Abstract:The code of conduct among scientists is to argue the validity of their research among their peers with the main aim of persuading their colleagues of the legitimacy of their claims. In scientific discourse, scientists communicate in a manner that their peers would interpret their knowledge claims as both logical and probable. The construction of their writing therefore aims to maximize the likelihood that readers will understand it as intended. Moreover, in science, language enables the enactment of scientific practices. In science classrooms, however, very little of this skill of authentic scientific argumentation is modelled and developed. Instead, these learning spaces are more lecturing orientated, in reality preventing argumentation or even regular conversation about scientific concepts.

Scientific discourse is a specialized language and is practically foreign and very complex to novices in the field. Scientific language usually involves the passive voice with abstract nouns derived from verbs, technical terms that are used differently than in everyday use, as well as a range of discipline specific terminology. It has been suggested that two levels of discourse emerge when students make knowledge claims. They ground their claims either by expressing a personal knowledge domain (also called mundane talk) or by referring to a shared scientific epistemic domain (scientific talk). Connection between the two can be achieved through two types of interactional practice: formulation practice, as well as recontextualization. Thus, educators need to make an effort to model scientific discourse and provide students with opportunities to develop this ‘new’ language. This may include activities such as scientific argumentation using evidence to support knowledge claims, hypothesizing about scientific phenomena, writing up of experiments and referring to data and patterns in data.

Our study was undertaken to develop the scientific discourse skills of first-year biology students by using project-based learning. The study draws on the LCT Semantics dimension for both project design and analysis. In university curricula we expect students to engage with written forms of knowledge such as textbooks, class notes and other academic literature, so-called ‘high stakes reading’. Thereafter, we require them to demonstrate their mastery of the subject knowledge in a number of ways, one of them being scientific writing, which represents ‘high stakes writing’. However, in practice we often find that students struggle to articulate their knowledge in a scientific manner.

Our study describes a student project (PBL) that required students to research a real-world scenario from their textbook and other resources (‘high stakes reading’) and to present their findings in a written report. This was meant as an opportunity to develop their scientific language skills, and aimed to teach them the ‘rules of the game’ and the skill of shifting between simpler and complex meaning to ‘unpack’ and ‘repack’ complex concepts, thus navigate the gap between ‘high stakes reading’ and ‘high stakes writing’. We believe that this approach will contribute to linking the two types of student language, mundane and scientific talk. This paper focuses on the development of an epistemic semantic density translation device for the analyses of the students’ scientific writing and some of the challenges experienced during this process. We also show how the project design steered students towards shifts in semantic density, potentially assisting in navigating the gap between ‘high stakes reading’ and ‘high stakes writing’.

Comment: This presentation is situated in Biology education, again showing my involvement in development of teaching in learning in a different science discipline from Chemistry, where I started. It also attests to the value of research collaboration between experts from different fields.

Abstract: The ever-changing student population requires lecturers to constantly reconsider and adjust their teaching methods, considering large classes, learning technologies, student engagement, etc. The South African Council on Higher Education (CHE), in a recent report, called for “more and better trained academics” (CHE, 2016, p. 147) to adequately support students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. However, in the same report they state that increasing staff workloads is a reality for most higher education employees. This raises the question: how do we offer professional growth opportunities for overburdened academics?

Electronic media, through the option of well-developed online resources, could offer a possible means of addressing this need by providing just-in-time, easily accessible professional development resources that are tailored to our context. It is however important that we consider our conceptions of effective teaching and determine whether blended and online workshops and courses can achieve the goals stipulated by the CHE.

Drawing on arguments in Legitimation Code Theory (Maton2014) and previous work done at Stellenbosch University (SU) (Leibowitz et. al., 2009 and 2011, it needs to be noted that becoming a “better trained academic” as the CHE suggests, is not only about gaining the required knowledge, but also about interacting, talking and sharing, and ultimately developing a mutually acceptable set of values and way of thinking.

In this presentation, we will discuss two instances of professional development opportunities using blended and online formats. Employing Laurillard’s Conversational Framework (Laurillard, 2002) and the Specialization dimension of Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (Maton, 2014), we will address two questions:

(1) How is effective teaching conceptualised in these two examples? Is it about the knowledge – disciplinary and/or educational – that the teacher has, or about their attributes and values?

(2) Are the two cases offering learning facilitators appropriate opportunities to become effective teachers, per the conception expressed in their design?

The two frameworks were used in an approach similar to that of Maton and Chen (Maton and Chen, 2016) in their study of constructivist pedagogy, with the Conversational Framework acting as organisational framework and Specialization acting as analytical framework. The Conversational Framework describes the learning process as a conversation between lecturers and students, students and students, as well as between concepts and practice. It identifies six different ways of learning, drawn from the most prominent learning theories. It argues that “the good teacher will use all these types of learning that continually prompts the learner to generate and modulate the concepts and practice” (Laurillard, 2012). It thus offers a way of looking at the extent to which online learning incorporates the six ways of learning and was used to analyse the soundness of the design of the two cases in our study.

Specialization focuses on whether different knowledge practices valorise the possession of specialised knowledge or knower attributes, both or neither (Maton, 2014) and was thus used to look at what is valorised in conceptions of good teaching.

The two examples in our study, were an online short course offered to science tutors and a suite of online teaching and learning workshops offered to science lecturers, from the same faculty. We also analysed national and institutional teaching policy and guideline documents in order to determine the general conceptions of good teaching in the South African context.

Analyses of these data sets revealed the conception that effective teaching requires both the possession of specialised (educational) knowledge and specific attributes. Whilst acquisition of specialised knowledge can be achieved through acquiring specialized knowledge and skills (Maton, 2014), developing the required attributes requires a slower process of cultivation or immersion, which raises the question whether short courses, by their nature, can achieve this.

Integrating the two frameworks allowed us to see how effectively the design of the online environment is able to support the conceptions of good teaching expressed in the policy and guideline documents. What we learn is that there are limitations to what online professional development might be able to achieve, but that this could possibly be addressed though deliberate design of the face-to-face aspects of blended opportunities.

The findings of this study is of value to all who are using shorter online forms of professional development.

Comment: This presentation shows my contribution as BLC to the development of teaching and learning in the faculty. It also highlights a different teaching context, as it is focused on tutor training, which is a completely different area compared to teaching science students in the science discipline. This presentation shows how I start to make sense of this other context.

Abstract: The effective development of disciplinary literacies is a well-researched challenge in higher education. To address this challenge current literature calls for embedded approaches where academic literacies are integrated into science curricula through collaboration between disciplinary specialists and academic literacy specialists. Furthermore, studies have shown that inquiry driven literacy activities results in students learning how to read and write more scientifically, while mastering the subject content.

In light of this research we describe the design of a new science module for all BSc first-year students that embeds the development of scientific writing skills and basic computer skills in the context of an inquiry-based interdisciplinary science project. Using the autonomy dimension of Legitimation Code Theory we rationalize the design of this new module. Autonomy offers us tools to consider the relationships between the types of knowledge (in this case specific academic skills and science in general) and the purpose this knowledge is used for (which range from developing writing skills and general computer usage to the effective communication of science). We explain how we designed a module that locates the generic academic skills in the Roman code (where knowledge from outside the discipline is used for the purpose of the discipline) and how this differs from academic skills modules offered in isolation.

We argue that this new module should support the development of generic academic skills required for the effective communication of science. We also believe that the rationale behind this approach can be of value to other academic programs that experience similar challenges.

Comment: This presentation was one of my favourites because the idea of what we as faculty aimed to achieve with Science in Context 178 was so overwhelming to begin and many colleagues thought we are simply trying to do too much. This presentation shows how education theory has enabled me to structure the process and provide theoretical support for the curriculum and design that resulted from it. It also showcases the way I engage with theory - in a very practical manner.