
established structure to the paper and more experienced tutors. We also 
introduced a new theme into the paper, i.e. the relevance of communication skills 
to applied science students. Part of this theme included inviting employers from 
the industry to talk during lecture time about what they were looking for in the 
students they employed. Students responded very positively, seeing these visiting 
speakers as highly credible advocates of the importance of communication skills. 
Students were, in this year, far less likely to argue that the paper was 'irrelevant'. 
More direction to the writing to learn activities such as the journal also saw more 
commitment and input in the journals. 
Student attitudes in project two showed the strongest shift in attitude. Students in 
project two in 1995 had already experienced a first year (in 1994) where writing 
skills were emphasised; project two focused on second year students in 1995 and 
these students had completed 19.155 the previous year and experienced a WAC 
initiative in 19.152, Agriculture and Society. This meant that not only were they 
familiar with writing in the curriculum, but they also likely to own resources 
such as the Style Manual, the 19.155 text (Newby, 1989), dictionaries, and 
19.155 resource material. In short, they were more prepared. 
A second factor that may have influenced student attitudes to the integration of 
writing into the curriculum in project two was that the approach taken was far 
more supportive and positive in the previous year: an attempt was made to 
296 
introduce modelling, writing to learn activities increased and the focus on 
resubmission was more positively structured than in the first year. 
Nevertheless, an on-going issue for students in project two in 1995 was the need 
for more support for their writing. Ideally, students needed access to a fully 
available writing consultant if they were to take full advantage of the writing 
emphasis in their papers; this was not an option in the environment of this 
project. 
Project three was in its first year in 1995. Students enrolled in this paper were 
taking 19.155 concurrently as well as 19.152, which, while no longer part of 
project two, still had the writing features established in 1994 embedded in it. 
.-/ 
They were, therefore, experiencing the inclusion of writing into the curriculum 
more broadly than in a single paper. 
Student resistance to integrating writing into the curriculum was never an issue in 
this project. Student comments on the journal and the microthemes, in terms of 
their contribution to learning, were generally positive. Even so, students made 
comments about the amount of work involved and staff inability to estimate how 
long it would take them to complete microtheme activities. They also provided 
valuable feedback on how to improve writing to learn activities. 
In the final (third) year of the programme, only project three continued as part of 
this study (the other projects were still operating but were no longer being 
assessed through this research). As in the previous year, student feedback was 
positive and constructive. 
At the end of the final cycle, students in a final focus group rated communication 
skills as the most important skill for a horticulturist. While it is not possible to 
suppose that all students would have prioritised communication as the most 
important skill, this does suggest that students in the class would have rated 
communication highly, as amongst the most important skills. Clearly, within 
three years a considerable attitude shift had occurred amongst students in the 
programme: from extensive resistance and rejection of writing in the curriculum 
-- -- --_._------- - -
297 
to acceptance of writing and communication as amongst the key skills required in 
their profession. 
The data collected in this study indicate that student attitudes to integrating 
writing into the curriculum can be positively influenced by an extensive WAC 
programme. However, it does seem clear that students need to have credible 
sources explaining to them the relevance of communication or communication 
strategies to their studies (for example, the use of employers in project one or the 
description of the journal in project three). On the whole, staff from the 
disciplines in this study seemed adept at choosing strategies and sources 
appropriate to the context. Also, writing has to be integrated into more than a 
single paper: as the participants in project two stressed, WAC needs to be 
integrated across, or in Holyoak's (1998) words, throughout the curriculum for 
students to value the relevance of communication to their discipline. A further 
factor that must also be stressed is student support. In project three (and to some 
extent in projects one and two) academic staff spent considerable time and effort 
in support of students when they were completing key assignments (in the final 
group assignments in project three, for example, each group had a staff advisor). 
Whether this is feasible in the long term, and whether it is appropriate for 
academic staff to spend so much of their time on student support, is questionable. 
Were a university-wide WAC programme to be developed, a writing centre or a 
learning centre, which offered individual or group writing support to all students, 
might be an essential resource. 
Another key factor that may have influenced student acceptance of writing in the 
curriculum was staff use of 'real' genres, i.e., professional genres which students 
would experience in their future professional lives. Staff became more confident, 
over the three years, in using professional genres as writing assignments, e.g., 
grower blueprints and reports to real farmers (who the students met and whose 
farms they investigated through field trips), and students responded very 
positively to these assignments. Writing in an applied science context is far more 
likely to be based on a practical experience (e.g., a visit to a farm, work in a 
greenhouse) than on text-based experience, and staff from the discipline were 
both professional users of the genres and familiar with the rhetorical moves 
298 
required by such assignments. Writing teachers from outside the discipline are 
far less likely to be aware of the different genres, or the bases of writing in the 
disciplines, or the required rhetorical features . We may suggest, therefore, that 
students responded more positively to this approach to writing in the disciplines 
(i.e., taught by subject-specific staff) because of both the credibility of these staff 
as writers and as professional practitioners, and the staff s ability to design 
assignments which students experienced as preparation for their professional 
lives. 
Another issue that needs to be highlighted is the importance of student feedback. 
While staff may receive overt feedback on issues which students feel very 
strongly about in the normal course of events, for student attitudes to be 
monitored and attended to, qualitative, in-depth student feedback is required. 
This feedback needs to be carefully managed by leaders and it needs to be 
provided in a non-threatening structure. This issue is discussed further in a later 
section of this chapter. 
Continuous assessment of student attitudes and responses, through journal entries 
and focus groups, allowed staff, through their own reflection process, to adapt 
their strategies and approaches to show students the value and relevance of 
writing in the applied science discipline(s). Staff demonstrated a shrewd ability 
to adjust the curriculum in a way which applied science students would respond 
to. Consequently, students' attitudes to writing in the curriculum showed a 
definite shift through the three-year period, from strong resistance to an 
acceptance of communication skills as amongst the most important for their 
professional development. 
9.4 Institutional issues 
We may conclude from these projects, then, that staff in the disciplines do have 
the ability to teach writing in their disciplines, given an appropriate level of 
support and resourcing. The task may be more difficult if the teachers are not 
themselves confident writers, do not see the teaching of writing as one of their 
299 
primary professional tasks, or have teaching writing imposed on them, i.e. where 
staff are 'volunteered' for the task. These studies also suggest that it may also be 
a sensible option to integrate writing into new papers, rather than to try to 'add' it 
to existing papers (this supports the finding of Watson, as described in chapter 
four, p.102). 
This study shows students' attitudes to writing to have improved through being 
taught writing by content specialists from applied science. Factors that 
influenced their attitudes were the use of credible sources who could demonstrate 
the relevance of writing in the discipline; the integration of writing into a wider 
curriculum, not into a single paper; availability of student support; and 
communication of student concerns to staff through a carefully managed 
feedback loop. 
It is a commonplace of action research that the project will throw light on the 
institutional setting of the project. This study has shown that the institution 
inhibited or supported the projects in a number of ways: three factors in 
particular were seen as critical: the use of standardised student feedback, 
management support, and a perceived teaching vs. research imbalance. 
9.4.1 Student feedback 
Student feedback was essential to the success of the projects in this study. It can 
be a valuable indicator that we are 'off-track' as teachers, that we are teaching 
inappropriate skills or that we are teaching skills in inappropriate ways. Student 
feedback about a generic writing paper was the catalyst for this study and was 
one of the ways in which the groups in this study reflected on their strategies for 
integrating writing into the curriculum. However, one of the things we learnt 
from this study was that feedback needs to be of a specific kind - it is not a virtue 
in itself - and it needs to be managed carefully if it is going to have a positive 
impact on the quality of the programme. 
At the time that the projects were first being introduced, the university 
introduced its own student evaluation structure (SET - student evaluation of 
300 
teaching). This used a standard set of teaching indicators, rated on a scale of 1 -
9, rating the staff member's performance in relation to other staff teaching 
individual students, with two open-ended questions, chosen by the staff member. 
Results of the test were computer generated and sent to the staff members and the 
staff member's HOD where they were integrated in the indicators for salary 
reVIew. 
These SET evaluations proved to be threatening to some staff involved in the 
project, and they provided unconstructive feedback which was damaging to staff 
confidence and, at times, misleading. For example, one staff member was heavily 
criticised in a SET evaluation for slow delivery of paper content. In-depth focus 
group interviews showed that the real concern was with depth: that the students 
would have liked the microthemes and in-class exercises to have been more 
demanding in relation to paper content. The SET evaluation was threatening 
because it merely criticised and, possibly worse, because that criticism was 
conveyed automatically to the HOD, thus influencing promotion opportunities. It 
was also misleading, because the very limited space available for open-ended 
student comments meant that comments did not focus on students' real concerns. 
The focus groups interviews, by contrast, provided accurate and detailed 
feedback in a constructive manner (i.e., suggesting solutions) and were less 
threatening since they were not automatically channelled to an HOD. From this 
feedback, staff members were able to make adjustments to their teaching style 
and to re-construct micro themes and in-class exercises to provide a greater 
intellectual challenge to the students. 
A further issue is that student feedback sometimes needs to be managed. In each 
of the projects, feedback was at times managed through indirect reporting or 
through general ising to the project team rather than to individuals. The paper 
coordinator of project three described the issue thus: 
The more I get into this project, the more I feel that staff management is critical to 
how successful each AR cycle becomes . .. .1 think that the feedback sequences of 
AR require a level of personnel management that I had not previously realised 
(5.6.95). 
301 
As Morgan (1997) emphasises, all evaluation, including feedback, must 
contribute to increased quality. Unless feedback is accurate, constructive and 
managed, there is a possibility of staff dropping out of WAC programmes or 
becoming disillusioned with developing new teaching initiatives which may be 
initially unfamiliar and/or threatening to students. 
If the university is serious about teaching quality it needs to provide an 
environment which supports innovation and staff learning and which encourages 
risk in pursuit of that learning. Risks are a necessary component of the journey 
towards quality teaching and learning. Undertaking an innovative WAC initiative 
is a move towards that quality: student feedback must be used positively to 
encourage staff development. 
9.4.2 Teaching VS. research 
Another issue that arose for some staff during the development of the WAC 
programmes was a perceived discrepancy between the value placed on research 
and the value placed on teaching in the culture of the university. The faculty in 
which the projects took place had a strong research culture and the department in 
which project two took place had, as a strong priority, a commitment to establish 
and promote itself through research. In the broader picture, the university as a 
whole has, historically, prioritised a research rather than a teaching culture, and 
this has become more of an issue in recent years as other tertiary institutions 
market themselves more aggressively as teaching institutions. While Massey 
University has high quality teaching as part of its strategic plan, and promotion is 
now influenced by teaching contributions, some staff perceived research still to 
be the prime promotion indicator: given this perception, some staff felt that time 
spent on a long-term teaching innovation was a luxury they could not, 
professionally, afford. Some staff perceived this to be a major issue at the end of 
the two-year cycle. One participant put it this way: 
[Teaching is seen] just as part of your job ... it's the minimum standard thing. You 
do that, that's it. .. versus a paper in an international journal it [innovative 
teaching] is not worth a lot (l0.1O.95). 
302 
This quotation explains an apparent contradiction in this section: how can staff 
be worried that a negative student evaluation will affect their chances of 
promotion while long-term commitment to teaching improvement is seen as 
damaging promotion opportunities? The answer lies in this quotation: if quality 
teaching is a 'minimum standard' then commitment to innovative teaching is 
merely seen as maintaining of the minimum standard; whereas a negative 
evaluation of teaching will suggest that teachers are falling below the minimum 
standard. The suggestion from this is that evaluations in teaching can only 
contribute negatively to promotional opportunities. 
If this perception is an accurate reflection of reality, then until the university 
places more emphasis on teaching, few staff are likely to put their energies into 
developing WAC programmes. As the case studies will have shown, a WAC 
project is a long-term commitment requiring time - time to retrain, to implement 
the programme and to reflect. It is possible to publish in this field, of course -
and this is occurring in relation to the projects in this study - but a long-term 
qualitative study is far more time consuming than the quantitative studies of 
some disciplines (including some of the disciplines in this thesis) and it may 
require retraining in methodology for staff working in primarily quantitative 
fields. Furthermore, staff would be publishing in areas outside their primary 
research field, which may not be evaluated as highly as work in their primary 
field. 
If this perception is inaccurate, it appears to be, nevertheless, reasonably 
widespread.58 In this case, the university needs to devise ways in which it can 
convey a changed message to staff about the value of innovative teaching and its 
contribution to promotion oppOltunities. 
58 Another member of the programme wrote in his journal "Why not just be a dead fish like 
everyone else and go with the flow? It's not the money - none of this will gain a promotion. The 
promotion system has no way of recognising the distance we have come" (6.9.95). 
9.4.3 Management support 
One of the key elements that affected the extent to which the writing 
programmes could be initiated and sustained was support from management. 
303 
In all three projects support was sought and was forthcoming from the senior 
management level. Both projects two and three had the support of the head of 
department, and in the case of project three this support was hard won. The paper 
coordinator's journal contains six months' documentary evidence of his attempts 
to convince his head of department and the department's management team of 
the advantages of altering the pedagogy of the Horticultural Technology paper. 
Support for project one was also achieved after several months of discussion and 
lobbying, with support finally coming from the Dean of the faculty and the 
Degree Management Committee. For these three projects to have failed would 
have been to have risked professional embarrassment at best, and, for project 
one, failure would have damaged the credibility of the entire degree programme. 
We may say that support from management is essential to the success of writing 
in the discipline projects because that support makes possible the initial 
development of such a project and ensures the continued effort of those in the 
project team. This support may also contain a risk element in that team members 
may feel a strong sense of the responsibilities placed on them by those in power. 
This sense of responsibility may be the other side of the driving force to sustain 
effort, especially if resources are channelled into the project. 
So far we have looked at the aims of the projects and the extent to which the 
changes we aimed for were achieved. The next part of this chapter considers the 
vehicle by which we achieved these changes and asks whether the use of action 
research was a critical factor in our achievements. 
9.5 Action research 
In chapter five, I identified a number of reasons for using action research as a 
method for developing a teaching team that could teach writing in the sciences: 
304 
• it took place in a real as opposed to controlled context 
• it offered a structured approach to collaboration within a team 
• it provided a rational, systematic process 
• it focused on the need for change or development 
• it had dual foci of action and research. 
The first part of this section considers these elements as a way of assessing 
whether action research 'worked' as an approach to integrating writing into the 
sciences. 
9.5.1 A structured process in a real context 
It is a truism of writing across the curriculum programmes that they take place in 
a real, uncontrolled context, often in less than ideal time frames with less than 
ideal resources. We may speculate that one of the reasons for the lack of material 
on evaluating WAC programmes is the context in which WAC programmes 
evolve - perhaps in a time frame that does not allow the time or the resources for 
evaluation. As Morgan (1997) puts it: 
WAC program directors are often caught up in the day-to-day operations that 
make any program tick, yet, to successfully assess a program, the director must be 
involved in that assessment and be able to look both broadly and longitudinally -
both of which require discipline and, more than anything, time and patience 
(1997, p.143). 
Maimon (1981), Fulwiler (1987), McLeod (1988) and others continually stress 
the importance of WAC emerging out of its own context, that there is no 'pattern 
fits all' , but that each WAC programme will be specifically adapted to its 
particular cultural, institutional and social context. Spear's comment that of 427 
WAC programmes identified by McLeod there would have been 427 different 
models is no exaggeration. 
This is even more the case when adapting a model from one culture to another. 
Universities in the United States can assume certain common structural features 
when reading about WAC programmes in order to construct their own. For 
example, they can assume an established writing programme. Most have a 
305 
Writing Centre. At worst they can assume it is possible to meet with people at 
key conferences such as the 4Cs (Conference on College Composition and 
Communication) to share concerns and discuss how to adapt a model from one 
institution to apply to their own. So while each WAC programme may be 
different, it is possible to assume certain common structural elements which can 
be adapted to produce the new programme. 
The WAC projects discussed in this study could not make these assumptions. 
Certain key structures which are common to universities in the United States 
were not present - there was no established writing programme, there were very 
few specialist composition teachers in the country, the university did not have a 
university-wide Writing Centre, there were no models for WAC in New Zealand. 
It was not possible to attend a North American conference and no new resources 
were available. 
Further practical constraints were part of our context. The timeframe for the 
development of each project, for example, was minimal. It was not possible in 
this time to read all the literature on WAC (most of which had to be acquired on 
overseas interloan for which we did not, initially, have funding). Therefore, 
reading had to be an on-going activity and initial decisions had to be made on the 
basis of limited reading. 
Action research provided a model which allowed for this 'real life' , non-ideal 
situation. Because of its structure of on-going reflection, the projects could be 
modified and discussed, both at the end of each cycle and on an on-going basis, 
and the changes built into the final case study. The literature could be fed, as it 
became available, into the groups, so that we were continually injecting new 
ideas and concepts into our work. As an example of this, we began with a 
primary interest in writing in the disciplines and how to teach subject-specific 
genres, but our reading, as it developed, led us to explore more writing to learn 
activities, so that project two in its second cycle and project three were far more 
influenced by a writing to learn pedagogy than project one and the first year of 
project two. Much of the literature on WAC discusses the value of on-going 
306 
reflection, but action research provided us with a model for reflection that 
ensured that it occurred on a regular basis. 
Action research also provided constraints and imposed activities to ensure the 
success of the projects. For example, although we were under intense time 
pressure at the start of each project, the action research planning structure meant 
that we had to conduct a reconnaissance and establish data collection procedures 
as well as identify goals if we were to be able to complete adequate reflection. 
Thus the problems outlined at the beginning of this section - where the WAC 
director is too busy to conduct evaluation - were addressed from the beginning 
since formative evaluation (i.e. reflection in these projects) was a priority. 
WAC never takes place in a controlled, ideal environment. Action research 
provided us with a model that allowed us to implement our programmes in a non­
ideal environment, while still allowing for rigorous analysis of and reflection on 
our work. 
9.5.2 Collaborative team 
Another concern in these projects was to produce collaborative, interdisciplinary 
teams, which could work together to teach writing skills to applied science 
students. In particular, we wanted to ensure that power was shared and that the 
skills of different members of the groups were valued equally. 
Chapter four outlined the difficulties inherent in such collaborative ventures, and 
the factors that could contribute to the success of interdisciplinary collaboration. 
These factors include skilled, flexible teachers (Kuriloff, 1992; Gardner and 
Sutherland, 1997), who have respect for one another and "whose personalities, 
teaching philosophy and teaching styles mesh", time for meetings and discussion 
(possibly including time release from other activities), resources (Gardner and 
Sutherland, 1997), clearly established goals (Kuriloff, 1992) and an established, 
but flexible and contingent process or protocols to ensure that the collaboration 
stays on target (Mullin et aI., 1998). We might add another factor here that the 
teams in this study saw as equally important for collaborative and 
interdisciplinary projects: if collaboration is to be effective, individuals in the 
group must have a sense of shared ownership of the project; responsibility and 
power need to be shared and different skills valued by the group. 
307 
We developed the projects using action research because it seemed to allow for 
such features. While some forms of action research do allow for a leader or an 
outsider researcher,S? we chose not to use this model in the interests of achieving 
true collaboration and hence a truly interdisciplinary approach. Rather, 
individuals came together as equally valuable and skilled members of the team 
(although individuals may have different skills). 
So did we achieve this? Did the use of action research ensure that the teams 
worked collaboratively? These are not easy questions. 
The use of action research provided a role for me. In both the projects I was 
invited to join (projects one and three) and the project which I initiated (project 
two) I was committed to the role of collaborative supporter. My stance was this: I 
was experienced as a teacher of writing and was most familiar with the literature 
on WAC but I had no familiarity with writing in the applied sciences. The other 
members of the group, for their part, had expertise as users of applied science 
genre(s) and were experienced teachers in the field but did not have experience 
as teachers of writing. I could, therefore, contribute to the discussion and the 
development of the projects, but would not act as a consultant, since a consultant 
is assumed to have more knowledge (as opposed to different knowledge) than the 
other members of the group; I would be a collaborator. 
On the most superficial level, it seemed that this position was most successful in 
projects one and three. In these projects all members of the teams were equally 
focused on the project and my role as collaborator appeared to be successful. In 
project two, it did not appear to be so successful. The project lacked impetus and 
direction, the group did not work as a team but as individuals and some data 
collection was not undertaken. Rarely during projects one or three did I 
59 see Bunning (1994) or Poskitt (1995). 
308 
experience difficulty with my role (my greatest difficulty was with the original 
paper coordinator of project one who tended to treat me as an administrative 
assistant), yet my journal for project two returns frequently to a discussion of my 
role and the problems associated with it. Members of the team at times suggested 
that I should take a more directive role within the group, but then objected when 
I did. At times it seemed that the team for this project should indeed have used a 
consultant to define the parameters of the project and then direct its operations. 
Yet, there were advantages to taking a non-directive role in project two. An 
illustration of this is the shift that was made between the first year and second 
year, from focusing on grammar to focusing on style. Although I had opposed 
the initial focus on grammar, the group decided to pursue this path and then 
discovered for themselves that grammar was not their primary concern. This 
discovery could not have been made unless the group controlled and owned the 
project. From this position - of recognising for themselves the priority of style 
over grammar - the group could make progress in designing its writing in the 
disciplines project and retaining ownership of that project. Nevertheless, this 
shift in focus was difficult for staff and students alike. 
Each of the project teams came together to achieve a specific purpose. Project 
one brought together a group of academics from different departments within the 
faculty with little previous history and some negative professional relationships. 
Despite an on-going struggle for dominance between two groups within the 
major group in the first two cycles, followed by difficulties in later cycles 
between experienced group members and new members, the group worked well 
together, especially in early cycles, to bring together different types of expertise. 
However, the group lost ownership when decisions were made by the group 
leader without discussion. 
The team for project three was the most consistently cohesive with its strong 
sense of purpose and focused leader; this team was most consistently 
collaborative. Nevertheless, the paper coordinator commented in his journal on 
the amount of team management required to ensure its smooth running. 
309 
The team for project two appeared to have initial cohesion but strong established 
departmental divisions and a major pedagogical and curriculum debate 
undermined its cohesion. 
Another issue to consider in looking at cohesion is whether the writing consultant 
and the science teachers established strong working relationships. Huot (1997), 
considering this topic, writes: 
I can't say that our experiences ... have solved the lack of trust between English 
faculty who staff and administer WAC programs and the faculty who teach in 
them .... Our experience with WAC assessment, however, seems to indicate that 
involving faculty across the disciplines as partners in reading, discussing and 
evaluating our common program has the potential to uncover and strengthen the 
bonds of all of us (p.77). 
This focus on trust is an interesting one, especially in the light of the literature 
which talks, about an advantage of interdisciplinary approaches being the 
establishment of bonds between English Department staff and subject specialists 
(see Kuriloff, 1992, for example). Did we achieve this? Did action research help 
us to achieve this? 
Clearly, we did not achieve it all the time. The early incident mentioned in 
chapter six (p.184) where someone asked me who I was reporting to showed that 
there was, at least initially, some reservation about my involvement. This was 
confirmed by the number of people in the interviews who discussed experiences 
with the English Department which the interviewees considered to be 
unsatisfactory (for example, I was shown a letter from an academic in the 
English Department to a staff member in applied science which the latter had 
considered to be very patronising). Whether these reservations were totally 
overcome is, of course, impossible for me to establish. 
Nevertheless, there are indications that some strong professional relationships 
were established between myself and some members of the groups I worked 
with. The staff member who asked who I was reporting to, for example, became 
a highly involved part of project two and pioneered some of the writing to learn 
techniques in the later cycle. One of the members of the project three team wrote 
310 
"today I have been worried that I may be opening myself to being viewed as 
arrogant and calculating, instead of confidently working to a plan, albeit 
continuously evolving. This is the risk it seems I have been prepared to take, no 
doubt because of the environment (read trust) I sense ... " (5.12.94). This trust has 
led to on-going professional ventures in teaching, research and publishing. 
Huot wrote (1997, p.77), "My experience has, however, illustrated for me my 
own biases and lapses of trust." This has certainly been the case for me. 
Throughout the three years of the research, I was constantly faced with my own 
attitudes, assumptions and arrogances - all of which the members of the team 
helped me face and, I hope, overcome. Our differences in perception and 
understanding often amused and exasperated us. I hope that at the end of this I 
have a better understanding of the scope of the university as well as a better 
understanding of how students in the disciplines write differently, that I have 
better skills as a teacher and a broader perspective of how different kinds of 
students learn. 
So can we attribute any of this increased understanding and trust to the use of 
action research? A number of issues are relevant here. Firstly, action research 
provided us with a structure for group research - and group research that 
balanced power between all members of the group. This equalising of power 
between members of the group meant that we had to take an interdisciplinary 
approach. The specialist staff could not completely control events (such as in 
Watson 's 1996 experience, or the initial experiences of Mullin et aI., 1998). 
Neither could I, as the writing teacher, dominate the approach being taken. 
Clearly, as the case studies show, this did not always work perfectly, but the 
times at which this balance was maintained were the times when trust remained 
highest and staff experienced the projects most positively. Second, the literature 
on action research (see Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988; 
Winter, 1989) sensitised us to the issue of being aware of our own values and 
assumptions, which meant that these things were likely to be discussed and 
explored in group meetings. Thirdly, the action research process provided us 
with a structure for our teaching and our interaction, including the process of 
3Il 
continuous reflection and managed feedback, which again meant that problems 
were likely to be overtly discussed. 
Action research, then, may have been an effective way of establishing 
collaboration between interdisciplinary teams and of developing a deeper level of 
trust between 'English teachers' and teachers in applied science, because of the 
equalising of power between group members, the provision of a process of 
reflection, and the stress in the action research literature on values and 
assumptions. 
9.5.3 A change process which is conducted as research 
Curriculum change is often unmonitored - it is something teachers just do. 
However, working as we did in an institution that strongly values research, 
conducting this curriculum change as research made professional sense. Papers 
have been published on each of these projects (Emerson, 1996; MacKay et aI., 
1996; Hampton, 1996) and, following the completion of this study, further 
publishing is expected. Thus, one of our priorities in these projects - to combine 
curriculum development with research - has been achieved through the action 
research structure. 
9.5.4 Action research: a conceptual model 
One interesting outcome of using action research in an applied science context, 
which has not been discussed, was the need for a connection between words and 
visual representation when working with people who have a strong visual 
orientation. Many of the members of my groups were strongly visual. As we 
have seen, in project three the staff started to experiment with mindmaps and 
other visual approaches to generating ideas, and those members of project two 
who worked in systems were most comfortable with diagrammatic 
representations of action, often using diagrams in their teaching and requiring 
students to provide visual representations. Some group members were concerned 
that I could not provide them with a diagram of action research that included the 
connection between the process and the contexts in which the process took place. 
312 
There were many representations of the action research cycle, but none that I 
could find of the ways in which the change process interacted with the varying 
environments, including the research environment. This was not of concern to 
me, being a strongly word-focused person. However, it is important when 
working with people who will be using action research to use a teaching 
approach which will suit their learning needs . Therefore, as a response to their 
concern, I designed a visual representation of a contextually based action 
research process (Fig. 9.1). 
I 
I 
/ 
I 
/ 
/ Scientific knowledge 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
\ 
I \ 
,Lo - - - - - =-=-=--~ -=--_~ _ =-=- _ +- ___ 
- - I ____ , _____ 
--- --r Aa1 ! ~~ ',,', ~ 
" ;~mediate practical /:, (~'\ ~ 'OJ \ '\1 '\ 
I Reflect Act Social context \ 
\ context \ ~ Ref~ )t \~ ___ ) _--f/ ~ / 
, ___ Cl>seM """'" "" , ____ 
... - ...... - \- ......... ... - -=-=-=- ... ~---=.--=-=..:. -~ - ~ --
\ I 
\ 
\ 
, 
, 
, 
, 
-------
Fig. 9.1 Contextual action research diagram 
This figure performs an important function in that it may provide a visual 
representation of the process, as described in the literature, for those who learn 
through visual images. Note that the lines denoting each of the contexts are 
dashed, to indicate the dialectical relationship between those contexts. Note also 
that I have provided multiple horizontal contexts rather than a single context to 
indicate the variety of contexts which need to be considered (e.g., social, 
practical, political, cultural). This idea of multiple contexts is not expanded on in 
the present study but will be the subject of further research. 
313 
9.6 The broader implications 
The literature on WAC tends to take two forms: either a specific focus on a 
micro project (for example, Watson, 1996; Mullin et aI., 1998) or a general 
discussion of how to more broadly integrate writing into the structure of the 
university, i.e., a focus on the macro issues (see McLeod, 1988; Walvoord, 1992; 
Baldauf, 1997; Parker, 1997). This section moves from the micro project to the 
macro issues by summarising the indicators for success of a WAC programme, 
taught by subject specialists and supported by writing teachers, as indicated in 
the previous sections and then looking at the broader question of whether such a 
WAC programme could or should be developed across the university and how 
such a development could be implemented. 
Figure 9.2 shows the indicators from the projects, supported by the literature, that 
suggest a successful uptake of WAC programmes taught by subject specialists. 
These are indicators of success for specific programmes such as those discussed 
in this study. The literature supports these findings. For example, Kuriloff (1992) 
supports the need for an established process for collaboration between team 
members, established goals for the project, and trust between group members. 
Mullin et al. (1998) also suggest that consensual action and flexible and 
contingent process, as well as an ability to listen to one another, are essential 
factors. 
At the same time, the factors affecting successful uptake of WAC across a 
curriculum need to operate more broadly: i.e., the institution needs to provide a 
celiain context in which WAC might thrive across the university. For the features 
of this context, we need to look beyond the studies discussed in this thesis to 
date. If the university wanted to establish writing across the whole curriculum, 
what would it need to provide? 
314 
Institution Team 
• Management support for the WAC • Leadership within the group should be 
programme is essential balanced by a sense of equal power and 
• Positive structures for managing ownership 
student feedback are needed • Group support and cohesion is needed 
• Institution must demonstrably value • Participants should be confident writers 
and support innovative teaching • Participants should have a professional 
• Writing should be integrated in the interest in teaching writing 
broader curriculum • Writing should be integrated into new papers 
• Student support must be provided • Writing consultant/collaborator or resources 
through a university-wide writing are needed, with type of support determined 
centre or learning centre by staff confidence 
• Staff need to have the ability and confidence 
to reflect on their performance 
• Staff need to be able to provide a supportive, 
safe environment in which students can 
discuss their own and others' writing 
• Staff should consider using professional 
journals as a way of modelling appropriate 
writing practices and as a form of reflective 
practice 
Students Process 
• Students need to recognise the • Process must be flexible and contingent 
relevance of writing to professional • Consensual action and established goals are 
goals needed 
• Student should actively use any • Leadership is needed within the group 
support provided by the university • Group support and cohesion needs to be 
• Students should participate in developed 
opportunities to provide feedback to • Continuous reflection is needed which brings 
teaching staff feedback from all participants and relevant 
• Students should make their research into the process 
vocational priorities clear to staff so 
• Action research should be used since it is an 
that writing can be professionally effective method of ensuring the process 
directed (i .e. they can then be given features outlined above are in place 
tasks that relate to their professional 
development) 
• Students need to engage in 
developmental activities such as 
journal writing 
• Students should be prepared to 
discuss their own and others' writing 
in a safe and supportive classroom 
environment 
Fig. 9.2 University-based WAC matrix (model 1) 
Fauske (1993), focusing on collaborative projects, identifies four institutional 
requirements. The institution needs to: 
• legitimise collaboration through philosophical and financial support 
• view collaborative research as legitimate 
• provide structures that facilitate collaboration 
• institutionalise collaboration so that it is 'woven into the fabric' (Siebert, 
1996) of the institution 
315 
Another factor that is implicit in much WAC literature is institutional leadership 
from either an English Department (Smith, 1988), a writing or learning centre 
(Waldo, 1993), or an interdisciplinary committee (Walvoord, 1992). Gardner and 
Sutherland (1997) suggest that the institution must provide time, specifically 
time-release and funding, and that it should choose talented and experienced staff 
whose teaching styles mesh together to undertake such a project. 
Recent Australian studies have focused on the need for universities to have an 
institution-wide policy on student literacy and communication. For such a policy 
to be implemented, they emphasise the following features: 
• the policy needs to be 'top-down', inasmuch as there has to be executive 
level support and structures which ensure that the ownership of the 
programme is university-wide rather than ad hoc (Baldauf, 1997, Parker, 
1997; Catterall and Martins, 1997). 
• an 'advocate' at the executive level is important (at Curtin University the 
advocate had a strong research profile in the field, which gave added 
credibility to his support). 
• expert advice (Baldauf, 1997) or "strategic initiatives" (Parker, 1997) need to 
be already in place, on which to hang the implementation of the policy. These 
could include top-level strategies such as university-wide teaching policies or 
practical facilities such as the existence of a learning and language unit. 
• 'bottom-up' support from academic staff and learning and language unit staff 
is needed to make the policy operational. 
• feedback from employers is required at all levels to reinforce the importance 
of literacy issues. 
316 
• finally, Parker (1997) stresses the importance of developing the policy in a 
context-specific manner, building on existing institutional strengths, through 
"extensive consultation and negotiation, involving the reconciliation of at 
times conflicting perspectives and agendas" (p 31). 
If we include these factors in our matrix of success indicators, we find it much 
expanded (Fig. 9.3). 
So, looking at this expanded matrix, what should the university do if it wishes to 
extend WAC across the curriculum? 
First of all, the university as a whole needs to establish WAC within its policy 
statements. It needs to acknowledge the messages from employers and graduates 
that we are failing to teach our students to write adequately and put an 
appropriate policy in place. This study has suggested that a writing across the 
curriculum policy is more effective in changing curriculum than simply 
establishing a Writing Centre or a generic writing paper for all students, because 
a WAC programme is more likely to change student and staff attitudes to 
writing; it is also more likely to ensure that students learn skills that are relevant 
to their future careers. Alongside a policy statement, the institution needs to 
establish and support a programme with a clear leadership responsibility. In other 
words, it will not be enough for, say, an English Department to voluntarily take 
on this role without a mandate from the executive, because resources are required 
and an English Department is unlikely to be able to provide this kind of 
programme and leadership using existing resources. As well as this, the 
university needs to provide funding to ensure adequate administration and time 
release for those involved. As we have seen, staff who undertake a WAC 
317 
Institution Team 
• Executive level policy on literacy is • Leadership within the group should be 
needed balanced by a sense of equal power and 
• Management support for the WAC ownership 
programme is essential • Group support and cohesion is needed 
• Positive structures for eliciting and • Participants should be confident writers 
managing student feedback are needed • Participants should have a professional 
• Institution must demonstrably value and interest in teaching writing 
support innovative teaching • Writing is more effectively integrated 
• Writing should be integrated in the into new papers 
broader curriculum • Writing consultant/collaborator or 
• A university-wide writing or learning resources are needed, with type of 
centre is needed support determined by staff confidence 
• Institutional structures that facilitate • Staff need to have the ability and 
collaboration and communication are confidence to reflect on their 
needed performance 
• Institutional leadership must be • Talented and experienced teachers with 
established and supported centrally meshing teaching styles should be used 
• Financial support must be made 
available to fund time release for staff 
and administration of the programmes 
• An 'advocate' at the executive level 
may be important 
• Feedback from employers is required at 
all levels to reinforce the importance of 
literacy issues 
• Policy and programme should be 
institution-specific, based on extensive 
negotiation and use of existing support 
structures 
Students Process 
• Students need to recognise the relevance • Process must be flexible and contingent 
of writing to professional goals • Consensual action and established goals 
• Student should actively use any support are needed 
provided by the university • Leadership is needed within the group 
• Students should participate in • Group support and cohesion needs to be 
opportunities to provide feedback to developed 
teaching staff • Continuous reflection is needed which 
• Students should make their vocational brings feedback from all participants 
priorities clear to staff so that writing and relevant research into the process 
can be professionally directed (i.e. they • Teams should consider using action 
can then be given tasks that relate to research as an effective method of 
their professional development) ensuring the process features outlined 
• Students need to engage in above are in place 
developmental activities such as journal • Positive structures for managing student 
writing feedback are needed 
• Students should be prepared to discuss • Feedback from employers concerning 
their own and others' writing in a safe literacy requirements should be directly 
and supportive classroom environment channelled to students 
Fig. 9.3 University-based WAC matrix (model 2) 
318 
programme place themselves under considerable stress when they take on such 
retraining on top of their existing commitments. 
To return to the leadership issue, we should emphasise here that the appropriate 
place for leadership of WAC may be the English Department - or a writing or 
learning centre, or a multidisciplinary writing team. However, if the English 
Department or a writing centre staffed by English majors takes on this leadership 
role, it must take care not to fall into the traps outlined on p.90 (chapter four) of 
imposing a single appropriate writing style. Instead, it needs to work with faculty 
staff in a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach as outlined in this study. 
Secondly, the university needs to clarify the importance it places on teaching and 
teaching innovation and quality, and it needs to clearly communicate and 
demonstrate its position on this to all academic staff. Staff are not convinced by 
words in strategic plans: they need demonstrable evidence that teaching has 
improved their promotional opportunities and will continue to do so. 
Thirdly, the institution needs to consider the value it places on collaborative and 
interdisciplinary teaching and research. At present, the sciences and arts are very 
much separated, and while collaboration may take place within the sciences or 
within the arts, it is less likely to occur across the campus. If the university is to 
support WAC it needs to put in place structures that allow for communication 
and collaboration across the disciplines. It needs to promote opportunities for 
collaborative research and ensure that a collaborative project is valued as highly 
as a project in an academic's specified discipline. In terms of teaching and 
research portfolios, this makes sense, as a collaborative project allows for more 
publications in a wider variety of literature. 
Fourthly, the university needs to take a broad and varied approach to evaluating 
teaching. A single, quantitative approach to eliciting student feedback is 
potentially damaging to innovative teaching. Instead, structures need to be put in 
place to triangulate evaluation processes and qualitative methods such as focus 
groups need to be used as well as, or instead of, simple quantitative methods. 
319 
Finally, the university needs to establish student support structures, such as a 
writing centre or learning centre. Such a facility needs to provide support to all 
students and might also provide resourcing for WAC groups. It could, for 
example, provide writing consultants to support the WAC groups in the way 
modelled in this study. 
Whatever body in the university takes the leadership and administrative role for a 
WAC initiative needs to take into the account the findings from this study. For 
example, not all academic staff will be suited to involvement in such a 
programme; instead, teachers with highly evaluated teaching skills should be 
involved and these skills include being competent writers and having the ability 
to reflect on their own performance. Staff should choose to be involved, rather 
than being compelled or volunteered. Another indicator from this study is that 
group support may be essential to the long-term success of such a programme 
and in this respect this study has shown a difference with overseas studies where 
many WAC initiatives are implemented by individual academics working in 
conjunction with support staff. Both projects one and three in this study suggest 
that the impact of the WAC is sustained and satisfying for those involved when 
groups of academics work together towards specified goals, and project two 
suggests that a WAC project is harder to sustain when individuals work in 
isolation from one another. A further finding of this study is that ownership of a 
WAC programme is important, which suggests that administrators of a WAC 
programme need to ensure that each group is led from within rather than from 
outside. Support should be provided, at a level suitable for each group, but it 
should remain support rather than direction. 
Finally, this study has suggested that action research is likely to produce a 
method of action highly suited to the needs of developing a WAC programme. 
Action research has provided many necessary features - a flexible process with 
consensual and established goals, group support, leadership and ownership of the 
project, continuous reflection and management of student and staff feedback, and 
linking of curriculum development with research opportunities. It is by no means 
the only possible method of developing a WAC programme, but it is one that this 
study suggests is highly effective in a New Zealand context. 
320 
9.7 Limitations and future directions 
Looking back at this study, in the light of the original research questions, it 
seems that much has been achieved through the development of our writing 
programmes. On the other hand, the study has highlighted much more that we 
could have done and should do, to build on our achievements. This section looks 
briefly at the limitations of the study and points to future directions for research. 
First, with the exception of project three, this study was set up under severe time 
constraints by a group of people who had no experience in teaching a writing 
across the curriculum programme and only one of whom had any familiarity (and 
even then, only limited familiarity) with the literature in the field. While this was 
accepted as part of the context of the projects - we had to deal with the reality of 
the situation - it would be interesting to set up a similar programme, armed with 
some experience and having read widely from the literature on the topic. It may 
be that many of the mistakes made in the projects (not understanding how to 
present the journal for example, or using an excessively punitive marking 
schedule) might have been avoided. 
Second, no attempt was made during this study to quantitatively measure shifts 
in student or staff attitudes to the importance of writing or communication. While 
we do have qualitative material from the focus groups, interviews and journals, 
we cannot point to measured shifts. Neither did we attempt to measure in 
anything but an impressionistic way the changes in the students ' writing skills. 
Thus, we have only the perceptions of staff to indicate improvements or 
otherwise. Again, this limitation was largely a matter of time: we did not have 
the time to investigate possible methods. Were future studies to be undertaken, 
based on the model used here, it would be useful to include quantitative measures 
of attitude and of writing skills to compare with the qualitative data. 
Third, no attempt was made in this study to problematise, or consider the 
political or cultural implication of, literacy. Again we come back to the realities 
and contextual constraints of our practical programme: we did not have the time 
to do this. Nevertheless, there would be value in looking at this study from a 
more political or cultural perspective, to consider the particular problems of 
specific groups within our classes (such as ESOL students, Maori students or 
mature age students). 
321 
Fourth, this was not a comparative study. No attempt was made to compare the 
use of an integrative study using action research with, for example, a study which 
ran writing or communication workshops parallel to a content course, or to 
compare how students fared under a course taught through an English 
department compared with one taught by subject specialists. While there would 
be difficulties with such an approach - practical difficulties such as how to 
ensure you had groups with equal profiles or how to measure the results, and 
ethical problems such as ensuring that one group were not being disadvantaged -
it might still yield interesting results if these problems could be overcome. 
Fifth, one of the staff in project two had the idea that we should design different 
communication objectives for each year of study so that students' skills were 
gradually developed. Staff in this project were also enthusiastic to develop the 
programme over the whole faculty, not just in their department. At one stage it 
seemed possible that the Dean would have approved such a move. However, this 
idea was not practicable, as we did not have the resources to handle such a huge 
development. Nevertheless, extending the present study in this way would be an 
exciting prospect, were resources to be made available. 
Finally, this study has arrived at several generalisable statements which could be 
applied to a university-wide WAC initiative. Further research is required to test 
these statements in the real context of developing such an initiative. The extent to 
which those statements are context-specific or generally applicable in a New 
Zealand context or beyond has yet to be established. 
9.8 Conclusions 
This study began with three personal stories. I find myself, as I finish writing 
this, thinking about the personal stories behind this study. There were times when 
322 
we were working on this project when I thought I would end up writing a comic 
novel instead of a thesis and other times when I wondered how I would turn my 
hand to writing it as a Greek tragedy - or a comedy of errors. 
When I began this doctoral study, one of my main aims was to work on a project 
that would have a practical impact on some aspect of my work. I had seen too 
many doctorates on topics which would never affect anything: I knew that if I 
was to undertake such a sustained project with the overwhelming obstacles of 
fulfilling a full time job and family commitments, then I wanted to be able to 
look back and see where I had been. 
One of the participants in this study finished his PhD during our project. He 
ended his thesis with a quotation from T. S. Eliot from "Little Gidding": 
And the end of all our exploring 
Will be to arrive where we started 
And know the place for the first time. 
One of our aims in this study was not to arrive where we started, armed only with 
increased knowledge and understanding, but to achieve change. This we did - we 
achieved our aim of changing the curriculum. But we achieved far more than this 
- we also achieved changes in our students' attitudes to writing and 
communication and in our own abilities as teachers. Perhaps most satisfying of 
all, for me at least, was the change in our understandings of one another. At times 
this was not easy. Standing in the middle of a windswept paddock - as deemed 
necessary by one of the paper coordinators I worked with - looking with 
trepidation at the number of ditches and electric fences to climb down and 
through on our way to look at a bunch of (to me) very uninteresting cows, I knew 
I was in the wrong place. Books of poetry were so much simpler to access. 
Arguing, endlessly it seemed, with another paper coordinator about the nature of 
journal writing, I pondered what insanity had led me, a bookish introvert, to work 
with groups of academics from another planet. Yet out of it all I gained a new 
perspective on the university, a deep interest in all things - well, most things­
agricultural, and abiding friendships and professional relationships. I end with a 
quotation from someone who, like me, discovered that one of the best, and 
323 
certainly the most serendipitous, results of WAC can be the delight of finding 
new perspectives and new trust. Huot (in Yancey and Huot, 1997) discusses an 
incident between a writing teacher and a non-English department colleague (from 
the engineering department) working together in a WAC context. In this story, he 
has just expressed surprise at the engineering colleague writing something very 
sensitive and poetic about his concern for his students. This is what happens: 
[The engineering teacher] fixed me with his eye and went on to say that we across 
the disciplines don't trust each other. I think he was right. Trust is a word that is 
usually absent in discussions about WAC and assessment. This is unfortunate. I 
can't say that our experiences ... have solved the lack of trust between English 
faculty who staff and administer WAC programs and the faculty who teach in 
them. My experience has, however, illustrated for me my own biases and lapses of 
trust. I am more aware that we college instructors, like our students, walk a 
common ground. Unfortunately, this common ground is often obscured by 
disciplinary boundaries and professional loyalty. Our experience with WAC 
assessment, however, seems to indicate that involving faculty across the 
disciplines as partners in reading, discussing and evaluating our common program 
has the potential to uncover and strengthen the bonds of all of us who strive to 
help students "discover what they love" (p.77). 
WAC as it has been conducted in this study - as a collaborative, interdisciplinary 
programme - is not a magic solution for the ills of student writing. It will not 
tum all our students into instantly skilled, motivated writers; it will not tum all 
academics into teachers of writing without effort or stress on their part. 
Nevertheless, for those academic staff who are prepared for the rigours of the 
process, it offers many opportunities: to change a curriculum, to change our 
perceptions of ourselves and our skills as teachers, to change our students' 
approaches to writing, to dialogue with people 'on the wrong side of the 
campus', to discover and delight in our differences, and to engage in fruitful 
work together. 
324 
Bibliography 
Acheson, C. (1993). Remedial teaching at the University of Canterbury. 
Unpublished report. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of 
Canterbury. 
325 
Adams, K. H. (1993). A history of professional writing instruction in American 
colleges: Years of acceptance, growth, and doubt. Dallas: SMU Press. 
Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational 
Action Research, 1, 1, 7-24. 
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: 
An introduction to the methods of action research. London: Routledge. 
Anderson, F. M., Mathews, P. N. P., & Hughes, A. H. (1989). 1988 review of the 
B. Agr. degree at Massey University. Palmerston North, New Zealand: 
Massey University. 
Anderson, R. D. (1991). Building a smarter agriculture: a New Zealand 
perspective. The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 1991 
National Conference. Canberra, Australia. 
Anderson, R. D. (1995). Science, technology and education: the challenge to 
education. Agricultural Science, 8, 37-40. 
Anderson, W. A., & Harrison, B. (1985). Lecture break. Journal of Agronomic 
Education, 14, 2, 105-108. 
326 
Andrews, R. J. (1995). A survey of employer perceptions of graduates of the 
University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago. 
Argyris, c., Putman R., & Smith, D. M. L. (1985). Action science: Concepts, 
methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey­
Bass. 
Auckland University (1995). English language and entrance: Report of a sub­
committee of Deans Committee. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland 
University. 
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the 
quality of scholarship and teaching. Washington DC: The George 
Washington University. 
Australian Association of Graduate Employers. (1993). National survey of 
graduate employers. Sydney, Australia: Direct Connection Marketing 
Consultants. 
Baldauf, R. Jr. (1997). Tertiary language, literacy and communication policies: 
Needs and practice. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 
first national conference on tertiary literacy: Research and practice, 
vo!.l (pp.1-19). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Ballard, B. (1994). The integrative role of the study advisor. In K. Channock 
(Ed.), Integrating the teaching of academic discourse into courses in the 
disciplines: Proceedings of the Conference held at La Trobe University 
(pp.16-25). Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University. 
Bartunek, J., & Louis, M. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Newbury 
Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the 
experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 
327 
Bazennan, c., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across 
the curriculum. [NP]: Hennagoras Press. 
Bean, J. c., Drenk, D., & Lee, F. D. (1982). Microtheme strategies for 
developing cognitive skills. In C. W. Griffin (Ed.), New Directions for 
teaching and learning: Teaching writing in all disciplines, no.l2 San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Bean, J. c., & Ramage, J. D. (1986). Form and surprise in composition: Writing 
and thinking across the curriculum. New York: Macmillan. 
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: 
Butterworth Heineman. 
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth Heineman. 
Bennett, R., & Oliver, J. (1988). How to get the best from action research: A 
guidebook. Bradford: MCB University Press. 
Berghage, R. D., & Lownds, N. K (1991). Using writing in horticultural 
education. HortTechnology, Oct /Dec, 124-126. 
Bergmann, L. S. (1994). Academic discourse and academic service: Composition 
vs. WAC in the university. 45th Annual Meeting of the Conference on 
College Composition and Communication, Nashville. 
Berk, M., & Reid, I. (1996). A comparison of two integrated and collaborative 
approaches to the support of students' communication skills in technical 
subjects. In R. Pose (Ed.), Australian Communication Conference, 
(pp.19-30). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. 
Berlin, J. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 
477-494. 
328 
Bizzell, P. (1982). College composition: Initiation into the discourse community. 
Curriculum Inquiry, 12, 191-207. 
Blair, C. P. (1988). Only one of the voices: Dialogic writing across the 
curriculum. College English, 50, 383-389. 
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.).(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The 
classification of educational goals. Handbook 1. New York: David 
McKay. 
Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (1992). University students' writing: Types of errors 
and comparisons across disciplines. HERDS A, 11, 2, 119-134. 
Braine, G. (1990). Writing across the curriculum: A case study offaculty 
practices at a research university. Report to the University of Texas at 
Austin, ED 324680. 
Brettell, C. B. (Ed.). (1993). When they read what we write: The politics of 
ethnography. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. 
Britton, J. (1970) Language and learning. London: Penguin. 
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The 
development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan. 
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind". 
College English, 46, 635-652. 
Brumback, T. B. Jr., Squires, M., & Parrish, D. J. (1985). Learning to write in 
agronomy. Journal of Agronomic Education, 14, 2,31-34. 
Bubar, J. S., Sanger, P. M., & Prange, R. K. (1986). Independent research 
projects and technical writing for freshmen. Journal of Agronomic 
Education, 15, 2, 115-117. 
329 
Buckley, R. (1993). Putting the three Rs first to overcome student illiteracy. 
Campus Review, Letters to the editor, November 4-10, p.8. 
Bunning, C. (1994). Learningfrom experience: Principles and practice in action 
research (adaptedfrom the book by R. Winter). Unpublished study notes. 
Bunning, C. (1994). Action research: An emerging paradigm. The Tertiary 
Education Institute Occasional Papers Series - no.4. Brisbane, 
Queensland: The Tertiary Education Institute, The University of 
Queensland. 
Burns, C. (1989) Individual interviews. In Robson, S., & Foster, A. (Eds.) 
(1989), Qualitative research in action. London: Edward Arnold. 
Carino, P. (1995). Early writing centers: Towards a history. The Writing Center 
Journal, 15, 2, 103-115. 
Carr, M. D. (19.12.95). Unpublished letter to ProfessorW. Moran, Dean of Arts, 
Auckland University. 
Carr, W. (1989). Action research: Ten years on. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 
21, 1,85-90. 
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Lewes, East Sussex: The 
Falmer Press. 
Carson, J. G., Chase, N. D., & Gibson, S. U. (1993). A model for faculty 
collaboration: Focus on academic literacy. Georgia: Center for the Study 
of Adult Literacy, Georgia State University. 
Carter, K., & Delamont, S. (1996). Qualitative research: The emotional 
dimension. Hants, England: Avebury. 
330 
Carter, M. (1990). The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social 
dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41, 65-
86. 
Catterall, J., & Martins, R. (1997). Peaks and pitfalls of a tertiary communication 
policy. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the first national 
conference on tertiary literacy: Research and practice, vol.1 (pp.126-
134). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Channock, K. (Ed.). (1994). Integrating the teaching of academic discourse into 
courses in the disciplines: Proceedings of the Conference held at La 
Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University. 
Chapman, D.W. (1997). WAC and the first year writing course: Selling ourselves 
short. 48th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition 
and Communication, Phoenix, AZ. 
Clanchy, J. (1985). Improving student writing. HERDSA, 7, 3,3-4. 
Cobia, D. W. (1986). Incorporating writing in agricultural courses. NACTA 
Journal, June, 22-25. 
Codd, J., McAlpine, D., Korndoffer, W., McPherson, J., & Bassett, G. (1989). 
NECE project: National evaluation of craft education. Palmerston North, 
New Zealand: Department of Education, Massey University. 
Condren, A. (1993). Students point finger at other bad spellers. Sunday Times, 
June 6, 1993. 
Cootes, S. (1994). Issues in collaboration between academic skills teachers and 
subject teachers: Two approaches to integrating academic skills teaching 
with subject tutorials. In K. Channock (Ed.), Integrating the teaching of 
academic discourse into courses in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 
Conference held at La Trobe University (pp.133-144). Melbourne, 
Australia: La Trobe University. 
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: 
Teachers College, Columbia University. 
Corey, S. M. (1954). Action research in education. Journal of Educational 
Research, 47, 375-380. 
331 
Corman, B. R. (1957). Action research: A teaching or a research method? Review 
of Educational Research, 27, 5, 544-546. 
Cox, B. G., & Pollock, R. W. (1997). New Zealand graduates 1990: Follow-up 
survey, 1991 and 1996. Dunedin, New Zealand: New Zealand Vice­
Chancellors' Committee and Ministry of Research, Science and 
Technology. 
Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New 
arrangements for learning. American Council on Education: Oryx Press. 
Dawson, J. (1996). Liberating Communication Skills from 'English Studies'. In 
R. (Ed.), Australian Communication Conference 1996, Vol. 2 (pp.169-
177). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. 
Devereux, P. , Clifford, A., & Midgley, M. (Eds.). (1992). The New Zealand style 
book: For New Zealand writers, editors, journalists, and students (Rev. 
Ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: G. P. Publications. 
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright 
Publishing Co. 
Dinitz, S., & Howe, D. (1989). Writing centers and writing-across-the­
curriculum: An evolving partnership. The Writing Center Journal, 10, 1, 
45-51. 
332 
Dobler, J. M. (1988). Wading across the curriculum: A look at writing in 
hydrobiology. ED 296 311. 
Dobie, A. B. (1998). Working together: WAC, the departments, and the writing 
center. 49th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition 
and Communication, Chicago, lllinois. 
Drury, H., & Taylor, C. (1996). The integration of content and communication 
skills: Changing the teaching philosophy in first year science. In R. Pose 
(Ed.), Australian Communication conference (pp.137-143). Melbourne, 
Australia: Monash University. 
Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action research: Some general concerns and 
specific quibbles. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: 
Qualitative methods. London & Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. 
Elbow, P. (1991). Reflections on academic discourse: How it relates to freshmen 
and colleagues. College English, 53, 2, 135-155. 
Elliott, J. (1978). What is action research in schools? Journal of Curriculum 
Studies, 10, 4,355-357. 
Elliott, J., & Whitehead, D. (1980). The theory and practice of educational 
action research. Cambridge: Institute of Education. 
Elliott, J. (1988). Educational research and outsider-insider relations. Qualitative 
Studies in Education, 1,2, 155-166. 
Elliott, J. (1987). Educational theory, practical philosophy and action research. 
British Journal of Educational Studies, 35, 2, 149-169. 
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open 
University Press. 
333 
Elliott, M. (1997). The teaching of academic discourse: A collaboration between 
discipline lecturers and academic support staff at RMIT. In Z. 
Golebiowski & H. Borland (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the first 
national conference on tertiary literacy: Research and practice, vol.2 
(pp.77-87). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Emerson, L. (1994). Style Manual. Palrnerston North, New Zealand: Massey 
University. 
do&e~ 
Emerson, L., Franken, M., & Harris, G. (Eds.) f Writing beyond the margins: 
Proceedings of the 2nd Tertiary Writing Network Colloquium. 
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
Emerson, L., & Hampton, J. (Eds.). (1996). Writing guidelinesforapplied 
science students. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Dunmore Press. 
Emerson, L. (1996a). Action research: 'learning to see' writing in the disciplines. 
In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on improving 
university teaching (pp.621 -632). Nottingham, UK: Nottingham Trent 
University. 
Emerson, L. (1996b). Using 'writing to learn' strategies. In L. Emerson, M. 
Franken, & G. Harris (Eds.), Writing beyond the margins: Proceedings of 
the 2nd Tertiary Writing Network Colloquium (pp.69-80). Palmerston 
North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
Emerson, L., &. Hampton, J. (1998). Writing in the sciences. In Emerson, L., & 
Harris, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tertiary Writing Network 
Colloquium (pp 46-62). Palrnerston North, New Zealand: Massey 
University. 
Emerson, L., & Harris, G. (Eds.). (1998). Re/Searching writing horizons: 
Proceedings of the 3rd Tertiary Writing Network Colloquium. Palmerston 
North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
334 
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and 
Communication, 28, 122-128. 
Faigley, L., & Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. 
College Composition and Communication, 36, 140-149. 
Farris, c., & Smith, R. (1992). Writing-intensive courses: Tools for curricular 
change. In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the 
curriculum: A guide to developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Farris, C. (1993). Disciplining the disciplines: The paradox of writing across the 
curriculum claims. 44th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College 
Composition and Communication, San Diego, CA. 
Fauske, J. R. (1993). Five conditions for sustaining cross campus collaboration 
on teaching and learning. Northern Rocky Mountain Educational 
Research Association Journal: Researcher, September, 4-8. 
Ferguson, G. (1997). Literacy in the disciplines: Giving academics a language to 
talk about language. In Z. Golebiowski and H. Borland (Eds.), Selected 
proceedings of the first national conference on tertiary literacy: Research 
and Practice, vol.} (pp.161-166). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria 
University of Technology. 
Foulk, D. S., & Hoover, E. E. (1993). Using expressive writing to improve 
horticultural education. HortTechnology, 3, 3,356-360. 
Fraser, G. S., & Carroll, M. I. (1994). Student evaluation of teaching: A proposal 
for aligning a university'S resources with improvement in teaching 
quality. XVIIlth Aitea Annual Conference. Adelaide. 
Fulwiler, T. (1984). How well does writing across the curriculum work? College 
English, 46, 2, 113-125. 
Fulwiler, T. (Ed.). (1987). The journal book. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton. 
Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1982). Language connections: Writing and 
reading across the curriculum. Urbana, il...: NCTE. 
Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1990). Programs that work: Models and 
methodsfor WAC. Portsmouth, NH: BoyntonlCooklHeinemann. 
Gardner, S. A., & Sutherland, S. A. (1997). Interdisciplinary teaching? It only 
takes talent, time, and treasure. English Journal, 86, 7, 30-36. 
Garner, M. (1997). Some questions about integrated communication skills 
programmes. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the first 
national conference on tertiary literacy: Research and practice, vol.1 
(pp.37-41). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Gere, A. R. (Ed.). (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across the 
disciplines. Urbana, il...: NCTE. 
335 
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning through course 
design. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Learning to effect. Buckingham: Society for 
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. 
Graham, J. (1992). Writing components, writing adjuncts, writing links. In S. H. 
McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to 
developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Gregg, P. E. H., Hewitt, E. W., Parker, W. J. , Valentine, I., & Weber, J. A. 
(1991). Towards the 21st century: Reportfrom the working group 
considering core requirements of a single degree structure. Palmerston 
North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
Gregory, M. W. (1992). The infectiousness of pompous prose. Nature, 360, 11-
12. 
336 
Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis and R 
McTaggert (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). 
Geelong: Deakin University Press. 
Hallett, R (1997). Promoting language skills through collaboration between 
content lecturers and language specialists. In Z. Golebiowski and H. 
Borland (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the first national conference on 
tertiary literacy: Research and Practice, vol.2 (pp.88-102). Melbourne, 
Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Hampton, J. (1996). Writing for applied science students. In L. Emerson, M. 
Franken, & G. Harris (Eds.), Writing beyond the margins: Proceedings of 
the 2nd Tertiary Writing Network Colloquium (pp.81-88). Palmerston 
North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
Harris, M. (1992). The writing center and tutoring in WAC programs. In S. H. 
McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to 
developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Harvie, M., Moroney, R, & Smith, A. (1997). Developing critical literacy for 
nursing and health science: Philosophy, policy, theory for practice, and 
research for a subject-integrated approach. In Z. Golebiowski & Borland, 
H. (Eds.), Academic communication across disciplines and cultures: 
Selected proceedings of the first National Conference on Tertiary 
Literacy: Research and Practice, Vol. 2 (pp.111-119). Melbourne, 
Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Haswell, R H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English, 45, 6,600-604. 
Haviland, C. P., Notarangelo, M., Whitley-Putz, L., & Wolf, T. (Eds.). (1998). 
Weaving knowledge together: Writing centers and collaboration. 
Emmitsburg, MD: NWCA Press. 
337 
Hay, I. (1993). Writing groups in geography. Paper presented to a conference on 
peer tutoring: Learning by teaching, HERDSA, 19-21 August. 
Helsel, D. G., & Wells, J. A. (1985). The worksheet: An undervalued learning 
device. Journal of Agronomic Education, 14, 2, 123-125. 
Hepner, F. (1996). Interdisciplinary classes. Issues of education at community 
colleges: Essays by fellows in the Mid-Career Fellowship Program at 
Princeton University. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. 
Hewitson, M. (1985). Teaching writing to tertiary students. HERDSA, 7, 3,5-7. 
Heywood, J. (1989). Assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley 
& Sons. 
Hicks, M., Irons, E., & Zeegers, P. (1994). Academic and communication skills 
taught in science and engineering courses. In K. Channock (Ed.), 
Integrating the teaching of academic discourse into courses in the 
disciplines: Proceedings of the Conference held at La Trobe University 
(pp.178-183). Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University. 
Higher Education Council (1992). Higher education: Achieving quality. 
Canberra: NBEET/AGPS. 
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1957). Action research: A critique. The Journal of 
Educational Sociology, 31, 4,137-153. 
Holyoak, A. R. (1998). A plan for writing throughout (not just across) the 
biology curriculum. The American Biology Teacher, 60, 3, 186-190. 
Hord, S. M. (1981). Working together: Co-operation or collaboration. Austin, 
TX: University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center. 
338 
Houston, W. (1990). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: 
Macmillan Publishing Co. 
Howell, N. (1990). Surviving fieldwork. Washington, DC: American 
Anthropological Association. 
Huot, B. (1997). Beyond accountability: Reading with faculty as partners across 
the disciplines. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot, Assessing writing across the 
curriculum. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 
Hult, M., & Lennung, S. (1980). Towards a definition of action-research: A note 
and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies, 17, 2, 241-50. 
Hutchinson, M. A. (1993). The composition teacher as drudge: The pitfalls and 
perils of linking across the disciplines. 44th Annual Meeting of the 
Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Diego, 
CA. 
ming, D (1994). Employers reinforce call for improved communications skills in 
graduates. Campus Review, Jan. 27-Feb.2, p.2. 
Inglis, S. (1994). Making the most of action learning. Aldershot, UK: Gower. 
Ison, R. (November 1995). The Open University from a systems perspective. 
Unpublished paper. 
Jackson, M. W., & Prosser, M. T. (1989). Less lecturing, more learning. Studies 
in Higher Education, 14, 55-68. 
Jamieson, S. (1996). Shaping the contact zone: Designing WACIWID 
assignments for composition courses. 4th Annual Meeting of the 
Conference on College Composition and Communication, Milwaukee, 
WI. 
339 
Jolliffe, D. A (Ed.). (1988). Writing in academic disciplines. Norwood, NJ: 
Ablex Publishing Corp. 
Jones, R., & Comprone, J. J. (1993). Where do we go next in writing across the 
curriculum? College Composition and Communication, 44, 59-68. 
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development 
(2nd ed.). New York: Longmans. 
Kelly, A(1985). Action research: What is it and what can it do? In R. G. Burgess 
(Ed.), Issues in Educational research: Qualitative methods. Lewes, East 
Sussex: The Falmer Press. 
Kember, D. , & Kelly, M. (1993). Improving teaching through action research: 
HERDSA Green Guide, No.14. NSW, Australia: HERDSA. 
Kemmis, S. (1982). Action research. In T. Husen,and T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), 
International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, vol. 1. 
Oxford: Pergamon Press. 
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). 
Geelong: Deakin University Press. 
Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R. (1990). The action research planner (4th ed.). 
Geelong: Deakin University Press. 
Kinneavy, J. (1983). Writing across the curriculum. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell 
(Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum. [NP]: 
Hermagoras Press. 
Kincaid, J. A , & Harris, J. G. (1993). Writing centers in context. Urbana, IL: 
NCTE. 
340 
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as learning through the 
curriculum. College English, 45, 5,465-474. 
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan. 
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1979). Organisational psychology: 
An experiential approach (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Kuriloff, P. C. (1992), The writing consultant: Collaboration and team teaching. 
In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A 
guide to developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Kyle, D. W., & McCutcheon, G. (1984). Collaborative research: Development 
and issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 2, 173-179. 
Languagefor life (The Bullock report). (1977). London: HMSO. 
Larson, R. A. (Ed.). (1980). Introduction to floriculture. New York: Academic 
Press. 
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: Aframeworkfor the 
effective use of educational technology. London & New York: Routledge. 
Leggo, C. (1990). Ninety-five questions for generating disputation on the power 
and efficacy of the pedagogical practices of writing teachers. Language 
Arts, 67, 4,399-405. 
Lewison, M. (1996). Writing becomes a chore like the laundry: The realities of 
using journals to encourage a reflective approach to practice. Annual 
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. 
341 
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1986). School improvement: Themes and variations. 
In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Rethinking school improvement: Research, craft 
and concept. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Linton, P., Madigan, R. & Johnson, S. (1994). Introducing students to 
disciplinary genres: The role of the general composition course. 
Language and Learning across the disciplines, 1,2,63-78. 
Liow, S. R., Betts, M., & Lok Leong, 1. (1993). Course design in higher 
education: A study of teaching methods and educational objectives. 
Studies in Higher Education, 18, 65-79. 
Mahala, D. (1991). Writing utopias: Writing across the curriculum and the 
promise of reform. College English, 53, 7,773-789. 
Maimon, E. (1981). Writing in all the arts and sciences: Getting started and 
gaining momentum. Writing Program Administration, 4, 9-13. 
Maimon, E. P., Belcher, G. I., Hearn, G. W., Nodine, B. F., & O'Connor, F. W. 
(1981). Writing in the arts and sciences. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop 
Publishers, Inc. 
Maimon, E. P. (1992). Preface. In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing 
across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs. Newbury Park, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
Margetson, D. (1994). Current educational reform and the significance of 
problem-based teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 5-19. 
Martin, W. (1988). Dancing on the interface: Leadership and the politics of 
collaboration. Writing Program Administration, 11, 3,29-41. 
342 
Massey University (1991). Report on student literacy: A report by the working 
party on student literacy to Academic Committee. Palmerston North, New 
Zealand: Massey University. 
McCarthy, L. P., & Walvoord, B. E. (1988). Models for collaborative research in 
writing across the curriculum. In S. H. McLeod (Ed.), Strengthening 
programs for writing across the curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
McCloskey, D.N. (1987). The writing of economics. New York: Macmillan. 
McCutcheon, G. and Jurg, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. 
Theory into Practice 24, 3-33. 
MacDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analysing sentence-level differences in 
disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569. 
MacKay, B. R., Emerson, L. E., MacKay, M. B., Funnell, K. A., & Welsh, T. E. 
(1996). Bringing the process of education back to horticulture. 
Proceedings of the 21st international conference on improving university 
teaching (pp.321-332). Nottingham, UK: Nottingham Trent University. 
McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: 
Traditional, collaborative and critical-emancipatory conceptions. Journal 
of Curriculum and Supervision, 3, 34, 173-200. 
McKernan, J. (1 99 1). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and 
resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page. 
McLeod, S. H. (1987). Defining writing across the curriculum. Writing Program 
Administration, 11, 1-2, 19-24. 
McLeod, S. H (Ed.). (1988). Strengthening programs for writing across the 
curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
McLeod, S. H. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: The second stage and 
beyond. College Composition and Communication, 40, 3,337-343. 
343 
McLeod, S. H. (1992). Writing across the curriculum: An introduction. In S. H. 
McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to 
developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
McLeod, S. H., & Soven, M. (Eds.). (1992). Writing across the curriculum: A 
guide to developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
McNamara, D. R. (1980). The outsider's arrogance: The failure of participant 
observers to understand classroom events. British Educational Research 
Journal, 8, 113-26. 
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. London: Macmillan 
Education. 
McPherson, J. (1994). Making changes: Action research for developing Maori 
language policies in mainstream schools. Wellington, New Zealand: 
NZCER. 
McTaggart, R. & Singh, M. (1986). New directions in action research. 
Curriculum Perspectives, 6, 2, 42-6 
Merrick, N. (1997). Labour set to focus on basic skills. People Management, 3, 
15,8. 
Milburn, J. (1994). Special course at QUT on the write track for jobs. Campus 
Review, June 9-15, p.20. 
Miller, S. (1991) Textual carnivals: The politics of composition. Carbondale, il..: 
Southern lllinois University Press. 
344 
Morgan, M. (1997). The crazy quilt of writing across the curriculum: Achieving 
WAC program assessment. In K. B. Yancey, & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing 
writing across the curriculum (pp 141-158). Greenwich, CT: Ablex 
Publishing Corporation. 
Morgan, M. R. P. (1997). Making the leap: an interdisciplinary approach to 
composition for students in technical fields. TETYe, 24,2, 131- 135. 
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: 
Sage Publications. 
Moss, G. D., & McMillen, D. (1980). A strategy for developing problem-solving 
skills in large undergraduate classes. Studies in Higher Education, 5, 161-
171. 
Mullin, J., Reid, N., Enders, D., & Baldridge, J. (1998). Constructing each other: 
Collaborating across disciplines and roles. In C. P. Haviland, M. 
Notarangelo, L. Whitley-Putz, & Wolf, T. (Eds.), Weaving knowledge 
together: Writing centers and collaboration. Emmitsburg, MD: NWCA 
Press. 
Newby, M. (1989). Writing: A guide for students. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Nightingale, P. (1986). Improving student writing: HERDSA Green Guide No.4. 
Campbelltown, NSW, Australia: HERDSA. 
Nightingale, P., & O'Neill, M. (1994). Achieving quality learning in higher 
education. London: Kogan Page. 
Ohmann, R. (1976). English in America: A radical view of the profession. New 
York: Oxford University Press. 
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A 
developmental approach. Lewes, East Sussex: The Falmer Press. 
345 
Parker, L. H. (1997). Institutional practices in promoting tertiary literacy: The 
development and implementation of a university-wide policy for 
enhancing students ' communication skills. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.), 
Selected proceedings of the first national conference on tertiary literacy: 
Research and practice, vol.1 (pp.20-36). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria 
University of Technology. 
Pemberton, M. A. (1995). Rethinking the W ACIWriting center connection. The 
Writing Center Journal, 15, 2, 116-133. 
Peterson, L. H. (1992). Writing across the curriculum in the freshman English 
program. In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the 
curriculum: A guide to developing programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Porter, B. (1992). Report on the opinions of stakeholders collected in relation to 
the review of the accountancy curriculum at Massey University. 
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Accountancy Department, Massey 
University. 
Pose, R. (Ed.). (1996). Australian communication conference, 1996: Teaching 
communication in a technological age. Melbourne, Australia: Monash 
University. 
Poskitt, J. M. (1995). Researching as learning: The realities of action research in 
a New Zealand individualised learning programme. Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation. Massey University, Palmers ton North, New Zealand. 
Purvis, B. (1993). Standards-based assessment in the university: A case study. 
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Qualifications Authority. 
346 
Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, 
23,499-513. 
Reid, I. (1994). Literacy requirements need a rethink. Campus Review, June 23-
29, p.8. 
Reid, I. (1997). Disciplinary and cultural perspectives on student literacy. In Z. 
Golebiowski and H. Borland (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the first 
national conference on tertiary literacy: Research and practice, vol.2 
(pp.l-ll). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. 
Robson, S. (1989). Group discussions. In S. Robson & A. Foster (Eds.), 
Qualitative research in action (pp 25-36). London: Edward Arnold. 
Robson, S., & Foster, A. (1989). Qualitative research in action. London: Edward 
Arnold. 
Ronald, K. (1988). On the outside looking in: Students' analyses of professional 
discourse communities. Rhetoric Review, 7, 1, 130-149. 
Rose, M. (1985). The language of exclusion: Writing instruction at the 
university. College English, 47, 341-359. 
Rogers, M. N. (1990). Teaching philosophy and techniques. HortScience, 25, 
730-731. 
Russell, D. R. (1990). Writing across the curriculum in historical perspective: 
Toward a social interpretation. College English, 52, 1, 52-73. 
Russell, D. R. (1993). Vygotsky, Dewey, and externalism: Beyond the 
student/discipline dichotomy. Journal of Advanced Composition, 18, 173-
197. 
Russell, D. R. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990: A 
curricular history. Carbondale, IL: Southern lllinois University Press. 
Sanford, N. (1970) Whatever happened to action research? Journal of Social 
Issues, 26, 3-23. 
347 
Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. Ithaca, NY: 
The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network. 
Senge, P. M. (1990). Thefifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. 
Shaffer, E. c., & Bryant, W. C. (1983). Structures and processes for effective 
collaboration among local schools, colleges, and universities: A 
collective project of Annapolis City Schools. Charlotte, NC: Livingstone 
College, University of North Carolina-Charlotte. 
Sheehan, E. A. (1993). The academic as informant: Methodological and 
theoretical issues in the ethnography of intellectuals. Human 
Organisation, 52, 3,252-259. 
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based language instruction: Investigating the 
effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 2, 29-51. 
Shumsky, A. (1956). Teachers' insecurity and action research. Educational 
Research Bulletin, 35, 183-186. 
Shumsky, A. (1958). The personal significance of action research. Journal of 
Teacher Education, 9, 152-155. 
Shumsky, A. (1958). The action research way of learning. New York: Teachers 
College, Columbia University. 
348 
Siebert, D. L. (1996). A qualitative approach to integrative WAC. 4th Annual 
Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 
Milwaukee. 
Sligo, F., O'Neill, D. , & Fountaine, S. (1999). Who cares about English? 
Exploring attitudes to formal English among internal and extramural 
students, English teachers and business people. Working paper series 
99/1. Massey University. 
Smith, K. L., Poling, R., & Van Tilburg, E. (1989). Student writing in the 
curriculum: Not just for English majors. NACTA Journal, June, 29-32. 
Smith, L. Z. (1988). Why English departments should 'house' writing across the 
curriculum. College English, 50, 390-395. 
Smith, L., Charnley, J., & McCall, W. (1993). Writing to learn in agriculture and 
natural resources courses. NACTA Journal, June, 32-35. 
Smith, R., & Farris, C. (1997). Adventures in the WAC assessment trade: 
Reconsidering the link between research and consultation. In K. B. 
Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum: 
Diverse approaches and practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing 
Corporation. 
Snow, C. P. (1984). The two cultures and a second look. London: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Spear, K. (1997). Controversy and consensus in freshman writing: An overview 
of the field. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 3, 319-344. 
Stenhouse, L. (1975). Introduction to curriculum design and development. 
London: Heinemann. 
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and 
practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
349 
Swan, J. A. (1995) Reflections across the divide: Written discourse as a 
structural mirror in teaching science to nonscience students. Writing on 
the Edge, 6, 2, 55-73.-
Taba, H., Noel, E., & Marsh, K. (1955). Action research as a technique of 
supervision. Educational Leadership, 12, 453-458. 
Taba, H., & Noel, E. (1957). Action research: A case study. Washington, DC: 
Association for supervision and curriculum development. 
Taylor, G., Ballard, B., Beasley, V., Bock, H., Clanchey, J., & Nightingale, P. 
(1988). Literacy by degrees. Milton Keynes: The Society for Research 
into Higher Education and Open University Press. 
Thaiss, C. (Ed.). (1983). Writing to learn: Essays and reflections on writing 
across the curriculum. Dubuque, IA: KendalllHunt. 
The University ofWaikato (1994). Report of the working party on student 
"literacy" to the Academic Programmes Committee. Hamilton, New 
Zealand: The University ofWaikato. 
Tudor, K. W. (1989). More on writing in agricultural courses. NACTA Journal, 
June, 32-36. 
Van Manen, M. (1990). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action 
research. Theory into Practice, 24, 3, 152-157. 
Victoria University of Wellington (1987). Final report of the interfaculty 
committee on writing skills. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. 
350 
Victoria University of Wellington, Careers Advisory Service (1996). Skills 
requested by employers in 1996 employer visit programme. Student 
infonnation sheet, Wellington, New Zealand: Author. 
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MITP. 
Waldo, M. L. (1993). The last best place for writing across the curriculum: The 
writing center. Writing Program Administration, 16, 3, 15-27. 
Wallace, R. (1987). The writing center's role in the writing across the curriculum 
program: Theory and practice. The Writing Center Journal, 8, 2,43-48. 
Walvoord, B. E. (1992). Getting started. In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), 
Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs. 
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Walvoord, B. (1997). From conduit to customer: The role of WAC faculty in 
WAC assessment. In K. B. Yancey, & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing 
across the curriculum. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 
Ward, M. H., & Rhodes, K. (1996). Teaching writing by email: An experiment at 
the halfway point. In R. Pose (Ed.), Australian communication 
conference, 1996: Teaching communication in a technological age. 
Melbourne, Australia: Monash University 
Warmington, A. (1980). Action research: Its methods and its implications. 
Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 23-39. 
Watson, M. (1996). Teaching to learn: WAC, composition, and engineering 
classrooms, 4thConference on College Composition and 
Communication, Milwaukee, WI. 
Webb, c., & Bonnano, H. (1994). The roles of language and learning staff: 
Insights from collaboration with the subject discourses. In K. Channock 
351 
(Ed.), Integrating the teaching of academic discourse into courses in the 
disciplines: Proceedings of the Conference held at La Trobe University 
(pp.126-132). Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University. 
Webb, G. (1995). What's wrong with action research? HERDSA 18,752-757. 
Wells, J. A., Helsel, D. G., & Trinklein, D. H. (1986). Using instructional 
objectives in agronomic courses. Journal of Agronomic Education, 15, 1, 
47-52. 
Whitbread, D. (1996). Teaching communication skills through stealth and 
trickery. In RPose (Ed.), Australian Communication Conference (pp.31-
38). Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. 
Whitehead, J. (1989). How do we improve research based professionalism in 
education? A question which includes action research, educational theory 
and the politics of educational knowledge. British Educational Research 
Journal, 15, 1,3-17. 
"Why Johnny can't write." Newsweek. 9 December 1975, pp 58-65 
Wiebold, W. J., & Duncan, R G. (1991). A whole-class writing assignment. 
Journal of Agronomic Education, 20, 1,27-30. 
Wiles, K. (1953). Can we sharpen the concept of action research? Educational 
Leadership, 10, 408-410. 
Willcoxson, L. & Walker, P (1995). Valuing teaching: A strategy for changing 
the organisational culture of an academic department. Higher Education 
Research and Development, 14, 2,269-278. 
Winter, R (1989). Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action 
research. London: The Falmer Press. 
352 
Work, J. (1979). Reducing three papers to ten: A method for literature classes. In 
G. Stanford (Ed.), How to handle the paper load: Classroom practices in 
teaching English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 
Yancey, K. B., & Huot, B. (Eds.).(1997). Assessing writing across the 
curriculum. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
Younger, A. (1991). An appraisal of the current proposals for agricultural 
degree development at Massey University. Unpublished report. 
Palmers ton North, New Zealand: Massey University. 
Zerger, S. (1997). "This is chemistry, not literature": Faculty perceptions of 
student writing. 48Th Annual Meeting of the Conference of College 
Composition and Communication, Phoenix, AZ. 
Zimmerman, A. P. (1991). Journal writing for technical courses in writing­
across-the-curriculum. NACTA Journal, June, 25-29. 
Zimmerman, A. P (1992). Laboratory assignments in writing-across-the­
curriculum. NACTA Journal, March, 7-10. 
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Professional development in higher education: A 
theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan Page. 
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education. London: Kogan 
Page. 
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1993). Improving learning and teaching through action 
learning and action research. Higher Education Research and 
Development 12: 45-58. 
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). New directions in action research. London: The 
Falmer Press. 
353 
Appendix 1: Covering letter and questionnaire 
The covering letter and questionnaire in this appendix were sent to a single staff 
member at each New Zealand University. We had planned to use the 
questionnaire as part of a broader survey of writing instruction in Australian and 
Pacific Rim countries and to possibly connect our results to a planned survey to 
be conducted by Sue McLeod in the United States. In the event, the questionnaire 
had to be restructured and rewritten to suit the New Zealand context, and 
preliminary enquiries prior to sending the questionnaire to Australian 
Universities suggested that the New Zealand version would ~ot be appropriate to 
an Australian context. For this reason, the broader perspective was not pursued in 
this way. 
354 
Dear 
355~·~. ~I 
MASSEY 
UNIVERSITY 
Private Bag 11222 
Palmerston North 
New Zealand 
Telephone 0-6-356 9099 
-
I am conducting an international survey of tertiary writing programmes. Much of the literature on tertiary 
writing programmes is generated from a North American context. This survey aims to bring together 
information on tertiary writing programmes operating beyond North America. It is hoped this will establish a 
broader structural and discourse base from which to discuss our work. 
Please find enclosed a copy of the questionnaire. 
The questionnaire is composed of five sections as follows: 
Part One: 
Part Two: 
Part 'Three: 
Part Four: 
Part Five: 
For all respondents. 
For respondents whose institutions offer a general writing course. 
For respondents whose institutions offer subject-specific writing courses. 
For respondents whose institutions offer Writing Centre support or writing support 
within Learning Skills Units. 
For respondents whose institutions operate a Writing Across the Curriculum 
programme. 
Please ensure that you answer all sections which relate to your institution .. We have sent the questionnaire to 
only one person within each institution. Therefore if you, for example, run a generic writing course and know 
there is a Writing Centre on campus but you do not have personal involvement with that Centre, please fill in 
the section on the Writing Centre as well as the section that immediately relates to you. I appreciate that this 
may involve some data gathering time for you and I am grateful for your willingness to take this time. 
You may find that there is not enough room on the questionnaire to write your answers sufficiently. If that is 
the case, please feel free to write on a separate paper with answers clearly numbered. 
I hope to begin analysis of the data after Christmas, so I would appreciate a response prior to 15th December 
1995. 
If you would like a copy of the results of the survey, please indicate this at the end of the questionnaire. 
I am enclosing a business card which includes my postal address, phone number and email address, plus a fax 
number on the back. If you have any queries or concerns at all, do not hesitate to contact me in whatever way is 
most suitable for you. 
Yours sincerely 
Lisa Emerson 
Writing Centre 
356 
357 
I nternational Survey of Tertiary Writing Programmes 
Part One - For all re;pondents 
1. Name of institution: 
2. In order for our survey to be complete. we need 
some demographic information. Please tell us 
the following about your institution: 
Number of Students 
Number of Staff 
3. Please indicate which description best fits your 
institution: 
D a) Polytechnic I ~ommunity Colleg. 
c) University 
D d) Other (please describe) 
4. Please indicate whether your institution is: 
~ Public (Govemmentfunded) 
D b) Private 
5. Does your institution provide: 
~) a generic academic writing course 
GJ-o> subject-specific writing courses 
~ a writing centre 
B-ar a learning skills unit which includes 
writing support 
Q-er-a writing across the curriculum 
programme Btf an ESOL academic writing course 
D g) other (please describe) 
6. Please indicate which wTltmg courses are 
compulsory for all students in your institution: 
D a) a one year generic writing course 
Db) one semester generic writing course 
D c) subject-specific writing course 
~one of the above 
D e) other (please describe) 
358 
Part Two- For respondents whose institutions offer a general writing course (or courses) 
1. When did the course begin operations? 4. Is the course compulsory for: 
(where a number of courses are offered please 
name the course and the year it was first offered) 
Name of course: 31, (f) 7 
Date: I tit .' 
Name of course: 
Date: 1-1 __ --' 
Name of course: 
Date: 
2. Is the course(s) offered: 
~bY the English Department? 
D b) by a learning skilIs centre? 
D c) by a writing centre? 
D d) other (please describe) 
3. Is the course(s) offered for credit: 
0ves 
D No 
D a) all students 
Db) no students 
~specific groups of students (please 
describe) uf "Y/~ 
v'~f ~~ 
5. Is the course taught by: 
~ fulI-time academic staff members 
B'b) part-time salaried staff members (eg 
graduate assistants, half-time lecturers) 
~art-time staff contracted on an 
hourly basis 
D c) other (please describe) 
359 
Part Three -for respondents whose institutions offer subject -specific writing coursers) 
1. In which faculties within your institution are 4. 
subject-specific writing courses taught: 
Is the course compulsory for students majoring 
in the particular discipline? 
D a) humanities 
Db) social sciences 
~c) business studies/commerce ~J {f!tM.. 
D d) technology 
o e) science 
[2( f) agriculturelhorticulture I'J' I (j/ 
D g) law 
o h) medicine 
o i) other (please describe) 
2 . These courses are taught by: 
3. 
D a) staff from the English Department 
Q' b) staff from the subject-specific 
discipline D c) staff from a learning skills unit 
o d) other (please describe) 
~ .? e"",,",(s) offered for credit 
Yes 
D No 
5. 
~ 
D No 
Is the course taught by: 
~ull-time academic staff members 
1Lfb} part-time salaried staff members (eg 
graduate assistants, half-time lecturers) 
~ part-time staff contracted on an 
hourly basis D c) other (please describe) 
6. If you have any other information about the 
course(s). eg prescription. flyer. please enclose 
this information in your reply envelope. 
360 
Part Four. (For respondents whose institutions offer Writing Centre support or writing support within 
learning skills units.) 
A Writing Centre is defined, for the purposes of this study, as a unit which offers support services to students 
related to academic writing. 
A Learning Skills Unit, for the purposes of this study, includes all units which offer generic skills support 
(learning skills, writing skills, memory skills) and possibly some subject -specific support. 
. . 
1. Writing support at your institution is offered 3. This support is funded by: 
from: 
D a) a stand alone, centralised unit dedicated 
to writing support \ 
If yes - what is its name? 
r:;:]b) within a specific dq>J~ 
(excluding an English department) D c) within an English department 
D d) within a learning skills unit 
If yes, what is the name of the unit? 
De) other (please describe) 
2. Writing support (excluding credit courses) at your 
institution includes: 
B a) one-on-one counselling/tuition 
~ b) short workshops 
[J" c) a distance-education service 
D d) a proof-reading service 
~ e) composition of written resources a f) workshops within credit courses 
o g) specific learning disability diagnosis 
D h) other (please describe): 
D a) central administration 
Q1;) a department or faculty (please specify) 
~f~ 
Dc) cost recovery 
D d) other (please describe) 
4. The unit has been operating since: 
5. Staff within this unit are: 
~) full time academic staff members 
Db) full time general/support staff members 
~ part time salaried staff members 
D d) part time staff contracted on an hourly 
basis 
De) peer tutors 
6. Number of staff: 
! Temporary 
~===~ L..-_":""'---J! Full time 
7. What qualifications do staff hold (please specify)? 
ilf 111-( q...,() 
361 
Part Five - For respondents whose institutions operate a WAC programme . . 
Please give the following information about the 1. In what calendar year was the WAC programme at 
person who co-ordinates the Writing Across the your institution started? 
curriculum (WAC) programme at your institution: 
Name: 
Address: 
Telephone: 
Fax:. 
Email Address: 
What is their title (specifically with respect to the 
WAC programme)? 
What other positions do they hold? 
Writing Across the. Curriculum programmes usually 
evolve; no two years are exactly alike. If the 
following questions are difficult to answer in exact 
tenns, give us your best estimate, and if necessary 
modify the options for answers we have listed if they 
do not fit your situation. 
a) Has the programme been active in every year 
. since it began? 
b) If not, for how many years has the programme 
been active? 
c) Briefly, if applicable, what were the reasons 
for the programme's inactivity? 
2. What is your annual budget .... 
..... . total? .. orsaJary? for materials? 
I I I .-, I 
3. What percent of this funding, if any, is 
permanent? 
Comments (re #3, permanent funding): 
362 
Part Five continued 
4. Table: Source of funding (in the table below). Please ftll in any additional sources; use the space below 
for additional comments) 
Source of Funding Permanent? Number Amount? Describe 
of 
Years? 
a. External funding from D yes (Fill in source) 
D no 
b. English Deparnnent D yes 
D no 
c. Writing Centre (outside D yes English Dept.) . 
D no 
d. Dean's Office D yes 
D no 
e. Central Administration D yes 
D no 
f. Other (please specify) D yes 
D no 
Comments (re #4) 
i 
I 
Part Five continued 
5. Since your programme began, has the budget for 
your WAC programme .... (please mark one) 
D a) .. .increased? 
D b) ... decreased? 
D c) ... stayed about the same? 
6. If you can, please comment on the reason for 
changes in your WAC budget: 
7. What components make up your WAC 
programme? (please tick as many as apply) 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
a) staff seminars (2 days or more) 
b) staff workshops (1 day or less) 
c) follow-up interviews or meetings 
with academic staff 
d) computer assisted learning strategies 
e) a resident writing consultant (faculty 
member) D f) an all-university writing committee 
D g) a WAC advisory committee 
D h) in-house WAC publications (such as 
a newsletter) 
D i) informal but regular gatherings (such 
as brown-bag lunches) of staff involved 
with WAC) 
D j) outside speakers or consultants 
D k) a writing lab or tutorials for students 
D I) collaborative staff research projects 
D m) writing-intensive courses for credit 
D n) style manuals 
D m) other (please specify) 
363 
8. What is the relationship between your WAC 
Programme and your Writing Centre? (please tick as 
many as apply) 
D a) institution has no Writing Centre 
D b) Writing Centre exists, but there is no 
D 
D 
formal relationship with the WAC 
Programme 
c) Writing Centre Director also directs 
the WAC Programme 
d) Writing Centre tutors provide support 
to WAC staff D e) WAC staff help train Writing Centre 
tutors in disciplinary writing 
conventions D f) other (please specify) 
9. Do credit courses make up part of your WAC (eg 
subject-specific writing courses such as Writing in the 
Sciences) programme? 
DYes 
D No 
If yes, please describe 
364 
Part Five continued 
10. What evaluation components are part of your 
programme? (please tick as many as apply) 
D a) we have not evaluated our programme 
Db) assessments of writing sample 
D c) staff attitude surveys 
D d) student attitude surveys 
D e) collections of documents 
(assignments, course syllabi) showing 
impact of the programme 
D f) quality asurance programmes 
D g) classroom practices surveys 
D h) interviews with staff 
D i) interviews with students 
D j) staff case studies 
D k) student case studies 
D 1) experimental studies (please specify) 
D m) other (please specify) 
11 . If you have done programme evaluations, what 
have they shown about your WAC Programme? (if 
applicable; tick as many as apply) 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
a) programme having positive effect 
b) programme having a negative effect 
c) programme having no effect 
d) WAC staff using more writing in 
their classes 
e) WAC staff more enthusiastic about 
writing as a teaching tool 
f) increase in student writing across the 
disciplines 
g) improvement in student writing 
across the disciplines 
h) other (please specify) 
12. How have you disseminated the results of your 
evaluation (if applicable; tick as many as apply) D a) in-house reports to help secure, 
D 
D 
maintain, or increase funding 
b) in-house publications distributed to 
WAC Programme stakeholders (although 
not necessarily limited to this audience) 
c) professional publication(s)? 
please givefull refemces) 
D e) papers at professional meetings 
(specify) 
D f) evaluations have been performed, but 
results have not been disseminated 
13. What are your plans for the future of your 
programme? ,Please summarise below what you hope 
to add or change in the next few years. 
14. Is there a unique feature of your programme which 
our questions have not brought out? If so, please 
describe it below. If you have a description of your 
programme or materials that will help us better 
understand what you are doing, please attach these to 
the questionnaire. If journal articles have been written 
about your project, we would appreciate the references 
or copies of the articles. 
Appendix 2: List of respondents 
Auckland University 
Waikato University 
Victoria University 
Canterbury University 
Lincoln University 
Otago University 
Massey University 
Emmanuel Manalo 
Varvara Richards 
Jan Stewart 
Carol Acheson 
Caitriona Cameron 
John Dolan 
Lisa Emerson 
365 
366 
Appendix 3: List of interviewees 
Auckland University: 
Waikato University: 
Victoria University: 
Canterbury University: 
Lincoln University: 
Otago University: 
Massey University: 
Donna Starks 
Emmanuel Manalo 
Barbara Grant 
Varvara Richards 
Rosemary de Luca 
Janet Holst 
Jan Stewart 
Brian Opie 
Carol Acheson 
Caitriona Cameron 
John Dolan 
Robert Neale 
John Muirhead 
Karen Rhodes 
Frank Sligo 
367 
368 
Appendix 4: Example of section of a focus group 
transcript 
369 
This appendix provides a section of a focus group transcript from project 3. Note 
the way the interviewer has some planned questions, such as the opening 
question, but also follows up responses in an unplanned way. This semi­
structured approach to interviewing allows for maximum flexibility while 
ensuring that certain specific questions are included. 
370 
371 
LE What is the best aspect of this paper, and what is the worst? If you've got to pullout the things that you've 
enjoyed most or found most valuable and things you've found least valuable, what would that be? 
A Does this include in .. Landscape Management.. 
LE Yes. 
B The worst thing I'd say is trying to get everyone together with the groups for the sunflower project. 
C The best thing is the hand-on sort of .. being able to do practical stuff, like .. planting sunflowers and that 
sort of thing, actually seeing it from that point. 
B Yes, just applying the principles like photoperiod and things like we did in class, and then going out and 
being able to do it if we want to, in the practicals. 
A I agree with what he's saying. 
LE Well, let's talk about the sunflowers. How .. How was it? Did you enjoy the experience? Or .. ? 
D I didn't enjoy the sunflowers. Well, it just seemed like too much mucking around. I couldn't do them 
properly, just playing around with sunflowers. I thought there could've been other things we could've 
done, I don't know, I just don't like them. I don't know if I'm a flower person. No .. I mean I.. I don't like .. 
I'm aware of where I'm going anel I just.. that's not where I'm going. I just can't really be bothered with 
them. Things like that. That's just me though. 
LE Do you know why you were growing the sunflowers? What were you supposed to get out of it? 
B Working in a group. 
E Yes. And also just the fact that everything that we'd been doing in class, irrigation and photoperiodic 
responses relates to the sunflowers, because well, they're a good crop for an introduction to those things, 
because they do have those.. responses, so we can see them.. before our eyes, instead of reading it in 
books. 
B And they're a .. pretty simple, the whole crop. 
A And getting just an idea of what sort of things you have to think of if you do go into that sort of area. 
LE Right. Somebody last year said that they hated this paper because it should have been called Hort 
Sunflowers. And that the only thing that they looked at were sunflowers and gladioli and what was the 
point of that. Do you agree with them?! 
All (No-o-o) 
E No. Because its all relative to where you've been. If you just picked out one or two plants, they relate to 
the whole lot. you know .. 
D You apply them to all. 
B They stress that its the principles of horticulture, that the principles are involved in doing the theory side of 
it. That you're bringing those over into the practical side of it.. so you know that they can be applied to a 
lot of things. 
LE If you needed help during the sunflowers, who did you go to? Or if you needed to make a decision about 
something. 
B Saw Keith, because we had lectures with him every week so I asked him questions more than I would have 
seen Eddie. 
D Yeab, its easier to talk to him after class rather than going down to PGU. 
LE So you weren't going to Allison or Helen? 
E I saw the people who were down there. 
C I used Allison, I think I went to see her a couple of times. 
3J.t. 
E I talked to Allison quite a bit, and got ideas and then .. 
D They were real good to talk to. 
EYes. 
LE So do you think you've got enough support? 
eYes. 
E Definitely. 
D There was always someone there for us . ....... . 
LE OK. The group thing. Did it all come right in the end? Somebody is shaking their head at the back. 
B No. No it didn't It was just too .. too many people that. different ideas. 
BYes. Some did want to put in the effort and others didn't. It just didn't work. 
D Plus I think like the deadline should be brought forward next year because the deadline this year, in every 
single paper, has been set at the same time so when there's like five papers, and five or six assignments, all 
due around the same time .. 
A And then we've got exams coming up, and .. 
D You put more effort into some things than others. for what you think's important and like, its like our 
project.. it wasn't as important as some other stuff. 
E But then the experiments would have to be brought forward and finished earlier as well, to get results, 
which would be quite hard, if you wouldn't be able to do as many experiments. 
B Although perhaps though, some sort of targets, for some of the groups, throughout the year as well, 
because rve found for our group, we got stuck into it at the start, in the middle nothing really got done, and 
then towards the end of it we sort of think, oh hold on, we'd better get some stuff done here. We'd have 
some stuff for the end of your report, and then think so that you've ........ , so in the middle if there was some 
sort of, not deadlines as such, but more targets that they reminded people about, maybe. 
e Or even deadlines. I think.. people are just so slack, that I can .. No matter how hard you try, you just 
cannot get work done, it seems, until the very last minute. 
A Then its still got some people that don't even finish. 
D If something's due on Friday,theyll start it on Thursday night! 
LE Last year we had the same criticism, and we had smaller groups, and so we thought we'd put more people 
into the groups, so that you got more chance of having people who would work. Do you think the groups 
have been too small, or too big? 
e I think next year .. not just.. just looking at other groups, it would be better if they've got a majority of 
older/younger people, and mix them up a bit more. Because, just looking at other groups, I haven't talked 
to any other groups, but with the older people they seem to sort of get the younger people going. 
Whereas .. 
A Though we don't have anyone older in our group, and our group was great We've got no-one older than 
...... and our group really gets on, and we get everything done on time .. like deadlines .. and it was a brilliant 
group! 
LE OK. So what is the secret of it that gives success? 
A I really don't know! 
LE Have you got a good leader? Or are you just. 
2 
373 
A Yes, well .. I think we've got two people in our group who tend to be, you know, really getting people 
organised and stuff, really good at setting stuff out Then everyone else in the group seemed to be very 
happy if they say, you know, we want someone to go and pick sunflowers, everyone goes yea, yea, yea, 
we'll do it. Everyone is like, really keen, and .. and we'd seemed to all work together, and basically had no 
problems really. I think it was just. 
LE It just works. 
AYes. Its why I think its just a lot of luck, like what group you're put in. 
C Even having a huge number at the beginning hasn't helped us, because we're down to .. we had ten to start, 
now we're down to six, which is not enough to really do the report, we're one person short. And you know, 
its upset us all through the year, losing people. 
LE Because we're concerned about the groups, and because there was problems with them last year and we 
could see problems happening this year, we put in the group dynamics tutorial. Did it teach you anything? 
C It did, but it was sort of like, ended right there. 
Ff Yes, it did it that day 
LE So it didn't then carry on and be applied? 
C It was just like, it seemed like something fun to do I suppose, you know what I mean? Like, you did it, and 
it was quite a good class, after that you never really thought about it again. 
E Maybe if it was done at the beginning and you know, you sort of got into a role by then .. 
F But maybe at the beginning, when people are sort of fluffing around and don't know what to do. 
E Because yes, at the start of the year, honestly I didn't know what to do. 
F We didn't know .. 
E Yes. And before it, we didn't really know what sort of experiments, well even if we didn't ,know what 
experiments to do, how to really carry them out, like I never did that at school. I mean, we didn't get taught 
it, we learnt it.. by ourselves. And just the fact that now we're looking back on it and we have done it, and 
we know what to do now, there's so many things that I would have done differently, and it would have been 
good to learn it at the start, so we would have gone, cruised through, known, been more assured. 
LE So what you're saying is we should have taught you more about how to organise the group at the 
beginning? 
A Yes. Especially with a big group, because you tend to .. you can get divisions .. like, we had such a big 
group we ended up having to have two meetings every week, and you know, decisions would be made, and 
not everyone informed, and we kind of caught on to that quite early, that that was happening, so we made 
sure that we had two meetings every week and they were at a certain time, and we just all met and made the 
decisions together because it just wouldn't work otherwise. I mean, its like, hold on, I didn't know about 
this decision, so we kind of like, did something about it pretty early, which was good, because then from 
then on, we were right. 
F We had meetings each week but.. could we get people to turn up?! It was the same people each week, and 
it was just like.. decisions were being made between like, four people that would turn up, and then you 
couldn't get to these other people, and, oh it was just so frustrating. 
C Maybe if you had a system where half way through the year you could' grade the people in your group then, 
as well as at the end, because then that may keep them on their toes and actually, well you know, this is 
going to affect my marks. 
E And had counselling, by people saying look, ....... you've got actually a low mark, so could you pull your 
socks up, or something. 
C It might give people a shock, mightn't it? 
3 
374 
375 
Appendix 5: Example of individual interview transcript 
A section of an individual staff interview transcript is provided here. Note the use 
of probing questions as well as questions of clarification. While the interviewer 
had prepared a list of questions, these were used only as the basis of the 
interview and further questions were added as required to clarify and extend the 
interviewee's responses. 
376 
377 
Interview -Exit interview . 
This follow up interview I wanted to do with you because we give the original system C'f 
retrievability we .... marks 50% we give that in Ag Systems and Farm Management in 
1994 and then we've gone to 1995 and changed the system in 1995 for Ag Systems so 
you were involved in all of these things so that's why I want to talk to you about them. 
So starting with the original systein that we came up with which was you've already 
talked about how it works, how did it go, what were the problems with it 
I think the biggest problem from the relationship with the class was that some of the 
students that had done fairly well except for 1-2 pages that they got checked on got 
hammered for that when they re-submitted and tidied up that they get a grade of 7~ 
80% and downgraded to 50%. And I think that was the biggest problem. 
L That was a problem of fairness. 
Yes I think the fairness was the main, the other problem was the students that were 
marginal, still tended to try and just get under the margin, they just went to the 
minimum standard. I don't think it really did much more than that And I think the 
other problem with students at the moment is there's too much time required in theiJ' 
course work with the semesterisation. So they're not having time to reflect or so alot of 
the feedback we give them you find they're not using it 
L That's going onto the new system that we're using. 
Well either. 
L Oh I see so you're saying that they're just working under such time pressure. 
Yes that they almost, they don't think about looking at the previous project to then make 
that better alot of them. 
L Well let's talk about the new system that we're using Ag Sy~ which is where each 
project is retrievable. How did you find that 
Same problem. Some groups used it and jumped their grades 20% so that's quite good. 
But think as the work pressure came on that died, so all that happened was you put a 
huge amount of effort into marking it but handed it back, got it back and they hadn't 
done much but you still had to go through and do the marking again. So for us it 
doubled our workload without that much benefit to the students. 
L When you got the assignments the first time did it take you longer to write on them than 
it did on the original. If you were doing ordinary marking did this way of doing it, the 
first draft, did it take you longer. 
Than just a normal (yes) it's hard to know. Probably would have been, I'd give the same 
feedback for a project anyway. It's just you had to do that twice and I guess the 
1 
378 
disappointing bit for us was initially the students did make an effort but after that they 
were really making only marginal changes because they were too stressed out 
L So which project did they make the effort for. 
It was the first one, was it the first one, or which one did we retrieve. 
L The first assignment was quite a short one wasn't it, then there was the deer one. 
It might have been the deer one and then the third one they didn't 
L So was that the only problem. I know it's a big problem, it's your time and the students' 
time. But if you could take that problem away did you think it was working, did you 
think it was useful. 
Yes if they had the time to reflect on it it would be good. And we had the time, again it's 
like everything at the moment, everyone's getting loaded up with more things to do. 
L Would it be better to solve the problem by cutting down a number of assignments in 
each of these papers so that we had the retrievability but had less assignments. 
Well looking at 251 and we are looking at changing the nature of the assignments. But if 
you take 251 we've always got them to do quite detailed descriptions of properties and 
resources and things and the only reason we get them to do that is to then use that to 
look at constraints, problems or opportunities so what we're thinking we might to do 
next year is actually have more assignments but just have the first one doing that and 
the other ones will be taken abit in the appendices that will just be in note form and they 
will be asked to discuss the problems and opportunities in the light of that So it will just 
force them into realising they need that And then the real work is involved in analysing 
that data to come up with a discussion of problems and opportunities and constraints. 
L So they'll be much shorter assignments. 
Yes, that's what we're looking at The problem is it takes the students hours to write a 
description and then they don't spend much time on the discussion and it also takes us 
hours to mark it, so we're trying to reduce the project down to the more important 
aspects. 
L How about in Ag Systems we looked at 3 different systems basically, would it be better 
to reduce the number of systems. Or to design shorter assignments. 
Yes the third project they did this year was huge I think because they were doing the 
whole beef industry which I think was probably too big, so I guess yes we probably need 
to go back to the course objectives and have a look. and also reduce that down to the 
more important elements. 
L So my part of the project finishes now but will writing continue to be an aspect of what 
you're looking for in students' work. 
2 
379 
Appendix 6: Example of tutorial assessment sheet 
19.155 Tutorial Assessment 
Semester 1 1994 
Tutor's name .............. (f.."!.~~ ......... ~~ ........ ............................... .. ..... .. 
Week: Number 3 
Number Students attending ........ ,;~.( ........ 
1. Did you follow the recommended tutorial format? Yes,IWe, 
If No, please detail changes . 
.. ............... ... f..~ .. ~ .... /~ .. ~.~~ ... 1 .... ~7-:~~~;,.~ .. ~ .. .. 
........... .. ~ .... ~ ..... ~ .... ~.~.: .. ... .... .................... .......... ..... .................. . 
2 . Were there any problems with the material provided for this tutorial? Y~ 
If Yes, please explain . 
... .......... . ~~ .. .. ~!!.~ .. ~ ... ~ .. ~: ... ... .. ........ ............ .. .. ....................... . 
3. Do you think: the class as a whole was responsive to the material you used? YeslNo 
If No, please explain why you think: this was so. 
· .. ············ .. &.:r. .. ·~····~ .. ··r/.·· .. ·w.:····~···~· · .. ~~~·;, .. ~~ .. . 
..... o/ ... ~ .... ~. : ....................................................................................................... . 
4 . Further comments: 
................. ~.~ .. .. ~ .. ~~.~ .. !':7).~.~~.: .... &( ... ~.~~ 
.... ~:, .. . ~.  .. ~ .... ~ ........ ~ .. . ~ .. (~ ... ~: .. ~~).. . 
.. .. ~.:f · .. ~·····~···~···~· .. ·~···~···1 · l4. ..... Q.fi~~ ... 7 .. ~ 
~~~.~~~=.,~~. ~;~i.;;~~~~ 
380 
381 
Appendix 7: Example of staff report 
MASSEY UNIVERSITY 
Department of Soil Science 
MEMORANDUM 
TO: Lisa Emerson 
FROM: 
DATE: 4 November 1994 
SUBJECT: 'Writing Across the Curriculum' and 19.258 
In my opinion, the introduction of a modified version of the 'Writing Across the Curriculum' (WAC) 
program into 19.258 was a qualified success. Its major achievement was the important role it played in 
the greatly improved quality of reports submitted by student groups as the course progressed. 
Arguably, one of the most gratifying aspects of 19.258 was the ' professional' standard of the third and 
fmal report written by students. In setting standards, providing guidance and support, and threatening 
to visit its wrath on the ' weak', WAC was an essential part of the educational process which resulted in 
this improved student performance. 
While it is obviously important that students (always) write weIl, there is a particular need for students 
to be able to write clearly and concisely in 19.258 where they are using some systems analysis concepts 
for the first time. By careful and clear writing, students are better able to understand the complex 
nature of the systems under consideration. 
The reservations I have regarding the use of WAC in 19.258 are a consequence of the structure of the 
course rather than any problem with WAC. One of the primary objectives of 19.258 is to teach 
students to work in teams and coIlaborate in the production of reports. NaturaIly enough, one or two 
group members ordinarily took responsibility for compiling the final report. Part of the recommended 
procedure for preparing a report was (supposedly) to have it checked by yourself. Unfortunately, when 
this occurred, it often meant that only one or two group members liaised with you and benefited directly 
or 'learnt' from WAC. It is of some concern to me that individual group members were not informed of 
theirs and other group member's mistakes or deficiencies. It is conceivable that if one or two students 
made the editorial changes recommend by you then other group members did not have the opportunity 
to redress their shortcomings. Given that the 19.258 clas.s works in groups, it is easy to imagine the 
situation where a smaIl number of the class, who liaise with you on the group's behalf, become 
progressively better writers while th~ majority of the class perpetuate their mistakes unaware that 
anything is amiss. . 
Another problem, as I see it, is the disappointingly smaIl number of groups that used you for advice and 
support. As groups were often endeavouring to write and compile reports in the 4-5 day period 
immediately before the 'due date', there was insufficient time for them to work with you .. Whether this 
situation arose because of poor organisation and bad time management or genuine work overload and 
pressure is not entirely clear. I tend to favour the latter explanation. The scheduling of student 
workloads across courses is obviously a larger issue than either 19.258 or WAC can hope to address. 
382 
383 
Appendix 8: Project One: Timeline 
1993 
June Planning team formed. Faculty approves faculty­
taught paper. 
June - November Planning team design paper. 
151 stages of Style Manual designed. 
Reconnaisance: assignment instructions 
collected from across the Faculty. 
November Initial meeting of teaching team 
November - February 1994 Curriculum finalised. 
1994 
February 
June 
July 
July 
October 
October - February 1995 
1995 
February 
May-July 
July 
Course material designed. 
Style Manual completed. 
All teaching staff interviewed. 
Cycle 1 begins. 
All teaching staff interviewed. 
Focus groups conducted. 
Reflection meetings take place. 
Cycle 2 commences. 
New teaching staff interviewed. 
All teaching staff interviewed. 
Focus groups conducted. 
Reflection and replanning meetings take place. 
Cycle 3 begins. 
All new teaching staff interviewed. 
All teaching staff interviewed 
Focus groups conducted. 
Final reflection meeting 
384 
Appendix 9: Example of 19.155 tutorial material 
TUTORIALS 
When the particular tutorial does not require ' lhe whole 2-hour period (Le. not during library or 
computer lab tutorials) the following teaching strategy will be adopted. The time allocated to each 
section may be modified in order to accommodate the main topic of study. 
1. GLOSSARIES (15 min) 
One third of the group (about 8 studenis selected without prior warning each week) will present a 
"new" word that they have added to their glossary (see document on gl.ossaries). 
2. FEEDBACK (15 min) 
The most recent project is discussed. Tutors provide feedback on common problems encountered. 
3. WRITING SKILLS (15 min) 
The tutor selects 3-4 examples of the most recent work submitted by students. Each student will have 
their work chosen at least once although the owners of the work selected are not identified to the 
group. An appropriate section (or the whole item) will be displayed on an overhead projector for 
constructive criticism by the group. The examples chosen will include good and bad. examples of a 
range of writing skills. SI~dents should note important principles in their wori<book. 
BREAK (10 min) 
4. CURRENT TOPIC (50 min) 
The current topic (e.g. report writing) is covered according to the lesson plan provided by the person 
responsible for the particular section of wori<. 
5. REFLECTION (5 min) 
Students are required to reflect upon the previous week and record in their workbook an assessment 
of their learning during that period. Descri':le the most valuable and the least interesting information 
that you have learned. Record any problems you have with your work (and any overcome) . 
• 
• Lecturer in Animal Science 
385 
386 
387 
Appendix 10: Example of mastery test material and test 
Students were required to pass three mastery tests: punctuation, paragraphing and 
English and science. In order to help students achieve this, they were provided 
with self-study material and, when the need became obvious, workshops on each 
topic. This appendix provides an example of the self-study material on one of 
those tests and an example of the test. 
388 
389 
Test 1: Punctuation (PUN) 
Important: Read this page fIrst. 
MASTERY DEMONSTRATION - What you have to do. 
1. When you are ready to demonstrate mastery, arrange for your mastery demonstration 
with your tutor. 
2. Your tutor will provide you with a mastery demonstration worksheet for Test one. 
3. You will have to demonstrate your understanding of the functions of punctuation by 
correctly completing the exercises in the mastery demonstration worksheet within 30 
minutes, and without reference to the material in this module. 
4. If you achieve this, your tutor will record your achievement on the master record for 
the tutorial group. 
5. If you have not reached the required level of mastery, your tutor will guide you as to 
how to reach mastery. 
19.155 
3 
390 
Introduction 
What this module is about: 
Punctuation is "the practice, art or system of inserting marks or points in writing or printing 
in order to make the meaning clear." (The Tasman Dictionary). 
"Punctuation rules are important. They are devised to eliminate ambiguities in language. 
Learn punctuation .... Few things undercut the authority ofa piece of writing more than a 
simple mistake in punctuation". (Michael Alley). In this module you will learn about the 
function of punctuation and how to correctly use punctuation. 
The learning objective for this module is: 
• To be able to identify the correct punctuation option in a series of variously punctuated 
sentences in a multichoice test 
Tum to the learning activities if required for reading and practice. 
19.155 
4 
391 
Learning Activities 
Activity 1 Reading About Punctuation 
Without our punctuation system of little black dots and squiggles, written language would be 
hard to understand. As Day (1989) pointed out, English is a strange language, and 
punctuation is a powerful tool. Consider the following sentence 
"Woman without her man is a savage" 
i) The average male chauvinist would say that sentence is OK as it is - it needs no 
punctuation (and he is grammatically correct!) 
ii) of course in these enlightened times, we would use punctuation to make the sentence 
read "Woman - without her, man is a savage". 
The functions of punctuation 
Each punctuation mark in the English writing system serves a fimction (sometimes more than 
one). The functions of punctuation are: 
19.155 
• to mark boundaries 
dash 
• to signify attitudes 
• to label 
• to delete 
= 
= 
= 
fullstop, comma, colon, semi-colon, brackets, 
exclamation mark 
apostrophe, question mark, inverted commas 
apostrophe. 
5 
392 
1. The Boundary Markers 
These signal the boundary between different parts of the written language. 
I.e. sentences are marked off from each other by fullstops. The internal parts of sentences 
(clauses, phrases and single words) are marked off from each other by commas, colons. semi­
colons, brackets and dashes. 
1.1 The full stop 
Full stops are easy to use. Place one at the end of every sentence you write, but note that it 
may be replaced by the question mark (?) or sometimes the exclamation mark (!). e.g. 
"Punctuation is easy." 
"Why do I have trouble with punctuation?" 
"It is very important to use punctuation correctly!" 
1.2 The Comma 
Commas can be likened to a road sign that says "Slow down" (Day 1989). They are used 
within sentences to mark offbits, making the meaning clearer. 
i) to list items in a series 
19.155 
• I visited Paeroa, Waihi, Thames, Te Aroha, and Morrinsville on my holiday (i.e. 
single words) 
• Whether you are making new friends, concentrating on your studies, or 
discovering the joys of the Fitz, being a first year Massey student provides plenty 
of new experiences (i.e. phrases). 
6 
393 
ii) to add to the basic sentence 
a) as an opener: 
• Unfortunately, I am now broke. 
• However, Dad came to the rescue. 
b) in the middle, usually between the subject and the verb: 
• The party, which was due to start at eight o'clock, didn't really get going until 
after the pubs closed. 
• My bike, my only fonn of transport, has two flat tyres. 
c) at the end: 
• We turned the stereo off at 5 in the morning, to the neighbour's relief. 
• Once more Jim hasn't dried the dishes, the lazy sod. 
iii) to separate the clauses in a compound sentence 
• A woman drove me to drink, and I never even had the courtesy to thank her 
(W.e. Fields). 
• I came out to Massey, but I did not go to my lecture. 
Note: to use a comma in this way you will need to use a co-ordinating conjunction (and, or, 
but, for, nor, go, yet) to help separate the two independent clauses. 
e.g. This is a good rule, and your readers will bless you for using it. 
independent co-ordinating 
clause I conjunction 
after the 
comma 
independent clause 
II 
iv) when writing addresses or large numbers 
19.155 
• 216 Ponsonby Road North, Auckland (would it get there if it was sent to 
Ponsonby Road, North Auckland?). 
• the Lotto cheque was for NZ$1.867,329. 
7 
394 
1.3 The Colon 
Colons announce that something is coming, a sort of introductory flourish. 
a) to announce a list 
• You will need the following for this course: common sense, an enquiring mind, 
and the will to work. 
b) to introduce a word, phrase, clause, or sentence 
• Chastity: the most unnatural of the sexual perversions (Aldous Huxley). 
• Perhaps you have guessed my favourite brand of beer: Speights. 
c) to separate a title and subtitle 
• Computer Literacy in Universities: A Recommendation Report. 
d) to introduce a quotation 
• The writer E.B. White summed up the frustrations of the commuter's life when he 
wrote: 
Commuter - one who spends his life 
In riding to and from his wife. 
1.4 The Semi-Colon 
Semi-colons have two main uses 
a) to separate items in a series when the items contain internal commas 
• The International Grasslands Congress was held in Hamilton, Waikato; 
Palmerston North, Manawatu; Lincoln, Canterbury; and Rockhampton, 
Queensland. 
b) to link two sentences that are closely related in content 
• Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself. (Rita Mae Brown) 
• The lecture was hopeless; lots of the other students were talking. 
19. 155 
8 
395 
1.5 The Bracket 
Brackets are used to mark off a word, phrases or sentences. The infonnation enclosed in the 
brackets is usually incidental 
• Some people in this tutorial group (me, for example) are older than the others. 
• He went into the Fitz for a quick one (which became a quick three). 
1.6 The Dash 
Dashes (pairs) are used to separate the words inside them from the main body of the sentence, 
or a dash (single) is used to mark off the last part of a sentence from the rest 
• It's an interesting course - or so we were told - but we haven't seen much evidence 
of that as yet. 
• I don't know anything about music - in my line you don't have to (Elvis Presley). 
2. Attitude Marker 
2.1 The Exclamation Mark 
An exclamation mark follows any word, group of words, or sentence that expresses: 
a) anger - Leave that alone! 
b) distaste - I hate maths! 
c) sadness - I feel so down these days! 
d) delight - What a wonderful world! 
e) a warning - Look out! 
Note: You will find little need to use exclamation marks in writing for science. 
3. Labelling Marks 
A labelling mark is one which gives the word, phrase or sentence to which it is attached a 
particular characteristic i.e. it gives it certain properties which would not always be evident 
without that label. 
19.155 
9 
396 
3.1 The Apostrophe 
Apostrophes are used to show possession, or to indicate the contraction of a word. 
a ) To show possession 
• for singular nouns add's 
e.g. The boy's dog; the student's room; Ken's farm. 
• for plural nouns formed by adding s, just add' 
e.g. The boys' dog; the students' flat; the Smiths' farm. 
• for plural nouns formed in other ways add's 
e.g. Men's names; children's toys; women's clothing. 
b) To indicate word contractions (i.e. that letters have been left out) 
e.g. I'll (I will) I'd (I would or I had) 
won't (will not) 
we'll (we shall) 
it's (it is) 
you'd (you had) 
Note: do not use apostrophes when 
• referring to decades (1920s not 1920's) 
• making a plural of a word ending in a vowel (tomatoes not tomato's) 
• using possessive pronouns (ours not our's). 
3.2 The Question Mark 
The question mark is a special kind of full stop, but it labels the fact that the sentence 
concerned has been asking a question. 
Who was the author of that text book? ('wh' question) 
Was the author of the text book a New Zealander? ('yes/no' question). 
That guy is a student, isn't he? ('tag' question) 
Is he majoring in Agriculture or Horticulture? ('either/or' question). 
19.155 
10 
397 
Note: Some sentences look like questions, but in fact are not questions 
e.g. Would you please hand in the assignment that is due today. 
This sentence is an order, not a question, therefore the full stop is the correct punctuation 
mark. 
3.3 Inverted Commas 
These are most commonly called quotation marks. Whenever you are directly quoting 
someone else, use quotation marks. 
The Dean said 'Communication is an important requirement of the new degree.' 
She shouted 'Look out!' 
Note: Never alter a quotation. If you leave out material indicate this with three dots ( ... ). If 
you add anything, put it in brackets. 
4. Deletion Mark 
There is only one, the apostrophe (see 3.1b). 
F or another perspective on punctuation you should: 
• Read the section in the Writing guidelines on punctuation (in the chapter on paragraphing, 
punctuation and pretentiousness 
• Attend a lecture on punctuation - check the times of these lectures with your tutor or 
paper controller 
19.155 
11 
398 
Activity 2: Exercises In Punctuation Which Marks Boundaries 
Correct the punctuation errors in these sentences. 
1. Hey cut it out 
., 
L. I personally will see to it 
3. In particular commas are important 
4. The system consists of an engine tubing to bring fuel to the cylinders and associated 
mounting bolts 
5. Television is a popular medium however I would define it as the bland leading the 
bland 
6. He is the kind of man who adores his friends when they agree to everything he says 
7. The sound of a harpsichord reminds me of only one thing two skeletons copulating on 
a tin roof in a thunderstorm 
8. Brackets are as you might expect useful for separating stretches of language 
9. They are rather like human beings every one unique 
10. The bag was filled with the following items apples a bottle of Lemon and Paeroa three 
books my watch a copy of the NZ Farmer and a lettuce and vegemite sandwich 
Check your answers on page 16 in this module. 
19.155 
12 
399 
Activity 3: Exercises: In Punctuation Which Provides a Labelling Mark 
Correct the punctuation eqors in these sentences. 
1. I could see Sarahs point of view 
2. He heard a thundering of horses hooves 
3. Its your life 
4. I cant do it 
5. He said I love you . 
6. She asked when ar~ we going 
7. Whats the point of doing these tests 
8. I felt for its pulse b4t I could feel the big dogs life slipping away 
9. Cant we just talk it;through like normal human beings 
10. Wheres this discus~ion leading us 
Check your answers on page 17 of this module. 
19.155 
13 
400 
Activity 4: Correcting The Punctuation In A Piece Of Writing 
Try correcting the punctuation errors m the following pIece extracted from "Horttalk", 
July/August 1994. 
"From the President" 
twenty years ago a physiologist friend decided to take up employment in the usa I found to 
my amusement that he was going to a department of ornamental horticulture which 
specialised in flower behaviour and I had an immediate vision of a thurber cartoon showing a 
wild eyed woman holding a sheaf of wildflowers and crying I come from haunts of coot and 
hem how very american I thought to devote a whole university department to flower 
behaviour 
i have subsequently realized that the americans were ahead of their time recognising an area 
of economic and scientific significance when commonwealth academics were still wondering 
whether departments of biochemistry might be a bit daring I had my final comeuppance when 
I recently worked profitably in that selfsame department 
the phenomenon still exists in new zealand where flowers are often seen as fripperies of little 
consequence compared with the worthy potato and apple when the carve up of the old maf 
and dsir took place ornamentals research was treated as an afterthought to the main separation 
of vegetables from fruit so ornamentals research is now being conducted in both hortresearch 
and crop & food research even though it was fonnally allocated to the latter partly because 
the research needed tends to have more in common with fruit than vegetable research 
research on ornamentals is badly fragmented compared with that on our horticultural 
foodstuffs consider which of these contributes most to our export trade apricots asparagus 
fresh avocados cherries cut flowers other than cymbidiums cymbidiums grapes mushrooms 
nashi nectarines potatoes raspberries or strawberries with the preamble youve probably 
guessed it cut flowers other than cymbidiums and cymbidiums contribute about equally and 
19.155 
14 
401 
both are well ahead of the edible competitors but is that the way we treat them as research 
objects 
Check your answers on page 18 of this module. 
References And Further Reading 
Day, R. A. (1992). Scientific English - a guide for scientists and other professionals. 
Phoenix: Oryx Press. 
Emerson, L., & Hampton, J.G. (1996). Writing guidelines for applied science students. 
Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. 
Newby, M. (1989). Writing: a guide for students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
19.155 
15 
402 
Activity 2: Exercises In Punctuation Which Marks Boundaries 
Self Assessment Sheet 
Please note: there is often more than one way to punctuate a sentence correctly. We will mark 
as correct any punctuation which is granunatically correct and makes sense of the sentence. 
What follows here are standard ways of punctuating the sentence; other answers may be 
correct also - you should check with your tutor or the paper controller. 
1. Hey, cut it out! 
2. I, personally, will see to it. 
3. In particular, commas are important. 
4. The system consists of an engine, tubing to bring fuel to the cylinders, and associated 
mounting bolts. 
5. Television is a popular medium; however, I would defme it as the bland leading the 
bland. 
6. He is the kind of man who adores his friends - when they agree to everything he says. 
7. The sound of a harpsichord reminds me of one thing: two skeletons copulating on a 
tin roof in a thunderstonn. 
8. Brackets are (as you might expect) useful for separating stretches oflanguage. 
9. They are rather like human beings: every one unique. 
10. The bag was filled with the following items: apples, a bottle of Lemon and Paeroa, 
three books, my watch, a copy of the NZ Fanner, and a lettuce and vegemite 
sandwich. 
19.155 
16 
403 
Activity 3: Exercises In Punctuation Which Provides A Labelling Mark 
Self Assessment Sheet 
1. I could see Sarah's point of view. 
2. He heard a thundering of horses' hooves. 
3. It's your life. 
4. I can't do it. 
5. He said 'I love you!' 
6. She asked, "when are we going?" 
7. What's the point of doing these tests? 
8. I felt for its pulse, but I could feel the big dog's life slipping away 
9. Can't we just talk it through like nonnal human beings? 
10. Where's this discussion leading us? 
19.155 
17 
404 
Activity 4: Correcting The Punctuation In A Piece Of Writing 
Self Assessment Sheet 
Twenty years ago, a physiologist friend decided to take up employment in the USA. I found 
to my amusement that he was going to a "Department of Ornamental Horticulture" which 
specialised in flower behaviour, and I had an immediate vision of a Thurber cartoon showing 
a wild-eyed woman holding a sheaf of wildflowers and crying "I come from haunts of coot 
and hem". How very American, I thought, to devote a whole university department to 
flower behaviour. 
I have subsequently realized that the Americans were ahead of their time, recognising an area 
of economic and scientific significance when Commonwealth academics were still wondering 
whether Departments of Biochemistry might be a bit daring. I had my fmal comeuppance 
when I recently worked (profitably) in that selfsame department. 
The phenomenon still exists in New Zealand, where flowers are often seen as fripperies, of 
little consequence compared with the worthy potato and apple. When the carve-up of the old 
MAF and DSIR took place, ornamentals research was treated as an afterthought to the main 
separation of vegetables from fruit, so ornamentals research is now being conducted in both 
HortResearch and Crop & Food Research, even though it was formally allocated to the latter, 
partly because the research needed tends to have more in common with fruit than vegetable 
research. 
Research on ornamentals is badly fragmented compared with that on our horticultural 
foodstuffs. Consider: which of these contributes most to our export trade? Apricots, 
asparagus (fresh), avocados, cherries, cut flowers other than cymbidiums, cymbidiums, 
grapes, mushrooms, nashi, nectarines, potatoes, raspberries or strawberries? With the 
preamble you've probably guessed it - "cut flowers other than cymbidiums" and 
"cymbidiums" contribute about equally, and both are well ahead of the edible competitors. 
But is that the way we treat them as research objects? 
19.155 
18 
405 
Punctuation Test No. 1 
1 . Joe does not fear snakes and turtles do not frighten him 
2. If the Bulls give him help Michael Jordan can dominate the NBA 
3. They were energetic pretty intelligent and sensitive women 
4. Dont touch the cat 
5 . Malcolm offered his best homework excuse his dog ate his essay 
6. Communication involves at least three elements 
• a sender who has something to say 
• a message which contains meaning 
• a receiver who listens and understands 
7. Meanwhile Kirsty who hates children was left to babysit her sisters little monsters 
8 . Can you hold these books for me 
9. I dont know why you bother to talk to him hes such a nerd 
1 O. In my opinion commas can confuse even the best writers 
(10 marks) 
1 . I asked for only three qualities in this relationship kindness consideration and cooking 
so what went wrong from her perspective there seemed to be a myriad of shortcomings 
on my part my smoking was a direct attack as she saw it on her high standards of 
hygiene my passion for sport was a symbol of my uncaring nature my desire for 
rest and reflection was an example of my laziness all my interesting qualities she 
called faults 
(4 marks) 
406 
2. In my opinion soccer is the best team sport ever invented it has all you would ever want 
in a sport skill style suspense and in England spectators who can sing it is an open 
game the players dont spend all their time falling on top of each other in the mud its a 
game with the drama of war and the security of social engineering 
(4 marks) 
3. It is vital that we be honest in our responses to each writers work it IS even more vital 
that we are supportive of each writers efforts empathy is crucial we must write 
ourselves and we must identify with the writers process this is not I know an easy task 
however training and practice can fill in the gaps where natural empathy fails coaching 
by an experienced writer tutor may also in some circumstances be essential 
(4 marks) 
This test is marked out of 22. You need 18 marks to pass. 
Total mark D 
---------------------------------- -
MASTERY DEMONSTRATION 3 
407 
Punctuation 
(PUN) 
1. Correct the punctuation errors in these sentences. Do not change the wording. 
Make your corrections directly onto this sheet. 
( i ) If we think we can find a solution 
( ii) Its your life 
(iii) The sopranos voice soaring out over the audience reduced many of us to 
tears 
(iv) Why would you want to do that 
( v) The feasability study was inconclusive however the project will be done 
anyway 
( vi) Five reports are required a proposal a set of instructions an interim report 
a presentation and an analytical report 
(vii) My car my only form of transport has a flat battery 
(viii) If we look at the diagram Fig 4 we can see the problem 
(ix) She said I love you 
( x) He worked very hard on the report it was received with great applause 
(10 marks) 
2. Correct the punctuation errors in the following three pieces of writing. Again, 
do not change the wording, and make your corrections directly onto this sheet. 
( i ) Cartoons or exaggerated figures are effective visuals when the speaker is 
dealing with a sensitive subject this would be a fairly rare occurrence in 
the high-tech industries but cartoons can also be used to depict people 
oriented action in a stationary medium or to enliven less than exciting 
material these two uses are often useful when making a presentation 
about high technology especially to an audience that does not share the 
speakers knowledge of the subject 
(4 marks) 
408 
Punctuation 
(PUN) 
( ii) Nonetheless leading meetings and small group discussions is a vitally 
important aspect of communicating within the high-tech industries 
. .. . . . 
brainstorming design sessions are common and more and more writing is 
done collaboratively problems are identified in meetings solutions 
discussed documents reviewed too often these can be self promoting 
affairs because of how strongly egos are wrapped up in the design or 
writing process subordinating ones ego to the group is not a denial of 
integrity rather it is a realization that effective group thinking makes 
meetings more effective and shorter 
(4 marks) 
(iii) How then to punctuate in terms of today not yesterday there are four 
main types of punctuation the stoppers the linkers the intruders and the 
intoners they all have different jobs only four types of punctuation would 
appear to clarify this baffling subject however you may be assured that a 
large proportion of our population will remain baffled 
(4 marks) 
This test is marked out of 22. You need 18 marks to pass. 
Student 
Tutorial Group(I'utor 
Mastery Demonstrated on: 
Signed: 
Total Marks 
------
______________ (Marker) 
Appendix 11: Project Two: Timeline 
1993 
October 
November 
November - March 1994 
March 
April 
July 
July 
November - December 
1995 
February 
June 
July 
November 
Writing consultant presents workshop on WAC. 
Interviews with all department staff. 
Writing consultant presents seminar on Action 
Research. 
Proposal submitted to HOD. 
Departmental meetings to establish WAC 
programme. 
Small working party establishes strategies, 
Strategies presented to department meeting and 
ratified. 
WAC strategies presented to a meeting of Dean and 
HODs. 
11.341 lecturer writes report on modified WAC 
strategies as applied in Semester 1. 
Cycle 1 commences. 
11.258, 19.152, 11.251 use WAC strategies. 
Reflection meetings. 
Interim report written. 
Cycle 2 commences. 
11.251 uses WAC strategies. 
Staff reports collected and reflection meeting takes 
place. 
Cycle 3 commences. 
19.259 & 19.258 use WAC strategies. 
Reflection meetings with individual paper 
coordinators. 
409 
410 
411 
Appendix 12: Project 3 : Timeline 
1994 
May - November 
November - February 1995 
1995 
February 
March 
June 
September 
October 
November - January 1996 
1996 
February 
February - October 
October 
October - November 
Group leader lobbies department to change curriculum of 
151 year core paper. 
Planning meetings. 
Staff journals commence. 
Cycle 1 commences. 
Staff meetings each week. 
Focus group interview. 
Focus group interview. 
Focus group interview. 
Focus group interview. 
Group reports and student journals submitted. 
Reflection meetings. 
Re-planning. 
Cycle 2 commences. 
Focus groups at 2-monthly intervals. 
Final focus group. 
Group reports and student workbooks submitted. 
Reflection meetings. 
412 
413 
Appendix 13: Example of in-class structured notes 
Students in project 3 were provided with handouts on which they could write 
their lecture notes. These were trialed in the landscape section but also included 
in to a lesser extent in the later sections of the paper. This is an example of the 
handouts prepared for this purpose. 
414 
415 
Learning exercise Week 10 
Vegetative growth and nowe~ 
Use your own copy of the paper by Hartman et al. (1981) to answer the following 
questions. 
Vegetative growth and development 
1. Describe the fundamental differences between a determinate and an 
indeterminate growth habit of plants. 
your answer 
2. Describe the difference in growth pattern (life cycle) between annuals, 
biennials, and perennials. 
your answer 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and flowering 
416 
Environmental factors influencing plant growth and development 
3. Define phototropism in plants and describe how it is different from 
photoperiodism. 
your answer 
4. What are generally accepted as the lower and upper temperature limits for 
growth of most temperate region crops? 
your answer 
5. For most plants, what proportion of their weight comprises water? 
I~ % your answer I 
6. By the time an annual crop like tomato has reached maturity, about how 
much water has been taken up? 
/hJ 
Approximately 
your answer 
times the quantity of water in the plant at maturity. 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and flowering 
417 
7. What is meant by evapotranspiration? 
your answer 
8. How would you use knowledge of evapotranspiration for cultivation of your 
sunflower crop? 
your answer 
Phase changes 
9. Describe three examples ofphysicaI changes in some plants that denote the 
change from juvenile to ripe-to-flower phase. (NB. Hartman et aI. (1981) 
use the term "mature" instead of my term "ripe-to-flower"). 
your answer 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and flowering 
418 
10. What are the implications for the horticulturalist who may want to take 
cuttings from plants exhib~ting this phase change? 
your answer 
Flower induction and initiation 
11. What do the following plants require to induce flowering? (NB. use the 
abbreviations for long days (LD), short days (SD), and daylength neutral 
(DN». 
~ your answer 
cucumber 
tobacco 
spinach 
cosmos 
sugarbeet 
tomato 
corn 
12. What is the term used to describe the induction of flowering by exposure to 
low temperature? 
I~ your answer I 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and flowering 
419 
13. List three horticultural crops which must receive such periods of cold to 
induce flowering? 
your answer 
14. List three horticultural crops which are self-inductive for flowering? 
your answer 
15. How would flower induction in sunflowers be classified? 
I A your answer I 
16. What is the difference between the cold requirement for narcissus or tulip, 
compared with that of carrots? 
your answer 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and flowering 
420 
References 
Hartman, H., Flocker, W.J., and Kofranek, A.M. (1981). Vegetative and 
reproductive growth and development. In H. Hartman, W.J. Flocker, and 
A.M. Kofranek (eds.). Plant science - growth. development and utilization 
of cultivated plants. (pp.116-133). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice­
Hall, Inc. 
Department of Plant Science. (1995). Horticultural Technolo~; 71.122: 
sUP'Plementaty readiniB No.4. (Available from Reserve Book Room, Library, 
Massey University, Palmerston North). 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Learning exercise • Veg. growth and /lowering 
Appendix 14: Two examples of student responses to in­
class exercises 
421 
Students were often presented with in-class exercises to ensure that they were 
understanding the lecture material. Sometimes these exercises were collected by 
the lecturer as feedback from the class - at other times they were simply 
discussed during the lecture. This appendix includes two different responses to 
the same exercise. 
422 
Irrigation principles: 
a summary 
Learning objectives: 
By the end of today's lecture, I expect that you will have: 
423 
Week 22 
• formed you~ 'own framework of the relationships between the needs of the 
horticulturalist (e.g. profit, maintenance of a landscape), the requirements and 
responses of plants to water, and irrigation management. 
Procedure: 
1. In the space below, draw a diagram (in pencil) that shows the relationships between 
the needs of the horticulturalist (e.g. profit, maintenance of ·a landscape), the 
requirements and responses of plants to water, and irrigation management. You 
should do this by yourself (5-10 minutes). 
2. We will review your answers to the questions in last week's irrigation practical. 
3. Finally, and this is the most important step, having thought about the practical's 
answers, you should review your original diagram and make any alterations you feel 
are necessary (5-10 minutes). 
4. Hand the diagram in at the end of the lecture. This does not make the exercise a test. 
Rather, it gives me a chance to see how effective my teaching has been and whether 
there are any gaps that I should be planning on fIXing during the review week. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Irrigation principles - 8 
424 
Irrigation principles: 
a summary 
Learning objectives: 
By the end of today's lecture, I expect that you will have: 
Week 22 
• formed your own framework of the relationships between the needs of the 
horticulturalist (e.g. profit, maintenance of a landscape), the requirements and 
responses of plants to water, and irrigation management. 
Procedure: 
1. In the space below, draw a diagram (in pencil) that shows the relatiomships between 
the needs of the horticulturalist (e.g. profit, maintenance of · a landscape), the 
requirements and responses of plants to water, and irrigation management. You 
should do this by yourself (5-10 minutes). 
2. We will review your answers to the questions in last week's irrigation practical. 
3. Finally, and this is the most important step, having thoug~t about the practical's 
answers, you should review your original diagram and make any alterations you feel 
are necessary (5-10 minutes). 
4. Hand the diagram in at the end of the lecture. This does not make the exercise a test. 
Rather, it gives me a chance to see how effective my teaching has been and whether 
there are any gaps that I should be planning on fIxing during the review week. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Irrigation principles _ 8 
425 
Appendix 15: Example of peer-editing sheet 
Peer editing was used in the first cycle of project three. Experience in project 1 
had showed us that unless peer feedback was carefully structured, it tended to be 
very non-specific. We therefore provided highly structured peer-editing sheets to 
direct the editor's attention to specific features of the text. This appendix is one 
of example of how we directed peer editing. 
426 
427 
Peer Editing Sheet-Microtheme 
Writer's naIlle ... ... ..... ... .... .... .... ......... ... ........ .......... ... ...... .... ...... ...... ...... .. . . 
Peer editor's nrune .... ....... ....... ...... .... ... .... .. ..... ...... ..... .. ... .... .. ... .. .. .... ...... .. . 
Read through the writer's microtheme twice. Then fill in the following sections: 
Content 
1. Has the reader clearly stated the purpose of the writing at the beginning of the 
microtheme? 
2 . Has the writer stated what information is needed? (List the different types of 
information, using your own or your writer' s words.) 
1. 
2. 
3. 
3. Has the writer identified the steps that must be completed? What are they? (List, using 
your own or your writer's words.) 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Peer Editing Sheet • 
428 
4 . Do the steps outlined in #3 and the information used in #2 stand out clearly to the 
reader? (eg Are they placed in topic sentences? Are they listed?) If you were the curator, 
would you know exactly what to do to write a management plan? 
5. How could the writer clarify these . main points for the curator? (Give specific 
suggestions.) 
Structure 
4 . How has the writer formatted the microtheme? 
Is the formatting appropriate for a professional context? If not, why isn't it appropriate? 
How might the format be improved? (Be specific.) 
Style 
5. Is the language used by the writer appropriate for a formal context? Write any examples 
of inappropriate language below. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Peer Editing Sheet -
429 
Could any improvements be made? (Be specific.) 
6. On the microtheme, put a cross in the margin next to any mistakes in grammar, 
punctuation or spelling. 
Overall 
7. What aspect of this microtheme is most effective? 
8. What one thing could the writer do to most effectively improve this microtheme? 
Signature of Peer editor .... .. .. .... ....... .... .. ... .. ............... ........ ... ...... .. . Date 
Return this sheet to the writer and, if time pennits, discuss your comments. 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Peer Editing Sheet • 
430 
431 
Appendix 16: Examples of journal exercises 
In project three, students were given directed entries for their journals. The first 
five examples provided here involve reflection on personal learning and 
understanding in the light of class activities or material presented in the paper. 
The last two are audience-specific and ask students to present material studied in 
class to a specific audience. 
432 
433 
Journal Entry Week 14 
Semester break experiences 
During the five week break from lectures you will have had some experience that is relevant 
to the course content presented in Semester 1. This experience may have been simply 
driving down a tree lined street, observing a park, buying horticultural produce which had 
to be scheduled, or maybe even working on a horticultural enterprise. 
Reflecting back on the topics covered during Semester 1, write about your most important 
horticultural experience over the semester break. 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Journal entry • Semester break experiences 
434 
Journal Entry Week 16 
Tables and graphs for summaries 
On a number of occasions in last week's lectures we interpreted graphs and tables as part 
of , in -class' exercises. Reflecting on these activities describe what you learned about either 
irrigation or plant density, how you learned this information, explain what you thought were 
the positive and negative aspects of interpreting tables and graphs in your learning, and why 
you formed your opinions. 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Journal entry • Tables and graphs 
435 
Journal Entry Week 19 
Company review 
During week 10 you were involved in a practical that focu5ed on working in team5 and the 
roles that team members can perform. Thejournal e~try for that week asked you to reflect 
upon your experiences with your company as a teani-and propose ways of making it work 
more effectively. Given that this was many weeks ago and that you will soon be planning 
the company report on sunflowers, it is opportune to reflect once again on these comments 
and proposals. 
~ describe your experiences in the company since week 10 (both good moments 
and moments of difficulty). 
describe how you believe the team has evolved during the year, highlighting 
what events resulted in changes in the way you, other individuals or the 
whole company performed. 
reflect on the ways you proposed in week 10 that members of your company 
could contribute more effectively to the group's achievements, and indicate 
which if any have been effective and why. 
436 
Journal entry 
Learning from the exam 
Spend about 30 minutes reviewing the examination. 
Ask yourself what changes you would make in your preparation if you were to sit the exam again. 
You might consider whether you would organise your folder of notes, journal entries and 
practicals in the same way. How would you approach the readings next time--would you spend 
more or less time on them? How you think the teaching staff could have better prepared you for 
the examination? 
71 .122 - Horticultural Technology - Journal entry - SSW4 
437 
Journal entry #2 
A. Select one landscape in your honie town area. 
~ Briefly describe that landscape. 
~ Where does it fit on the landscape continuum? What features led you to conclude 
that it belonged in that position? 
B. Turn to Topic 2 in the Readings and 'read the first five short readings (Fairbrother, 
Zonneveld, Westoff, Jackman; and Melnick). After reading ... 
~ Would you alter the structure of the landscape continuum discussed in class; how 
and why? 
~ Would you alter your conclusions on your home landscape; how and why? 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Journal entry -
438 
Journal entry # 4 
Microtheme 
The Chief Planner at the Palmerston North City Council has contacted you and told you 
that major earthworks and roading are being planned for the Esplanade as part of a new 
traffic plan to relieve congestion at the bridge. Y dur area is likely to be destroyed if the 
plan goes ahead. 
The planner has asked you to write her a memo summarizing the benefits of your area so 
that this can be used as evidence in the planning decision. (60·90 minutes) 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Journal entry _ 
Journal Entry Week 12 
Microtheme 
Suppose that you are Professor Plant, the questions-and-answer pe~son for a 
magazine targeted at non-professional horticulturalists called Plants Like Us. 
Readers of your magazine are invited to submit letters to Prof. Plant, who answers 
them in "Dear Abby" style in a special section of the magazine. One day you receive 
the following letter: 
Dear Prof. Plant, 
You've got to help me settle this argument I am having with my cousin 
Nora from Christchurch. We are both involved in growing a crop of 
Gladiolus grandiflorus 'Brigitte' for our cousin's wedding on 1st May next 
year. While we will both receive the corms from the same supplier, Nora 
will grow her crop in her garden at Christchurch and I will grow mine here 
in my garden in Gisborne. Nora says that her Bert Fig's Gardening Book 
says that if we are to both have our plants flowering the day before the 
wedding, Le. 30th April, we both have to plant them exactly 90 days before. 
I said she was wrong as the instructions on the packet said 1477 growing­
degree-days required - what ever they are. Besides, if plants don't have 
brains, how could they possibly know what the date was, and, therefore, 
know to flower in 90 days from planting? Ever since then she hasn't been 
talking to me. Since we both have to work together on producing these 
flowers we need to resolve this argument. We checked some other plant 
books, but they weren't very clear. We agreed that I would write to you and 
let you settle the argument. But, Prof. Plant, don't just tell us who is right 
and who is wrong. You've got to explain how we can both attempt to grow 
our crops for flowering on this date, so that we both understand. Nora is so 
pig headed that unless it is explained clearly and simply she won't believe 
anyone. 
Yours Sincerely 
Gladus and the Pips. 
Can this kindred friendship be saved? Your task is to write an answer to 
Gladus and the Pips. Because space in your magazine is limited, restrict your 
answer to a maximum of 500 words (excluding figures and tables). Don't confuse 
Gladus and Nora by getting too technical. If you do need to use technical terms 
then explain clearly what they mean. In preparing your answer you might like to 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Journal entry • Sunflower micro theme 
440 
refer to the meterological data for where Nora and Gladus live (Ministry of 
Transport, 1983). If you think some figures or tables might help, include them on 
a separate sheet. 
References 
Ministry of Transport. (1983). Summaries ofclimatolow.cal observations to 1980. 
N.Z. Met. Ser. Misc. Pub. 177. New Zealand Meteorological Service. 
Duplicate copies of this reference are also held in: 
Department of Plant Science. (1995). Horticultural Technolo2Y: 71.122: 
suwlementmy readinw No.4. (Available from Reserve Book Room, Library, 
Massey University, Palmerston North). 
71.122 • Horticultural Technology • Journal entry • Sunflower microtheme 
441 
Appendix 17: Audience-focused writing 
The major assignment for project three was the sunflower project report which 
was written by each of the sunflower 'companies' in three different genres for 
specific audiences. This appendix includes student instructions on how to write 
this assignment. Note that students are provided with examples of the genres and 
instructions on how to go about the process of writing such a major assignment. 
442 
443 
The sunflower project report 
( 
Expected learning outcomes 
~ To gain proficiency at writing for three important audience types encountered in 
horticulture (intelligent but uninformed; grower-clients; experienced growers). 
~ To increase your abilities to integrate the lecture, practical and reading material 
into focussed pieces of writing. 
~ To be able to organise information and manage data in preparation for written 
reports of the sunflower project. 
~ To gain experience at working together in a group to meet a deadline. 
~ To provide you with the basis of the oral presentation of your group's project. 
Overview 
The report will consist of three exercises. In the first, you will write about a section 
of the sunflower project (Table 1) in the form of a chapter in a textbook suitable for 
horticulture studies in secondary schools. Each section will be between 2-4 pages. 
(500-800 words). These sections will be combined into a complete (full) chapter. 
One member of your group will be nominated as editor: it will be their responsibility 
to bring the sections together into a seamless chapter. 
In the second exercise, you will transform this writing into a form suitable for a 
report to a grower-client. Each section will be between 1-2 pages (300-500 words) 
in length. Your group's editor will be responsible for bring the sections together 
into a seamless report. 
The third exercise involves a 'distillation' of the grower-client report down to a 
production blueprint of the type commonly found in industry journals. Each 
member of the group will transform their sections into the required format. The 
group's editor will take responsibility of bringing these sections together as a 
seamless production blueprint. Each section. will consist of 1-2 paragraphs (100-
200 words). 
Each member of your group will select at least one of the subject areas listed in 
Table 1. The topic you select should preferably be one that you are interested in. 
If a colleague in your group also selects the same subject area as you, you will have 
71.122 8 Horticultural Technology 8 Sunflower project report _ 1 
444 
to negotiate a compromis9-{)ne of you will have to accept a second preference as no 
'doubling-up' of subjects is permitted. Once you have a subject area, you will be 
responsible for developing that area for all three audiences. You cannot change 
subjects 'between' audiences. The number of subject areas (and categories within 
those areas) selected by each person will depend on the size of the group. Not all 
subject areas must be undertaken: this will depend on. the number of people in the 
group. 
Table 1. Major subject areas and topics for sunflower project 
Subject area 
Greenhouse layout 
Production system 
Production sc~eduling 
'Marketing' 
Environmental responses 
Experiments 
Topics 
Maximising productive area. 
Bed dimensions. 
Orientation within the greeuhouse. 
Planting density. 
Gross Margins. 
Growing medium. 
Physical characteristics (e.g. AFPS). 
Chemical characteristics (e.g. nutrition, pH, cF). 
Irrigation (e.g. method, frequency, application rates). 
Construction of production tracks (to be covered in lectures during 
week 20). 
Interpretation of production tracks (e.g. growth cycle [from 
propagation to harvesting), recommended planting dates [with 
respect to auction pricesD. 
Price movements over time. 
Relative performance of cultivars (e.g. stem lengths and within­
cultivar variation in stem lengths). 
Postharvest handling. 
'Best' type of flower (e.g. large or small diameter). 
Crop response to environment throughout its production cycle. 
Changes in crop performance to changing environments during the 
year. 
Introduction 
Materials and Methods 
Results 
Discussion 
Each group has been assigned one of the academic staff to guide them through the 
project. The role of the staff member is to act as a facilitator. For example, your 
group's facilitator will help you allocate the subject areas and category headings 
within your group. This role will be particularly important for groups with only 3-4 
members. The facilitator will ensure that the small groups are not disadvantaged 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology ' - Sunflower project report - 2 
445 
by the number of topics they must cover in their writing. The facilitator will also 
assist the group's editor, and will help you adapt your writing for the different 
audiences. 
Table 2. Facilitators assigned to each group. 
Happy Sunflowers 
Flower Power 
Sub-zero 
Sunny Sunflowers 
Sundial Corporation 
The Flower Production Co. 
Hydrosun 
Happy Flowers Inc. 
Helianthus Hydroponics 
Lisa Emerson 
Keith Funnell 
Marion MacKay 
Bruce MacKay 
Eddie Welsh 
(Bruce will deputise in Eddie's absence) 
You are not expected to submit a word processed report. Handwritten reports are 
perfectly acceptable (provided the writing is legible). 
Exercise 1 
The audience type for the first exercise is intelligent, but uninformed. The actual 
audience is a fifth-form class studying horticulture. Your group's task is to prepare 
a chapter entitled Fundamentals of horticultural crop production in a text book 
written with this audience in mind. In this chapter, you are to describe how, and 
explain why, the sunflower can be used to demonstrate the general fundamental 
aspects of horticultural crop production. 
Your task is to write about your subject area from the point of view of what the 
important issues are, and why and how producing sunflowers can provide students 
with hands-on experience of these issues. 
The layout of this chapter is to follow that used in Introduction to Floriculture (R.A. 
Larson). A copy of this book is held in the Reserve Book Room of the library. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Sunflower project report - 3 
446 
Exercise 2 
The audience of this exercise is a grower-client, in other words, a grower who has 
engaged you to produce a report on production of sunflowers as a cut flower crop 
during the late summer-winter period. 
The format of this exercise should follow that 
outlined in the accompanying box. This format is 
a modified version of the basic report to a client 
presented in the Ag/Hort Faculty's Style Manual 
(L. Emerson, 1994). You should consult this pub­
lication for further details of the elements of this 
type of report. The group's editor will be expected 
to bring all the sections (written by the other 
members of the group) together into a single 
report and to write the report's Table of 
Contents, Executive Summary, and Introduction. 
Exercise 3 
Format of client report 
Letter or memo to client 
Title page 
Executive Summary 
Table of Contents 
Introduction 
Discussion 
Greenhouse layout 
Production system 
Production scheduling 
... etc. 
Recommendations (if appropriate) 
References 
The audience of this exercise is experienced growers, and the format to be followed 
is that of a production blueprint. Examples of such blueprints are given in 
Supplementary readings No.2: Styles of written communication (71.122 Horticultu­
ral Technology). Copies of this are held in the Reserve Book Room of the library. 
This form of writing is particularly 'tight' and leaves no room for verbosity. Your 
writing must be succinct and to the point. As you will observe when you come to 
read examples of production blueprints, their main focus is on the 'how-to' rather 
than the 'why' of crop production. 
Once again, it will be the responsibility of your group's editor to ensure that the 
blueprint 'comes together' as a uniform and organised piece of writing. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Sunflower project report - 4 
447 
Appendix 18: Assessment of the sunflower practical 
Marking group projects is always difficult, especially when individual input and 
peer assessment is included in the process. This appendix provides information, 
as given to the students, on how the group work was marked. In the second cycle, 
we included workshops on group roles to ensure that students could more 
effectively evaluate each team member's contribution to the group work. 
448 
449 
Appendix 3: Assessment of the sunflower project 
Two components of your final assessment are linked to the sunflower project. First, 10% 
will be awarded for an oral presentation of your group's work. Second, a written report 
based on the sunflower practical project contributes 20% to your final mark. Details of the 
structure of this report are given in Appendix 2. 
We will award a single mark to each group based on their written report. The proportion 
of the mark awarded to your group that you receive will depend upon the extent to which 
you did your fair share of the project (i.e. input into the planning and production of the crop, 
analysis of data, preparation of written report). 
Assessing your contribution to the project is straightforward and, we think, very fair. Each 
of you will make a judgement (expressed as a percentage) of the extent to which you and 
each of your colleagues did their fair share (Table 3). This assessment will be confidential 
between you and us. 
Table 3. Individual group member's aliseliliment of her input and tholle of the other member. of her 
group. 
Your Memben of group 
name 
Jill John Jack Jame. Jethro 
Jill 100 100 10 10 80 
In this example (Table 3), Jill considers that she and John were the major contributors to 
the project, that Jack and James only did about one tenth of the work they (she and John) 
did, and that while Jethro made a major contribution, it was not quite up to the level of her 
and John. 
We will collate the data from each member of the group (Table 3). We will remove a single 
value at both extremes and average the remaining data (Table 4); you will receive that 
percentage of the group mark. 
71.122 - Horticultural Technology - Introduction and overview - 17 
450 
Table 3. Collated data from individual irouP members. 
Student's Members of group 
name Jill John Jack James Jethro 
Jill 100 100 10 10 80 
John 100 100 20 60 80 
Jack 100 100 100 100 100 
James 100 100 15 100 100 
Jethro 80 60 30 80 100 
The removal of an upper and a lower value is necessary to remove intentional bias. Jack 
wasn't portraying a realistic view of how the group had worked: only he thought that he had 
done his fair share. Jill clearly had a problem with James that was not shared by any 
other member of the group, 
Now, if we assume that the mark awarded to the group's report was 85%, the mark 
awarded to each member of the group is based on the average of the remaining percentage 
contributions (Table 4) , 
Table 4. Calculation of the final grade for each individual in the group. 
Group mark Members of group 
85% Jill John Jack James Jethro 
-iOO -iOO -lG -lG 89 
100 100 20 60 80 
100 100 -iOO -iOO -iOO 
100 100 15 100 100 
89 eG 30 80 100 
Avera,e (%) 100 100 22 80 93 
Final 
individual 86% 86% 18% 68% 78% 
mark 
18 • 71.122 • Horticultural Technology - Introduction and overview